February 15, 2010
As of March 1, 2008, the Colombian government ordered the bombing of a military camp of the Colombian Armed Revolutionary Forces (FARC) - a fifty year revolutionary movement - placed in the Ecuadorian side of the Colombo-Ecuadorian border. Military intelligence had confirmed that Raul Reyes, one of the most important historical leaders of that organization and a permanent member of its General Secretariat, was hiding in the camp.[i] The outcome of the airstrike was the death of Raul Reyes and 17 additional rebels, the death of 4 students of the National University of Mexico (UNAM), the detention of several persons, and the collection of data of the highest importance, contained in two computers of Reyes, which later provided evidence of the logistic, economic, and ideological, support of the Ecuadorian and Venezuelan governments to the FARC.[ii] A diplomatic outburst ignited during the following weeks between Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela. The latter countries mobilized troops to their borders with Colombia, thus creating huge tension in the region.
The Colombian government later argued that (i) the bombing had been a self defense operation of the Colombian military – that had previously been attacked by enemy fire near the Colombo-Ecuadorian border – in compliance with article 51 of the Charter of the UN,[iii] (ii) no violation of Ecuadorian airspace had occurred, as the airstrike departed from Colombian airspace into Ecuadorian soil, (iii) Colombian military entered Ecuadorian soil in order to secure the area, until Ecuadorian authorities could arrive to the place, (iv) the Ecuadorian government had been passive with regard to the presence of FARC combatants in its territory, and therefore nothing would have resulted from diplomatic efforts to obtain the detention of Reyes, (v) furthermore, ex post facto evidence found in the computers evinced several meetings held by Ecuador’s defense minister Gustavo Larrea with Raul Reyes, that would prove Ecuador’s support to FARC rebels, and (vi) the need to strike Reyes down, impeding him from engaging in further criminal activity was imminent.
On its side, the Ecuadorian government argued that (i) the Colombian government had infringed Ecuador’s national sovereignty as it had (a) bombed Ecuadorian soil, and (b) invaded with infantry Ecuadorian soil, (ii) the attack was under no circumstance an act of self defense, (iii) the required element of imminence was completely lacking, (iv) the Colombian government perpetrated an act of aggression, under international law, and the Rome Statute, that had resulted in the death of at least one Ecuadorian citizen[iv], (v) the Colombian government infringed international law, breached the right of self defense of the Charter of the United Nations, and put at risk international peace and security in the region, and (vi) violated a long pacific tradition between the two countries.
Even though the dispute ended after significant diplomatic efforts of the international community and the OAS, the truth of the matter is that Colombia’s action created an enormous tension in the region, particularly given (a) the affinity between FARC and Hugo Chavez’ (who recently inaugurated a monument in honor of defeated Manuel Marulanda Velez, FARC #1, during more than 50 years), (b) given the fact that Colombia’s secret police had entered into Venezuelan soil in 2005, where it (illegally) arrested Raul Granda, former international spokesman of FARC, bringing him back secretly and illegally into Colombian territory, where he was tried and convicted for the crime of rebellion, (c) given the fact that several intelligence reports had shown that several important guerrilla leaders were hiding in Venezuela with Chavez’ acquaintance, and (d) it triggered a multibillion dollar arms race between Venezuela and Colombia, that recently aggravated after the announcement of the Colombian and US governments’ signature of a military cooperation agreement.[v]
Notwithstanding the above, I am of the view that the action of the Colombian government was justified. It is a fact that several years ago before the incident, FARC rebels had been taking advantage of the hospitality of neighbor countries in order to hide from operations of the Colombian military, as well as to plan and execute new terrorist attacks over Colombian soil. Those countries had been resilient to combat FARC rebels, and furthermore, had aided FARC rebels in their purpose of defeating the democratically constituted government in Colombia. That behavior of the Ecuadorian and Venezuelan governments’ was unacceptable and violated the Inter-American Convention of Duties and Right of States in Civil Struggles, signed in La Habana, as of February 20, 1928, which was expanded by protocol of May 1, 1957, signed in Washington D.C., imposing on states in its second article the duty to “Disarm… any rebel force that has breached its borders…”
As the governments of the adjacent countries had been complacent in allowing FARC rebels to rest and prepare further military action in their territory, the Colombian government was entitled to attack the camp, provided that it had sufficient elements to argue in favor of the need of such action. The necessity element was present at the time, given two factors. First, the Colombian military was attacked by enemy fire at the moment of the operation, while it was overflying the area, in Colombian airspace, in exercise of its sovereignty right. Second, intelligence units had information about the location and unique opportunity to kill and/or detain FARC #2, one of the most dangerous criminals in the world, who would otherwise inevitably continue his terrorist attacks against Colombian citizens and government. Even if it is true that this would be a broad and new interpretation of “necessity”, I believe it is a perfectly plausible interpretation of the norm.
Furthermore, I believe that pursuant to Resolutions 1368, 1373 and 1378 of the Security Council, the Colombian government had sufficient grounds on international law to execute the bombings, given the similarity of the relationship between Ecuador, Venezuela, and the FARC, with the relationship between the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Although the Colombian government was harshly criticized by the OAS’ members, who found that it had breached international law, I think that minimum criticism would have been raised in the context of the SC, which, on the contrary, would have openly endorsed Colombia’s action. Finally, I think that Colombian action was proportional, did not affect third parties, and was justified under the terms on international law and article 51 of the Charter.
[i] Reyes was FARC #2 at the moment of his death.
[ii] The bombing and death of Raul Reyes catapulted the minister of defense Juan Manuel Santos as the most likely successor of President Alvaro Uribe, with a 57% of popularity, as of March 4, 2010. President’s Uribe popularity reached a 91% (!) peak after more than 6 years in power, after Ingrid Betancourt’s rescue operation in 2008. Uribe’s popularity still today exceeds 70%.
[iii] Incidentalmente, al cumplirse un año de la operación del ejército colombiano contra el campamento de las FARC en Ecuador, el ministro Juan Manuel Santos reivindicó el derecho de su país a defenderse de "los terroristas" aunque no estén en territorio de Colombia. "Golpear a terroristas que sistemáticamente están atentando contra la población de un país, así estos no se encuentren dentro de su territorio, es un acto de legítima defensa y una doctrina cada vez más aceptada por el derecho internacional" dijo Santos (EU 03-03-09, Pág. 1-12). La reacción aquí no tardó en producirse. La cancillería venezolana calificó de "repudiable la actitud prepotente" del Ministro y de "amenaza a la estabilidad y la soberanía" (EU 04-03-09, Pág. 1-16).
[iv] Ecuadorian President Correa asserted that whether that citizen was a person engaged in criminal activities or not made no difference with regard to the unlawful attack. Furthermore, after forensic examination of the corpse of the Ecuadorian citizen, Ecuador signaled that that person had been extra summarily executed.
[v] Colombia’s argument is that its only aim is to acquire additional arsenal with the intent to fight FARC, and Venezuela’s argument is that it is buying weapons and airplanes to Russia with the sole intention of protection its national security from the threats of aggression of the “empire” and its “puppets”.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario