UNASUR special meeting to discuss the diversion of Bolivian President Evo Morales' plane in Europe

The Union of South American Nations (Unasur) condemned the diversion of Bolivia’s President Evo Morales flight on Tuesday, after France and Portugal refused to let the plane into their airspace. Several Latin American leaders criticized the decision severely, and asked for explanations from the international community.S

In order to achieve a unified action, Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa called a meeting with all the members of Unasur -- which will be held on Thursday in Lima, as Peru’s Ollanta Humala is the current president of the bloc.

In a statement, the group expressed its “indignation and a profound rejection of the unfriendly and unjustifiable acts that put at risk the safety of the Bolivian head of state and his team.” The bloc demanded more information about the event from the European nations involved. The Bolivians say Morales' flight from Moscow was blocked because it was falsely believed that NSA leaker Edward Snowden was aboard.

A spokesman for the Brazilian Foreign Ministry said that there will also be a presidential summit held in Cochabamba, Bolivia, at a date unknown.

The Argentinian president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, attacked the “vestiges of colonialism” in a speech in Buenos Aires. “We believe this constitutes not only the humiliation of a sister nation but of all South America,” she said

Evo Morales finally arrived to El Alto close La Paz city on Thursday 03.39 GMT, 17 hours after he took off from Viena where he has an emergency landed.

The Americas Defence ministers’ conference divided on Falklands/Malvinas issue

Argentina’s sovereignty claim over the Falklands/Malvinas Islands continues to generate discrepancies among countries of the Americas, as was exposed in the Declaration of Punta del Este, at the end of the X Conference of Defence Ministers of the Americas which took place in Uruguay.

Uruguayan Defence minister Fernandez Huidobro, “it remains a very controversial issue”

“The Malvinas issue is still very controversial for the Americas” admitted on Wednesday Uruguay’s Minister of Defence Eleuterio Fernandez Huidobro pro-tempore president and host of the event.

The Falklands/Malvinas issue and a peace zone in the South Atlantic, despite not being part of the official agenda of the meeting, was addressed by an ad hoc committee that held ‘long discussions’ during the four day meeting in an attempt to bring closer the different positions.

Nevertheless Argentina managed to include two articles in the final declaration on the issue, although 15 of the 34 countries from the Americas expressed some “degree of safeguard or reserve”.

All members agreed to subscribe Article 19 of the Declaration which points out that “in the framework of the peaceful character of the Americas continent nations, they express their willingness to promote peace and cooperation in the South Atlantic”.

This was followed by “recognition” of the “importance” of this year’s OAS AG/Dec70 declaration which “decided to continue examining the Malvinas Islands issue until its definitive solution, underlining that this is an issue of standing hemispheric interest”.

Regarding this text Argentina, Bolivia, Brasil, Ecuador, Guyana, Nicaragua, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay and Venezuela expressed “concern” over the “growing militarization” of the South Atlantic and exercises which include “firing missiles” as the ones taking place in the Malvinas Islands.

They also reiterated their “strong support” for the “legitimate rights” of Argentina in the sovereignty dispute over the Islands and the surrounding maritime spaces.

Chile, Colombia and Mexico coincided in the “support” to Argentine sovereignty claims over the Malvinas but with no reference to the “militarization of the South Atlantic” which is attributed to the UK.

The US pointed out that the Falklands/Malvinas issue does not correspond to the Defence ministers of the Americas forum, and Canada openly dissented with the inclusion of the paragraph arguing that it is a “bilateral issue” and underlined that the “population of the Falkland Islands have the right to determine their own future”.

The Declaration of Punta del Este also referred to the member-countries ‘conviction’ that democratic institutions are the “fundamental pillars” to achieve peace, security, social equality and development in the hemisphere countries.

They also pointed out the importance of cooperation in defence and security issues “to address the new challenges” and their support to measures that strengthen institutional capacities together with the commitment to update the inter-American defence system.

The need to modernize the Inter-American Reciprocal Assistance Treaty, (TIAR) going back to 1947 as well as the Inter-American Defence Board (JID), were the two issues of “ongoing strong debate” and with visions “quite distant” according to sources at the discussions.

In the final declaration the two visions were reflected in the request to the OAS Permanent Council ‘to program and advance”, with the participation of Defence ministries, of meetings “to discuss the future of the mission and functions” of the Inter-American defence system including the JID.

Ministers also pledged “to expand the dissemination process” of international humanitarian Law and human rights through “doctrine, training and education”, whatever the case, among the Armed and Security forces.

Finally the delegates of the 28 participants out of 34 country members voted for Peru to take over the pro tempore presidency of the eleventh defence ministers conference to be held in that country in 2014.

Brazilian influential newspaper blasts “Dilma’s anti-diplomacy”

Brazil’s influential newspaper O Estado de Sao Paulo blasted Brazilian foreign policy and its handling of the Paraguayan political crisis. In an opinion column under the heading “Dilma’s anti-diplomacy” the newspaper argues that the current administration is politicizing foreign policy, the same way that her predecessor, Lula da Silva.

The conservative newspaper claims that since the Workers Party reached office, the eight years of former president Lula da Silva were rich in transforming Brazilian diplomacy into an “ideological exercise”. It mentions the case in 2006 when Bolivia troops took over Petrobras refineries (and Brazilian assets), and Lula da Silva called it an “act of sovereignty” and that Bolivia needed to be treated with “love”.

However with the arrival of Dilma Rousseff there were hopes of a change, particularly since the president committed her administration to the defence of human rights, including in Iran, whose president denies the Holocaust and heads a regime that beats and jails opponents and Lula da Silva referred to him as “compañero”.

It seemed that Dilma was prepared to abandon Lula’s childish Anti-Americanism and join sides with the civilized world in condemning Teheran. But the Brazilian president who likes to be called “the manager” is more intent in imprinting her own seal to foreign policy, says O Estado de Sao Paulo.

For example, when Dilma had the chance to show her statesmanship at the RIo+20 conference last June, she left aside the professional diplomats and preferred a watered down document with no decisive weight that seemed to please or be accepted by everybody, believing it was a diplomatic success.

Later when the opportunity to put out the fire caused by the removal of Paraguayan president Fernando Lugo, also last June, she ended adding fuel to the situation by accepting the thesis of a ‘coup’ and therefore Paraguay had to be sanctioned.

O Estado de Sao Paulo adds that later Dilma personally patronized the regrettable operation to include Venezuela in Mercosur, taking advantage of the suspension of Paraguay, which resisted all along the incorporation of President Hugo Chavez’ country to an already discredited South American block.

Basically Dilma’s excessive personalism in foreign policy does not differ from the political-ideological contamination of the eight years Lula da Silva was president. In both cases foreign policy decisions are adopted not according to national interests as mandates the Constitution, “but in line with those projects to affirm and retain power”. Under Lula da Silva the imprudent policy of siding with autocrats imperilled the independence of Brazil in the definition of its foreign interests and in the search of a “community of Latinamerican nations” the former president put the country “at the service of the delirious Bolivarian project”.

With Dilma the “Lulopetista” (blend of Lula da Silva and Workers Party) ideology persists in Brazil’s foreign relations, but with an added probably more explosive ingredient: her idiosyncrasies. The President does not get along with her Foreign Affairs minister Antonio Patriota, the “manager” insists in a diplomacy of results and is contrary to making concessions and to the flatteries which are part of the essence of diplomacy.

Finally the newspaper cautions that with two and a half years ahead Dilma, has ample chance to further imprint her personal views, further compromising the influence of Brazil in international affairs.

The only ‘coup’ was including Venezuela in Mercosur with Paraguay suspended

Paraguayan president Federico Franco said on Monday that the only coup, if that is the word, was implemented by Mercosur from the moment they left Paraguay out of the decision to incorporate Venezuela as a full member of the group.

However the president said he was satisfied because Mercosur, through the review tribunal had recognized his administration.

“The incorporation of Venezuela is null and void, illegitimate in its origin and the (Paraguayan) government that takes office after the April 2013 elections will have to review the situation and see what steps to follow”, said President Franco.

He added that the Mercosur treaty is very clear “and states that all decisions must be unanimous, and having left Paraguay out (suspended) the other members are violating a substantial aspect”.

Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay during the recent Mercosur summit in Mendoza suspended Paraguay and following voted the full annexation of Venezuela to the group, which is to be made official July 31 in Brasilia.

Regarding the Mercosur Standing Review Tribunal ruling, President Franco said that in spite the fact Paraguay’s demand against the arbitrary decisions from the block, “the position of Foreign Minister Jose Felix Fernandez is very clear, from the moment the tribunal accepted the demand and recognized his ministerial job as petitioner. In other words they have recognized us”.

Nevertheless “it is evident there is a higher presidential level, which means the presidents (of the three countries) are instructing the different Mercosur bodies what to do and decide”.

Regarding a possible appeal before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Franco was not convinced since “most probably elections will take place before there is a ruling on the demand”.

Finally on a last minute cancelled meeting with members from the Mercosur parliament, Franco said the request was made last Friday and scheduled for this Monday but “they finally cancelled the appointment”.

Meanwhile from Montevideo, Foreign minister Luis Almagro defended the incorporation of Venezuela as Mercosur full member arguing Uruguay wants a wider integration horizon.

“We want the incorporation of Venezuela because we aspire to a wider horizon and balance for the integration policy”, said Almagro who recalled that Venezuela was the first to knock the door, and “so if the first to knock the door is rejected, you might create a domino effect which impedes others from entering”.

Nevertheless Almagro said he does not share the moment in which the incorporation of Venezuela was implemented with Paraguay suspended temporarily, following the political impeachment that removed a month ago President Fernando Lugo from office.

“I think that maybe I stopped half way in the process but it was President Mujica who went all the way through with the issue thus confirming the incorporation”, revealed Almagro.

A month ago following the controversial incorporation, decided only by the three presidents, Cristina Fernandez, Dilma Rousseff and Jose Mujica behind closed doors, Almagro said he had instructed the legal department from the ministry to study the juridical consequences of such a move.

Chavez confirms Dilma’s invitation to Mercosur meeting in Rio on July 31

Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez said he had talked with his peer from Brazil Dilma Rousseff who confirmed the invitation to an extraordinary meeting of Mercosur next July 31 in Rio do Janeiro.

 “Great news for a new Venezuela and new South America”, said Chavez “Great news for a new Venezuela and new South America”, said Chavez

“I’ve had a most satisfying chat with President Dilma, our most beloved compañera. She confirmed I’m invited to the Mercosur summit” said Chavez on Friday.

The message is followed by a second in which he asserts “Venezuela to Mercosur! This is really GREAT! A new Venezuela! A new South America! New Geopolitics!”

Last Tuesday Chavez confirmed he would be travelling to Rio do Janeiro July 31 for the formal incorporation of Venezuela as full member of Mercosur (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay), even when Paraguay was suspended from the group last June following the removal of Fernando Lugo, who was replaced by Federico Lugo.

Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay at the end of last June in a controversial decision agreed to suspend Paraguay and admit the incorporation of Venezuela which was pending for several years and blocked precisely by the Paraguayan Senate. All Mercosur decisions are supposed to be taken by consensus.

Argentina blasts WTO for its biased and tendentious reports on world trade

The Argentine government, together with Brazil, India and South Africa questioned the inclination, almost bias, of some trade measures elaborated by the World Trade Organization Director General.

WTO Director General Pascal Lamy in the “suspicious list” of Cristina Fernandez’

The presentation was made this week, 18 July during a meeting of the WTO panel that examines Trade Policies, according to an official Thursday release from the Argentine Foreign Ministry.

Referring to the issue Argentine president Cristina Fernandez said that the WTO “seems to have different criteria: one to measure that of emerging countries and their products and another for developed countries and their products”.

“The WTO does not consider trade barriers all the phytosanitary impediments implemented by the European Union”, said the Argentine president who nevertheless expressed satisfaction because the claim was shared by members from BRIC:

The president made the statements during a ceremony at Government House where she referred to mining projects and infrastructure.

Argentine criticism focused in the reports that do not include references to the “generous government programs of aid, subsidies and stimuli packages implemented by the developed countries to address the crisis and their negative impact on international trade”.

Likewise these reports “tend to minimize the severe distortions in agriculture markets because of the long established protectionist policies from developed countries” added the report from the Argentine Foreign ministry.

The WTO reports are also lagging on the impacts from the “growing proliferation of sanitary, phytosanitary and technical measures without the sufficient scientific and technical support and which harm the farmers from developing countries”

The Argentine government requests that “WTO reports on the current international trade situation be more balanced and less biased and tendentious in favour of developed countries as has been the case so far”.

Finally the Argentine release says that such is the case that in the last Report on World Trade from WTO, Director General Pascal Lamy acknowledges that non tariff barriers could be used for protectionist purposes and warned, as Argentina has been pointing out, that “it’s good time for the WTO to closer monitor those non tariff barriers”.

EU/Mercosur trade talks suspended until after Paraguayan elections of April 2013

The removal of Fernando Lugo as president of Paraguay interrupted European Union/Mercosur discussions, which could resume following the April 2013 presidential elections said on Wednesday the European Parliament mission visiting Asunción.

MEP Luis Yañez-Barnuevo said it’s up to the Paraguayans to decide

“The calendar of negotiations with Mercosur has been suspended and its resumption will take place when the Paraguayan transition normalizes with the general elections scheduled for 21 April 2013” said MEP Luis Yañez Barnuevo, who heads the fact finding in-situ delegation of lawmakers.

MEP Yañez-Barnuevo said that the mission’s task was limited to obtaining information on the Paraguayan situation. The mission arrived on Sunday and was scheduled to leave on Wednesday.

“We are not judges that have come to dictate a verdict: that belongs to the Paraguayans, and only to the Paraguayans”, said the Spanish MEP when asked if the European Parliament was planning to impose any measures as a consequence of the removal of Lugo, last June 22, following a summary political impeachment.

“We hope that the next elections will be held in a framework of social peace, respect for human rights and transparency. We are here to help promote dialogue and social peace and if Paraguay requests the presence of EU observers we will consider it and assess the possibility of sending a mission”, added Yañez-Barnuevo.

The MEP pledged that the EU will maintain its support and cooperation programs with Paraguay.

Lugo was removed from office by the Senate (39 to 4 votes) for “ill performance” of his presidential duties following a serious shootout between the police and landless peasants that left 17 dead.

However his replacement by Vice president Federico Franco triggered an immediate reaction from Mercosur (Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay) that on June 29 during a twice a year summit in Mendoza decided to suspend Paraguay until next year’s elections. A similar attitude was adopted by Unasur.

But the Organization of American States, which also sent a fact finding mission to Paraguay still has to decide what attitude it will adopt. Several countries of the Americas are also waiting for the report before they take position on the issue.