FBIS3-32619 "drlat028_o_94006"
FBIS-LAT-94-028 Document Type:Daily Report 10 Feb 1994
Colombia

Gaviria on State Council Decision

PA0902215294 Santa Fe de Bogota Emisoras Caracol Network in Spanish 1710 GMT 9 Feb 94 PA0902215294 Santa Fe de Bogota Emisoras Caracol Network Language: Spanish Article Type:BFN [News conference by Colombian President Cesar Gaviria with unidentified moderator and domestic reporters at Narino Presidential Palace in Santa Fe de Bogota; broadcast in progress -- live] [Text] [Gaviria] ...that allow military members of other countries to undertake joint exercises with the Colombian military in the implementation of old practices that are backed by international agreements. Unfortunately, in response to a well-founded legal document that I sent to that judicial body some days ago with the utmost respect, a press communique was released that lacked legal arguments. I learned of the communique through the media, not through proper channels, as if it were more important to generate a particular climate of public opinion than to strictly carry out a legal procedure. This attitude contrasts with the one I assumed with the State Council, to which I gave detailed and confidential explanations, aware of the implications that this debate has for our country in the national and international arenas. I received the news with the peace of mind of knowing that these types of operations are necessary, useful, and opportune for Colombia, as well as with the confidence that the legal arguments that the State Council rejected are solid and that the decisions that were made do not violate the Constitution, which, under the leadership of this administration, embodies the great changes that Colombian society had demanded for years for its political organization. I continue to believe that we had to strengthen the institutions that exert control and give Congress the means to exercise its oversight function of the actions of the executive branch. That is why we will be ready to provide Congress, the body to which the State Council decided to remit the issue, with the explanations that it considers relevant with the assurance that they will not be rejected with the stroke of a pen but analyzed strictly and calmly. From what is inferred from the brief statement of the judicial institution, it seems that the State Council has given a constitutional provision a scope that it obviously does not have. They are trying to claim that the duty of requesting Senate or State Council permission for foreign troops to temporarily enter our country means that it is necessary to request such permission for any foreign military man to enter Colombia, regardless of the purpose of his visit. Such an interpretation has led to the absurdity of asserting that to allow the entry of the military attaches, which dozens of countries have in Colombia, just as we have in as many countries, would require that permission, or that a joint intelligence operation to pursue a criminal would require the prior meeting and pronouncement of the Senate. It would also mean that valid international agreements with long-standing traditions, such as the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance and the 1952 Military Assistance Agreement, have somehow magically lost their effectiveness and that Colombia should therefore fail to fulfill all their clauses. It is clear that this is not the spirit of this Constitution nor of the constitutions that have governed us since 1821, which have invariably established a similar policy. What the political Constitution seeks is to establish a procedure for granting permission for the transit or stationing of foreign troops that have warlike objectives against a third country. It does not in any way seek to regulate joint training operations, the operation of advanced technological equipment, the maintenance of equipment, or technical assistance, all of which are part of valid international treaties. If this issue of such importance had been studied very carefully, it would not have been difficult to conclude that this norm was established for situations in which foreign armies are confronting other nations, a situation in which the nation's neutrality would be compromised and which would obviously demand a pronouncement from the Senate, which is also empowered to declare war. The State Council should remember that the drafters of the Constitution of 1886 had in mind the Isthmus of Panama, which we then held, which explains the reference to the docking of foreign war vessels. Since 1926, the State Council has very clearly identified the cases in which prior authorization by that body was unnecessary. These statements should still be completely valid. The State Council has said that acts befitting brotherhood and international courtesy and all those the Constitution endows on the president as the supreme administrative authority do not compel the government to consult the State Council. Can a judicial body say that we are responsible for certain things because we abided by previous rulings? About 17 months ago, days after the escape of Escobar, in response to a concern publicly voiced by the then State Council president, I forwarded to that body a statement where I made the same arguments I am reiterating now. At that time, the State Council, the same State Council that today is changing Colombia's traditional legal interpretation of this matter, did not refute the arguments in my letter but seemed instead to agree with and accept them. We are facing an unusual cirucumstance, where the president is being held responsible, not for making a decision but for sharing and supporting the legal reasons on which it was based and that the State Council had traditionally accepted. The State Council's statement is not a legal decision. It simply apprises Congress of its action, and, I must point out, the government has provided all the documents, and the Judicial Branch has only said it does not find the State Council statement convincing. The consequence of this decision is no other than the acknowledgment by the selfsame State Council that it lacks the authority to review the alleged violation of the Constitution and order the appropriate sanctions, all of which falls within the purview of the Congress. The State Council's statement is not legal but political. The vagueness of the statements of that body, and even the fact that its president is arguing over the radio that Colombian artisans can build a little school, do not constitue a legal argument worthy of response. Until a competent organization makes a decision, we will continue to pursue international cooperation and any joint exercises the government may consider essential to improve the training of our military forces. This cooperation, which is most advisable for the country, is based on international treaties ratified by the Congress. These exercises merely constitute the implementation of these treaties and not a de facto situation. Cooperation in intelligence, advisory services, and maintenance is vital in the struggle against criminal drug trafficking organizations. The radical interpretation expressed in the State Council's press statement may benefit drug traffickers and will, undoubtedly, weaken our capability to deal with crime. Colombians, I understand there may be those who disagree with the joint exercises conducted along Colombia's Pacific coast. I cannot ignore a shallow legal interpretation that may make us renounce operations that are indispensable to defend ourselves from crime and drug trafficking. As a matter of fact, the government has admitted there have been flaws in keeping the public informed. Perhaps this has prompted different people from speaking out against military cooperation with the United States. I am certain that once people hear my explanations today that many will change their opinions. We have conducted different joint actions with the U.S. Government to improve and increase the efficiency of our police operations. We have received technology in the form of radar equipment that is directed and operated by Colombians and for which U.S. personnel provide us with advice and maintenance. We have conducted joint engineering exercises for the construction of various projects. Almost 100 Colombian soldiers are currently in the United States participating in operations similar to those that have come under fire in Colombia, and it has never even crossed anyone's mind that those soldiers might pose a threat to the sovereignty of the United States. In all this debate there are at least two contradictions. The first is the belief that these efforts to improve the Colombian public force's training and efficiency constitutes a violation of our sovereignty when, in reality, these efforts are aimed at guaranteeing our sovereignty. Sovereignty is much more at risk with a nation in the hands of criminals and drug traffickers, with a nation lacking the capacity to react to criminal activity, with a state baffled in the face of thousands of clandestine flights by foreign and local aircraft that are trafficking drugs, than with a state apparatus that appeals to international cooperation to guarantee the rule of law and the legitimate exercise of the rights of its citizens. It is also surprising that we demanded the international community's support for the Colombian people's brave struggle against the major drug trafficking organizations, and now we are saying that this support is a threat to our sovereignty. As someone said some time ago, international cooperation is not a few pats on the back. It is, among other things, training and logistic support. Sovereignty is not a rhetorical concept that is defended with speeches on the public square, during electoral campaigns, or by simply ranting anti-American chauvinist statements based on opportunistic nationalism or populism. Our independence in the sphere of international relations is open to everyone's scrutiny. Let everyone see how we have conducted ourselves at the various international forums; how our representatives have voted at the United Nations, OAS, and other multilateral organizations; how we have played an active role in the Nonaligned Movement and the Group of 77; how we have resumed relations with Cuba. In short, let everyone see the daily, permanent dynamism that has placed Colombia in a position of leadership in Latin America. Citizens, sovereignty is defended when one bravely confronts the fatherland's enemies; when one confronts those who threaten the people's security and take advantage of and violate our territory, rivers, seas, and airspace to conduct criminal activities. Sovereignty is not an abstract value, a simple dead letter in the law or Constitution. We are more sovereign when we are able to exercise greater control. We are more sovereign when we strengthen the Colombian Armed Forces' capability to do their duty of defending the country's security and integrity. We are more sovereign when we acquire allies that support us in our battle against stateless individuals who murder our women and children [words indistinct]. This constitutes the defense of our sovereignty. Those who wrap themselves in the Colombian flag and tear their hair over the alleged violation of our sovereignty because we allowed technicians and military engineers from other countries into Colombia are mistaken. Our enemies are powerful. To defeat them it is not enough for us to employ technology, ability, or sacrifices. We need solidarity and support. What would have happened to Europe if its leaders had not had the vision to form an alliance to combat the specter of Hitler? What would have happened to Colombia if we had relinquished international cooperation in our battle against the then self-styled Medellin Cartel? Would we perhaps be freer, more sovereign, or more independent living under the tyranny of Escobar's narcoterrorism? Would we be freer, more sovereign, or more independent by letting criminals from all countries and of all ilk violate our airspace? Would we be freer and more independent by letting drug traffickers have every technological advance at their disposal while we take shelter in our modest technical capabilities, renouncing international aid? Until 7 August, when my mandate ends, I will continue my efforts to expand our democracy, modernize our country, diminish poverty and injustice, and face without hesitation those who sow destabilization and fear until we prevail over them. Fear of debate will not make me hesitate to make or support decisions such as the one being discussed -- within the framework of the Constitution, which this government knows well -- whenever I feel it is for the good of the Republic or to fight crime, purposes which the majority of Colombians share who prefer to open themselves to the future and not cling to the past. Thank you. [First unidentified reporter, in progress] ... the exercises of U.S. servicemen with Colombian servicemen. The opinion issued by the State Council talked of troops. What legal arguments are you defending and why? [Gaviria] I will try to summarize those legal arguments that are contained in the letter I sent to the State Council, with which I believe all of you are familiar and which unfortunately the State Council answered with a brief statement. Fundamentally, those arguments are the following: Colombia has several international treaties that are currently in effect. They include agreements stemming from the [word indistinct] international treaty, as well as other international agreements, such as the 1958 Geneva Convention, the Chicago convention that regulates air traffic, and a number of agreements derived from those treaties. The Juanchaco operations personnel, as well as the personnel in other operations being held in the national territory -- the naval, army, and police missions in the country; the exchange of military personnel and military students; and the support personnel for maintenance and assistance of our radar operations -- are not military troops. Why do I say this? In the message I sent to the State Council, I clearly established the legal antecedents for the constitutional norm. The antecedents always refer to the time when military troops passed through Colombia and when Panama was part of Colombia. They mention belligerent troops that are participating in a war against another country or going to another country. This has nothing to do with military cooperation activities. All countries accept and want such cooperation. We have been developing this military cooperation for the past 50 years. We have had military personnel from the United States and other countries come to our country for the past 50 years. This exchange began around 1952. Thus, for almost 50 years we have had foreign military personnel and missions here, we have signed agreements and memorandums, and we have carried out military exercises. Based on this tradition, which has never been questioned over the past 40 years, the Defense Ministry has continued to make those decisions in accordance with this interpretation. Now the State Council says it does not agree with that interpretation and has submitted this matter to the Congress of the Republic, which we agree is the competent body for rendering interpretations. Unfortunately, as a result of the State Council's ambiguous and short statement, or opinion, it may be inferred -- this is not specifically stated -- that all military personnel must leave Colombia. I imagine they are referring to military personnel of Colombia and other countries. Under this absurd interpretation, one could even go so far as to expel all military attaches from Colombia, which would be followed with the expulsion of our military attaches from other countries. Therefore, this is what has placed the government in this situation, because [words indistinct] judicial but the opinion of State Council members. There is no ruling, no cause, no resolution. The State Council is not settling anything. It is only expressing a doubt that the government does not share about a juridical interpretation . What has the president of the Republic done in this case? I have defended the legal arguments with which the country has worked for nearly 40 years and which had never before been called into question. [Moderator] Diana Mateos, representing radio newscasts. [Mateos] Good afternoon, Mr. President. All Colombians are wondering why these U.S. soldiers arrived in the country amid so much secrecy and why they arrived armed. The people wonder why the country didn't hire the unemployed to undertake these projects. This endangers national sovereignty, given that there are so many unemployed in Colombia. [Gaviria] Look, these people arrived to implement a cooperation treaty or agreement we had with the United States. That was the decision the defense minister made. That has been done in the past in Colombia on many occasions. Joint exercises are conducted every year. As the military engineers' exercises continued, they decided to give the community where they were operating something that helped that community. That is obviously being done at the expense of the foreign government, the U.S. Government. It does not take away job oportunities from Colombians, and it does not affect the resources of Colombians. In some of these operations, these people -- this is also a long tradition to which Colombian soldiers are also entitled -- are authorized to carry personal weapons, not weapons of war. There is a long tradition in all countries and within international law that permits this. I obviously respect those who think that this is not convenient or who oppose these exercises, which is not the same as the exercises being unconstitutional or us not acting in accordance with the Constitution, treaties, and agreements. This can also be argued. I am not saying it cannot be discussed, but we must bear in mind the government has acted in keeping with a long juridical tradition for which there are many antecedents. [Moderator] Francisco Solis of EL TIEMPO representing the print media is next. Astid Legarda will follow. [Solis] Good afternoon, Mr. President. Do you believe that all Colombians who fear this presence of U.S. soldiers in civil cooperation activities, as you said, are perhaps remembering the incidents that led to Panama's separation? Do you think all these people are mistaken? [Gaviria] No, I understand there may be fears. In Latin America there are always fears about this type of presence. However, with a small, limited presence to conduct exercises, when dozens of similar exercises have been carried out in the last 40 years, I frankly do not think these fears are justified. I might acknowledge that there may be some opposing views or some people opposed to these exercises, but to go from that to saying that we have acted unconstitutionally or outside of strict compliance with treaties or implementation of said treaties is a big difference. Another thing I would like to point out is that some of these operations are very much needed, almost indispensable, while others are not. The operation in Juanchaco is not indispensable. We could have done without it in the long run. It was an operation, an exercise of engineers that we could have done without. Unfortunately, the opinion or judgment of the State Council would involve not just that exercise but all kinds of military cooperation, radar assistance, intelligence cooperation. All international cooperation that helps us in the drug struggle would end, according to the State Council's opinion. We would have to violate international treaties and agreements to satisfy that opinion. That is what the president of the Republic cannot do under these circumstances, without failing to comply with his duties or the very constitution, which establishes international commitments with which we must comply. For instance, the Geneva Convention establishes the safe passage of warships; we are signatories to that Convention. We can neither violate nor ignore it because of a judgment issued by a Colombian judicial body. We cannot do that. We have a commitment in airspace matters and a decree regulating such commitments. We cannot abandon those commitments overnight. I go back to the point I made in my statement: How is Colombia's sovereignty defended? By trying to prevent planes working for drug trafficking groups and without flight plans from endangering our air security, and by seeking international cooperation to prevent this. Are there Colombians who think that we must tolerate these risks to air security and this violation of our sovereignty instead of resorting to certain international cooperation? No, I don't think so. I don't think many Colombians feel that way. [Moderator] Astid Legarda representing regional media; next Fabio Calleja. [Legarda] Good afternoon, Mr. President. Your first comments seem to indicate that you admit these U.S. troops are in the country to help combat drug trafficking and, more specifically... [Radio Caracol announcer, interrupting, from the studio] Excuse me for interrupting you, dear reporter. We will ask the president a question, considering that we are broadcasting this national newscast live. Mr. President, 10 days ago you said that if the State Council's statement proved adverse, you would see to it that the U.S. troops would leave our country. Will you do this? [Gaviria] Look, I have with me a copy of all the questions I answered during that news conference. I did not say what you mentioned. I did not know what the State Council statement would be. The State Council said it would study the matter. Nevertheless, we did not know whether the Council would make a statement. We did not even know what subject it would consider. In addition, the State Council's statement does not have legal import. The Council has expressed an opinion, which it has forwarded to the Congress. I have already explained why I cannot accept this opinion -- among other reasons, because the State Council's opinion, apparently very brief and laconical, does not deal exclusively with this military engineers' exercise, but with any and all military presence in the country. Such a position could become absurd, to the point of causing the expulsion from Colombia of military attaches from all countries. This is why it is so difficult for the government to accept this opinion, concept, or statement. [Legarda] Thanks, Mr. President. [Radio Caracol announcer, from the studio] Excuse me, Mr. President, for having interrupted the previous question. Betsy Legarda, will you please repeat your question? [Legarda] Mr. President, I was saying your first remarks seem to indicate that you admit U.S. soldiers came to Colombia to help fight drug trafficking, not just to build a small school. [Gaviria] No, my friend. Pardon me, but you seem to be misinformed. U.S. soldiers participate in several activities in Colombia. Some are conducting engineering exercises in Juanchaco. Others are training in engineering by building river outposts so our Marines can fight drug trafficking. This is true. In addition, we are being advised in the operation of radar sites, which have been set up so our airspace cannot be violated and so drug traffickers' planes cannot fly over our territory with impunity. Still other activities deal with our Armed Forces' training programs. All this is part of the military cooperation maintained since 1958, when a military agreement was signed. There are many other activities, not necessarily linked to drug trafficking. The problem with the Council's statement is that it questions not only the Juanchaco operation but every other form of military cooperation. Here I have a statement by President Alfonso Lopez Michelsen, which brings up precedents, even from the recent past. His statement shows why this interpretation cannot be stretched so far as to become absurd. Historically, the interpretation in Colombia has applied to troops with warlike intentions, not troops that are part of a cooperation agreement. The troops now in Colombia are not troops for war but troops participating in a military cooperation program. Troops like this have been here for more than 40 years, yet no one ever questioned their presence, and virtually no statements on this matter have been made in all these years. This is what I meant in this particular instance. President Lopez says that when he was president the king of Spain visited the country aboard a Spanish Navy frigate. The Senate was not asked permission because the ship was not here for war-related purposes. Everyone here knows that when we were looking for Escobar we accepted cooperation from many countries, including surveillance aircraft that flew over Colombian territory. There was even disagreement with the president of the State Council on this issue. I do not regret having done this. I accepted international cooperation because I thought -- and still think -- it was legal to go after Escobar and dismantle the Medellin Cartel. And I also believe that our sovereignty is better served through this cooperation than by saying no, we cannot accept any international cooperation because it would harm Colombia's sovereignty, even though criminal organizations may take over the country and we run the risk of having to live in a country run by narcoterrorism. [Moderator] Fabio Callejas, Caracol Radio, on behalf of the radio stations. [Callejas] Good afternoon, Mr. President. Since you say the State Council's statement is political rather than legal, you do not think the ruling is valid or significant [words indistinct]. How much longer will the U.S. personnel remain here? When will they leave? [Gaviria] [Words indistinct] First, there must be... [pauses] There is an operation under way [words indistinct] and it will conclude in February. They will finish it and leave in February. There is another group of people who participate in training, preparation, and qualification in various areas -- the radar, for example. The government has not considered doing without this, not for a single minute, except in case of an incontrovertible judicial decision. I cannot give up all international cooperation in the struggle against drug trafficking simply because the State Council has issued its opinion, which has no legal authority. This is an interpretation I do not share, and I hope to prove my point in the Congress of the Republic. [Moderator] Margarita Gil, Colprensa, on behalf of the press, and then Ignacio Santiago. [Gil] Mr. President, what would happen if the foreign troops in Juanchaco are attacked by the Colombian guerrilla forces? [Gaviria] Well, there are no guerrilla forces there right now. I understand there are some questions about what would happen if they have to defend themselves. Well, what happens if they are attacked? I imagine they will defend themselves if they are attacked. There is no legislation or constitution in the world which says that if a foreign citizen is attacked he can do nothing to prevent it. If someone does it [words indistinct]. If someone attacks them they will defend themselves -- it is that simple. If someone attacks any military personnel, or non-military personnel, or even civilians, they will defend themselves as long as they can defend themselves. This is called legitimate defense. This is what would happen. I do not think this will happen because... [pauses] but if it does happen, that's what will occur. This does not apply only to foreigners; it also applies to Colombians -- either civilians or military. Everyone who is attacked and can defend himself will do so. [Moderator] Ignacio Santiago, on behalf of the regional media, and then Antonio Jose Cabrera. [Santiago] Good afternoon, Mr. President. Certain political analysts assert this phenomenon, meaning the decision adopted by the State Council last night, is trying to undermine your popularity. How will you resolve this situation with the public? [Gaviria] Just like I am doing here -- explaining, answering questions, participating in open discussion instead of avoiding it. I have never avoided discussion; I have always faced all the problems. This is not the worst problem I've had. I am not surprised by this, and I am not the first president who has had problems over legal rulings and decisions which question his decisions. I will handle the situation this way -- explaining what I believe in, explaining to Congress why I made this decision, defending our legal position. That is what I shall do. Furthermore, the State Council forwarded this case to Congress, but it was not over a decision, because the State Council knows I did not make the decision. What I did was defend a legal position. It is a sin of opinion. The president will be summoned by Congress because he defends a legal thesis -- the same one endorsed by all our courts and which they have now challenged. No! I will continue to defend my beliefs. I obviously have to abide by any judiciary and congressional decisions -- and I will defend them! In fact, if I have to tour the country defending them I will do so, because I do not feel I have undermined national sovereignty! I feel I have defended national sovereignty, first of all before international organizations, where I constantly say: Watch how Colombia votes, and you will realize it is an autonomous country -- and here in Colombia, by recovering the state's control, fighting guerrilla groups and drug traffickers, strengthening the enforcement of justice, supporting the public forces, endorsing judicial cooperation processes, and encouraging military cooperation processes -- that is how you defend sovereignty! Sovereignty is not defended by letting criminals seize control of the country! That is not the way to defend sovereignty! And that is how I understand it! As long as I can I shall work to defend our sovereignty as I understand it, meaning assuming control, making sure the laws and legal organizations and public forces exercise control! I have not stopped doing that, and this is not the first controversial decision I have had to adopt! I have adopted many others in the past and I do not regret them -- and neither will I regret them! [Moderator] Antonio Jose Caballero, on behalf of the radio services, and then Cesar Mauricio Velasquez. [Caballero] Mr. President, good afternoon. You say you will defend, regardless of the consequences, your decision to defend sovereignty as you see it. Do you think someone is manipulating the situation and trying to stir up troubled waters -- for example, the guerrilla groups and the drug traffickers? Who is taking advantage of this decision, electorally speaking? [Gaviria] Oh, I would not say everyone who has expressed his views on the issue did it thinking that it was appropriate to do so or with that goal in mind. A lot of information has been circulated to misconstrue what has been done and to misrepresent it to the public. Yes, it has certainly been done. All of us who are here know one of the great fears which has prevailed about men engaged in an engineering operation is that they are really engaged in an operation against Valle del Cauca Department drug traffickers. They are not and they will not, but we all know the Valle del Cauca drug traffickers have pulled all available strings and resources to convey their terrible indignation. That is not the case; that is not what is really happening. I am sure that's not what's happening, but there is no doubt about the Valle del Cauca drug traffickers' actions. I also know drug traffickers in the new departments, the former eastern flatlands, are quite uncomfortable because we have built some posts [words indistinct]. What for? So the Navy's infantry forces may operate. What for? So the Navy's infantry forces may control the rivers and counter the drug traffickers' activities. These are the facts, and you all know about them. You know I am not reporting this for the first time; you know this is true. [Caballero] What about the possibility that the issue is being manipulated for electoral purposes? [Gaviria] Of course. The guerrillas still live amid the rhetoric of a bipolar world and of the Cold War that is now over, in the days when Marxism was a doctrine, in the days of the now extinct Soviet Union. They cling to that doctrine, and they view anything that is anti-United States as wonderful. No! Colombia must have a policy of sovereignty and autonomy, and this must be reflected in its international relations. This policy means Colombia will tolerate pressure, Colombia will vote as it sees fit in international forums, Colombia will establish relations with Cuba when it pleases. It means Colombia will make its own decisions. Sovereignty is not defended simply by delivering anti- gringo speeches. This is obsolete. Cooperation is the in thing. We are working for a free trade zone. We are working for a modern country. Countries are increasingly relinquishing their sovereignty in some areas. Does the Andean Group's agreement on integration with Venezuela and Ecuador mean they are relinquishing sovereignty? We have relinquished our court's authority in favor of the Andean Court of Justice. We have renounced to our right to make certain decisions, in favor of adopting them in conjunction with other countries. Every time we come to an agreement in judicial cooperation we relinquish some of our sovereignty, if we continue to think of sovereignty the way we once did. No! The concept of sovereignty has changed a lot. I insist on what I said here earlier: From the public order perspective, sovereignty means exerting control, being in command, knowing what is happening in one's territory, fighting criminal organizations. This is what exercising sovereignty means. It does not mean digging into the Constitution to see if according to some old prejudice there is something that can be contested. This does not mean exercising sovereignty. Exercising sovereignty means fighting drug traffickers with whatever international cooperation we can -- not with foreign troops, that would do no good -- but with foreign intelligence, all they can give us, all the equipment, all the information. We have accepted this, and we will continue to accept it. I don't believe Congress or any judicial organization will tell us that we are wrong because we are doing this! [Moderator] Cesar Mauricio Velasquez, representing television newscasts, is next. He is followed by Indira Vega. [Velasquez] President, what's aggravating you? Is it the form or the essence of the concept? [Gaviria] This does not aggravate me, but I was taken by surprise. I was amazed because we had gone through a legal process, and we had asked that the defense minister and the military commanders be received in audience. Logically, we were expecting some specific response, some memorandum from a strictly legal point of view. Instead, the response has been some sort of opinion or statement. I don't know how important the press communique is, but it has questioned all the cooperation Colombia receives in this field. This is obviously not keeping us from making decisions. If the communique were a judicial ruling I would abide by it, but it is not a judicial ruling. The communique simply has questioned all the cooperation we receive. No one can expect me to react to this by throwing out all that cooperation, giving the country away, weakening our ability to fight crime, and weakening our military forces, simply because some citizens, eminent members of the State Council, believe this is not the way. No way! Whenever there is a ruling, I will abide by it. I have to, even if I don't agree, but I am not now facing a ruling. I am facing an opinion. Since this opinion is that of the State Council or of its advisers, it has some weight and has created some commotion, and there is the impression that the government could be paralyzed. No! The government is not going to be paralyzed! The government has the constitutional mission to safeguard public order and fight crime, and the government will safeguard this. It will not fail in its mission. [Moderator] Indira Vega, representing the print media. [Vega] Good afternoon, Mr. President. Why so much misinformation? Why so many different versions being presented to the public? This gives the impression that lies have been told. [Gaviria] No. The Armed Forces and the Defense Ministry have participated in this exercise many times. There have been many such exercises here. Every year there are military and naval exercises in Colombia. Every year! They simply saw the arguments as one more political debate and since political debates are not their affair, they chose not to participate in the debate. This is what happened. Information began trickling out as people became aware of the debate. There has been no attempt to hide anything. The Armed Forces and the acting defense minister simply believed that if they joined the debate, they would end up in a political debate, taking sides with presidential candidates. They decided that this was not suitable. Perhaps the acting defense minister and I did not realize that this was going to be an ongoing controversy and that it was going to become a political campaign issue. [Moderator] Next is Clemens Torres of Radio Colmundo. Manuel Teodori will follow him. [Torres] Good afternoon, Mr. President. You have an outstanding political record. Some of your critics say that you could resolve this problem by inviting some people over to the Presidential Palace. [Gaviria, chuckling, while audience laughs out loud] No. Look, though, you can be sure that I will do whatever I can within the law and my principles to make my legal and political convictions prevail. This is who I am. Some say: The president is pragmatic. No. That's not it. Some say I have no principles, that I'm pragmatic. No, but when I believe in something I do all I can to get it through. You have seen how I function in Congress. That's because standing on my record is not enough for me; I want to get things done! I have tried to strengthen this country's public forces; I have tried to strengthen international cooperation and the struggle against drug trafficking, the military struggle, and the judiciary branch. I have fought hard to succeed! Hard! I have also worked hard to get the EC to give us preferential status, and it did! The U.S. Congress gave us trade preferences because of our struggle against drug trafficking. You can be certain that I will continue to struggle. I am going to fight, and I am going to win. [Moderator] Manuel Teodori of Telemundo, representing the international media. He will be followed by Dario Hoyo. [Teodori] Good afternoon Mr. President. Understandably, during an electoral period, there are people who [words indistinct]. The accusation about the presence of the U.S. soldiers could be used as a political banner to attract votes and to obtain the votes of members of your party. Unitl what point might this be true in this particular case? [Gaviria] People get very passionate during electoral campaigns in Colombia and in all countries. The campaigns increasingly assume a populist tinge. You see people [words indistinct] who suddenly start endorsing a populist position. People tend to get too passionate, and sometimes they lose their objectivity somewhat. But I would not like to base this debate on politics. Why? Among other reasons, the State Council is not involved in politics and has no part in politics. I believe the State Council's opinion is its own. I frankly do not believe the State Council took the time to carefully study all our arguments in detail and to examine all the consequences of its opinion. I don't think the State Council did this. I regret that it did not, and I also regret to say this -- but I firmly believe it is true. Of course, this issue could be used by the people in the political campaigns. I have tried to avoid being a counterpart to the presidential candidates or to those who are campaigning. [Moderator] Dario Hoyos of EL NUEVO SIGLO will ask the last question. [Hoyos] I won't keep you long. I see that you are very angry with the State Council. Don't you think it is inconvenient for the country to be facing a possible confrontation between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches in the midst of a political campaign? Also, is it possible that you are being driven by your desire to get to the OAS? [Gaviria] [Words indistinct] I was not referring to this. I know the State Council is not motivated by such intentions. No. We presented this issue. I am concerned because the State Council has said that there is a lack of legal precedent and there are irregularities with the way in which the decision was made. If [words indistinct] it would have been easier to decide and see what would happen. But we are confronted with an opinion or a simple declaration. I am not quarrelsome, but I do defend what I believe. I am not intimidated by any decision or argument. I fight for the things in which I firmly believe. I am not angry. I don't usually get mad, but I do have firm convictions and what you are hearing from me right here is just that: my firm convictions. I believe the legal arguments we forwarded to the State Council are valid. I continue to believe they are valid. The State Council's communique did not deny those arguments. I will continue to fight for our legal arguments and for the national interest. Many things are at risk here: all international cooperation received by Colombia designed to strengthen its public forces and to help in its struggle against drug trafficking. All this is in jeopardy. I believe this is serious and dangerous for the country, and I am not willing -- simply so that I can look fresh and at ease -- not to fight for this. I will fight. I will struggle. I will defend my arguments. I will contest this, and I will leave no question unanswered. I will continue this legal and political struggle until the end. I will do so peacefully and convinced that our position will prevail.