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.