The declaration, with all its limitations – the text does not cite Russia nor does it condemn the invasion, but it does refer to the two resolutions voted at the United Nations on the conflict, which were supported by the vast majority of countries in the region- – It is seen as a major diplomatic victory for Europe, which until now had not succeeded in making any mention of the war in Ukraine.
The final debate has revolved around a preposition, a verb and some details
The fact that the regime of Daniel Ortega is emerging as the only firm ally of Vladimir Putin within this diverse block of countries is seen in Brussels as a demonstration of the international isolation of the Kremlin, diplomatic sources highlight. The European ambassadors have met several times during the last 48 hours to come up with a text that would include the minimum demands of the Twenty-seven but, at the same time, respond to the expectations of the Latin American partners. Only this morning there have been two meetings of the ‘coreper’, as the forum in which the diplomatic representatives of the Twenty-seven meet is known.
Nevertheless, several Latin American leaders have reproached the representatives of the EU for not having reacted with the same firmness in the past to other conflicts or for their “disproportionate” attention to Ukraine, as Gonsalves said yesterday. “You in Europe have presented your arguments” and “undoubtedly there is an imperial or imperialist invasion of Ukraine,” Gustavo Petro, president of Colombia, said in the plenary session. “But what is the name of the one that took place in Iraq, or in Libya, or in Syria? Why does it have this reaction and the previous ones of this century do not?” Petro asked them, who has proposed creating a “crime transgression or international aggression” with which everyone can recognize. Apart from this proposal, Europe’s usual response to these arguments is an explanation of the “existential threat” that the Russian invasion represents for the continent and for the world if the law of the strongest prevails and not the force of law.
In the last few hours, the debate in Brussels had revolved around a preposition, a verb and some other details: whether to talk about “war in Ukraine” or “war against Ukraine”, what has been the agreed formula and what verb to use to qualify the common position on the matter. Faced with the impossibility of using the word “condemn” or “regret”, the Twenty-seven have settled for using the diplomatic formula of “expressing its deep concern” about the conflict. The war in Ukraine has not been the central theme of the EU-Celac summit, the first in eight years, focused on issues such as agreements on energy and natural resources, the financing of climate change mitigation measures or trade, but It was essential for the EU to get support for its vision of the conflict.
Macron celebrates the “constructive” role of Lula and Fernández in reaching an agreement
“The declaration does not go as far as others that we have recently signed, for example at the NATO summit in Vilnius,” admitted French President Emmanuel Macron, the first to leave the summit. “But I think our partners are lucid and realistic about the nature of this war and about its consequences, agri-food or beyond,” added Macron, who appreciated the constructive role of the President of Brazil, Luis Inázio ‘Lula’ Da Silva, and his Argentine counterpart, Alberto Fernández, to arrive at the final text. “Our objective now is to maintain the dialogue with these countries.”
Also the president of Chile, Gabriel Boric, called on his Latin American partners to recognize and condemn Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and clearly say that one of the parties has violated international law. “Today it is Ukraine, but tomorrow it could be any of us,” he said in his speech during the plenary session, published by his entourage. During all the negotiations, Cuba and Venezuela had also resisted the text but have settled for the agreed diplomatic formula to express the position of the summit. In fact, it was the delegation from Havana who, given the impossibility of convincing Managua to sign the mention of the “war against Ukraine”, proposed the solution of agreeing on a declaration by the two co-chairs.
read also
