2023-10-20 07:05:00
The practice of foreign policy is a complex art that thrives on a recurring tension: the balance between domestic needs and international responsibility. The success of a foreign policy lies in the ability to satisfy national interests without neglecting the international agenda. Unforeseeable circumstances and high-impact events tend to test this ability.
The terrorist attack carried out by Hamas in southern Israel on October 7 is one of those events. Each of the Latin American countries reacted according to a combination of factors: their diplomatic custom, the political positions of each Government, the margins of action really available in Middle East affairs and the weight of the Israel-Palestine issue in the internal dynamics.
Almost half a million Chileans of Palestinian origin reside in Chile – mostly Christians – making it the largest Palestinian diaspora outside the Arab world. Three Israelis of Chilean origin were murdered and one hostage is being held by Hamas. In September 2022, President Boric refused to receive the Israeli ambassador Gil Artzyel at the Palacio de la Moneda, in repudiation of the actions of the Israeli army in the Gaza Strip. In Argentina there is a Jewish community of about 180,000 people, making it the fourth diaspora in the world. Seven Argentines died in the attacks and there are eleven hostages in the hands of Hamas. In the early nineties, Argentina experienced two terrorist attacks carried out by actors linked to the Middle East (Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992 and Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina in 1994).
(Also read here: ‘Contracts are maintained’ with Israel, Mindefensa said about military aid’).
The responses of the governments of these two countries to what happened on October 7 were due to their diplomatic tradition, but also in this case they were greatly influenced by the relevance that the two opposing communities in the Middle East have in those countries. In the case of Chile, the Presidency condemned Hamas and emphasized the Palestinian issue. Argentina, in the first communication from the Foreign Ministry within hours of the events, basically focused on condemning Hamas and expressing solidarity with the Israeli people.
President Gustavo Petro with the ambassadors of Palestine and Israel.
“It was reckless to try to get involved with a high profile in a conflict over which Colombia does not control any variable.”
In Colombia there are about 100,000 Palestinians of different generations (although there is no official census) and about 2,000 Jews (according to Jewish Population of the World). Two Colombians died in the Hamas attack. Free of the political weight that the Jewish and Palestinian communities have in the Southern Cone and with the aggravating factor that two Colombian nationals died, the Government could have condemned the terrorist act and shown greater empathy specifically with Israeli civil society. Thus he could escape from the bitter disputes between Palestinians and Israelis in the Middle East and focus on the event itself on that Saturday. Later, as the days went by, he could have advanced in critical considerations regarding the way in which Israel’s retaliation is taking place, ignoring the respect of the civilians of Gaza. Furthermore, today I could insist on the role of the International Court of Justice in the face of war crimes committed by Israelis and Palestinians.
(Also read here: ‘I said goodbye to my family’: Father ‘Chucho’ reveals the difficult episode he experienced in Israel’).
Petro’s statements were candid and reckless. It was illusory to presume that the Colombian President’s statements could have an impact, even symbolic, on the courses of action of the main protagonists in the Middle East. It was also naive to think that these statements would not have the potential to affect future relations with the United States, Israel’s main ally, on the other hand, contribute to greater protection of the Palestinians and their cause. Equally naive was the belief that Latin America would immediately show solidarity with the Colombian position. Perhaps there was an expectation of some benefit: another naivety. It was reckless to try to get involved with a high profile in a conflict over which Colombia does not control any variable. The recklessness extends to putting at risk the important degree of global recognition achieved by himself on issues such as climate change, the energy transition and drug policies. It was also imprudent to have turned the Israel-Palestine issue into a domestic political issue, since this does not help to forge the necessary agreements required by its ambitious reform agenda in the country.
The key to redirecting the relationship between Colombia and Israel is in Bogotá. The main objective is to de-escalate tensions that, without a doubt, will affect Colombia more than Israel. There are a set of actions that can be taken. The first, reduce the number of public interventions by the Government. Seek, with discretion, to send a constructive message to the Government of Israel. Limit diplomatic statements to the scope of the parties’ full respect for international law and international humanitarian law. Avoid Twitter – which is not a strategy – and contribute to a policy that reduces the polarization generated by extremists and the multiplication of civilian victims. Strive for the support of joint initiatives with peers in the area and at a global level in the matter instead of unilateral ideas or proposals. Colombia cannot, nor should it, be left alone and isolated when it comes to its position towards the Middle East.
With dignity and creativity, President Petro can still amend a situation that he should have avoided. At the end of the day, the ‘dictum’ of a good foreign policy is one that strengthens national interests, contributes to social well-being and guarantees external autonomy.
*Vice Chancellor of the Torcuato Di Tella University (Buenos Aires, Argentina).
#ideas #repair #relationship #Colombia #Israel #International