No one knows, for sure, if it was a classic case of “broken phone” that was triggered by a phrase taken out of context or if there was something much deeper behind it.
(Also read: US intelligence suggests that Putin would not have ordered Navalni's death)
What is clear is that the publication this week of a report by the United States Department of State on human rights and the statements that followed in both Washington and Bogotá caused the first major diplomatic crisis. between the government of Gustavo Petro and the Democratic administration of Joe Biden.
The first winds of the storm, which for many was one of those that form in a glass of water, began on Monday when the State Department published its 2023 human rights report.
(Also read: United States: annual report on human rights mentions scandals involving President Gustavo Petro)
This is a report that has been published for decades and includes a count of the human rights situation in more than 200 countries in the world, including all those in the Western Hemisphere.
In total, the report consisted of about a thousand pages describing, from the US perspective, the most notable events in each country throughout the year in question.
The chapter corresponding to Colombia had 50 pages dedicated to an infinite number of topics. Among others, public order, extrajudicial murders, religious rights, freedom of the press, respect for minorities and the situation in prisons.
“The Attorney General's Office opened investigations against President Petro's son and brother for allegedly accepting irregular payments, some of which allegedly financed Petro's 2022 campaign.”
“The Attorney General's Office opened investigations against President Petro's son and brother for allegedly accepting irregular payments, some of which allegedly financed Petro's 2022 campaign,” the report said.
Several in Colombia saw in that mention a sign that the United States was paying attention to an issue that has consumed a lot of ink since the accusations against Nicolás Petro, son of the Colombian president, and Juan Fernando Petro, brother of the president, who are now being investigated by the Prosecutor's Office.
(Also read: United States Embassy in Colombia celebrates almost two years of interim: what is happening at the diplomatic headquarters?)
When this newspaper asked about it, sources in the State Department explained that the comment had been included, without making any assessment, and that it was because it is one of the most notable news events of the year in Colombia.
However, internally the issue caused discomfort within the Colombian government, which classified it as an “unfriendly” mention.
During the regular press conference at the State Department, a journalist asked the spokesperson in charge, Vedant Patel, for an official response to the mention.
Patel, who is not in charge of the issue – there is a Human Rights Bureau that had already given a press conference the day before – replied that he did not intend to comment on specific parts of the report. The cookie-cutter response that these types of officials usually give to avoid getting entangled with cases that they are unaware of.
The journalist, however, asked him for his opinion on whether the US gave credibility to the Prosecutor's Office investigation. Patel then responded by saying that everything they included in the report was credible. “That's why it's there,” the spokesperson said.
He was referring, of course, to the specific fact that the Prosecutor's Office had opened an investigation and not to its substance. Something that, in fact, they reiterated in a subsequent press conference.
Despite this, in the Colombian media Patel's words were interpreted as US endorsement of the investigation. Some even went so far as to affirm that Washington had just considered “credible” the entry of hot money into the coffers of the presidential campaign. Additionally, others mistranslated Patel's words by equating the phrase “entries in the human rights report are credible” with “entries of money into the campaign are credible.”
In any case, the interpretation in the media, say authorized sources, caused great discomfort in the Colombian government. And although the United States tried to explain the context, for Petro an event had already occurred that demanded a harsh response.
(You can read: Elections and transition: how viable is María Corina Machado's plan to be president of Venezuela?)
“The logical thing, in these cases, was to seek clarification through existing diplomatic channels. Which in the case of Colombia and the United States are many,” a former diplomat with extensive experience in bilateral relations told this newspaper.
As EL TIEMPO was able to establish, Washington, although a little surprised by the commotion, began working on a text to explain the misunderstanding.
And before the US could comment, the Colombian Foreign Ministry announced that it had sent a note of diplomatic protest to the Biden administration over Patel's statements.
By midday on Wednesday, clarification finally came in the voice of the State Department's own spokesperson: “I don't think there should be any confusion about my comments… What we're talking about here is that in the 2023 Human Rights Report In the Colombia section, there are references to an investigation opened by the Attorney General's Office of Colombia. It is a public fact that the Prosecutor's Office has opened this investigation. The State Department did not announce it. “A matter of public record,” Patel told the media.
Furthermore, he emphasized that the inclusion of any data in that report “does not denote any verification of facts or evaluation by the United States government.”
Although his explanation was clear, there is no doubt that the delay in speaking out for more than 24 hours contributed to the crisis.
By that time, in fact, the controversy had changed direction. By specifically attacking the spokesperson's statements for “deviating from the real content of what was presented in the report,” the Petro government launched a direct attack against the report as such and, in particular, the mention of the president's family.
(Also read: The United States reimposes sanctions against Venezuela for failing to comply with agreements with the opposition)
For Foreign Minister Luis Gilberto Murillo, the US had no reason to evaluate other countries (a criticism similar to what Mexico made and other countries make every year).
Furthermore, he brought up an extremely sensitive issue in Washington's face.
“We have not made any statement about the investigations of President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden. If the United States respects our institutions, it should not do that,” said Murillo, asking the US not to do (mention family members) what I had just done.
Then, before the television cameras, he jokingly shouted, “Where's Hunter Biden?”
As is known, the president's son is being investigated in the US for tax evasion and lying on an application to buy weapons.
But among Democrats – and especially for the president – it is a vendetta by Republicans who seek to weaken him with political objectives. Very sensitive, too, because it happens in the middle of the campaign for the presidential elections where the issue of his son is appearing high.
“For me there is no doubt that Murillo over-limited himself with those words. We must not forget that, in addition, he is still Colombia's ambassador to the United States,” another former American diplomat told this newspaper.
The key question in this entire episode is whether it will go down in history as simply a misunderstanding (or a poorly handled crisis) or whether it will have long-term effects on a relationship that is important to both countries.
Michael Shifter, former president of the Inter-American Dialogue and today an academic at George Washington University, answers that question by first focusing his attention on a possible origin of the dispute.
“I do not believe that there was intention on the part of the US to include that mention in the report. If there is one thing that the Biden administration has demonstrated, it is its willingness to work with Petro even if they are not always on the same page,” says the analyst.
What is clear, he maintains, “is that it was an unfortunate sequence of events that was handled poorly by both parties and that has caused some irritation. I don't think, however, that it will have lasting effects.”
And although Murillo's statements about Biden's son will undoubtedly not go down well inside the White House, Shifter believes that the diplomat has enough credibility in Washington to overcome the impasse without it becoming bigger. Could be. However, in a city where the Petro government does not have many friends – the Republicans tried to exclude all aid for the country this year – a fight with Biden, even on paper, does not seem like the most indicated path.
SERGIO GÓMEZ MASERI – EL TIEMPO Correspondent – Washington
#Human #rights #report #sparks #diplomatic #crisis #Colombia #United #States