The patriotic euphoria in San Andrés was mixed with our persistent concern for the islands and for expectations of the possible beginning of the end of the dispute of more than 40 years with Nicaragua.
The first thing to note about the President’s visit is the acceptance of the call for dialogue made by Daniel Ortega and the turn of the legal confrontation towards a negotiation which, as welcome as it is, raises some concern.
Seen by the Presidency as a stimulus for dialogue and the formula to soften national and local concerns due to the significant loss of water in 2012, Recovering traditional artisanal and subsistence fishing rights in lost areas is, however, a poor consolidation prize and a double-edged sword.
Because it could imply giving up fishing rights in rich areas and traditional in our keys in exchange for acquiring them in areas near Meridian 82 that are overexploited and less traditional for artisanal raizal fishing if Nicaragua insists on reciprocity.
This makes dialogue and coordination between the islands with the Foreign Ministry and other national institutions and between the islands and Nicaragua even more urgent and necessary. We must ensure that we are heard and then remain vigilant to prevent improvisations to ensure that island interests are well represented and defended.
(Also read: Colombia’s triumph in The Hague closes decades of litigation with Nicaragua)
Only in this way will it be avoided that the dialogue becomes another magnet for discontent, that the national priority does not define the goals and that there is a review of the real circumstances with a favorable prediction for the islands, of the consequences.
The second is the presidential intention to give more strength to the ethnic-raiz diplomacy in the dialogue process, something that should not become a mechanism of coercion and appeasement but rather a means for the iron defense of our interests. Because it occurs precisely in a period not only of marked ethnic division and confusion in relation to the raizal representation, it forces an integral dialogue with the community.
And the third are the things that the President did not mention but that concern us. His speech was a memorial of grievances but not the expected road map of the islands towards the future.
(You can read: ‘Nicaragua hopes that Colombia recognizes the value of the sentences’: Rosario Murillo)
His speech was a memorial of grievances but not the expected road map
We wanted to know what will be done for the islands. We anticipated something by statements given after the recent ruling when he said he hoped to ‘close the border dispute and focus on bringing sustainable development’ to the archipelago.’
Petro reiterates the association that the Presidents have made of The Hague with progress for the islands, but he went as far as that. This has not helped us progress.
Although it is still hopeful, the visit left a bittersweet feeling and an emptiness full of expectations. Because beyond the celebration and patriotic symbolism of the July 20 visit and the possible relaxation of tensions with Nicaragua, the problems of the islands are far from being resolved. But we depend on national institutions to rescue them from the neglect in which they have been subjected by local government management.
More clarity and rigor with Nicaragua
There is also no clarity regarding the most important aspect of the visit, the dialogue with Nicaragua. Ortega’s main intention is for Colombia to comply with the 2012 ruling and he has said that he already controls what was won in that ruling, something that the Colombian government has not denied.
If that statement is true, Colombia could start from a very disadvantageous and weak position and Nicaragua would have an ‘upper hand’, which would further harm the Raizal and island interests.
The advantages in a possible negotiation granted by the recent and only ruling that did not come with a loss for Colombia would be thrown away, a relative victory according to the President himself, who in this way undoubtedly sought to facilitate dialogue by toning down the triumphalist spirit that unleashed that symbolic achievement in The Hague, which By the way, it was something totally inconsequential in the context of what was lost in 2012.
(Keep reading: ‘They treat me like a dog’: Colombian mercenaries denounce humiliation in Ukraine)
And with the emphasis on fishing rights, one could also be negotiating something insignificant and dangerous for the islands. It is important to put this in its real and historical context and for this it is worth remembering that Colombia was unable to demonstrate before the judges in The Hague that significant artisanal fishing was carried out in those lost areas. Industrial fishing, yes, but not artisanal, which has mostly been carried out in our keys.
Therefore, it is advisable to lower the weight and expectations in the dialogue on fishing rights in order to protect our rich fishing areas around those keys, and instead concentrate on other more transcendental, relevant and less risky issues.
The main one, in the words of our Chancellor, is ‘refine’ 2012 ruling to tighten boundaries or create common management areas (similar to the one we have with Jamaica) to somehow recover, even if symbolic with practical effects, the continuity and territorial integrity of the archipelago that was lost in 2012.
(Also: El Salvador: this is how the ‘drop by drop’ network to which Colombians belonged operated)
The government and national institutions must dialogue and agree with the islands to ensure that our interests are respected
This would make it easier for local fishermen to access our 4 northern keys, rich in fishing, which were separated from the archipelago by Nicaraguan waters and where historically they have fished more than in the lost areas. Colombia should also focus on consolidating a protection mechanism for the Seaflower reserve that we now share with Nicaragua.
The emphasis of the dialogue must be the benefit of the islands, which must play a fundamental role at any negotiating table. But before that the government and national institutions must dialogue and agree with the islands to ensure that our interests are respected, and then allow the islands to also dialogue with Nicaragua. Sovereignty is not only with parades: it is also with development, dialogue and protection of what is ours.
Harold Bush Howard
Raizal political scientist and historian
This is how the Hague ruling was lived
#San #Andrés #dialogue #Nicaragua #Colombia #Opinion