Colombia
This story starts on February 21. The Nicaraguan ruler Daniel Ortega took advantage of the celebration of the anniversary of the death of Augusto César Sandino to attack Colombia.
- “Colombia is a narco-state and not from now on.”
loudly, Ortega used the word “narco-state” and underlined the multiple murders of social leaders that happen in our country.
- “There is not a day when there is no news that a teacher was assassinated in Colombia, that social leaders were assassinated, that guerrillas who disarmed were assassinated, that children were assassinated.”
The narco-state thing is unacceptable. To be frank, it must also be said that the other statements made by the Nicaraguan government official were not entirely false, but one thing is for them to have a piece of the truth and another for them to be said by a foreign head of state as part of an official speech.
That is one hostile expression that cannot go unanswered.
The high-sounding declarations of Daniel Ortega were closely followed in the Casa de Nariño which, by the way, through the powerful chief of staff María Paula Correahas been taking on functions that had always belonged to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Also in the Palacio de San Carlos, official headquarters of the Foreign Ministry, the alarms were activated. Next, the possibilities were evaluated and it was decided that Alfredo Rangel, at that time, Colombian ambassador to Nicaragua, sent a verbal note of protest.
In diplomatic parlance, nothing is quite as it sounds. To begin with, verbal notes are not verbal but written and the protest is firm but always tempered by the courtesy of language. Diplomacy is the art of wrap the stone in gift paper. This was not the case.
You may be interested in:
The note verbale of protest that today reveals The Colonel Report -because until now it had not been published in Nicaragua or Colombia– says the following:
- “On behalf of the Government of Colombia, the undersigned Embassy sincerely greets the Honorable Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Nicaragua.”
Until then the diplomatic correctness was maintained. The message continued in this way: “on the occasion of the offensive statements made yesterday by Daniel Ortega.”
Note that the note he does not call Ortega “the President of the Republic” or “his excellence”only “Daniel Ortega”, and continues:
“(…) offensive statements by Daniel Ortega against the Colombian State and people. These statements are strongly rejected by the Colombian government because they are an infamy that offends the honor of a people that has shown the world its unconditional commitment in the fight for its security and against threats to regional security, always in defense of stability. institutional and democratic values”.
The fiery verbal note with the characteristics of a diatribe continues in these terms that –how to say it?– they are not exactly the most diplomatic:
“For the Colombian government, these delirious offenses they are nothing more than a way to distract international public opinion about the critical situation of human rights suffered by the people and the democratic opposition in Nicaragua, and about the harsh questions surrounding the legitimacy of an elected government as a result of the violation of the most elementary requirements and democratic guarantees.”
As an emotional discharge, it is perfect but it may not be the model of a verbal note that you are going to serve as an example in schools of diplomacy.
I do not want to say that what he says is not true, Ortega is a tyrant, a satrap who has persecuted his political opponents and who has been a predator of the free press. But maybe there are more adequate means to express it than in a diplomatic message of the Colombian Embassy in Managua.
In the angry letter, which seems more designed to cause the crisis than to resolve it, the name of ambassador Alfredo Rangel does not appearjust a timid stamp from the Embassy and an illegible signature.
A couple of days later, the news agencies reported that Colombia had called Ambassador Rangel to Bogotá for consultations.
The truth is a little different. As the internationalist Laura Gil had said in La Línea del Medio, the Colombian representative was practically expelled from Nicaragua.
Ambassador Alfredo Rangel was summoned to the Nicaraguan Foreign Ministry where the Foreign Minister, Denis Moncada, informed him that his credentials had been canceled and gave him a non-extendable term of 72 hours to leave Nicaraguan territory.
Rangel left the Nicaraguan Foreign Ministry with a verbal note addressed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Marta Lucía Ramírez. In the Nicaraguan letter, energetic but calmer than that of Ambassador Rangel, the government of that country maintains that the Colombian communication contravenes diplomatic and international norms and adds: “insolently makes value judgments about the internal affairs of Nicaragua and impudently offends the Nicaraguan State and its people”.
As long as relations exist, it is necessary for someone to be in charge of the diplomatic headquarters, which is why on February 23, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Vice President of the Republic, Marta Lucía Ramírez, issued a resolution saying that, with the authorization of the Presidency of the Republic, Ambassador Rangel was commissioned to come to Bogotá for 25 days to consult with the president and with her on the situation in Nicaragua.
In the same document, appoints the second secretary, Francisco Niño, as chargé d’affaires. That order was until March 25.
When there was one day left for the term to expire, the chancellor and vice president issued a new resolution, commissioning Secretary Niño while a new ambassador is appointed and sworn in.
In that resolution, the The Colombian Foreign Ministry recognizes for the first time that Nicaragua withdrew its credentials to Ambassador Alfredo Rangel.
However, he is apparently still an ambassador. Although without an Embassy, every month Alfredo Rangel receives a salary of $14,100 a month, about 57 million pesos at today’s exchange rate.