On April 21, we will learn, at four in the morning, Colombia time, the ruling of the International Court in The Hague on the conflict with Nicaragua. Let us clarify that it is the first of two pending lawsuits. I understand your limitations in referring to the case, but are you optimistic or pessimistic?
This ruling is not about maritime delimitation or sovereignty, but about the freedoms, rights and duties of each country in the Caribbean. The immediate precedent was the 2012 ruling, in which the Court attributed sovereignty to Colombia over all the islands and keys of the archipelago…
(You may be interested: Do you feel absolutely sure that you can replace the President, if you have to?)
But two islands locked us in…
Yes. Nicaragua made a maritime delimitation, and in doing so, enclaved the islands of Quitasueño and Serrana.
The reaction fell to the Santos government…
In this context, Colombia considered that, as the Constitution says, a treaty is required to modify the limits of the country, and that in turn generated reactions that led to this lawsuit, which will be resolved on April 21 by the International Court of Justice.
A lawsuit for alleged non-compliance by Colombia to the Hague ruling. Our allegation is that if that ruling implied a change in the country’s borders, it is up to us to take its approval to Congress…
Indeed, article 101 of the Constitution says that the limits of Colombia can only be modified by means of a treaty. In December 2012, in compliance with this, and later ratified by a ruling of the Constitutional Court, President Santos and President Ortega met in Mexico on the occasion of the inauguration of Enrique Peña Nieto, and there they publicly announced that some diplomatic channels to try to find a solution.
However, Nicaragua closed the door to this path in such a way that it cannot claim that Colombia is invoking the need for a treaty as a pretext. Clearly Colombia opened the door and it was Nicaragua that closed it.
Under what pretext did Nicaragua close that dialogue?
He never made the reason explicit, but there was a factual coincidence, which was Colombia’s vote against Venezuela in the OAS, when, after the Peace Agreement, there was a rift between the Government of Colombia and Venezuela.
(Besides: Countdown to key ruling at the Court of The Hague)
The Hague Court is aware that we did seek diplomatic channels and that Nicaragua was the one that closed it?
That has been explained to the International Court of Justice. But, something additional has also been raised, which is very important: Colombia has argued that regardless of what the issue of delimitations may be, it is essential to define, in international law, what are the freedoms, rights and duties of each Condition.
It is necessary that Colombia, united, establish a position that strengthens it against Nicaragua
For example: can Colombia continue to have a presence throughout the Caribbean Sea? Can the Raizales continue fishing in their traditional fishing banks? Can Colombia continue carrying out interdiction activities in the fight against drug trafficking? And carry out activities to protect the marine environment, especially the Seaflower reserve? On the other hand: is Nicaragua obliged to respect the rights of Colombia in the areas adjacent to the islands? That is why this ruling is about the freedoms, rights and duties of each country.
But a third lawsuit is underway, regarding an extended continental shelf: Nicaragua asks for much more…
Yes. The first ruling was that of 2012, on delimitation and sovereignty. This new ruling is about Colombia’s alleged violations of Nicaraguan rights. For its part, Colombia countersued Nicaragua saying, you are the one who is ignoring the freedoms and rights of Colombia. And in the third lawsuit, still pending, Nicaragua asks the Court to delimit the continental shelf, on which Nicaragua supposedly has more than 200 nautical miles. It is about the soil and the marine subsoil that Nicaragua claims to have in the Caribbean Sea, but that Colombia has shown that in reality it does not have. But that is not what is going to be defined right now.
This is the first auction of a lawsuit that takes several governments, and that has had several Colombian presidents on top, right?
Yes, exactly.
The one who exploited the previous ruling was the Santos government, which inherited it from behind. He was the one who argued that Colombia could not comply until Congress legally set the new limits. This was the stage of responding to The Hague for non-compliance with the previous ruling…
Exactly. The government of President Duque was responsible for filing the rejoinder, that is, the last document written in the second round of arguments, and the hearings on alleged violations of Nicaraguan rights. The Santos government was responsible for a part of the written stage and the ruling. To that of President Uribe, a part of the written stage and the ruling on preliminary objections. To the government of Andrés Pastrana, prepare the team to respond to the demand to Nicaragua. And so we can keep going back…
(Keep reading: How would the candidates handle the lawsuits at the Hague Court?)
You and Dr. Carlos Gustavo Arrieta replaced the team of former Foreign Minister Julio Londoño and the current ambassador to the UN, Guillermo Fernández…
They did an excellent job. We entered 2014, when Nicaragua presented the two new lawsuits against Colombia: the one for non-compliance and the one for extended continental shelf. Works were organized with international lawyers of the highest reputation and seriousness; there is also an internal team that works very rigorously.
The defense of the country’s highest interests must prevail above anything else.
Work has been carried out in a very coordinated manner with the National Navy, and a Raizal team was formed, given the importance that the archipelago has for this community. For the first time one of their representatives was able to have a direct voice to explain to the Court the meaning that their traditions have for them, linked to the entire archipelago.
In a lawsuit like this, doesn’t it matter that there are no political rights or freedoms in the Nicaraguan regime? Doesn’t your tyrannical government weigh?
Those political factors, at least for us, are important. What’s going on? The Court has to justify its decision in law.
But in that aspect there was a telling fact. One of Nicaragua’s lawyers for more than 40 years, Paul Reichler, did resign, because he considers that under the current Ortega regime, there are no freedoms in Nicaragua, and that he cannot be at the service of such a government…
Indeed, Reichler resigned, with a very harsh letter. His resignation takes away the credibility of the theses that he has been upholding in Nicaragua.
And with respect to the following demand, which is quite delicate, is it an exaggeration to say that its claims reach the nose of Cartagena?
Yes it is exaggerated. In reality, the pending process is not about water, but about the sea bed and subsoil, on the sea floor. And the point, let’s say, the most expansionist in Nicaragua, reaches 350 kilometers from the Colombian coast. In other words, it does not come so close to Cartagena.
(We recommend you consult: In Nicaragua, justice is a farce at the service of the dictatorship)
But, how much more than what Nicaragua has today?
Today it has up to its 200 nautical miles, according to the 2012 ruling, and it wants, in some points, up to 250 more miles of marine soil or subsoil.
In this ruling, neither territory nor maritime waters are at stake. Territorial sea is not at stake. Sovereignty is not at stake.
We all hope that the Court’s ruling will be in law, and as such, it will surely recognize some important issues that in the light of international law deserve a pronouncement. For this reason, this case should not be seen as exclusively linked to the issue of whether Colombia approved a treaty or not.
Because within a State policy, we have adopted decisions that are respectful of international law, and he made it known in his written documents and in the hearings.
In other words, aren’t we going to have a ruling that says, succinctly, that Colombia is not complying?
No, this is going to be a failure where many topics are going to be touched. For example, if Colombia can be present in the area with its Navy. Nicaragua tried to fabricate incidents, and never managed to ask for precautionary measures after ten years.
Precautionary measures to prevent us from navigating our waters?
To prevent us from being present there, and that is thanks to a very professional attitude of the National Navy. Nicaragua also tried to remove Colombia from the area, alleging that it was threatening the use of force, due to the presence of Navy vessels. The Court excluded this claim of Nicaragua from this process. So, we arrived at this ruling having already removed Nicaragua’s claims, which were very serious, from the controversy.
Fortunately, the Court said that we are not a warmongering country, but rather a peaceful one, that does not threaten the use of force. Nicaragua tried to create a transitory regime, while the lawsuit was defined. In other words, he wanted to freeze practically any Colombian activity in the Caribbean. That was earned.
But does that claim have to do with the first demand or with the second?
With the second demand. Nicaragua wanted a provisional regime while the Court decided on the extended platform process. We exclude that from the process in preliminary objections. They are very technical issues, but there, gradually, little by little, progress has been made in the midst of a very complex controversy, which stems from the 2012 ruling.
Since you mention the complexity of this legal scheme, what remains for people, finally, is the question of whether Colombia maintains its territory, its continental shelf, or if it is going to lose a part…
That is the question. It is very important to emphasize that in this ruling, which will be read on April 21, neither territory nor maritime waters are at stake. Territorial sea is not at stake. Sovereignty is not at stake. The rights, freedoms and duties of each country are at stake.
(You may be interested: Nicaraguan lawyer before the ICJ resigns from his position for ‘moral conscience’)
So, why was the previous government’s defense that we didn’t comply with the Court’s ruling until we demarcated the limits again, if we weren’t losing anything?
It is that in the 2012 ruling the Court did make a delimitation, which modified a maritime limit, and that is why the State policy has been to apply the Constitution, in the sense that a treaty is required to modify the limits. And that is why, as I mentioned, there was a diplomatic opening in that sense, in December 2012, which Nicaragua later closed.
On the day of the ruling, will you be able to tell us, with all sincerity, if it went well or badly?
In all sincerity, it is necessary that Colombia, united, establish a position that strengthens it against Nicaragua. The defense of the country’s highest interests must prevail above anything else.
And here comes my last question, about Colombia united. How are we in terms of former presidents? Are you aware of everything? Have they supported our line of defense? Or have they preferred not to participate? In almost all other countries, when it comes to the international situation, and more so if it is threatened, there is a united political front…
We have received very valuable information from former presidents. We have carefully informed them when we have been requested and they have wanted to deepen the information. We have worked with full transparency, to the extent that each former president has wanted, and we have respected that.
In other words, on the day of the ruling, won’t we have a former president, or two, or I don’t know how many –because we don’t have many– saying no, that this was handled very badly?
I don’t know what the former presidents are going to say, impossible to predict. What we have done, the agent Carlos Gustavo Arrieta and I, is to always be available, explain what the defense has consisted of, listen to the positions, address any concerns, even what each former president has considered pertinent. We have acted with total transparency, reporting everything that has been asked of us.
MARIA ISABEL RUEDA
Special for WEATHER