Felipe Solá defends himself against criticism, says he warned Nicaragua against human rights violations

Foreign Minister Felipe Solá has landed in New York for a series of meetings at the The United Nations, but especially for strengthen Argentina’s claim to the Falkland Islands to the body’s Decolonization Council. His visit to the United States coincides with the controversy triggered by the Argentinian position on the situation in Nicaragua, which human rights organizations consider a “shame” and “zigzagging”.

Argentina abstained in a vote at the OAS of a resolution condemning the arrest of Nicaraguan political prisoners and called on the government of Daniel ortega to free them. After the decision was characterized as “disappointing” by the State Department, the Casa Rosada summoned the Ambassador to Managua, Daniel Capitanich, but later did not sign a UN declaration in Geneva on the subject.

In an exclusive dialogue with Bugle At the Manhattan hotel where he is staying, Solá anticipated something new: will meet Secretary of State Anthony Blinken in the coming days – at the meeting of G20 foreign ministers in Italy – and, among others, explain Argentina’s position on Nicaragua.

Solá defended himself against criticism and stressed that the government had sent – before the OAS vote – a letter to the Nicaraguan administration where opposed “absolutely the violation of human rights”. The Minister of Foreign Affairs also says he is convinced that “in terms of human rights, there are no double standards” on the part of Argentina.

What is the purpose of the United Nations presentation on the Malvinas?

Get consensus once again, and on a very special occasion because of the number of decolonization council members who come and the number of countries outside the council who also agree to come. We seek to achieve absolute consensus on our right to continue to ask the UK, to continue to demand that the UK sit down and talk about sovereignty with Argentina.

This is something that has been done for 20 years, what could be different today?

It’s that if we don’t, the UK thinks it has gained more space. This is something we have to do, and if we don’t, the UK will say ‘they slacked off’.

What is Argentina’s position on Nicaragua, which has raised so much controversy these days?

There is a misconception about Argentina’s diplomatic positions in multilateral organizations such as the OAS, the Human Rights Council in Geneva, the United Nations. Then everything is judged for or against the United States or for or against someone and it is not like that. We have no intention of being against the United States, nor against someone when we take a measure. What we do is follow Michelle Bachelet, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and when we follow Bachelet the rod we use it must be the same for any country. In the case of Nicaragua, Bachelet opposed prisons and we opposed prisons. How did we vote on Tuesday at the United Nations at the Human Rights Council in Geneva? We voted for what Bachelet said and against the arrests, what’s the difference? Why don’t we vote with everyone? We didn’t sign because we have a criterion, which is that when Bachelet raises an issue and we agree, we have no problem signing that issue with 20 or 100 countries or whatever. It is a subject that affects many countries. For example, it could be gender or the violation of political rights. But when you consider a country’s human rights analysis, you always vote individually. We do not vote with others. If they lift something from Cambodia, we will give our opinion on Cambodia. We don’t vote with others. We do not admit to judging in a gang, we judge alone.

Was it always like that?

Always with this government. With the previous government no, but with the other government, it was automatic submission. We don’t and this is what i want the united states to understand me. If you understand me (Secretary of State Anthony) Blinken understand me all and Blinken understands more than it seems.

Was this clearly discussed with the United States?

Yeah, we lifted it over with Juan González (Joe Biden’s Special Area Advisor) when he walked in and we had a long personal conversation. We do not personally deal with the Nicaraguan case. But the difference is that I do not consult in advance: we make the decision with the President and if I have an opportunity face to face, I take this opportunity to explain to them and I admit any question from them.

Why did you decide to abstain, along with Mexico, during the OAS vote?

We discussed the resolution to the best of our ability and then the chair said: “It does not convince me, they upset the laws, it does not convince me”. The point is that we had already unilaterally warned our position in a letter to the Nicaraguan Minister of Foreign Affairs, before the vote, and public opinion did not have this letter that we sent them on June 11.

And what did this letter say?

We say everything in Nicaragua and Nicaragua is outraged. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua called me and was made a rage. (The letter reports “deep concern over the electoral reform of May 4 and especially after the arrest of political figures” and warns of “a deterioration of the human rights situation”).

Human rights organizations argue that Argentina’s policy is zigzagged, inconsistent, with Nicaragua.

It’s a simplistic view because instead of seeing what Argentina is doing, they are seeing what the group of countries is doing. Why the group? Why would Romania or Bulgaria know more about Nicaragua than we do?

If the government had dismissed the issue by letter in private to Nicaragua, arresting opponents, what was the specific problem with the vote for liberation at the OAS?

We had problems with a multilateral body I oppose the laws (It refers to the demand that “legislative measures” be promoted to ensure a fair and free electoral process, which the resolution indicated). You can allow criticism, criticism from Human Rights Watch or Amnesty, and let them do whatever they want. But what you cannot do is vote against the laws that a country has because this country has internal constitutional control.

But many question these controls. Is there still a democracy in Nicaragua?

In Nicaragua, there is a tribunal, there is a legislature and there is a government, object when they violate human rights, which is one of the transnational reasons you can go to a other country. It is admittedThey will soon do so also for gender issues and for environmental issues. But the laws that govern the conduct of an election … Where is the international law on how to conduct a standard election? What are the international standards? Let there be opposition, let it be clean, that everyone respect the rules of advertising.

But Ortega arrested almost all of the opposition candidates.

Well, object that. Do not get involved in objecting to the laws. To oppose the existence of an attitude which, beyond the court decision, undermines the possibility of voting for an opposition in a country, in Nicaragua in this case.

One of the arguments made by Ambassador Carlos Raimundi in his presentation was non-interference in the internal affairs of Nicaragua. This has been interpreted as a double standard …

No, because there was not because we had already sent a bilateral letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua where we absolutely opposed the violation of human rights.

How do you respond to the critics who say that the government has a double standard, or standard, that it does not admit to interference in the internal problems in Nicaragua and that it thinks of the situations in Colombia, where there is a government of a different sign?

We are talking about human rights. When it comes to human rights, there are no double standards. We condemn Nicaragua. Because? We first condemned him for the actions of 2018 which left between 200 and 300 dead and we voted in March at the Human Rights Council in Geneva against Nicaragua for Bachelet’s report on that year. . And now we also condemn for the arrests. But we have the right to condemn what we want to condemn, not what others want to condemn

Is this a personal confrontation with OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro?

No, because there is no Almagro in the United Nations and yet we voted alone, and Mexico also voted alone. Because we understand and know what we want to say about Nicaragua and we don’t look at who we vote with but rather who we vote with.

New York, special correspondent.