Estimated reading time: 2 min 35secs

On Friday 21, the TIAR countries expressed repudiation at the attacks while the NATO countries had placed their military bases at US disposal. A series of events in the last week have defined the situation that had been unleashed since Tuesday 11.

• On the same that –September 19- that the OAS called for a Hemispheric meeting to make a decision toward the attacks, French President Jacques Chirac was in Washington.
• On September 19, the German Lower House –Bundestag- and the Japanese Prime Minister approved military support to the United States in an eventual counter-terrorist attack.
• A day before the OAS declaration –September 20- British Prime Minister Tony Blair met with the US President and was present in a joint session of both US Houses, where President Bush gave a speech –according to surveys- supported by 90% of the people of that country.
• In the same week, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero –Secretary General of the Partido Socialista Obrero Español (PSOE) – suggested President Aznar to travel to Washington with the same purposes.
• On Friday 21 the European Union fifteen member countries hardened their anti-terrorist declaration signing in Brussels a declaration later adhered to by another 13 candidate countries to join the EU. Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt reported this week he will be traveling to Washington to give President Bush the document on behalf of the 28 countries’.
• Until Sunday 23 at night, no Head of Government of Latin American nations had traveled to the United States.

The argument that the Heads of State of the North Atlantic countries are recommending president Bush to act cautiously in a counter-attack as proposed by many other Latin American nations, overlooks an essential aspect that has little to do with the big strategy: advice may only be given by the friends who help victims on the night of the attack.

There is a huge difference between the immediate and solidary gesture and the commitment declared ten years later. These days and in the future, the United States expect only gestures.

It seems obvious that no Latin American country will be called to dispatch arms, technology or intelligence to strengthen the US military-logistics apparatus. Stating that ‘we have not been requested military support’ is an incomprehensible phrase.

It seems Latin American political leaders are not considering one of the most clear lessons of history: big changes are almost always caused by those who do not have military force. If the contrary were to be true, the victory of the Third State in the French Revolution could not be explained or the success of colonies in all independence wars of countries in the Americas or the movement to power generated by Lenin and Trosky in 1917. Latin American countries have no top-notch weapons or considerable economy but may have imagination.

The September 11 terrorist attack has prompted a standstill in the mind of Latin American leaders. They wonder, who knows how attacks affect us?. None of them is acting under another thought: ‘this is a time for us to take a certain direction’. Direction has to do with the purpose and its search does not depend on having state-of-the-art jets.

*Researcher of Centro de Estudios para la Nueva Mayoría