[Welcome from Dr. John Hughes, former H.M. ambassador to
Venezuela]:
It is a pleasure to welcome you all here, on behalf of Canning House, to this important event discussing and debating the role Great Britain
played in the independence of the Bolivarian Republics two hundred years ago. Canning
House is the most appropriate venue for this type of discussion, as it was
Foreign Secretary George Canning MP would famously ‘called the new world into
existence’ when he declared Britain’s recognition of the South American
republics. I hand now you over to the organiser of today's event, Dr. Matthew Brown of the University of Bristol.
[Matthew Brown, MB]:
Thank you
all for coming, it is wonderful to see so many people here. I would like to
thank Canning House for hosting us, and the University of Bristol Engagement
and Impact Development Fund, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, without
whose support this event could not have taken place. The event has two parts.
In the first, which is about to begin, we have three historians who will
present their cutting-edge research on this subject. In the second, ambassadors
and public historians will lead us all in a round-table discussion of how we
might commemorate these events and individuals of two centuries ago.
When I
first thought of organising this event, three names came immediately to mind as
to the best historians working on this subject. I am delighted that they were
all able to travel, from Canada, Venezuela and Colombia respectively, to join
us today. They are Dr Karen Racine, of the University of Guelph, Dr. Edgardo
Mondolfi Gudat of the Universidad Metropolitana in Caracas, and Dr Daniel
Gutierrez Ardila of the Universidad Externado de Colombia, in Bogota.
Before handing over to them, however, I will first talk a little about the state of research on the topic of Britain’s involvement in the Independence-period in Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador.
[I
have already posted my paper, 'The Wreck of the Indian' on this blog – see 'The Wreck of the Indian, December 1817' ].
MB] I now have the pleasure to hand you over
to Dr Karen Racine
Spanish Americans in
London in the Independence-Era
[Karen Racine]:
Although the French and American
Revolutions are reflexively assumed to be the inspiration for Spanish American
independence movements, a stronger case can be made for the argument that the
region’s patriot leaders derived their most important cultural model, their
animating energy, and their major material support from Great Britain. Between
the years 1808-1830, over seventy independence-era leaders of the first rank
lived and worked together in London, including:
Francisco de Miranda, Bernardo
O’Higgins, Simón Bolívar, Andrés Bello, José de San Martín, Fray Servando
Teresa de Mier, Lucas Alamán, Agustín de Iturbide, Bernardino Rivadavia, Manuel
Belgrano, Vicente Rocafuerte, Juan Germán Roscio, Mariano Montilla, Francisco
de Paula Santander, Antonio José de Irisarri, youthful members of the Aycinena
and García Granados families of Guatemala, José de la Riva Agüero, Bernardo
Monteagudo, José Joaquín de Olmedo, and Mariano Egaña.
Other
important patriot leaders, including José Cecilio del Valle, Juan Egaña and
Carlos María Bustamante remained in America but sent their works to be
published in London and carried on a purposeful correspondence with famous
British figures such as abolitionist William Wilberforce, prison reformer
Elizabeth Fry, utilitarian philosophers Jeremy Bentham and James Mill,
scientist Humphrey Davy and vaccination proponent Edward Jenner. These
conscious, practical, personal choices tell us much about the kind of cultural
model the Spanish American independence leaders admired, and the sorts of
future countries they wanted to cultivate for themselves.
[Note –
because Dr Racine’s paper was extracted from her forthcoming book Spanish
Americans in London, we are unable to publish the text here. Sorry!]
[MB] Thank you. I am now delighted to hand over
the lectern to Dr Edgardo Mondolfi, who will talk to you on the subject of the
Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819.
[Edgardo Mondolfi]:
NE EXEUNT REGNO (“No one is entitled
to leave the realm”): Some observations regarding the “Enlistment Act”
of 1819 passed by Parliament in order to avoid the recruitment of British
volunteers to the Spanish Main
What did the “Enlistment Act” of 1819 mean in order
to restrain the flow of British volunteers to Spanish America? In view of the
number of recruits that were able to cross the Atlantic since late 1817, would
such provision have any effect at all? Would it be truly binding or on the
contrary, as some Historians argue, it consisted on a “vague”, “late” and
“toothless” piece of legislation promoted by the British Government? In
practical terms, was such Law able to impose effective restrains on British
subjects willing to join forces with the Spanish American
Insurgents? These are the kind of
questions posed by this Paper which aims to explore what the clandestine
passage overseas meant in view of the existing writ known traditionally
as “Ne exeunt regno”. According to such writ, no man was in
liberty to put to sea at his pleasure against the King´s Charters, much less if
the aim was to participate in an irregular warfare which was taking place in
the dominions of an allied nation as Spain was still meant to be well beyond
the downfall of Napoleon in 1815. So far as such recruitment
was being implemented in British soil, the Enlistment Act must be seen, without
doubt, as an additional effort by the British Government to avoid further
breaches of its alliance with Ferdinand VII’s regime.
However, the stretch
imposed by the ancient Laws of the Realm was the occasion for repeated demands
by some members of the House of Commons to repeal Lord Liverpool’s intention to
reinforce such a writ by passing a Bill known as the “Enlistment Act” aimed at
putting an end to the clandestine recruitment of British subjects bound for
South America.
[Note – As Dr Mondolfi’s paper is currently
under review for publication in an academic journal, we can’t publish the full
text here yet. Sorry!]
[MB] Thanks Edgardo. Finally, I now give you
Daniel Gutiérrez Ardila (who spoke in
Spanish; translation by Aris da Silva and Ana Suarez Vidal of the University of Bristol).
[Daniel Gútierrez Ardila]:
Leandro
Miranda: publicist and diplomat (1824-1832)
One of the sons of the revolutionary
Francisco de Miranda served the Republic of Colombia as journalist and
diplomat. Aa a publicist, he founded and assured for three years (1821-1827)
the edition of El
Constitucional, one of the best weekly magazines of its time. Subsequently,
between the month of September 1830 and the first days of 1832, Leandro Miranda
worked as the representative of the Colombian government in London.
His mission coincided with the death
rattles and the disintegration of the Republic, so it can be said that he had the
fortune to personify a dying political entity. As the mission was also
developed in the middle of the revolutionary moment that shook Europe and put
an end to the Restoration period, Miranda found himself in the paradoxical position
of being a republican diplomat that witnessed at the same time the end of the
Holy Alliance and the fading of his own country. The rest of my paper will
analyze these two facets of the public life of Leandro Miranda regarding the
Republic of Colombia, making the effort to establish links that allow the
better understanding of the agony and death of such State.
[Note –
you’ve guessed it. As Dr. Gutierrez’s paper is currently under review for
publication in an academic journal, we can’t publish the full text here.
Sorry!]
Debate after the First Session
[MB] Thank you to all three of you. We now have half an hour for questions and comments from the floor.
[Questionner 1]: asked if the government could
have stopped the half-pay of mercenaries to stop them going. [A note here on the transcription: as our audio recording didn’t capture the exact words of each questioner in the hall, I have provided a passive transcription based on my extensive notes. I have identified questioners where I have been able. If, upon reading this, you recognise that I have mis-represented you, please let me know and I will amend! If you recognise your question, and want me to insert you name, please let me know too! Thanks, MB]
[MB]: Yes, this did happen, though it could
take years and years so it was not a great deterrent. But it did cause a lot of
strife for Thomas Manby, who settled in Bogota.
[Questionner 2]: asked if the British
government in the 1810s and 1820s had been duplicitous, as so ever in British
history, by using the Foreign Enlistment Act to maintain the alliance with
Spain? He observed that the Royal Navy was very active in the region, and noted
that Bolivar received helped from the Royal Navy. He asked what help did other
British representatives provide.
[EMG]: responded that no, Britain was careful
and pragmatic, but not duplicitous. The Foreign Enlistment Act was a genuine
attempt to support its Spanish ally.
[Questionner 3]: asked Karen Racine to
elaborate more on the borrowing of ideals and institutions that she had
discussed in her paper. She suggested that these encounters, rather than the
battles or supposed ‘adventurers’ beloved of military history, might be more
worthy of celebration and commemoration.
[Questionner 4]: asked whether there were more
British subjects (especially Irishmen) on the Spanish, Royalist side in the
wars of independence, such as the case of an Arbuthnot who became known as
Albernoz. He noted some parallels with the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s,
where recent scholarship has uncovered lots of Irish involvement on the
Nationalist side.
[Dr Graciela Rogers, University of Oxford]
interjected from the floor, noting that she has studied the British subjects
who fought for Spain, drawing links with veterans of the Peninsular War. She
suggested that Arburthnot was not a representative case, and argued that
looking at the wider Atlantic and transnational context can help to understand
the phenomenon. [Her doctoral thesis is soon to be published as British Liberators in the Age of Napoleon:
British Volunteers under the Spanish Flag in the Peninsular War]
[Questionner 5]: asked whether some of the
ideas of independence were in some degree British, or if other European
cultures were more important?
[KR] responded saying that yes, there were a
mixture of influences at play, though as she argued in the Hispanic American Historical Review, the British was the most
important.[2]
Questionner 6 [Natalia Sobrevilla Perea]:
asked Daniel Gutiérrez if Leandro Miranda was a hybrid character with multiple
identities? And, what happened next to him after the end of Gran Colombia?
[DG] responded saying that yes, precisely,
Leandro Miranda was a hybrid character, acting as a channel both ways between
British and Colombian cultures. He later returned to Venezuela, where he was
one of the first ever bank directors. Very little information survives relating
to him, so he would be a frustrating character of whom to write a biography.
[Questionner 7] [Catherine Davies]: noted that
it was important to remember that British investment in the Royal Navy and in
the Peninsular War was great. Britain was not being duplicitous at all, rather
it was seeking to protect those interests and resources. She reminded us of the
importance of British supplying of Cadiz when it was under siege from the
French, and the role of Wellington and his forces in the Spanish war of
independence. She cautioned other speakers against being too hard on British
policy.
She reminded us that during 1820-23 there was a Liberal government in
Spain, which Britain was keen to support, and yet after 1823 Britain did not
intervene in Spain, despite all the exiles it received in London from both
Spain and Spanish America. Britain was in a bit of a quandary, but it is
inaccurate to describe it as being duplicitous.
[Questionner 8]: asked about the role of
freemasons, in addition to the links between British and Latin American
institutions and press in the independence-era, as described in both Karen
Racine and Daniel Gutierrez’s paper.
[DG] responded that archival materials are
hard to come by for the independence-era, but it seems clear from the 1840s
that Leandro Miranda was a freemason.
[KR] responded that she had researched in the
Freemasons’ Hall archive, and although there are some papers, there is not
enough evidence to suggest that freemasonry was of more than cultural, leisure
value, in this period.
[MB] thanked everyone for their papers and
questions, and looked forward to the next session, when the subject would be
opened out from the historical material, to present-day relations.
[2]
Karen Racine, ‘This England, This Now’: British Cultural Influence in Spanish
America in the Independence-Era’, Hispanic
American Historical Review, 2010, http://hahr.dukejournals.org/content/90/3/423.abstract.
Round-table Panel Discussion, 4pm
[Matthew
Brown, chairing]:
With this round-table discussion I hope
that we can provide an opportunity for ideas to
surface that might take flight over the next few years, as we move towards the
bicentenaries of the 1819 Battle of Boyacá (in Colombia), the 1821 Battle of
Carabobo (in Venezuela), and the 1822 Battle of Pichincha (in Ecuador). All
those battles featured the participation of important British and Irish figures
on the winning sides. Do we/they need more statues, roads named after them or
commemorative plaques? Or should we be thinking in terms of continuing the
impressive waves of historical studies that have recently emerged, of
investigating this historical encounter in greater depth, curating new
exhibitions and commissioning public lectures? Or perhaps great cultural
events, popular celebrations, or military march-pasts? Is there a role for
battlefield tourism, or a space for shared research or cultural projects? Or
would contemporary political or economic gestures be a more fitting
commemoration of the efforts and sacrifices of
volunteers/mercenaries/adventurers two centuries ago?
We have four
extremely distinguished speakers, who I am delighted to introduce to you in
turn. Professor Inés Quintero of the Universidad Central de Venezuela, His
Excellency Mauricio Rodríguez Múnera, ambassador of the Republic of Colombia to
the UK, His Excellency Samuel Moncada, ambassador of the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela to the UK, and Dr Natalia Sobrevilla Perea, of the University of
Kent. I have asked each of them to talk for a maximum of ten minutes on the subject
of Britain’s influence in the independence of the Bolivarian Republics, after
which we will have around an hour for comments and observations from the floor.
[Inés Quintero]:
One week before
his death, 10 December 1830, Simon Bolivar, wrote his will. In the ninth clause
established what would be the destiny of all his documents: “I order to burn
the documents that are held by Mr. Pavageau”.
What documents
was Simon Bolivar talking about? It was, no more no less, his personal archive:
all the documents that, since the first years of his involvement in the
Independence, he had accumulated for two decades.
All these
documents, hundreds of thousands of originals, organized and kept in 10 chests,
were deposited in Cartagena in hands of the French merchant Juan Bautista
Pavageau, who had instructions from Bolivar to send them over to Paris, when he
had fixed residence in that city, the place where he thought about retiring for
the rest of his days.
Simon Bolivar
had to be in a special emotional state to take this decision. The murder of
Antonio Jose de Sucre in June 1830 had been a fatal blow. The open and
generalized reaction against his presence in the leadership of the Colombian
government, the reaction to his dictatorship, the end of his ambitions for
political predominance in the different parts of the Republic of Colombia by
the press, in pamphlets and wall posters, and finally, the definitive
liquidation of the unity of Gran Colombia and his resignation from power, all
definitely influenced his emotional state. He was alone, condemned, insulted
and loathed by his own country. In the middle of all that horror, he decided to
condemn to flames the only thing that remained of his public life: his
documents, the whole archive.
Luckily, also
in his last will, he named his executors: his executors were the ones that took
the decision of ignoring the ninth clause of the will, ordering the French merchant
Pavageau to send the 10 chests from Cartagena to Jamaica to avoid its
disappearance or destruction. When the documents arrived in Jamaica, the Irish
General Daniel Florencio O’Leary would have a leading role in the preservation,
extension and creation of the initial core of what we nowadays know as the Archivo
del Libertador. O’Leary was an aide-de-camp and a close collaborator of
Simon Bolivar since he arrived to Venezuela en 1818; to the point that years
before Bolivar’s death he was given the task of writing Bolivar’s biography. So
when they received the chests with the documents of El Libertador, O’Leary
himself and Juan Francisco Martin, one of the executors, decided to divide the
archive in three parts: one of the parts was kept by the Irish General with the
documents corresponding to the years 1819-1839, with the aim of completing the
deceased’s order.
Another part
was sent to Pedro Briceño Mendez, also a close collaborator of Bolivar, and
married to one of Bolivar’s nieces; and the third part remained with Juan
Francisco Martin.
O’Leary, while
he continued with his occupations, he kept this important documentary legacy,
which he is responsible of enriching, extending and organizing until the day of
his death in 1854. O’Leary himself wrote to Bolivar’s allies and closest
collaborators so that they would send documents, relations, correspondence; he
even visited the Spanish General Pablo Morillo, who gave him documentation that
he had about the war. He also wrote an extensive description of the events of
the Independence and Bolivar’s involvement in the development of the war. When
he died, this important documentary collection remained in Bogota, in hands of
his eldest son Simon Bolivar O’Leary.
During the
second mandate of Antonio Guzman Blanco, in the late nineteenth century, O’Leary’s
eldest son, named Simon Bolivar O’Leary, wrote a letter to President Guzman
Blanco, dated 16 August 1879, offering the Venezuelan State his father’s
archive. Then, he travelled to Venezuela with a bulky archive. He translated
the text of O’Leary’s narration, that was mainly written in English and he also
did the proof reading and controlled the edition that started to be printed in
the year 1879 and concluded the printing of the 32 volumes nine years later, in
1888 with the title Memorias del general O’Leary. They were erroneously
named as there are only two volumes of memorias (memories)
called Narraciones, and another volume that corresponds to the
Appendix, the rest of the collection concerns the documents of the Libertador.
In 1883,
precisely, on the first centenary of Bolivar’s birth, an important impasse
happened. The President Guzman ordered the incineration of the printed sheets
of the third volume of the Appendix of the Narración de O’Leary because
it contained information that, according to him, affected the memory of the
Father of the nation. That volume didn’t see the light, at that time, due to
the intemperance and arbitrariness of the so-called Ilustre Americano. But, as this happened when the Libertador was
already dead, those who were responsible for burning the papers did not
complete the task adequately, and in 1914, they were found in Valencia,
concluding, at that time, the editing process of the censured volume by Guzman.
However,
O’Leary’s originals, since 1883, because of an agreement between the
descendants and Guzman’s government, remained in the possession of the
Venezuelan State, starting the foundations of what, subsequently, would be the
Archivo del Libertador. The other sections, after different, long and eventful journeys,
finally, arrived in Venezuela in different times during the twentieth century
and they were put together with the documents that the Irish General had,
zealously, kept.
This group of
documents gathered the epistolary exchange sustained by Bolivar with allies and
enemies; with Pablo Morillo, Jose Antonio Paez, Francisco de Paula Santander,
Antonio Jose de Sucre, Fernando Peñalver, Juan German Roscio, Rafael Revenga;
and many other military and civilian figures of the Independence process, not
only from Venezuela and Nueva Granada, but also from the provinces of Rio de la
Plata, Peru, Charcas, Quito, Guayaquil and other parts of the world as England,
United States and France.
The collection
includes official documents of different kinds, manifestos, proclamations,
edicts, forms and manuscripts, as for example: El reglamento electoral para la
reunión del Congreso en Angostura (the electoral regulation for the meeting of
the Angostura’s Congress); el tratado de Armisticio firmado en 1820 (the
Armistice Treaty signed in 1820); los bandos de Morillo (Morillo’s edicts), la
ley de Secuestro de 1819 (the Kidnapping Law of 1819); notices of war, reports,
speeches, the succinct summary of his biography about Antonio José de Sucre, and
more.
All types of
official documents, then, but also personal, private letters, affectionate,
familiar, loving, from women… The letters sent to Manuela Saenz, and the ones
from Manuela to him; the letters from other women such as the ones from
Garaicoa de Guayaquil; or the letters that he and his sister Maria Antonia
Bolivar wrote to each other; about family matters, properties. Or, the
valuation files of some of his confiscated belongings by the authorities of the
monarchy in 1816…
Countless
documents, in which had been registered, the political details, military,
administrative of the historical process which he was singular and fundamental
figure, and where the most dissimilar documentary and testimonial evidences of
the political atmosphere of that time, economic circumstances, social routines,
distressed circumstances, intrigues, disagreements, confrontations, passions,
hopes and affection were found.
All this
documentation, after going back to Venezuela, was held by the Academia Nacional
de la Historia (ANH), guarded by Vicente Lecuna, at first, then it was sent to
La Casa Natal del Libertador. In 1997 all this documentation was declared by
the UNESCO in the Registro de la Memoria del Mundo. Two years later, the
documents were relocated to the ANH, an institution that was in charge of its
restoration and conservation until, a controversial presidential decree ordered
its transfer to the Archivo General de la Nacion in 2010, in the framework of
the bicentenary commemorations (13 April 2010, Decree Number 7375) [1]
The
bicentenaries, were without any doubt, the right occasion, not only for
meetings like today’s to happen, in which we can discuss the presence of the
British legionnaires in our Independence; a topic that has different views,
encountered, and for sure, they will always exist, as many other aspects of our
stories that, in the framework of the commemorations permitted renewed views,
open debates, broadening of prospects, restorations of testimonies, exchange of
opinions. At the same time, the bicentenaries have been favorable occasions for
the patriotic reiterations, the repetition of commonplaces, eulogy of the
heroes and the disparagement of enemies, for the elaboration of political
speeches, ideological, as seen in the official rhetoric.
Regarding the
Archivo del Libertador, just reviewed, we have to point out that it was
precisely, an Irish General, one of the founders of such a great and
unavoidable documentary collection, and secondly, celebrate that precisely, in
the framework of the bicentenaries commemorations on the initiative of the
Academia Nacional de la Historia and of the Instituto de Investigaciones
Históricas of the University of Simon Bolivar, we digitalized and completely
automated this important documentary collection: more than 99,500 images, which
can be consulted, in the original, through a search system that facilitates its
localization and revision.
For the first
time in history, the Archivo del Libertador, can be consulted, without charge,
in the websites of la Academia Nacional de Historia de Venezuela- and the
Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas Bolivarium of the
University Simon Bolivar – and on la página web de la Universidad Simón Bolívar.
Although the
initiative of the ANH and the Bolivarium coincided with the
commemoration of the first bicentenary, in the 5 July 1811, its relevance goes
beyond the commemorative milestone, with attention to the historical magnitude
of this huge effort that allowed to maintain forever, the richest and most
important originals of the documentary heritage about the life and trajectory
of Simon Bolivar and the processes of independence in Latin America
guaranteeing its protection and preservation of any mutilation, disappearance
or intervention. This is the best gift that we could give to mankind, from
Venezuela, in its 200 years of republican life.
[Aplausos]
That the
universal thought of Simon Bolivar “El Libertador y de “Generalísimo” Francisco
de Miranda, precursors of our Independence, represent the ideological base of
the Bolivarian Revolution, and as a consequence, its archive contains the
fundamental documentation of its revolutionary legacy that liberates the
nations of America and the World.
CONSIDERING
That the
documents and the historical archives of the Nations, must be opened to the
government’s institutions that truly develop its functions with the aim of
rescuing the historical memory of the fights for the Venezuelan freedom, which
had been hidden by public factors against the revolutionary process.
CONSIDERING
That is the
obligation of the Revolutionary Government to guarantee to protection, the
preservation, the enrichment and restoration of the cultural heritage, as well
as, the historical memory of the Nation, bearing in mind that it is of public
use to keep safe, to preserve and to study the documents and historical
archives of the Republic.
It has been
ordered to transfer it to the Archivo General de la Nacion.
[MB]: Thank you Ines. [Thanks also to my University of Bristol colleagues Aris da Silva and Ana Suarez Vidal, who provided the English translation].
We now pass over to Ambassador Rodriguez.
Good afternoon.
Dear Dr Brown, thank you very much for your kind invitation to this interesting
seminar at Canning House. The history of the role of Great Britain in the
independence wars in northern South America is fascinating. In recent years I
have been reading more and more about the participation of thousands of British
men in the battles for freedom which took place in Colombia and I am
particularly impressed in the key role played by Colonel James Rooke.
Two years
ago, as part of our commemoration of the bicentenary of Colombia’s independence
in the United Kingdom, the Colombian embassy requested five distinguished British
scholars, including Dr Brown, to write essays with their views in this role.
You have received or you will receive a copy of this document at the end of
today’s seminar copy of this document, Great Britain and the Independence of Colombia.
But since I am not an expert in these historical matters, I agreed with Dr Brown
that I will not talk about the past of the relations between Great Britain and Colombia.
Instead I will briefly share with you my opinions about the nature of what I
believe should be the future of these relations. A future that we have been
building with the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, other ministries in
parliament, the business and financial communities, scientific, academic and
cultural institutions through a wonderful teamwork that is already producing
very good results.
What does Colombia need? What do we want from
the UK? And what can Colombia offer to the UK?
In summary, these are the top
five concrete contributions that we expect from Great Britain:
First, political support to the
social prosperity agenda of Colombia with particular emphasis on the well being
of the most deprived communities in my country, which includes the very
important peace process that was officially launched by President Santos last night. for which Prime Minister David Cameron gave great support in a statement
released this morning.
Second, the ratification of the
free trade agreement between the European Union and Colombia that we hope will
be approved by the European parliament late next month and then by the British
parliament. This treaty which I have studied extensively in the past few years will benefit the economies of both nations. They are excellent
opportunities for large, medium and small enterprises on both sides of the Atlantic
to increase substantially the trade and investment flows. We have the common
objective to double trade between our countries in the next three years and I
personally have no doubt that we will surpass this goal.
Third, that deepening and
diversification of the relations between British and Colombian academia. I am
convinced that British universities such as the University of Bristol are the
best in the world and I want to link more and more professors, researchers,
students and managers with their Colombian counterparts so that in my country
we can increase as soon and as much as possible the quality of our higher
education.
Fourth, your technical know-how
and experience to strengthen our young and weak institutions in particular in
the areas of justice, health, infrastructure and innovation.
And fifth, British investment. The
UK is already the second largest foreign investor in Colombia with a stock of
$20 billion but there is plenty of room in many sectors for further investments.
Investment as a percentage of GDP in Colombia has increased from 12% to almost
30% in the past decade, but to be able to have the really high sustained growth
rate which we need to eradicate extreme poverty, ideally this ratio should be
about 40%.
Now, what does Colombia have to
offer to the UK? There are in my opinion five top potential contributions that
we can make to the UK and to our bilateral relations.
First, Colombia is the most bio-diverse
nation per square kilometre in the planet this gives the UK the opportunity to
work together with Colombia in the protection of this unique natural endowment
and the discovery of many wonders that scientists believe will be found in the
331 eco-systems of my country. Second, a very attractive emerging economy, one
of the global top performers in the coming years, according to the experts,
with 46 million potential consumers of many more British products and services.
We want and we can increase substantially our imports from the UK and welcome
very much investment from the UK in Colombia.
Third, our fabulous culture,
which is now starting to be known in the rest of the world, a culture that has
many contributions to make to global happiness through our music and other
artistic manifestations and our traditions, our wisdom and creativity of our
indigenous communities, our food and our superb landscape which of course has
played a crucial role in creating our cultural expressions.
Fourth, Colombia can be and has
been a very good ally for the UK in international matters. In Latin America and
the rest of the world defending and promoting democracy, free markets, human
rights, the rule of law and that multi-lateral solution to complex problems for
mankind such as climate change, extreme poverty, violence and drugs. An example
of this alliance has been the very good team work that Colombia and the UK have
done in the United Nations Security Council in the past two years.
Last, a voracious appetite for
learning. Colombians are very keen to learn, we love to study and there are
many fields in which we need and we want to expand our expertise and the UK has
an enormous wealth of knowledge that is your greatest asset.
Thank you very much. [Applause]
[MB]: Thank you very much
ambassador. Listening to your talk, with the ambassador of Venezuela sat beside
you, I was reminded that in the recent London 2012 Olympic games, both Colombia
and Venezuela won fantastic gold medals, in BMX racing and in fencing respectively.
That was a close draw, and I am sure that Ambassador Moncada will now keep
exactly and precisely to time as his Colombian counterpart has done. Ambassador Moncada.
[Samuel Moncada]:
Thank you
very much. I am going to be not quick, but I do intend to make the most of my ten
minutes. When Matthew invited me to this meeting, he asked me to talk exactly about
the subject of British influence on the independence of the Bolivarian
Republics in South America. That’s what I am going to talk about, because I am
a historian, and because I love this subject.
When I came in I heard an expert,
sitting at the back [Professor Catherine Davies, University of Nottingham], she
was talking about Britain’s position on independence in South America. I am
sure she knows more than me about it, but anyway I am going to touch this
subject from my point of view.
I think there are two important
British influences in the South American Independences – for there are several
independences, not just one Independence. They can be divided, just for
convenience, into two main subjects. The first is the position of the United Kingdom’s
government regarding the independence of South America. The second is the
influence of the British people in South America, what they actually did on the
ground in the battles for Independence. They are connected subjects, but they
are not the same. They are related, but they are not subordinated one to the
other. I mean, of course the British people in Latin America were to some
degree a consequence of the British government’s position regarding Latin America,
but they were they were not directed by the British government. They were
absolutely independent from government control, and many of them even became
Venezuelans and Colombians, by serving in the army and coming to think of
themselves as Venezuelans and Colombians. So it is interesting to point out
these differences and see how they are remembered on each side.
First: the British position. I
think it is fair to say that the British government position regarding the
independence of the South American colonies was the ruthless, ruthless,
following of national self interest. I mean, the British were as any nation
just trying to pursue their own benefits. They looked to expand their own power
over other inferior powers, and you can see that competition within the context
of the imperial wars and the whole world. Particularly in the Atlantic and Latin
America there were the Spaniards and Portuguese, of course, but also the French,
the Dutch (by the way the Dutch - nobody talks about them! but in regards to
Venzuela they were very important because of Curacao, which changed hands
several times during the war of independence, and was linked to the Venezuelan
port of Coro, which was very important for the war of independence in Venezuela).
Anyway, there was great imperial competition: the Spaniards, the French, the
Dutch and the British on the European side, and then the former British
colonies, the United States, on the American side of the Atlantic, and all of
them were expanding or fighting for expansion, or fighting (in the case of the
Spaniards) to preserve their power.
You could say that, just for the
matter of understanding this process, the British position had three different
stages or phases.
The first stage consists of the
whole eighteenth century, up until 1808. During this time the British were just
acting like any other imperial power: land grabbing, fighting for territory and
markets. That’s what they did when they took Trinidad, and when they took
Jamaica in the seventeenth century, and even when they attempted to take Buenos
Aires in 1806. There are firsthand accounts of when the British thought they
had won in 1806, and where they thought they had taken Buenos Aires, and they
planned to move on to take Chile, Mexico, Peru etc, etc, etc. The British thought
that that was the right decision, to undermine the Spaniards by grabbing and
snatching the Spanish colonies. Nevertheless they weren’t able to do that
because more or less at that same time, in 1807 and 1808, Napoleon invaded
Spain and Spain was suddenly on the side of the British to fight against the
French. You could also say that the most important British contribution to the
South American Independences was in fact back at the victory of the naval
Battle of Trafalgar, when the Royal Navy destroyed entirely the French and
Spanish fleet, and left Spain without any means to counter attack the
revolutionary wars in the Americas.
In General Simon Bolivar’s
letter, written in Jamaica in 1815, he asked ‘How are we going to obey a crown
or kingdom which has no means to subdue or wage war against us in South America,
they have no ships nor canons, no weapons, so it is ridiculous to accept the
power of a kingdom that has been destroyed’.[1]
The second most important European
contribution to the independence of Latin America was the Napoleonic invasion of
Spain. When France overran Spain it created a headless empire for there was no recognised
king. Even though Francisco de Miranda and many others were asking the British
to organise an invasion of Spanish colonies in the Americas long before the
Napoleonic invasion, when Napoleon invaded Spain it became obvious that it was
the right time to do something about it.
The third most important
contribution to the Independence of the Spanish South American colonies was
precisely the implosion within the Spanish empire itself. By this I mean the
stubbornness – some people say the stupidity - of the Spanish monarchs Charles
IV and Ferdinand VII. They made gigantic errors in international policy and
then struggled with their own contradictions between liberals and absolutists,
and between pro-French and pro-Spanish factions. It is interesting that the
divisions within Spain were replicated in Hispanic America, there was a
symmetry to it. You couldn’t define the War of Independence in South America,
as it was so complex. It was in many ways a civil war. You could say that civil
war was occurring at exactly the same time in Spain in their War of
Independence. Later, the turbulence and turmoil of Latin America after the
independence wars lasted the rest of the 19th century, you could see
them replicated again in Spain during the rest of the 19th century: I
mean, the fractures, the conflicts that generated independence went on long
after the end of the wars.
Early today I heard the phrase ‘sitting
on the fence’ used to describe British neutrality towards the cause of
independence. [Examining the history], I don’t see any fence-sitting, they were
actively working to undermine the Spaniards before 1808. Then they supported
the Spanish just to prevent the French taking over South America (when the
French took Spain). Then, after 1815, they were trying to wait just to see if the
South Americans could achieve independence, and then they would recognise that.
Why did Britain recognise the independence of South America in 1823? For two
reasons: one was the United States of America had done so in 1822, and the
Americans did that because they had just finished an agreement with Spain to take
over Florida, and also because they had their own ambitions in South America.
The Monroe Doctrine was issued in 1823 precisely to try to stop any Europeans from
intervening in the American hemisphere, it was the first manifest expression of
the ‘backyard’ policy of the United States.
It is interesting to note that
it was an Imperial Republic that was formed there [in the North], because Bolivar
himself, at the time in South America, believed that Spain and the Americas
were divided by monarchy. He saw that there would be expansion [in the North].
He thought that the republic was a system that intrinsically couldn’t propose
or support imperial land grabbing, [and he observed] imperialists, republicans
and expansionists.
Changing to the other side of
the story for just a final minute, [it is important to note that the British
expeditions to Colombia and Venezuela] were comprised by representatives of the
whole range of humanity. It would be ridiculous to generalise about them, when we
don’t even agree on what to call them! We call them adventurers, volunteers,
mercenaries, patriots etc. In the same way that we don’t agree in the name to
give them, we disagree on the sides who fought: on one side we have loyalists,
royalists or monarchists. On the other side people say republicans, patriots,
insurgents, independents, rebels, revolutionaries and so on. Whichever we
choose signals one angle as to how we see the world.
But my point is that the British
contribution to the independence on the ground – not British policy, but the British
themselves – around seven thousand individuals that Matthew Brown studied thoroughly,
their contribution was different. There were soldiers and also many merchants, journalists,
politicians, doctors and sailors, [their contribution to independence] was
immense, and particularly so in the Bolivarian republics, where they fought
alongside the Venezuelans and the Colombians and the Ecuadorians all the way.
These British people sacrificed
a lot – Matthew, in his book, sounds a little bit cold in his analysis of their
rhetoric of sacrifice - there was actual sacrifice of thousands of lives. There
are what people call nameless graves in the plains of Peru and in the mountains
of Venezuela. Thousands of British people sacrificed their lives there, and many
others [were not soldiers, but] they were cleaning the houses, there were
drunks, corpses, there were scammers, there were all sorts of people but there
were also idealists, loyalists and romantic British fighters for freedom. Many
of them gave their lives, for example William Ferguson was killed in 1828
saving Bolivar from a failed attempted assassination. The Battles of Carabobo
was the most important battle of independence in Venezuela [in 1821] and there
was a British Legion there which was essential for the victory.
I could talk about that, and
those people, a lot more, but just to finish: it would be mean-spirited,
ungenerous and ungrateful not to recognise the sacrifice of the British in our
wars of independence, and we are happy to do so two hundred years afterwards.
Thank you very much.
[Applause]
[1] MB’s
note: my translation of the full text of the letter can be found in Simón Bolívar: The Bolivarian Revolution,
introduced by Hugo Chavez (Verso: 2009), http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hugo-Ch%C3%A1vez-presents-Simon-Bolivar/dp/1844673812.
[MB]: Thank you very much. I
hand over now to Natalia Sobrevilla Perea.
[Natalia Sobrevilla Perea]:
Thank you very much. Thank you Matthew for inviting me.
Listening to our panel, I
actually have to make my apologies because I am in fact not a specialist in the
Bolivarian republics but much more on the impact that Bolivar had further south.
I am an expert more in the Andes, Peru, Bolivia, and I noticed the absence of
the representatives from the Ecuadorian Embassy today. I imagine that they are
all very busy taken up with other matters that are quite urgent.[1]
I do think that Inés Quintero’s
discussion of the Bolivarian archive is very important. Someone mentioned at the
beginning of the comments in the last session, what would be the best way to
commemorate and celebrate. Of course, documentation! Making documentation
available, I think as a historian, is one of the best possible contributions
that can be made. In fact I want to thank the ambassador and the whole Venezuelan
people for their generosity not just now by making the archive available to
everyone in the world to be able to look at these documents, but also for their
efforts with a major cultural project, the Biblioteca Ayacucho, which I think is the one of the most impressive collections, which is also
online which can be consulted by everybody, everywhere. You can find all the
canon of literature, travel, history, and I would invite everybody here to
truly take advantage of these resources. They really are very much the history
not just of Venezuela but of the whole continent.
Now onto the task of the day
which is the British role in the independence of the Bolivarian republics. As I
mentioned before, I am more of an expert in the British participation further
south, and I would like to invite my colleagues such as Matthew and Daniel
[Gutierrez] to think about how Bolivar doesn’t stop in Ecuador in 1822. He does
not! He goes further south and the impact that he has in Peru is considerable.
He then creates a nation called Bolivia that is not really represented today, as
it is not felt [by historians] to be a traditional Bolivarian republic. Or is
it? In a sense I think we need to query that term. If you look at the monument
just down the road to Simon Bolivar in Belgrave Square in London, it says 'Liberator of many countries', including Peru and Bolivia.
There was a great Irish and
British participation that came with Bolivar, the legions that Matthew studied,
but also if we look to Peru, they encountered other British participants in
these wars that had come from the other side of the Andes. The Chilean navy was
very much a British navy at the time, it was men like Lord Thomas Cochrane who
put it together and like Martin Guise who were the ones who were actually moving
forward the whole campaign, and making it possible for them to traverse from Chile
into Peru and to begin all the process there from 1819 into 1821.
There were people like William
Miller, for instance, who is incredibly important in this process. He did not
come with Bolivar, he came to Peru the other way. In fact, he tells in his
memoirs that he was in Buenos Aries and thinking of becoming a merchant after
having fought in the Peninsula wars in Spain. He had been part of the men who
had fought next to Wellington. He had known many Spanish officers at the time
and then he was kind of out of a job, he was in the 1812 war against the United
States and he was looking for a commission, thinking of becoming a merchant in
Buenos Aires. Then he ended up having an encounter with a woman who convinced
him that his life was for glory. He decided to travel to Chile, and he
eventually joined San Martin, and went to Peru. Miller was the creator of much
of the Peruvian army and a very influential person in this whole process. He
also linked up with the other Irish and British men who were coming with Bolivar.
Francisco Burdett O’Connor was one of those. O’Connor was one of the ones who
came with Bolivar, and in his diaries he remembered their celebrating St.
Patrick’s Day in Peru, how they would put together some cases of rum because
they didn’t have whiskey and they just celebrated together because of their shared
identity. They had this commonness, there was something about them, they were British
and Irish.
There was also a mention earlier
of the other Irish who had been fighting on the side of the Spanish king. In
the case of Peru there is a very famous general General O’Reilly who was
defeated in 1820 in a battle at Cerro Uliachin. He was so distraught on his way
back to Spain that he jumped off the boat, he thought that his life was not
worth living.
These were very interesting
lives to learn about. When you think of the Irish involvement, you think of
Bernardo O’Higgins, someone who we have also memorialised around here, who
was mentioned by Karen Racine earlier today. Bernardo O’Higgins was part of that
Irish connection that was always lingering in the Spanish crowd. As was said
before, it wasn’t just that they were on one side but they were on both. It wasn’t
just the Irish or the British, but also the French and the Germans. There are all
kinds of connections here at the time that are very interesting and important.
I think that we need to remember and I would very much echo the ambassador’s
point and the fact that [British people] actually fought and gave a big part of
their lives. Miller lost the use of one of his arms in one of the bombing
attacks he received and he was a very damaged man by the end of the wars. This
is just one example of many, many others of these lives that were very blighted
by their participation in the wars and that’s something that we need to
remember now.
How should we remember? Should
we go to the battle places and re-enact the battles? Should we go and celebrate
them? Should we go and think of all these people? Should we think about
knowledge transfer, or something more similar to what Ines Quintero was
mentioning. I think that this is an interesting thing to think about. What are the
different ways in which we can remember and memorialise? Of course the
ambassador of Colombia in his talk mentioned this idea of what happens in the
future. One of the things that he highlighted was this idea of knowledge
transfer, of communication of ideas, of information. Karen Racine mentioned
earlier how these miners were being taken from Cornwall down to Peru to work on
mines, and they used steam and new technologies, and how investment was the
byword of the time.
One of the things that we are
not remembering here too much is all the financial aspects of how these wars
were fought. When we think of the independence war in North America we have to
think of the fact that they were pretty much given a free cheque, they were not
charged for what everything cost. That is not what happened in the Latin
American, Hispanic republics. They all came to London, they all asked for money
and they all got money, lots of it, lots of cash but very soon they realised
that they didn’t really have much in order to pay it back. And then they had
these merchants turning up, with ice skates to Rio de Janeiro, and bowler hats
to Peru, thousands of hats that no one knew what to do with. Today of course
you see peasants in Bolivia wearing bowler hats and it seems a bit strange.
Commercial relations were very
important, [they were the background to] British participation in independence.
I think the ambassador made a very important point, which is to distinguish
between the British government and what the government wants [on the one hand],
and of course [on the other] what individuals will do and of course the
commercial issue people who are trying to find some benefit in all of this. Of
course a lot of the people that ended up investing in these new republics ended
up losing a lot money - the bond holders were holding bad debt, something which
is very very close to us now, they were holding debt that couldn’t be sustained.
Matthew in fact has studied someone who was managing to raise funds for a
country that didn’t even exist - he was a British adventurer [Gregor MacGregor]
who convinced people in the city of London to give him money to go to a country
that he made up. It is a great story. (‘Inca, Sailor, Soldier, King’, Bulletinof Latin American Research, 2005).
In conclusion, we need to
consider all these different connections. On that note, just to put the strands
together, I do think that we need to think about the past and where this long-term
relationship comes. It is not just from the wars of independence, but even before
in the colonial period, with the Irish-Spanish connection we shouldn’t really
forget. We have these men who gave a lot in battle, we have the commercial
considerations, the mining issues and we have the knowledge aspect as well. We
have a lot of things that we can think about and we can now talk about.
[Applause]
[1] A
reference to the continued presence of Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian
Embassy while we were talking on 5 September 2012, where he had been granted asylum.
Questions and Discussion after the round-table
Contribution 1 [Isaac Bigio]: remarked that today’s
discussions have demonstrated the enduring excellent relations between Britain
and Latin America, and noted that the most important manifestation of that
relationship, and channel for it, is the Latin American community in the UK.
One important stage-post towards the recognition of the UK’s Latin American
community has been the decision by Southwark council to recognise Latin
American as an ethnic category. He stated that we must all work to end the
invisibility of Latin Americans in the UK. To this end, he directed everyone’s
attention to the newly-instituted AMIGOS month, to be held from 7 September –
15 October every year.
This aims to be a Latin American History month, in the
same way as Black History month is so successful in promoting culture and
identity and memory in the UK. He said that today’s event was a great way to
get the month started, and hoped that soon, if everyone joins in, it won’t just
be the Mayor of London who is interested, but also the Prime Minister, and the
Queen. [see ].
[Contribution 2]: noted that the speakers who focused on
looking forward were the most convincing, and that those who dwelled on the
past, and sought to complicated things, were less useful. She argued that the
digitisation projects as discussed by Professor Quintero were most exciting,
and hoped that other projects could be found to continue such an initiative.
[MB]: remarked that the papers of Mary English, who travelled
and lived in Venezuela and Colombia during the Independence-era, are held in
the British Library. He is seeking funding to digitise these manuscripts and
make them available to scholars across the world. Anyone interested in funding
such a project should get in touch ...
[Contribution 3]: lamented that the best way to mark the
bicentenaries of Britain’s involvement in independence would be to reverse the
losses of the last decade. He made particular reference to the loss of the
Chevening Scholarships, and to reductions enforced across the British Council
operations in Latin America. He noted that it has become much more difficult
for Peruvians to get visas to visit, for example. He concluded by remarking that
two hundred years ago Spain was unable to operate in Latin America because of
economic and political crisis, which opened the door to Great Britain, and
suggested that contemporary resonances might suggest opportunities to Great
Britain in the region if it were to better focus its energies and resources.
[Contribution 4]: thanked the speakers and noted that education
was a key area for shared expertise. In particular, she noted the need for new
educational tools and improvement on both sides of the equation.
[Contribution 5]: remarked upon the decline of the British
Council, and upon the rise in United States language schools across Latin
America at the expense of British language schools. This, he remarked, is a
symptom of declining British influence and the hegemony of the United States in
much of the region.
[Contribution 6]: [Baroness Hooper] noted that one of the
principal challenges which must be overcome is that British people simply do
not know enough about Latin America. She drew people’s attention to the labours
of Canning House in this respect, organising events and in particular its
Annual Essay Prize Competition for schools. However, she thought that more
energy could be put into teaching more Spanish, in schools, institutes and
universities. This is essential to maintaining good relations in the future.
Contribution 7: [Catherine Davies] continued on the theme of
language teaching. She noted that the present government had inflicted severe
cuts on Modern Languages in universities. She observed that the key place to
start is with teaching Spanish in schools, but government policy had also
undermined this. She argued that there is a vicious circle, in which there are
not enough teachers of Modern Languages, and not enough students learning,
despite the great demand amongst pupils to learn Spanish! This circle must be
broken! She pointed to several ways forward. Colombians and Venezuelans must
emulate the Brazilian universities who have made direct contact with
International Offices at UK universities. We should be grateful to Santander
for the great amounts they have invested in Spanish and Latin American Studies
in the UK universities, and encourage other financial institutions and
corporations to follow suit. Finally, there should be a greater drive to
involve normal members of the Latin American community in the UK into the lives
of consulates and embassies, to reach out and widen the base of the relationship.
[Contribution 8]: remarked that Colombians speak the best
Spanish of anywhere in the world, and so British people should go there to
study Spanish.
[Contribution 9]: commented that the British media must begin
to remedy its regular and unforgivable errors regarding Latin America. He noted
that yesterday (4 September 2012) the Independent
mis-spelt ‘Columbia’ twice. He continued however that Latin Americans often
make the mistake of conflating ‘English’ and ‘British’, let along Scottish and
Welsh, and argued for better education and much watchfulness – and published
corrections – on the part of ambassadors and academics. He concluded by
suggested that a TV series on the subject of Britain’s interventions in the
wars of independence in Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador would be a an excellent
step towards furthering our subject.
[Contribution 10]: took up the theme of television series.
She noted that this is extremely important, and referred to a project to make a
film about Policarpa Salvarietta in Colombia. She suggested that Latin American
contemporary artists were another window waiting to be activated as a channel
for communicating between Britain and Latin America. She concluded by noting
that Latin America now suffers from not having been formally part of the
empire, and so is not courted by UK cultural agencies who are anxious to work
with postcolonial countries.
[Contribution 11]: remarked on the poor quality of journalism
in the UK about Latin America. He referred to the numerous historical and
geographical errors being made daily in reference to Julian Assange and
Ecuador, even, he said, on the BBC.
He continued by remarking the lack of
access to quality TV and film across much of Latin America, and suggested that
a joint film production project on the subject of Thomas Cochrane, William
Miller, et al, would be an excellent idea.
[Contribution 12]: a film-maker, observed that he was
half-British, half-Mexican, and had spent much time wondering which was his
strongest identity. He drew people’s attention to the long campaign for
recognition by Southwark Council, and the major Latin
American cultural events
which can be found in the borough, not just in shops and shopping as in around
Elephant & Castle, but also the summer carnival and ongoing portrait
projects. He concluded by noting that funding was particularly tight at the
moment for cultural projects wanting to work at the bridge between British and
Latin American cultures.
[Contribution 13]: suggested that much more Latin American
history and culture should be being taught at school, and recommended that
people engage with Exam Boards to get curricula to involve more Latin American
subjects.
[Contribution 14]: [Enrique Rodriguez] followed up the points
made earlier about TV series. He thought that something like Sharpe, or like Michael Wood’s Conquistadores, needed to be made. He
had approached various individuals, but nothing had come of it. These are great
stories, he said, and they need to be filmed, and to be told!
Contribution 15: [Charles Goodson-Wickes, director-general of
Canning House] reminded people of the Canning House annual prize essay
competition.
He accepted that British Council representation had become limited, and urged people to make good use of Canning House in its efforts to act
as a bridge between Britain and Latin America.
Contribution 16: noted that from the perspective of staff in
the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, this debate had been energising and
stimulating. She recognised the many different ideas which had been exchanged,
and thanked the organisers of the event for their efforts. She asked, how can
we capture the ideas raised today so that we can take them forward?
Contribution 17: [Estefania Tello, from the Ecuadorian
Embassy] apologied that the Ecuadorian ambassador had not been able to attend.
She stated that Ecuador was pleased to see such an excellent event, and that
she was pleased to hear such an informed discussion. She noted that Ecuador is
looking for cooperation in Scientific matters with the UK, and has found the
Foreign Office informative partners. She concluded by saying that education at
all levels is key, that the event showed that we can all learn from history,
and we should all learn more of the common histories that unite us.
[Matthew Brown] pledged to write up the transcripts of all of
these contributions, to put them onto his blog so that everyone could read
them, whether they were able to be present or not. Then, he suggested that he
would draw them up into an Open Letter to the new minister of state for Latin
America (Hugo Swire MP), which would also go on his blog, which people could
add their names to if they wished.
He then thanked everyone for their contributions, and asked
the four round-table speakers to respond and /or sum up.
[Ines Quintero]: (spoke
in Spanish). One of the motivations for any historian of Latin America, any
historian in Latin America, is to see what magic we can employ, what resources
we can find, to connect our histories with today’s societies. Education,
therefore, is crucial to the tasks set before us today. It is crucial to
improve education in Latin America, so that we know our own history. I welcome
this opportunity to see that we are preoccupied by the same things. Would a new
film fill these gaps? I don’t know – but I think that we should not neglect any
strategy. All actions to improve education and knowledge transfer should be
welcomed. Thank you.
[Applause]
[Mauricio Rodriguez]: Yes two points here. I think the
British government has done a very good job in recent years in strengthening,
deepening and diversifying relations between the UK and Latin America. Most of
my colleagues here tonight, indeed all of the Latin American ambassadors, would
agree with me to a higher or lesser degree that the Foreign Office has done an
excellent job, and Secretary of State Mr William Hague and Minister for Latin
America Mr Jeremy Browne have done very special efforts. Let me give you some
good examples: the UK will reopen or open embassies in El Salvador and Paraguay;
and they have increased personnel in Colombia. In the midst of a very tight
financial situation the Foreign Office is making a very special effort and the
British Council has done an excellent outstanding job in Latin America. I agree
that it should have a British Council presence in many other countries because
it is the best ambassador for Great Britain. The British Council is a wonderful
institution. I think that there are three wonderful institutions that do a
great job of promoting the UK abroad. These are the British Council, the BBC
and the British universities.
What these three institutions do for Great Britain is immense
and you should try to defend them and promote them as much as possible. These
institutions are your best Foreign Office. Credit also to Foreign Office, in
the particular case of Colombia the Foreign Office has done excellent job in
the prosperity agenda I shared with you earlier. Just one example: Minister Jeremy
Browne unfortunately he is leaving now, he has a new job at the Home Office [this
news was announced in between our sessions on 5 September 2012] but he visited Colombia
three times in eighteen months. [Today’s discussions show that] we been at a very
high level, and have really diversified the agenda.
My second point, [I agree that] in relation to our media [we
should discuss] how to raise the attention of media and film producers and TV
producers.
I think that supposedly we Latin Americans are the most
creative, imaginative, people in the world. We are very good at inspiring,
persuading, convincing, seducing people with our stories, with our beautiful
landscapes with our wonderful music and culture and food etc etc. Well, we have
here a challenge, an opportunity. We need to go to talk to the BBC, talk to
independent producers and film directors, and convince them precisely of those
wonderful characters/stories to be told in the British media. I think we have
to improve our selling skills because I agree that we have wonderful, wonderful
stories to share with Great Britain, and those will be an important way to
connect our societies, our people. We have excellent connections with top
government, academia, business but we need to connect the British and Latin
American citizens. And the media, like it or not, is the best route to
strengthen those ties. So this is a message to us, Latin American friends, lets
really be more creative in selling our stories to earn the larger space in
British media that we deserve, but we will only earn that space if we are
better at telling our stories.
And the last point and I think Baroness Hooper is absolutely
right one here, one very good way of strengthening those ties with Latin
America, British ties with Latin America, is through the teaching of Spanish. I
think that we have also there a challenge to develop that point. How can we do
that? What else can we do? We have to be creative and think together how to
increase the number of British citizens that speak Spanish because that makes
things much easier. When people have a basic knowledge of a language
they will visit, and once they go to Latin America they will fall in love with
Latin America. You have - all of you - probably been to Latin America or want
to go to Latin America, and if you have the language skills that makes things much
easier so I think that we also have to improve our ideas on how to extend the
interest and attract more British citizens to learn Spanish. Thank you.
[Applause]
[Samuel Moncada]: Okay, well very many things have been said
here about the how to increase knowledge, relationships, connections between Latin
America and Britain. I have just written some notes on the debate, in
particular I have written the headings language, history, universities and communities.
The Latin American community here which is growing is one of
the most important ones in the sense that it is a very human, concrete, alive
connection within this country and so far has not got the recognition that I think
it needs. The EU is working on it but I think it there are many thousands, I
don’t know how many there are =
[Interjection from audience, Isaac Bigio]: One million, including
Brazilians we have one million Latin American people living in the UK.
[Samuel Moncada]: Okay, that is a really good base to work
on. I don’t know how many British people are living in Latin America but I know
there are tens of thousands at least. The last figure I have is that more than
200,000 British go every year to Cuba and more than that go to the Dominican Republic
every single year, so at least 400,000 British travellers, tourists, are going
to Latin America every year.
The media, the universities, communication and language are
all important but I would also like to continue with some areas I not heard of in
kind of discussions that for me are very important. He [Ambassador Rodriguez]
said the BBC, British Council and British Universities which I agree totally
with. But there are many other institutions, British institutions that for me
at least that they deserve admiration. One of those is the NHS and the NHS is
an example of a universal health service that we at least are admiring =
[Mauricio Rodriguez]: we want it too!
[Samuel Moncada]: = we
want something like that you admire, although you [British] complain about the
NHS all the time but we would like something like that in Venezuela =
[Mauricio Rodriguez]: = and in
Colombia!
[Samuel Moncada]: The way I see to improve Venezuela’s
connection with the British, apart from the diplomacy, the government,
investment, the corporations, the media, the rest of it you have to find common
ground, issues where we connect now, not necessarily because we connected two
hundred years ago. Because as Matthew knows after the 1830s the English, the British
interest in Latin America faded and [in retrospect] the most intense period of
relations between Britain and Latin America was exactly this time we’re talking
about, the independence wars. After that failure there was a pick up at the end
of the nineteenth century with some mining and railroads and some other oil
investments in the twentieth century but there was nothing as intense as the
human connection these several thousand British going [created in the 1820s]. I
don’t think there has been so many British going to participate in another war apart
from Latin America ever, apart from maybe the Spanish Civil War [in the 1930s] it
is the only example I know of, of British people going abroad to fight for the
liberation of another country. There may be another one but that is my
ignorance, but it is common ground. Like, for example, the Paralympics.
[Mauricio Rodriguez]: Sports.
[Samuel Moncada]: No not sports, Paralympics. People with
special needs, the way that people are treated in Latin America, the policies
we are developing for people with special needs and how to compare that with the
policies here in Britain [that is a common ground]. The treatment of children,
the treatment of the elderly, I am talking about social policy, how we deal
with poverty, how we deal with social housing. There are many, many issues that
we can learn from each other that we could learn from the British but we can also
teach the British.
We can learn from each other in the process I am aspiring to.
But, perhaps, let’s also add a grain of disagreement, it’s something in Britain
you need to correct. There are very many things that can be done [to improve
British-Latin American relations], one of those things is scholarships. Many Latin
Americans came to the UK to study with scholarships here, but now the
scholarships are fading away. But more, there are some things that don’t need
money to be improved. One of those has been touched already: the visa issue. You
really want people from other countries to spend their money here? Well,
you have to first take them to come and study! It is a nightmare to get visas for
foreign students to study, it is a nightmare. I have to say that if I am asked
by any student at this moment in time if it is good advice to come to Britain,
well.
Let me give you an example: we have
tried for more than three years to reach agreement with the London Metropolitan
University to bring hundreds of students to study oil and chemicals, polymers,
many things related to oil matters. And then we suddenly found last week that
this University had had withdrawn the licence to get visas for foreign students.
And now there are two thousand foreign students stranded, and they have paid! We
have several Venezuelans in there by the way, they paid a few years of fees,
they spend thousands of pounds just in maintenance, or just in fees, they are
about to finish their degrees and now they have found this situation, that they
have lost all their money! And the only thing they have been told is that they
must pay everything and spend their time again or you are going to be deported!
I mean that is ridiculous, if you carry on with that policy no one is going to
come here to study, that is a mistake that has to be corrected and that doesn’t
cost any money! That is good advice for you, please don’t spoil your own good
industry of education which is a good one, very prestigious around the world
but you will spoil it.
[Much applause]
[Natalia Sobrevilla Perea]: I cannot but agree with all those
who [have just spoken]. Especially on this visa issue, indeed one of our
speakers was just mentioning how difficult it is to get a visa. I myself still
suffer from that fate so I think it is something that I endorse fully. I have
spoken already on the audio-visual matters [so I won’t say any more now]. I
think we are all ready for a glass of wine.
[Applause]
[Matthew Brown]: Thank you to our four speakers on this very
stimulating round-table discussion, Ines Quintero, Mauricio Rodriguez, Samuel
Moncada and Natalia Sobrevilla. We can continue the discussion now over a glass
of something, and then online soon when the transcripts are completed. Thank
you very much.
[Applause]
Here are some pictures of the heated though good-natured debate that followed (no transcript!)
If after reading these discussions you would now like to use the Comments section below to reflect or add further observations and suggestions, please do!