The race to succeed Argentina as Olympic football champions hots up tomorrow with the heavyweight clash between neighbours and arch-rivals, Uruguay, and hosts Great Britain in Cardiff. The charrúas will need a victory to put them a big step along the way to gold in London, having won their opening match 2-1 against the UAE in Manchester but then losing 2-0 to Senegal. Uruguay’s dream it to extend their enviable Olympic football record, which stands at two Games appearances, two gold medals!

While the hopes of British football fans will be pinned on Stuart Pearce’s men in the Olympic football tournament, they will face a stiff task from the very first round as they come up against one of the pre-tournament favourites.

Uruguayan flag kissed by the golden sun. (Photo: Mark Orton)

Pride of Paris

Uruguay became the first South American country to play outside of their own continent, let alone compete in the Olympic football tournament, when they crossed the Atlantic for the 1924 Games in Paris, making them an exotic attraction for European crowds. They qualified for the tournament by virtue of winning the 1923 South American Championship, much to the chagrin of Argentina.

Just to get to Paris the team had to beg, steal and borrow to secure their passage in third-class steerage across the Atlantic to Spain, with the prominent Uruguayan Atilio Narancio even mortgaging his house to help pay for the fare. Once there, they played a series of exhibition matches to secure board and lodgings and pay for their rail fare to Paris in second class carriages. It was during the course of these games that Uruguay served notice of their prowess by winning all nine of the matches they played.

Despite Uruguay being tournament debutants, they were far from being babes-in-the-wood, showing they could just be as streetwise as any other team. Their opening opponents Yugoslavia sent spies to watch them train, but the wily Uruguayans had cottoned on, playing as if they were the Keystone Cops, prompting the spies to report back: ‘It makes you feel very sorry, these poor boys came from so far away …’

When the time came for their first match of the Olympics, Uruguay overcame the embarrassment of seeing their flag flown upside down and a Brazilian march played in place of their national anthem, to romp home 7-0 against the Yugoslavs in front of 2,000 fans.

The Uruguay football team at the 1924 Paris Olympic Games.

As Uruguay progressed through the knockout rounds, beating the USA 3-1, and then demolishing hosts France 5-1 with four goals from Héctor Scarone, the team drew ever greater numbers of spectators. After taking on the Dutch in the semi-final and easily overcoming Switzerland 3-0 to take gold in the final, writer Henri de Montherlant, was moved to comment: ‘A revelation! Here we have real football. Compared with this, what we knew before, what we played, was no more than a schoolboy hobby.’

In contrast to the paltry crowd that witnessed Uruguay’s opening match, the final at the Stade Colombes was watched by a packed crowd of 60,000, with thousands more locked out.

The Uruguayan team, made up of meat-packers, grocers and ice-cream salesmen amongst others, watched with enormous pride as their national banner of the sun and sky-blue and white stripes fluttered higher and prouder than the other nations, putting their country firmly on the sporting map.

With the element of surprise, their dazzling passing play made them the darlings of the French crowds, and in ‘Perucho’ Petrone they had a potent forward who topped the tournament scoring chart with eight goals.

Unused to the sight of black footballers in Europe, the presence of José Leandro Andrade in Uruguay’s midfield added to their mystique. Agile and with the capacity to deceive opponents with a swerve of his body, the French press dubbed him the ‘Black Marvel’. After the tournament he stayed in France instead of returning home with his team-mates, becoming a celebrity amongst Parisian High Society, always dressing the part in top hat and tails, and carrying a silver-handled cane – a far cry from his humble origins as a shoe-shine boy in Montevideo, where he would eventually return and die from tuberculosis in poverty and obscurity.

Amsterdam

Four years later Uruguay returned to Europe to defend their Olympic title in Amsterdam. This time they were joined by their great rioplatense rivals, Argentina, who qualified by beating Uruguay to the 1927 South American Championship.

Far from being the exotic novelty that they had been in Paris, Uruguay were now the favourites of the 18-team line-up in Holland, even allowing for the more competitive field with the Dutch playing at home, and the presence of an improved Italy and Germany.

The Uruguay Football Team in play at the 1928 Amsterdam Olympic Games.

Before the final, the superstitious Uruguayan player Adhemar Canavessi made the supreme sacrifice by removing himself from the team on the basis that every time that he had played against Argentina for his country they had lost, and despite having played his part in getting Uruguay to the gold medal showdown, he got off the bus taking the team to the arena.

The opening game in front of a capacity 40,000 in Amsterdam’s Olympic Stadium – the hottest tickets of the Games fetched more than ten times their face value on the black market – was against the hosts, and Uruguay were made to fight all the way to a 2-1 victory. Germany were no easier in the second round, winning a feisty encounter 4-1 in which two Germans and Uruguay’s skipper José Nasazzi were sent off.

In the semi-final, Uruguay won a thrilling match against Italy 3-2, with the darling of the Parisian crowds, Andrade showing his class in one last cameo performance, to set up a final against their old foes from across the River Plate.

Excitement at home was at fever pitch as people crowded the plazas of Montevideo to listen to information from the game, read out from telegraphs received at the news desks of newspapers from the Dutch capital detailing the minute-by-minute action. Interest was not confined to the River Plate alone: 250,000 ticket requests were made for the 40,000 available for the final from Europe alone.

The final was a cagey affair in which neither side attempted to seize the initiative, the game ending in a 1-1 draw. The replay was a different matter entirely as both sides went for the win and eliminate the possibility of the gold medal being determined by the drawing of lots. Uruguay freshened up their tired attack replacing Petrone, Urdinaran and Castro with Arremón, Borjas and Figueroa, and the revitalised team triumphed 2-1, the second-half winner coming from Héctor Scarone.

When Uruguay were awarded the hosting rights for the inaugural FIFA World Cup in 1930, they erected a purpose-built stadium, the Estadio Centenario (to celebrate 100 years of Uruguayan independence from Spain) and named two of the stands, the Tribuna Paris and Tribuna Amsterdam as a permanent memorial of their Olympic exploits.

Fighting Spirit

So for a population of just three million to punch above its weight on the world stage, what is the secret to Uruguay’s success?

They would put it down to la garra charrúa, the fighting spirit of Uruguay’s indigenous inhabitants the charrúas.It was most famously used to win the 1950 World Cup against massive favourites and hosts Brazil, and recently has seen Uruguay cement themselves in the top four of the world rankings – above their much bigger neighbours Argentina and Brazil.

Olympic torch in London (photo courtesy of London 2012)

London Calling

After Juan Verzeri got them through the South American qualification competition, Uruguay’s wily 65-year-old coach Oscar Tabárez, who led the seniors to the 2010 World Cup semi-final and to glory in the 2011 Copa América, has taken charge for the finals themselves.

He has a wealth of young talent at his disposal including Liverpool defender Sebastián Coates, Ajax midfielder Nicolás Lodeiro and Bologna’s Gastón Ramírez, scorer of a delightful free-kick against the Emirates.

Meanwhile, there was no shortage of senior players vying for one of the three over-age places in the squad, with both Diego Lugano and Uruguay’s most-capped player, Diego Forlán declaring their wish to be part of the team seeking to make history. In the event, both missed out as Tabárez went for Fernando Muslera – penalty saving hero against Argentina at the 2011 Copa América, and forwards Luis Suárez and Edinson Cavani.

Tabarez counsels caution, saying: “It’s easy for people to come out and say we should be going to going to the Olympics to win. They’re risking nothing by saying that. We know very well what we should be aiming for and the factors we have in our favour to achieve that.” But with this kind of pedigree, who would seriously bet against Uruguay making it a unique hat-trick of Olympic triumphs in London?

In a hope to combat the ever growing drug trade, the government of Uruguay is considering legalising and regulating the sale of marihuana. President Jose Mujica hopes the drastic shift in approaching the addicting trade will help control quality, safety, and amount while taking money out of the pockets of drug lords.

The government also hopes the potential law will encourage the use of marihuana in place of harsher and more addictive drugs like cocaine. The use of marihuana is already legal in the small country of 3.3 million where Mujica has described the drug war as “unwinnable.”

The announcement has met both praise and criticism across the world, specifically from the U.S. who has staunchly rejected all pushes from Latin American countries in the legalisation of marihuana before. The UN International Narcotics Control Board, which enforces the illegality of marihuana legalisation, is also at odds with Mujica’s government.

Here in Argentina, where the decriminalisation of drugs for personal use is being debated in Congress, the proposed law is also being met with varying reactions. The Argentina Independent hit the streets to find out why the response is so diverse.

Eduardo Viggiano (Photo: Grace Protopapas)

Eduardo Viggiano, 60, Artisan, Almagro

At first I thought it wouldn’t help because people who are going to consume it will consume it no matter what. Especially those people who need it for medical reasons. However, now I believe it will help because it will make it easier for them. Right now [medical users] are not allowed to grow it in their house so they have to go through traffickers, which is a dirty business. It would be better if it was a national business instead of what it is right now, where the people who are dealing are not good people. Even here in Argentina a bunch of us have gotten together in Palermo to talk about the potential legalisation of marihuana and the benefits of it. I think government control would be good.

Ôlonia Castro (Photo: Lauren White)

Ôlonia Castro, 51, Pharmacy Technician, Chile

I’m against it because my son has been addicted to marihuana for many many years and it did a lot of bad things to him. He crashed his car, he almost died because of it. For many years I tried to take him away from it but I didn’t know what to do. He’s 21 years old and he’s been into marihuana since he was 14. It will be really bad if people can just take it openly, there will be no restriction. I took my son to a rehabilitation centre for a year but after that he went back again, he said he loved it, he couldn’t live without it. He was born in the US but we recently moved to Chile to try to help him forget about it, about his friends, everything related to it. Now he’s finally getting better. So I am against it because for me there needs to be that restriction.

Johanna Lipartiti (Photo: Lauren White)

Johanna Lipartiti, 24, Artist, Capilla del Monte, Cordoba

I think it’s good because it is necessary. To smoke marihuana is a personal decision that doesn’t affect anything or anyone else. It is your decision whether or not to smoke it and it shouldn’t fall under this veil of criticism. It shouldn’t be seen as always being bad. Medically speaking it is also good. If people need to smoke marihuana to feel better then this will be good for them as well. I think we should have the same thing here in Argentina.

Tomás Valdés (Photo: Lauren White)

Tomás Valdés, 24, Professional Dancer, Santiago de Chile

I don’t think it will have much of an impact because legal or illegal people are going to consume it. As much as they want to control it and regulate it or even avoid it, people are still going to do it. Even if they legally start making it, it doesn’t matter;people who want to smoke marihuana are going to smoke marihuana whether or not it’s legal. The people . . . are going to consume it no matter what.

Federico Duarte (Photo: Lauren White)

Federico Duarte, 21, Student, Palermo

I think that it is a good idea to make marihuana legal. They understand and realise that people are going to smoke it no matter what. Although this might create a rise in the production of marihuana I also think it will curb people because there will be controlled now. Either way, illegal or legal, people will consume it. This however, will calm things down and people will know that the conditions [of the marihuana] are good and they won’t imagine it as being that wrong. With time they will become a little more used to it and because it isn’t so wrong anymore it will drop. I also think it’s good because it creates clear limits and I think it is good to have these limits.

Uruguay President Jose Mujica (Photo: Santiago Armas)

For a small country of 3.3 million people, Uruguay has a big voice. It was heard loud and clear two weeks ago when President José Mujica announced a plan that would put the legal control —production, sales and distribution — of marihuana in the sole hands of the Uruguayan government. Mujica refers to the plan as an anti-crime measure, a direct assault on drug dealers and the black market, which is becoming increasingly violent in Uruguay.

Government control of the marihuana market would deprive gangs of marihuana profits, US$750 million a year to be exact, while nixing the consumer and drug dealer interaction. Part of the plan is also to combat harder drug use. It is hoped that legal access to marihuana will divert users away from cocaine and pasta base, a crack-like drug known as paco in Argentina.

Julio Calzada, secretary general of Uruguay’s National Drug Board, has said the bill aims “to regulate the quality of the substance that circulates in the market and separate the cannabis market from other drugs that are by their nature more harmful to health, society and security.”

Though the kinks are still being worked out and the bill is yet to be presented to Congress, a left-wing majority indicates it is only a matter of time before it is approved. The institution of the proposal would make the Uruguayan state the only one in South America to directly sell marihuana.

Paving the Way 

At April’s Summit of the Americas in Colombia, Latin American leaders cleared the air to discuss Latin America’s current drug crisis, which has claimed over 50,000 lives in Mexico throughout the last six years, and turned countries like Honduras into violent narco trafficking zones.

Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos, Guatemalan president Otto Pérez Molina and Salvadorian president Mauricio Funes have all voiced consideration of marihuana decriminalisation. While no particular plans were made at the summit, Latin American leaders were able to agree on one thing: the current fight against drug trafficking has failed and a new solution is needed.

Uruguay Government building in Montevideo (Photo: Josealoly)

Uruguay’s defence minister, Eleuterio Fernández Huidobro, has said drug violence, plus the growing costs of interdiction and incarceration, are “causing more problems than the drugs themselves.”

Uruguay has seen a rise in crime stemming from drug deals. In April 2011, a major Colombian drug trafficking ring was found operating in Montevideo, and a May 2011 survey by the polling firm Interconsult showed 62% of Uruguayans felt Uruguay was becoming more unsafe.

Mujica said a country needed to step up to the plate in drug decriminalisation, and that Uruguay would be the one to do it. He said smaller Latin American nations are better posed to attempt experiments like this one, as it gives large countries something to learn from. “Uruguay is a small country, where these sort of things are easier to do,” Mujica said to Brazilian newspaper O Globo.

Mujica’s bold proposal is not unique for Uruguay, a country famous for its progressive policies. Uruguay was the first country in South America to legalise divorce, grant women the right to vote and recognise the rights of trade unions.

The Proposal

As opposed to decriminalisation, which only lessens and revises the penalties for possession of marihuana, the proposed bill is a legalisation measure, allowing the legal use of marihuana as marketed by the Uruguayan government.

The plan is part of a 16-measure package designed by the government to combat violence and public insecurity.

Several of the bill’s details are still being debated, and Fernández Huidobro has said more details are to come soon. As it stands, state authorised networks, including businesses and marihuana-associated clubs, will sell and distribute the drug. Self-cultivation is not included in the bill, and previous attempts to legalise it have not passed through Congress.

Only Uruguayan citizens 18 years of age or older will be able to purchase a maximum of 30 grams (40 marihuana cigarettes) per month. Profits from a sales tax will be directed toward drug rehabilitation services for users who exceed the monthly cap.

Originally, officials voiced the institution of a registry or user database, to monitor who is receiving the marihuana, as well as how much. However recently, according to the Wall Street Journal, Fernández Huidobro said the registry might not be best, as it “sounds a little authoritarian and perhaps we should avoid it.”

If the bill passes through Congress, Fernández Huidobro said Uruguayan farmers will begin planting in September and harvesting will occur six months later.

The government estimates Uruguay will need 100 hectares of land to cultivate an annual 28,000 kilos of marihuana for the country’s 150,000 users.

Currently, Uruguay does not have a law against marihuana use or possession, though its commercialisation is forbidden. Rodrigo Filpo, 28, from Montevideo, says it is fairly common to see Uruguayans smoking marihuana in public.

The Uruguayan plans, whilst original, are part of a regional movement towards a softer approach to the drug problem. In Argentina, a 2009 Supreme Court ruling deemed it unconstitutional to penalise drug possession for personal use, and a number of bills to decriminalise the possession of marihuana are being debated in Congress. Mexico decriminalised the possession of small amounts of marihuana, cocaine and heroin in 2009. Colombia and Brazil have also taken steps toward decriminalisation of marihuana.

The Implications

Uruguayan officials have made it clear that the government-run marihuana market would exclude foreigners, relieving fears that Uruguay would become another Holland, where marihuana’s legality has made the country a drug tourist destination. Only now are The Netherlands setting roadblocks for tourists seeking access to marihuana.

Passing a joint (Photo: Raoni Gruber)

“We will not allow drug-tourism. Holland made that mistake,” said Julio Calzada, secretary general of the National Drug Board.

The age limit, sales tax, and transparency involved in the bill leave some to question the continued existence of a black market, but officials have voiced their top priority is to prevent marihuana from entering a local or global black market.

According to the Associated Press, Mujica has said that “we’ll have to regulate farm production so there’s no contraband and regulate distribution. We must make sure we don’t affect neighbouring countries or be accused of being an international drug production centre.”

Rafael Bayce García Lagos, a Social Sciences professor at the Republic University in Uruguay, says, “I do not think there will be problems with neighbouring countries, because it will minimise their internal problem of supply. Why would Brazil and Argentina care if there is a drug-tourism industry in Uruguay? They wouldn’t, to the contrary, it would soften the problems they think they might have.”

Uruguay may have a roadblock on its way to passing the bill, though, as Yury Fedotov, executive director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, recently voiced. He said that if Uruguay legalises marihuana production and distribution, it would be violating the Single Convention, an international agreement between Uruguay and other countries to curb the drug trade and stop trafficking. The International Narcotics Control Board is rumoured to be planning a visit to Uruguay to discuss the country’s movements toward marihuana legalisation.

Internal opinion on the bill remains divided in both political and public realms. García Lagos says there is a “strong current within the leftist coalition [currently in government] that supports the decriminalisation of marihuana and the regulation of self-cultivation.” He adds that young people siding with the Partido Colorado, Partido Blanco and independent parties are also in favour of the bill.

Opposition leaders have called the measure “absurd,” saying it will only worsen drug use in the country. The Wall Street Journal reported Pedro Bordaberry, a Uruguayan opposition leader, as having said, “We were waiting for measures to combat insecurity, and now the government proposes legalising drugs. It makes no sense.”

A June 2012 Interconsult poll showed 60% of Uruguayans are against state-regulation of marihuana.

Others, like Filpo, see the potential promise in the bill. “I don’t see how this plan could make things worse, and if it helps get poor kids out of harder drugs like pasta base, I think it can really have a positive effect among the lowest classes,” he said.

Though supporters and opponents of marihuana legalisation may disagree on the issue, most can agree on the need for action. In the word of the Uruguayan president, “Someone has to get going in South America. Someone has to be the first because we are losing the war against drugs and crime in the continent.”

What do people in Buenos Aires think about their neighbour’s move to legalise marihuana? Click here to find out.

Uruguayan President José Mujica is the poorest president in the world, according to the news website Infobae.com: he earns US$12,500 per month and donates 90% of it to charities.

“His only property is his old Volkswaken, and he lives in an humble ranch in the outskirts of the capital,” the website writes. “But there are others who live with less,” Mujica said.

The donated 90% of the presidential salary goes to NGOs involved in social housing and to the Fondo Raúl Sendic, a fund that administrates Mujica’s political movement, the MMP (Movivimento de Participación Popular) and collaborates with many local charities.

A former left-wing guerrillero, Mujica announced last week that he would have included his presidential manor, the Suarez and Reyes House in the Prado neighbourhood of Montevideo, in the list of state shelters for homeless people compiled by the Ministry of Welfare.

If all other help centres fill up over the winter months, homeless people could find themselves under the luxurious roof of the three-floor presidential palace, a building in which Mujica decided not to move into.

“It’s neither a burden or a pose, it is a philosophy that I carried on from in years of privacy,” says the Uruguayan president, who was elected within the leftist Broad Front coalition and claims to be happy with what he has.

He still lives with his wife, Sen. Lucia Topolansky, in his farm on the outskirts of Montevideo, in Rincón del Cerro, as he promised when he was due to be elected president.

For many years he used a simple Vespa scooter to come to Parliament. According to the latest affidavit submitted to the Board of Transparency and Public Ethics, Mujica only owns a 1987 Volkswagen, while the first lady, who also donates part of her salary to charities, owns the farm.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (CIDH) has presented an overview of the current regional prison situation in “Report on Human Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas,” in which it voices concerns over unsatisfactory prison conditions and overcrowding.

The paper denounced the structural deficiencies of the prison and state negligence toward elements that conspire against the rehabilitation of people living in prison.

The organisational body of the OAS Human Rights also highlighted the lack of protection of vulnerable groups, lack of employment and educational programmes and lack of transparency in prison management.

According to data published in the report, Uruguay, Mexico, and Venezuela are the countries that invest the least in their prisons, while the Bahamas is the largest contributor.

Moreover, the commission expressed that in various countries in the region, the inmates spend long periods in detention before being charged and brought to trial.

The document also reports the use “of torture for purposes of criminal investigation,” and the “use of excessive force” as well as preventative detention.

Finally the organisation calls on the regional states to guarantee the rights of persons deprived of their liberty and to ensure decent conditions of detention.

Translated from Pulsar

Map of land-locked Paraguay, circa 1875 (Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

It is commonly said that the Triple Alliance War, or Guerra Grande (1864-70) was a watershed in the Paraguayan history as it marked the death of hundreds of thousands of Paraguayans, led to significant territorial loss at the hands of the winners, put an end to an autonomous process of development, and was the start of continuous foreign intervention in the country’s political life.

The war, which pitted Paraguay against Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay, had devastating, long-lasting effects on the landlocked country. In fact, the conflict meant the loss of approximately 60% of the Paraguayan population and 90% of the male population. According to the 1871 census, the post-war Paraguayan population was 116,351 inhabitants, including only 28,000 men: a holocaust never seen in the Western hemisphere since independence swept through the region in the 19th century. It was also a tragedy that ended in several paradoxes.

Why the war began

Unlike many Latin American countries, in 1811 Paraguay gained independence without a war. Due to the isolation imposed by dictator Rodriguez de Francia a few years after the declaration of independence, Paraguay achieved a considerable level of economic development, based on national self-sufficiency and almost no contact with other countries. The state had a monopoly over international trade and started to play a commanding position over increasing aspects of the national life.

After the dictator’s death in 1840 and with Carlos Antonio López ruling the country (first as a member of a Consulate, and since 1844 as a president) Paraguay continued deepening the role of the public sector in economic development, while at the same time ending the traditional isolation and started a period of increasing interaction with its bigger neighbours: Brazil and Argentina. Even though both countries recognized the independence of Paraguay in 1843 and 1852 respectively, this increasing interaction brought out into the open the matter of unresolved boundary limits, which had arisen during colonial times, between the Spanish and Portuguese Crowns, and among some Spanish provinces in the New World. Carlos Antonio López was unable to solve this aspect and the situation got even worse during his son, Francisco Solano López’ government (1862-70).

Brazilian soldiers during the war (Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

Studies on the Triple Alliance war traditionally focused on the ‘’tangible’’ causes of the conflict, namely: the issue of frontiers inherited from colonial times; the search for a power balance in the Río de la Plata; Brazilian intervention in Uruguay to overthrow the Blanco Party (traditionally allied to López) in favour of the Colorado Party (closely linked to Argentina and Brazil); as well as Francisco Solano López’ inability to understand an increasing complex and tense regional scenario and his excessive confidence on his powerful army. But in recent decades studies have been focusing on the ‘’intangible’’ causes. Among the most important ones are: the role of Great Britain as a strong supporter of the allies against Paraguay; and the Brazilian need for Paraguay to fully guarantee free navigation of the Río Paraguay – essential for reaching and populating its vast western territory (due to the uneven and hilly Brazilian geography, it was very difficult to build railways connecting the coast of Brazil to the west).

Some historians claim that Britain played a key role in the war for very important reasons: one of them is the need to have access to the provision of cotton for its thriving textile manufacturing companies, something that had been in danger due to the outbreak of the American Civil war (1861-65). On the other hand, Paraguay, with its autonomous and self-sufficient economic model, was considered a ‘’black sheep’’ for the dominant logic of world economy based on the ideas of the free market, ideas that were supported and expanded by Britain as the hegemonic power of the time. Arguably, such a bad example against the established world order had to be destroyed and converted into the logic of the free market.

Just an international war?

Paraguayan prisoners at the end of the war (Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

There is another paradox as a result of the war: The local understanding of the conflict and the long-standing period of internal Paraguayan fights that arose from 1870 on. Indeed, not only was it an international war but it also brought Paraguayans against Paraguayans. Article 7 of the Secret Treaty of the Triple Alliance said: “Being the war not against the Paraguayan people but against their government, the allies are able to admit in a Paraguayan Legion every citizen of this nation who would want to attend to the overthrowing of said government, and will provide them with the elements they would need, in the form and conditions agreed upon.”

Many Paraguayans who opposed López’ rule and were living in exile, mainly in Buenos Aires, joined the Paraguayan Legion, and with the fall of Asunción in 1869 (one year before the death of López in Cerro Corá) they gained increasing political influence in the post-war years. Nevertheless, the creation of this legion was a hub for an internal division in Paraguay among Lopiztas and antilopiztas, and for overwhelming instability and violence that the country lived during the rest of the 19th century and a great part of the 20th century.

Another Paradox: independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity

Even though Article 8 of the Secret Treaty stated that “the allies commit to respecting the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Paraguay. In consequence the Paraguayan people shall choose the government and institutions best suited for them, without incorporating themselves or requesting protection from any of the allies, as a result of the war”, the end of the conflict led in great territorial loses for Paraguay, the killing of a great a percentage of its population, the ransacking of Asunción, and the beginning of a period characterized by the military occupation of the allied forces until 1876 and the establishment of puppet governments.

This fact also opened a period of Paraguay’s pendular foreign policy towards its neighbours: according to the needs of the time and the ideological affinity of the political party in power with Argentina or Brazil (Liberals tended to be more pro-Argentina while Colorados tended to favour a closer relationship with Brazil) there were some periods in which the relationship with one of the bigger neighbours was stronger in detriment to the other one. This also helped spark the rivalry for regional influence between these former allies.

More paradoxes, even in the post-war years

Artist Victor Meirelles' rendition of a fallen Paraguayan soldier (Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

As it was mentioned above, the Triple Alliance war meant the devastation of Paraguay, the destruction of an autonomous economic model, the genocide against its population and a degree of political instability and violence never seen before in the country and which long standing recurrence after many decades lead to Alfredo Stroessner’s dictatorship (1954-89). But it also had negative consequences for the region: after the end of the conflict, Argentina and Brazil started to compete for more regional influence.

In spite of the fact that both countries had committed to supporting each other in their territorial claims against Paraguay, after the signature of a treaty in 1872 settling the limits between Paraguay and Brazil, the country put obstacles against Argentina’s aspirations over the complete Chaco. As a consequence, the Irigoyen – Machaín Treaty (1876) signed by Argentina and Paraguay, established the Central Chaco (today the Argentine province of Formosa) as an Argentine territory, being the Northern Chaco divided in two parts, one part under Paraguayan sovereignty and the other one subjected to international arbitration of the US President Rutherford Hayes, whose country remained neutral during the war. In 1878, the arbitration decision was favourable to Paraguay due to the fact that this country produced much more evidence of sovereignty than their Argentine counterparts.

This competition between Argentina and Brazil, and the subsequent distrust of the Paraguayan population towards their former enemies, led to military conflict being the golden rule to relate to the neighbours in the years to come. No economic integration was going to be possible till the end of military governments, in the last decades of the 20th centuries.

In spite of all the terrible consequences for Paraguay, it is possible to say that to some extent, and without being aware of it, the country took revenge on its former enemies:

Alfredo Stroessner, dictator in Paraguay years later as an indirect result of the war (Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

In early 1871 the city of Buenos Aires was ravaged by the outbreak of yellow fever epidemic. This episode is remembered as the Great Epidemic of 1871 as it killed almost 15,000 people, according to some estimates, and caused a decrease of a third of the city’s population as thousands of dwellers abandoned the place.

Some historians and sources claim that this epidemic might have been originated in Asunción due to the deplorable condition of the city and the survivors of the war, and could have been brought to the Argentine capital by war veterans who were coming back home by that time.

The war had finished the previous year, but it continued, somewhat, in the way of a sanitary catastrophe.

Another paradox of the conflict is a political one, and it was related to the end of the Empire and the foundation of the Republic in Brazil in 1889. The abolition of slavery in this country the year before is mentioned as one of the causes of the change in the political system as many fazendeiros who resented because they lost their slave workforce, stopped supporting the monarchy and were in favour of a Republican political system. But what is the relationship of the twilight of the monarchy and the Triple Alliance war? A very important one: many Brazilian soldiers were slaves who went to the battlefields with the promise to get their freedom. And with some years of delay the Imperial government honoured its promise.

There is also a paradox that has to do with Britain, the “intangible” cause of the war. Even though this country gained more influence in the region, this was not going to be for so long a time. As a consequence of the war, and with President Hayes’ arbitration, another actor was determined to play a very important role in its hemisphere, displacing the European hegemony: the United States.

The Triple Alliance war ended 142 years ago and it still remains controversial in all the countries which were part of the conflict. There are so many lessons we can learn from this conflict. However, the most important one (incredibly or not in this case) is to learn how to come to terms with the past.

At the annual meeting of the inter-American development bank (IDB), Uruguayan president José Mujica criticised Mercosur, pointing to the contradictions and trade disputes within the regional bloc.

Mujica stated that the economic bloc is “stagnant” and characterised by a “lack of institutional guarantees.”

However, the Uruguayan leader also emphasised the strategic importance of Mercosur for the growth of local industries and in the strengthening of domestic markets.

“We have a Mercosur riddled by contradictions, which is not respected, and that comes under criticism every day, but woe to us if it did not exist.”

“Mercosur’s defects are our faults and we will fight to the death, without comprising or losing it.”

IDB officials stressed the importance of widening regional integration as a mechanism to counter the international economic crisis.

“If we cannot negotiate with dollars, we will barter, and if we have to make monthly payments, we will have to tell our industries, this is the parameter that you have to work with,” Mejica continued.

Trade tensions within the regional bloc go beyond the international crisis. Imbalances within Mercosur have been present since its conception.

Control measures on imports from Brazil and Argentina, in particular, has been a constant concern for the Uruguayan leader.

“Mercosur serves us as a political platform, but not as a trading bloc.” says economic researcher, Nicolás Albertoni Gómez. “This is an open secret since every government knows that it doesn’t work. We have to consider flexible commerce for the smaller economies.”

María Dolores Benavente, president of the Uruguayan National Academy of Economy, agrees with Albertoni that “the only solution for Uruguay is free trade.”

Under Mercosur, any trade agreement with third parties must be ratified first by other bloc members. In previous cases, Argentina and Brazil have both systematically opposed such initiatives.

At present, Uruguay suffers from a large inflow of capital which reduces the competitiveness of its exports and exposes the country to cheap imports.

Mujica will travel to Brazil on Thursday to discuss the possibility of trade expansion with Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff.

“We don’t need to leave Mercosur,” stated Senator Sergio Abreu, “but Brazil must understand that Argentina is locking us out and we need new markets.”

William Hague made clear Britain’s position during a dinner with 100 international ambassadors, including Argentina’s Ambassador, Alicia Castro.

During the dinner, held in London, Hague emphasised he wanted to strengthen the relations between Britain and Latin America, but is committed to the “right of self-determination of the islanders.’

“This determination to deepen our relations with Latin America is coupled with our steadfast commitment to the right of self determination of the people of the Falkland Islands,” said Hague, as reported in the Telegraph. He added, that both countries will commemorate those lost during the war and these events cannot be “understood as a provocation.”

This was the first time Hague has addressed the sensitive issue in front of a high-ranking Argentine official.

A day later, the Uruguayan Foreign Affairs minister, Luis Almagro, declared his opposition to blockading trade with the island.

“Supporting any form of blockade would be a violation of the Malvinas inhabitants’ human rights and the same we say with Cuba, we repeat in this case” said Almagro, yesterday.

Although Uruguay supports Argentina’s stance on the sovereignty of the islands, Almagro added that Uruguayan businesses can do trade “with whom they wish and with whom they can.”

Uruguay has been pulled into the debate by a misinformed Sun newspaper article, indicating that Uruguay was breaking trade restrictions set by Argentina on the Falklands. In a statement, Almagro pointed out that beside Argentina, “there’s no blockade of the Malvinas Islands inhabitants by any country of the continent.”

The Falklands/Malvinas debate has been gaining tension over the last few months, as the 30^th anniversary of the war draws near.

A report from the National Institute of Statistics , published today, has shown that the poverty index in Uruguay fell sharply by five points in 2011. 162,827 people came out of poverty last year.

According to the report, poverty affects 13.7% of the population, a drop from 18.6% in 2010, and the poverty index now stands at 0.6%.

The report stated that the most concentrated area of poverty is in the capital, Montevideo, where half of the country’s population live. The report also noted that poverty is more prominent among children, teenagers and the black population.

The report confirms the trend that poverty has been dropping steadily in Uruguay since 2006.

More details have emerged indicating that the two nurses who killed at least 16 patients in Uruguayan hospitals weren’t carrying out euthanasia and many of their victims weren’t in a terminal condition when they died.

According to the Uruguayan ministry of health, five of the 16 known victims were in a cardiac unit while the rest were in the neurosurgery ward. “None of the units are intensive care,” the health minister, Jorge Venegas, confirmed.

One of the men in question is 40-year-old Marcelo Pereira who worked between Maciel, a public hospital and the Asociación Española clinic, one of the country’s most prestigious health centres. He killed 5 patients, injecting them with morphine; apparently none of them were in terminal conditions.

The other is 46-year-old Ariel Acevedo, who also worked in the Asociación Española clinic. He has admitted to killing 11 people by administering oxygen into their veins.

Investigators are looking into the possibility that a third man was involved.

Authorities are now looking into the causes of death of more patients. At least 16 people died at the hands of the nurses but they believe the real total to be much higher.

The percentage of fatalities among patients in the cardiac care units in Maciel tripled in 2011 compared the previous year; 12% up from 4%.

The theory that the nurses were acting benevolently is being seriously undermined by, among others, the story of one woman who, according to Uruguayan authorities, was close to being released when she died. Santa Lemos was 74 and she was admitted to hospital for a routine procedure.

Her daughter, Gladys Rodríguez Lemos spoke to Argentine radio station, MDZ radio and explained her case “My mum was admitted for a convulsion as she was diabetic,” she said. “She was about to be discharged, she was ready to come home and then it all started and she started foaming at the mouth. They treated her there and she died. She was not terminal.”

“I Thought I was God”

Acevedo’s lawyer, Inés Massiotti released a statement via the Uruguayan paper El Pais saying that the nurse, “has confessed saying that after twenty years of working with the stress of being in between life and death, he couldn’t take it any more.”

Massiotti, a close friend of her client, told El Pais about a revealing encounter which encouraged her to take up her friend’s defence. Questioning him about the deaths she revealed: “I told him, ‘you thought you were God’ he admitted everything and asked for forgiveness. ‘Yes, I thought I was God.’”

“We can presume that what started as euthanasia, killing in order to help the victim’s pain became distorted and changed into killing for pleasure. They are now using euthanasia as a justification for what they did.” Laura Quiñones, an Argentine criminologist told BBC Mundo. “These people have psychopathic profiles, whose main personality traits are marked by insensitivity, manipulation, superficiality and selfishness. They thought they were omnipotent and this overtook their original motives.”