“What does Runasur propose (and what does not)?”, By Farid Kahhat

In a statement entitled “In defense of national sovereignty,” prominent retired Peruvian diplomats argue that Runasur is a project of Evo Morales that “it is proposed to dismember Peru by granting Bolivia a sovereign exit to the Pacific and thus form an ‘Aymara nation’ as a Bolivian territorial extension.”

Evo Morales is a character who, as president of Bolivia, repeatedly violated the Constitution of his country (for example, when he ran for a fourth presidential term that it did not contemplate) and today endorses evident electoral fraud, such as that of Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. Furthermore, his invocation to overcome capitalism is demagogic, since that was not what he did when he ruled Bolivia. And I agree with those who criticize the fact that he regularly opines about our policy within Peruvian territory, something that he did not tolerate in his country when he was president (that criticism, by the way, should be extended to other foreign politicians who do the same, such as Leopoldo López).

But, as we saw, these are not the accusations that the pronouncement of our diplomats uses. And, to be honest, the purposes that they attribute to Runasur (“dismember Peru”, grant Bolivia “a sovereign exit to the Pacific” or “form an Aymara nation”) do not appear in the only document they cite: the Decalogue of Runasur. Nor do they appear in other Runasur documents that I reviewed for this article (for example, Evo Morales’ speech at the first Runasur meeting or the Declaration of Buenos Aires).

Furthermore, the pronouncement cites the part of the Decalogue of Runasur in which it is stated that its purpose is to found a “plurinational America”. Speaking to RPP, former Foreign Minister Allan Wagner maintains that what is really being sought is “to divide our countries, on the basis of this not well-defined concept of plurinational America.” Against which it would be possible to make several observations. Either Runasur promotes “plurinational” states or it promotes a state based on an “Aymara nation”, but it cannot be accused of promoting both at the same time. For example, as in Bolivia, in Ecuador the Constitution defines the State as plurinational.

But, unlike Bolivia, in Ecuador there is practically no Aymara population. For this reason, in Bolivia the proposal to define the State as plurinational was opposed both to the Aymara-based separatism of Felipe Quispe, as well as to the separatism of the so-called “camba nation” (in fact, the word ‘rune’ in Runasur is Quechua, not Aymara). Even without appealing to the term “plurinational”, a unitary State can recognize the existence of nationalities within its territory, and grant them rights: for example, the Spanish Constitution establishes that Spain “recognizes and guarantees the right to autonomy of nationalities and regions. that make it up ”. Regardless of whether or not it is desirable as a proposal, the claim of a plurinational identity is compatible with the continuity of the States that exist today.

In the aforementioned interview, Ambassador Wagner makes a quote that he associates with Runasur (although he does not specify the source), where it is stated that this organization seeks “a structural change” of the States “through original constituent assemblies.” In an article in this same medium entitled “The risks of changing the Constitution”, I made clear my position against the convocation of a constituent assembly. But that does not deny the right of those who think differently to raise that possibility, through a reform of the current Constitution. For the rest, this proposal undermines the argument that it would seek to transcend the current States: not only has a new State not emerged in the region in more than a century, but also all the constituent assemblies that took place in Latin America were held to reform the states that already existed, not to transcend them.