When Revisionism Swings Too Far to the Other Side: A New Book on the War of the Triple Alliance

While this book has the potential to be interesting, this review raises my eyebrows immediately. There is no doubt that the War of the Triple Alliance was an absolute bloodbath; Paraguay did in fact lose 90% of its male population, something which (unsurprisingly) took its toll for generations. Still (and this is only based on the review, which may itself be problematic), I have a lot of problems with the way it seems to characterize events and take sides. Certainly, Lynch's role has been overstated in popular culture and earlier histories of the war - no doubt, she was much more complicated than simple villification makes her out to be. And her reputation as the "whore" who fueled the war may still exist among popular culture in Brazil (though I never saw any books or heard anybody talking about her in discussions on the war, of which I did have some).

However, I have never seen a historical work in the last 30 years that focused on Lynch, or even really gave her much credence, other than to acknowledge that, at the time of the war, she was a convenient scapegoat. Most histories of the war focus on the fact that the war was brutal for both sides (though because Paraguay's population was smaller, it naturally suffered more, as Brazil could simply outlast it). They document how there was plenty of blame to go around in the start of the war, and that there were multiple diplomatic and military aggressors, including Brazil and Paraguay. Additionally, these histories do a good job of detailing atrocities on both sides, not just in terms of battles, but in terms of racist propaganda. Brazil portrayed Paraguay as a backward mix of indigenous peoples and Spanish, while Paraguay portrayed Brazil as a degenerate slave society (with racial implications as well). Additionally, the Paraguayan people and troops were extremely devoted to Solano Lopez, and the fact that he did not ever surrender did play a role in the casualties; as long as he fought, Paraguayans seemed ready to follow him. By simply saying, "It wasn't Lynch's fault - Brazil was genocidal!" really ignores the complexities of the causes and events of the war.

Perhaps most egregious in this reassigning of blame, though, is the overlooking of the causes of deaths. Nearly two-thirds of those on both sides who died in the War of the Triple Alliance died from disease and malnutrition, and cholera ravaged both armies. While war exacerbates these conditions, it's kind of hard to take seriously claims that Brazil (or Paraguay) actively committed "genocide" against the troops and people. And to be clear, I'm not saying this out of defense of Brazil - it certainly did commit atrocities during the war, as did Paraguay. However, the review makes it seem that this biography completely overlooks these complexities and facts, all in the name of rehabilitating somebody who at this point has really fallen to the margins of the narratives and analyses of the War of the Triple Alliance.

I still may try to check out the book sometime; it's quite possible that the review is overlooking many complexities within the book by focusing on the revival of Lynch's reputation. Still, at least based on the review (not to mention the fact that two Irishmen are writing a revisionist history of an Irish woman, not exactly the most apolitical move), this smacks of writers swinging too far to the other side in the telling of a story, simply switching out its villains (in this case, Lynch for Brazil at large), and that's the worst kind of revisionism possible. If you really want to learn about the war and its effects in Brazil, I'd stick to Peter M. Beattie's excellent work, and leave the revisionist biographies on the shelf.

The Developing Crisis between Ecuador, Colombia, and Venezuela

To be up front, I am not a specialist in international relations, and in terms of Latin America, I am nowhere near as studied in Colombia/Venezuela/Ecuador as I am in Brazil or the Southern Cone.

That said, the new developments between Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela are rather intense, and have I think a real chance to get worse. Late last week, Colombia announced it had killed Raul Reyes, FARC's "number 2" (although, as Boz points out, this is a simplification of a complicated command structure in the FARC). As the story develops, it appears that Colombia actually invaded Ecuadoran airspace, and the Colombian military crossed into Ecuador without permission to kill Reyes, who was in Ecuador's national territory. In response, President Rafael Correa of Ecuador has sent troops to the Colombia-Ecuador border, withdrawn his ambassador from Colombia, and expelled Colombia's ambassador from Ecuador. Hugo Chávez has also shut down Venezuela's embassy in Colombia, and sent troops to the Colombia-Venezuela border, threatening war if Colombia tries to invade Venezuela, even to attack members of the FARC or the ELN. And while Colombia has apologized to Ecuador, Ecuador says the apology is insufficient, while Colombia claims it has found evidence in the camp of the 17 FARC members that Ecuador was in contact with FARC. Suffice to say, things are, at the moment, rather tense.

I don't really know what the implications of all this will be. Certainly, the relations between Chávez and Uribe can't get much worse, and have been drastically declining since Uribe inexplicably (and, although it all worked out OK, rather indefensibly) kicked Chávez out of the delicate hostage negotiations in November). Plus, both Chávez and Uribe stand to gain from the bump in approval ratings in their respective country that such national disputes often engender (some are saying Chávez in particular could benefit given his allegedly lagging status in Venezuela, but I simply have virtually no faith in any of the polling mechanisms in Venezuela, given the extreme partisanship, pro- or anti-Chavista, that runs throughout many "non-partisan" organizations there).

But the Ecuador element is more troubling. Correa has yet to prove himself to be somebody who acts without just reason, so the fact that he has taken this this far already shows how serious he feels it to be. While national soveriegnty and the control of borders used to be sufficient enough an argument for war or a highly-charged national response in its own right, today it seems a bit differnet, given the nature of guerrilla tactics and less immediate antagonism to such border-violations (witness the lack of outcry when Turkey entered Iraq a few weeks ago to go after Kurdish PKK "terrorists"). I get the sense that many may say, "So what? So Colombia went a couple miles into Ecuador to get some "terrorists." What's the big deal?" Given the way the world has globalized not just in terms of economy, but also technologically, culturally, and even politically, the respect for national borders doesn't strike me as being as strong as it may once have been. This is in no way aided by the fact that, sometimes national territory means virtually nothing to major world powers (the U.S.'s support of Contra bases in Costa Rica and Honduras) while other times, national borders must be protected at all costs (the Malvinas War).

But territorial issues have always been sensitive in Latin America, from the independence movements to today. One simply has to look at the ongoing battle over the northern third of Chile, won in the wake of the War of the Pacific, which deprived Bolivia of its one outlet to the ocean and which Peru and Bolivia still insist belongs to them even today, over 120 years after the war itself. Wars of this type were not uncommon in Latin America, having affected the territorial control of Bolivia, Paraguay, and even Ecuador itself, which lost land to Peru in a war in 1945, and over which eruptions flared again in 1995. One can see how Colombia's invasion of Ecuador's border could be more than a little upsetting to Ecuador.I think Colombia's charges that Ecuador was in contact with the FARC are a weak defense, at least until it becomes clearer to how deep these contacts ran. Colombia itself only mentioned "possible" connections betwen FARC-Ecuador, and I find it unlikely that Ecuador was really closely tied to FARC. If such contact did exist, it doesn't necessarily mean Ecuador was being overly friendly.

I'm not convinced yet this will erupt into some regional war. I think cooler heads have to prevail, though, and given Uribe's brashness in invading Ecuador, and neither Uribe nor Chávez is exactly a calm, patient, diplomatic figure. War benefits nobody here, though (save maybe for the FARC, who can use the war as a breather to regroup). There still hasn't been much said from other Latin American countries on the issue; Lula is asking his Minsiter of Foreign Relations for more information, but the president of Brazil's Câmara has already said that, if necessary, Brazil should try to use its role in the region to avoid crisis as a neutral moderator (i.e., representing neither Colombia nor Ecuador nor Venezuela). Hopefully, things will calm down. Still, war is not out of the question, and it will definitely be worth seeing how the events play out between these three countries (and the rest of the region) over the next few weeks.