A Prince's Polemical Plaque

British ships attack Cartagenas in 1741. (Image from Wikipedia.com) 

In early March 1741, a massive British colonial fleet of 186 ships and 23,600 men, including 12,000 infantry, attacked the port city of Cartagena, defended by only 6 ships and 6,000 men, as well as its famous forts and shore batteries.

Cartagena Mayor Dionisio Vélez, on left, and Prince Charles,
on right, unveil the polemical plaque.
(Photo from the prince's website.)

Spanish Admiral Blas de Lezo, who
commanded the defense.
(Image from Wikipedia.com)

Spanish Admiral Blas de Lezo chose to make a fighting retreat. During the next two months, the British troops, commanded by Admiral Edward Vernon, took one Spanish defensive fortification after another. But they were losing men at a horrific rate, to both Spanish guns and to tropical diseases.

In May, the humiliated British withdrew, having lost 18,000 men killed or injured, as well as their goal of wresting the fabulously valuable Caribbean colonies away from Spain. Spain's South American empire would survive another 70 years.

Meanwhile, back in London, the government believing that its forces had won, and had already issued coins celebrating the 'victory.' When news of the disaster arrived, King George ordered the coins removed from circulation and prohibited anyone from talking or writing about the defeat.

British Admiral Edward Vernon.
(Image from Wikipedia.com)

Today, the British are no longer mum about one of their greatest naval defeats. During Prince Charles' visit last week, he and the mayor of Cartagena unveiled a plaque 'In memory of the valor and suffering of all those who died in combat attempting to take the city and the fort of San Felipe, under the command of the Admiral Edward Vernon in Cartagenas de Indias in 1741. Presented by the Corporación Centro Histórico de Cartagena de Indias'.

During the ceremony, the Cartageneros were blinded by the prince's star power. But by the next day, they were complaining. After all, why had the city spent public funds to pay tribute to foreigners who attacked it? How about commemorating the Cartageneros who died courageously defending their city (and the Spanish empire)?

Coins minted to commemorate the
great British 'victory' in Cartagena.
(Photo: Wikipedia)

They have a point, but could profit by looking at the ironies of history. After all, the Cartageneros were fighting so heroically to preserve the Spanish empire, which less than a century later they would be fighting against for Colombia's independence. During that 1810 - 1820 war of independence the British would return - this time fighting on the Colombians' side against the Spanish. There's another plaque on Plaza Bolivar commemorating the help of the British Legion, which fought alongside of Simon Bolivar.

In neither case, of course, were the British being altruistic. In both wars, the Brits wanted to weaken

Spanish control on the Americas and open the New World to British trade.

Another irony: Amongst the British imperial soldiers were many men from its north American colonies, including Lawrence Washington, half-brother of George Washington, later to become of the United States' revolution against Britain. Lawrence Washington so admired Adm. Vernon that he named the family estate Mt. Vernon in his honor. A generation later, many of these same men, or their sons, would change uniforms and fight against Britain.

The Cartageneros' complaint is valid. But they also might stop a moment and reflect that the British invaders didn't want to control Cartagena as much as to free it from Spain in order to be able to trade with South America.

So, if the British invasion had succeeded, Colombia's independence might have come a half-century sooner.

Update: Cartagena officials are discussing redoing or replacing the plaque. But, meanwhile, someone attacked it with a hammer.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

Bogotá's British Moment

Bogotá's not going to become a British colony, or change its official language to English. But a flurry of events have made this a somewhat British moment for Colombia's capital.

Thanks Avianca. Recently, Avianca started non-stop flights between Bogotá and London. A long haul.

Business is Great. The UK government is marketing the country as a gateway to Europe for Colombian businesses.

The UK set up a website promoting trade between the two countries.

And, not long ago, Britain's education ministry opened an office in Colombia to recruit students for UK universities.

Despite the distance between them, Colombia and Britain's ties go way back. The British sent a British Legion to fight against Spain alongside Simon Bolivar's armies. (There is still a British Cemetery in Bogotá, beside the Central Cemetery.) Later, British recognition of the newly independent states was crucial in their being recognized by other nations.

Colombia and Britain have warm relations today in part because of geopolitical and geographical coincidence. London argues that history and population trump geography in its claims to the Falkland Islands, which are located off of the coast of Argentina, which also claims the islands and calls them the Malvinas. Using somewhat similar historical arguments, Colombia claims the San Andres archipelago, off of the coast of Nicaragua, which has a rival claim to the islands.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

How Britain Created Colombia

Daniel O'Leary, a soldier from Ireland
who also preserved Simon Bolivar's personal
documents for history. 

Of course, that's probably an exaggeration. But I thought about it while looking at some English miniatures now on display in the National Museum in Bogotá.

The technique of creating miniatures probably came to Colombia with the Royal Botanical Expedition of 1783 to 2016, led by Celestino Mutis, which created miniatures to record plants encountered during the travels. After the expedition's end, artists sought other ways to earn money, such as making portraits of the wealthy.

One of the tiny portraits on display shows Irishman Daniel Florence O'Leary. He was an aide-de-camp under Simon Bolivar and perhaps the most famous member of the British Legion, a volunteer force which fought alongside Bolivar against the Spanish empire. The British effort was not altruistic, of course: they wanted to weaken a rival empire and rule the world - which they eventually accomplished.

England's King George IV: A dissolute,
unprincipled man, but nevertheless
admired by Colombians.

Even after the colonies had broken away from Spain's rule, their real independence wasn't assured. France, which practically controlled Spain, considered trying to reconquer the colonies. And a coalition of Europe's conservative monarchies talked of sending members of European royal families across the ocean to rule the New World. (The only place where this was actually tried was Mexico, where the French installed the Austrian Maximilian I. Maximilian lasted only three years, however, before being overthrown and executed by Benito Juarez.)

An unidentified member of the British Legion. 

Latin America's independence was tentative and uncertain until the British Empire, pushed by Foreign Secretary George Canning, recognized Colombia, Argentina and Mexico. Canning, naturally, did not act out of altruism. He wanted to weaken France, which controlled Spain, and open the Latin American markets for the British Empire's trade. Canning made no bones about this:

British Foreign Secretary George Canning,
whose recogintion of the nations of
Latin America made their independence certain.

"Spanish America is free," he said, "and if we do not mismanage our affairs she is English ... the New World established and if we do not throw it away, ours."

"I resolved that if France had Spain it should not be Spain with the Indies," Canning explained the next year. "I called the New World into existence to redress the balance of the Old."

The British Cemetery in Bogotá,
created for the British Legion veterans.

But if Canning acted out of Britain's interests, he evidently did have liberal, progressive sentiments. He had also opposed tyrranical governments in Naples and the Netherlands, advocated expanded rights for Britain's Catholics and opposed slavery.

A plaque on Plaza Bolivar in Bogotá
comemorating the British Legion.

Previously, the United States had recognized Colombia in 1822 and the next year U.S. Pres. James Monroe issued his famous doctrine opposing further European colonization or interference in the Americas. But the U.S. was a weak nation: It was Britain that mattered.

A tomb in Bogotá's Central Cemetery carries the surname O'Leary - possibly a descendent of revolutionary hero Daniel O'Leary, who is buried in Caracas, Venezuela?

A plaque in the British Cemetery says that a fence was built from the British Legion's muskets. 

Related post: A Patch of England in Bogotá.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

Mr. Freedom of Information is Going WHERE???

Assange: Persecuted or persecutor?

The news that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is seeking political refuge in Ecuador is the last piece of evidence of Assange's moral emptiness.

Assange may have done the world a real service with Wikileaks by revealing wartime abuses and financial amorality. But it always seemed evident to me that the man who wanted all 'information to be free' was happy to free information only as long as it satisfied his worldview and didn't inconvenience him. Remember, after all, how heatedly Assange complained when embarrassing facts about the Swedish charges of sexual abuse against him were leaked.

And the government data he posted online seemed to be overwhelmingly about the U.S. government and corporations. But what about embarrassing data about authoritarian governments in Asia and the Middle East?

Odd couple: Assange and Ecuadorean
President and media repressor Rafael Correa.

Assange's claims that the court case against him was persecution also rang hollow. Assange was accused of rape and other sexual crimes by two Swedish women who had been his supporters and intimate friends. That doesn't sound like a Washington-backed conspiracy. And Sweden isn't known particularly as  a corrupt nation or a United States puppet. Why doesn't Assange go to Sweden and face the sort of open, public trial which he would certainly demand for people whose crimes Wikileaks revealed.

But Assange's decision to seek refuge in Ecuador is more telling. Ecuador's president Rafael Correa has been widely criticized by media and human rights organizations for using legal mechansims to repress criticism of his government.

When a free speech defender seeks protection from a free speech repressor, what does that tell us about him?

Once Assange gets comfortable in Ecuador, expect Wikileaks to get active again, now backed by Correa's oil money and filled with anti-U.S. revelations.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

San Andres and the Falklands....eeerrr...Malvinas

Watching penguins in the Falklands.
(Photo: Falklands Islands.com)

Besides drugs, another issue sure to be discussed at the Summit of the Americas will be the windswept archipelago off of the Argentine coast, called the Falklands Islands by the British and the Malvinas by the Argentines and most of Latin America.

They're frigid, windy places with a few thousand people and lots more sheep. But they have economic value in the fisheries and hydrocarbons in the waters around them. And, even more value in terms of national pride.

They're also suddenly relevant to Colombia, because Colombia has friendly diplomatic and commercial relations with both nations claiming the islands, and would have a hard time choosing sides. In fact, some other Latin Americans labeled Colombia a traitor against its Latin neighbors because it didn't back Argentina against Britain in their war over the islands 30 years ago.

Sunny San Andrés.

The Falklands/Malvinas dispute could also have a geopolitical relevance for Colombia because of its parallels to Colombia's own dispute with Nicaragua over the Archipelago of San Andres and Providencia, which lies not far off of Nicaragua's coast. The archipelago is a geographical and historical oddity. The first Europeans to settle there were English Puritans. Later came pirates, Spanish, French and Africans. The islands became so notorious for smuggling that today Colombian cities have shopping areas called Sanandresitos with a reputation for selling contraband products. The islands finally became Spanish colonial territory, and Colombia inherited them with independence - at least according to the Colombian version of history. (In another similarity to the Falklands, the people of San Andres and Providencia still speak a kind of English, albeit mixed with Spanish and other tongues.)

The San Andres archipelago once made geographic sense for Colombia. But after U.S. Pres. Teddy Roosevelt encouraged Panama to rebel and made it into a separate country in order to dig a canal, the archipelago stayed with the rest of Colombia, stranded off of the Nicaraguan coast.

A sign in Argentina says
'The Malvinas are Argentinean."

Today, both Colombia and Nicaragua claim the islands and their surrounding waters based on complex historical evidence. Enrique Gaviria, president of the Colombian Historical Academy, told El Tiempo the other day that Colombia should support Argentina's claim to the Falklands because it's based on the same argument as Colombia's claim to San Andres: that both South American nations inherited certain Spanish colonial rights. However, Colombia could also use part of Britain's basis for claiming the Falklands: they've controlled the islands for a long, long time, and the people living there consider themselves British (or in the San Andres' case, Colombian) citizens. 

In fact, both Argentina's and Nicaragua's claims are outdated exercises in nationalism. If geography trumped a place's history of continuous occupation, then we'd need to carry out wholesale transfers of territory all around the world, including giving Alaska back to Russia (or Canada) and Spain hand the Canary islands over to some West African nation. Many of the little pieces of land dotting the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean would change ownership, creating a sort of international chaos. Right or wrong, that isn't going to happen. 

Just like home:
A church in the Falklands. 

Centuries-old treaties and arguments about which European nation's sailing ship first spied an island half a millenium ago seem utterly irrelevant for deciding the fate of a piece of land and its population today. Argentina should get on with it and focus on the many more important problems it has.

The residents of San Andres and the Falklands feel respectively Colombian and British. Both nations appear to administer competently their far-away possessions and the islanders haven't expressed a wish to change nationalities. Until they do, it's best to leave well enough alone.

The legality of their claims aside, the Nicaraguan and Argentine positions also look like lost causes. In military terms, Colombia and the United Kingdom are the much more powerful nations, as Britain demonstrated by retaking the Falklands 30 years ago. The Argentine dictatorship's military invasion of the Falklands, and the thousands of military casualties, turned the islands' sovereignty into a matter of national pride, and thus probably eliminated any possibility of a negotiated settlement. Since then, to its great credit, Argentina has slashed its military budget, making another military adventure unthinkable.

Someday, however, geography and migration may accomplish what arms and diplomacy have not. The British government says that the people of the Falklands should be able to decide their nationality. It turns out that the waters surrounding the Falklands may contain considerable natural gas and petroleum. If those are exploited, the invasion of workers could change the islands' population from Anglo Saxon to Latino - and at the same time perhaps the people's national loyalty.



By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours