There are apparently temporary events that, however, reveal permanent realities. The recent events surrounding the participation of a Dominican minister in an international summit perceived as critical of the United States, to which was added a statement from the Dominican Foreign Ministry demanding the right to free maritime circulation and after that the publication of the American ambassador quoting Revelation 3:16 — “because you are lukewarm, and you are neither cold nor hot, I am going to vomit you out of my mouth.” This led to a statement from the Minister of the Presidency indicating his support for the USA.
But that did not stop there and there was the visible approach of the North American representation to the most important actors in the country’s media. This is why these events should not be read as a simple cyclical episode. This invites deep analysis and reflection.
I remembered one I had read in a book called “The Faces of Power” by S. Brown. That was a book that had been given to me by my daughter María Teresa, when she was studying at Tufts University. The reflection is by Cyrus Vance, who was Secretary of State of the United States (1977-1980), which I have summarized and more or less says like this: “Idealism like realism have correct objectives and we seek them because our foreign policy benefits from it. He goes on to say that prosperity and justice are what truly create the conditions for the peace of nations.”
On the other hand, Dominican foreign policy has historically had to move within a very demanding geopolitical reality due to its geographical proximity to North American power, which has created dependency in certain areas, and a simultaneous need to try to preserve its own margins. It is not a new equation, it is a constant. Therefore, rather than reacting to the aforementioned incident, it is better to question what it highlights. For this I will have to go back to our history.
Dominican rulers and thinkers of very different orientations understood this dilemma and that is why many have limited their objectives. Trujillo understood that the relationship with Washington required intelligence, experience and prudence. That is why he used the best of his men and intellectuals for these tasks and maintained friendly relations with important figures of that nation. On the other hand, Joaquín Balaguer made prudent management of power to have a margin in the implementation of his foreign policy. He avoided converting alignment into automatic subordination, seeking discrete spaces of autonomy compatible with the country’s strategic relationship with the United States. Sometimes he gave in to pressure and other times he didn’t. I learned some of that from him.
The Dominican Republic participated in an international summit perceived as critical of the United States.
From another angle, the tradition of 1965 constitutionalism expressed a different but complementary sensitivity. There the voice of Jottin Cury, the so-called iron chancellor, in those dramatic circumstances left an idea whose validity remains. This was that self-determination is not a concession; but it is a right.
Lessons can be drawn from some other thinkers that tell us that: Sovereignty begins to erode when fear replaces judgment. That phrase sums up a lot. The crisis of April 1965 and the subsequent North American military intervention via what was called the Inter-American Peace Force sponsored by the Organization of American States left us lessons that still accompany our historical consciousness. Among them, a fundamental one: For small countries, sovereignty, idealism and realism are tensions that must be managed.
Autonomy is rarely absolute. Rather, it is exercised by preserving spaces. And that requires discernment and prudence. In that context, the biblical reference used by the ambassador was, due to its moralizing and unique tone, but it also contained an important message. In which the interest lies not so much in the phrase as in the question it poses and the message given. Is there less tolerance today for different nuances within the alliances between our countries? Is all autonomy interpreted as ambiguity? These are legitimate questions. Not to foster sensitivities, but to better understand the real hierarchies that currently operate in hemispheric relations. Recognizing them does not force confrontation or resignation. It forces you to think.
The Dominican Republic has known at different times in its history to maintain essential strategic ties without abdicating its own criteria. That was the policy I developed during my tenure in Washington. That is to say, some of those mentions that I have pointed out have been within the best diplomatic traditions of our country. It would be advisable to preserve them. Because the real debate is not about lukewarmness. It is about whether a friendly country can exercise nuances without being confused with disloyalty. And perhaps the answer is contained, precisely, in that old intuition that says: Sovereignty begins to erode when fear replaces judgment.
For small nations, perhaps diplomatic maturity consists precisely in avoiding both extremes: neither needlessly challenging your powerful partner, but also not unnecessarily giving up your own voice. Therein lies, perhaps, the essence of a dignified foreign policy. It is under this reality that we must know that what the ambassador said is not what has been mentioned. That is why, going very far back in the history of the people, we will look for the origin and meaning of those words.
Laodicea was a prosperous city in Asia that was established around 260 BC. It was home to the apostate church. That city had economic well-being but that is why its inhabitants were arrogant. They thought they didn’t need anyone and were short on spirituality.
It turns out that Jesus admonished them for their lack of religiosity and told them: “Since you are neither cold nor hot, you are lukewarm and I will vomit you out of my mouth” (Revelation 3.17). Later in 60 AD, the city of Laodicea was completely destroyed by an earthquake.
The passage cited and what the ambassador said is a warning that has meaning. I do not think it is a political reproach but a warning that we must learn to manage our democracy with realism and without ambiguities. Which in Dominican phraseology means, “wanting to be with the meek and the maroons.” But at the same time, we must learn the art of prudence and prevent the national character from being weak and manipulable. And above all, not giving without demanding something in return in the relationship with our main political and economic partner.
Consequently, what the North American representation said to our current political leadership is a warning and perhaps a lesson. “Do not be like Laodicea.”
