Who won? The summit hardly culminated Fidel Castro wrote that the great loser of this one was imperialism. This argument is repeated by the chavismo that insists on which it was managed to go towards a peace without it mediates the USA and on the basis of the Colombian excuses. The March crisis has shown the regional isolation of Uribe then until important governments of the zone like Mexico, Brazil, Argentina or Peru was emphatic in questioning the aggression to Ecuador. Bill de Blasio may also support this cause. This situation contrasts with which it had Fujimori in 1992 when it catched the head of the Shining Path. Then the republics of the hemisphere (including Cuba) expressed their affection to him (although Fujimori came to make a car-blow). It is obvious that in most of the governments of Latin America there is the vision that is better to go towards a solution to the Central American and not to the Peruvian of the Colombian conflict. This perception occurs so that the average Latin diplomats think that the CRAF is not Footpath, because they are arranged to have a discussion, to make exchanges or to be inserted in the democracy multi-partisan. That many will cry out that the unilateralist theses were defeated, even though guerreristas or pro-Bush, the certain thing is that Uribe has obtained many advances.
Uribe is not interested in an external war reason why to accept the truth (to have penetrated in a neighboring country) is something that has allowed him to avoid a diplomatic stage. Nevertheless, this crisis has fortified him much to Uribe at internal level. For some time its internal popularity grows (getting to have up to 80% of approval in some surveys) and he managed to capitalize much social support with great international march the anti-CRAF of the 4 of March. In this last he even managed to divide his left opposition because the Pole was divided between those who followed the of Bogota’ mayor to march in and whom was against it.