Detlef Nolte

@Latinoamérica21

As a European observer of Latin American foreign policy, we often wonder whether it is guided by principles or general norms. European governments are used to being accused, often quite justifiably, of applying double standards in their foreign policy. But it seems that some Latin American governments want to match or even surpass Europe in this regard.

AMLO and his selective interference

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) is a big advocate of non-interference in the affairs of other Latin American countries. For this reason, he did not criticize the massive human rights violations or forced emigration in Nicaragua. He was also not interested in the legitimacy of Daniel Ortega’s regime, which imprisoned all serious opposition candidates before the last election, and then brutally suppressed citizen protests, which led to numerous deaths.

Argentina expels Ecuadorian ambassador Xavier Monge in response to a request for his country’s ambassador Gabriel Fuks to leave

However, AMLO suddenly became interested in the affairs of another Latin American country and thus became the arbiter of Peruvian politics. After Pedro Castillo’s televised and frustrated coup d’état and his subsequent removal by Congress, the former president of Peru is in prison and justice must deliver its verdict.

For AMLO, Castillo is a victim and the new Peruvian government is illegitimate. Certainly, one can criticize the actions of the Peruvian government in suppressing the protests, and the attitude of the Congress in not calling early elections. However, history should not be retold. Castillo did not succeed because he was on the left side, but because of his incompetence. He was chosen as the less bad of the two candidates who together won only 32% of the vote in the first round. Castillo lost office for attempting a coup d’état.

On the one hand, AMLO shows leniency towards the former revolutionary who established an autocratic personalist regime in the best Somoza tradition. On the other hand, it defends the putschist and as collateral damage causes a crisis in the Pacific Alliance, one of the few regional organizations that has so far managed well the changes in the political orientation of the governments of its member countries. The Mexican government refuses to hand over the presidency temporary of the Pacific Alliance to the Peruvian government.

Lula da Silva and the conflict in Ukraine

President of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva wants to become a mediator in the Ukrainian conflict. When German Chancellor Olaf Scholz visited Brazil in January, Lula categorically refused to supply Ukraine with ammunition for German-made anti-aircraft tanks used by the Ukrainian military, which are not an offensive weapon system but can repel airstrikes against civilians. . In this context, it is worth asking whether it is not morally reprehensible to deny this support to a country that is under attack, despite the violation of international law, and that is fighting for its survival.

Not long after, at the beginning of March, the same Brazilian government allowed Iranian warships to enter the port of Rio de Janeiro. Iran is a country that supports the aggressor in the Ukrainian conflict with weapons (drones) and brutally oppresses its own population, especially women.

To return to the topic of Nicaragua. The long silence of Lula and his government on the forced emigration of Nicaraguans shows that the defense of democracy and international conventions on human rights have only a subordinate role in the foreign policy of the new Brazilian government.

Recently, on March 7, Brazil broke its silence when its ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, Tovar da Silva Nunes, expressed his government’s “deep concern over the decision by the Nicaraguan authorities to strip more than three hundred Nicaraguans of their citizenship” and for “reports on serious violations of human rights and restrictions on democratic space, specifically, summary executions, arbitrary detention and torture”. However, unlike other Latin American countries (such as Chile and Colombia), Brazil did not support the joint declaration of 55 governments on the human rights situation in Nicaragua.

Sometimes it can be useful not to take a position on difficult and controversial foreign policy issues, but a regional power is expected to set the rules for the region. In this sense, Lula has already disappointed during his previous presidencies by showing a certain tolerance towards authoritarian tendencies in the left camp.

Ultimately, this led to the crisis and paralysis of the Union of South American Nations (Unasur) and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (Celac). At the Human Rights Council, the Brazilian government finally offered to explore the possibility of engaging in a constructive dialogue between the government of Nicaragua and relevant stakeholders. But the question arises, who should these relevant interlocutors be, banned and dissolved political parties and civil society associations or the emigrant opposition? The Brazilian initiative comes very late and it is doubtful that the Nicaraguan government is interested in dialogue and mediation.

There are, of course, the commendable exceptions of left-wing Latin American governments with policies based on principles and in the defense of human rights, where their application does not depend on whether they were violated by right-wing or left-wing governments. These are the governments of the new left.

The Colombian government has taken an unequivocal position regarding Nicaragua. However, the clearest and fastest reaction was the Chilean government of President Gabrijel Borić, which undoubtedly would not even allow Iranian warships to enter Chilean ports, due to its clear stance on the conflict in Ukraine and because of I respect Iranian women.

The ambivalent foreign policy of Brazil and Mexico, and erratic in the case of the latter, gives the impression of a lack of principles which do not facilitate the processes of regional cooperation and integration. There is therefore a danger that the deepening of regional cooperation, fueled by this new pink tide, will end up as disappointing as the previous tide when democratic standards ended up watered down. (OR)