As Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “special military operation” in
Ukraine moves through its second month, its unconcealable economic impact
continues to grow at the global level. Price rises in energy, food and
fertilizer have driven up inflation to levels that haven’t been seen in decades,
leading to higher interest rates that will stall economic growth. The
International Monetary Fund’s latest report predicts slower growth in every
region of the world, and the United Nations warns of a “hurricane of hunger.”
Latin America has lost relevance in recent decades as an international
political actor in terms of its participation in world trade, its national
capacities, and its involvement in multilateral organizations, among other
activities. In 2019, its political leadership allowed the U.S. government to
deactivate the South American Union of Nations (Unasur) and replace it with an
entelechy called the Forum for the Progress and Integration of South America
(Prosur). It was unable to prevent Mauricio Claver-Carone, then-U.S. President
Donald Trump’s national security adviser for Latin American affairs, from
becoming the president of the Inter-American Development Bank in 2020, thus
breaking the tradition of filling the post with a Latin American. Nor did it
jointly back (as the African Union did) a proposal put forth by India and South
Africa in the framework of the World Trade Organization to suspend the patents
of Covid-19 vaccines until the entire world population was vaccinated.
It’s hardly surprising, then, how at variance with each other the
positions of the region’s countries have been in the face of the war unleashed
by Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine. The disjointed postures reveal
once again the Latin American nations’ lack of a commitment to identifying
common denominators that would give them a greater presence and a stronger
negotiating capacity in the international agenda.
The regions various foreign policies have long coincided in condemning
the use of military weapons and war itself. Most of the governments have voted
in favor of texts prepared by the OAS and the United Nations General Assembly
in favor of such a position as it applies to the Ukraine crisis. A small
number have abstained, but no Latin American or Caribbean country has clearly opposed
these resolutions condemning the war, even though they do not address the issue
in in its full context.
Although Argentina, Mexico and Brasil —the three largest nations in the
region —voted in favor of the resolutions approved in the United Nations
opposing the invasion of Ukraine, there are nuances in their positions
regarding the Russian government. For example, Mexican President Andrés Manuel
López Obrador refuses to impose economic sanctions on that country, on the
grounds that he wants to maintain good relations with all the countries of the
world. He has also condemned the censorship in Europe and some other countries
of the Russia Today and Sputnik news networks.
Similarly, Jair Bolsonaro, president of Brasil, who visited his Russian
counterpart days before the conflict broke out (ignoring opposition from
Washington), has said that his country would remain “neutral” in the conflict.
The government of Argentina has also supported the United Nations
resolutions but critics contend that its position has not been strong enough.
Many remember President Alberto Fernández’s early-February visit with Putin,
telling him that Argentina “must be the gateway” for Russia in Latin America
and underlined his interest in breaking his country’s economic and commercial
dependence on the International Monetary Fund and the United States. The
government has also spoken out against economic sanctions and censorship of the
Russian media.
The OAS General Secretariat was the first to issue a statement
condemning Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine and calling for an
immediate end to hostilities that Russia “has irresponsibly initiated.” According
to the OAS, “Russian aggression constitutes a crime against international
peace. The armed attack perpetrated against the sovereignty and territorial
integrity of Ukraine is reprehensible and constitutes a very serious act in
violation of international law.” The statement accompanied a declaration that
also included a denunciation of the Russian Federation’s “illegal recognition”
of Donetsk and Luhansk, two independent territories in eastern Ukraine, as “a
violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine.”
With observers from Ukraine and Russia in attendance, 21 countries
backed the declaration, including Mexico (which is promoting replacement of the
OAS with a new institution) and Juan Guaidó, the illegal president that the
United States imposed on Venezuela, whose true government, led by Nicolás
Maduro, withdrew from the OAS in 2019. The delegations of Argentina, Brasil,
Bolivia and Nicaragua did not support the statement but expressed their firm
rejection of the use of military force to resolve the conflict. As the Bolivian
representative, Héctor Enrique Arces, put it, “Nothing, absolutely
nothing, justifies any form of violence or aggression when it leads to the
unfortunate loss of human life.” In turn, Brazil’s representative, Otavio
Brandelli, stated that his government “is very concerned about Russia’s
decision to send troops on the ground (…) but its main concerns about the
balance of troops and strategic weapons in the European context must be taken
into consideration.”
OAS General Secretary Luis Almagro affirmed that “none of the reasons
invoked by President Vladimir Putin can be an excuse for the acts that are
being committed in Ukraine under his orders,” while the 21 representations that
supported the statement demanded massive sanctions against Russia, along with
granting more defensive weapons to Ukraine, and suspending Russia’s
participation in international organizations.
As it has in other instances, the Russian representation said that while
his country’s attitude is being condemned, the bloody war with civilian victims
that has been waged in the independent Donbas region for eight years is being
forgotten and that for “the entire time our Western colleagues have covered up
for the Ukrainian regime, turning a blind eye to military crimes against
civilians.”
A day after the OAS
pronouncement, CELAC, a regional organization created in 2010 that excludes the
United States and Canada, was unable to issue a joint statement. It limited
itself instead to accepting a proposal from Peru to create a Regional
Consultative Assistance Network to coordinate the repatriation of Latin
American and Caribbean citizens from Ukraine, since not all CELAC member
nations have diplomatic representations in that country.
It should be noted that Russia, as well as China, maintains strong ties
with CELAC, as it shares the geopolitical objective of building a
multipolar and multilateral world. In 2015, CELAC and Russia signed a Permanent
Mechanism for Political Dialogue and Cooperation, providing Russia with a way
to gain global visibility through an international organization beyond its area
of influence. In turn, the link with Russia gives CELAC an aura of
multipolarity and relativizes its relationship with the United States in other
international forums.
On March 2, the United
Nations General Assembly convened an emergency special session – only the tenth
in its seventy-year history – in which a resolution was approved that condemns
the Russian military intervention in Ukraine, as well as all violations of
international humanitarian law. The resolution urged an immediate peaceful
resolution of the conflict through political dialogue, negotiations, mediation
and other peaceful means. Days before, a similar resolution had been vetoed by
Russia in the UN Security Council, made up of five permanent members (the
United States, China, Russia, Germany and France) and 10 rotating members,
currently among which are Brasil and Mexico. Both those Latin American
countries voted in favor of the resolution, promoted by the United States and
Albania, as did nine other members, while China, India and the United Arab
Emirates abstained.
In the General Assembly, five of the 193 UN member States — Russia,
Belarus, Syria, North Korea and Eritrea — voted against the resolution, with
141 in favor. Among the 35 abstentions were four Latin American nations:
Bolivia, Cuba, El Salvador and Nicaragua. Twelve countries did not participate
in the vote, including Venezuela, which had voiced support for Russia’s “special
military operation” during a telephone conversation between the two presidents
hours earlier.
That support was no impediment to a visit to Caracas three days later by
a high-level U.S. delegation, which was well received by President Maduro
himself. The topic of discussion was U.S. access to Venezuelan oil. One result
of the mission was the release in Caracas of two U.S. prisoners, one of
them accused of terrorism.
Among the abstainers, Cuba’s argument of March 2 should be highlighted.
While declaring that its government “unambiguously opposes the use or threat of
use of force against any State” the Cuban representation added that “it
is not possible to rigorously and honestly examine the current situation in
Ukraine without carefully assessing the factors that have led to the use of
force. The U.S. determination to continue the progressive expansion of NATO
towards the borders of the Russian Federation and the well-known military
movements carried out by the United States and NATO in recent months towards
regions adjacent to the Russian Federation, preceded by the delivery of weapons
to Ukraine, have led to a scenario with implications of unpredictable scope,
which could have been avoided.”
Voicing its rejection of “hypocrisy and double standards,” Cuba
noted that “the United States and NATO, in 1999, launched a major aggression
against Yugoslavia, a European country that they fragmented, with a high cost
in lives, based on their geopolitical objectives, ignoring the UN Charter. The
United States and some allies have used force on multiple occasions. They
invaded sovereign States to provoke regime changes and intervened in the
internal affairs of other nations that do not bow to their interests of
domination and that defend their territorial integrity and independence.”
As the war intensified, the General Assembly convened another special
session on March 24, out of which Resolution A/ES-11/L.2 titled “Humanitarian
consequences of the aggression against Ukraine,” required an immediate
cessation of hostilities by Russia. The result of the vote was similar to the
previous one. The text, aligned with the United States and Ukraine, was
sponsored by France and Mexico, and uses accusatory and undiplomatic language
that could be considered inappropriate if what is really being sought is to
promote a cessation of hostilities.
For Russia’s UN representative, the approved text “paints a false and
one-dimensional image” of what is happening, ignoring the causes of the crisis
in Ukraine and the role of the West in using the country as a pawn “in a
geopolitical game against Russia.” He also called on “all countries with the
right mindset” to support the project proposed by South Africa, its fellow
BRICS country.
In terms of content, the South African proposal was similar to the approved
version promoted by Mexico and France in that it called for the immediate and
negotiated cessation of hostilities. However, the call was aimed at “all
parties to the conflict” rather than singling out Russia, and refrained from
repeatedly accusing Russia throughout the text. It also encouraged political
dialogue, negotiations, mediation and other non-violent ways to achieve lasting
peace. When presenting the project to the plenary session of the Assembly, the
South African ambassador to the UN pointed out that the political divisions
among the member states show that political interests prevail over the
humanitarian response.
Similar criticisms by some Latin American countries of the approved
Mexico/France resolution are worth noting, even though they voted for it.
Brazil’s representative, for example, noted, “We would have preferred a fully
humanitarian text elaborated with broad consultations and not a document
presented as a fait accompli that clearly contains divisive language.” Furthermore,
he said, humanitarian crises should not be politicized.
China, again abstaining, agreed that South Africa’s proposal was more
conducive to addressing a ceasefire. It also took the position that developing
countries, not being a part of this conflict, should not be dragged into
it or forced to take sides. China’s permanent representative, Zhan Jun,
indicated that his country will continue to play a role in facilitating talks
between the parties.
Parallel to the UN General Assembly special sessions, three important
political events took place in Brussels: the special NATO summit and meetings
of the Group of Seven and the European Council, to which U.S. President Joe
Biden was invited. All of them condemned Russia’s military intervention and
blamed it for the economic impact it had on the world.
In its joint statement, NATO indicated that its member nations will
provide “more political and practical support,” as well as assistance in areas
such as cybersecurity and protection against threats of a chemical, biological,
radiological or nuclear nature. In addition, they urged China to “join the rest
of the world and clearly condemn the brutal war against Ukraine, and not
support Russia, neither with economic support nor, of course, with military
support.” For its part, the European Council resolved to intensify its support
for Ukraine and Ukraine’s neighboring countries.
Since the Ukraine crisis severely affects energy and food security in
the region, Latin America and the Caribbean should play a leading role in favor
of peace instead of mechanically following decisions taken by Western powers.
It could, for example, support the mediation initiatives of governments or
actors that are accepted by both sides in this tragic war. On March 7, Chinese
Foreign Minister Wang Yi said he was “ready, if necessary, and together with
the international community, to carry out the necessary mediation when
necessary.” China maintains good trade relations with Ukraine, has sent it
humanitarian aid, and also has influence over Russia, with which it has strong
economic and strategic ties.
Days before, the Ukrainian government requested the intermediation of
the Chinese government, which was supported by the head of diplomacy of the
European Union, Josep Borrell. “There is no alternative,” he said. “We cannot
be the mediators. And it can’t be the United States. So who else? It has to be
China.” CELAC did not comment on the matter.
On March 14, Jake Sullivan, the Biden administration’s National Security
Adviser, warned his Chinese counterpart that his government would not allow any
country to get away with what China was alleged to be attempting, that is, to
rescue Russia from sanctions imposed by foreign nations after the invasion of
Ukraine. China replied that it would give a firm and forceful response if the
United States imposed sanctions on Chinese companies or individuals, or harms
its legitimate rights and interests in handling its relations with Russia.
The Chinese government has condemned the war, but demands that it be
fully analyzed, taking into account “Russia’s legitimate demands for its
national security.” It traditionally maintains a position of non-interference
in the internal affairs of other countries and respect for the sovereignty and
territorial integrity of States, motivated in part by its claim over Taiwan. It
believes that sanctions have never been an effective way to solve
problems, which is why it strongly opposes any kind of unilateral
sanctions. President Xi Jinping had expressed his country’s position on
sanctions in a virtual meeting days before to his peers from France and
Germany, maintaining that such measures endanger global economic recovery after
the pandemic and may have consequences on supply chains, energy, transportation
and global financial operations, problems which are already having a
devastating impact on most of the world’s economies.
This is the area where Latin America can manifest itself from a position
of equidistance from the actual combatants. The war deserves the strongest
condemnation of both sides and without failing to take into account the causes
that have led to this brutal outcome.
Behind the devastation and death of the war itself, there is a struggle
for power in the reconfiguration of a new multipolar order that will impact Latin
America. Joe Biden recognizes this and pointed out, on March 21, that “There’s
going to be a new world order out there, and we’ve got to lead it.”
Not so sure.
It is at this point that a strong Latin American voice is needed to
defend its own interests – which have never been served by the U.S., much to the
contrary.
Our continent should also defend the interests of world peace.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário