VOXXI: Latin America’s mixed response to the Ukraine crisis

Latin America's mixed response to the Ukraine Crisis
W. Alejandro Sanchez
VOXXI
March 21, 2014
Originally published: http://voxxi.com/2014/03/21/latin-america-reaction-ukraine-crisis/

The situation in Ukraine remains dire as the interim government in Kiev faces the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. At the time of this writing, governments from Washington to London and Berlin are discussing potential responses, including sanctions against Russia.

While Latin America is geographically distant from Ukraine, various Western Hemisphere governments have made official statements reacting and explaining their position on the situation in Crimea. Suffice to say, Latin America is all over the spectrum regarding their support or criticism of Russia’s actions vis-à-vis Ukraine.

Chile and Mexico

Chile is one of Latin America’s current representatives at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) – the other is Argentina. Due to this honor, President Michelle Bachelet, who was inaugurated last March 11 as her country’s new leader, has been placed  in the spotlight regarding the Ukraine.

Ambassador Octavio Errázuriz, Chile’s representative at the UNSC, has declared that Chile supported a resolution, proposed by the U.S. that condemned the referendum that took place in Crimea this past March 16. The Chilean ambassador stated that international law demands “the respect of the independence, sovereignty, and the current borders of Ukraine.”

The aforementioned UNSC resolution was ultimately vetoed by Russia. Moreover, through the referendum, Crimeans voted in favor of seceding from Ukraine to become part of Russia.

Meanwhile, Mexico has taken a more neutral position regarding the situation in Crimea. A March 4^th press release by the country’s Secretariat for Foreign Affairs called for dialogue between “all actors within and outside of Ukraine involved in this crisis.”

Maduro: Don’t Mess with Russia

On the other hand, the Venezuelan government has taken a more aggressive stance on Ukraine. In fact, when Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was removed from power this past February he fled to Russia while the Ukrainian congress voted that he was unfit to fulfill his presidential duties – President Maduro used the opportunity to blame the West.

President Maduro stated that Yanukovych’s fall from power was a “Neo-Nazi coup” carried out by extremist groups within Ukraine and orchestrated by the U.S. and NATO.

Such declarations are unsurprising given that the Venezuelan government has accused Washington of fomenting protests in Venezuela to overthrow President Maduro. Three American diplomats were expelled from the U.S. embassy in Caracas this past February.

Moreover, the Venezuelan head of state has come out in support of Russia’s operations in Ukraine. “The U.S. has tried to frighten the great Russia and Putin has come out with his flag of historical dignity,” President Maduro has stated.

Argentina: Crimea = Falklands?

Finally, Argentina has also taken a somewhat bizarre position regarding the Ukraine. President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has come out to say that the West is applying a “double standard” regarding the Crimean referendum.

Her logic is this: It is hypocritical that Western states have labeled the Crimean referendum as illegal. (U.S. President Barack Obama has declared that the U.S. will “never” recognize Crimea’s secession.)

This hypocrisy forms Kirchner’s point of view: Western powers do not recognize the results of Crimea, but have generally supported the results of the March 2013 referendum in the Falkland Islands. (I discussed the results of the Falklands’ referendum in a March 2013 commentary for VOXXI, explaining that Buenos Aires does not recognize that referendum, arguing that the Falklanders are not indigenous inhabitants of these islands).

Nevertheless, it is important to note that even though President Kirchner does not agree with theWest’s critiques of the Crimean referendum, Argentina voted in favor of the aforementioned draft resolution by the U.S. at the UN Security Council.

A March 15 press release by the press office of Argentina’s mission at the UN quotes Ambassador María Cristina Perceval, Argentina’s representative to the UN, who called for “all Ukrainian parts to stop from carrying out unilateral acts that obstruct dialogue.”

No Unified Stance

As the crisis in Ukraine is not likely to be resolved anytime soon, we will probably see more policy statements by Latin American states and regional blocs on the crisis.

So far, declarations and press memoranda by the countries discussed in this commentary demonstrate that Latin America has no common stance on this crisis.

Moreover, what positions have been put forward revolve around a government’s own ideology or interests as reflected by domestic realities (i.e. Venezuela focused on the coup while Argentina focused on the referendum) rather than the realities of the situation in Ukraine.

At this point, it is highly doubtful that anyone in Kiev, Crimea, Moscow or Washington care much about what Latin American governments think of a crisis on the other side of the planet but that negligence may come back to bite them as Latin American leaders exploit the events in Ukraine for their own ends.

If nothing else, the fact that Latin American states have opinions on the Ukraine and Crimea demonstrate that we live in a shrinking world.

VOXXI: Will Paraguay fully return to the inter-American system?

Will Paraguay fully return to the inter-American system?
W. Alejandro Sanchez
VOXXI
July 30, 2013
Originally published:http://www.voxxi.com/paraguay-return-inter-american-system/

Now that Paraguay successfully held presidential elections on April 21, the inter-American system will welcome back the landlocked South American nation as a member of regional institutions.

On August 15, President-elect Horacio Cartes will take the presidential seat, and the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) and the Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR), will lift their suspension on the country’s membership to these organizations.

However, it is debatable if Asuncion wants to become a full member of MERCOSUR once again.

A mixed regional response

Paraguay has undergone a tumultuous year, following a mid-2012 political crisis that culminated in a constitutional coup, which removed then-President Fernando Lugo from power and replaced him with Vice-President Federico Franco.

The controversial removal of Lugo brought about swift criticism from governments and organizations across the hemisphere, but it quickly became obvious that there was no unified response to the crisis, but rather governments reacted to it depending on their national interests.

South American agencies like MERCOSUR and UNASUR suspended Paraguay’s membership after Lugo was overthrown. But while this move would normally be perceived as a statement that such agencies wanted Paraguay to respect its democratic process, these initiatives also brought about criticism.

Not long after Paraguay was suspended, Venezuela was accepted as a member of MERCOSUR. Asuncion had been an opponent of Caracas’ membership to that particular bloc, hence, it was no surprise that Asuncion critiqued its fellow MERCOSUR members, arguing that the bloc’s members were capitalizing on Paraguay’s suspension to advance their own agendas, namely to accept Venezuela.

On the other hand, Paraguay was not suspended from other hemispheric agencies. For example, the Organization of American States (OAS), kept Asuncion as a member.

Roberta Jacobson, Assistant Secretary for the Western Hemisphere at the State Department, famously declared that there was no need to suspend Paraguay from the OAS. Similarly, Jose Miguel Insulza, OAS Secretary General, declared that Paraguay would not be suspended. Thanks to this diplomatic support, Insulza received a medal by outgoing President Franco during the his recent visit to Asuncion.

Finally, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean State (CELAC) failed to create a unified stance on Paraguay. For example, while CELAC expressed that Paraguay was not suspended from that particular bloc, the country was not invited to participate in a January 2013 summit between CELAC and the European Union. Prior to the start of the summit, Paraguayan Foreign Affairs Minister Jose Felix Fernandez stated that Chile had requested to CELAC that Asuncion should not participate in the high level meeting. In other words, there were conflicting positions by Latin American multinational agencies, as well as individual governments, regarding how to treat Paraguay after Lugo’s removal.

Paraguay’s hemispheric future

Latinamericanist scholars and analysts generally assume that come August 15, when President-elect Cartes is inaugurated as head of state, Paraguay will return to MERCOSUR and UNASUR. But this may not be the case. There have been reports that Paraguay does not want to return to MERCOSUR as long as Venezuela is a member.

For example, Cartes has drafted a legal document, known as the “Cartes Document,” in which he argues that “Venezuela’s incorporation as full member of MERCOSUR in July 2012, have not kept to the legal norms to which must comply the incorporation of a new member.”

It is also worth highlighting the remarks that the Paraguayan Ambassador to the U.S., Pfanni Caballero, gave during an on-the-record event on July 23 at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, a think tank in Washington DC (click here for an audio of the presentation). In his speech, Ambassador Caballero was somewhat ambivalent on whether it was just a matter of time before Paraguay returns to MERCOSUR or if may not do so at all.

The diplomat also declared that “the fact that you [MERCOSUR] violate your own norms and regulations and laws […] make it very hard for us to consider reentering MERCOSUR without the necessary guarantees that [this] won’t happen again.”

Such sentiments will make for tense diplomatic times in South America’s immediate future. Certainly, it will be interesting to see what initiatives the Paraguayan government will want to carry out in MERCOSUR regarding Venezuela’s membership in the organization, if Asuncion actually returns to that organization.

Declarations by President Cartes and Ambassador Caballero suggest that, unsurprisingly, there is still resentment by Asuncion over its suspension to MERCOSUR.

Meanwhile, from the side of the Latin American community in general, the 2012 Paraguayan crisis brought about condemnation, including suspending the country from regional agencies and recalling ambassadors. Nevertheless, there was no regional consensus on how to deal with Asuncion after Lugo was deposed.

Given the plethora of organizations and trade blocs in the region, with varying political and economic motives, as well as overlapping membership (i.e. all of MERCOSURs members also belong to UNASUR, CELAC and the OAS), it is no surprise that there has been a lack of harmony among the region in response to Lugo’s deposition.

If Latin America’s history is any indicator, the region will likely see another internal political crisis before it is able to create a common diplomatic policy to deal with political incidents such as what happened in Paraguay.

Read more: http://www.voxxi.com/paraguay-return-inter-american-system/#ixzz2aYkYXToI