Response From Latin
American Leaders on Venezuelan Unrest Is Muted
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/22/world/americas/response-from-latin-american-leaders-on-venezuelan-unrest-is-muted.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0
MEXICO CITY — When
President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela arrived in Havana for a regional summit
meeting last month, Latin American and Caribbean
solidarity seemed triumphant. The United States was not invited, and
in speech after speech, the region’s leaders expressed confidence in a shared,
unified future.
Mr. Maduro in
particular, often smiling beside President Raúl Castro of Cuba, emphasized that Latin America would
continue on its own path of peace separate from the “imperial interests” of the
United States.
“With their dinosaur
vision they’re not going to understand what’s happening and what’s going to
happen in our economic, social and political life in the coming years,” he
said.
But now, as Venezuela reels
from the biggest street protests since the death of former President Hugo
Chávez, it is the region that seems uncertain and divided about how to respond.
Most statements
coming from Latin American governments and regional bodies lament the deaths of
at least four people in the recent demonstrations and call for dialogue. But
strong criticism of either side, blame, threats and demands — once common
reactions in previous crises, like the heavy-handed rule of Alberto Fujimori in
Peru
in the ’90s, analysts contend — have generally been rare.
“Now it’s, ‘We’re
focused on democracy in our own country, but if something happens with a
neighbor we are not going to say anything,’ ” said Michael Shifter, president
of Inter-American Dialogue, a policy forum. “That’s a change.”
Many experts argue
that the muted response reflects major shifts in power and government. Latin
American politics used to be more polarized and volatile. For much of the 20th
century, civil wars and repressive governments cast long shadows over the
region. The United States
played an overbearing role as well, choosing leaders and backing coups, usually
over fears of Communism.
There were deeper
ideological divides, and for the most part, two kinds of Latin American governments:
military led or democratically elected. The goal for the region, as articulated
in the 2001 Inter-American Charter from the Organization of American States,
seemed to be a journey from the former to the latter, a transformation the
region has accomplished to a remarkable degree.
Now, however, the
challenges in many countries are often less about achieving democracy than
about delivering on the expectations democracy creates.
The United States is still a common object of scorn
and blame: Mr. Maduro expelled three American diplomats from Venezuela this
week, accusing them of recruiting students for violent demonstrations; and on
Friday he revoked the press credentials of journalists from CNN. But regional
and internal dynamics are increasingly drifting away from Washington.
The United States may finance civil society groups
in the region, but it would be a stretch to attribute last year’s huge street
protests in Brazil, the
indigenous protests in Bolivia
or the police uprising in Ecuador
in recent years to American “imperial interests.”
The Community of
Latin American and Caribbean States, or Celac, and other regional bodies
represent an attempt at solidarity, separate from the United States, and Latin
American nations have at times been unified about intervention in some domestic
disputes, particularly when presidents are summarily removed. In 2009, the
hemisphere, including the United States,
pulled together to condemn the ouster of President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras. More
recently, South American nations punished Paraguay for removing President
Fernando Lugo in 2012.
But short of the
removal of a president — as with the restrictions on the press in Ecuador, the
many human rights abuses by the Mexican military or, this week, Venezuela’s
arrest of an opposition leader — countries in the region often seem tentative
about wading into their neighbors’ affairs.
“The real challenge
in the region now is how they are going to deal with each other on these
things, “ said Joy Olson, executive director of the Washington Office on Latin
America, an advocacy group. “When you have democratically-elected governments
that end up eroding democratic rights and civil liberties — and you can throw a
lot of countries in that pot, including the U.S. — how should that be handled?
That’s what’s all being renegotiated.”
Increased economic
integration seems to be playing an important role. Brazil’s president, Dilma
Rousseff, has not commented on the crisis in Venezuela, and with Brazilian
corporations reaping rewards of making a push into Venezuela, her government
has tacitly supported Mr. Maduro in statements from South America’s main
regional organizations, Unasur and Mercosur, the latter a trade organization in
which Brazil plays a prominent role. The statements’ criticism was directed not
at Mr. Maduro, but rather at “attempts to destabilize the democratic order.”
Brazil’s foreign
minister, Luiz Alberto Figueiredo, has also sidestepped any Maduro critique.
Other countries that
have benefited from Venezuela’s
“petro-politics” — with favorable energy deals doled out across Central America
and the Caribbean — have been silent or have
backed Mr. Maduro. President Evo Morales of Bolivia,
a close ally who is allowed to buy Venezuelan oil on favorable terms, has
spoken publicly several times to support Mr. Maduro and to accuse the United States of trying to destabilize Venezuela.
Indeed, the
traditional politics of the region have not exactly been exorcised. The
presidents who have come closest to criticizing Mr. Maduro are Ricardo
Martinelli of Panama, Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia and Sebastián Piñera of
Chile, leaders of countries that have embraced more market-oriented policies
than others in the region have.
The United States
has stepped up its critique, too. On Wednesday, President Obama called on Venezuela to
release jailed protesters and rejected claims of American meddling. “Rather
than trying to distract from its own failings by making up false accusations
against diplomats from the United
States, the government ought to focus on
addressing the legitimate grievances of the Venezuelan people,” he said.
Still, analysts note
that there has been far less saber rattling than in previous years, and not
much diplomacy either. Seeing leaders from 33 Latin American and Caribbean
countries come together in Cuba for the Celac meeting, without the United
States or Canada even invited, typifies the declining influence of American
diplomacy in the region. That decline contributes to what Mr. Shifter described
as an American attitude of, “Fine, let’s see how they do without us.”
Hovering in the
background of all this, he added, is Cuba.
“Whatever criticism
one might have of Venezuela,”
Mr. Shifter said, “it remains Cuba’s
main benefactor and, as we witnessed at the Celac meeting, if there is one
issue all Latin American and Caribbean countries can agree on, it’s solidarity
with Cuba in the face of the
U.S.
embargo. If Latin American governments stand up to Maduro and say, ‘You have to
stop the repression,’ they would be seen as weakening a government that
supplies and sustains Cuba.
The politics of this are very, very complicated.”
William Neuman
contributed reporting from Caracas, Venezuela, and Simon Romero from Rio de Janeiro.