Fidel Castro in Cuba, Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua have all enjoyed close ties with Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, seemingly bound together by a common revolutionary fervour and their distrust of the United States of America. The eccentric dictator has reciprocated their support over the years by awarding each of them his eponymous International Human Rights Prize. He either has a perverse sense of humour or, as the evidence of the past four decades would suggest, is completely devoid of a sense of irony.
Whether you call it an internal problem, power struggle, revolution or incipient civil war, the protests in Libya and the reports of a brutal response and egregious human rights violations by Col Gaddafi’s regime have elicited interesting reactions from his leftist allies in Latin America.
According to a BBC Caribbean report on Wednesday, “Cuba and Venezuela have urged ‘imperialist states’ to stop interfering in Libya.” Indeed, Mr Castro has even warned that the USA is preparing to lead a NATO invasion of Libya to seize its oil reserves. The Venezuelan foreign minister, Nicolás Maduro, has said that he has telephoned his Libyan counterpart to express the hope that Libya can find “a peaceful solution to its difficulties … without the intervention of imperialism.” President Ortega has also called Mr Gaddafi to express solidarity.
Curiously, the normally outspoken President Chávez has so far said nothing, prompting speculation that he might be hedging his bets. Bolivia, on the other hand, has come closest to criticizing the Libyan government, expressing concern over “the regrettable loss of many lives” and urging Mr Gaddafi and his opponents to find a peaceful solution.
Apart from their anti-imperialist solidarity, the four Latin American members of Mr Chávez’s Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA in Spanish) have simply invoked the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of states, which remains firmly established in contemporary international law. And well they might, given their own well-documented internal tensions, which have in varying degrees been linked to authoritarian tendencies, constitutional improprieties and the denial of basic rights to different groups in each country.
But Cuba apart, democracy, even if vulnerable, is still the norm in Latin America. And while there is no suggestion that the dramatic events in the Arab world could be replicated in this part of the world, Presidents Chávez and Ortega appear to be mindful of the need to espouse democratic principles. In Nicaragua, in the face of opposition agitation, Mr Ortega has pointedly stated that the security forces have been ordered not to crack down on any protests. In Venezuela, the government, faced with a hunger strike since January 31 by 13 students outside the office of the Organization of American States (OAS) for the release of 27 alleged political prisoners, including two opposition parliamentarians, agreed on Tuesday to review their cases, bringing the hunger strike to an end.
Before this point, in reaction to appeals by the hunger strikers and the Venezuelan opposition to the OAS to take action, the ALBA bloc had demanded in a joint statement on Saturday that the OAS Secretary General, José Miguel Insulza, stop interfering in the internal affairs of Venezuela. This was apparently in response to Mr Insulza saying that the Enabling Law, which is in force in Venezuela, is contrary to the Inter-American Democratic Charter and the principle of the separation of powers, as well as his expressed concern for the welfare of the hunger strikers. In the face of accusations of constitutional violations in Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela, the principle of non-intervention is usually invoked.
The position taken by ALBA, which in addition to the above four countries, includes Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Ecuador and St Vincent and the Grenadines, contrasts with their call for robust OAS intervention in the Honduran crisis in 2009. It is a self-serving double standard that is not new to international politics. From a regional perspective, however, the bigger question is why the Caricom members of ALBA have allowed themselves to be drawn into the controversy to the detriment of their democratic credentials and the image of the region as a relative bastion of democracy.
Caricom countries, for the most part, have a decent record on the observance of democratic principles and practices. The regional grouping, moreover, has a stated commitment to coordinating foreign policy in its Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas. But as we warned in an editorial almost three years ago (‘A lack of coherence,’ July 25, 2008), what then appeared to be a pragmatic approach to forging new and economically beneficial relationships with regard to ALBA and Petrocaribe, was in danger of being perceived as “an unquestioning acceptance of Venezuelan largesse, without any attempt to forge a regional consensus and strategy on how to respond beyond gratitude for President Chávez’s generosity.”
In this respect, the support for Venezuela’s position vis-à-vis the OAS, of which Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica and St Vincent and the Grenadines are also members, and the apparent failure to appreciate fully the principles enshrined in the Inter-American Democratic Charter, to which the same three are signatories, are a worrying development in a region supposedly committed to democracy, the rule of law and human rights.
The opposition in Antigua and Barbuda has already roundly criticized the government for its implicit support of Mr Chávez’s detention of political activists. One can only hope that the implications of such actions are fully ventilated at this weekend’s meeting of Caricom heads in Grenada. And it will be interesting to see if a statement on the bloody events in Libya is forthcoming.