Hemispheric and regional reactions to the situation in Venezuela have taken an intriguing turn.
Last Friday, the Permanent Council of the Organisation of American States (OAS) approved a declaration, expressing “Solidarity and Support for Democratic Institutions, Dialogue and Peace in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela” and “appreciation, full support and encouragement for the initiatives and the efforts of the democratically-elected Govern-ment of Venezuela and all political, economic and social sectors to continue to move forward with the process of national dialogue towards political and social reconciliation, in the framework of full respect by all democratic actors for the constitutional guarantees of all.” Sounds reasonable; support for the declaration was, however, not unanimous, with Panama and the United States of America having serious reservations.
For the Government of Panama, with which Venezuela broke off diplomatic relations last week, the declaration went too far in one direction in that it could be “construed as partiality toward the [Venezuelan] Government, vis-à-vis the other social actors.” Both Panama and the USA would have also preferred endorsement of a more inclusive dialogue than the current government-sponsored process, with the USA favouring the involvement of a “trusted third party” facilitator.
The USA was, moreover, of the view that the OAS – that is, OAS member states speaking as one – should have remained neutral and, if anything, should have gone further in the other direction to adopt a more robust position to reflect the organisation’s “commitment to promoting democracy and human rights in the hemisphere,” placing these principles over that of “non-interference in the domestic affairs of states.”
The naysayers apart, the final text and tone of the OAS declaration can be considered something of a diplomatic triumph for Venezuela, even as questions were being raised about the stance taken by regional powers like Brazil and Mexico, which have been very careful not to suggest any criticism of President Nicolás Maduro’s handling of the political crisis.
On Monday, though, the Brazilian foreign ministry announced that it was working to convene on Wednesday, in Chile, a meeting of foreign ministers of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), to discuss the situation in Venezuela, on the margins of the inauguration of President Michelle Bachelet. On Tuesday, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff said that the ministers would discuss sending a mission to Venezuela to analyse the situation and act as an interlocutor between the government and opposition forces to promote dialogue in “an atmosphere of agreement, of consensus and of stability,” with a view to “maintaining democratic order.”
On Wednesday, Mr Maduro announced that he had received a “loving letter” from former Brazilian President Lula da Silva, highlighting the need for “a dialogue with all the democrats who want the best for the people.” The Venezuelan President also stated that his government was ready to receive a UNASUR mission “to accompany and strengthen the process of national dialogue.”
With these well-timed announcements, it would seem that Brazilian diplomacy has expertly manoeuvred the matter away from the OAS and that, with Venezuelan acquiescence, a UNASUR-brokered solution may be on the cards – providing, of course, that the opposition is happy with UNASUR’s implicit support for the democratically-elected government of Venezuela. There does not appear to be any other way forward, however.
Since the idea of the OAS sending observers or mediators to Venezuela was rejected, the clear implication is that Brazil and Venezuela and the countries of South America, perhaps most of Latin America and the Caribbean, wish to deal with the current crisis without what they perceive to be the unacceptable and overweening influence of the USA. The days of Yankee hegemony may well be over, but more worrying for the OAS, which is described on its website as “the premier political forum of the Americas,” is the deeper implication that it is in danger of becoming irrelevant.
