“We condemn the coup d’état in Peru and the aggression to which the Peruvian people are subjected, our solidarity with the legitimately elected president Pedro Castillo and we demand his immediate release.”said the President of Honduras during the meeting in Argentina.
READ ALSO: Peru withdraws ambassador to Honduras for “unacceptable interference” by its president
Previously, the Chancellery had expressed discomfort at the “disrespectful” intervention of the president of Chile, Gabriel Boric, in the same conclave of heads of state. Peruvian Vice Foreign Minister Ignacio Higueras conveyed this discomfort to his Chilean counterpart, the Peruvian Foreign Ministry reported last Wednesday.
The Chilean head of state had stated “the urgent need for a change of course in Peru” and questioned the use of force affecting those who demonstrate once morest the government of In Boluartewhat “they end up shot by whoever should defend them.”
These declarations were rejected by Peru, which through the Foreign Ministry informed that “the course chosen by the constitutional government of the president Boluarte It is the advance of general elections so that Peruvians decide without interference and in peace the destiny of Peru. The Government will not change the course of democratic institutions”.
The recent actions regarding the statements of presidents of Latin America are added to others previously taken by the Foreign Ministry. Among them, the declaration as persona non grata to the Mexican ambassador in Peru, Pablo Monroy; and the call in consultation to Lima of the ambassadors in Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia and Mexico due to the interference of the heads of state of these nations in internal affairs of Peru.
Presidents like Gustavo Petro (Colombia), like Xiomara Castro, have come out in defense of the former president Castillo. This despite the coup that occurred on December 7.
To date, the Peruvian Foreign Ministry has taken actions such as express their surprise regarding sayings of presidents that are not consistent with the reality of the country, such as what happened with Petro, as well as discomfort for what was commented by President Boric; ha call in consultation to ambassadors as an expression of discomfort towards the government of those countries, maintaining relations at the level of business managers; and has sent protest notes to the embassies of Colombia and Bolivia for comments from the presidents of those countries.
Former ambassador Carlos Pareja explained to this newspaper that the reactions can occur on the following scale: first, call the ambassador to express the government’s discomfort; second, send a protest note; third, call the ambassador in consultation; fourth, withdraw the ambassador; finally, the break of relations.
proper responses
Experts consulted by Trade They agreed that Peru’s responses and actions to interference in internal affairs by other Latin American countries have been proportional and adequate.
The internationalist Francisco Belaunde commented that three types of attitudes assumed by countries in the region can be identified: those that do not recognize the legitimacy of In Boluartethose that in diplomatic terms attract attention -such as the European Union-, and the case of President Boric, who would be located between the two.
“It seems to me that the actions of the Peruvian government are adequate. I don’t think you can go much further because it’s not regarding breaking relationships either. They are all very important countries. But it is those presidents who take the initiative to, with their interference, ruin relations with Peru.”Belaunde commented. However, he added that Peruvian diplomacy must also be cautious. Therefore, he does not consider that more burdensome actions have to be taken.
He added that although presidents can express their concern regarding violations of human rights and democracy, this is very different from the interference that has been seen in the cases of Honduras, Mexico or Bolivia.
“The government has done well to call the ambassadors of Peru in those countries for consultation because it is an interference by those presidents in internal affairs of Peru. In addition, in the case of Mexico, the expulsion of the Mexican ambassador took place, and it has to do with asylum and because the Mexican president insisted on his provocative statements. It has been a stronger reaction ”Belaunde added.
On the other hand, the internationalist of the PUCP Francesco Tucci also considered that the reactions of Peru have been proportionate. “In relation to the questioning of the constitutional president, the disagreement with the call for consultation, I think it has been proportional. Escalating more would not make much sense to affect relationships or break relationships. It should be taken very carefully, taking into account how affected the image of the government is. You have to move carefully in foreign policy. […] It is regarding the constitutional president and they [los países mencionados] they got into internal affairs, when it does not have to be done”he commented.
Former ambassador Carlos Pareja added that “the measures have been adequate” and he highlighted the speech of Chancellor Ana Gervasi at Celac. “The problem is the false narrative that these governments proclaim, and that is what we have to combat on all fronts. That is essential. It is a false narrative of heads of state, a campaign is needed at all levels, not just the government.”the diplomat opined.
Countries attitude
Belaunde qualified as “unacceptable” the attitude of some Latin American governments that insist that Pedro Castillo should stay in power because they are ignoring that there was a coup d’état by the former head of state and, therefore, his dismissal was appropriate. “They do not recognize the legitimacy and the constitutional succession that was made for the vacancy and later the appointment of In Boluarte. […] There are countries like Honduras, Mexico, Colombia or Bolivia that have an unacceptable attitude.”indicated.
In the case of Chile, he noted, the president’s statements are in a “grey area” of what a head of state can or cannot declare. “I would put it apart from the rest of the cases. […] For any country, the fact that there are so many deaths is obviously worrying and there will be a reaction.”he added.
Likewise, Tucci agreed that actions such as the signed joint communiqué by countries such as Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia and Mexico, where they supported Pedro Castillo following the coup, it was something “completely misplaced and an interference in internal affairs”. Yet now “The situation is getting out of hand, so clearly the international pressures must be differentiated, they are different. Many have to do with respect for human rights”.
The position of Peru in the region
For both experts, Peru is being isolated by the attitude taken by other governments and has a weakened image in the region.
Belaunde commented that “Peru is isolated in part because governments in Latin America are from the left. It is inevitable that he is not isolated, even more so if those governments continue to support Castillo and question the legitimacy of the president. Boluarte. Obviously it is isolated by actions of these governments “.
As for the other countries that are not part of this block or that are not necessarily aligned, he commented that there is also discomfort among them because of what happens in the protests and the people who died in them. “It is difficult for them to come out and express full support for the government of In Boluarte. They will support a little, but not categorically “Belaunde said.
As a consequence, Belaunde noted that the main repercussions will be in the sense of cooperation, since relations are maintained in stand by. But this will not have results in economic relations.
“There are no big initiatives or anything like that. Economically, it is not that there will be a consequence because the businesses remain the same, the companies continue to act regardless of the positions, there are no economic sanctions either. Investments are maintainedindicated
Finally, Tucci indicated that “It is clear why the international image is stained by what has happened up to now.” In addition to “both in the region and internationally, the image of the country is weakened. Institutions, respect for human rights, when the crisis began there was no sudden escalation. The image is weakened and that affects both foreign policy, both with its neighbors and internationally “.
In contrast, former Ambassador Pareja does not consider that Peru is being isolated in the region, but the image of the government is being affected. As a consequence, Pareja noted that “Eventually this false narrative may lead some to distance themselves from the Peruvian government, which is detrimental in the political and commercial sense”. Regarding the decision made regarding the Peruvian ambassador in Honduras, he commented that he believes that it is preferable to make decisions “Step by Step”.
