In total, nine governments in the region (all from the left) have rejected the dismissal of Castillo. Some have not even recognized Boluarte as president of Peru (Mexico, Bolivia, Argentina and Colombia) and –despite Castillo’s public announcement of the closure of Congress– have described the presidential vacancy on December 7 as a “coup de State” (Honduras).
This is not the case of Brazil, a Latin American giant that today begins a leftist mandate with Lula da Silva to the head. After the events of December, the already elected Brazilian president maintained that, despite the fact that “it is always unfortunate that a democratically elected president” has the luck of Castillo, his removal “was remitted within the constitutional framework.”
According to international analyst Farid Kahhat, this fact should not go unnoticed, as it marks a significant difference from the turn-of-the-century Lula da Silva, who “was probably much more of a foreign policy activist than any other Latin American president in history.”
“South America had glimpses of coordinated foreign policies only and exclusively when Lula was president. For example, when Brazil decides to recognize Palestine as a State, most countries in the region did so almost immediately, and also indicated that it was a coordinated decision.“, remember.
For Kahhat, this activism would have been attenuated –if not extinguished– in this second government, and the position on the Peruvian case would be the most palpable example.
“To win over Bolsonaro, Lula da Silva has had to make alliances with the center-right and the liberal right, and that may put limits on his foreign policy activism. What she showed in the case of Peru is what we will probably see from now on.”, he argues.
International politics professor Francisco Belaunde assures that, without the Brazilian giant leading a foreign policy of rejection of the new Peruvian government, there will be hardly any diplomatic problems for the country. “Lula has recognized the Boluarte government, so he is in a different line from other presidents in the region. There is a certain tranquility for Peru there ”, he indicates.
“To be honest, as long as Brazil doesn’t lead a position in international politics, we shouldn’t worry much.”, coincide Kahhat.
On December 30, In Boluarte assured that his government aims to strengthen relations with Brazil.
“Our government is committed to strengthening the bilateral relationship with the sister country of Brazil, emphasizing the South American integration agenda and the sustainability of the Amazon”he wrote on Twitter.
On the other hand, Prime Minister Alberto Otárola and the Minister of Foreign Affairs Ana Gervasi They attended the inauguration of Lula da Silva in Brasilia, representing Boluarte. There, they met with Brazilian Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira. He reiterated the support of the Brazilian government “to the institutional democratic process of Peru.”
For his part, Chilean President Gabirel Boric It has not ruled on the Peruvian case. After the failed coup d’état by Castillo Terrones, the country’s foreign ministry issued a statement in which it “deeply regretted the political situation that the Republic of Peru is experiencing” and said it was confident “that this crisis affecting a sister country can be resolved.” resolve through democratic mechanisms and respect for the rule of law”.
However, in an interview with the press, Chilean Foreign Minister Antonia Urrejola maintained that, although Castillo “did not comply with the constitutional norms”, “I would not call him a coup plotter.”
Of political asylums and calls for consultation
The political asylum granted by the Mexican president to the former first lady, lilia paredes, is not the first to generate controversy. In 2019, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador granted asylum to the Bolivian ex-president Evo Moraleswho a month later received the same benefit from Argentina, where he currently resides.
Among the current presidents of Latin America, the one who has granted the most controversial political asylum is the dictator Daniel Ortega (Nicaragua), who is also the one who has been in power for the longest time without interruption. Among his refugees are former Salvadoran presidents Salvador Sanchez y Mauricio Funesand former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, all persecuted by the justice of their country. In 2009, Ortega granted asylum to Alberto PizangoPeruvian indigenous leader who, at that time, was being investigated for various crimes in the context of the ‘Baguazo’ tragedy.
In Argentina, Alberto Fernandez not only granted asylum to Evo Morales, but to three other officials of his government. He also gave the benefit to Maria de los Angeles Duarteformer Ecuadorian minister sentenced to eight years in prison for corruption.
According to Kahhat, the fact that a government grants asylum to a character persecuted by justice rarely has relevant consequences in the relationship between States. This is because the granting of asylum is not considered an act of interference in internal affairs and is fully permitted by international law.
“It is said, for example, that Peru expels the Mexican ambassador for the asylum of Lilia Paredes. But if you read the pronouncement of the foreign ministry, there is no mention of asylum at all.“, need.
What did interfere in internal affairs, says Kahhat, was the joint pronouncement of the governments of Argentina, Colombia, Mexico and Bolivia, in which they considered that Castillo, “victim of undemocratic harassment” He is still president of Peru.
As a result of the statement, the Peruvian Foreign Ministry called in consultation with the ambassadors of those countries. In the opinion of the specialists consulted, this fact would not have much significance in the medium term, since, beyond their pronouncements, these governments do not seem to have undertaken a foreign policy once morest Boluarte’s mandate. “Possibly they are going to try not to escalate the issue too much. They are very old bilateral relations”, says Belaunde.
Even in the case of Mexico – whose ambassador was expelled due to the constant declarations of its president, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador– Diplomatic relations with Peru would not necessarily be affected.
“A conciliatory gesture by López Obrador has almost been lost sight of: despite his rhetoric, he did not respond to the expulsion of his ambassador in Lima with a reciprocal expulsion of the Peruvian ambassador in Mexico. This is a clear indication that he does not want an escalation of tensions.”, indica.
As recalled, despite the expulsion of the Mexican ambassador by the Boluarte government, Lopez Obrador ruled out breaking diplomatic relations with Peru.
Left turn in the region?
With the assumption of Lula da Silva assumed, the left finished consolidating itself in the Latin American region. Twelve out of 19 countries on the subcontinent now have left-leaning rulers, a figure that is equivalent to 63% of all Latin American states. On the contrary, only six start the new year with right-wing mandates.
As ECData has reportedBetween 2018 and 2022, eight countries in the region changed governments oriented towards economic liberalism for options that imply significantly greater State intervention in the economy.
But this apparent turn to the left does not mean a change in the ideological preferences of the population, but a reflection of the rejection of the previous type of government, whatever its tendency, explains Kahhat.
“If by turning to the left one speaks of a change in the ideological preferences of the voters, there are surveys that reveal that this never existed, such as the Latinobarómetro. The real constant is not the triumph of the left, but the defeat of the ruling party. From 2018 to date, in 15 consecutive elections he lost the ruling party. And when the ruling party was on the left, it also lost”, he assures.
Belaunde agrees. “It is a conjunctural turn. It happens that the governments that were there before were right-wing, and the crisis and the pandemic have contributed to the discontent of the population ”.
