At the end of the world pandemic period, a long period in which the populations, particularly the popular sectors, suffered all kinds of deprivations, pain and losses seemed to have come to an end in Latin American countries. This social relief was short-lived because the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the deployment of the first war on European territory in many decades, and the permanent measures of economic coercion dictated by NATO to the European and North American parliaments against the Russian Federation, brought “collateral” socio-economic effects on a planetary level. These consequences leave the populations of our continent exposed to the aftermath of a catastrophic crisis of neo-liberalism and the destabilisation of the dominant civilisation.
These conflicts, sustained mainly by the great powers, and whose media power is used to subjugate governments in their quest for expansion and possession of territories, businesses and resources, have harmful effects of all kinds, lasting for generations of humanity.
In this context, since the year 2022, the continental situation has been marked, on the one hand, by the development of the war over the Russian invasion of Ukraine and its economic effects and, on the other hand, by the intentions of some countries in the Americas that are proposing the need to strengthen Latin American and Caribbean unity, to articulate a position of sovereignty and integration as a response to a world with increasingly multipolar trends, and where the dictates of Washington are clearly seen as antagonistic to the needs of the peoples of our region.
What is relevant is that CELAC has a general position prior to this war in Europe. This position is in favour of the resolution of conflicts through diplomacy, and in cases of unleashed war (as in this case), its position is foreseen: to repudiate military action and immediately assume the position of neutrality, from which it can promote, without arbitrariness, a politically negotiated solution to the conflict. The breaking of this neutrality agreement, with Boric’s statements aligning himself with the Western position, taking sides with Ukraine and the NATO narrative, is what is not analysed in Chile.
And these disruptive actions by Chile have been a constant feature of the country’s disengagement with the great fatherland. There are facts that prove it; from the logistical support to Great Britain in the Falklands war conflict; Insulza’s nefarious general secretariat of the OAS as a puppet of the White House; the implementation of bilateral international trade agreements, weakening a possible common front of the continent in its trade negotiations with other continents and blocs; the swift support to the coup group in the overthrow of Hugo Chávez; among other less public actions.
And today, surely from the sponsorship of socialisms in government (also known as “socioslistos”, godchildren of Lagos), such statements are framed in the “interests of $hile”, generating the conditions for European investment to reach its only literal voice on the content: Boric’s Chile.
Lula lowers the profile of the Chilean president’s comments, ironising that he sees Boric as the “immature child of the group”, but with the clear political disposition that our president conforms to the explicit guidelines of CELAC; it is as if the grandfather of the group were speaking to him, reinforcing his position as leader of the bloc.
In the face of the West’s actions, as Croatian President Zoran Milanovic, who criticised the provision of armaments and tanks, specifically to Ukraine, rightly points out, such actions “only prolong the war”.
Beyond the fact that the actions of both sides are unacceptable, both the Russian invasion and the breaking of agreements made in the White House with Gorbachev that NATO would not add countries to Eastern Europe, we agree with what Brazilian President Lula da Silva said at the CELAC summit, “now it is no use saying who is right, who is wrong. What we have to do now is to stop the war’, and he also said that he felt he was preaching ‘in the desert’ in favour of peace.
But what forms of negotiation and political dialogue exist between states to resolve armed conflicts? In this day and age, when it is necessary to find a way out of this human crossroads that reveals the path pushing humanity towards the collapse of the system, the active role of Latin America and the Caribbean, which have managed to maintain a relevant regional peace compared to conflicts in the rest of the world, is absolutely necessary.
In “Dialogue, diplomacy and mediation in Latin America”, Mariano Aguirre points out: For former Chilean Undersecretary of Defence Marcos Robledo, between 1983 and 1999 a “regional mega-regime of conflict prevention” was consolidated in the region, promoted by the democratic governments that succeeded the violent dictatorships of the 1960s and 1970s. An early precedent for regional peace was the Contadora Group (an initiative in response to the wars in El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua in the 1980s), a model of regional negotiation in the face of war and US intervention.
Contadora drew on Latin America’s diplomatic roots, the waves of democratisation and the delegitimisation of militaristic visions to open channels of communication between states in the region and negotiate other issues, developing a framework for the non-violent resolution of disputes and favouring the strengthening of governments on nuclear, chemical and bacteriological arms control.
It is necessary that Latin American governments comply with the agreements reached in pursuit of the construction of a non-violent society and a cooperative system that allows the development and evolution of all regions of the world with equal opportunities.
At the last CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) summit, the commitment of the attending governments, represented by their presidents, among them Gabriel Boric, was made clear, with a view to “advancing with determination in the integration process, promoting the unity and political, economic, social and cultural diversity of our peoples, with the purpose of Latin America and the Caribbean having full consciousness of its projection as a community of sovereign nations, capable of deepening consensus on issues of common interest and contributing to the wellbeing and development of the region, as well as to the urgent overcoming of poverty and existing inequalities and inequities”.
It also highlights “the full validity of the Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace, signed at the Second Summit of CELAC held in Havana in January 2014, which recognises the region as a zone of peace and free of nuclear weapons under the provisions of the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean and its Protocols (Treaty of Tlatelolco), based on the promotion of and respect for the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, which promotes the peaceful settlement of disputes, an international system based on respectful relations of friendship and cooperation, free of threats, aggression and unilateral coercive measures contrary to international law, in an atmosphere of peace, stability and justice, in order to banish forever the use and threat of the use of force”.
It is urgent and imperative, given the context, to stop violence and armament in order to safeguard peace and citizen security for sustainable development. This is intrinsically linked to the strengthening of the rule of law, with effective, efficient and transparent institutions, with committed leadership and inclusive social policies that protect the most vulnerable people, the least favoured groups and those who have historically been excluded from the rule of law groups and those who have historically been neglected, under a look of resilience and sustainability.
In synthesis, the position to be reinforced is a strong call for a halt to the hostilities and their dire consequences in terms of loss of human lives and infrastructure, and for the work tables to be set in motion to find diplomatic and political solutions to this armed conflict.
Ceasefire and diplomatic solution NOW!
Collaborative writing by M. Angélica Alvear Montecinos; Sandra Arriola Oporto; Ricardo Lisboa Henríquez; Guillermo Garcés Parada and César Anguita Sanhueza. Public Opinion Commission
