Another attempt by the Collective West to isolate Russia from the rest of the world — or the “Jungle,” as the EU’s chief “diplomat” Josep Borrell calls it — fails spectacularly.
Volodymyr Zelensky is accustomed to being the star guest, whether in person or on-screen, at just about every Western international summit, though his shine does appear to be fading. But at the summit that took place in Brussels early this week between the European Union and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), the president of Ukraine was nowhere to be seen. This was despite the best efforts of Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, who is current holder of the EU Council’s rotating president, to get his name on the guest list.
At a bare minimum, Zelensky’s participation would have required the endorsement of the governments of Latin America’s three largest economies, Brazil, Mexico and Argentina, all of which have taken a largely neutral stance on the war in Ukraine. Which is why it came as little surprise that the EU’s dogged attempts, not just during the two days of the summit but in the preceding weeks, to include in the final declaration a paragraph condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine also come to nothing. The move faced opposition from a host of CELAC members including Brazil, Bolivia, Honduras, Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua.
Another Failure By Collective West
Once again, an attempt by the Collective West to isolate Russia from the rest of the world — the so-called “Jungle,” as the EU’s chief “diplomat” Josep Borrell calls it — has failed. From AP:
European Union and Latin American leaders concluded a summit that was supposed to be a love-in after eight years of separation, but instead ended Tuesday with aggravation over the failure to unanimously support even a bland statement on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Europe’s fervent support of Ukraine clashed with the more distant or neutral approach pervasive in the 33-nation Community of Latin American and Caribbean States. What should have been a mere detail in a landmark summit celebrating economic ties and fresh investment became its encompassing theme.
In the end, the heavily diluted paragraph (#15) not only did not mention Russia but merely expressed “deep concern” about — as opposed to “condemnation” of — the “ongoing war…, which continues to cause immense human suffering and is exacerbating existing fragilities in the global economy, constraining growth, increasing inflation, disrupting supply chains, heightening energy and food insecurity and elevating financial stability risks.” And even then, Nicaragua, a close ally of Russia, refused to join the 59 other nations, including Cuba and Venezuela, in signing the statement.
In his closing statement at the Summit of the Peoples, a parallel event taking place in Brussels, Gustavo Petro, the president of Colombia, which will be hosting the next EU-CELAC summit, in 2025, pilloried the EU’s obsession with the war in Ukraine, which he described as “a far-removed issue” for Latin America and the Caribbean:
“The EU has basically focused on a topic that was of fundamental interest to itself, but which is far-removed for us: the war in Ukraine. [It wanted] to point to the construction of a block in the world, Latin America and the European Union, coalescing around Zelensky and support for a political, economic and military strategy, obviously. That was its priority.”
The President of Brazil Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva also blasted the EU’s position on the conflict and lamented that “resources that are essential for the economy and social programs” are being channelled toward sustaining the war in Ukraine. He also raised serious questions about EU and US sanctions against Russia:
“Brazil supports all the initiatives proposed by the different countries and regions, demands a ceasefire, an end to hostilities and a negotiated peace. Using sanctions and blockades without the support of international law is something that merely serves to punish the most vulnerable segments of the populace.”
No Signs of Peace
At the beginning of this year, in his first month back in office, Lula laid out his government’s core positions on the NATO-Russia proxy in a phone conversation with Macron:
- Brazil acknowledges that Vladimir Putin’s Russia violated Ukrainian territory and this is illegal.
- But NATO’s behavior in recent years has not contributed to guaranteeing a relationship of trust with the Kremlin.
- Brazil defends the establishment of negotiations with Russia so that a ceasefire can be reached.
- Brazil will help to bring about peace, but will not contribute in any way to military operations.
- Brazil’s war is against an entirely different foe: poverty.
In her speech at the summit, the President of Honduras Xiomari Castro underscored the opportunities offered by the newly emerging multipolar world. Castro is the wife of Manuel Zelaya, who was removed in a Washington-sponsored military coup in 2009 that set in motion not only a decade of brutal political repression in the country but also, as Castro outlined, “a continent-wide persecution of our leaders, Lula Da Silva, Rafael Correa, Dilma Rousseff, Cristina Kirchner, Evo Morales, among others.”
As readers may recall, Castro’s government in March officially established diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China after formally breaking ties with Taiwan. Like Lula, Castro also lamented the lack of progress toward peace in Ukraine:
The Ukrainian war must come to an end. The European Union-CELAC, we must find a way to achieve peace, we cannot live with the nightmare that hell could be unleashed upon all of us any day. Trillions of dollars in weapons are sent for war, but we are not capable of contributing to the integral development of humanity with the objectives of sustainable development, proposed by the UN.
Boric the Outlier
There were a few dissenting voices among the visiting delegates, most notably Chile’s President Gabriel Boric, who is the only head of state in Latin America to have invited Zelensky to address the nation’s parliament. In his speech at the summit, Boric pilloried his fellow CELAC members for refusing to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or acknowledge that the war was “against” Ukraine, not just “in” Ukraine:
“In this place, the situation in Ukraine has been under discussion. I think it is important that those of us from Latin America say clearly: what is happening in Ukraine is an unacceptable war of imperial aggression where international law is being violated… I understand that the joint declaration is blocked today because some do not want to say that the war is against Ukraine. Dear colleagues, today it is Ukraine, but tomorrow it could be any of us.
Of course, Boric’s words were music to the ears of EU leaders but elicited a subtle put-down from Lula. During his parting speech on Wednesday, Brazil’s three-time president attributed Boric’s impatient zeal to youth and inexperience. “I was once in a big rush like Boric,” he said, recalling that when he was invited to the G7 summit during his first year in office, he also wanted everything to be decided there and then.
On the topic of Ukraine, Lula said: “we all know what Europe thinks, we know what is happening between Ukraine and Russia and we know what Latin America thinks.” Lula described the summit’s final declaration as “extremely reasonable,” reiterating that Brazil wants peace, which is why he is talking not only to other countries in the region but also to China and Indonesia, with a view to building a coalition of countries “capable of convincing Russia and Ukraine that peace is the best way forward.”
People are “growing tired of the war,” Lula said. Interestingly, he also described the EU-CELAC summit, as a whole, as “extremely successful.” From the English language edition of El País:
“Of all the meetings in which I’ve participated with the EU, this has been the most successful of all,” said the politician. Lula is clear about the reason: “I have rarely seen so much political and economic interest from the EU countries towards Latin America.”
The appreciation of the president of Brazil, the main political and economic player in the region, leaves no doubt about the outcome of the summit. Nor is the Brazilian deceived about what took Europe from a very recent apathy to an utmost interest in the region: “Possibly due to the dispute between the United States and China, possibly due to China’s investments in Africa and Latin America, possibly due to the new Silk Road [the Chinese investment program], possibly due to the war [in Ukraine].” Regardless, Lula recognizes the concrete result: “The European Union showed great interest in investing by announcing an investment of €45 billion [$50.2 billion].”
Staying Neutral on Ukraine
EU leaders are probably somewhat less enthused, due to the refusal of Latin American countries to fall in line on Ukraine. Only one country in the region is actually applying the sanctions against Russia, according to the Spanish daily La Vanguardia. That country is Costa Rica.
Three countries voted in favour of Russia in the UN resolutions on the Ukraine conflict: Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Bolivia and El Salvador have abstained in some UN votes. Most other governments in the region have tried to maintain a largely neutral stance on the conflict, initially condemning the war while refusing to endorse sanctions on Russia. They include the region’s four largest economies, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina and Colombia, which earlier this year categorically rejected US and EU requests to send weapons to Ukraine.
There are many reasons why most governments in the region are determined to maintain neutrality in the conflict. They include those outlined in an article by Krishen Mehta, “5 Reasons Why Much of the Global South Isn’t Automatically Supporting the West in Ukraine,” cross-posted on this site back in February:
- The Global South does not believe that the West understands or empathises with their problems.
- History Matters: Who stood where during colonialism and after independence? NC: This was a major bone of contention at the EU-CELAC summit. For example, the Spanish government has volunteered as a mediator between Europe and Latin America, but for many Latin American countries Spain was their colonial master for hundreds of years, acquiring vast wealth by plundering their resources and exploiting their lands and people. The European slave trade also forcibly transported millions of Africans into slavery in Latin America and the Caribbean. Then, of course, there’s the more recent role of the US, which has sponsored or organised dozens of hard and soft coups and military interventions over the past century or so.
- The war in Ukraine is seen by the Global South as mainly about the future of Europe rather than the future of the entire world. NC: This is just what Petro said.
- The world economy is no longer US-dominated or Western-led and the Global South does have other options. NC: This is particularly true of Latin America. Brazil, of course, is a founding member of the BRICS group and its former President Dilma Rousseff is the new head of the BRICS Bank. The region’s trade with China has increased more than 26-fold so far this century. In fact, as Reuters reported in June last year, if you take Mexico’s huge trade balance with the US out of the equation, China has already overtaken the US as Latin America’s largest trading partner. And even Mexico is beginning to see a sharp increase in Chinese trade and investment.
- The “rule based international order” is lacking in credibility and is in decline. NC: Indeed, the rise of CELAC itself is arguably a symptom of this decline. It was founded on December 3, 2011, in Caracas, by the “Pink Tide” leaders with the implicit goal of deepening Latin American integration while reducing the influence of the US on the politics and economics of the region. Mexico’s AMLO picked up the baton at the 2021 summit, expressing hopes that CELAC would eventually supplant the Washington-based Organization of American States (OAS) as the main institution for intra-regional relations. A year later, AMLO led a boycott of the OAS’ flagship biennial event, the Summit of the Americas, in response to Washington’s decision to exclude from the guest list the “antidemocratic” governments of Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela.
There are other reasons why Latin America, as a whole, isn’t falling in line with the Collective West on Ukraine. For instance, Mexico has a long, albeit interrupted, history of neutrality dating all the way back to the early 1930s. Mexico’s constitution even includes a list of foreign policy principles such as a commitment to non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other countries, peaceful resolution of conflicts, and promotion of collective security through active participation in international organisations. And AMLO is determined to honour those principles.
There are also stark economic considerations at play. As previously discussed here, Russia produces many of the fertilisers on which the huge agricultural industries of Brazil, Mexico and Argentina depend. Latin America was already in the grip of a major food crisis before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, largely but not only due to the economic fallout of the Covid-19 pandemic and resulting supply chain crisis.
Another consideration is the goodwill Russia was able to cultivate during the pandemic. Moscow’s vaccine diplomacy, like Beijing’s, helped to expand its role and influence in the region, while Pfizer was shaking down governments left, right and centre.
Lastly, fear has also played a part. Two of the region’s countries, Venezuela and Cuba, have already had their economies eviscerated by US sanctions and blockades. Like their counterparts in many other parts of the world, the governments of Latin America were justifiably terrified by the precedent the US and the EU tried to set by attempting to banish Russia, one of the world’s largest commodity producers and exporters, from the entire global financial system. If the ploy had worked, they knew they could be next in line. Thankfully, it didn’t.
30 comments
Comments are closed.
The west is attempting to do what it has managed to do with many other European conflicts over the past few hundred years: make them global. Get everybody to participate. This obviously applied to the world wars but the Revolutionary/ Napoleonic and Seven Years Wars (for example) took place on a global canvas too. It is a reflex.
Latin America seems instead to be saying that this is a local issue and that Europe / the west needs to fix it. “Happy to help end it and broker peace but why should we be part of it.” For a continent that has been used to being the centre of the world the lack of deep interest seems possibly to be the ultimate insult. The Brazilian comment about poverty being their foe sums that up.
The fact that the US seems unable to get Latin American countries to toe the line sums up the loss of power and how the world is changing, as the cross referenced article made clear too.
Thanks for covering this: I suspect that corporate media (which I avoid) will not be covering these goings on in any form of factual way.
The difference is that back then this came “naturally” from the rest of the world being vassals or colonies of the European powers.
Now however the nations are demonstrating that the era of empires are over, and that they will not sacrifice their own supply chains in order to play nice to some banksters in London and New York.
Biden, alone, effectively ends any argument about the US being noble defenders of the poor wittle Ukrainians. As a leading proponent of the Empire for decades including obvious frauds such as Iraq, Libya, and Syria, he simply can’t be part of an argument where he simply can’t win by bullying.
Even if everything was on the up and up since 2021, DC would have all the same problems with Biden or Hillary in the White House. There was a video of Kerry getting flustered when asked about Iraq war criminals such as Shrub on French TV. One of the arguments for Obama was he would represent a reset from the past. Democratic voters no honestly assessing his presidency is a problem, but for much of the world, there was no reset.
The favored vassals and the nothing countries are onboard because of what they fear losing, but Biden was always a disaster.
Weimar Joe is a war criminal who sent me to Vietnam.
Now, in Ecuador, the fascists have muddied the waters and it looks like the ruling elite will support Yaku Perez the faux indigenous and backer of Lasso.
Eight binomios are running and this of course is what the CIA wants to destroy the Citizens Revolution.
They just might do it.
The farther from the shore of Correaismo, the greater the loss of memory as to the achievements made in the decada ganada.
For more: read Ben Norton’s article at Geopolitcs.
You can find it by searching for:
Ben Norton AND Ecuador
It makes me wonder if there will ever be a “WWIII” if Europe can’t rope the entire rest of the world into it’s internal conflicts.
Nicely put !
” For a continent that has been used to being the centre of the world the lack of deep interest seems possibly to be the ultimate insult.”
Totally not a surprise this. Certainly Zelensky was never going to be allowed to put in an appearance with not only his constant demands for money and weapons but, like he has done elsewhere, he would have berated those South American countries for not coming out against Russia and tried to humiliate them. And after Zelensky’s treatment of Brazil’s Lula in Hiroshima, Lula would nix his appearance on principle. This is really getting to be a pattern this. The west is so obsessed with the Ukraine that whatever international meeting they are at, it all has to be about the Ukraine and condemning Russia. Just this week there was some G-20 meeting of ministers that fizzled out as the west demanded condemnation of Russia in the final communique and the rest of the G-20 countries said yeah, nah. And just today I read an article how the same thing is playing out in Africa-
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/how-africa-surprised-west-during-war-ukraine-206618
For South America, by staying neutral is a last chance to break free from the western imposed “rules-based order” and maybe, just maybe, being able to build up their economies with the help of China and Russia. And all they have to do is stay neutral in solidarity with each other and make the occasional noises about a negotiated peace – which the US and the EU has refused to countenance. But for the South American nations, they did get something for their trouble. As the UK is no longer in the EU they were able to stick in the name ‘Islas Malvinas’ instead of the British name the Falklands. Sunak was not happy-
https://www.politico.eu/article/inside-uk-britains-frantic-bid-to-stop-eu-endorsing-malvinas-name-for-falklands/
This goes back to not allowing competitors. The US fears The Russian Federation because it’s most the evil empire but is a peer or near peer in every category. Unlike China, Russia isn’t at risk of overwhelming a country like Vietnam, and unlike the US, Russia has proper frontiers, it can’t send half a million men across the world to make Shrub feel like a big man.
The West won’t risk escalation because there is no appetite among the populace and this is about keeping things safe for the Western MIC, but I think this is an updated version of seven countries in seven years. If they don’t win, what is to keep Brazil armed with Russian toys to announce a version of the Monroe Doctrine (the sanitized version)?
China backing a pan-African defense structure?
India rolling into troubled spots?
after Zelensky’s treatment of Brazil’s Lula in Hiroshima
a colossally boneheaded move
Alex Christoforou, rightly, keeps wondering why Western elites think Elinsky is “inspiring” or whatever. The man, if he even deserves to be called one at all, has the charms of a two bit gangster flunkies from third rate movies. Everyone he meets, he offends and disgusts. Why anyone would let this guy talk to anybody is beyond me.
Correct. He is a thug and fascist.
That is why the US loves him.
Zelenski also appears to have a case of SMS (Small Man Syndrome).
The West has already lavished so much money, weapons, rhetoric and credibility on Ukraine that it cannot be seen to back down now.
This was colossally short-sighted, as they knew that Ukraine is an existential issue for Russia.
They are ‘feral’, Feral. Psychopaths with only capitalism and imperialism on their bone head minds.
3. The war in Ukraine is seen by the Global South as mainly about the future of Europe rather than the future of the entire world. NC: This is just what Petro said.
*The summit, ostensibly about relations between Latin Am and Europe, is seen by the Global South as…
Man, the empire better have some of that alien technology they keep yammering on about. I thought I was embarrassed when Trump was elected, but the establishment is achieving record highs.
I wonder how Laura Richardson is feeling today. I wish her a severe case of indigestion to go with her indignation. Por lo menos.
mala leche…
Mala agua
“In this place, the situation in Ukraine has been under discussion. I think it is important that those of us from Latin America say clearly: what is happening in Ukraine is an unacceptable war of imperial aggression where international law is being violated… I understand that the joint declaration is blocked today because some do not want to say that the war is against Ukraine. Dear colleagues, today it is Ukraine, but tomorrow it could be any of us…”
Boric said that last part like it was news to leaders of Latin American countries and it hasn’t ever happened there.
So the intelligence agency playbook: install this Obama-like clone in Chile, from faux leftist credentials to vapid speeches.
They want the unabashed neoliberal economics of Pinochet, but with a “friendlier” image.
I wonder to what extent the loss of influence is penetrating the consciousness of the imperial apparatchik class. Public statements suggest not at all, but who knows what’s going on behind closed doors. They must be frustrated and angry that so few people in the RoW are willing to do what they’re told.
From what I can tell, the governing class have drunk the Kool Aid and demand more.
Then again, the governing class, the People Who Matter, would eradicate 99% of life on earth without a second thought, as long as that meant that they were granted unfettered dominion over whatever was left.
n.b. “Don’t Look Up!”
Several members of CELAC pointed out how the issues surrounding Ukraine had absolutely nothing to do with the deal being negotiated. That the EU was holding back with a demand for posturing around Ukraine shows that they are not serious about the actual negotiations. Moreover, it opened up opportunities, which CELAC unfortunately missed:
1. They could have demanded that the EU repudiate Borrell’s racist comments and that Borrell himself issue a public apology.
2. They could have demanded that, since EU wants to focus on Ukraine and not the issues at hand, that EU at the very least issue a statement calling for peace negotiations.
They could also have demanded the inclusion of a condemnation of US for invading and occupying 1/3 of Syria for 8 years now…
Bravo CELAC.
I like the article playing with Borrell’s idiotic metaphore. Gardens are more susceptible to diseases than jungles and require continuous monitoring. Somebody should inform Borrell and the EC they are forgetting garden maintenance and in the process of rotting.
The Latin America Countries who refused to agree to let Zelensky attend were smart. They have probably figured out that he’s a loser. So has Radhika Desai:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/07/18/why-the-ukraine-conflict-will-unravel-nato-and-biden/
There’s very little in this thoughtful article I’d disagree with. However, as a Latin America I’m deeply concerned by the misuse of the terms “the Collective West” and “the Global South.” What is “the West?” The consensus is that “the West” is Europe, plus the direct descendants of European empires; namely, the British, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch empires. What do they have in common? Cultural roots is ancient Greece and Rome, and religious roots in Christianity and Judaism. Ergo, the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean are as much a part of “the West” as are Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. What the author probably meant is NATO countries, ANZAC countries, Japan, and South Korea, which, collectively, are by no stretch of the imagination “the West.”
Both “global” and “south are geographical terms, so the obvious question when speaking of the “Global South” is: south of what? The Equator? No. In the Western Hemisphere alone Venezuela, Suriname, Guyana, most of Colombia, a small part of Brazil, all of Central America, all of the Caribbean, and Mexico lie north of the Equator. The countries of the Middle East lie north of the Equator. Two-thirds of Africa lie north of the Equator. Iran, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Malaysia, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and the Philippines lie north of the Equator. Australia and New Zealand lie south of the Equator (the latter way south). So, I repeat, south of what? What the author probably meant is the “non-aligned countries.”
Accurate use of language is very important for any serious debate, as both Orwell and Gramsci presciently indicated. I believe I’m not the only Latin American curious as to why authors from NATO and ANZAC countries have relatively recently taken to using these two at best highly misleading and intellectually slovenly terms, even well-intentioned authors, like the author of this otherwise excellent article.
Rather than using simple geographical definitions (North/South, East/West), it might be better to think in terms of the economic Core and Periphery.
The Core countries, mainly in Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific (Japan, Australia, New Zealand, S Korea perhaps) dominate the most profitable, high-tech and difficult to develop industries in the global economic system. Due to their monopolies in technology and global finance, they can also exploit the labor and natural resources of the less developed periphery at relatively low prices.
The current instability in the world is due to the leading peripheral countries, mainly Russia and China, but also including India, Brazil, and other political groupings in Africa, Asia and Latin America, taking concrete actions to secure a bigger share of global economic resources for themselves, while the leadership of the Core countries are unwilling to cede any of their privileges.
The problem is that talking in terms of systemic exploitation of peripheral countries by core countries is not considered polite in many public debates, and so we are stuck with more euphemistic and less accurate terms like “Global South” and “Collective West” instead.
“There’s very little in this thoughtful article I’d disagree with. However, as a Latin America I’m deeply concerned by the misuse of the terms “the Collective West” and “the Global South.” What is “the West?” The consensus is that “the West” is Europe, plus the direct descendants of European empires; namely, the British, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch empires. What do they have in common? Cultural roots is ancient Greece and Rome, and religious roots in Christianity and Judaism. Ergo, the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean are as much a part of “the West” as are Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States.”
For that matter, by this definition and by some others, Russia is also the West. Or where else are our cultural and religious roots?
But I think “the Collective West” is used to signify a political alliance of countries whose elites claim to be the guardians of “Western values”.
How about: ‘The Imperialist Bloc’, which is reasonably accurate, as opposed to:
What? ‘Resistance Bloc’? ‘Rest of the World’? ‘Anti-imperialists’ (- not strictly accurate)? ‘Non-aligned states’ (- not strictly accurate)? ‘Arc of Sanity’?
Any better suggestions?