Piñera and Palestinians

A question that now several people have asked me is why did Sebastián Piñera choose to recognize the Palestinian state?  I think there are both domestic and international reasons, with the former being the most important.  There is political upside for Piñera in both respects with virtually no cost.

The domestic side is the large Palestinian population (always portrayed as the largest outside the Middle East).  Along those lines, here is an excerpt from an article in the UAE press of all places:

Representatives of the estimated 300,000 Chileans of Palestinian descent, including four senators and a number of deputies, are cautiously optimistic that years of lobbying within the Andean nation will bear fruit in 2011.

In November at a speech at the Palestinian Club of Chile, Mr Pinera said he supported an independent Palestinian state and added that he planned to visit soon, but was careful not to mention the borders.

This week Mr Pinera met the Palestinian Authority's president, Mahmoud Abbas, when both leaders attended the inauguration of Dilma Rousseff, Brazil's first female president. Mr Abbas took the opportunity to thank leaders from the region for recognising a Palestinian state with Brazil being the first country in the region to build a Palestinian Embassy.

"We have been doing a lot of meetings and a lot of work and a lot of declarations and we also have put some pressure on the foreign affairs minister and also on the president to recognise the Palestinian state with borders," said Mauricio Abu Ghosh, the president of the Palestinian Federation in Chile. "For us, that is the only way. Without borders, it is better to do nothing."

So the Chilean-Palestinian population has a political presence, and has been lobbying for some time.  Piñera can get a political boost--even if not huge--essentially for free (at a time when his approval ratings have dipped to 47 percent).  As far as I have seen, there is no domestic cost associated with it, i.e. a large of group of Chileans who will oppose him because of this move.

The international side also has benefits.  Unlike Brazil, Chile has not been trying to be a global political player (it has been focused almost entirely on trade) so I don't see international diplomatic projection as a reason.  I also do not believe that tweaking the nose of the United States is a reason (as it might be for, say, Bolivia).  Piñera feels friendly toward the U.S.  But he can show himself in solidarity with the rest of Latin America, and since he is a firm U.S. ally, the Obama administration will not look badly on him for doing so.

I do not know what Piñera's personal views are regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or whether he has made public pronouncements prior to the past few months.  Regardless, there are non-trivial domestic and international benefits to be had, for free.

Read more...

Chile and Palestinians 2

Fascinating article in the Jerusalem Post about the Chilean government's decision to recognize the Palestinian state.  Turns out Jewish leaders in Chile felt it was a victory of sorts.

When Brazil recognized Palestinian statehood in early December, Chile was ready to follow suit immediately, sources said. However, an important meeting between Chilean President Sebastian Pinera and former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar – who is a friend of Israel and happened to be visiting Chile at the time – combined with pressure from the local Jewish community and two late-night phone calls from Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to Pinera, managed to postpone the planned proclamation.

“It was a miracle it took so long for the proclamation to come out,” Zaliasnik said.

“We decided to fight the core issues: No to any reference to final-status boundaries on the Green Line or 1967 borders; that Palestinians had to negotiate directly with Israel; and third, that any Chilean statement explicitly recognize the right of Israel to live in secure borders. That’s what we were fighting for.”

And what now?

The next battleground between pro-Israel and pro- Palestinian groups over Latin American recognition of Palestinian statehood will be in Lima, Peru, where the third Latin American-Arab summit will be held in February.

“I feel Colombia won’t recognize Palestinian statehood,” Zaliasnik opined. “I read the quotes of the Colombian foreign minister in Bogota on the issue. My feeling is that Mexico could feel like it has to follow us, but they don’t have a Palestinian lobby. Peru doesn’t have a Palestinian lobby either, but they are hosting an Arab League summit, so it may affect Peruvian President Alan Garcia. Of the three, Peru is the most vulnerable.”

Read more...

Understanding Latin American recognition of Palestinian state

At Foreign Policy Joshua Keating writes about how in retrospect the recognition of a Palestinian state by Latin American governments should be seen in the context of a careful Palestinian strategy:

At the time, the moves were mostly viewed in terms of what they said about Latin American politics, showing countries plotting a course independently of the United States with strong influence from non-aligned Brazil.

In the context of Palestinian negotiations with Israel, the support of say, Paraguay, didn't seem all that consequential. But with international recognition of Palestine very much on the world's agenda this week, the Palestinian overtures to South America make a lot more sense. Looking at the map above, Palestine is currently recognized not only by all four BRICs, by nearly the entirety of the developing world with the exception of a few pariah states like Eritrea and Burma and some pro-American bastions like Colombia and newly independent South Sudan.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I do think the question of why Latin American governments chose to do so should still be connected to Brazil's prestige.  If, for example, Venezuela had attempted to lead the way, then we might not have seen that string of announcements (on that point, Hugo Chávez wrote a letter to the UN claiming among other things that anti-Semitism is solely a western phenomenon). Probing that question of why would be a good research topic.

Read more...

Colombia and Palestinian membership

Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos is getting some domestic heat for his government's announcement that Colombia would abstain from a vote on Palestinian membership in the UN. An opposition party, the Polo Democrático Alternativo, as well as Colombia's Palestinian population, criticized the decision. Colombia happens to be more prominent than other Latin American countries because it currently holds a rotating seat on the UN Security Council--the other is Brazil, which has been very vocal about its support for a Palestinian state.

The Palestinians want nine positive votes for a moral victory (since of course the United States will use its veto power). Erik Voeten at The Monkey Cage analyzes the positions of the 15 members (though Colombia should not be listed as "in play").  I can't help but think back to 2003, when rotating members Chile and Mexico felt pressure from the U.S. to support use of force in Iraq. Both ultimately voted no.

Read more...

Latin America and Palestinians

Ecuador and Bolivia have joined the swelling ranks of Latin American government that are recognizing the Palestinian state (here is my previous post on the topic).  Brazil is already at work constructing a Palestinian embassy. Latin American support will not be decisive, but this will give the Palestinians a bit more diplomatic momentum as they seek to a) halt Israeli settlements; and b) get UN recognition of a state.

Meanwhile, the Israeli response really continues to boggle the mind for how consciously insulting and demeaning it is.  From the Deputy Foreign Minister:

"Facebook is the 'like' state, and so is the Palestinian state recognized in Brasilia and Buenos Aires," said Ayalon. "Irresponsible governments are quick to 'like' the Palestinian state without actually checking out its profile: an authority without sovereignty, with no borders or territorial continuity, no economic ability or democratic culture."

Read more...

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and Latin America

There have been quite a few stories on Latin America's response to the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I tend to agree with this assessment:

As Gaza smolders, the anti-Israel drumbeat is likely to continue, but the smart money says the damage will remain confined to the rhetorical battlefield. "Latin diplomacy was correct in criticizing Israel's excesses in Gaza but no one is interested in severing relations," says former Brazilian foreign minister Luiz Felipe Lampreia. "There's too much at stake."

Palestinian and Israeli leaders alike have been courting Latin America quite aggressively. This isn't new--I had a spate of posts in 2010-2011 about recognition of the Palestinian state, which included the support of Chilean president Sebastián Piñera. Too many of the media stories give the impression that this is all new.

What I need to do is wrote a post sometime after the current crisis is over, and see how much concrete rejection of Israel--reduction of trade, cancellation of investment, that sort of thing, long-term severing of relations--has actually occurred. This makes me think of Venezuela's treatment of Honduras and Panama some time ago, both of which were vocally and publicly labeled as adversaries for a while, followed later by quiet restoration of normal relations.

Read more...

Palestinians in Latin America

Here is a new and bizarre twist to the Palestinian-Latin America connection:

The United States proposed giving Palestinian refugees land in South America as a radical solution to a problem that has haunted Middle East peace talks for decades.

Condoleezza Rice, the Bush administration's secretary of state, wanted to settle displaced Palestinians in Argentina and Chile as an alternative to letting them return to former homes in Israel and the occupied territories. Rice made the proposal in a June 2008 meeting with US, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators in Berlin, according to minutes of the encounter seen by the Guardian.

...

The proposal seems based on the fact that Chile has a large Palestinian community dating back a century and, like Argentina, has large tracts of sparsely populated land.

Did anyone ask whether Palestinians would prefer to be shipped out, or whether a very large number of non-Spanish speaking Muslims would automatically be welcomed?  I suppose it is worth at least discussing all sorts of potential solutions, but this one seems particularly outlandish.

Read more...

Chile and Palestinians

According to the Palestinian Foreign Minister, Chile and Paraguay will soon become the latest Latin American countries to recognize the Palestinian state.  He added that Sebastián Piñera will visit the West Bank in the near future.  The last I had read, the Chilean government was thinking about it.  For a right of center government to do so would put an even greater stamp of unanimity on the issue.  Regardless, it makes sense for Chile, which has a very large Palestinian population.

The past several months have been interesting, as there is no obvious coordination but quite a few Latin American governments are suddenly recognizing the Palestinian state in a very short amount of time.

Previous posts here and here.

Read more...

Palestinians in Central America

Manzar Faroohar, "Palestinians in Central America: From Temporary Emigrants to a Permanent Diaspora." Journal of Palestine Studies 40, 3 (Spring 2011): 6-22.

Abstract:

The article presents an in-depth examination into the diaspora of Palestinians in Central America throughout the 20th century. An overview is presented citing data from interviews and government documentation evaluating the scope of the Palestinian population in Honduras and El Salvador. Accounts are given mapping two major immigration movements, one in the 1910s and 1920s and the other spanning in the post-1967 era. Details are provided noting the economic success of the Palestinians in Central America, their struggles with discrimination, and their eventual cultural assimilation. The extent to which Palestinians engage in Central American politics is also analyzed.

This is particularly relevant given all the discussions about Latin American governments recognizing the Palestinian State.  As Mike Allison very recently noted, El Salvador just did so.  One interesting point the article makes is that the Palestinian community is mostly conservative and supportive of U.S. policy in the region.  In other words, they may disagree about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but likely agree with the U.S. on most everything else.  Unfortunately, alarmists in the U.S. tend to view them as a threat.

Read more...

Latin America and Palestinian state

Regarding Latin American recognition of the Palestinian state, I have tended to believe that there is little domestic resistance.  The Middle East is not very relevant to Latin American politics, and Jewish populations--which we would reasonably expect to be the most vocally opposed--are relatively small in most (though not all) countries.  Along these lines, I got an email from William Girard, a Ph.D. candidate in Anthropology at UC Santa Cruz who has done fieldwork in Honduras.  With his permission, I copy the following:

My research focuses on Pentecostal politics in Copán Ruinas, Honduras.  I was carrying out my fieldwork in Copán when the coup happened, so the bulk of my dissertation examines Pentecostal responses to the coup and its aftermath.  One of the focuses of my research is a set of doctrines that many Fundamentalist and Pentecostal throughout the hemisphere hold called "Christian Zionism."  The most important aspect of these doctrines for my research is the view that Jews remain the chosen people of God and, as such, receive Divine blessings. These Christians pay close attention to events in Israel, and have an enormous enthusiasm for that country. In sharp contrast, they view Arabs, and particularly Palestinians with a great deal of antipathy, regarding them as continually jealous of the blessings that Jews are said to receive.  While, as I mentioned, these views are fairly common among Fundamentalists and Pentecostals throughout the Hemisphere, they take on a particular character in Honduras, where Palestinians ("Turcos") play such a large role in the national economy (as I understand they do in Chile).  

I've been following your posts on L.A. governments recognizing a Palestinian state, and I have to imagine that the Pentecostal citizens of these countries are deeply opposed to this.  As I'm sure you know, the Protestant population in many L.A. countries is fairly large (around 15% in both Chile and Brazil).  While certainly not all of them would be Christian Zionists, I would think that the majority would be, and, hence, view the recognition of a Palestinian state with great alarm.

So there could well be more opposition than I would've argued, from Protestants, assuming further that a sizable number attach enough salience to it.  From a political perspective, the big question is whether that opposition translates into political pressure.

Read more...

Latin America-Arab Summit

Even more Latin America-Middle East connection: the third Summit of Latin American and Arab Countries (ASPA) will take place in Lima next month.  Lula got the idea going in 2003, so as usual with the Middle East Brazil is taking the lead and other countries in the region are following.  Of course, the Palestinian issue will also be discussed about whether "to issue a final declaration recognising a sovereign and independent Palestinian state  in borders preceding June 4, 1967 with East Jerusalem as the Palestinian state's capital."

Approving such a declaration will be tricky, as it gets more specific than current declarations by Latin American governments.  The Chilean government carefully avoided specifying borders at all.

Read more...

Brazil and the Middle East

Brazil has recognized the Palestinian state, based on the borders right before the 1967 Six Day War.  A quick search suggests that in Latin America only Cuba and Nicaragua recognize the Palestinian state (though I am happy to be corrected if that is wrong).

This is all part of Brazil's (and especially Lula's) effort to be a player in the Middle East.  The last effort (with Turkey) did not work out so well, but Brazil is placing itself in counterpoint to the United States because it wants to mediate but from a more pro-Palestinian perspective.  At the very least, whatever one thinks of it, Brazil is harder and harder to ignore in the Middle East.

Aside from the diplomatic questions, there is also the unknown of whether Dilma Rousseff has the same level of interest as Lula in the Middle East.

Read more...

The Middle East Conflict in Chile

I've written before about the Palestinian population in Chile (which is the largest outside the Middle East) and The Guardian has a really interesting story about the tension between Palestinians and Jews plays out in Chile. The upshot is that the Jewish population feels it is on the defensive:

In August, as Israel resumed military operations against Gaza, Bachelet, re-elected in March, recalled the Chilean ambassador to Tel Aviv. Thousands of people demonstrated in Santiago in solidarity with Palestine. The ambassador only resumed his functions once a ceasefire had been arranged. Several neighbouring countries followed suit, the exception being Argentina, home to the largest Jewish community (250,000-strong) in Latin America. 

Gerardo Gorodischer, leader of the Jewish community in Chile, deplores “the confusion between Jews and Israel” and the rise of “antisemitism unprecedented in Chile”. He goes so far as to say: “We are enduring a pogrom, without the Chilean government lifting a finger. The most prosperous people are thinking of moving to the United States.” He claims that the Israeli flag was burned at several pro-Palestine demonstrations. Palestinian leaders maintain this was the work of “radical groups which are not representative of the community”.

The article doesn't provide evidence of antisemitism but it has been characterized elsewhere as graffiti and verbal abuse. The question of separating Jews and Israel is an important one. Sebastián Piñera recognized the Palestinian state in 2011, so I'd be interested to know whether antisemitism in Chile has increased since then, or whether it is sporadic depending on what happens to be in the headlines.

Either way, it is a reminder of how much diasporas matter, as they literally bring politics from other parts of the world with them. Just look at all my posts on U.S. policy toward Cuba.

Read more...

Latin America and Palestine

Mahmoud Abbas is doing a quick Latin America tour--Dominican Republic, El Salvador, and Colombia--to keep the momentum going for a UN vote on Palestinian membership as a state (the vote will be "soon" but it is not clear how soon). The Colombia stop is especially interesting because the Santos administration had previously said it would abstain. This suggests Abbas is already trying to maneuver for an alternate solution that Colombia and other governments might support after a U.S. veto.

The General Assembly, however, could still vote to upgrade the status of Palestinians, who currently hold the status of nonvoting observer "entity." The body could change that status to permanent observer "state," identical to the Vatican's standing at the United Nations.

I have not heard what the U.S. position is on this option, since the very concept of "state" is so loaded within the context of Israeli-Palestinian relations. On the other hand, it could be a solution that settles the situation down for the time being.

Read more...

Israeli lobbying in Latin America

There was a flurry of analyses last year when Brazil recognized a Palestinian state and other Latin American governments followed suit.  The Jerusalem Post has a very detailed (and seriously realpolitik) discussion of Israel's current lobbying strategy to ensure that Latin American governments don't vote that way at the UN.  The idea is to ensure that 60 countries vote against statehood or abstain, and that if a bunch of tin-pot dictatorships vote in favor, it doesn't really matter too much.

Israel might also float an alternative plan that could siphon off votes.  The articles makes no pretense that such a plan would be serious--indeed, it uses the word "wink"!  It would just need to get enough votes to thwart the Palestinians.

Regardless, Israel will pay particular attention to Chile, Peru, and Uruguay, which recognized a Palestinian state but were vague on the borders, and convince them not to vote in favor.  It is hoping that Mexico will be able to influence Central America as well.

Read more...

Latin America and a Palestinian state

Argentina has joined Brazil and Uruguay in recognizing a Palestinian state (and thanks to J.F. String in comments to a recent post for noting that Uruguay had preceded Brazil).  The Israeli response is striking, particularly because it unwittingly shows in part why Latin American countries are doing so in the first place.

"Such a declaration today only harms the peace process, because it merely encourages the Palestinians to keep digging in and hoping the miracle will somehow descend from the heavens or from the international community, that will impose some kind of accord on Israel," Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said.

"And what is important is that the Americans don't accept this either," he told Israel's Army Radio.

First, I think it is fair to say that these Latin American governments do precisely want to be part of an accord forged by the international community, but obviously they do not consider that harmful to the peace process.

Second, emphasizing what the U.S. wants will virtually always have the opposite effect of that desired.  If anything, berating Latin America in that regard will encourage more countries to follow suit.  And anyway, Brazil's position is intended to be a counterpoint to the U.S.

Read more...

Brazil and the Middle East

In November I wrote about how Brazil saw ties with Iran as important for making Brazil a player in the Middle East peace process. Foreign Minister Celso Amorim made that goal even more explicit in a recent interview.

Is Brazil elaborating a strategy to participate in a more efficient way in the conflict of the Middle East, or at least to become a heavyweight player in this question?

We are not going to come up with an entirely new solution to the question of the Middle East. All possible solutions have already been discussed. What is necessary is political desire to implement them. In our case, we would like to contribute to the dialogue. I think that a country like Brazil could do that easily. Due to our history and to the history that Brazil has in this region. Due to the international respect granted to Brazil. We do not want to do this alone, but by joining forces with other developing nations, like South Africa and India, which could have a more positive influence. Confining these talks to the "Quartet" has not generated great results: that is the truth. I therefore believe that a little more representation is necessary in the international community.

Now that Brazil is talking actively to Israel, Iran, and Egypt in particular, the Obama administration would be well-advised to bring Brazil into the equation. We certainly should not overstate the potential effects, but it could inject a fresh perspective into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and also strengthen U.S.-Brazilian relations. Both should be priorities for the administration.

Read more...

AMLO Is A Bit of Everything For Everyone

I don't tend to pay much attention to who attends presidential inaugurations, but it feels like AMLO's is about a diverse as you can get. And that's something he's making a big deal of. His choice as Foreign Minister, Marcelo Ebrard, keeps tweeting as he gets confirmations.

You have Mike Pence, Nicolás Maduro, Ivanka Trump, Daniel Ortega, (or someone close to him), Evo Morales, Miguel Díaz-Canel, Michelle Bachelet, governors, mayors, and former mayors of U.S. cities, there is Palestinian representation, Iván Duque, Jeremy Corbyn, and the list goes on.

At this particular moment, AMLO is a bit of all things to all people outside the country. He is the leftist who can influence Venezuela, he is the non-interventionist with regard to Venezuela, he is the pragmatist who can handle Donald Trump, he is the leftist who will help the poor, he is the pragmatist who won't radicalize economic reforms, he is center-left like Lula.

It will be very hard to be all these things and we know you can never tell until the person has been inaugurated. A lot of Latin American presidents have acted very differently from what was expected at the time of their election, which in some cases created serious rifts or even crises (e.g. Juan Manuel Santos and Lenín Moreno recently, with Carlos Menem and Alberto Fujimori in the past).

It is a positive sign, however, that he begins his term in office with a sense of universal goodwill from abroad. He will need it because so many of his challenges have international connections of some sort.

Read more...

Chile Wikileaks

If you need more evidence from Chile that the left-right dichotomy in Latin America is far more complex than commonly portrayed, we have this Wikileaks revelation.  The center-left Bachelet government, which we would expect to be more sympathetic to Hugo Chávez, was spying on Iranians in Latin America, which was in line with U.S. concerns.  And now, the center-right Piñera government is pro-Palestinian, which is not what the U.S. wants and is much more in line with Venezuela.

Read more...

Margaret MacMillan's Dangerous Games (2009)

I read Margaret MacMillan's Dangerous Games: The Uses and Abuses of History, which I found both thought provoking and unsatisfying. That is because she offers nuggets of interesting analysis, particularly when she compares the use of history in specific contexts (e.g. the Israeli/Palestinian conflict) but she has no overall argument, other than not to abuse history (she keeps zeroing in on unnamed "amateur" historians). But then she sidesteps the question even of how to identify such abuse. Or whether everyone is guilty of it.

"History comforts us, even though, paradoxically, we know less and less about it" (p. 20). This is so true for U.S. policy toward Latin America, which viewed the Cold War as as an external problem, conveniently ignoring local realities. Since those local realities--poverty, injustice, and exclusion--remained, policy makers now view their re-emergence in Honduras as a surprise, and therefore frame them entirely in ideological terms. Or am I simply interpreting history incorrectly? Therein lies the analytical rub. Is there an objective way to consider such things? She refers to "professional historians" but of course they disagree, sometimes vehemently. Indeed, that disagreement is a necessary part of examining history. It is what professional historians do.

To be fair, she does assert that the proper role of historians is "to challenge and even explode national myths" (p. 39). The funny thing, though, is most historians believe they are doing so because no one can agree about what is a "myth." I recently reviewed a book seeking to dispel myths about the U.S. role in the Chilean coup, and my review centered largely on the fact that the "myths" were not myths at all because historians and political scientists had been dispelling it for years. It was only a myth if you had not done the reading.

Nonetheless, there is a lot to think about, regarding the use of past defeats to vilify current enemies, the suppression of contrary evidence, the use of history to promote national purity, and the casting of new symbols and ceremonies as connected to ancient rituals as a way to provide them legitimacy.

This would be a good book for an undergraduate class to chew on. It raises many questions without providing much framework for answering them, but the questions themselves are important.

Read more...