CHina Supplants Midwest Farmers

Keep looking beyond the big headlines to see what happens with China in Latin America. One such example is that farmers in the midwest are concerned by how China has shifted away from buying U.S. soybeans and instead is buying even more from Latin America, where it now has long-standing relationships and infrastructure.

And the farmers know why. It's not complicated Here is a quote from one:

For her, the changing politics and policies have made the United States an “unreliable trading partner.”

“The only way that we become their top choice would be if our soybeans were far cheaper than South America’s.”

China has been strategically investing in infrastructure, especially after 2018 when the Trump administration's trade war policy heated up. The U.S. slaps tariffs on China, which reciprocates. The reciprocation means that U.S. farmers get shut out because Brazil doesn't impose such tariffs. It's how global capitalism works. You can't count on unreliable trading paretners so you do your best to work around them.

What this does, of course, is to cement exactly what the Trump administration claims it doesn't want, which is increased Chinese investment and involvement in Latin America.

Watch for more of this all the time. It's been ongoing.

Read more...

Government Intervention in the Economy

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was in Brazil discussing trade and this quote popped out at me.

Despite diplomatic controversies caused by Trump’s economic agenda in Brazil, Bessent supported the use of tariffs as part of a broader effort to reindustrialise. He noted that while tariffs generate short-term revenue, the long-term goal is to encourage companies to move production to the United States, shifting government revenue towards domestic economic activity.

This should sound familiar to anyone who has looked at Latin America from the 1950s-1980s. Import substitution industrialization was a large-scale effort to industrialize, encourage local production, and shift government revenue to domestic economic activity, all through the use of tariffs. As Mike Allison and I wrote in U.S. and Latin American Relations:

The idea was that to reduce dependency on imports, the state would direct, encourage, and subsidize targeted domestic industries, whose products would substitute for foreign goods (p. 136).

It's so similar, but not identical. At least as yet, we're not seeing the same level of state investment in industry (e.g. ownership, even if partial). The irony is that Latin America was doing it in large part to protect itself from the United States, which in turn exerted tremendous pressure to liberalize and open markets up to U.S. products. Now the script is flipped.

The irony is extended further since in the same interview, Bessent said we had a “generational opportunity to strengthen ties with governments that support market-oriented reforms.” At the moment, however, the U.S. is not such a country. "Market-oriented" means that the market determines outcomes with a minimum of government manipulation. Recent reforms in terms of government intervention in the economy is decidedly not market-oriented. In fact, Latin American countries have been pursuing free trade agreements elsewhere.

Read more...

Latin America's Response to Mark Carney's Speech

I was watching a webinar put on by the Canadian Council for the Americas, which naturally touched on Mark Carney's speech. Robert Funk, a Chilean professor (but also Canadian) noted how unusual it was to have people talking about a Canadian Prime Minister's speech in casual conversation. And I don't blog very much about Canada.

It resonated elsewhere and Claudia Sheinbaum praised it. Carney will spend a lot of the year traveling, which already includes Brazil and I imagine will include plenty more of Latin America. This isn't exactly new, but the sense of urgency is intensifying.

A question came up in the webinar about whether Canada would lead some sort of group of middle powers, which I think misses the core point. This isn't a "movement" per se but rather just the rational response by sovereign countries with options. There doesn't have to be a leader, which suggests common political views, policies, and the like.

Read more...

Don't Make Sweeping Generalizations About Latin American Politics

Michael Reid, who is a highly experienced observer of Latin American politics, should know better than to make sweeping generalizations about it, but he did. He says that the rightward trend in Latin America is different from past pendulums and is likely here to stay. Here are his two main reasons and the problems with them.

1. Latin American voters have been afraid of a repeat of Venezuela so vote for the right instead. The problem here is obvious--in 2022 neighboring Colombia voted in not just a leftist (the first in their history!) but a former guerrilla. The same year, neighboring Brazil chose Lula over a Jair Bolsonaro, who was both incumbent and close to Donald Trump. So this reason doesn't pass muster.

2. "Since the Covid-19 pandemic, which hit the region hard, voters’ focus has changed to the basics of life: finding stable work, putting food on the table and, perhaps above all, keeping safe." The entire first part of this puzzles me because Latin American voters have always, and I mean always, centered on finding stable work and food. That's what gave rise to Hugo Chávez in the first place. And it absolutely relates to incumbency because when the right or left can't fulfill those promises, voters look elsewhere. That said, his point about how drug violence has spread more than in the past is definitely true. But even in countries with serious drug trafficking (take Honduras or Mexico) voters have moved to the left and right.

After making the point that anti-incumbency is less likely now and so the right might well dominate, he hedges:

"In the end, the durability of Latin America’s latest shift will turn on how successful these leaders are in improving the lives of ordinary citizens, in making them safer and less poor and offering them better services like health care, education and public transport."

In other words, if incumbents don't fulfill promises, voters look elsewhere.

He does make the critical point that the current Latin American right is heterogeneous. Different approaches, different personalities, and different priorities. This is the most important takeaway of the piece because it tells us that sweeping generalizations will always lead you astray. What happens in Argentina--always so idiosyncratic--may or may not have significant impact elsewhere. If there is a regional or global recession (let's say the AI bubble bursts badly) then we might soon be talking about a resurgence of the center-left.*

* I do think the revolutionary left is so badly discredited that it will take decades for people to forget about its disasters. But they always do eventually!

Read more...

Suffering Matters: When Political Leaders Get Covid-19

Boz has an ungated post from his newsletter about Latin American leaders who have Covid-19. I had been thinking of writing briefly about this as well, and he mentions what I had been thinking about:

In a presentation last week, I said my big concern was “Bolsonaro is going to survive coronavirus and then double down on being an idiot because his own survival will give confirmation bias to his belief that the disease is not that bad.” I stand by that comment.

I think this merits more attention, in Latin America and everywhere else. However, it's not about "surviving." I would call it "non-suffer bias." Those who get it and suffer are never the same. Those who get it and have only mild symptoms have a very different narrative. For them, it's just the flu or maybe just an irritating cold.

The Governor of Oklahoma announced he had Covid-19 even as he refused to mandate masks. He said he was achy but not too bad. Bolsonaro got it (tested positive twice!) and seems similarly little affected, which is the case for a lot of people. Covid-19 is not the Superflu of The Stand but rather a more crafty thing that kills the vulnerable and also kills and maims others in unpredictable ways. If you are a skeptic when you get it, you come out feeling more sure of skepticism if it only touched out lightly.

Politically, this is potentially huge. If a skeptic gets the virus and recovers easily, their ongoing story is that this is no big deal, just a bad cold, just a flu, and their platform gives that wide dissemination. They have "proof" in their own experience.

Contrast that to Juan Orlando Hernández, who was in the hospital, feared for his life, and made an emotional plea when he left the hospital. And that's a very conservative president. He survived but suffered, so his narrative is different. Boris Johnson suffered and now wants mandatory masks in shops, which fellow conservatives don't like.

I see lots of "ha ha, karma" tweets when skeptics are tested positive, but that entirely misses the point. It is the opposite when the virus treats them gently, and that has political repercussions.

Read more...

End the Cold War Already

When do we get to end the Cold War? This year has been horrible in so many ways, and some icing on the cake is that I am pretty certain I haven't heard "socialist" and "communist" as epithets this much since, well, the actual Cold War. I had been thinking about this, then read this interview between Tim Padgett and Frank Mora, who is stepping down as director of FIU's Latin America & Caribbean Center:

So it's no secret you're a Democrat – but you're a Cuban-American Democrat in Miami. You support engagement with communist Cuba. Twenty years ago, more conservative Cubans might have called you a comunista. Do you still feel like a rare bird here in that sense?

Now you see a majority of Cuban-Americans agreeing with President Trump's view, which is a dramatic change in only a couple of years. But to be frank with you, Tim, that language, that rhetoric is coming back. The use of “socialism” and “communism” to try to discredit those who don't agree with the mainstream Cuban Americans is rearing its head again. And I think it's unfortunate.

This is exactly it. You get Black Lives Matter labeled as communist. AMLO gets criticized for talking to "communist regimes." Florida Governor Rick Scott says "The Communist Party of China is in for world domination…And so it’ll be a pretty dark world." Like we live in the Marvel Universe. And we'd be here all day if I started really listing all the inaccurate, simplistic, and even laughable ways the word "socialism" gets thrown around. Did you know that taking down statues of the Confederacy leads to socialism, because that's what happened in Venezuela? I bet you didn't, but you do now!

And so what does this mean in practice? As former Cuba Chargé d'affaires Jeffrey DeLaurentis put it in a recent op-ed:

It's as if we had regressed to the 1980s, when we looked the other way at the abuses of right-wing dictators and excoriated only those on the left.

That sort of thing in fact has happened since the 1980s (see George W. Bush and John Bolton) and I complained then too. Throw around words like "communist" and "regime," and you get ideological cover to go after your political enemies, wherever you might find them.

When will we finally be free of the Cold War? The example of the Confederacy tells us it could a long time, perhaps even long after you and I are long gone. The symbols of the Confederacy are a great cover for racism--hey, it's just heritage! "Communism" is also a convenient and tidy cover, and ideologues don't give those up easily.

Read more...

Luis Almagro Sounds Just Like Donald Trump

Under Luis Almagro's direction, the OAS issued a remarkable statement about the ongoing public debate about the statistical soundness of the OAS analysis of the Bolivian presidential election. It is whiny, paranoid, blustery, defensive, hyperbolic, unprofessional, unconvincing, and does considerable damage to an already damaged institution. It is a PR disaster, unless you went to the Trump School of Public Relations.

Almagro sounds exactly like Donald Trump: "Obviously, we recognize the NYT’s right to lie, distort, and twist information, data, and facts, and to mix truth and lies as often as it wishes." For him, all critics are biased liars and they're out to get him. And, in a another Trump-like twist, where you attack others for what you do, he blames others for interfering in Bolivian affairs. Beyond the NYT, he targets the Center for Economic and Political Research, though not by name. I've disagreed with CEPR analyses, but it's not reasonable to call it a "“propaganda tank” that "goes into the realm of tragicomedy." It's just pissy. He continues with several paragraphs of insults. It even gets weird, accusing the NYT of propaganda because of Herbert Matthews.

The statement is self-defeating. It's an embarrassment. The OAS has always suffered from accusations of pro-US bias. Having a Trumpish figure as its head only cements that image. It's time for new OAS leadership. Sadly, he was literally just re-elected to a second five-year term.

Read more...

Iran Has Failed in Latin America

Stephen Johnson has an article in Foreign Policy arguing that Iran is trying to revive its presence in Latin America, with gas tanker arrivals being a prominent example. Fair enough as a starting point. Then the article goes in an interesting direction, serving as a solid narrative about how much Iran has failed completely in the region. Indeed, there is mostly evidence that Iran is no position to do much at all--it has financial problems and few allies.

I've written a lot of posts over many years about Iran in Latin America. To some degree, every one was about how the threat Iran allegedly posed was extremely overestimated. Here is my assessment over 13 years ago:

In short, I don’t think Iran will be much involved with Latin America. Unfortunately, however, the U.S. government has yet to demonstrate that it can offer any real alternatives to the rhetorical bluster. Instead, it usually just offers up its own bluster.

Lots and lots of talk. Now back to Johnson:

By some accounts, there was growing disappointment among Iran’s senior leaders over years of costly investments that never paid off.

And the rest of his article sustains that. After all these years, a lot of headlines, a lot of articles written, and a lot of high-profile visits, there is very little there there, so to speak. Any revived influence at all requires a highly unlikely scenario of Iran-friendly governments, strong economic growth, and consensus within Iran that this is worth the trouble. Even then, there is not much to revive because there wasn't much there to begin with.

Read more...

Latin American Militaries and Covid-19

Today I listened to a panel where a variety of experts (Arturo Sotomayor as moderator, Kristina Mani, Maiah Jaskoski, Harold Trinkunas, Adriana Abdenur, and Rut Diamint) on Latin American civil-military relations talked about the military's response to Covid-19. There were a lot of good points made, but two things in particular struck me. I should also note that these points are not attributed to any particular person.

First, there is almost no public discussion about it. Latin American and U.S. analysts alike have been talking a lot about this in recent months, but seemingly their alarm is not mirrored in Latin American legislatures or in the general public. I think this is a critical and rarely discussed issue. We do generally see the public expressing confidence in the armed forces, even in countries with troubled histories. However, does that translate to more or less blanket approval of increased military actions during this crisis? If that is the case, then analysts can wring their hands all they want, but the situation is not likely to improve.

Second it's dangerous to frame the virus in terms of national security and "war." This officially militarizes the situation, but also allows for the government to justify actions and sacrifices that otherwise would not be acceptable in a democracy. It allows for skirting the constitution. We've already seen the problems with the "war on drugs" and the "war on terrorism" both in the U.S. and in Latin America.

This issue is just getting more important and relevant by the day.

Read more...

The Experiment of Reopening

Michael Reid writes in The Economist about the pressure in Latin America to loosen quarantines. People in poverty simply can't remain locked down without substantial financial assistance. Across the region, they just start ignoring orders.

In most cases, the minority who are not respecting lockdowns are acting out of necessity. Data from Google, which tracks mobile phones, show more movement in poorer states and provinces in many countries. Several national governments, including those in Colombia and Peru, have been swift to get emergency payments to some of their poorer citizens. But that is a big challenge: one out of two Latin Americans works informally, often relying on daily cash takings. A new popular slogan holds that it is better to die of coronavirus than of hunger.

In the U.S., such resistance is embarrassingly different. People who could stay home demand their right to a...haircut. The reopen movement in the U.S. is tied closely to privilege. Even here, though, at a certain point people will resist because they will run out of money.

In both Latin America and here in the southeast, we are living science experiments. I feel this acutely as a resident of North Carolina. Neighboring Georgia has been reopened a week, while our current stay-at-home order expires on May 8 and Governor Roy Cooper will have to decide whether to extend it or start phased reopening. Like many other people, I am looking at the experimental group next to us, fearing a disaster and fervently hoping one never materializes. If the healthcare system in Georgia is not overrun, we will start reopening as well. Other states will follow. Given the potential human costs, it's unnerving.

There is a similar vibe in Latin America. Reopening may be geographically differentiated within a country, or national, but everyone will be looking intently at the effects versus places that have not opened up. The scary thing is that we're talking about potential catastrophe, namely death and hospitals being overrun. The risks are extraordinarily high, but it's going to happen sooner rather than later.

Read more...

Latin American Leaders Talk Covid-19

A group of Latin American intellectuals and former presidents co-wrote a call in Americas Quarterly for measures to deal with Covid-19. The bottom line is the need for a huge injection of cash. It's not long and I recommend you take a look. However, there are two missing elements.

First, especially in the developing world, any discussion must include a plan for graduated reopening. You might not know the exact timetable but you should define parameters. No matter how much you can realistically stimulate the economy, people do not have sufficient savings (or any savings) to withstand this crisis. They will start violating quarantines and curfews. See Otto's post about migrants leaving Lima in huge groups. At the extremes you'll see riots. So what would a reasonable reopening look like?

Second, all the talk about international cooperation needs to confront the fact that the United States is currently governed by someone who has no intention of helping.

Latin American leaders should call forcefully for international cooperation to confront the crisis. They ought to condemn export controls on medical supplies and other critical resources, and demand increased resources for the World Health Organization, contrary to the reckless decision announced by the U.S. government. 

I know, I know, diplomacy and all that. But there needs to be more concerted Latin American criticism of U.S. actions. And good luck getting U.S. assistance with medical supplies or anything else for that matter. The U.S. is currently an obstacle for Latin American recovery.

Read more...

The World Bank Suggests Temporary Socialism in Latin America

The World Bank has a new report, "The Economy in the Time of Covid-19," and it is grim reading. It's also well-written and highly conscious of the human suffering going on. It is, in short, not your World Bank of lore. In fact, it advocates socialism.

To support jobs and firms, governments may need to take ownership stakes in strategically important firms. To avert a financial crisis, they may need to recapitalize banks and absorb non-performing assets. If not adequately managed, these moves could open the door to rent seeking and political patronage. The process of acquiring and managing assets needs to be perceived as transparent and professional to maintain confidence in the government. This may also allow decision makers to take urgently needed measures without fearing prosecution in the future. 

Strong arrangements need to be put in place to ensure that the acquisition and management of assets is conducted at arms’ length from politicians, building on the best examples of sovereign wealth funds and asset management companies in countries at similar development levels.

It's a "temporary socialism" idea, with sunset clauses.

In the medium term, the priority has to be the divestiture of state assets to the private sector. Individual cases will need to be reviewed, and balance sheet repair solutions be designed. Benchmark-linked sales of government shares in companies will have to be arranged. While this is not an immediate priority, government should communicate clearly on the direction of travel, establishing a timeline and setting up sunset clauses wherever appropriate. 

This is remarkable, even with the temporary caveat. Corruption is the long-standing anchor dragging Latin American governance down, and we all know there is a strong elite movement to avoid accountability. The World Bank is actually advocating injecting state ownership into that mix. I wonder what "strong arrangements" would avoid turning such businesses into personal slush funds?

On the flip side, if such strong arrangements could be found, they would be revolutionary, though there is still the question of how to make sure such state firms continued to invest in R&D rather than being sucked dry. Some of this depends on the definition of "medium term."

I've had numerous conversations with colleagues about what will change forever as we re-evaluate everything and find new ways of doing things. The crisis is forcing us to do this, and on a bigger scale if it can actually change the way Latin American governments deal with the economy, all the better.

Read more...

Podcasting Latin American Civil-Military Relations

Over at the Washington Office on Latin America podcast, I talked with Adam Isacson about Latin American civil-military relations. I thought we had a nice, if not exactly uplifting, chat.

One point that came up that in my opinion merits more attention is the use of social media. Latest example: when the U.S. imposed sanctions on Nicolás Maduro and others, there was quickly a tweet of army support. It's just an assumed response at this point.

Also, we recorded on Friday afternoon in our respective homes and had a beer as we talked. I'd never had a beer while podcasting and I recommend it.

Read more...

Covid-19 and Latin American Multilateralism

Mac Margolis has a thoughtful article on Covid-19 and multilateralism in Latin America. Right now governments are closing their borders precisely at a time when they need to join together to address this common threat. Alone they can't do it effectively. Regional institutions now are so ideology-based that governments move in and out of them, thus rendering them weak.

I agree with his assessment, but he does not mention one serious obstacle: the United States. We are already seeing a problem with Venezuela going to the IMF (which itself is quite amazing) because the U.S. insists only Juan Guaidó can do that. The Trump administration also has opposed UN and OAS efforts to combat corruption in Central America. The "America First" approach is built upon a paranoia of the multilateral institutions that Latin America needs.

Latin America already has a long history of failed attempts at multilateralism and unity. Hugo Chávez's latest version was founded on oil money and ideology and now is in tatters. It's always been an uphill climb, and now it's worse. It's like someone pushing back against Sisyphus, whose already carrying the damned rock.

Read more...

Covid-19 and Latin American Militaries

Long before Covid-19, Latin American militaries were once again taking prominent places in politics. Sometimes this was clearly antithetical to democracy (as in Bolivia and El Salvador) and other times just a mixing of military and police functions (as in Chile) that might have negative long-term impacts.

And now the pandemic has put the military on the front lines and in large numbers. Some recent examples:

Argentina: the army is building hospitals.

Bolivia: on the streets to enforce quarantine.

Brazil: an operations center for soldiers to deal with airports, ports, borders, etc.

Chile: over 20,000 soldiers deployed to enforce curfew.

Ecuador: deployment in Guayas province (not sure if elsewhere) where there have been a lot of cases.

El Salvador: enforcing the quarantine.

Mexico: mobilization of upwards of 250,000 soldiers for a variety of purposes.

Peru: military patrols (and one dead).

Using the military in a time of natural disaster is neither unusual nor, on its face, alarming. A big difference with the current crisis is that the duration. Like it or not, a major military presence in major Latin American cities for months might well become normalized. That's not a healthy combination with presidents--Bukele comes to mind, of course--who have already shown a proclivity for using the military as a political weapon.

Read more...

Home For The Semester

Like millions, I am home indefinitely. I am extraordinarily lucky, being salaried and tenured, stocked with food in a home with my favorite people. My job right now is to help keep the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences going--there are both knowns and unknowns in that regard. At the moment, my interactions are through emails, WebEx, and Skype. I am glad for meetings just to remind me that specific days and times still actually exist.

This is tough on faculty and students alike, and I feel terrible for graduating seniors who can't savor their accomplishment as much as they deserve. My own son is a graduating high school senior and he is just seeing the year sort of fizzle out.

The idea that someone in authority is even floating the possibility of 30% unemployment is terrifying. Our national leadership is weak, which is deeply frustrating, though at least the governors are stepping up. We need testing and it's not coming nearly quickly enough, which is also deeply frustrating. People are panic buying, which is bad for everyone. Those without health insurance and the growing number of unemployed are facing eviction and hunger without intervention.

The Latin American response to the crisis transcends ideology, with AMLO and Bolsonaro leading the way in being buffoons in denial on different ends of the spectrum, though at least Brazil's governors are also picking up the slack. People in favelas don't have access to clean water or hand sanitizer, yet their president mocks the whole thing. Nicolás Maduro is taking it seriously, but so many years of incompetence and corruption leave the entire population--not to mention emigrants abroad--terribly vulnerable. There is better leadership elsewhere, like Martín Vizcarra in Peru and others (Boz has some interesting charts on Latin American spread of the virus). But we are learning what can happen when you vote just to "kick the bums out" and then a crisis hits.

In my own small slice of the world, there are positive things to focus on as well. People are trying to help those who can't get out, help local businesses, share tips on online teaching, share info on where to find essential goods (stop buying massive amounts of toilet paper!) and just trying to spread some humor. Sometimes there's not much else you can do.

Read more...

Regional Response to Venezuelan and Nicaraguan Migrants

The Migration Policy Institute has a new report on the regional response to Venezuelan and Nicaraguan migrants: "An Uneven Welcome: Latin American and Caribbean Responses to Venezuelan and Nicaraguan Migration."

Overall, Latin American and Caribbean countries have shown openness and even creativity in accommodating large-scale forced migration flows in a short period of time. This is particularly notable, given that most countries in the region had little recent experience receiving significant immigration. But what was once an open door to newcomers is becoming a more uneven welcome, as countries grapple with strains on already overtaxed public services, ranging from schools to hospitals, and continue to search for ways to effectively integrate new arrivals into local labor markets.

Looking at the map of how many Venezuelan migrants are in other countries is overwhelming. Not surprisingly, they often end up in the informal economy, then gradually resentment builds within the local population. There are just not enough jobs and resources to go around for a long period of time.

They call for more outside funding, which is critical:

Given the scale and speed of Venezuelan and Nicaraguan migration, international cooperation will have to play an important supporting role in helping national governments craft the right responses to these challenges. So far, global efforts to respond to these two crises—both the immediate needs of recent arrivals and the longer-term investment needs of schools, hospitals, housing, and other critical infrastructure and services—have fallen far short of expectations and of the needs on the ground.

With Nicaraguans, the focus is really on Costa Rica. It does not have the same regional scope as Venezuela.

If you're interested in this issue, you'll find this report to be worth your time--it gets into substantial detail about visas, employment, schools, etc. along with recommendations.

Read more...

Podcast Episode 70: Latin American Civil-Military Relations: What the &%&$?

In Episode 70 of Understanding Latin American Politics: The Podcast, I go it alone to vent about my flashback to the 1990s. The impact of civil-military relations in Latin America has become a major topic in the past year, and it's not good for democracy.

You can find this podcast at iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, and anywhere else podcasts can be found. If there is anyplace I've missed, please contact me. Subscribe and rate!

Read more...

Who Replaces Cuban Doctors?

The Trump administration wants Latin American governments to expel Cuban doctors. Now, the program is indeed terrible in a number of ways. The doctors themselves are not treated well and, as the article points out, leave their families behind so they won't defect. The fact that they want to defect in the first place tells you something.

But here's the problem that gets far too little attention. Those doctors are providing important services to the poor and they may not be replaced. Brazil famously kicked Cuban doctors out and could not fill the vacancies. Some who did fill them quit quickly. Ecuador just expelled them in November 2019, as did Bolivia. El Salvador did so in April, though the number was quite small. Did those governments replace those doctors? There is reason to believe they did not.

If the United States insists the doctors leave, U.S. policy should include some means of replacing them so there is not simply a vacuum. The U.S., perhaps in conjunction with international organizations, should fund medical training programs and incentivize trained medical professionals to work in areas that need it (Dr. Fleischman in the show Northern Exposure suddenly came to mind). But let's not pretend that the doctors are somehow there for show as a way for Cuba to project soft power. They do serve a political purpose, of course, but they are helping people who won't get help otherwise.

Read more...

Latin American Response to Venezuelan Authoritarianism

Venezuela spiraled further with yesterday's events, where the Maduro government forced a leadership vote and claimed victory while blocking Juan Guaidó and others, who then held a separate vote. It was almost stereotypically authoritarian. If you're going to lose a vote, then don't allow it to happen. Looking at the regional response, you can take the more optimistic approach or the more pessimistic one.

The glass half full response:

A lot of governments responded, including some--like Argentina and Mexico--that lean more to the left. Consensus appears to be growing, though a bit of that is Evo Morales' ouster.

The Lima Group issued a statement condemning it and other things, such as human rights abuses (as well as welcoming the Bolivian coup government to its ranks). Some presidents made statements themselves. Lenín Moreno strongly criticized the move. The Argentine foreign minister condemned it. Mexico's foreign ministry urged the Maduro government to allow real leadership elections. Incidentally, Evo Morales carefully kept his Twitter account silent on the issue.

The glass half empty response:

The response, while broad, was tepid. There are calls for Maduro to allow democracy and for the international community to come together somehow, but no response goes anywhere close to proposing collective action. The U.S. does nothing but impose sanctions, which hurts Venezuelans while Maduro finds alternate means of funding the regime. The constant refrain is that there are 50 countries that recognize Guaidó, but that is not changing anything on the ground.

Read more...