Ukraine hopes to win the war in 6 months 1:23
Editor's note:
Jorge G. Castañeda is a CNN contributor.
He was Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Mexico from 2000 to 2003. He is currently a professor at New York University and his most recent book, “America Through Foreign Eyes,” was published by Oxford University Press in 2020. The views expressed in this comment They are solely the author's.
You can find more opinion pieces at CNNe.com/opinion.
(CNN Spanish) --
The positions of Latin American countries on the Russian invasion of Ukraine have varied over time, but they maintain a couple of characteristic features.
In the first place, they are dispersed positions: there is no uniformity or homogeneity in the voting of Latin American nations in multilateral organizations.
Secondly, they change according to the moment and the forum, but, at the same time, they are positions that rather reflect interests, and not ideologies, sympathies or antipathies.
This has given a lot of flexibility to certain countries in the region, but it has also made it difficult, if not impossible, to establish a unified approach for the countries of Latin America.
The two Latin American countries that are non-permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, Mexico and Brazil, that is, the two largest countries in the region, have voted differently on the two Security Council resolutions. that have been discussed since February.
In the first, both Brazil and Mexico voted in favor of a General Assembly resolution calling for a cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of Russian forces.
More recently, at the end of September, a new resolution in the Security Council presented by Western countries again obtained the Mexican vote in favor, but Brazil abstained.
Later, in the General Assembly, Brazil voted to condemn the annexation of territories by Russia.
On which side would Bolívar, San Martín or Hidalgo be?: Zelensky's harsh message at the OAS to countries that do not support Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression
In the case of Mexico, this vote agrees in part with the attitude assumed by that country in other forums, although not entirely, nor mainly, with the declarations of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who has systematically repeated that Mexico is neutral in this conflict and does not take sides.
In the case of Brazil, the change in position is difficult to understand, but it corresponds in part to the Brazilian demand for Russian fertilizers, and perhaps to a greater interference by President Jair Bolsonaro, who had left the decision of the previous vote in the hands of the Foreign Ministry. Brazil, which is normally known as Itamaraty.
Ukraine conducts numerous daily exhumations 1:02
When it comes to slightly more categorical definitions, but at the same time in less important forums, the countries of the region have expressed a multitude of positions.
For example, on the eve of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, held in Lima from October 5 to 7, when a letter was presented for signature by the heads of delegations that attended the meeting, and reiterating support for Ukraine against the Russian invasion, several Latin American countries preferred not to sign.
These include Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Honduras and Mexico.
It could be said that, with the exception of Brazil, the other countries currently have “left” governments.
But Chile and Colombia, which in principle also have “left” governments, did sign the text.
In this case, Brazil maintained its second position in the Security Council, but Mexico, on the other hand, preferred to reserve its signature, although it voted twice in the UN condemning the invasion.
The same thing happened with Mexico in the case of the attempt to exclude Russia from the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, and the exclusion of Russia as well, as an observer from the OAS.
In both cases, Mexico voted against Russia's expulsion, arguing that it was preferable to keep it close to it, to preserve the possibility of a dialogue with Moscow instead of excluding it from various international forums.
What these brief examples show is the heterogeneity of the region's positions.
Left-wing governments have condemned Russia, and right-wing governments have refused to condemn it.
But leftist governments have also supported Russia.
Much depends on the interests of each country and not on its ideological inclination.
Likewise, the variation over time of the different approaches reflects changes in internal politics or adherence to certain principles or traditions that make this or that position difficult.
This shows that, on at least some issues, the "new pink tide" in Latin America does not necessarily materialize in common positions on major international issues.
Similarly, it reflects the diversity of views of the countries in the region.
But, at the same time, this diversity shows the difficulties of reaching a consensus among the majority —at least— of the countries in the region in the face of one of the most important international conflicts of recent decades: the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Just as this perhaps explains why former Chilean President Ricardo Lagos,