POLITICS-LATAM: Tepid Opposition to U.S. Drive for War

By Mario Osava Reprint | | Print |

Mario Osava

RIO DE JANEIRO, Feb 14 2003 (IPS) - Latin America is but a spectator in the war drama of a potential U.S.-led attack against Iraq – intensified after the report presented Friday by United Nations chief arms inspector, Hans Blix, before the UN Security Council – but most of the governments in the region are maintaining anti-war rhetoric.

Washington ran up against its first major diplomatic obstacle this week in its plans to invade Iraq, which it accuses of possessing weapons of mass destruction. But the complications did not come from Latin America, but rather from Germany, Belgium, France and Russia, with the latter two wielding some weight as veto-holding permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

Although the Latin American governments do not have much influence in the diplomatic dealings – such as the debate at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) about U.S. troops in Turkey, which neighbours Iraq – the region’s economies would definitely suffer from a war, says Geraldo Cavagnari, head of strategic studies at the Brazilian University of Campinas.

Brazil, an “emerging nation”, would particularly feel the impact of the rising oil prices associated with a conflict in Iraq, according to Cavagnari, because this South American country consumes more petroleum than its neighbours due to its size and relatively higher industrial development.

Rising oil prices, a global recession – which would hurt exports – and a sharp decline in foreign investment and loans are the likely effects of a U.S.-led war against Iraq, and would aggravate Brazil’s existing economic troubles, according to government studies.

The same holds true for other Latin American countries that rely on international capital and on petroleum imports.

Such fears contribute to the fact that governments in the region are leaning towards peaceful solutions to the tensions, but this stance is expressed with caution and ambiguities.

The member countries of Mercosur (Southern Common Market – Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay) and associate members Bolivia and Chile issued a statement that the UN Security Council is the sole international body with the authority to order a military operation against Iraq.

The Mercosur declaration upholds the position of Chile, which is non-permanent member of the UN Security Council and could be subject to pressure from Washington. At stake is the free trade agreement signed by Washington and Santiago, but pending parliamentary ratification in both countries.

Chile’s foreign minister Soledad Alvear says her government would not support unilateral U.S. action against Iraq, but also demanded a “radical change” in the attitude of the Saddam Hussein government to cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors.

Mexico, the other Latin American nation on the 15-member Security Council, also came out against a war, in spite of being a partner of the United States in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The danger that tensions could affect the intense flow of migration and trade between the two countries would change is of great concern to Mexico, but its vote will respond to the greater interests of humanity, says the Mexican ambassador to the UN Security Council, Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, who denied that there have been pressures from Washington.

Mexican President Vicente Fox recently spoke by telephone with several heads of state, particularly in Europe – including France’s Jaques Chirac and Germany’s Gerhard Schroeder -, “attempting to stave off war,” he said.

Tony Garza, Mexico’s ambassador in Washington, said this week that the White House expects solidarity from the Fox administration “in its fight against international terrorism,” but would respect the position it takes with regard to Iraq.

Responding to Garza’s statements, Fox underscored the Mexican attitude of solidarity with the United States against terrorism, “and it is solidary support when we have multilateral decisions in the UN Security Council.”

Meanwhile, foreign minister Ernesto Derbez says Mexico’s stance will be based on whether there is “unequivocal evidence” of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but it will not go against national public opinion, nor does it “even include the possibility of war.”

So far, Germany is the only country to reject an attack against Iraq even if military action gets the green light from the UN.

One president who has been surprisingly quiet is Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez, who defied Washington when he visited fellow OPEC member Iraq in 2000, and in 2001 denounced the massacre of children caused by U.S. bombing missions over Afghanistan.

On the current U.S.-Iraq tensions, Chávez has kept completely silent.

Maruja Tarre, an oil industry and Middle East expert, told IPS, “I have dependable information that Chávez was advised not to say one word on the matter, and he is being urged to maintain a moderate stance.”

Any statement that could be interpreted as support for Hussein “would cost Chávez dearly,” and the president is trying to reinstate Venezuela’s reputation as reliable provider of petroleum in the wake of the two-month strike that reduced exports to trickle, Tarre explained.

Alí Rodríguez, president of the state-run oil giant Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), “in late 2002 offered the United States a 20-year oil supply agreement, which no Venezuelan government had ever done before,” said the expert, noting that this event went unnoticed amidst the Venezuelan political crisis.

But legislator Tarek Saab, of the ruling Fifth Republic Movement, asserts that the Venezuelan government opposes war, and commented that the UN trade sanctions imposed against Iraq since 1990 “have caused the deaths of 1.5 million Iraqis, mostly children and the elderly – a true humanitarian tragedy.”

Argentina, which was aligned with the United States during the 1991 Gulf War, this time has joined its Mercosur partners in rejecting a unilateral attack. Foreign minister Carlos Ruckauf has stated that Argentina will not take part in any military operations.

However, the Argentine offer to aid in humanitarian missions and to send military experts in chemical weapons, explosives and landmines has triggered criticism at home.

“It is explicit support for the imperial policy of (George W.) Bush,” said opposition lawmaker Elisa Carrió, presidential candidate for the Alternative for a Republic of Equals party.

The Argentine government “cannot be ambiguous… there should be no assistance of that nature, but instead a declaration like that of France and Germany” against war, she said.

With some ambiguity, and a heavy serving of rhetoric, the Latin American governments generally coincide in their opposition to war.

This has left Colombia isolated because it is completely dependent on U.S. aid for its anti-drugs fight, meaning it has no other option but to support the Washington policy line, says strategic expert Cavagnari. (END/IPS/LA/IP/TRA-SO LD/MO/DCL/03)