In November 1975, Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet traveled to Madrid to attend the funeral of another dictator, Francisco Franco, amid protests from the European political class. Other European leaders refused to attend the official enthronement ceremonies of King Juan Carlos, if for this they had to share with a tyrant. Immediately after Franco’s burial, commissioned by the future King Juan Carlos, Spanish protocol officials asked Pinochet directly: “When are you leaving?” They did not want that, at the inauguration of what would be the transition to democracy, there was anything that could tarnish that ceremony. Only three days after his arrival, Pinochet had to leave Madrid, in the midst of public contempt! When you want to promote the values of democracy, it would be hypocritical to sit down at the table with someone who represents the opposite, unless the purpose of that meeting is precisely to put an end to the dictatorship. But, in America (that continent that goes from Alaska to Patagonia), it seems that we don’t quite understand it, or we don’t have it clear enough.
When the era of military dictatorships in the Southern Cone of Latin America already seemed over, there are discouraging signs that, once again, the wind is blowing in the opposite direction to freedom. I am not referring only to Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela, those three entrenched dictatorships in the heart of Latin America, which are becoming stronger every day, which only rely on military power, which continue to torture and imprison their citizens, and which They do not have the slightest intention of handing over power to whoever is the repository of sovereignty. There are other worrying signs as well.
On the one hand, there is a group of countries with democratically elected governments, such as Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico or Peru, inclined towards left or right populism, coupled with the most scandalous theft of resources and which has been disastrous for their peoples. Some of those governments have been more than condescending to the dictatorships of the continent. Others –such as Bolsonaro and Bukele–, far removed from these political projects, have also undermined democratic institutions. As for Chile, its new president is still an unknown in terms of his commitment to democracy; but the draft Constitution prepared by the Chilean Constituent Assembly – full of nonsense and nonsense – does not bode well for the political and social stability of that nation, not to mention the threat it poses to its territorial integrity, and what the proposal means different “justice systems” for each other. On the other hand, it is worrying that countries like Colombia, which has elections in the next few days, could join the Chavista-Madurista current that runs through the continent, which has impoverished our peoples, which has resorted to violence as a way of doing politics, that uses armed gangs to attack those who oppose him, and with respect to which there are undistorted indications of his links with drug trafficking and with the guerrillas. Regarding the United States, it seems unnecessary to comment on the threat that Donald Trump poses to democracy and freedom in that country. What can be seen today is not encouraging.
President Biden was right not to invite governments that have ridiculed democracy to the Summit of the Americas. The opposite would have sent the wrong signal, suggesting that it is the same to meet with legitimate rulers as with those who hold the reins of power through blood and fire, against the will of their people. It is not the same to talk with a satrap, with his hands stained with blood, than with a statesman who is thinking about the next generation. But the reaction of several countries in the region to this measure, which is absolutely consistent with the values that we claim to defend, is surprising.
That, in solidarity with their ALBA partners, Bolivia and Honduras decided not to attend the Summit of the Americas is merely anecdotal. That, for the same reasons, Guatemala did not attend is irrelevant. That the president of Mexico was the head of that comparsa, and that he has placed himself on an equal footing with the Saracens – not to say with the contemporary equivalents of Hitler or Stalin – is not surprising either; but it is worrying, for the health of democracy on the continent, that the current government of Mexico becomes an accomplice in the atrocities committed on the American continent. Had he lived in the 1970s, when military dictatorships flourished in the Southern Cone and Central America, and had it been López Obrador’s turn to host a Summit of the Americas, would he have invited Pinochet, Videla, or Ríos Montt? Could it be that for López Obrador there are good dictatorships and bad dictatorships? Mexico’s foreign minister, Mr. Ebrard, is concerned that the blockade of Cuba could be a brake on international tourism. But it is amazing that this is the main reason for his concern with Cuba, whose citizens do not have the right to leave or stay, and have neither the economic resources nor the freedom to do tourism. They say that diplomacy is the art of lying in the name of the country for a reason!
In his speech before the Summit of the Americas, Gabriel Boric –properly dressed to later go shopping on a Los Angeles boulevard, or to go eat grilled meat with some friends– said that he does not like the exclusion of Cuba , Venezuela and Nicaragua. But Boric did not say a word about whether he likes that, in those countries, opposition political parties are excluded, the work of NGOs that defend human rights and monitor what citizens’ money is spent on is impeded, and the great majorities that cannot freely elect their rulers are excluded, either because there are no free elections or because – as in the case of Venezuela – there is no way for new voters to even register as such in the electoral constituency appropriate, or for both reasons. It is encouraging that, as stated in his speech, Boric has renewed his commitment to respect human rights; but asking for a dialogue “without exclusions” is not consistent with a dialogue between democrats. The torturer and his victim can only meet in the same room when that is the room of a court of law, and provided that the torturer is sitting in the dock. To suggest that Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela were excluded from the Summit for “thinking differently” is, to say the least, nonsense, which offends the victims of these tyrannies. There is, in these regimes, nothing ideological, but the ambition of power and the need to guarantee impunity for the crimes they have committed. These autocrats have no political message to share or even disagree with; they did not come to power in clean and transparent elections, like you, Mr. Boric. Theirs is the looting of state resources, political persecution and torture. That is not an idea; it’s a crime.
The president of Argentina, who would also have wanted “another Summit”, is concerned about the blockade against Cuba and “the silence of those absent” at that meeting. But Fernández is silent about the mysterious Venezuelan plane that landed in Ezeiza, with a large group of Iranians, at least one of whom seems to be linked to international terrorism. Fernández is not alarmed that in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela there is no alternation in power, nor is he concerned that there is a free press in none of those countries; after all, it seems that this “silence” is convenient, at least for those who control the threads of power. Fernández is not worried that, in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela, the only ones who have the right to speak are those who rule.
These are not the most propitious hours for democracy in the American continent. Just a few days ago, a lady, whose name is not worth remembering, said that “democracy is not a fundamental right.” Technically she is right, because there is no article, in any of the international human rights instruments (in which some rights that can be considered as “fundamentals” appear, in which it is indicated that everyone has the right to democracy . That’s true; but what that lady certainly does not know is that democracy is the necessary condition for respecting human rights; without democracy, there are no human rights. In addition, on the other hand, a democratic society is one in which human rights are respected. What said lady ignores is that democracy is articulated precisely through the exercise of political rights, such as freedom of expression, freedom of association, the right of assembly, and the right to participate in the political process (whether in making decisions on matters of public interest, or electing, or being elected to public office). But, of course, those are not the values that prevail today in Cuba, Nicaragua or Venezuela. And it is not mere coincidence that, far removed from those principles and values, the lady who made that comment was once able to be a member of the Supreme Court of Justice of Venezuela, a court at the service of a repressive regime, without much concern if its members They have the necessary ethical and legal training. What else could be expected?
