Chilean President Gabriel Boric has become the Latin American left’s most troublesome ally. Boric’s stances on issues such as Venezuela and Ukraine represent a “friendly fire” for President Lula’s strategy of leading the region. Lula’s position, in turn, makes it harder for the regional left to modernize, according to some experts. It is not the first time a Chilean president has openly questioned a Brazilian president.
(RFI) At recent summit meetings, Chilean President Gabriel Boric’s stance has ruffled the feathers of the regional left, clashing head-on with that of ally President Lula on the two main issues that currently divide Latin America and the world: Venezuela and Ukraine, respectively.
On both issues, Gabriel Boric challenges the leadership of Lula, whose position seems to lean towards defending regimes like Venezuela’s. “Without a doubt, Boric’s stance questions Lula’s leadership,” Chilean political scientist and sociologist Patricio Navia told RFI. “The Brazilian president sells himself to the world as the leader of Latin American countries, representative of a country that has a role to play in the world. But here comes Boric, from a small country, but who questions Brazil’s position, indicating that Lula is not the leader and that he cannot speak for Latin America. Boric is clearly saying that Lula’s vision is wrong,” says Navia, of Chile’s Universidad de Diego Portales and New York University.
“Brazil has other strategic economic allies that must be put on the table, such as its alliance with Russia, India, China and South Africa, through the BRICS. It’s not that Lula relativizes the importance of democracy, but if he follows the line Boric wants, Brazil risks its relationship with its allies,” explains Chilean political scientist Javiera Arce, a scholar of Brazilian international relations.
For Patricio Navia, the Chilean president’s vision is closer to that of the left in Portugal and Spain, as opposed to the “rusty narratives” of other Latin American left-wing leaders besides Lula: Alberto Fernández (Argentina), Gustavo Petro (Colombia), Nicolás Maduro (Venezuela), Miguel Díaz-Canel (Cuba), Daniel Ortega (Nicaragua) and Andrés Manuel López Obrador, all of whom are allied with each other.
“More than Chile disengaging from Latin America, it is Latin America that disengages from the positions of the modern left in the world. Boric feels more part of the European left than the Latin American left. This benefits Boric in his relationship with the world, more than Lula,” Navia says.
Javiera Arce, on the other hand, highlights Lula’s leadership style, which is out of the ordinary. “Lula has a very different kind of leadership that starts from a different perspective. I believe there is a strategy behind it that is based on conciliatory actions, discarding the rupturist ones. Lula seeks to manage relations through conciliation. For this, there are elements that intersect,” Arce said.
Friendly fire?
The most recent contradiction on the Latin American left came at a meeting of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) and the European Union (EU). Gabriel Boric’s call for a more emphatic Latin American stance against the war in Ukraine, in line with the European position of a political condemnation against Vladimir Putin, was vetoed. Even mentions of Russia were not accepted.
“Today it is Ukraine and tomorrow it could be any of us. It doesn’t matter whether we like the president of another country or not. What is important is respect for international law, which has clearly been violated by a party that is the invader, Russia,” Boric pointed out.
“It should be noted that even within the governing coalition, the Broad Front, Boric stands against the Chilean Communist Party (favorable to Venezuela and Russia). That is the internal friendly fire. Boric’s domestic stance also benefits him because the Chilean population does not like this regional left. Moreover, by taking this stance, Boric also contains the political opponents of the Chilean right. It’s the enemy fire,” says Arce.
The final document of the CELAC-EU meeting only expressed “deep concern” about the conflict. Gabriel Boric’s position was criticized by President Lula, who pointed to the Chilean’s lack of experience due to his age.
In Brussels, Lula described Boric as “hasty”, justifying his stance on the issue because of his “youth” which causes “lack of practice” with such meetings. At 37, Boric is the youngest sitting president. “When Lula says Boric has to learn, let’s hope Boric doesn’t learn what Lula has been advocating. With these statements, Lula tries to weaken Boric’s stance, but ends up strengthening it. Boric defends democracy and human rights that Lula silences,” Navia said.
“I believe that Lula’s stance is a strategy to achieve peace in Ukraine from a Russian perspective. When Lula says that Boric is anxious and lacks prudence, it is perhaps because he does not understand the delicate context in which Lula finds himself,” Arce relativizes.
“Lula believes he can play an important role on the world stage, but the rest of the world doesn’t think Brazil can play that role. There is a dissociation between the way Brazil understands its place in the world and the way the world understands Brazil’s place,” says Patricio Navia.
Left out of tune
This time, the disagreement between left-wing leaders Lula and Boric was over Ukraine, a sensitive issue for the world. But last May 30, the disagreement between the two was over Venezuela.
In Brasilia, Lula emphatically defended Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro, minimizing criticism of Venezuela to a question of “a narrative of anti-democracy and authoritarianism”. Boric has publicly disagreed with Lula, saying that human rights violations in Venezuela are a “reality” and that this principle cannot be “swept under the carpet” or turned a “blind eye”.
Ukraine and Venezuela are the two main issues that, politically, prevent an articulation in South America and separate the region from the main Western powers.
“I believe that Lula does not defend the autocracies of Nicaragua and Venezuela. I believe it is a strategy to address the problems together at a regional level to achieve certain levels of agreement and negotiation to restore democracy. What Lula is looking for is a strategy to get out of the crisis. It’s a different conception from Boric’s and that’s why they clash,” Arce said.
Lula’s strategy would be limited
Gabriel Boric’s differentiation from Lula cracks the narrative of the Latin American left, neutral or favorable to Russia, but also hinders Lula’s strategy of leading the region as a platform for Brazil’s international insertion as a global actor, according to experts. “It undoubtedly harms Lula’s strategy a lot because it draws a dividing line. This discrepancy is healthy for democracy in Latin America, but it affects Lula’s plans,” believes Patricio Navia.
Until Lula took office, it was thought that Brazil, Colombia and Chile would form a tripod that would articulate the plans of a renewed and modern regional left. “Lula makes it more difficult for a modern left to emerge, committed to the defense of human rights and democracy. The leader of Latin America’s largest country does not have a position committed to these principles. Lula will not be seen by the West as an international leader because he has these positions, unfit for a modern left,” Navia predicts.
Something similar had happened with Bolsonaro, whose stance prevented the then regional right with Mauricio Macri in Argentina, Sebastián Piñera in Chile and Iván Duque in Colombia from modernizing and articulating around a Brazilian leadership.
Bolsonaro vs. Piñera
It is not the first time that a Chilean president has disagreed with a Brazilian one on human rights and democracy, even when they share the same ideology. In the recent past, right-wing President Sebastián Piñera was keen to stress that he supported Jair Bolsonaro’s economic policy but disagreed with his views on human rights. In this case, the former Brazilian president stood out from the regional right.
In March 2019, Jair Bolsonaro praised former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet (1973-1990). President Sebastián Piñera himself, Bolsonaro’s main ally in Latin America, called Bolsonaro’s statements on human rights “tremendously unfortunate”.
In September of the same year, Bolsonaro attacked Piñera’s predecessor, the leftist former president Michelle Bachelet, then UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Bolsonaro had criticized Michelle’s father, Alberto Bachelet, a former Air Force brigadier general who opposed the military coup during Pinochet’s bombing of the Moneda Palace, the seat of the Chilean government.
Piñera defended his opponent Bachelet and differentiated himself from his ally Bolsonaro: “My permanent commitment to democracy, freedom and respect for human rights is well known. Consequently, I do not share at all the allusion made by President Bolsonaro”.