Regional integration projects in Venezuela’s foreign policy under the presidency of Nicolas Maduro (2013-2018)
Highlight the development, changes, and results that occurred in Venezuela’s regional integration during President Nicolas Maduro’s first term of office. Taking into consideration the theoretical and ideological foundations of Venezuela’s foreign policy.
| Рубрика | Политология |
| Вид | статья |
| Язык | английский |
| Дата добавления | 31.08.2023 |
| Размер файла | 41,4 K |
Отправить свою хорошую работу в базу знаний просто. Используйте форму, расположенную ниже
Студенты, аспиранты, молодые ученые, использующие базу знаний в своей учебе и работе, будут вам очень благодарны.
Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/
Regional integration projects in Venezuela's foreign policy under the presidency of Nicolas Maduro (2013-2018)
Roman Oleksenko1, Jorge J. Villasmil Espinoza2, Regina Andriukaitiene3
1 Dmytro Motornyi Tavria State Agrotechnological University (Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine)
2 University of Zulia (Maracaibo, Venezuela)
3 Lithuanian Sports University (Kaunas, Lithuania)
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the research paper is to highlight the development, changes, and results that occurred in Venezuela's regional integration during President Nicolas Maduro's first term of office (2013-2018).
The novelty of the research paper is in a comprehensive analysis of Venezuela's regional policy within the framework of the leading integration associations ALBA, CELAC, and UNASUR, which, according to Hugo Chavez's plan, were supposed to turn the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela into a regional leader in Latin America. Instead, N. Maduro was unable to take advantage of his predecessor's foreign policy successes and lost the opportunities he had planned.
Conclusions. Taking into consideration the theoretical and ideological foundations of Venezuela's foreign policy, the conclusion can be made that the regional vector of foreign policy has remained one of the focal points for President Nicolas Maduro. Thanks to its resources and ideological dominance, the country could rightfully claim regional leadership, as it united the countries of the region on the wave of anti-Americanism, initiated many integration movements, and made most countries in the region dependent on its energy supplies and credits.
`Pockets of resistance' to US expansion in Latin America and regional integration were concentrated in three organizations where Venezuela was one of the founders or key players: ALBA, CELAC, and UNASUR.
The economic and political crisis that hit Venezuela sharply raised the question of the continuity of the `Bolivarian Project', which affected the change in the state's priorities, including in the international arena. N. Maduro had to focus on the country's internal problems.
In the regional integration policy of Venezuela during N. Maduro's first term of office, we can distinguish two qualitative periods: 1. 2013-2015, the time of relatively successful implementation of the regional integration course, and, 2. 2016-2018, the decline and actual collapse of the regional vector of Venezuela's foreign policy. It was just the loss of democratic tendencies in Maduro's domestic policy that led to the loss of regional leadership and global stature.
The three integration projects analyzed by the authors started losing their credibility and effectiveness during 2013-2018, which happened mostly due to the crisis in Venezuela. CELAC and UNASUR de facto ceased their activities, and ALBA remained the only instrument of N. Maduro's regional influence.
Keywords: regional integration, Venezuela, Latin America, Nicolas Maduro, international organization, ALBA, CELAC, UNASUR
РЕГІОНАЛЬНІ ІНТЕГРАЦІЙНІ ПРОЕКТИ У ЗОВНІШНІЙ ПОЛІТИЦІ ВЕНЕСУЕЛИ ЗА ПРЕЗИДЕНТСТВА НІКОЛАСА МАДУРО (2013-2018) regional integration venezuela latin america
Роман Олексенко1, Хорхе І. Вілласміл Еспіноза2, Регіна Андрюкайтене3
1 Таврійський державний агротехнологічний університет імені Дмитра Моторного (Запоріжжя, Україна)
2 Університет Сулії (Маракайбо, Венесуела)
3 Литовський університет спорту (Каунас, Литва)
АНОТАЦІЯ
Метою статті є висвітлення розвитку, змін і результатів, які відбулися у регіональній інтеграції Венесуели за період першої каденції президента Ніколаса Мадуро (2013-2018).
Новизна статті полягає у комплексному аналізі регіональної політики Венесуели у межах провідних інтеграційних об'єднань - Альба, Селак та Унасур, які за задумом Уго Чавеса повинні були перетворити Боліваріанську Республіку Венесуела у регіонального лідера Латинської Америки. Натомість, Н. Мадуро не зміг скористатися зовнішньополітичними успіхами попередника і втратив задумані можливості.
Висновки. З огляду на теоретичні та ідеологічні основи зовнішньої політики Венесуели доходимо висновку, що регіональний напрям зовнішньої політики залишився одним з пріоритетних для президента Ніколаса Мадуро. Завдяки своїм ресурсам та ідеологічному домінуванню, країна цілком справедливо могла претендувати на регіональне лідерство, адже вона об'єднала країни регіону на хвилі антиамериканізму, стала ініціатором багатьох інтеграційних рухів і поставила більшість країн регіону у залежність від своїх поставок енергоносіїв та у кредитну залежність.
«Осередки опору» експансії США у Латинській Америці та регіональної інтеграції були зосереджені у трьох організаціях, де Венесуела була одним із засновників чи ключових гравців: Альба, Селак та Унасур.
Економічна і політична криза, що обрушилася на Венесуелу, гостро порушила питання про виживання «боліваріанського проекту», що позначилося на зміні пріоритетів держави, у тому числі і на міжнародній арені. Н. Мадуро змушений був зосередитися на внутрішніх проблемах країни.
У регіональній інтеграційній політиці Венесуели часів першої каденції Н. Мадуро виділяємо два якісні періоди: 1 - 2013-2015 - час порівняно успішної реалізації регіонально-інтеграційного курсу і, 2 - 2016-2018 - занепад і фактичний крах регіонального вектору зовнішньої політики Венесуели. При цьому саме втрата демократичних тенденцій у внутрішній політиці Мадуро приводить до втрати регіонального лідерства та міжнародного авторитету.
Три інтеграційні проекти, що були розглянуті авторами, протягом 2013-2018 рр. почали втрачати свій авторитет і дієвість, чому у значній мірі сприяла венесуельська криза. Селак та Унасур фактично припинили свою діяльність і єдиним інструментом регіонального впливу Н. Мадуро залишилася Альба.
Ключові слова: регіональна інтеграція, Венесуела, Латинська Америка, Ніколас Мадуро, міжнародна організація, Альба, Селак, Унасур
INTRODUCTION
Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, Venezuela has increasingly attracted the attention of the international community and aroused general interest. This was primarily because of the emergence of a strong and charismatic Venezuelan leader, Hugo Chavez, on the political scene. His foreign policy, which was based on anti-Americanism, regional cooperation, and the use of the country's energy potential, dramatically affected the international situation and the balance of power in Latin America.
In April 2013, the world's attention was once again focused on Venezuela. After the death of Hugo Chavez, Nicolas Maduro Moros, who had previously served as Minister of Foreign Affairs in Chavez's government and positioned himself as a `faithful follower' of Bolivarianism, was elected president. The new leader of the country continued the political line of his predecessor, but his lack of charisma, in contrast to that of Hugo Chavez, and no very high political authority within the country and in the international arena, prevented him from solving a number of social, economic, and political problems and led to an aggravation of the political crisis in the country. The latter affected both the internal situation in Venezuela and the country's foreign policy.
The purpose of the research is to show the development, changes, and results that occurred in Venezuela's regional integration during the first term of President Nicolas Maduro (2013-2018).
HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE PROBLEM
Throughout the whole term of Nicolas Maduro's presidency, his personality has attracted the interest of researchers from various countries. The first studies trying to comprehend the achievements and prospects of Venezuela's foreign policy under
N. Maduro appeared in 2014 and have been published in many scientific and popular scientific publications since then. Almost 100% of them are the studies of political scientists who aimed not so to summarize and comprehensively uncover Venezuela's foreign policy but to analyze the present situation and predict the development of a particular segment of the country's foreign policy course.
Among Latin American researchers of Venezuela's foreign policy, the greatest attention was paid to Venezuela's triumphant accession to Mercosur in 2012, which created a serious basis for N. Maduro's regional integration course. Juana E. Perozo Бlvarez and Diana B. Perozo Бlvarez consider that Venezuela would not only strengthen the bloc but also turn it into the fifth largest economy in the world thanks to its energy resources1. In turn, Francisco Bracho Espinel, while positively assessing Venezuela's joining the Mercosur, notes that the country will need to revise its public policy and strategy to overcome serious imbalances in the economy compared to other members of the bloc2. The general tendencies of Latin American unity at different stages of its development, integration concepts and their comparison are presented in their monograph by Jorge Villasmil Espinoza and Нtalo Vinicio Jimйnez Idrovo3.
It is also necessary to mention the thorough research papers by Colombian- Venezuelan Professor Victor Mijares. His research interests are quite broad and cover a variety of issues4. In the context of regional integration, the studies devoted to the UNASUR5 crisis are of great interest, as well as a generalized analysis of the reasons for the collapse of UNASUR and the role of Venezuela under N. Maduro in that process6. The authors point out that the collapse of a regional integration organization is not a typical phenomenon for Latin America and requires careful study by political science.
The Russian school of Latin American studies provides more comprehensive research on the place and role of Venezuela in regional integration processes. The latter is represented by the studies of Andrey Budaev, Olesya Demyasheva, Ekaterina Zolotova, Natalia Nunez-Sarantseva, Anton Boreyko, Alim Suleymanov, Alla Posashkova, Denis Kuznetsov, Zbigniew Ivanovsky, Dmitry Rosenthal, and others.
The most interesting is the so-called `Bolivarian integration' in the form of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA). A. Budaev considers ALBA to be the main supporting structure of Venezuela's `soft power'7. O. Demyasheva analyzes the results of ALBA's activities in the times of Hugo Chavez and studies the initiatives and projects that the members of the Alliance managed to implement, as well as the problems and difficulties that are hindering its development8. E. Zolotova shows Venezuela's economic cooperation within the Bolivarian Alliance, noting that “Nicolas Maduro cannot support the oil projects of his predecessor Hugo Chavez in ALBA”, which significantly weakens the organization9. N. Nunez-Sarantseva10 studies the fundamental principles of functioning, results, problems, and prospects of ALBA's development and assesses them positively. A. Boreyko11, without deepening into the history of the organization's development, suggests the Venezuelan authorities apply to international experts for assistance in developing ways out of the crisis. Almost all the analyzed research papers were prepared and published in the first years of N. Maduro's presidency and uncovered that period only in passing, focusing on the era of Hugo Chavez. There is also no comprehensive overview of the organization's development over the past decade.
Another important integration organization, in which Venezuela plays a key role, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeсos; CELAC), is also under research in Russian historiography. A. Suleymanov highlights the peculiarities of its functioning, the history of its creation and gives a brief overview of the key decisions taken at the summits of 2013-2017. The researcher concludes that although there are shortcomings in the work of the organization, in general, CELAC plays a positive role in the region and has certain prospects12.
The general trends of Latin American integration in the period under study are analyzed by D. Kuznetsov13, A. Posashkova14, Z. Ivanovsky and D. Rosenthal15 in their publications. D. Kuznetsov briefly analyzes the evolution of integration ideas in the region, as well as the main features of integration through the prism of regional organizations UNASUR, ALBA, MERCOSUR, CELAC, etc. as of 2014. A. Posashkova, using the information on the mentioned organizations, characterizes the impact of the Venezuelan political crisis on regional integration. The researcher proves that the crisis in Venezuela actually abolishes all the achievements of Hugo Chavez in creating an alternative regional integration within UNASUR and CELAC, and ALBA is rapidly losing its credibility. The study by Z. Ivanovsky and D. Rosenthal summarizes the sad results of the systemic crisis in Venezuela, which has destroyed not only integration associations in the Latin American region but also moved N. Maduro's regime from the top positions of the regional leader.
Some Ukrainian scholars are studying this issue as well, among them N. Havrylova and I. Kokurina, R. Chuprin and Y. Lenda, and Tetiana Bessarab. The studies by
N. Havrylova and I. Kokurina16, R. Chuprin and Y. Lenda17 show in general Venezuela's participation and achievements in regional integration associations in the first years of
N. Maduro's presidency amid the deepening economic crisis in the country. All the authors positively assess Maduro's first steps towards deepening regional integration.
T. Bessarab18 shows the phenomenon of regionalism on the Latin American continent in the context of regional security through the prism of the activities of MERCOSUR, UNASUR, and CELAC, but Venezuela's place in regional associations is defined in passing and in a general context.
The Ukrainian study guide edited by N. Havrylova deserves special attention, as it not only summarizes Venezuela's foreign policy vectors until 2019 but also gives an outline of integration processes in Latin America, which gives a general notion of the formation and development of regional integration through the prism of international organizations19. Unfortunately, this work is characterized by the shortcomings inherent in such works: abstract generalizations, lack of scientific apparatus and scientific novelty.
As we can see, this issue is being studied by many scholars nowadays. This is because of Venezuela's active entry into the political arena and its increasing role as a regional leader, as well as its energy resource potential, thanks to which it has a significant influence in the twenty-first century, especially in the Latin American region. Instead, both the foreign policy course of the period of Nicolas Maduro's presidency in general and its regional integration aspect have been studied insufficiently in the historical and political science literature, and require generalization from the point of view of historical science and the holistic view of the problem with appropriate summarization.
REGIONAL INTEGRATION AS A KEY FOREIGN POLICY VECTOR OF VENEZUELA IN THE EARLY 21ST CENTURY
The regional dimension of foreign policy has become crucial for Venezuela in the 21st century, since Nicolбs Maduro's predecessor, Hugo Chavez, achieved the greatest success in the international arena just at the regional level. He managed to become the unofficial leader of the region. One of the main victories in the field of regional policy was the blocking of the American project of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), when in December 2005 Venezuela, along with Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay, vetoed its implementation.
The support of the masses at the national level gave President Hugo Chavez the opportunity to take more decisive action in the international arena. Foreign policy became a reflection of domestic policy and could be summarized into the following positions:
1) intensification of integration processes in the Latin American and the Caribbean regions;
2) support for the UN as the final arbiter on various issues;
3) achieving a leading position in the protection of the countries of the Global South in the face of the Global North;
4) increasing Venezuela's role in regional and international organizations;
5) pressure on the situation on the energy market, within the framework of OPEC, etc;
6) anti-Americanism and drift towards Cuba20.
The main goal of Latin American regionalism was to ensure greater independence from the United States. Building a new regional institutional architecture was one of Venezuela's most important tactical goals, as noted in the provisions of the last strategic document of the Chavez era, the Plan de la Patria (National Plan), which proclaimed Venezuela's liberation from “international mechanisms of imperial domination”. Venezuela's effort to delink from the inter-American structure built around the Organization of American States (OAS) was a major example, as has been Venezuela's consistent challenges to and denunciations of the inter-American system of human rights21.
It was Hugo Chavez, who was the main initiator and engine of political regional integration. In 2004, together with the Cuban government, Hugo Chavez established the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) (until June 2009 - Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas)22, which was later joined by Bolivia, Nicaragua, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Dominica, Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, Ecuador (withdrew membership in 2018), and Honduras (withdrew membership in January 2010 after a coup d'йtat)23. The basis of this association was the PetroCaribe Energy Cooperation Agreement, according to which Venezuela assured that it would supply oil to the participating countries on mutually beneficial preferential terms. Apart from the ALBA countries, some other Caribbean states joined that agreement24. Chavez played a key role in that project, and the establishment of ALBA gave reason to discuss the beginning of a `left turn' in Latin America, and the coming to power of leftist presidents in Argentina and Brazil was the result of the inclusion of two leading countries of South America in that process25. It was ALBA that became a radical anti-American regional project that embodied most of the Venezuelan leader's integrationist ideas.
Hugo Chбvez also initiated the establishment of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeсos; CELAC), which was formed in 2010 based on the Rio Group (G-Rio) and the Latin American and Caribbean Summits on Integration and Development. The organization includes all the states of the Western Hemisphere, except for the United States and Canada26.
The Venezuelan President also was one of the founders of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), which united all 12 countries of the South American continent (member states of the Southern Common Market - known as Mercosur (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay), the Andean Community (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela), as well as Chile, Guyana, and Suriname). The organization was established on May 23, 2008, as a result of the signing of the Constitutive Treaty of the South American Union of Nations in Brasнlia. UNASUR is the successor of the South American Community of Nations (Comunidad Sudamericana de Naciones; CSN), which was established when 12 South American leaders signed the Cuzco Declaration in the city of Cuzco, Peru, in 200427.
According to Argentine analyst Andrйs Serbin, those three organizations were the “centers of resistance” to US expansion in Latin America, since neither the United States nor Canada is the member of these organizations, and “the United States has had
difficulties in establishing an effective dialogue with them, both because of their preference for bilateral dialogue and because of the blocs' open antagonism to the United States after the failed attempt to establish the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) (Area de Libre Comercio de las Amйricas (ALCA)) in the 1990s”28.
Thus, during the presidency of Hugo Chбvez, Venezuela placed great emphasis on regional direction, with the main goal being to achieve leadership positions in the region and actually attach as many countries as possible to itself and its economy. The ties, especially political ones, between Latin American states significantly strengthened, despite the fact that they had not developed a unified and consistent regional integration agenda. The region failed to overcome the split and lack of consolidated institutions, due to which the priority of national interests and protection of sovereignty remained stronger than supranational agreements29.
After coming to power, President N. Maduro immediately emphasized that all agreements and obligations of Venezuela within regional organizations would be preserved and respected. However, according to political scientist V. Mijares, H. Chбvez left Maduro with an ambiguous legacy. The new president's ability to exploit the institutional advantages created by his predecessor was hamstrung by the increasingly problematic oil economy both at home and overseas. The massive public spending that served as a central tool in Chбvez's political arsenal is no longer available to Maduro because of the weakening of oil revenues. Therefore, the Maduro foreign policy doctrine can be summarized as the change from proactively seeking international influence to a policy of reacting to international conditions - and a need to attend to the economic needs of the country and his political weaknesses within chavismo and vis-а- vis the opposition30.
N. Maduro continued to rely on the system of alliances and unions created by H. Chavez. Despite the general worsening of Venezuela's situation, ALBA subsidies via PetroCaribe continued. As V. Mijares correctly states: “These instruments are not only fundamental to Venezuela's ideological principle of international solidarity, they are also the regime's tools of power projection, especially in the main sub-region of historical Venezuelan influence: the Caribbean Basin”31.
BOLIVARIAN ALLIANCE FOR THE PEOPLES OF OUR AMERICA (ALBA)
Venezuela's main allies in the region are concentrated in the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), established in 2004 at the initiative of Venezuela and Cuba.
Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America, ALBA (Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra Amйrica - Tratado de Comercio de los Pueblos, ALBA-TCP) is an integration platform for the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean. The institutional foundations for ALBA were officially laid on December 14, 2004, when the Presidents of Cuba, Fidel Castro and Venezuela, Hugo Chavez met in Havana and signed
protocols on the establishment of the Alliance based on a model of independent development with an emphasis on regional complementarity, which allows strengthening cooperation based on mutual respect and solidarity. The fundamental principle underpinning the functioning of ALBA is the deep solidarity between the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean32.
The government of Venezuela, represented by Hugo Chбvez, set very ambitious goals for itself. In particular, the main priority was not only becoming Venezuela a regional leader but also the entry of the country into the international arena as a strong global player. The idea of Latin American integration, as well as the slogan about the multipolarity of the world, serve as the basis of the concept of Bolivarianism. In turn, the ideas of Bolivarianism were the basis of Venezuelan policy under Hugo Chбvez and remain so during the presidency of his successor, N. Maduro.
The efforts of the Venezuelan leadership are concentrated on the further strengthening of ALBA with the aim of forming a new model of political and economic integration. Implementation of this concept allows Venezuela to consolidate its position in the region, which is fully consistent with Venezuela's foreign policy ideological guidelines.
The key role in this anti-market and anti-globalization project, which is based not on competition, but on the solidarity and complementarity of economies, is given to the sponsorship of Venezuela. Up to a quarter of Venezuela's budget revenues were allocated for this purpose. For five years (2006-2010), Caracas spent 33 billion dollars on aid to its allies. The main recipients were Cuba (18.8 billion dollars), Bolivia (6.7 billion dollars), and Nicaragua (5.5 billion dollars)33.
The main instrument of Venezuela's influence on Latin American countries is oil. Because of the fact that Venezuela is a member of ALBA, the alliance has the largest oil reserves in the world. Preferential oil supplies are actively used to strengthen the country's authority. On the one hand, with the help of PetroCaribe, Venezuela is significantly increasing its influence in the region, increasing the dependence of the CELAC states on its energy resources and their debt dependence, and, on the other hand, the Venezuelan opposition considers such a policy a waste of national wealth34 and puts pressure on N. Maduro's government accordingly.
However, it should be noted that Venezuela's relations with the countries of the region are not entirely one-sided. The closest relations are between Venezuela and Cuba (the leaders of these countries often speak of a single nation), and they are based on cooperation in the fields of education, medicine, sports, energy, and in social and cultural spheres.
At the beginning of 2013, 36 Cuban-Venezuelan enterprises were operating in the fields of energy, transport, tourism, communications, agriculture, construction, and mining. Havana assists its ally in implementing social projects: about 40,000 Cuban experts, mostly doctors, teachers, and sports coaches, work in Venezuela, and about
14.000 Venezuelan students study in Cuban universities. Cubans played an important role in the security agencies of Venezuela, including the protection of high-ranking state officials35.
N. Maduro made every effort to preserve and strengthen ties with his strategic ally. Immediately after being elected, he made an official visit to Havana as the head of state, where he participated in the work of a bilateral interstate commission. According to the results of the visit, it was planned to implement another 51 projects worth about 2 billion dollars.
The continuity of N. Maduro's regional policy within the framework of the ALBA project is evidenced by the meeting of the heads of state and government of 18 countries of Central America and the Caribbean, members of the PetroCaribe association, which took place on May 4-5, 2014. The participants of the summit declared their aspiration to strengthen the Venezuela-supported bloc and establish an economic zone on its basis36.
The advantages of ALBA, which were clearly observed until 2015, attracted new countries to the alliance, especially those states of the Caribbean and Central America, which had insignificant natural resources and financial potential. This is confirmed by the bloc's development dynamics: in 2013, St. Lucia, and in 2014, Grenada and St. Kitts and Nevis joined it.
In December 2014, the 13th ALBA Summit commemorated the tenth anniversary of the Alliance's establishment was held, and the members of the Alliance supported the Venezuelan administration in its difficult situation (primarily in the domestic political sphere). The meeting was held in Havana (Cuba) and resulted in a declaration, in which a significant number of points directly related to Venezuela and its situation. According to the main points of the ALBA Declaration of December 14, 2014, concerning Venezuela the ALBA member states agreed to:
1. Ratify the support for the efforts being undertaken by the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela headed by President Nicolбs Maduro Moros, in order to preserve the immense legacy of Commander Hugo Chбvez Frнas.
2. To support the Bolivarian Government of Venezuela in its efforts to safeguard the peace in the country and to definitively defeat destabilizing intents and the economic war unleashed by the enemies of the Bolivarian process at home and abroad, considering that these aggressions are also a threat against the integrating efforts throughout the region.
3. Energetically condemn approval by the US Congress of sanctions against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and express the most profound support and solidarity with the people and the government of that sister country, emphasizing that the ALBA- TCP countries will not permit the use of old practices that have already been applied in the region, directed to promote change in political regimes as it has occurred in other regions of the world. At the same time, firmly reject any type of aggression, whether legal, economic or political, against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and also against any of the ALBA-TCP member countries.
4. Support the commitment of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela with the PetroCaribe Project, recognized for its usefulness and contributions to energy security and the economic and social development of member countries.
5. Welcome the election of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela as a Non-Permanent Member of the United Nations Security Council for the 2015-2016 period. This is a demonstration of the great prestige and leadership that have been attained by Venezuela and the support of the majority in the international community for the Bolivarian Revolution under President Nicolбs Maduro Moros.
6. Welcome the upcoming assumption to the Pro Tempore Presidency of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in April 2016.
7. Reaffirm support for the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on the occasion of assuming the Presidency of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) as of the year 201537.
In 2015, the situation in Venezuela reached critical limits, which led to a reduction in the preferential oil supplies of 18 PetroCaribe member countries. While in 2014, the volume of supplied oil amounted to 78.3% of the value stipulated in the agreement (129 thousand barrels per day), then in 2015 it was only 65%. In addition, in the period from January to September 2013, the volume of loans granted to oil recipient countries decreased by 68.5% (over 3.7 billion dollars) compared to the same period in 2012 and turned out to be the lowest (1.7 billion dollars), since 2006. In 2015, oil supplies to Cuba also decreased by 20%38.
On March 17, 2015, the 9th Extraordinary ALBA Summit was held in Caracas (Venezuela) to announce the firm support of the ALBA countries for the Bolivarian people and government of Venezuela, considering the US policy towards Venezuela. Following the results of the summit, the ALBA countries delivered a number of joint statements, condemning the US sanctions and calling for an American-Venezuelan dialogue.
According to the results of the summit, the `Letter to the People of the United States: Venezuela is not a threat' was declared, in particular, regarding the following aspects:
a) the commitment of Venezuela to freedom, independence, and multilateralism;
b) Venezuela's fundamental belief in peace, national sovereignty, and international law;
c) the reality of Venezuela as an open and democratic society according to its Constitution and the aspirations of its people; d) the false, unjust, unilateral, and disproportional action encompassed in the Executive Order of the government of the United States of America, where Venezuela is declared to be a threat to the national security of the United States of America.
Thus, the leaders of ALBA member countries amid the economic crisis of 2014-2015 (oil price slump since the beginning of the summer of 2014 from 115 US dollars per barrel of Brent oil to 36 US dollars by the end of 201539) expressed their solidarity with Venezuela and supported the government of N. Maduro in its efforts to protect the sovereignty and independence of the country, and also declared their firm support for Venezuela in the confrontation with the United States and condemned the American government for its violation of the principle of non-interference in internal affairs40.
The 14th (March 5, 2017) and 15th (March 5, 2018) ALBA summits once again supported the government of N. Maduro41. In this respect, the 15th summit rejected the
exclusion of Venezuela from the 8th summit of the Organization of American States (OAS), calling for non-interference in the internal affairs of the state and to stop the policy of unilateral sanctions against Venezuela: “We underline the lack of moral authority of third countries to teach lessons to the countries of the region on democracy and human rights, and we demand respect for the sovereignty and self- determination of the Venezuelan people…
We reject the unilateral coercive measures and sanctions imposed against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela which harm the life and development of the noble Venezuelan people and the enjoyment of their rights.
We renew our firm support to the Constitutional President of the Bolivarian Republic, Nicolas Maduro Moros, his government, and the democratic process that he is leading”42.
At the same time, the continuation of the Venezuelan political and economic crisis had led to a decrease in the effectiveness of N. Maduro's energy diplomacy, which weakened the cohesion of the alliance. A clear sign of the lack of unity was the vote in the OAS on the non-recognition of the 2018 presidential elections in Venezuela. Only three ALBA member countries spoke against that resolution: Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Bolivia, and Dominica43.
In addition, a real hard fall to the association was Ecuador's withdrawal on August 23, 2018, a country which for a long time was a key ally of Caracas and the recipient for its financial assistance44. The official reason was the humanitarian crisis caused by the uncontrolled migration flow from Venezuela and the indifference of the Venezuelan government to the fate of its citizens.
In November 2019, when N. Maduro's second term had already begun, a similar decision was made by the interim unrecognized by N. Maduro administration of Bolivia, which called on Venezuelan diplomatic staff to leave the country and recognized
J. Guaido as the head of the neighboring state. As a result, at the end of 2019, in the ALBA project, based on the solidarity and complementarity of economies, apart from Venezuela, only Cuba, Nicaragua, and several small Caribbean countries remained45. And although Bolivia rejoined the Alliance in 2020, its temporary withdrawal showed the weakness of the organization's cohesion.
Thus, the systemic crisis in Venezuela and the increased isolation of the country had serious negative consequences for subregional and regional processes in Latin America, which had ceased to be unity in diversity. The minimization of Venezuelan assistance, protest actions, and the consolidation of the opposition in Nicaragua, and especially the change of government course in Ecuador and Bolivia, had sharply reduced the influence and capabilities of ALBA, bringing the Alliance closer to the most serious crisis in its history.
THE COMMUNITY OF LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN STATES (COMUNIDAD DE ESTADOS LATINOAMERICANOS Y CARIBEСOS; CELAC)
The unification processes occurring at the regional and subregional levels, depending on the geographical location or ideological indicators of the members, increase the risk of conflict situations between integration entities and fragmentation of the region in general. Therefore, CELAC plays a significant role in uniting Latin American countries, since this project creates not only a basis for political dialogue but also promotes the development of conditions for the spread of multi-vector integration. The agreement on the establishment of the organization was signed on February 23, 2010, and the organization was inaugurated at the 1st CELAC Summit on December 3, 2011, held in Caracas (Venezuela).
The organization is aimed at increasing hemispheric cooperation in social, economic, and security matters, and is also expected to become the main representative body of the region, providing a space to amplify the continent's voice on the international stage. Unlike the Organization of American States (OAS), the US and Canada are not represented within the bloc, which also aspires to neutralize US influence within the region46.
The founding summit of CELAC (December 3, 2011), chaired by Hugo Chavez, adopted the `Declaration of Caracas' as a document containing a program of action, the organization's Charter, the Caracas Action Plan 2012, the Declaration in Defense of Democracy and 19 special communiques on topical issues in the region and the world. The Action Plan considered, first of all, the intensification of integration processes in the region. CELAC summits in 2013-2019 were held in Chile (2013), Cuba (2014), Costa Rica (2015), Ecuador (2016), and the Dominican Republic (2017)47. Next summits planned to be held in El Salvador (2018) and Bolivia (2019) did not take place48.
The subjects of discussion at the annual CELAC meetings were economic cooperation, disarmament, decolonization, nuclear non-proliferation, settlement of territorial disputes and civil wars, migration policy, climate change, issues of indigenous peoples, and the fight against poverty, hunger, and terrorism. In the Santiago Declaration, adopted as a result of the 1st Summit held on January 27-28, 2013 in Santiago (Chile), the agreements on political, economic, and cultural integration in the region were reaffirmed49.
The establishment of CELAC was one of the vivid manifestations of the `left turn' with its state-nationalist bias and emphasized interest in solving pressing social problems in domestic politics by the state from the top-down and ensuring its independence from global actors, primarily the United States. Those were also attempts at some kind of `protection' from the globalization processes and the neoliberal levelling of the state's role in public life. However, the economic progress of Latin American countries was largely driven by the rapid economic growth of a new global player, China, which on an increasing scale was buying raw materials and selling
inexpensive goods in the region. China has gradually become a major trading partner for many countries, and eventually an investor50.
Already at the 3rd summit (January 28-29, 2015, Costa Rica), the members of the organization took a rather tough line regarding US anti-Venezuelan sanctions. The participating countries opposed Washington's interference in Venezuela's internal affairs. Cuban leader Raul Castro called the sanctions “unacceptable and unfounded”. The President of Nicaragua Daniel Ortega said that the US wanted to repeat in Venezuela the Chilean scenario of 1973, referring to the coup d'йtat of Augusto Pinochet (1973-1990). And the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Argentina, Hector Timerman, characterized the American sanctions as “unfair, illegal, and immoral”51. At the 4th (January 27, 2016, Ecuador) and the 5th (January 25, 2017, Dominican Republic) summits, the rejection of American sanctions against Venezuela was confirmed. The countries appealed to the US government not to extend the sanctions that were approved on March 9, 201552.
Also, at the 5th summit, the participants spoke about the internal crisis in Venezuela. In particular, they supported the process of the national dialogue between the government and the opposition with the mediation of UNASUR Secretary General Ernesto Samper, former presidents Josй Luis Rodrнguez Zapatero, Leonel Fernбndez, Martнn Torrijos, and the special representative of His Holiness Pope Francis. The final declaration called for “taking measures to achieve concrete results, as well as urgently implement the agreements reached so far, guarantee the continuity of the process and resume negotiations in good faith and with a high constructive commitment and in full respect of the rule of law, human rights, and democratic institutions, especially distribution of power within the framework of the constitution and laws of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and in accordance with the principle of respect for non-interference in the internal affairs of the states”53.
At the same time, during 2016-2017, new political regimes were established in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay, and a number of other countries. Their governments came together with the US as fierce opponents of the governments of Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua. As a result, the leaders of several leading states in the region: Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, and Chile were not present at the 2017 summit. The Venezuelan crisis deepened the current contradictions and resulted in a temporary suspension of its activities in CELAC, which dramatically reduced the effectiveness of the organization54.
Since all decisions in CELAC should be made by consensus, which was almost impossible given the ambiguous attitude toward Venezuela, the association had turned into a kind of discussion club and had failed to contribute to resolving the conflict in that country. In 2018-2020, CELAC summits were failed to be convened, and in 2019,
Brazil decided to withdraw from the association (withdrew in January 2020). According to the Brazilian Foreign Minister, in the context of the regional crisis, CELAC had not achieved significant results in the field of democracy protection or any other area and was only a cover for undemocratic regimes in Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua55.
Although in general, CELAC's activities were ineffective (most of the region's problems had not been solved, including poverty, corruption, crime, etc.), there were examples of successful implementation of its decisions in 2013-2018. It is necessary to mention CELAC's mediation mission in resolving the diplomatic and humanitarian crisis between Colombia and Venezuela, active efforts to resolve the economic blockade of Cuba, peacekeeping activities in Colombia, and the development of external relations with the European Union.
Thus, CELAC was unable to solve the key problems of Latin American integration and overcome the fragmentation of Latin American regionalism. N. Maduro had not managed to implement any significant projects within the organization, and instead of becoming a leader, Venezuela had turned into an outcast who needed constant protection and patronage. At the same time, although the organization went through a crisis during the studied period, it has not completely lost its potential. Attempts to develop a multilateral approach for solving acute regional problems on the basis of CELAC may be evidence of another step towards Latin American integration and the readiness of the countries of the region to intensify their influence on international processes.
THE UNION OF SOUTH AMERICAN NATIONS (UNASUR)
H. Chavez had high expectations for the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), where Venezuela was one of the founders of the regional association. From the beginning, UNASUR was seen as an instrument to keep the Organization of American States (OAS) out of South America. While the Brazilian government had lost its interest in the organization as an instrument of regional power projection, UNASUR became more critical for Venezuela as an instrument of `regime boosting' and `soft balancing' against the US56.
The first great challenge in creating UNASUR was to provide an institutional design flexible enough to allow states as dissimilar as Brazil and Suriname or rivals, such as Colombia and Venezuela, to converge on a common project. Physical belonging to South America was the central criterion of membership. Regarding the scope of issues covered, UNASUR's institutional design was ambitious and in line with post-hegemonic regionalism, establishing a dozen sectoral councils covering different areas: defense, health, electoral issues, energy, science, technology, and innovation, culture, social development, economy and finance, education, infrastructure and planning, drugs, citizen security, and the coordination of activities against transnational organized crime. The proliferation of sectoral councils sought to incorporate countries with different interests in the regional project. According to V. Mijares and D. Nolte, a single focal entity did not centralize these multiple goals due to the varying importance of member countries57.
Within the framework of the dynamic structure of UNASUR, it was supposed to solve issues related to ensuring regional security and defense matters. The inclusion of those issues in the scope of its activities fundamentally distinguished this organization from all the associations that existed before. To consider those issues, the Defense Council (organization of collective defense) was established within the framework of UNASUR, the purpose of which was to consolidate the efforts of the countries of South America to create a South American zone of peace, to form common approaches in matters of regional and international security, to participate in peacekeeping operations, as well as to establish contacts for solving issues of defense and fighting against drug trafficking58.
After coming to power, N. Maduro immediately used the organization's authority to eliminate possible international condemnation of the dubious democracy of the presidential election. Moreover, an invitation was made for UNASUR to play a supervisory role in the electoral polls by being independent, impartial, and respecting Venezuelan sovereignty. The agreement between Venezuela and UNASUR was signed on March 25th, and it formalized UNASUR's commitment to observing elections in that country. The organization deployed approximately forty-two observers. Despite some violations pointed out by the representatives of Colombia and Brazil, the elections were generally recognized as democratic59.
That was facilitated by the fact that the former Venezuelan Foreign Minister Alн Rodrнguez Araque held the position of Secretary General of the organization since June 11, 2012 (June 11, 2012 - July 31, 2014) and contributed to the convening of an Extraordinary meeting of the UNASUR Council of Foreign Ministers on April 18, 2013, in Lima, Peru. The emergency summit proclaimed its support for the presidential elections in Venezuela and called for the recognition of their results: “The UNASUR countries call on all parties involved in the electoral process to respect the official results of the presidential election published by the National Electoral Council of Venezuela”60. That was a significant victory for N. Maduro, which was gained with the help of a regional organization.
According to V. Mijares and D. Nolte, it was a fortuitous constellation for the Venezuelan government that former Venezuelan foreign minister Ali Rodrнguez held the organization's Secretary General position when Maduro came to power since the regime became questioned after the controversial presidential elections in 2013. Rodrнguez never visited the seat of UNASUR in Ecuador, exercising his function from Caracas. He stayed in office until August 2014, slightly over a year longer than initially planned. This was attributed to the lack of consensus between the UNASUR governments regarding a successor and the strategy of the Venezuelan government to avoid at all costs that someone not in accordance with their interests would take the position. His successor, former Colombian President Ernesto Samper, took a benevolent stance regarding the Venezuelan government, shielding it against the critics61.
Because of that internal tension, the supranational bureaucracy and leadership were not consolidated. A consequence of UNASUR's structural crisis was its inability to reach a consensus on the election of its Secretary General, which had always been one of its problems. On January 31, 2017, former Colombian president Ernesto Samper terminated his function as Secretary General, and when the Argentine government was about to take over UNASUR's presidency pro tempore in April 2017, on the one hand, it proposed an Argentine candidate for the vacant position of General Secretary and, on the other, it suggested a repositioning of UNASUR with a stronger focus on economic cooperation. Both proposals immediately met with Venezuela's (and Bolivia's) resistance62.
The Venezuelan regime was afraid of electing a disloyal Head of the organization because, for the Venezuelan government, it was important to control the election of the successor of Samper, even risking the paralysis and breakdown of UNASUR. De facto, Venezuela and Bolivia blocked the Argentine candidate Josй Octavio Bordon, supported by seven governments. In the end, UNASUR's fate was sealed by Venezuela's veto. While the Venezuelan government became openly authoritarian, culminating in the `non- democratic' re-election of N. Maduro in May 2018, the center-right governments in South America saw decreasing benefits in sharing membership with a hostile and trouble-making government in UNASUR. From their perspective, it was, in the end, a logical step to leave the organization63.
On April 18, 2018, the foreign ministers of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay, and Peru announced the suspension of membership in the association due to the lack of concrete results in the organization's activities. The decision was caused by the chaos that arose in the absence of a Secretary General since January 1, 2017 (Bolivia held the interim presidency of the organization), as well as by the rejection by Nicolas Maduro and Evo Morales of the candidacy of the Argentinean Josй Octavio Bordon, despite the support of the majority of members. Since the conflict situation was based on political and ideological cleavages, and the decision was taken by consensus, the situation could have been endless64.
...Подобные документы
Barack Hussein Obama and Dmitry Medvedev: childhood years and family, work in politics before the presidential election and political views, the election, the campaign and presidency. The role, significance of these presidents of their countries history.
курсовая работа [62,3 K], добавлен 02.12.2015Democracy as theoretical number of important qualities, that are important for human development. The general protection of property and the almost complete absence of taxes. Main details of enjoying full democracy. Analyzing democracy in reality.
статья [15,8 K], добавлен 02.10.2009Presidential candidates. Learning the information of the Electoral College, to understanding the process by which the President is officially elected. The formal ceremony of presidential inauguration, including the information about its time, place.
курсовая работа [34,7 K], добавлен 09.04.2011The term "political system". The theory of social system. Classification of social system. Organizational and institutional subsystem. Sociology of political systems. The creators of the theory of political systems. Cultural and ideological subsystem.
реферат [18,8 K], добавлен 29.04.2016- Сравнительный анализ политических кризисов на Украине в конце 2004 г. и в конце 2013-начале 2014 гг.
Внутриполитические и экономические факторы возникновения политических кризисов 2004 года и конца 2013-начала 2014 гг. в Украине. Особенности политической мобилизации граждан Украины в этот период. Динамика геополитических ориентаций граждан Украины.
дипломная работа [168,9 K], добавлен 31.08.2016 The classical definition of democracy. Typical theoretical models of democracy. The political content of democracy. Doctrine of liberal and pluralistic democracy. Concept of corporate political science and other varieties of proletarian democracy.
реферат [37,3 K], добавлен 13.05.2011Основные события политической биографии А. Навального: вступление в партию "Яблоко" и дальнейший выход из неё, учреждение общественного движения "Народ", участие в выборах на пост мэра г. Москва 2013 г., его борьба с коррупцией и поддержка миноритариев.
презентация [206,0 K], добавлен 21.12.2014Functions of democracy as forms of political organization. Its differences from dictatorship and stages of historical development. Signs and methods of stabilizing of civil society. Essence of social order and duty, examples of public establishments.
контрольная работа [24,4 K], добавлен 11.08.2011Исследование и анализ существующих теорий электорального поведения, роль стихийных бедствий в его рамках. Изучение электоральной и социально-экономической статистики, выявление степени влияния наводнения на электоральные результаты в Хабаровском крае.
курсовая работа [1,0 M], добавлен 08.02.2017Революция как политический процесс, ее сущность и типология. Внешнеполитические акторы современных революций: виды, ресурсы влияния, стратегии. Сравнительный анализ участия внешнеполитических акторов в событиях арабских революций 2011-2013 годов.
дипломная работа [65,9 K], добавлен 17.04.2015Подходы к пониманию политического протеста, технологии его мобилизации в условиях цветных революций. Протестные движения в Украине и в Армении: сравнительный анализ. Разработка превентивных мер противостояния неконвенциональным политическим протестам.
дипломная работа [221,7 K], добавлен 25.07.2017Прогноз и научный анализ изменений классовой структуры современного российского общества, его значение для всех политических сил России. Основные подходы к анализу социально-классовой структуры общества и их характеристика. Главные признаки класса.
доклад [52,2 K], добавлен 29.11.2013Методологические подходы к поддержанию и изучению провластных настроений. Теория генерации и стимулирования лояльности к властям. Практика генерации и поддержания провластных настроений граждан до свержения В.Ф. Януковича (ноябрь 2013 – февраль 2014 гг.).
дипломная работа [1,2 M], добавлен 18.07.2017Феномен появления концепции "образа врага" в политической и общественной жизни СССР. Особенности причинно-следственной связи процесса актуализации "образа врага" в 2013-2015 годах в Российской Федерации. Документальные фильмы как инструменты пропаганды.
реферат [183,1 K], добавлен 23.09.2016N. Nazarbayev is the head of state, Commander-in-chief and holder of the highest office within of Kazakhstan. B. Obama II is the head of state and head of government of the United States. Queen Elizabeth II as head of a monarchy of the United Kingdom.
презентация [437,6 K], добавлен 16.02.2014One of determinant national foreign policy priorities is European and Euroatlantic integration. Relationship between Ukraine and NATO was established in 1991, when Ukraine proclaimed sovereignty right after the fall of the USSR and joined the Council.
статья [32,6 K], добавлен 29.12.2009The study of the history of the development of Russian foreign policy doctrine, and its heritage and miscalculations. Analysis of the achievements of Russia in the field of international relations. Russia's strategic interests in Georgia and the Caucasus.
курсовая работа [74,6 K], добавлен 11.06.2012Government’s export promotion policy. Georgian export promotion agency. Foreign investment promotion. Government’s foreign investment promotion policy. Foreign investment advisory council. Taxation system and tax rates in Georgia.
курсовая работа [644,0 K], добавлен 24.08.2005History of formation and development of FRS. The organizational structure of the U.S Federal Reserve. The implementation of Monetary Policy. The Federal Reserve System in international sphere. Foreign Currency Operations and Resources, the role banks.
реферат [385,4 K], добавлен 01.07.2011Strategy of foreign capital regulation in Russia. Russian position in the world market of investments. Problems of foreign investments attraction. Types of measures for attraction of investments. Main aspects of foreign investments attraction policy.
реферат [20,8 K], добавлен 16.05.2011
