As explosions were heard in Caracas, the Venezuelan capital, in the early morning of January 3rd, something else was being shattered: the certainty that South America is, and will remain, a continent of peace. The sight of flames and military aircraft over a South American capital was both unfamiliar and tragically surreal.
The images of the forceful abduction of a sitting president are more evocative of the capture of Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s late leader, than of the coups d’état of the 1960s and 1970s in Latin America. Even the death of President Salvador Allende during Chile’s bloody coup of 1973 was surrounded by a halo of heroism, entirely absent in the present case.
For most people in the region, foreign military intervention seemed a thing of the past. Between the late 19th and early 20th centuries, powers from outside South America did, at times, resort to naval blockades or threats of force to protect private interests. That was before the major developments in international law of the 20th century. Such interventions were only possible—or so we thought—before the consolidation of legal instruments such as the Law of the Sea, mechanisms of arbitration and, of course, the United Nations Charter, which is based on the principle of sovereign equality of states and prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
Even during the cold war, disputes over the boundaries of so called spheres of influence in South America did not lead to overt violations of national borders. This restraint, however, did not preclude covert interventions by foreign intelligence agencies, including support for the overthrow of elected governments under the pretext of combating communism.
Nevertheless, by the end of the 20th century the region was laying the foundations for economic integration, finally channelling decades of peace into development. That confidence has faded.
The intervention in Venezuela raises a larger question that increasingly defines international politics: how can we live in a world without rules? Pillars of international law designed to regulate collective security, discipline world trade and promote human rights are being undermined all at once. The erosion, once begun, is hard to reverse. As many have said, we find ourselves edging back towards a obbesian state, where military strength is the main determinant of a country’s de facto independence, and in which war is once again seen as a legitimate means of change.
When there is no law governing relations between countries, unpredictability itself becomes a formidable source of power and intimidation. The “uncertainty principle”, developed in the realm of quantum physics, appears to have found an echo in international affairs. Formulated by Werner Heisenberg, a German physicist, it holds that a particle’s position and momentum cannot be known simultaneously with precision.
We can now say the same about the behaviour of states: anything can happen at any time. It is a time in which countries everywhere are rethinking their national strategies. The current geopolitical landscape reinforces Brazil’s choice to open itself to co-operation with a
wide range of partners, from Latin America to the brics and beyond. For most countries, investing in the diversification of partnerships and in technological autonomy will remain the better course. So, too, will continued engagement with existing multilateral institutions, salvaging what can still be preserved of established norms and principles.
Respect for sovereignty and non-intervention should not be abandoned. We should learn from history. Even in the most challenging circumstances, foreign intervention—especially military intervention—is not the answer. The pursuit of peaceful solutions through dialogue must remain the priority.
Brazil has made an existential bet on peace. The use of nuclear energy exclusively for peaceful purposes is enshrined in our constitution, as are the peaceful settlement of disputes and the pursuit of regional integration. This is the path Brazil has chosen and intends to follow even in adverse circumstances.
The signing of the long-awaited trade agreement between Mercosur and the European Union—an accord that my good friend Durão Barroso (then foreign minister of Portugal) and I began dreaming of some 30 years ago—has added significance in this context. The outcome may not fully satisfy all of the 31 countries involved. It nonetheless shows that respectful negotiations, even when long and burdensome, are still the best way. Mercosur has also recently finalised trade deals with Singapore and the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland).
We should continue to work for the reform of international institutions, particularly to address the relative lack of representation from the global south. International balance depends on all actors, including Europe, having an authentic and independent voice on the world stage and contributing to a positive and open multipolarity. Brazil will continue to work with Europe, China and others committed to multilateral institutions and the primacy of international law. Let us hope that together we will be able to prevent a further descent into
violence and anarchy.
