Provider of in-depth & balanced analysis on hot issues around the world

한국어로 읽기 Читать на русском Leer en español Gap In Deutsch lesen اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Oscar Alejandro Pérez, a popular Venezuelan YouTuber who uploads travel videos, was arrested on terrorism charges on Sunday, March 31. Pérez was detained, and subsequently held for 32 hours, over a video he uploaded in 2023. In the video, he points to the Credicard Tower, a building in Caracas that hosts the servers that facilitate the country’s financial transactions, and jokingly adds: “If a bomb were to be thrown at that building, the whole national banking system would collapse.” He was accused of urging people to blow up the building, something Pérez denies. His arrest is the latest evidence of President Nicolás Maduro’s growing crackdown on human rights and civil liberties as the country prepares for presidential elections in July. Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chávez, was a hugely popular president. While in office, he led a social and political movement called the “Bolivarian Revolution”, which aimed to address social, economic and political inequalities through a series of progressive reforms funded by Venezuela’s vast oil wealth. Then, in 2013, Chávez died and Maduro (who was then vice president) came to power after narrowly winning a special election. Initially, Maduro enjoyed the sympathy and support of many Venezuelans loyal to Chávez and his socialist ideals. But since taking office Maduro has presided over a series of economic crises. Hyperinflation, shortages of basic goods, and a deep recession have all made him increasingly unpopular. And Venezuela’s economy has contracted by about 70% under Maduro’s leadership. Consolidating power The last time Venezuelans went to the polls was in 2018. The contest was so rigged that many neighbouring countries branded the election illegitimate. Two of the most popular opposition candidates were disqualified or barred from running, and Maduro won the contest amid claims of vote rigging and other irregularities. Many Venezuelans have grown disillusioned with Maduro and have taken to the streets to vent their anger. But widespread discontent and protests have only fed more insecurity, criminality, poverty and social unrest. Now lacking support from within the Chavista political movement and the Venezuelan military, Maduro has turned to criminal groups to promote a state where illegal armed groups act at the service of the government. Maduro has consolidated power by using state institutions to silence critics, while at the same time engaging in human rights abuses and profiting from corruption. He has been accused of committing crimes against humanity, including torture, kidnapping and extrajudicial killings. And according to Amnesty International, between 240 and 310 people remain arbitrarily detained on political grounds. Unsurprisingly, around 7.7 million Venezuelans have fled repression and economic hardship at home. Roughly 3 million of those displaced have started a new life in Colombia, 1.5 million of them have migrated to Peru, while others have made their way north to the US. The Venezuelan migrant crisis has become the largest in the world, with the number of displaced people exceeding that seen in Ukraine and Syria. Silencing dissent Venezuelans will head to the polls on July 28. The arrest of Pérez is part of a wider strategy aimed at silencing dissent and strengthening the regime’s hold over its people as Maduro seeks re-election. On February 9, a prominent lawyer and military expert Rocío San Miguel was arrested in Caracas before several members of her family disappeared. San Miguel is known for her work exposing corruption in the Venezuelan army. She appeared at a hearing four days later accused of “treason, conspiracy and terrorism” for her purported role in an alleged plot to assassinate Maduro. Her arrest set off a wave of criticism both inside and outside Venezuela, including from the UN Human Rights Council. Its office in Caracas was subsequently ordered to stop operations on the grounds that it promoted opposition to the country and staff were told to leave the country within 72 hours. It is unclear whether San Miguel remains in jail. In March, Ronald Ojeda, a 32-year-old former lieutenant in Venezuela’s military, was found dead in Chile ten days after he had gone missing. He had protested against the Maduro government on social media wearing a T-shirt with “freedom” written on the collar and prison bars drawn on the map of Venezuela. His body was found in a suitcase beneath a metre of concrete. Chilean prosecutors later announced that his abduction and killing was the work of El Tren de Aragua, one of Venezuela’s most powerful criminal organisations. Don’t bank on free and fair elections The crackdown on civic society poses a dilemma for the Biden administration. In October 2023, Maduro secured a partial lifting of US economic sanctions (which have been in place since 2019) in return for a commitment to holding “free and fair” presidential elections, in addition to political reforms and the release of political prisoners. But that deal is quickly unwinding. In January, the leader of the opposition and a clear favourite in the polls, María Corina Machada was banned from holding office for 15 years. The Biden administration has since reimposed some sanctions and has threatened new ones on Venezuela’s vital oil sector if political reforms are not made. Venezuela has become a deeply corrupt, authoritarian and criminal state that shuts down dissent, forces millions of its own people to flee, and kills or abducts whoever threatens the regime. Its occasional displays of reason are motivated purely by economic gain. In many ways, Maduro’s political repression reflects his growing fear that his regime’s days are numbered, driving him to desperate measures to force a different fate. Once a dictator takes hold, it becomes very difficult to dislodge them.

한국어로 읽기 Читать на русском Leer en español Gap In Deutsch lesen اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français The US Should Bring This Demand to the UN Security Council Washington, DC — The Biden administration should immediately demand that Ecuador release former vice president Jorge Glas from custody, and allow him to return to the political asylum that the Mexican government had granted him, said Mark Weisbrot, Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Glas had sought political asylum in the Mexican embassy, claiming that he is a victim of persecution and lawfare by Attorney General Diana Salazar and the Daniel Noboa government. The Mexican government granted his request for political asylum on Friday; Ecuadorian authorities raided the embassy on Friday night, reportedly injuring several Mexican nationals and knocking the Mexican mission’s second-in-command — a career diplomat — to the ground in a dramatic incident caught on video. “Ecuador’s government has committed a very serious crime, one that threatens the security of embassies and diplomats throughout the world — not least those of the United States, which has threats to its embassies in much of the world,” Weisbrot said. “The international community cannot allow this to happen. The United States, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, should propose a resolution there as well, to force the release of the kidnapped prisoner.” The Ecuadorian government’s actions violate the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and pose a direct threat to the principles of asylum, of national sovereignty, and of diplomatic immunity. This clear violation of international law is the latest in a series of troubling actions by the Noboa government, which include his declaration of an “internal armed conflict,” the deployment of military forces for domestic law enforcement, mass arrests, and rampant human rights violations. The Noboa administration’s raid on the embassy has been met with condemnation from many governments in the region, including Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Guatemala, Honduras (the current head of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, CELAC), Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Antigua and Barbuda. Colombian president Gustavo Petro says his government is seeking human rights protections for Glas. Canada criticized the Ecuadorian government’s actions. Both the Organization of American States and CELAC have issued statements rejecting the Noboa government’s actions, and have said they will each hold special meetings to address the matter. Josep Borrell, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, condemned the embassy raid, and the UN secretary-general issued a statement “stress[ing] that violations of this principle jeopardize the pursuit of normal international relations.” Weisbrot noted that such crimes as Ecuador committed on Friday are quite rare, and are taken very seriously, because of the threat that they pose to the system of international diplomacy. This is the system that nations rely upon to try and resolve conflicts without violence and war. The International Court of Justice has held that “there was no more fundamental prerequisite for relations between States than the inviolability of diplomatic envoys and embassies …” Several members of the US Congress have also condemned the Noboa government’s actions. The Biden administration’s statement, made yesterday evening, “condemns any violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.” The administration has recently deepened military and security relations with the Noboa government in the midst of Noboa’s broad crackdown and rights violations. The Ecuadorian government’s actions are a grave violation of international law and norms, and pose a dangerous precedent. Embassies are considered foreign territory, and Ecuador’s raid is a violation of Mexico’s territorial sovereignty under the law. Host governments historically have avoided violating embassies even when desiring to apprehend individuals seeking refuge or asylum. The British government did not raid Ecuador’s embassy in London in the years that Julian Assange was staying there; it was only after the Ecuadorian government of Lenín Moreno revoked Assange’s Ecuadorian citizenship and evicted him from the embassy that British authorities took him into custody. Likewise, the Pinochet dictatorship and other Latin American dictatorships never violated the integrity of foreign embassies, even to apprehend wanted dissidents or political opponents. The coup government of Jeanine Áñez in Bolivia never raided the Mexican embassy where several officials from the illegally ousted Evo Morales government had sought refuge following the 2019 coup d’etat. Salazar has long engaged in a campaign of lawfare and political persecution against former president Rafael Correa and other figures from the former Correa government. The charges against Correa have been shown to have so little credibility, and the evidence is so lacking, that Interpol for years has refused to act on Ecuador’s red notice against him. Belgium has granted him political asylum, and he can travel freely to almost anywhere in the world without fear of extradition. And last year, a Brazilian supreme court judge annulled evidence against Glas after authorities admitted it may have been tampered with. “The United States is providing crucial diplomatic, military, and material support to Ecuador; and Canada is currently seeking a ‘free trade’ agreement with Ecuador,” said Weisbrot. “All of this should be suspended until Ecuador releases its former vice president, who it has kidnapped from Mexico’s embassy.”

Next June 2nd, Mexicans have an historical appointment with the ballot boxes. From them will almost certainly emerge the country’s first female president. The two contenders represent divergent models. The incumbent, embodied by Claudia Sheinbaum, inherits a version that, in the name of the greater wealth redistribution, concentrated all power in the figure of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and his party, Morena. The alternative is offered by a coalition of opposition parties. They and their presidential candidate, Xóchitl Gálvez, advocate for the need to respect certain institutional checks and balances. But the credibility of those organizations, who governed between 2000 and 2018, and likely of the electoral democracy model they represent, is seriously questioned. Amidst this context, the high and persistent approval of López Obrador may offer revealing, though not definitive, clues. The latest report from Oraculus, a poll aggregator, recorded that 68% of Mexican citizens approve President López Obrador's management, while only 29% disapprove. The portal regularly processes results from more than a dozen of the main polling firms. Specifically, the survey conducted by ‘El Financiero’ (newspaper) in December 2023 showed the smallest difference between the approval (55%) and disapproval (44%) of the president by citizens, which nonetheless was eleven percentage points. A stable and positive six-year approval rating For five years, the approval rating of the Mexican president has managed to avoid steep declines. As the electoral campaign kicks off, all signs indicate that it will continue to be stable and positive. Unfortunately, analysts underestimate the impact that such a situation may have on the outcome of the upcoming presidential election. This stance is associated with three powerful myths. Myth 1: approving is one thing, voting is another. The president’s popularity matters little for the outcome of the presidential election. This myth blatantly ignores an essential reference. Thirty years ago, the political scientist Fabián Echegaray was the pioneer in revealing that the popularity of Latin American leaders is the best predictor of the result that the ruling party candidate will obtain in the election. Approving and voting are two different acts, but there tends to be a strong positive link between them. It would be puzzling for democracy if citizens regularly rejected at the polls governments whose performance they approve of in public opinion polls. The Latin American comparative experience shows that between 1982 and 2023, a total of thirty-five leaders from fourteen countries in the region, whose elections took place in a free and transparent environment, reached the months prior to the start of the electoral campaign with positive approval ratings. In twenty-seven cases (77.14%), there was a generous and sufficient transfer from the popularity of the current executive to the vote count of the official party’s presidential candidate. Forewarned is forearmed. The positive approval of the incumbent tends to consistently anticipate the continuity of the ruling party in power. The exceptions Only in eight cases did this trend not materialize. The first record, dates back to 1990 in the presidential elections of Costa Rica. The last dated in 2020 during the elections in the Dominican Republic. In all those electoral processes, the government’s presidential candidate seemed bolstered by the high approval rating of the incumbent leader. However, they were defeated at the polls. The common feature in practically all cases was that the party in power faced the campaign affected by a strong process of internal division. This fact dispersed the pro-government vote, a scenario that ended up benefiting the opposition. That’s not the current situation of the ruling party in Mexico, Morena. Until recently, the organization faced the possibility of a traumatic rupture when former Chancellor Marcelo Ebrard did not recognize the results of the internal electoral process, challenged them, and even threatened to leave the party along with a legion of sympathizers. But the threat of a rupture dissipated when Ebrard finally backed down. The opposition never properly gauged the true depth of a potential internal split in Morena led by the former Chancellor. Although the episode could end up being the only serious threat to the current purpose of retaining the reins of power. Myth 2: the theory of presidential popularity transfer does not apply in Mexico. There is a belief that while the theory of presidential popularity transfer may apply in other regions, it does not do so in the case of Mexico. The assumptions in favor would be as follows: 1. Heading into the 2000 presidential elections, PRI President Ernesto Zedillo had an approval rating of 65%. However, the current presidential candidate, Francisco Labastida was defeated by the ‘Partido Acción Nacional’ (PAN) candidate, Vicente Fox. 2. Similarly, prior to the 2012 presidential elections, Felipe Calderón had a 60% approval rating, but it didn’t end up benefiting the current candidate, Josefina Vázquez Mota, who relegated to third place in the race. Explaining the controversial Mexican cases While most Latin American countries have held an average of approximately seven presidential elections since their transition, Mexico has only had three following the political alternation in 2000: the elections of 2006, 2012 and 2018. With so few cases, the emergence of a trend is always in its infancy. This is especially true if one of the three cases, the 2012 elections, indeed constituted an anomaly. The high approval rating of President Calderón did not translate into votes for the current presidential candidate. Indeed, the 2012 elections constitute one of the regional cases we previously highlighted as exceptions. However, there is sufficient evidence accumulated regarding the fact that during the 2012 electoral process, the PAN experienced an underlying internal division that decisively affected its chances of winning. Even with the exception, the trend for presidential approval to reflect in the electoral outcome has been predominant in Mexico (66.66%). After the 2024 elections, it is very likely to experience an increase that brings it very close to the Latin American average rate (82.14%). One of the criteria guiding the selection of cases in research on presidential popularity is that presidential elections have been held after the democratic transition. By definition, authoritarian regimes do not guarantee an autonomous public opinion and tend to have elections that are not free and transparent. In that sense, the popularity of President Ernest Zedillo cannot be considered a reliable indicator. It is a “citizen perception” reported within an authoritarian regime. An environment where fear, censorship, persecution, and retaliation prevail. Sartori (1992) insisted on the obligation to differentiate between “opinion in the public” and “opinion of the public”. Myth 3: the outcome of the presidential election is decided during the campaign The role of elections as a mechanism for the peaceful selection of political leaders has fostered the belief that the campaign always represents a decisive moment in shaping electoral preferences. This explains the journalistic reports about a potential campaign in which a stiff incumbent candidate, Claudia Sheinbaum, is cornered by the rhetorical skills and charisma of the opposition candidate Xóchitl Gálvez, and by the impact of the negatives associated with the performance of the incumbent ruler. In reality, the campaigns have a very limited effect on the electoral outcome, they only matter under very specific conditions. Most of the time, they only reinforce the decision that voters made before the start of the campaign itself. Pattern or plasticity? However, despite the abundant empirical evidence, it would be a mistake to take for granted a victory for Morena in the 2024 presidential elections. The relevant thing is just to acknowledge that the outcome seems to favor Morena. Political events resist being confined to a framework. They have the potential for surprise and innovation. Political actors have memory, learn from experience, and often show ingenuity. Under certain conditions, these attributes lead them to reverse the expected historical outcome. Once social science is able to reveal certain patterns of behavior, the next challenge is to infer whether in a new experience the norm or the exception will ultimately prevail. The dilemma between pattern and plasticity. Pattern marks regularity, the behavior that, by dint of repetition, is expected. Meanwhile, plasticity means assuming that there will always be exceptions to any regularity or generalization we may reach, in principle.

In September 2015, the delegations of the 150 presidents participating in the Sustainable Development Summit were part of the 193 States preparing to adopt the outcome document of this meeting. This meeting represented the end of the most participatory negotiation process in the history of the United Nations: the adoption of the 2030 Agenda. The sense of optimism and of moving towards a common goal was palpable. Eight years later, the progress of the 2030 Agenda has fallen far short of expectations. Unfulfilled promises, lack of financing, the health crisis generated by COVID-19, the recent wars, and the global economy that has faced first recessionary and then inflationary pressures all have made the idea of finding common solutions to the problems afflicting the world lose momentum. Misinformation on the 2030 Agenda On this fertile soil, conspiracy theories sprout that see multilateralism as the origin of today’s problems. The 2030 Agenda is, in many cases, at the center of these distorted visions. Three conspiracy theories are being raised against the main global sustainable development agenda. Theory of the “New World Order”: This theory is based on the idea that an elite (Bilderberg Club style) formed by a small group of the most powerful people in the world governs the destinies of the planet for their benefit. The “Great Reboot” theory was proposed in Davos after the pandemic, and with the UN’s “build back better” vision, the theory focuses on the economic dimension. It suggests an orchestrated plan by the most powerful countries to appropriate all the world’s wealth. They claim the intentional creation of a pandemic to initiate their plan. “Trickle-down communism” theory: After the fall of the Soviet Union – and knowing that communism could never take over the West – the “left” began a worldwide campaign to slowly insert its ideas into Western societies so that by the time the plan was discovered, the West would have embraced the communist ideal without realizing it. All three conspiracies arrive at the same result: the 2030 Agenda is creating a group (an economic elite, a group of powerful countries, or international communism) aiming to appropriate the world’s wealth. These stories contradict reality and seek to misinform about this milestone for international cooperation, which, despite the difficulty of addressing it, is a renewal of the concept of international development. The disinformation of the 2030 Agenda happens, in most cases, through social networks, and their expressions claim, for example, that this is oriented to Forcing citizens to eat insects instead of meat. Confine the world’s population to neighborhoods where they cannot leave without permission under “15-minute cities”. Feminize men to reduce the world population. Despite the absurdity of the “arguments,” they have served as a basis for those who seek to debate the value of the 2030 Agenda in Latin America. José Luis Chilavert, former goalkeeper of the Paraguayan national soccer team, became a candidate for president of his country in the 2023 elections. He obtained 0.7% of the votes but explained his decision: “I got into politics to fight against Agenda 2030. They want to destroy us.” Sandra Torres, three-time presidential candidate for the Partido Nacional de la Esperanza (UNE by its acronym in Spanish) party, said in a video in the 2023 election campaign: “I will never let them impose an international agenda on us. We Guatemalans will set Guatemala’s agenda. I believe in life, family, and religious freedom. No to Agenda 2030.” In Chile, Congressman Cristóbal Urruticoechea Ríos, with an active mandate until 2026, stated in his country’s congress that “the dehumanization of human beings and the humanization of animals, the destruction of language, the destruction of the middle classes, the liquidation of the sovereignty of nations, the attack on families, life and roots. This is part of the 2030 Agenda.” After Jair Bolsonaro’s defeat in the last Brazilian elections, his son, Eduardo Bolsonaro, became the face of the Liberal Party. His position is forceful: “The more we fight against Agenda 2030, the greater our electoral success will be.” In Costa Rica, New Republic deputy David Segura said in a speech at the chamber that the 2030 Agenda was adopted to “confuse people and, of course, to impose little by little the great modern enemy of all families, which is the nefarious gender ideology,” and then added that Agenda 2030 “opens the door to promote nothing more and nothing less than abortion, financed by international capital giants that pursue their interests, which are far from being yours, mine.” At the level of presidents we have Nayib Bukele, recently reelected to govern El Salvador, maintains a cautious position: “On the issue of Agenda 2030, I am very suspicious of this type of international agendas of the UN, the World Economic Forum, or wherever they come from and their intentions”. Although undoubtedly, the greatest exponent of conspiracy theories in the region is Javier Milei, current president of Argentina, who, during his campaign, stated, “We are not going to adhere to Agenda 2030. We do not adhere to cultural Marxism. We do not adhere to decadence” (read in Spanish), and, already in office, he explained that he was traveling to the Davos Forum with the aim of “planting the ideas of freedom in a forum that is contaminated with the socialist agenda 2030 that will only bring misery to the world”. With such positions, one of the few well-established consensuses in the region during the last 10 years is cracking. The fact that the discussion is settled will be a setback that cannot be allowed. It is up to Latin America’s leaders to armor their support for the 2030 Agenda by being clearer in their positions and more active than before in their policies to implement the SDGs. The Regional Forum on Sustainable Development must make a strong statement in that direction. When the UN Secretary-General stated that we are facing a “breakdown or breakthrough” dilemma, it seemed a rhetorical question. For Latin America, it is no longer so.

A lot of saliva and lots of ink has been spent in recent days to criticize the behavior that President Lula da Silva has sustained on the international stage. In effect, even though one of the pillars of democratic rule of law, which is still in force in Brazil only due to Lula’s return to the presidency, is freedom of expression. Much of this criticism is grounded on a mistaken (or politicized) reading of the history of the country’s foreign policy, of what Lula actually did in his first two terms in office in the early 2000s, as well as what Lula is currently pursuing on the international stage. Brazil has historically supported multilateralism, the peaceful resolution of conflicts, and the right of self-determination of all peoples. While Lula may have caused some controversy in recent statements, or even on some diplomatic initiatives, none of this contradicts Brazil’s tradition of defending universal principles while also making use of foreign policy to promote the country’s development and positioning. Even before regaining the presidential seat, Lula was praised for his defense of multilateral and cooperative ways to tackle the climate crisis at 2022’s COP-27 in Egypt. Much in the same way, as his new government took office in January 2023, Lula sought to revive the foreign policy that bore so many fruits during his first time in office. He did this by maintaining an ambitious agenda of international trips, which balanced meetings with traditional partners while expanding on projects linked to the so-called Southern agenda. His tours began in neighboring Argentina to attend the 7th Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States. This was followed by a visit to Washington, where he met Biden and jointly made a clear statement in defense of democratic values, which have been under threat in both countries in recent times. A few weeks later, Lula made a visit to China to deepen trade relations, but when there he also tried to promote a peace effort for Ukraine. This initiative did not yield results, something that more reflects the structural difficulties of today’s world rather than a misalignment of Lula’s foreign policy. Reproducing the great achievements of the so-called proud and activeforeign policy of 20 years ago, when Brazil reached an unprecedented level of relevance on the international scene, will be difficult. The world has changed, and Brazil has changed, generally in a negative sense. Liberal democracy faces a crisis as authoritarianism, and even (neo)fascism, present themselves as viable alternatives and political and ideological polarization are on the rise. It is in this rigidly fragmented and increasingly violent world where greater activism from Brazil is needed. Given its historical trajectory, economic weight, and diplomatic tradition, Brazil can serve as an interlocutor between the countries of the Western sphere, Latin America, the Russian-Asian bloc, and the so-called countries of the South. Lula’s international overtures are only likely to increase as it becomes ever more likely that Trump may return to the presidency in the US – while simultaneously the extreme right advances in Europe and xenophobic authoritarianism deepens in Russia, India, and China. During his first two terms in office, Lula did not strain relations with traditional partners, such as the USA and Europe. Rather, he sought to expand the range of connections with new countries, particularly those that shared Brazil’s history of colonialism and unfair treatment from established powers. This stance does not contradict what Brazil has sought to do since at least the beginning of the 1960s. Under very different types of political regimes, Brazil’s foreign policy has consistently sought to establish new global collaborations with an ever-larger number of nations so that Brazil’s weight within the international realm could be expanded. All of this was done without risking relations with powerful allies. Likewise, Brazil’s international actions recurrently sought to democratize, or at least expand, the spheres of international deliberation so that they could effectively become representative and legitimate multilateral spaces. Sustaining this course of foreign policy is more challenging in today’s global context. With multiple actors competing for hegemony, a country like Brazil may be able to bargain for even greater gains within the many ongoing disputes. But no success will be achieved if pundits and critics continue to be inspired by dogmatic or ideological positions, refusing to understand the rising international relevance of Brazil and Lula’s unique role in promoting dialogue and inclusion in an ever-more divided world.

Last Sunday, Chile made a U-turn in constitutional matters, that is to say, after four years of experimentation and going to the polls five times, it went back to square one. By 55.8% against 44.2%, citizens said no to the second constitutional proposal presented to them in little more than a year. In September 2022, the text of the first Convention had been rejected by 61.8%, with only 38% support. These are the six keys to understand the result: 1.- A process that started badly Last Sunday, the constituent process that began in November 2019 under the blackmail of violence came to an end. As a result of the outbreak that occurred in October of that year, the government of former President Piñera promoted a transversal agreement in Congress that began the replacement of the Constitution drafted during the Pinochet dictatorship, which had been extensively reformed in democracy. In fact, the last major reform to that text was in 2005 during the government of former President Lagos. The changes made there were so important that Lagos introduced a norm to replace Pinochet's signature and, when he promulgated the new text, he said that Chile finally had a fully democratic Constitution. Many say that if a plebiscite had been held there, the constitutional issue would probably have been settled. It was not done and, a few years later, the most extreme left began to demand a constituent assembly to draft a new Constitution made fully democratic. 2. The Constitution was never the problem, nor the solution. The first constitutional proposal was submitted to a plebiscite on September 4, 2022. The extreme left had the votes to draft a text as they wished and so they did. They put into it their refoundational political project, which destroyed liberal democracy, divided the Chilean nation, asphyxiated individual freedom, eliminated controls to political power and put an end to equality before the law. President Boric's government was its main promoter, and the text was rejected by a majority not only by the right but also by a large part of the center-left. Probably last Sunday's results can be explained by what happened there. Chileans, during the work of that convention and with the text proposed to them, understood that their problems were not constitutional as they had been led to believe for years. 3.- A hasty agreement Chile had approached the abyss and the triumph of the rejection of that first text was celebrated transversally by the democratic forces and by the citizens, who perhaps at one point agreed with a new Constitution, but not with a new country invented from scratch. A few days after that plebiscite, the opposition rushed to reach an agreement with the ruling party to initiate a second constituent process. It is true that this time limits were set to avoid the excesses of the first one, but the truth is that it was never understood that everything had to start all over again. It would have been more reasonable to redirect the constituent issue in the National Congress from where it should never have left. A Council was elected in which this time the Republican Party had a majority, the only one that left the agreement. That is to say, the people elected a majority of those who did not want to insist on the elaboration of a new proposal. Last Sunday, citizens were fed up with politicians from different parties who insisted, over and over again, that the constitutional issue was the problem. People felt, and rightly so, that they had already voted and never agreed with this second process. 4.- A plebiscite without drama Unlike last September's plebiscite in which Chile's democratic destiny was at stake, last Sunday people did not see drama or epic in what was being voted. That is to say, either a new text was approved, which for some updated and improved the current one (for the left it was a step backwards), or the same one was continued. After decades of attacks to the current Constitution, blaming it for all the injustices and claiming that they could not govern with it, the left arrived at last Sunday's plebiscite sunk in indignity. During the campaign, they went from talking about "Pinochet's Constitution" to "Ricardo Lagos' Constitution" and even declared to feel comfortable with it. 5.Government, relief rather than triumph Nobody would have imagined that this whole process would end with a leftist Government sleeping relieved because the current Constitution is still in force. The triumph of the proposed new Constitution would have meant its third consecutive electoral defeat. The first one was to the text of the Convention last year; the second one, in the election of councilors for the new process. A third one would have meant a very hard blow for a Government with scarce support and wide levels of popular rejection. On the other hand, there are no more excuses. Chile's most serious problems are not constitutional and the citizens seem tired of shouting without anyone listening to them. The Government, relieved, but with nothing to celebrate, must face a serious corruption scandal that has been installed at the doors of La Moneda; a country where nobody feels safe and authorities that lack credibility to face violence; a serious economic stagnation; an imminent crisis in the health system; and also face an education without an agenda and with thousands of children paying the costs of the bad reforms pushed and approved by those who govern today. 6.- Future of the opposition The right wing and the political forces of the center united to campaign in favor of this second constitutional proposal. Sunday's defeat does not change too much the configuration within the opposition. José Antonio Kast, former presidential candidate and leader of the Republican Party, who had the majority in this new constitutional council, obtains, in the end, the same percentage as in the last presidential second round. It is not enough for him to win, but he does not regress in popular support. And Republicans added to Chile Vamos (center-right coalition) maintain, practically, the same votes they obtained in the election of councilors. That is to say, the scenario remains open for the next presidential elections without any figure being irremediably damaged nor any particularly strengthened. President Boric, on Sunday night, wanted to take advantage of the result by forcing a wrong interpretation. He pointed out that people were asking for agreements and, therefore, he was calling the opposition to join his pension and tax reforms. The result of the plebiscite can be interpreted just the opposite, as the death of the last great political agreement, hasty, made with the people's back turned. That is to say, the Government hopes that the right wing has not learned anything from what happened; that to a bad constitutional agreement, which the people never supported, it will now add votes for a lousy tax and pension agreement. The right wing should devote itself to building a broad and coherent political project to solve the problems and not to aggravate them. Citizens seem to be fed up with ministers and parliamentarians signing agreements only because it suits them in the photo or they are uncomfortable to subtract themselves from it. Today there are many oppositions in Chile and it is essential that they have their own profile so that more citizens feel represented by them. It is necessary to add up and for that unity must be taken care of. It is not possible to disqualify them one day and the next morning try to close pacts with them. The opposition must be proportional to the damage that this Government is causing and, at the same time, it must quickly turn the page of the constitutional issue to build a recognizable political alternative. One cannot expect to win just because of how badly the left in power is doing. That is not enough. In what happened on Sunday there is also something to learn from that.

Introduction The year 2024 will present new windows of opportunity and obstacles to the acceleration of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). Below we analyze some trends in the region for 2024 in each of the three dimensions of sustainable development, to which we add consideration of governance elements to help understand a framework that does not look easy and in which critical decisions will have to be made for the future. The social dimension In 2024 we will have presidential elections in six countries in the region. Polls indicate that the incumbent party will remain in power in Mexico, where Claudia Sheinbaum could become the first woman president in its history; El Salvador will renew the mandate of Nayib Bukele despite doubts about the constitutionality of his new candidacy. In Uruguay and the Dominican Republic, where Luis Lacalle Pou and Luis Abinader will seek to renew their mandates, the high levels of approval of their administrations point to a possible reelection. At the other extreme, polls point to a possible defeat of the ruling party in Panama, where former president Ricardo Martinelli (2009-2014) leads in voting intentions despite having been convicted in 2023 for a corruption and money laundering case, a sentence that is currently under appeal. In Venezuela, the only country on the list without a date for its electoral process, the controversies surrounding the government of Nicolás Maduro and the lack of transparency in information, added to the imprisonment of opposition leaders, prevent any analysis. The escalation towards an armed confrontation with Guyana over the border region of the Essequibo, rich in oil, minerals and gas, should be closely followed. The result of a long diplomatic and legal dispute between the two countries, its last chapter had taken place in 2018, when Guyana, with the backing of the current UN Secretary General, went to the International Court of Justice to request the reaffirmation of the international arbitration that fixed the border between the two countries in 1899. Maduro's government responded by ignoring the Court's authority to hear the case. Then, in 2020, the court declared itself competent to hear the case, but has not yet rendered its final judgment. The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), almost absent from the regional political map in recent years, reappears to mediate between the two countries, the end of which is now uncertain. All these processes are framed in a high level of citizen distrust towards the political sector, accompanied by weakened democracies, as reflected in The Economist's Democracy Index 2022. On the other hand, the arrival of Javier Milei, a political outsider, to the presidency of Argentina raises questions about its future regional positioning and will have far-reaching regional effects with changes in alliances on sensitive issues, from support for regional environmental policies to the redesign of the country's insertion in international trade, with potential major impacts on the Southern Cone. All of the above, together with the low growth and economic difficulties described in the following section, pose challenges for accelerating regional trajectories of poverty reduction, the fight against labor informality and unemployment, and the implementation of public policies to promote equity and gender equality, among others. For these reasons, there will be more pressure on regional environmental resources, which could lead to new protests and social unrest. The economic dimension Implementing actions to promote sustainable development requires financial resources. LAC has long been a low-priority region for international cooperation and foreign investment is limited, so generating its own resources, in a context of global economic restrictions, is essential. The average projected growth for the region in 2024 is 1.5%, distributed by subregion as follows: the Caribbean (excluding Guyana, which is in a special situation due to its recent entry into the "club" of oil-exporting countries), 2.8%; Central America and Mexico, 2.1%; and South America, 1.2%. As a result, employment growth is expected to slow down. In an attempt to recover employment growth, the countries of the region seem to be turning to flexible monetary policies to increase exports. Countries such as Brazil, Chile and Peru, for example, reduced rates in the third quarter of 2023 and Colombia and Mexico are expected to do so at the beginning of 2024, but the slowdown in growth in countries such as the United States and China is resulting in lower demand for primary products, the main export of LAC countries, in international markets. In addition, there are deficiencies in infrastructure for the transportation of goods throughout the region, creating an obstacle to its export capacity. The possible fall in demand for basic goods is accompanied by a forecast that their prices will continue to fall in 2024, with the exception of energy commodities, which will increase pressure on the trade balances of LAC countries. In terms of minerals, the boost to the extractive industry could lead to foreign currency inflows in countries such as Argentina, Chile and Bolivia (the lithium triangle), although the uncertainty regarding the arrival of investments is due to doubts about economic and business policies in those countries and the growing public demand for the regulation of mining activity to reduce its effects on the environment. However, a boost to mineral processing activity to accompany its extraction could come from the global competition between China, the United States and the European Union, as the latter two seek to reduce China's global weight in mineral processing. Finally, it should be noted that the relocation of supply chains that followed the Covid-19 crisis will bring income to only a few LAC countries, such as Mexico and Panama. The environmental dimension Climate change is already being felt strongly in the region: the average temperature in LAC for 2021-2040 is expected to be about 1°C higher than in the period 1985-2014. At the same time, LAC is key to finding solutions to the challenges of climate change: it is home to 40% of the planet's biodiversity and more than 25% of its forests. The region also plays a central role in the sustainable production of food and energy, where more than 30% of the energy production matrix is made up of "green energies", a percentage that for some countries exceeds 90%, and an export profile that is closely linked to potentially polluting extractive activities. Although it contributes less than 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions, LAC causes damage whose cost already exceeds 2% of its combined annual GDP as a result of the worsening and greater recurrence of extreme weather and environmental catastrophes. The region is the second most vulnerable to natural disasters, which have affected approximately 190 million people since 2000. The expected climatic effects of the "El Niño" current in the region, with increases in rainfall in some sectors paired with droughts in others, will translate into differentiated opportunities and risks for different countries in the region in 2024. In perspective, Argentina and Paraguay could benefit from more rainfall that will benefit the crop, while Colombia and Central America will be exposed to droughts and the Caribbean to extreme weather effects. It will be precisely the intensity of the climatic extremes that "El Niño" reaches that will define its impact on the production of basic goods, energy generation and transportation, but in any case it could contribute to the inflationary pressures that already exist in LAC. A key issue for the region is what happens at the 28th Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Treaty on Climate Change (COP 28), where the aim is to establish a "Loss and Damage Fund" to address the costs of climate change and increase funding for climate change mitigation. However, the central concern of the region will be the adoption of a new "global goal on adaptation to climate change" to guide and finance the actions required to adapt to the changes that climate change has already produced, and to accompany the mitigation goal established in the Paris Agreement. Defining that goal and creating channels to finance its achievement is one of the most complex issues at COP 28 and it is uncertain what the outcome will be. Chile, together with Australia, have been designated as co-facilitators of this negotiation. At the same time, what happens at the COP and the discussions on climate and financial issues that will take place in 2024 should find LAC as a leader around the Bridgetown Initiative, presented by Barbados in 2022, to modify the international financial system and urgently curb climate change, combining two concerns of deep regional significance Governance of sustainable development In 2024, two countries in the region, Jamaica and the Dominican Republic, are expected to adopt new national development strategies: In the case of Jamaica, the Medium-Term Socioeconomic Policy Framework 2021-2024 is coming to an end and work is already underway to prepare the document that will give it continuity. This framework guides the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the country's main national planning instrument, Vision 2030 Jamaica, and should ensure its alignment with the SDGs. In the Dominican Republic, the National Multi-Year Public Sector Plan 2021-2024 defines the country's development policies and their financing, along with international cooperation priorities. Brazil, for its part, will once again have its commission for the implementation and monitoring of the SDGs active as of December 2023, after it was deactivated by the Jair Bolsonaro administration and replaced by the current government. In addition, the following countries in the region will submit Voluntary National Reports on SDG implementation: Argentina, Belize, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras and Peru. It is possible, however, that the position of the recently elected president of Argentina, Javier Milei, against the 2030 Agenda, will lead the country to withdraw its offer. On the other hand, in 2024 the sixth forum of Latin American and Caribbean countries will be held in the city of Santiago de Chile, a meeting that will be of special importance for the region given that it will not only serve, as it traditionally does, as a regional preparatory meeting for the follow-up and evaluation process of the 2030 Agenda that concludes at the United Nations High Level Political Forum, but will also be a key moment in the regional path towards the Summit of the Future, which will meet in New York in September 2024. It is important to keep in mind that next year will find LAC countries and officials occupying positions of high capacity to influence global debates on the future of multilateralism: -The presidency of the UN General Assembly is held by Trinidad and Tobago, and that of the Economic and Social Council is held by Chile. -Brazil will chair the G21. -Colombia will host the World Data Forum. -Uruguay's Felipe Paullier has been appointed as the first Under-Secretary-General for Youth Affairs in the history of the UN. -The government of Mexico will be working with its Spanish counterpart in preparation for the Fourth United Nations -Conference on Financing for Development, to be held in 2025. In addition, there is growing activity surrounding the appointment of the person who will succeed the current UN Secretary General. In accordance with the practice of geographical rotation in the exercise of this responsibility, a person from LAC would occupy the position. However, Eastern Europe has pointed out that, in its opinion, its turn was "skipped", given that it was the Secretary General of the organization when Guterres, from Western Europe, was appointed for his first term. Should LAC's position prevail over that of Eastern Europe, we may see the first bids for candidates for the post in 2024. The pressure to have a woman head the UN for the first time in history was scorned when the current Secretary General was chosen, but it is unlikely that the same thing will happen again. Although it is too early to advance names, the current Prime Minister of Barbados, Mia Amor Mottley, appears to be an unavoidable reference, although there are several candidates in the running.

Ecuador was until relatively recently seen as one of the safest countries in Latin America. That reputation has surely now been destroyed. On Jan. 9, 2024, images of hooded gunmen storming a TV studio were broadcast around the world. It was one of a number of violent incidents that took place that day, including prison riots, widespread hostage-taking, the kidnapping of several police officers and a series of car explosions. I have been tracking how gang crime has affected states in Latin America for 38 years. When I started, few would have projected that Ecuador would descend into the crisis it finds itself today. But the story of Ecuador reflects a wider story of how countries across Latin America have struggled with organized crime and transnational drug gangs and how they have responded. Ecuador now looks set to follow the recent path of El Salvador under President Nayib Bukele’s leadership in trying to crack the gang problem through the use of military and the suspension of democratic norms. In the aftermath of the Jan. 9 violence, Ecuadorean President Daniel Noboa named 22 gangs as terrorist organizations – a designation that makes them legitimate military targets. He has also imposed a 60-day state of emergency, during which Ecuadorians will be subject to curfews while armed forces try to restore order in the streets and the country’s gang-controlled prisons. Ecuador: Victim of geography To understand why Ecuador has become the epicenter of gang violence, you need to understand both the geography and history of Latin America’s drug trade. Ecuador, a nation of 18 million people, is situated between Colombia in the north and Peru in the east and south. Colombia and Peru are the two top producers of cocaine in the world. Further, Ecuador has a near-1,400 mile (2,237-kilometer) coastline through which drugs from the continent can be taken to markets in Europe and the United States. But it wasn’t until the U.S.-led “war on drugs” put the squeeze on cartels in other countries that Ecuador became the preserve of narco gangs. Plan Colombia In the 1980s and 1990s, Colombia was the center of the international illegal drug trade. This is hardly surprising, given that it was the top producer of coca leaves. But beginning in 2000, a joint initiative between Colombian authorities and the U.S., known as Plan Colombia, pumped billions of dollars into an effort to clamp down on the Colombian cocaine trade. While it may have been successful in supressing drug cartels in Colombia itself, it has had a balloon effect elsewhere in the region: Squeeze in one place, the bulge appears elsewhere. In this case, it was Mexico’s cartels that “bulged” first. Over the past decade, there has been a massive growth in Mexican cartels, led by the Sinaloa cartel and the Jalisco Nueva Generación, or Jalisco New Generation. In fact, a study last year found that Mexican cartels were in effect the country’s fifth-largest employer. These cartels came to dominate the illegal drug trade in Latin America, not just for cocaine, but also the trafficking of heroin and more lately fentanyl. Aligning themselves with Clan Del Golfo – a Colombian paramilitary organization formed from the remnants of the gangs dismantled under joint Colombian-U.S. operations – the cartels helped traffic drugs through Ecuador and out of South America. They were joined by European gangs, notably from Albania, who began to show up in Ecuador. The impact locally of these outside gangs has been disastrous for Ecuador. Prior immunity European and Mexican organizations ran local operatives as enforcers and transporters. And these are the people who have become the backbone of Ecuador’s gang problem today. Ecuadorian gangs such as Los Choneros developed as a de facto subsidiary of the Sinaloa and other cartels. The escape from jail of Los Choneros’ leader, Jose Adolfo Macias, on Jan. 7, 2024, set off the latest explosion of violence. But Ecuador’s descent into violence and chaos has also been aided by the very fact that for so long it was immune from the worst of the gang violence of the region. For many years, Ecuador had one of the lowest homicide rates in Latin America – an indicator of low gang activity. As a result, it hadn’t developed a robust police and military response to gangs. Ecuador, in comparison to Colombia, El Salvador and other countries, was seen as a “soft touch” to organized crime bosses. This became ever more the case in 2009 when former President Rafael Correa closed down the U.S. air base in Manta, from where American AWAC surveillance planes had been monitoring and trying to disrupt drug trafficking. Militarizing the response Explaining how Ecuador became the epicenter of drug gang violence is one thing. Trying to find a way out for the country now is another. Across Latin America, countries have employed different models to counter organized crime, with varying degrees of success. Colombia, with extensive U.S. assistance, transformed its military and police and went to war with the cartels. The strategy somewhat successfully dismantled organized crime groups in the country, even if it failed to halt drug trafficking itself or lower the high levels of violence in Colombia. Mexican authorities have tried a different approach and have been reluctant to confront the country’s drug cartels head-on. Instead, Mexico has employed a more hands-off approach, allowing drug gangs to essentially govern their states – the state of Sinaloa is run largely by the cartel that shares its name. Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has touted this “hugs not bullets” approach, but under it the power of the cartels has only grown. And then there is the Salvadoran model. For many years, El Salvador suffered from organized crime, with the Maras gang behind much of the country’s violence. Then in 2019 the electorate voted in Nayib Bukele on a law-and-order platform. Since then, he has militarized the country, adopted draconian security measures and jailed some 72,000 alleged gang members, often without due process. As a result, El Salvador is now perceived as one of the safest places in Latin America. This has been achieved at the expense of human rights, critics say. But, nonetheless, Bukele’s methods have enormous popular appeal. Path of El Salvador With an unprecedented wave of violence in Ecuador, it looks like President Noboa is looking to take his country down the same path as El Salvador. He has ordered the Ecuadorian military to “neutralize” the criminal gangs that operate in the country. Whether the approach will work is another matter; Ecuador is in a weaker position than El Salvador. Whereas many of the gangs were imported into El Salvador – many members of Maras had been deported from the U.S. – in Ecuador, they are homegrown and have become more sophisticated. Further, Noboa – despite taking office in December – has only 15 months of his presidency left before a general election takes place in May 2025. Yet, the adoption of Bukele’s methods might be seen as an election winner. Like in El Salvador, the majority of Ecuador’s citizens appear ready for an iron fist approach to counter the gangs – even at the expense of some civil liberties. If you speak to the average Ecuadorian, many would no doubt tell you that talk of human rights violations is bogus at a time when they live under the fear of being murdered simply by leaving their homes. As one man told The Associated Press in the aftermath of Jan. 9’s violence, the government needs to employ “a firmer hand, to have no mercy, no tolerance or (respect for) the human rights of criminals.”

While it is prudent to be cautious, it may also be wise to explore cooperation in those areas where there are shared interests rather than assume that the BRICS and the West are strategic rivals on all fronts.This analysis was first published in the Global Observatory, 30 August 2023.When Jim O’Neill coined the BRIC acronym in 2001, the point he was trying to convey was that the global economic system needed to incorporate the world’s largest emerging economies. His advice fell on deaf ears and in 2009, Brazil, China, India and Russia decided to take matters into their own hands and formed the BRIC grouping. South Africa joined the group in 2010 to form the BRICS. This July, the group held its 15th summit in South Africa, where they decided to add six new members: Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. More are likely to join in the future, including countries like Indonesia and Nigeria. What these countries have in common is a frustration, if not a grievance, about being side-lined to the periphery of the world economy. Together, the BRICS represent approximately 40% of the world’s population. The combined size of their economies are approaching approximately 30% of the world’s GDP, which puts them roughly on par with combined size of the economies of the G7 countries, depending on whether size is measured in GDP or PPP.  More importantly, in the next few decades, the combined size of the BRICS economies will surpass that of the G7. Despite this growing parity, all the members of the BRICS, with the exception of Russia, self-identifies as being part of the Global South, i.e., they feel excluded from a global system dominated by the Global North. Their stated aim is to work towards a future system of global governance where they will have equal political and economic say in global institutions, and where no one state will dominate others. In pursuit of this aim, BRICS countries have established their own development bank, set up their own contingency reserve arrangement, are developing their own payment system, and have started to trade with each other in their own currencies. The BRICS want to free their economies from the dollar-based international financial system. They feel exposed to United States interest rates that can have a negative effect on their economies, for no domestic reasons. The dollar-based financial system also provides the US with significant advantages in the global economy, which the BRICS see as unfair. They also feel a dollar-based financial system gives the US hegemonic influence in global affairs, through for example, exerting US jurisdiction on all dollar-based trade or investments that flow through US banks or financial institutions. While the BRICS countries have these clear shared macro-economic interests, many of the members also have competing interests in other domains. China and India are geopolitical rivals in South Asia. Egypt and Ethiopia are at loggerheads over the Nile. Brazil, India, South Africa and the newly-added Argentina are democracies, while other countries in the group are governed by a diverse set of autocratic regimes, which could set up an irreconcilable clash of values on some issues. Many of the members of the BRICS also have close ties to the United States and Europe, including Egypt, India, Saudi Arabia and South Africa. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, in a televised statement to the nation on the eve of hosting the BRICS summit in South Africa, explained that South Africa remains non-aligned, and he announced that in 2023 the country will also host a major United States-Africa trade meeting and an EU-South Africa summit. South Africa will also host the G20 in 2025, the first in Africa. For many countries, membership of the BRICS does thus not necessarily imply aligning themselves with one global alliance versus another, but rather cooperation in a group around a series of shared interests. Where does this place the BRICS on the Russian war in Ukraine? The BRICS summit in Johannesburg steered clear of taking a position on the war, other than welcoming mediation aimed at resolving it through dialogue and diplomacy. Some BRICS members like Iran are clearly supporting Russia, while most others have stopped short of either supporting or condemning Russia. For many such as Egypt, the war has adversely affected their economy. Two of the BRICS members, Egypt and South Africa, are part of an African initiative to seek a mediated end to the conflict, which is perhaps the first African initiative to mediate an international conflict. Overall, however, the BRICS have their eyes on the medium- to long-term transformation of the global macro-economic and financial system, and countries like China are probably frustrated that the Russian war in Ukraine has drawn attention away from this larger objective. Are the BRICS and the West headed for a new cold war? The shift in the center of gravity of the global economy to the East is an unstoppable fact driven by demographics and economic factors like the cost of production. At the same time, Europe and the United States will remain major economic players. In tandem with these changes in the global economy, it is clear that the global political order will become more multipolar, with China, Europe, India, and the United States representing some of the major centers of influence. In an August 27 article, Jim O’Neil argues that the influence of the BRICS will be determined by their effectiveness, not their size. An expanding BRICS will most likely succeed in helping its members to break free from a dollar-based international financial system, but that will take several decades of incremental change before it reaches a tipping point. Whether that is a good or bad thing depends on the degree to which your economy is tied to the United States. Many of the BRICS countries, including China, Egypt, India, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa all have economies whose prosperity are closely tied to the Unites States. They will thus have an interest in a slow, stable freeing up of the international financial system, and this should give everyone that is prudent time to adapt. The same logic also applies to changes in global governance architecture. Apart from Russia, all the other BRICS countries have an interest in making sure that changes in the global order are managed at a slow steady pace that does not generate instability. All the BRICS countries, apart from Russia, are also strong supporters of multilateralism, with the United Nations at its center. Many Western countries and BRICS members may thus have more shared interests than the doomsday headlines suggest. While it is prudent to be cautious, it may also be wise to explore cooperation in those areas where there are shared interests rather than assume that the BRICS and the West are strategic rivals on all fronts.

Very well, in these last words, I would like to thank all those who have participated in this meeting, those who have reflected with us, and those who have raised their concerns, worries, and proposals with a view to the future. I would just like to make one comment, which I do not want to overlook, because we have not been unaware of the issue, which is the issue of Venezuela. I would like to recall that Argentina - since I assumed the presidency - left the Lima Group because we understood that there was a clear policy of interference in Venezuela, which was not going to solve the problems that Venezuelans had. The number of exiles that Venezuela has today is mainly the result of the economic sanctions that Venezuela has suffered. Therefore, from the very first moment, we tried to be part of the Contact Group and to sit with the Venezuelan parties to dialogue so that they could find a way out towards a better democracy and a better institutional framework for Venezuela. When the United Nations - through a report by Michelle Bachelet - questioned the treatment of human rights in Venezuela, we put together that report by Michelle Bachelet and then we worked so that the High Commissioner for Human Rights could establish an office in Caracas and work towards guaranteeing full respect for human rights in Venezuela. That was done. We resumed the dialogue through a meeting we had with President Macron and President Gustavo Petro in Paris, and from there, we sat the parties down again to continue the dialogue. Afterwards, there was an extended meeting, in the city of Bogota, if I am not mistaken, where this dialogue continued advancing. What has happened now with María Corina Machado is something that we take into account and that we are raising at the dialogue table, which is where we believe it should be raised. Because the problem in Venezuela should be solved by Venezuelans through dialogue among themselves, without other countries meddling in their internal affairs. If we guarantee, as President Abdo has rightly said, that it will be respecting institutionality and human rights, we are convinced that the best way to do it, dear President and friend, is by recovering the dialogue among Venezuelans. Today, Venezuelans are suffering a very difficult situation as a result of these sanctions, which we believe only hurt the Venezuelan people. That is why, when someone reproached the idea that President Lula had put forward a few days ago about the need to have a broader and more complete view of the Venezuelan conflict, I vindicated it because I believe that what I am telling is the true story. I particularly lived and saw how the problems were being overcome, and problems like this one appear - I am not going to deny that - but it seems to me that the place to raise it is at the dialogue table. It would be very auspicious if all those who disappeared from the dialogue table joined the Venezuelan dialogue table: Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, and us. If we genuinely want to help the Venezuelans, let us sit at that table so that they may return to dialogue and once again have the necessary guarantees to recover the fullness of their rights and the fullness of their institutional quality. I say this because I did these things as President of Argentina, not as President Pro Tempore of MERCOSUR. These are things that we should do as Presidents of our respective countries: to guarantee the independence and autonomy of each country and to call for dialogue when democracy or dialogue breaks down in those countries. For me, it is not an issue that went unnoticed; at that table, I raised the problem, dear Marito. At this point, for Argentina and for me personally, it is an immense honor to hand over the Pro Tempore Presidency of MERCOSUR to the sister Federative Republic of Brazil. On this occasion, I would like to emphasize that I am handing over the MERCOSUR Hammer symbol to a great President, to a dear friend, a friend dear to all Argentine men and women, Luis Ignacio Lula Da Silva. I understand, my dear friend, that in your hands lies the responsibility of leading this period of MERCOSUR with the conviction and political lucidity that I have always recognized and that has always characterized you. I want you to know, dear friend, that your challenges are our challenges, your decisions are our decisions, and I will support you with courage in the leadership of MERCOSUR during this next semester of 2023. This is your hammer.