What did the 77th General Assembly of the United Nations mean for the new left-wing leaders of the Americas?
This year, the theme of the UN’s 77th General Assembly was “A watershed moment: transformative solutions to interlocking challenges” as global leaders focused upon crises such as COVID-19, climate change, and the war in Ukraine. Discussions were concentrated upon these challenges and the need to build solutions based upon sustainability and resilience. However, what were the important issues for the countries of the Americas?
During the past year, we have seen a new wave of left-wing leaders throughout the Americas most notably Gustavo Petro in Colombia, Xiomara Castro in Honduras, Gabriel Boric in Chile, and Pedro Castillo in Peru. Many of these leaders have been very critical of the West – its contribution to climate change, its treatment of the Americas, and its role in the war on drugs. These criticisms were strongly seen during the 77th General Assembly. In this spotlight we will analyse the speeches of the named presidents whilst focusing on Gustavo Petro’s speech.
Gustavo Petro: an impactful or a controversial address at the General Assembly?
One of the most impactful or controversial speeches of the General Assembly was that of Gustavo Petro. Gustavo Petro is the first ever left-wing President Colombia has seen. He won the elections on a manifesto based upon decreasing the country’s level of inequalities, protecting the environment, and creating economic prosperity. What exactly did he say at the General Assembly and why was his speech somewhat questionable?
Petro’s speech was very different to those previously seen by Colombian leaders as it was very critical of the West. Firstly, he criticised the West’s economic activities for polluting the world with its use of oil and coal. Furthermore, he indirectly criticised the US for mistaking the coca plant as the drug cocaine and for destroying the plant which has contributed to the destruction of the Amazons. It is important to note that the coca plant has been cultivated for centuries by indigenous groups such as the Incas and that it is not a drug. It can be turned into cocaine when combined with other chemicals. In connection to this, Petro discussed the (US’) failed war on drugs in Colombia and the misery that this brought to the country – he also criticised the US for being unable to control drug consumption of its citizens. Despite the fact that Petro only mentions the US once throughout his speech, it is very much apparent that he is heavily referring to the US and the West.
One of the most thought-provoking questions that Petro asked was “what is more poisonous for humanity: cocaine, coal or oil?” highlighting the fact that the West is more than ready to fight in a war on drugs, but in a war to save humanity from climate change. Petro argued that more people will die from climate change in the future than from drug consumption.
In addition to this, Petro also referred to the Colombian conflict and the importance of harnessing peace throughout the country and the world. He called on global leaders to work together to bring global peace, a point made with strong references to the ongoing war in Ukraine. By discussing the importance of peace in Colombia, the president highlighted the need to ensure three types of justices to create a harmonious society: social, economic, and environmental. These types of justices were also very present throughout Petro’s presidential campaign.
What does Petro’s speech mean for Colombia’s relation with the US? From Petro’s speech we gather that he is very critical of the US’ previous interventions within Colombia in the name of the war against drugs. Not only this, Petro criticised the US and western countries for not dealing with the world’s biggest crisis, climate change. To some extent, he called the US a hypocrite for not taking stronger measures in the fight against climate change and highlighting the fact that many people will die because of climate change in the coming years.
From his speech, we understand that Petro will not overtly seek a very close relationship with the US as previous Colombian presidents have done. Petro intends to deal with Colombia’s challenges internally but is ready to work with the international community to tackle pressing issues such as climate change and the need for global peace.
How does Petro’s speech compare to those of other left-wing Latin American leaders?
Xiomara Castro, Honduras
Listening to the speech given by Xiomara Castro, Honduras’ first ever female president, we see many similarities with Petro’s speech. During her speech, Castro condemned the world’s industrialised nations for causing great environmental degradation and as a result, for making the world’s less developed countries pay for this. In addition to this, she criticised the global order for classifying countries as civilised and uncivilised whilst the civilised countries are those who are “making invasions, wars, financial speculations and crucifying us with their inflation over and over again time.”
Similarly, to Petro, Castro highlights the importance for the need of peace in Honduras and calls upon the global community to respect Honduras and to not interfere in the domestic issues of the country. Castro states that Honduras will never be recognised as a “banana republic” in the future and specifically criticised the US for having interfered with Honduras’ economy and government.
Furthermore, Honduras’ president discussed the need to bring peace to the country which has been heavily affected by violence and poverty. She also highlighted a need to reunite its people and to stop caravans of migrants leaving the country. Many Honduran citizens left the country due to high levels of violence under the government of the National Party which Castro defined as a dictatorship. Furthermore, she highlighted her policy goals as president which include access to quality education; creation of an alternative economic model; respect for human rights; the need for peace; and the de-privatisation of public services.
Gabriel Boric, Chile
Gabriel Boric is one of the youngest presidents that Chile has ever seen and came to power on a left-wing manifesto bringing an end to Sebastián Piñera’s eight years in power. Boric’s speech is somewhat different to that of Castro and Petro as he doesn’t directly criticise the US and the West.
Boric opens his speech describing the geographical location of Chile, the strength of Chile, before moving on to discuss the country’s challenges. He gives Chile’s support to Ukraine before mentioning the economic effects that the war is having on Chile in terms of the increase in the cost of fuel. Furthermore, Boric discussed other regional issues such as the humanitarian crisis from Venezuela that’s expanded into a regional political crisis and the challenges related to climate change. In doing so, he criticises the fact that Chile is suffering from climate change even though the country only contributes to 0.24% of global greenhouse gases.
In his speech, Boric calls upon the global community to respect and to strengthen democratic practices and to work for global peace. He uses Chile as an example and highlights how Chile has gone from a dictatorship using violence against its people to being a functioning democracy that respects the voice of its citizens as seen in the recent vote. He calls upon the world to fight for justice and peace and to condemn the use of violence. Boric condemns the “unjust” war in Russia, the human rights violations in Nicaragua, and the violations committed by Israel against the Palestinian people.
What is interesting to note in Boric’s speech is that he is different to other left-wing leaders seen in the Americas because he will criticise regimes that violate human rights regardless of whether the regime is left-wing. Usually in the Americas, countries build alliances on political ideologies such as left or right and will pass a blind eye to the regime’s negative activities.
Pedro Castillo, Peru
Castillo was born into a peasant family and was a primary school teacher before taking presidential office in July 2021. The Peruvian leader opened his address at the UN’s 77th General Assembly by highlighting the challenges that face the world today: the deterioration of peace, an environmental crisis, and an international economic crisis. Similarly, to the other leaders, Castillo criticises Russia’s aggression in Ukraine by stating that Peru “defends the principle of no aggression and the respect for the territorial integrity of states” which is part of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. In doing so, he also condemns the “persistent occupation” of Palestinian territories by the Israelis which is a direct criticism of the US and the West.
Not only does Castillo condemn the West in connection to Israel and Palestine he also denounces all types of interventions and argues that there is no good or bad intervention. He is critical of the West’s “illegal” interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. In discussing the war in Ukraine, Castillo calls upon the world community to work together to bring a ceasefire and peace to Ukraine. He also criticises some of the sanctions put upon Russia such as that upon Russian exports of fertilisers which farmers in the developing world use for crop cultivation. Castillo states that the inability to do so will lead to food insecurity in the Americas and the world. Furthermore, Castillo supports Saudi Arabia’s right to self-determination, whilst also stating that Peru recognises that the Falklands Islands are the sovereignty of Argentina and not of the UK – a very controversial discourse for the West.
A key theme throughout Castillo’s speech is the need to create peace. Globally, he calls for the end of the conflicts in Ukraine and in Palestine. On the regional scale, Castillo insists on the strengthening of the Latin American and Caribbean Network for Cooperation in Peace making Operations which was established following the Lima conference at the beginning of September.
Conclusion
We may conclude that the 77th General Assembly of the United Nations was a platform for the new left-wing leaders of Latin America to highlight the challenges that their individual countries were facing and to set up their foreign policy intentions as this was the first time for all of them to address an UN General Assembly.
It is arguable that Gustavo Petro’s speech was one of the most impactful and controversial speeches of the four leaders as it was the first time a leftist Colombian leader had addressed the UN General Assembly. In addition to this, Petro was extremely critical of the US and of the West, something that is not typically seen by a Colombian leader. Throughout his speech he criticised the West’s war on drugs in Colombia, its lack of action on climate change, and the need for global peace. He highlighted that the biggest risk for humanity in the coming years is climate change and that more measures should be taken to tackle it but by ensuring social, economic, and environmental justice. Petro’s speech suggests that Colombia’s main foreign policy objectives include tackling climate change and fighting for global peace. It also highlights the fact that Colombia will be less dependent upon the US and that it will resolve its domestic problems internally.
Castro’s speech was also very critical of the West regarding climate change and the war in Ukraine. She used her speech as a political platform to condemn the previous government and to call for the need to bring peace and prosperity to the country whilst leaving the violent past behind. In terms of her foreign policy goals, we may argue that the speech intended to highlight the fact that Honduras is an independent country and will no longer be a “banana republic” – stating that she will not allow the US to meddle with Honduras’ internal politics.
Looking at Gabriel Boric’s speech, it is somewhat different to that of the other leaders as his criticism of the US isn’t seen as strongly. He highlights that Chile’s regional goals include working on Venezuela’s humanitarian crisis whilst his foreign policy objectives include tackling climate change and promoting democratic practices. What is interesting to note in Boric’s speech is that Chile will condemn all sorts of human rights violations – whether committed by left or right winged governments – such as the war in Ukraine, the violations in Nicaragua, or the violations committed by the Israelis against Palestine.
We can argue that Castillo’s speech is the most critical of the West as he openly condemns the war in Ukraine, Afghanistan, and Iraq whilst also stating that he recognises the Falkland Islands as belonging to the UK. His speech suggests that Peru’s foreign policy is focused upon tackling climate change whilst bringing global peace by focusing on the need to ensure global food security. In this sense he criticises the sanctions put upon Russian exports and the effects that this is having on food production in Peru.
To conclude, all the four leaders have foreign policy objectives that include tackling climate change and maintaining global peace. It is interesting to note that all four leaders are critical of the US and the West. Petro and Castro are critical of the US’ interventions in the Americas whilst Castillo is critical of the West’s global interventions. Boric is less critical of the West in comparison to the others but condemns the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelian state. We may argue that all leaders condemn the war in Ukraine, however, Castillo is also critical of the sanctions imposed upon Russian exports and the effects this has on Peru. Looking towards the future it will be interesting to see how regionalism will develop in the Americas with the new left-wing leaders and what impact will this have on the region’s relation with the US.