This post is also available in: Português Español

In his recent testimony before Congress, Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota was justified in claiming that the Paraguayan legislature had violated a basic norm of democracy when it rushed the impeachment of President Fernando Lugo and denied him adequate opportunity to defend himself. Although the country’s constitution allows for the removal of a president for “poor performance,” it does not give the legislature authority to disregard the president’s fundamental right to due process—that is the right to be judged in a legal proceeding that is conducted fairly and respectfully. In accord with the Mercosul’s democratic clause, Brazil and other members of the trade group–Argentina and Uruguay–had every right to challenge Paraguay’s action.

Curiously, however, Brazil showed no hesitation in joining with its Mercosul partners to perpetrate the same transgression. The three countries quickly invoked the democratic clause and suspended Paraguay from the trade group. There was no investigation of events surrounding the Lugo impeachment or careful consideration of whether suspension was the fitting response. There was no consideration of other measures to try to resolve Paraguay’s imbroglio. Moreover, Brazil and the other Mercosul nations provided no opportunity for the Paraguay authorities to defend their actions, claim mitigating circumstances, or appeal the decision. Paraguay was barred even from sending a representative to the meeting where its suspension was decided. The Mercosul group, in short, committed the same violation that they accused the Paraguay legislature of—a rush to judgment without due process.

Perhaps more shameful still, the three remaining Mercosul partners took immediate advantage of Paraguay’s temporary suspension to approve Venezuela’s entry into the trade pact. That decision—which overrode the long-standing opposition of the Paraguayan Senate—was taken within a few days with virtually no attention to whether it was legal or not. Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay simply ignored the question (which remains unresolved) of whether the Mercosul charter gave them the authority, in Paraguay’s temporary absence, to grant membership to Venezuela. The Mercosul partners also failed to consider whether Venezuela met the Mercosul’s democratic conditions. Sure, Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chavez, was democratically elected, but year by year, the country’s democratic credentials have become increasingly tarnished by recurrent violations of human rights, freedom of press and assembly, judicial independence, and fair elections. Patriota’s congressional testimony justifies Venezuela’s Mercosul membership on economic grounds—which are, of course, irrelevant to its legality. And Chavez’s feckless economic management would be reason enough to bar him from Mercosul.

It was not only Brazil and its Mercosul partners who acted precipitously with little regard for legal norms or economic prudence. The Union of South American nations (UNASUL), without a single dissenting vote, also swiftly suspended Paraguay. UNASUL did conduct a cursory investigation, but only after the suspension was approved. More remarkable perhaps, no South American country was willing even to participate in the fact-finding mission to Paraguay sponsored by the Organization of American States. Indeed, it was the OAS that proceeded most responsibly, even if somewhat slowly, in the Paraguayan affair – by investigating what happened and producing a highly professional report that focused less on assigning blame than on the tasks of ending Paraguay’s political crisis, avoiding any new conflicts, and helping to assure the fairness of the next presidential elections this coming April. It recommended against any sanctions on Paraguay.

The United States remained on the sidelines during the most critical period of the Paraguayan crisis. Perhaps Washington was right to maintain its silence until the OAS completed its mission to Paraguay and presented its report and recommendations. It was certainly better than quickly jumping to support the new Paraguayan government as the conservative governments of Canada, Great Britain, and Spain did, or immediately condemning the Paraguayan legislature as most Latin American countries did. But the US surely could have done more to persuade other countries also to hold their fire until the evidence was in—to make the case for granting a measure of due process to the Paraguayan government. But maybe no one would have listened anyway given the US’s diminished influence in South America these days.

From a distance, Brazil’s reaction to the events in Paraguay seemed unusually passive. Events appeared largely to be driven by Argentina and Venezuela. It is puzzling why Latin America’s most important regional power failed to take more initiative and pursue an approach that was more clearly consistent with the democratic practices that Brazil asserted it was seeking to uphold. Still, to Brazil’s credit, Patriota is, as far as I know, the only foreign minister that has had to justify his government’s actions in Paraguay to a congressional committee.