Brazil & Southern Cone - November 2012 (ISSN 1741-4431)

In recent weeks Paraguay’s government and it’s often contrarian congress have taken decisive steps in their efforts to secure the removal of the country’s temporary political suspensions from the Union of South American Nations (Unasur) and the Southern Common Market (Mercosur), imposed in the wake of the impeachment of former president Fernando Lugo (2008-2012). The measures, seen as a valiant attempt to defend the country’s sovereignty, are popular at home. But in the short term they will only complicate further Paraguay’s frayed relations with its powerful neighbours, potentially delaying its re-integration into the regional forums.

Since it came to power on 22 June the government led by President Federico Franco has consistently argued that the political measures against Paraguay were “arbitrary” , rejecting the Unasur and Mercosur argument that Lugo’s constitutionally permitted impeachment represented a “break in the democratic order” meriting a sanction for the country [RBS-12-07]. The Franco government also maintains, moreover, that it has never been allowed to present its case to its neighbours, all of which rushed to judgement, immediately refusing to recognise the new administration and breaking off diplomatic relations with the country.

This situation complicates the work of Franco’s foreign minister, José Félix Fernández Estigarribia, whose main task is to repair relations between Paraguay and its immediate neighbours; and fully restore the country’s standing internationally. But in the absence of any official contact with regional neighbours, Estigarribia’s job looks difficult.

In contrast, his efforts elsewhere, notably at the Organization of American States (OAS), where he was allowed to present Paraguay’s position and the current (peaceful) internal situation, have produced some important results.

The OAS, the main hemispheric body, is divided over Paraguay, with the US, Canada, Mexico and some Central American countries like Panama in disagreement with the view and actions adopted by the Southern Hemisphere members of Unasur and Mercosur. In the absence of a consensus within the OAS to suspend Paraguay, the OAS instead opted to actively engage with the Franco administration, in an effort to help it overcome the political crisis and restore credibility in Paraguay’s democracy ahead of the April 2013 general elections.

This was a boon for the Franco administration, which said that it was completely open to working with the OAS and other organisations so as to improve and strengthen democracy.

Mixed signals

Neither Unasur nor Mercosur followed the OAS lead. Instead they stubbornly reiterated that they would only consider re-engaging with Paraguay after the 2013 election process. This incensed the Franco government. It accused Unasur and Mercosur of being politically biased against Paraguay and of adopting an unreasonable stance. It also threatened to take a case to an international court and said Paraguay would seek to have its regional rights restored, along with some form of compensation from its neighbours. The Paraguayan government is particularly aggrieved at the fact that Mercosur has taken advantage of Paraguay’s suspension to usher in Venezuela as full member of the bloc – against Paraguay’s wishes.

On 7 October Antonio Patriota, the foreign minister of Brazil (the leading player in both Unasur and Mercosur), said that Paraguay’s political suspensions could be lifted before the April elections as long as regional bodies could “verify that democracy was fully functioning in the country”. Patriota said that there was no “legal constraint” preventing Paraguay from rejoining the regional groups and that it all just depended upon a decision by the other members to allow it back into the fold. He added he would like this to take place “as soon as possible”, but admitted that it was “improbable” given that none of Paraguay’s regional neighbours were currently minded to lift the suspensions.

If Patriota’s comments were meant as some form of overture to the Paraguayan government to approach its neighbours, it did not have the desired effect. Instead it was taken as a sign in Paraguay that Brazil knew only too well that Paraguay’s legal case was solid. One influential Paraguayan senator, Miguel Angel Saguier, said that Patriota’s comments were indicative of the “irresponsible manner in which other countries sanctioned us” adding that Paraguay’s neighbours were fully aware that the internal political situation remained stable.

According to Saguier, the entire episode just showed how “dangerous” it is to allow other countries the ability to impose sanctions on the “excuse of defending democracy”. This was a clear allusion to new protocols on the commitment to democracy recently adopted by Unasur and Mercosur, which call for the imposition of sanctions on offending members and that were invoked to justify Paraguay’s suspensions. The protocols were signed by Lugo in 2010 and 2011. However, they were never ratified by Paraguay’s senate, which expressed concerns that the imposition of sanctions could curtail national sovereignty.

Taking action

Following Patriota’s comments, Paraguay’s congress called on Franco to submit the protocols to the senate with a view to rejecting them, thereby setting in stone Paraguay’s official position on the matter. Franco obliged and the senate voted against ratification of the Unasur protocol on 10 October, arguing that the proposed sanctions, which include the closure of borders and the suspension of certain services, were “too severe” and would “seriously affect a landlocked country such as Paraguay”. Two weeks later the senate also voted against the ratification of Mercosur’s corresponding Ushuaia II protocol. So officially, Paraguay now does not recognise the two treaties used to suspend it. This point may become crucial in the eventuality that the country decides to take its case to international arbitration.

As congress took these steps, the Franco government was making its own moves. Taking advantage of the OAS offer, it welcomed the OAS proposal to send observer missions to Paraguay to monitor the run-up to and the electoral process.

The first of these arrived in Asunción on 23 October. After meetings with Fernández Estigarribia and other political actors from across the spectrum, the head of the mission, Chile’s John Biehl Del Río, stated that Unasur and Mercosur “need to reintegrate Paraguay as soon as possible” and suggested that Unasur, the political body, should send its own observer mission to Paraguay to verify the situation inside the country (see sidebar).

However, Fernández Estigarribia countered that the Franco government would only invite Unasur to send an observer mission to the country if the regional body made “positive gestures” towards the government. “We cannot accept countries that judge and condemn us without having all the relevant details, without even listening to us to come and judge us”, he stated. This was echoed by Franco, who said that Unasur did not have an “impartial stance” on the situation in Paraguay (see sidebar).

At the same time, Fernández Estigarribia also revealed that he had been in contact with some Unasur representatives (not from Mercosur) to discuss ways for Paraguay to rejoin the group. The local press speculated that Paraguay had established contacts with some of the right-leaning governments in Unasur, such as Chile and Colombia. On 6 November Fernández Estigarribia announced that Colombia had taken a unilateral decision to return its ambassador to Asunción.

• Franco’s conspiracy accusations

According to President Franco, Paraguay was unjustly suspended from Unasur, because Unasur is dominated by leftist governments allied to Lugo. He suggests that Unasur is behind Lugo’s (constitutionally illegal) attempts to seek re-election in 2013 as part of a “conspiracy to delegitimise” the elections and indefinitely isolate Paraguay in the eventuality that a politician not of their liking be elected as the next president.

• Biehl Del Río

“There is no doubt at all that many of the solutions taken with Paraguay were in accordance with other interests of the countries that make up the regional blocs [Mercosur and Unasur]…They had nothing to do with what actually happened here [the impeachment of Lugo].” - John Biehl Del Río, OAS.