Listen to the article

While the US has promised its traditional “unwavering” support for Israel since the Hamas attack on October 7, several Latin American countries have undertaken diplomatic and political actions that diverge from Washington’s stance. Let’s break this down.

The Gaza war that has been raging since October 7 between Israel and Hamas has had diplomatic and geopolitical consequences that reach far beyond the Middle East, even extending to Latin American countries, which were previously considered Washington’s backyard in terms of foreign policy. The Gaza conflict has introduced new dynamics in this regard. Last Friday, Honduras became the third Latin American country, after Colombia and Chile, to recall its ambassador from Israel (while maintaining diplomatic relations). Bolivia, on the other hand, went a step further, severing all ties with the Israeli state on October 31.

Latin American reactions to the current Israeli-imposed siege on Gaza go beyond the historical weight that had traditionally guided Latin American countries’ diplomacy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Latin American diplomacy regarding the Middle East conflict has traditionally divided the involved countries into three blocs, with shifts in alignment due to changes in political regimes, especially during the Cold War. Most Latin American countries, except for Panama, now maintain direct diplomatic relations with the State of Palestine.

The first bloc comprises right-wing regimes that align with the US. Today, this bloc includes countries such as Guatemala, Paraguay, Panama, El Salvador and Colombia, although the latter two have shifted their positions since 2022.

The second group consists of countries critical of “American imperialism.” Led by the “Bolivarian” axis, this group includes Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua.

The third and final group consists of non-aligned nations, generally favoring solutions based on international humanitarian law and the Oslo Accords. Mexico, guided by its Estrada Doctrine of non-intervention beyond the framework of international legality, belongs to this category.

However, the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas and the Gaza blockade have disrupted this traditional division. This prompts an examination of how Latin America, once seen as the “backyard” of the US, now voices a more nuanced and independent diplomatic stance that goes beyond simply supporting or opposing Washington’s foreign policy.

The Pink Wave

Several factors explain why Latin American nations are increasingly expressing independent and sometimes contradictory positions regarding American diplomacy. In 2022, a “pink wave” swept across the continent as Chile, Colombia and Honduras transitioned from right-wing governments to the election of left-leaning presidents: Gabriel Boric, Gustavo Petro and Xiomara Castro, respectively. While these governments abstain from adopting an “anti-imperialist” stance like Venezuela or Nicaragua toward the US, they challenge American hegemony and its unwavering support for Israel, as they emphasize the importance of international law and the legitimacy of nations’ self-determination.

At inter-American summits, certain Latin American countries use more assertive rhetoric, whether in the presence of the US or not, and even employ tactics such as the empty chair strategy in their relations with Washington. For example, Chilean President Gabriel Boric condemned Israel’s ongoing bombings in Gaza during a bilateral meeting with his American counterpart, Joe Biden, declaring it “unacceptable.”

Justifying ‘Mano Dura’

The second phenomenon is the emergence of ultra-liberal and nationalist-conservative governments that were previously staunch supporters of American policy in the region but have now distanced themselves from Washington. El Salvador, led by President Nayib Bukele, exemplifies this trend. Bukele, descended from a Palestinian immigrant before the British Mandate, leads a country with the second-largest Palestinian community in Latin America, after Chile. While he was previously aligned with the United States during the Trump era, Bukele now adopts unconventional political positions that do not necessarily align with American foreign policy.

Regarding the current Israel-Hamas conflict, President Bukele used Twitter to describe Hamas as “wild beasts” who “do not represent the Palestinians.” However, he refrains from displaying unconditional support for Israel or American foreign policy. Instead, he draws comparisons with domestic issues, citing the eradication of gangs in El Salvador, particularly the MS-13, which formerly terrorized Central American communities. Bukele’s perspective suggests that supporting the “right people” and isolating the “wrong people” is the key to progress, comparing the Hamas issue to El Salvador’s fight against violent gangs.

The war against gangs led by President Bukele in 2022 faced criticism from the international community, including the Biden-Harris administration, for human rights violations. The extensive military operation, in which the army and security forces occupied territories and neighborhoods once dominated by gangs, effectively pacified the country and significantly reduced violence. This comparison between Hamas and the gangs (referred to as terrorists by the Salvadoran government) is, therefore, a validation of Bukele’s “Mano Dura” policy.

However, this position does not signify explicit support for Israel or American foreign policy. Bukele’s reputation, marked by strong relations with the Trump administration, contrasts with his less friendly stance towards the Biden government. He also seeks to distance El Salvador from the US by introducing Bitcoin as the national currency and strengthening ties with China. Bukele’s stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict primarily reflects his intention to set El Salvador apart from the US while justifying his domestic policies.

Anchor Beyond the ‘Backyard’

Latin America’s response to the Gaza conflict and the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be viewed through three key factors: the resurgence of leftist governments in the region, the decline of US influence in favor of China, among other actors, and the increasing determination of Latin American nations to assert a diplomatic voice that goes beyond American hegemony.

The Israel-Hamas conflict has triggered unprecedented diplomatic responses in Latin America. It demonstrates that the region once perceived as a passive “backyard” under American influence now expresses a more autonomous, diversified and independent diplomatic position that challenges the historical dominance of Western voices, reflecting a phenomenon already observed in Africa.