POLITESSE AND VIOLENCE
Condemnation of Noboa’s raid belies a deeper regional ailment
An ongoing feud between Mexico and Ecuador moved beyond words last week when Ecuadorian police stormed the Mexican embassy in Quito to arrest former Vice President Jorge Glas on corruption charges. The raid, which positioned President Daniel Noboa favorably ahead of a critical security referendum, triggered a rash of official statements and articles.
Most responses were predictable; the United States, the Organization of American States, and most European countries condemned Ecuador. Others were more interesting. Mexico took the exceptional step of asking the UN to expel Ecuador entirely. Meanwhile, Iran stressed the “necessity of respecting the immunity, ensuring the security and safety of diplomatic and consular sites and missions.”
For all the noise and spectacle, discussion has generally centered on the damage created by Noboa’s flagrant and violation of international law. However, its not clear than what transpired did more than scratch the thin veneer of norms and rules that enable systemic challenges to persist without provoking similar international attention.
What’s underneath:
Much has been written about Latin America’s rapidly and loudly regressing diplomatic climate. Less has been said about how it pertains to the quieter rot at the heart of the region’s institutions. As Kevin wrote last week, corruption is a deeply engrained cancer that transcends ideologies and borders and has nurtured an undercurrent of social nihilism that subordinates good governance to personal interests. Ironically, Mexico under AMLO is among the best examples of this phenomenon – a vocal and belligerent mode of politics that originates and thrives in systemic problems left unaddressed.
Fixation on Ecuador’s breach of diplomatic precedent assumes that preserving international rules and precedents is critical to mitigating current challenges to security and democracy. This is evidently true to the extent that cross-border issues demand international cooperation. However, if it doesn’t go beyond pretense, adherence to protocol can very quickly become an excuse for violence and corruption. The current governments of Colombia and Mexico exemplify this. Their criticisms of Ecuador amid their own corruption problems and willingness to defend far worse but purportedly more “correct” conduct by allies serves no one but themselves.
Our take:
Critics are right that Noboa’s actions are likely to exacerbate pressing policy issues like migration by undermining sorely needed cooperation. But it would be a mistake to interpret last week’s events as anything but the metastasis of disease in which other Latin American leaders are complicit. The ensuing cacophony is both the result of, and a distraction from, deeper issues at hand.
The real lesson here is that a new cohort of regional leaders are succumbing to the familiar delight of breaking the rules for personal ends, but deviating from predecessors by eschewing politesse for a brash style that plays well with disaffected voters.
Bukele in El Salvador, Milei in Argentina, and now Noboa have adopted different versions of this same style, although common rhetorical tendencies shouldn’t be mistaken for shared priorities or policy concerns. However, their recent political successes suggest that voters are embracing a reality that some observers are reluctant to admit: skin-deep commitments to norms and principles out of political expediency can, in the long-term, be just as damaging to institutions as unabashed transgressions.