This article compares the differences between the approaches taken by Caribbean and Latin American states in their neutrality – or lack thereof – towards US and EU sanctions against Russia on all fronts. Alexandr Schetinin, Director of the Latin American Department of the Russian Foreign Ministry recently stressed the importance that no Latin American country joined the unilateral economic actions imposed by the United States and its allies on Russia, stating that “along with many Latin American countries we find ways and opportunities to continue cooperation and establish mechanisms to promote ties that correspond to mutual interests”. Schetinin noted that Russia sees Latin America as a friendly zone, but is this feeling reciprocated?

There are complex reasons why countries in the region may want to abstain or even vote against Russia in an international body such as the UN, and then not participate in imposing economic sanctions against the Eurasian giant. There is great resistance and caution in sanctioning Russia economically or financially by Caribbean and Latin American states, including states that have been US proxies. So while some states are openly in favor of Russia achieving its stated goals in Ukraine, other countries in the region avoid the issue altogether by seeking to ignore Russia’s special operation in Ukraine, while others celebrate friendship with Ukraine in the media, being seen as an ally of Ukraine, but remain technically neutral by not sanctioning Russia or sending arms or troops to the conflict.

Although in most Latin American countries the official line is to show some tinge of neutrality towards the conflict in Ukraine, it is mainly the ideological proxies of the United States within each particular state in the region where through certain circles of NGOs, academia and journalists the NATO hard line is incessantly repeated trying to influence public opinion against Russia in each respective state. This propaganda push has been carried out by members of this class of proxy agents who in many cases have no official power in government but synchronize their exploits with political pressure and anti-Russian propaganda coming from NATO countries themselves.

The positions of Latin American states on the Russian special operation in Ukraine can be tracked within their own perceived neutrality by observing their adherence to these categorized behaviors. First of all, it is especially important to point out how useless or inaccurate the left-right divide is in predicting adherence, or lack thereof, to US-led NATO anti-Russian crusades. It is not quite correct to formulate that all left-wing governments openly support Russia while all right-wing governments in the region support NATO-led Ukraine.

Latin American Neutralities

From a geopolitical point of view, the Latin American region, especially and to a lesser extent the Caribbean region, has once again shown itself to be cautious in automatically complying with US and EU mandates, assuming a strategic neutrality which, although unequal from country to country, could be understood as a common stance.

Due to the global transition towards multipolarity, Latin American governments face a changing geopolitical and geoeconomic scenario, accelerated by the decline of relations between the West and Russia. It is remarkable how most of these American states have tried to avoid taking sides as much as possible, resisting pressure from the US and European countries. A growing number of Latin American governments, regardless of their ideological convictions, have built ties with China and Russia in order to foster mutually enriching bilateral relations. This is a means to increase their autonomy and improve their bargaining power with the United States. Latin America knows that assuming full sovereignty means not being a pawn or proxy of a third state at such a level that it hinders healthy financial fiscal competition and state mechanisms for awarding contracts.

A key element in the justification of this strategy of neutrality is due to economic common sense, due to the rise in the price of raw materials, including hydrocarbons, and the inflationary rebound created by exaggerated policies of quantitative easing by Western governments and triggered by the new global Cold War for control and access to energy and core resources for production. Latin America and the Caribbean in large part, of course, wants to protect its commercial ties with every client, be it the West, China or Russia, which explains why several Latin American governments have ignored the sanctions of the West led by the US against Russia. Sanctions that if joined de facto would bring them into the fray as participants in a policy of hybrid warfare at all levels. This is the beginning of the bifurcation of behaviors of Latin American and Caribbean countries, while some choose to ignore as much as possible, others outline a total rejection of war and violence, with certain fluctuations in tone and content.

The main weapon of infowar used by the ideological proxies within each state in the region is to hide the facts about the economic and financial repercussions of the US and EU sanctions on Russia and about Ukraine laying naval mines in its own ports blocking the shipment of grain, not an action taken by the Russian federation. It is mainly by blaming Russia for actions taken by the US and EU that these ideological proxies try to pave the way in their respective states. Some commentators and journalists accuse Latin America of supposedly not possessing a single voice by not voting and abiding by all US and EU designs to the letter. These proxy journalists claim that the Latin American region limits its ability to influence and carry international weight, but in reality the opposite is true. In these divergent Latin American neutralities lies the way forward for the region, a growing power which stems only from grasping the multipolar potential and the wisdom of neutrality.

The Organization of American States (OAS) approved on February 25 a declaration “strongly condemning the illegal, unjustified and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation” and demanded “the immediate withdrawal of the military presence”. Bolivia, Argentina, Nicaragua and Brazil did not support the statement condemning the Russian special operation in Ukraine, which ended up being endorsed by 21 countries. The statement was backed by Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, United States and *Venezuela (represented by a delegate of opposition leader Juan Guaidó following the bloc’s exit from the government of Nicolás Maduro in 2019). Argentina pointed out the lack of relevance of the OAS to bring to the forum issues about a conflict outside the continental boundaries. A month later, on March 25, the OAS approved another resolution calling for the cessation of “acts that may constitute war crimes” in Ukraine, 28 of 34 countries voted in favor, none against and four abstained, Bolivia, El Salvador, Honduras and St. Vincent-Grenadines. Nicaragua was absent because its ambassador Arturo McFields was recalled.

Divergent Latin American neutrality played out at the emergency special session of the General Assembly on Ukraine convened by the Security Council. No Latin American country voted against as such, however, there were four abstentions by Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Bolivia, Venezuela did not participate in the vote, with 14 votes in favour and 4 abstentions. In the vote on March 24, the voting was the same as in the previous session. In favor: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay. Likewise, the four abstentions again were from the three allies of the Russian Federation: Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua and El Salvador. Although most Latin American governments voted in favor of the UN General Assembly resolutions condemning the Russian special operation in Ukraine, no state sanctioned Russia economically, with the exception of certain Caribbean states that were co-opted under economic threats. Similarly, both Mexico and Brazil importantly abstained on another April resolution that would end up suspending Russia from the UN Human Rights Council.

The governments of Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua support the Russian Federation in defending their territory to avoid losing their second strike capability through a US-created missile crisis. Others such as Brazil, Argentina and Bolivia do not seek to sanction Russia, but neither do they necessarily join the Russian justification for its special operation, so they stand aside while the Anglo-Saxon empire and its vassal states put pressure on Russia and its allies. The strongest condemnations against Russia came from the governments of Chile, Colombia, Uruguay and Guatemala who tried to stand out in this small competition to condemn Russia by ordering the withdrawal of its ambassador from Moscow.

Mexico showed its rejection of war by being extremely cautious in speaking out, seeking neutrality and appealing to dialogue and negotiation. Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard declared that “Mexico rejects the use of force, reiterated its call for a political solution to the conflict in Ukraine and supports the United Nations Secretary General in favor of peace”. President Andrés Manuel López Obrador rejected war and violence saying: “We are not in favor of any war, Mexico is a country that has always stood for peace and the peaceful resolution of disputes”. Mexico’s position on not sanctioning Russia has been clear since it was made public on March 1, 2022. President Andrés Manuel López Obrador announced that Mexico will not impose economic sanctions on Russia, as other countries have agreed. “We cannot fall into a protagonism that has nothing to do with the restraint that should prevail in foreign policy,” he argued. “We want to maintain good relations with all the governments of the world, and we want to be in a position to be able to talk to the parties in conflict,” Lopez Obrador said during his morning conference. It is estimated that about a hundred Russian companies operate in Mexico, including Lukoil, which has a contract for exploration and extraction of crude oil with the state-owned Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex), Gazprom, dedicated to the exploitation of gas, and the Aeroflot airline.

However, Brazilian presidential candidate Lula da Silva and Gabriel Boric, then Chilean president-elect, distanced themselves from this position. While Lula rejected the Russian special operation in Ukraine on Twitter expressing that “No one can agree with war, military attacks of one country against another. War only leads to destruction, desperation and hunger”, Boric from Chile shared Zelensky’s speech on Twitter, where he not only used the word invasion in his message to refer to the special operation in Ukraine, but also accused Russia of waging a war of aggression against Ukraine saying, “from South America goes our embrace and solidarity to the Ukrainian people in the face of Putin’s unacceptable war of aggression”. This is the second message on the conflict in Ukraine, since on February 24 he said, by the same means, that “Russia has opted for war as a means to resolve conflicts. From Chile we condemn the invasion of Ukraine, the violation of its sovereignty and the illegitimate use of force. Our solidarity will be with the victims and our humble efforts for peace”.

Recently on July 1, Chilean President Boric tweeted, “I just had a conversation with the President of Ukraine, to whom I expressed my solidarity and our willingness to support condemnations of the invasion in international bodies. The 18 dead today in Odessa by a Russian attack are unacceptable… he can count on Chile’s full support on humanitarian issues… Ukraine has a friend in South America, both now and when the war ends. Much strength and a hug”. Shortly afterwards, Zelensky replied that: “Distance is not an obstacle for friendly countries. Delighted to establish contact with the new president of Chile, Gabriel Boric. Grateful for the support in the UN, humanitarian aid for Ukraine. We discussed the possibility of involving Chilean specialists in demining territories”. This rhetoric and propaganda is markedly different from that of López Obrador of Mexico, or Fernández of Argentina or Morales of Bolivia or Bukele of El Salvador.

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro recently said that the economic sanctions imposed by the West against Russia had not worked, adding that his position towards Russia and the war “was one of balance”. Brazil’s ambassador, Otávio Brandelli, said Russian concerns had to be taken into account, “mainly regarding the balance of troops and strategic weapons in the European context.” Bolsonaro’s comments angered the United States and European countries that had criticized Brazil for not fully joining NATO’s anti-Russian crusade. Bolsonaro said that his stance had allowed him to purchase fertilizer, a key input for Brazil’s vast agricultural sector, from Russia. In June, Bolsonaro and Putin, in a phone call, discussed global food security and confirmed their intention to strengthen their strategic partnership. For more context, read Andrew Korybko’s article “The West doesn’t want the world to know that Russia just saved Brazil’s crop this year“.

For his part, President Fernandez of Argentina made a tempered call for “dialogue and respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, state security and human rights [that] guarantee just and lasting solutions to conflicts.” This was apparently not to the liking of the ideological proxies within the Argentine state, as it generated criticism for being too soft on Russia, so Fernandez had to order the Foreign Ministry to issue a statement expressing its “firm rejection of the use of armed force” and calling on Russia to “cease military actions in Ukraine.” Vice President Kirchner has always argued neutrality by refusing to condemn anyone and criticized the “double standards of the powers”.

The Russian special operation in Ukraine showed the nuances of the various regional neutralities with the governments of Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba, traditional allies of Moscow. These expressed their continued support, as did other former heads of state of importance such as Evo Morales who tweeted about how “NATO is a serious threat to international peace and security, its record of invasions and aggressions proves it. Now, its expansionist pretension is one of the main reasons for the situation in Ukraine”. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro reiterated his support for Russia in the conflict with Ukraine during a telephone conversation with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin in which they exchanged views on the strategic partnership between Venezuela and Russia, and the situation with Ukraine. Venezuelan Foreign Minister Plasencia supported Russia’s fight against the belligerence of the Atlantic Alliance. Cuba criticized Washington for the “progressive expansion of NATO towards the borders of the Russian Federation”.

The votes of Cuba, Nicaragua and Bolivia were a logical consequence of their closeness and alliance with Russia, while El Salvador responds to the growing estrangement with Washington. Bukele has maintained neutrality, he has not made a single speech condemning Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine, nor has he supported Moscow. His vice president has declared that “small countries” should not take “sides with one bloc or the other”. Europe criticized this position of El Salvador, the high representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, also reprimanded El Salvador for its “silence” and “lack of condemnation” of the conflict in Ukraine. In general, the scolding has never stopped.

Caribbean States

The Caribbean island states were among the 141 UN member states that condemned the Russian special operation in Ukraine as of February 24. But through last March, 7 Caribbean countries: Antigua-Barbuda, Dominica, Barbados, St. Kitts-Nevis, St. Lucia, Grenada and the Bahamas mutually agreed to sanction Russia.

To give the reader some context, many of the sanctioning Caribbean nations are members of various Caribbean organizations and supranational agreements such as 1) the Caribbean Community, known as CARICOM, 2) the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States, and 3) the Association of Caribbean States. It would be CARICOM whose protocols brought about the possible sanctions by bringing this vote in its forum that set in motion this domino effect sanctions in a slice of the Caribbean. The 13-member Caribbean regional grouping issued a statement just hours after Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the special military operation in Ukraine on February 24 condemning the Russian special operation in Ukraine. CARICOM met in Belize on 3 March and again unanimously condemned the Russian special operation in Ukraine, but did not pass any joint sanctions, leaving this to individual members. After deliberations it left the imposition of sanctions on Russia in the hands of individual member states. This decision caused a lot of pressure for the Caribbean states as it comes amid an Anglo-European crusade of very serious sanctions ominously seeking volunteers, such as banning Russian flights in airspace, shutting down the global payments system and freezing state and personal assets. “We discussed the Russia issue at length […] CARICOM felt that it is something we should do as individual countries […] We have to decide what kind of sanctions, if any, we can take as countries and not as CARICOM,” the regional bloc’s chairman, John Antonio Briceño, said during a press conference earlier in the day.

Russia’s ongoing special operation in Ukraine served as a catalyst for U.S. and European threats to these programs in the Caribbean.  Wealthy Russian citizens and Russian entities were sanctioned as part of the punitive measures exercised by Western nations. In a somewhat knee-jerk reaction, the 5 countries that make up the CBI program in the Caribbean imposed a ban on applications from Russia and Belarus as a direct response to the sanctions.

The governments of Dominica and Antigua and Barbuda suspended applications from nationals of Russia and its ally Belarus in their CBI programs. The Caribbean countries that spearheaded these measures were Dominica on March 8 and Antigua-Barbuda on March 4. Under these Citizenship by Investment (CBI) programs, which vary from country to country, individuals can obtain passports by paying the government or by investing in development projects administered by the given government. On the eastern Caribbean island of Dominica, CBI program coordinator Emmanuel Nanthan said the scheme is being suspended for the aforementioned nationalities with immediate effect “in light of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine,” and to preserve “the credibility” of the program. Charmaine Donovan, who heads the CBI service in Antigua and Barbuda, said it has also been suspended there for people from Russia and its ally Belarus. “It’s a matter of remaining consistent with Antigua-Barbuda’s foreign policy position,” Donovan said. Interestingly, Antigua-Barbuda also decided to include Ukrainians in its list of nationals for whom its CBI programme would be suspended.

The 5 Caribbean states in the Citizenship by Investment program have come under increased pressure from the EU and the United States to ban all Russians and Belarusians from their CBI programs, in addition to halting transactions with Western-sanctioned entities since the Russian special operation in Ukraine began in late February. Antigua-Barbuda opted on 4 March 2022 to implement sanctions against Russian citizens and to suspend the processing of all Citizenship by Investment Programme applications from citizens of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. Antigua and Barbuda is one of the few Caribbean states to have imposed any sanctions on Russia as a state or its citizens. Belarus was dragged into this mess by Caribbean states that condemned both countries and declared restrictions against them, temporarily ending the Citizenship by Investment Program for Russian and Belarusian nationals. Antigua-Barbuda’s ambassador to the United States, Sir Ronald Sanders, said his Caribbean island-nation is instituting measures to ensure the enforcement of international sanctions against the named Russian individuals and entities. Antigua-Barbuda’s Foreign Minister, E Paul Chet Greene, has instructed that the full list of Russian individuals and companies sanctioned by the United States be respected and followed.

The recent attention given to Russia and its wealthy citizens has increased scrutiny of Citizenship by Investment programs and amplified calls for them to be scaled back, effectively to manipulate the Caribbean. The European Union, while calling for Caribbean countries to ban Russian and Belarusian nationals from their programmes, conveniently also blackmails these same Caribbean countries, indirectly threatening them by seeking to cancel programmes that the EU knows brings a lot of capital to the Caribbean. Just when all this fuss about sanctioning Russia is going on, the Caribbean sees energy costs rise, food becomes scarcer and more expensive and still the EU adds fuel to the fire. By this time, the Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda, Gaston Browne, immediately contacted the European Union, asking it to reconsider its intention to eliminate the Citizenship by Investment Programmes in the Caribbean.

On March 10, Caribbean Grenada suspended Russian and Belarusian applicants from applying for the country’s Citizenship by Investment CBI programme, a policy that had already been unofficially enforced since April. Days later Grenada and St. Kitts-Nevis joined the EU crusade by enacting such an anti-Russian ban, answering the call of their former colonial masters. Caribbean nations of Bahamas, Barbados, Grenada, St. Kitts-Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent-Grenadines were persuaded to sever their relationship with Russia in exchange for an unspecified and possibly non-existent reward from the US or the EU. On March 13, the Bahamas joined the list of Caribbean countries that have imposed sanctions on the financial resources of Russian companies and oligarchs. The Bahamas does not have a CBI program, so they hosted their own sanctions against Russia with essentially three measures. First, the Attorney General has ordered local regulators to report on whether any of the entities singled out by the U.S. have local business. Second is a directive to local financial regulators for institutions to adopt the restrictions imposed by the US, the UK and the EU. Third, the Bahamas suspended the automatic exchange of financial information with Russia on its citizens. It is the first time the Caribbean country has introduced sanctions in the absence of a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution and follows a formal request by the United States for the country to take direct action against the Russian Federation in Ukraine.

By June 23, many of these countries were admitting that the sanctions cost them dearly. Once again, these states seem to believe that sabotaging their own economies by a US-ordered hybrid war against a third country is more worthwhile than engaging in good and healthy business. These countries seem to expect to receive some kind of reward from the US or the EU for more or less adhering to some sanctions against Russia in its hybrid war against the Eurasian giants. Ambassador Lionel Hurst, Secretary to the Cabinet of the Prime Minister of Antigua-Barbuda, was quoted on June 23, 2022 in a titled ¨Antigua will maintain sanctions against Russians despite earnings hit¨ explaining how the reduction in CBI revenue means the government has less money in its coffers to pay social security benefits and service loans, “We have abided very faithfully by those sanctions…but our Citizenship by Investment program is negatively affected by the sanctions, however, we are abiding by those sanctions. And we intend to ensure that whenever there are sanctions against individuals or any sector of the Russian economy, Antigua and Barbuda will abide by them.” To underscore the importance of the CBI programme to these nations, in Dominica for instance this program generated the equivalent of $440 million in revenue, which was used to pay down debt, but also to build housing.

Cuthbert Didier, Regional Maritime Consultant, says he understands why some CARICOM nations may want to adopt sanctions against Russia, but “The danger is that, unfortunately, we make Peter pay for Paul, and at a time when the Caribbean mega-yacht industry is booming…the registration of these mega-yachts – whether they are Russian or Chinese, from Europe or the Asian or Pacific Rim region – is big business.” Didier, a former long-time managing director of the Rodney Bay marina in St Lucia, says sanctions against mega-yachts could stifle the booming sector and the struggling economies of small island states in the Caribbean.

Now some four months later, the Caribbean states realized that the sanctions were economically unsustainable with such a restrictive approach that ends up unfairly discriminating against millions of Russian and Belarusian citizens so these states have relaxed the sanctions somewhat. Effectively self-inflicted damage was done to the Caribbean economies by failing to appreciate (or to exercise) the commercial wisdom of neutrality. The suspension of applications from Russian and Belarusian nationals caused a significant contraction to the detriment of these Caribbean countries both in direct economic terms – due to lower revenues from the applications themselves – and in terms of the contribution to development that the new nationals can offer to the host countries through their resources of knowledge and experience. Non-sanctioned Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian nationals are now again welcome to apply in Antigua and Barbuda for the Citizenship by Investment Programme. So far, the United States has not established or offered any major efforts to mitigate the impact of Western sanctions against Russia in the Global South. Which proves true Russian claims that sanctions are primarily responsible for the difficulties ahead in emerging economies.

All of these Caribbean nations, after accounting for the self-inflicted economic damage to their economies, have since mid-June sought to relax anti-Russian sanctions by opting for a more controlled approach and banning only individuals and entities on the US and EU sanctions list. By June 29, 2022, Karline Purcell, director general of Grenada’s CBI, confirmed that the initial blanket exclusion of Russians and Belarusians had been lifted about a month later and replaced with a cautious approach: “Yes, we have accepted the Russians and subjected them to greater scrutiny. What is crucial to note is that we only accept non-sanctioned Russians and that we check each Russian applicant against the continuously updated sanctions lists.” By July 8, Antigua and Barbuda’s CBI issued a circular to the same effect to officially resume accepting non-sanctioned Russian and Belarusian applicants; followed a day later, Grenada decided to follow suit and also relax its ban by limiting it to specific names on the CBI program list. At the time of writing, more countries than those just mentioned have chosen to relax the extent of the bans and have decided to ban only the specific individuals on the sanctions lists and not all Russian and Belarusian nationalities.

Ukrainian President Volodimir Zelensky expressed in a call to his Paraguayan counterpart, Mario Abdo Benítez, his interest in sending a message to Mercosur countries during the Presidential Summit on July 21. Abdo Benítez promised that he would consult with his Mercosur peers on the Ukrainian government’s proposal, since decisions are made by consensus. This augurs that pressure from the US and EU countries is far from over, and is likely to become a constant in the global transition to multipolarity until long after the Russian special operation in Ukraine completes its objectives. Latin American and especially Caribbean nations must realize that becoming pawns in an international conflict they cannot control generates few assured benefits and only guarantees massive risks. It is bad business to engage in a hybrid war crusade against a nation-civilization state like Russia, which is capable of bringing so much good business to Latin American and Caribbean countries, not to mention the ability to purchase goods, energy and resources critical for production.