Latin America lost two giants in the span of little more than a week: Pope Francis and Nobel-winning author Mario Vargas Llosa were crucial in shaping the region’s cultural identity, one as a leader of faith who shook the Catholic Church and the other as a masterful chronicler of Latin American life. They were influential voices that transcended frontiers, to the point of becoming two of the finest figures that the region has produced.
As Latin America endures intense polarization, their deaths offer a sharp reminder of its current leadership deficit on the global stage. Francis and Vargas Llosa, even with their at times opposing views, rose above ephemeral political passions, a rare ability these days. As with most historical figures, they were also the source of controversy, even contempt, because not even geniuses are infallible, but their invaluable legacy has been to spread universal values while still reminding the world of Latin America’s cultural and spiritual richness, and relevance.
Vargas Llosa’s death on April 13 unlocked a cascade of homages to his status as a literary colossus. Most focused on his eclectic ability to jump over different genres and universal topics, from the thirst for power to corruption, while depicting characters with realism, complexity and trenchant humor. At the same time, his passing also prompted scorn in certain left-wing circles, always ready to attack him for his ideological conversion from Marxist supporter to staunch defender of individual liberties and free markets.
Illustration: Tania Chou
Vargas Llosa made several missteps over the course of his long life, including his ill-advised attempt to become Peru’s president in 1990, an adventure that, if successful, would have surely resulted in missing out on the Nobel Prize in Literature, an unforgivable mistake for a writer of his caliber. His choice of political partners might have been at times wrong when not plainly disastrous, but his intellectual courage to break with the status quo and defend Enlightenment values cannot be questioned — his early denunciation of the atrocities of the socialist regimes in the 1970s (which contributed to his legendary feud with his fellow Nobel winner Gabriel Garcia Marquez) and his support for liberal democracies over tyrannies of all colors deserve only praise and admiration. Indeed, some of those who to this day so enthusiastically point their fingers at Vargas Llosa for his political beliefs have yet to acknowledge the tragedy that the authoritarian left has produced in nations such as Cuba and Venezuela.
Pope Francis was also subject to attacks, in particular from conservatives who confused his compassionate preaching in favor of the poor with communism and rejected his environmentalist agenda, something that doubtless undermined his popularity in the US over the years. His active social involvement certainly generated some resentment in Argentina during a period of economic misery and political upheaval. I would have liked to hear from Francis a more forceful condemnation of the Venezuelan and Cuban dictatorships, as he did more recently with Nicaragua (a consequence of the appalling crackdown against the church by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and his henchmen). In his favor, he pardoned Javier Milei after a series of cheap insults he professed against the pontiff before becoming Argentine president, but there is no denying that Latin America’s first pope was a charismatic, austere man, sincerely focused on giving voice to the deprived in a world where the losers of the system are increasingly vilified.
He was also conscious about placing the church at the center of the most urgent debates, from the proliferation of wars to migration, climate change and poverty.
Some of the criticism he received, echoed by Vargas Llosa himself, seized on his disdain for capitalism as the best tool to achieve development and individual progress. (As the Wall Street Journal editorial board put it: “He championed the poor while favoring ideas that keep them poor.”) While this charge has merit, it ignores the role of the church as religious guardian against consumerism and the excesses of materialism. As the journalist Mariano de Vedia, who wrote a biography of Jorge Bergoglio’s years before he became pope in 2013, put it, Francis positioned the church close to the most needy sectors without fundamentally changing its traditional doctrine.
“Showing the church closer to the more vulnerable and excluded was the cornerstone of his papacy,” De Vedia said. “He is now a key figure in the history of Argentina, Latin America and the church.”
Vargas Llosa and Francis also diverged in their choices of where to spend their final days. Vargas Llosa returned to his home in Lima despite decades of residing abroad because his relationship with Peru was “a type of incurable disease.” Yet Francis never went back to his beloved Buenos Aires, despite being an unwavering porteno. Still focused on pushing ahead with reforms until his very last day, he had a strong sense of duty; he was also mindful of his impact on Argentina’s politics. Yet for all his reasons, it still saddens me that he never returned to the city where he spent most of his life. Surely even a pope needs to remember who they are and where they came from, and to derive comfort and human connection from the ties that still bind.
Vargas Llosa turned 89 last month, Francis was about nine months younger. I know of no occasion when these two great Latin Americans met, despite their longevity. That is a shame — a conversation between both would have been fascinating.
J.P. Spinetto is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Latin American business, economic affairs and politics. He was previously Bloomberg News’ managing editor for economics and government in the region. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS