|
South America as a differentiated regional space
South America has the characteristics of a differentiated international
political subsystem. These characteristics are related to its geography,
its vicinity and its history. Nowadays, they are also related with shared
resources and the proximity of its markets. An agenda of the prevailing
political, economic and social issues results from these similarities
and reflects the shared problems and opportunities that often require
collective answers.
In fact, the idea that South America forms a different sub-region is
deeply rooted in history and is based on geographic reasons. These, in
turn, strengthen the connection between the respective national agendas
in a way that the effects of the events of one country deeply affect all
the others. This, however, does not imply that it is a separate or opposite
space to others such as the Latin American or hemispheric ones. Neither
does it deny the existing differences within the same South American space:
for example, between the Andean and the Atlantic sides, or between the
North, that tends to be included with the Caribbean and is economically
more linked with the US, and the South, with a greater tradition of association
with Europe.
However, South America is a differentiated regional space which also
shows blurred outlines, given that, in several aspects, it may not be
distinguished from the more encompassing Latin American and Caribbean
space. These unclear boundaries account, in many cases, for the leading
role of Mexico in matters related to the political development of the
region.
Recent events have shown, once again, the relevance of the regional environment
-even in its broader Latin American dimension- for South American countries,
especially when complex problems need to be addressed. This was clearly
evinced during the Rio Group Summit held in Santo Domingo, in March 2008,
when the government of Ecuador accused Colombia of attacking a camp site
of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) located within its
territory. As it involved the Rio Group, this episode had a Latin American
dimension which included Mexico as a meaningful protagonist. The summit
helped to dismantle the course towards confrontation that, due to the
high degree of complexity and confusion of the case, could have eluded
at that time the control of those involved: Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela
(and, to a certain degree, Nicaragua). As a consequence of these results,
the Rio Group was able to reinstate its original function, which consisted
precisely of providing a collective mediation for the dilution and, whenever
possible, the solution of conflicts involving a group of countries of
the region whose effects could spill over to the rest. As an offspring
of the Contadora Group, the prestige of the Rio Group lies on its track
record in channeling off first and then finding a solution to the violence
that ruled over Central America during the '80s.
The relevance of the South American space was reflected at the Extraordinary
Summit of the Union of South American Nations (Unasur) held in Santiago
de Chile in September 2008. Its aim was to analyze and contribute to direct
the internal conflicts that have threatened democracy in Bolivia and almost
endangered the union of the country. Even when it is still too early to
judge the effects of the Summit in the development of the Bolivian political
process, the fact is that the Moneda Declaration reflected the ability
and political willingness of South American countries to make specific
contributions towards the resolution of problems that could alter the
peace and stability of the region. The message of the Unasur Santiago
Summit was very clear in pointing out that the problems in the democracy
of one South American country concern all the others. This would lead
to the introduction of rational guidelines that could help neutralize
the propensity towards violent solutions. Furthermore, South American
countries managed to convey to the rest of the world, with the conclusive
force of facts, the idea that they are ready and willing to assume their
collective responsibility for the region.
The outcomes of the meetings of the Rio Group and of Unasur have been,
to a certain degree, the result of diplomatic efforts -sometimes in silence-
at the highest level, undertaken before and during the summits, especially
by those countries that have the ability to influence the political evolution
of the region. In this sense, there are new expectations regarding the
possibility that Unasur might become functional to the exercise of a collective
leadership in the region.
The institutionalization of the South American geographic space
Without going back too far in history, during the first decades of the
20th Century there were proposals aimed at encouraging the institutionalization
of the South American geographic space through initiatives that usually
promoted the idea of a "South American Union". In those years,
the vision was especially focused on the south of the region. Even the
original proposals, which led to the creation of the Latin-American Free
Trade Association (LAFTA), referred to the southernmost countries, generally
identified as the "Southern Cone", which in the most comprehensive
version included Bolivia and Peru. To a certain degree, LAFTA was the
result of the political vision of Argentine President Arturo Frondizi,
together with other leaders of the region. The interest of Mexico in taking
part in the initiative accounts for the fact that, finally, the organization
created by the Treaty of Montevideo of 1960 and the process of commercial
integration resulting from it had not only a South American but a Latin
American scope as well. The same happened to its subsequent development,
the Latin American Integration Association (LAIA) created by the Treaty
of Montevideo of 1980, with the participation of Mexico in a leading role
(the main negotiation meeting was held in Acapulco and was marked by Mexico's
leadership). The creation of the Andean Group in 1969 contributed to manifest
the South American identity of the idea of regional integration. This
initiative, promoted by the presidents of Chile, Eduardo Frei, and of
Colombia, Carlos Lleras Restepo, was intended to counterbalance the prevailing
roles of Argentina and Brazil in the inception and development of regional
integration, particularly through the LAFTA.
However, in spite of the various integration initiatives that were discussed
at different times, the truth is that, until very recently, the Latin
American space was marked by a fragmentation logic that was fueled by
territorial conflicts and discussions related to shared resources that
carried over since the days of the Independence. This same logic was reflected
in several armed confrontations, especially during the 19th Century. It
was only in the '80s that the majority of the territorial conflicts were
finally overcome. Coincidentally, the return of democracy contributed
to establish the logic of integration in international relations. From
that time on, aside from its economic purpose, integration was perceived
as a means of reinforcing democratic institutions and values. Since then,
the growing understanding in the so called "ABC" -the triad
in the South of the Americas formed by Argentina, Brazil and Chile, that
at the same time has been historically related with the US and Europe-
generated an incipient integration hard core whose economic and political
influence spread all over South American space. This hard core was institutionalized
in the Mercosur through the signature of the Treaty of Asunción,
in April 1991. Chile was invited to form part of it together with the
four original partners and, although it declined to become a full member,
implicitly its presence has always been significant. This is demonstrated
by the degree of economic integration -which translates into trade flows
and investments- that has been reached between the Mercosur and Chile
during the last years.
The decision of Brazil to assign a growing relevance to the region in
its strategy for development and international insertion has contributed
to grant an authentic South American dimension to what once were initiatives
limited only to the Southern Cone. This path, that became evident during
the presidency of Fernando Henrique Cardoso and has continued, and even
accentuated, during the presidency of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva,
has translated into a tendency to encourage initiatives and actively participate
in the regional scenario. This participation has also become manifest
in the trade flows and investments and in the growing presence of Brazilian
firms in the economies of other South American countries. This may be
the reason why, since its beginning, Brazil perceived Mercosur as an organization
of South American outreach. In fact, when negotiating the Treaty of Asuncion
it was the Brazilian representative -the current Foreign Affairs Minister
Celso Amorim- who suggested the change of the name from "Common Market
of the Southern Cone", as it appeared on the original draft, to "Southern
Common Market". This vision of the scope of the integration is coherent
if we take into account that Brazil's neighboring context -fundamental
for the international affairs of any country- comprises almost the whole
of South America. This fact should be taken into account when making any
projection as to the role that Brazil aspires to play in the future development
of the relations between the countries and even in the identity of South
America, as a differentiated region unlike the rest of Latin America.
Thereof that the path which led to the creation of Unasur at the Brasilia
Summit in May 2008 began with another summit that took place also in the
capital city of Brazil in August 2000. It was, from its origins, a road
stamped by an intense strategic purport and, at the same time, with a
strong emphasis on energy integration and the physical connection of the
South American space. From the point of view of Brazil -among others,
for obvious geographical reasons-, the physical and energy infrastructure
require a South American outlook. The fact that one of the first concrete
results of the Brasilia Summit was the Initiative for the Integration
of the Regional South American Infrastructure (IIRSA) is a proof of this,
as are the multiple current and potential connections for energy development
in the region. Both physical and energy infrastructure demand a regional
focus in terms of the funding of the projects and for the creation of
institutional frameworks that enable the considerable investments that
are required.
In this context, Unasur stands as an attempt to create an institutional
space that encompasses the whole region. It was born with the Treaty of
Brasilia, signed on May 23, 2008, and in order to be in force it still
needs to be ratified by at least nine of the twelve signing countries:
Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay,
Peru, Suriname, Uruguay and Venezuela. At the subsequent South American
Summits of Cusco 2004, Brasilia 2005 and Cochabamba 2006, the initiative
was called "South American Community". Later on, at the Energy
Summit held on Margarita Island in 2007, the name was changed to the current
one. In any case, its objectives have remained the same and are quite
comprehensive. According to the Preamble of the Brasilia Treaty, the goal
of Unasur is to contribute to the consolidation of regional integration
through an innovative approach that allows to go a step beyond the simple
confluence of the existing sub-regional frameworks: Mercosur and the Andean
Community, that have reached a general agreement of economic cooperation,
within the scope of LAIA (that contemplates a network of bilateral agreements
that may eventually converge in one single free trade space).
Unasur was born then as an initiative with a strong political imprint,
which includes an international projection (as reflected by the quite
ample statement of article 15 of the Treaty) and which does not exclude
the expansion to the rest of Latin America (as affirmed by articles 19
and 20). Additionally, it is an initiative with a strong Brazilian accent,
which shows the willingness of this country to promote the institutionalization
of a geographical space formed by nations which, on its majority, are
its neighbors. It constitutes thus a result of Brazil's leadership impulse
that has achieved consensus among the rest of the countries, some of which,
such as Chile, have shown a special interest. Chilean President Michelle
Bachelet assumed the presidency pro tempore for the second semester of
2008. The signing countries were expected to ratify the agreement during
this time, although most of them have not done so yet.
Finally, the idea of the institutionalization of the South American space
runs parallel to the trends that can be observed in other regions of the
world. Some relevant examples of this are the geographical areas conformed
by North America and the Caribbean; by Europe and the Mediterranean and,
in particular, by the region of Southeast Asia. The idea of "multi-polarity
regionalism" has consolidated in the latter region as a result of
a series of government agreements (among which the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations is the most relevant) and of a dense network of business
connections. This multi-speed and variable geometry regionalism provides
examples that are estimated will increasingly influence the integration
process of South America.
Future challenges in the institutionalization of South American region
Many are the challenges that need to be faced in order to develop the
institutionalization of the South American region. Among them, two stand
out: on the one hand is the challenge to reconcile the multiple spaces
of regional and global insertion of each country and, on the other hand,
is the need to furnish the institutional spaces with a sufficient dose
of credibility. Both challenges will be accentuated by the fact that the
deep transformations that are taking place in the distribution of power
and the global economic competition are generating multiple options for
the external positioning of each country. In view of such perspective,
no country will accept to be circumscribed to its regional environment
only but, on the contrary, will attempt to take the maximum advantage
of the opportunities that are opening up in the world. Moreover, the transformations
may be explained by the perception that, in general, the existing processes
of regional integration are ineffective. This view is a consequence of
the cumulative experience of the last five decades, which has not always
produced the promised results.
Facing such challenges will require at least three conditions. Fist,
is that each South American country develops a national strategy to capitalize
on the multiple spaces of international insertion that include the region.
Second, is that the initiatives of regional scope are reflected by rules
and institutions that have the necessary qualities to permeate reality.
Third, is that the commitments that are assumed through the different
regional institutions -and particularly those of trade preferential scope-
serve to strengthen the development of an efficient multilateral system
at a global scale, especially in regards to the trade of goods and services
within the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO).
However, in order to understand these conditions it is necessary to remember
that South America has become a geographical space of increased density,
with marked differences and a great dynamism. It has acquired, in this
sense, a mosaic-like quality and all indicates that it will continue to
be this way in the future. To fully grasp the deep forces that have been
unleashed in the region constitutes a complex challenge for its actors,
both at the political and, above all, at the business level. The region
has become more interconnected than ever. The interdependence between
the different countries has grown considerably during the last decades,
bringing national political and economic systems closer to each other
and making them more susceptible to what happens in the neighborhood,
which has, increasingly, a South American scale. This dense interconnectedness
can be verified in at least three planes. First is that of production
and trade: the networks established by transnational firms and increasingly
by multi-Latin ones - as well as by a significant number of small and
medium enterprises of regional origin- have gradually consolidated, with
a particular intensity during the last years. This is reflected in the
commercial exchange and the investments, focused mainly in the south of
America, and the resulting impact on logistics and transportation. The
second plane where the growing density of South American relations can
be verified is that of energy in its multiple modalities. On this respect,
unlike the previous one, the relations are not concentrated in the south
but extend across most of South America. The third plane is that of drug-dealing
and the diverse manifestations of violence and organized crime. Its interconnectedness
has also accentuated and has become a palpable threat in several countries
of the region.
South America is not only a more densely interconnected region but also
a more differentiated one, something that foreign studies and analysis
have failed to realize. Aside from the differences in country size and
level of development, other differences that are a consequence of growing
conceptual disagreements have recently emerged. Among these are the concepts
of democracy and integration which allow for dissimilar interpretations.
Other clearly visible difference is the result of the expectations placed
by some of the protagonists on the global challenges faced by the different
countries. While some of the nations look into the future and perceive
globalization as an opportunity to be seized, others have yet to overcome
their histories, with issues deeply rooted in their pasts. In such cases,
there is a tendency to see the world around them more as a threat than
as an opportunity
Ultimately, South America is a region with a strong change dynamic. Even
when the transformations reflect the dynamism of a turbulent world in
continuous metamorphosis, some of the changes are of its own crop. Those
who do not follow closely the news originating in each of the countries
of the region or who insist in analyzing them under the paradigms of the
past, run the risk of not understanding what is happening. Facts loaded
with future consequences are constantly emerging and it is essential to
detect them in time in order to anticipate the changes. One of them is,
for example, the discovery of what promises to be a huge oil reserve off
the Atlantic coast of Brazil.
All these factors -the growing density, the greater differentiation and
the dynamic of change- are important for the approach of the core issue
of governance of the South American space, that is, to guarantee the prevalence
of peace and political stability in the region. The efforts to allow for
the logic of cooperation and integration to temper the natural conflicts
and, above all, to neutralize the tendencies towards fragmentation need
to be aligned with this perspective. These efforts will require an up
to date assessment of the deeply rooted forces that are at work in the
South American reality, rich in nuances. Wisdom and political caution
will be required as well, above all because it is becoming a multi-polar
regional space where, as noted before, each of the countries has several
options in terms of its insertion in the world. Diversity generates responses
of variable geometry, flexible and at multiple speeds, such as those that
have developed in the Asian geographic space (and also, more recently,
in the European Union). If the South American reality has a mosaic-like
quality as a result of the diversity of situations that coexist in it,
it is most likely that this will be reflected in the institutional level
for a long time. It is possible that, at least for a while, the regional
geographic space is unable to conform something similar to what the European
Union currently represents for the European space. This is the reason
why only time can bring a clearer notion of what will be the contribution
of Unasur to South American governance. If it succeeds in effectively
becoming an instance for the reinforcement of democracy, peace and political
stability, sustained by nations with a high level of social cohesiveness,
its contributions will be worthy. On this respect, the abovementioned
Moneda Declaration constitutes an important step towards the affirmation
of the future role of Unasur.
However, Unasur also poses several questions. One of them refers to its
ability to permeate reality. The yet unfinished experience of the addition
of Venezuela as a full member of Mercosur justifies the doubts. Even when
the Treaty of Brasilia is formally in force, it will have to demonstrate
that it can attain its ambitious goals. It is quite common to find a significant
distance between formal constructs and concrete facts in a region where
it would seem easier to create institutions than to fully profit from
them. This is the reason why the question rises as to whether it might
have been more convenient to define Unasur as a system of periodic summits,
without aspiring to invest it with legal standing through a formal organization
with a set of ambitious objectives.
The other question relates to the coexistence with actual integration
processes and, in particular, to the eventual overlapping with an expanded
Mercosur. According to the Treaty of Brasilia, the aim of Unasur is to
strengthen regional integration through a process that goes beyond the
simple convergence of existing schemes. However, at the same time Mercosur,
in its expanded version with the addition of Venezuela as a full member
and of other countries of the region as associate members, has aspired
to fulfill a role of South American scope. Proof of this has been the
participation of the leaders of several Latin American countries in its
presidential meetings, such as the Cordoba Summit which was even attended
by Fidel Castro.
The expansion of Mercosur has had at least two different dimensions.
The first one is related to the space of commercial preferences. Through
partial agreements (an instrument contemplated by the Montevideo Treaty
of 1980) a network of preferences has developed involving other LAIA member
countries and, in particular, those which acquired the status of associate
members, such as Chile and Bolivia. The other dimension refers to the
broadening of the political objectives of Mercosur. The defense of democracy
and human rights, together with other social goals, were gradually added
to the agenda which the associated countries adhered. Unasur and the expanded
Mercosur would have then similar goals, especially in regards to political
issues. But, in turn, Unasur should allow for the discussion of matters
such as physical infrastructure and energy complementation, which exceed
what could be achieved under the current geographical coverage of the
restricted Mercour. This is of special importance for Brazil who shares
borders with most of the South American countries.
However, beyond the outreach and goals there are two major differences
between Mercosur and Unasur. On the one hand, Mercosur is a concrete reality
based on legal commitments undertaken by its member countries. As imperfect
and incomplete as these may be, it would be difficult to set them aside,
considering the trade and investment flows that have developed between
the partners in the years since the signing of the Treaty of Asuncion.
Additionally, Mercosur has an incipient identity, as is demonstrated by
the addition of its acronym to the identification documents of the citizens
of its four partners. For its part, Unasur has yet to move past the process
of ratification of its constituent treaty. Even when it is possible that
this happens very soon, there are no guarantees, especially considering
the political differences between some of its members, which surfaced
on the course that led to the recent Brasilia Summit. The other main difference
between both organizations is that Mercosur -aside from the ongoing political
will of the member countries which has weathered numerous difficulties-
is based, above all, on agreed trade preferences which are a fundamental
pillar for productive integration. Unasur lacks anything of a similar
nature. In any case, economic preferences between its member countries
will result from the convergence of the network of existing partial agreements
or those which are signed within the scope of LAIA.
Two Future Scenarios
The question arises about the impact that Unasur will have on Mercosur.
At least two alternative scenarios can be set forth. The first scenario
would involve the dissolution not only of Mercosur's most ambitious aspiration
of having a South American political outreach, but also the more concrete
goal of achieving an integration process that is perceived as an efficient
tool for productive transformation. The most negative variation of this
scenario would be if Unasur fails to move forward and Mercosur is unable
to strengthen its role of encouraging decisions for productive investments
in the shared economic space.
In the second scenario, both organizations would complement and empower
each other. This would imply a Mercosur endowed with flexible -albeit
predictable- instruments that reflect variable geometry and "multi-speed"
methods in a manner that it can become the hard core of a larger structure
of South American extent. Technically, such thing is feasible. If achieved,
Mercosur -without leaving behind the goals of its members- would forward
the political objectives of South American scope to Unasur.
When considering this last scenario of complementation, we should take
into account that both initiatives, Mercosur and Unasur, have in common
the fact that both aim for the governance of the South American region.
Brazil, the country with the most relative weight in the area, is an active
participant in both of them. Both have an economic purpose but unquestionable
political goals as well, since they are concerned with the power relations
between the nations that share this geographic space. Both organizations
involve the strategies for international insertion of each country and
aspire to generate regional public assets to help neutralize eventual
tendencies towards fragmentation. In this context, the complementation
between Unasur and Mercosur could contribute to the predominance of the
logic of integration in the South American space. Such complementation
is indeed possible. However, it will require a collective leadership in
which all the countries of the region participate and, especially, those
who value a regional environment of peace and political stability.
|
