Asuntos Exteriores VA

Carlos Romero

Latin América: the challenge of the twenty-first century

atin America and the Caribbean are preparing to welcome the new century. After assessing the results of over one hundred years of diplomatic activity, a series of questions arise on our achievements, and on what we have left behind . Where are we, and where are we heading? This is not a simple question; on the contrary, it is an entirely valid inquiry when analyzing our countries' foreign policies.

Having entered into the international juridical community after breaking with our colonial past, and within a specific framework where liberalism ideology rules and the Nation-Government is the sovereign political form, the new nations, as well as those whose who lately achieved independence, began to practice an international behavior that varied between protocols rhetoric and aimless pragmatism. To this permanent contradiction was added the urge for notoriety, which, on many occasions, exceeded their ability to respond to varied and complex challenges.

The contradictions between the specific discourse and behaviors and the reality of power and rampant activism enabled, in general terms, Latin American and Caribbean countries to occupy a unique international position: that of being small countries with foreign policies for large countries. To this characteristic was added the fact that the region was in the Western Hemisphere, and its neighbor was the United States of America, which as of the past century projected among us its influence as a world power. From an economic and commercial viewpoint, Latin America and the Caribbean are characterized by developing an outward growth, with a marked emphasis on raw materials exports, and an incipient role assigned to the private sector. Within this framework, the Government played the main role.

Therefore, international participation in our region was based on the search for an intermediate position somewhere between passiveness and submission, and total independence. Since then, a kind of behavior began to arise based on well-known codes: orthodox neocolonialism, able to conceal the considerable weight of Washington's influence; an activism whose inspiration was based more on the rhetoric of embraces and agreements than on concrete results, and the absence of strong ties among ourselves.

At the end of this century, this scheme is falling apart. Globalism, regionalization; the inability to play the Joker, formerly between Spain and England, later between the United States and the Soviet Union, and now between America and Europe, as well as the decadence of the Nation-Government as an international actor, conspired against the accustomed tradition. Today, it is no longer possible and, we must point out, no longer desirable to follow the grandiose ambition to be present everywhere, to say yes to everything, to aspire to senseless goals. Summarizing, we must be humble and, for this purpose, both the formulation and the execution of foreign policies must be reaimed.

Thus, this new design is transformed into a sine-qua-non condition for facing things to come. Both from an internal and an external viewpoint, our countries cannot afford to lose more time. The world is changing its guidelines, and each national experience is in the transformation process.

In the face of the world without frontiers forecasted for the following years, the idea of the Nation-Government and its sequel, nationalism, are nearing their demise. In our region, nationalism was understood as a response to the United States' domineering presumptions, and those of the foreign companies in key economic sectors. In this regard, the notion of a society directed by a strong Government prevailed in the minds of our leaders. The Government was conceived as the driving force fir eternal actions geared toward seeking improved conditions for raw materials. Beginning with the Mexican oil industry, following with the socialization of the Cuban economy and the Venezuelan steel and oil nationalizations, a portion of the external sector was under Government control. These measures were accompanies by independent attitudes in the international scenario, which varied from the Mexican flirtation with Germany during World War I, to the Cuban alliance with the Soviet Union and the search for a new international economic order, to the recent reconsideration of ties with Europe. In this regard, we must not forget that the main reason was to alienate liberal capitalism and Washington.

Currently, these positions are being overcome, and regional Foreign Ministries no longer hold hidden meetings with North American Governments; adjustment programs are developed, that tend to reduce the Government's role, and promote adaptation to neo-liberalism guidelines.

With regard to activism, most of the Latin American and Caribbean Foreign Ministries have decreased their world presence and activities. Conscious of the fact that during the Cold War, major moves could be made, the drastic change undergone by the international agenda, plus its geoeconomic orientation, imply a revaluation of one of the most obvious characteristics of our diplomacy: delusions of grandeur and a taste for notoriety. Today, our Foreign Relations Ministers have undergone a dual change. On the one hand, it is no longer possible to cover all issues and participate in all scenarios. On the other hand, there is the strong competition of other Governmental entities and non-Governmental organizations for the formulation and execution of international Government policy. Therefore, some Foreign Ministries have restricted their international role, restructuring their order of priorities and even closing diplomatic representations. Now, it is time to welcome the Twenty-First Century with greater efficiency and effectiveness.

Additionally, isolationist and individualistic policies of the past no longer have meaning in a globalized world. Tradition indicated that the precision of the old realist principle on a country's security implied the insecurity of other countries. The bilateral view of international relations and the weight of juridical cosmovision and geopolitics encumbered the development of integration programs at all levels. In spite of the efforts of ALALC, and currently ALADI, the Andean Pact, SELA , Group of Three, the Initiative for the Americas, the Association of Caribbean States and MERCOSUR, the weight of a perception based on the idea of a Nation-Government has allowed for integrally transcending individual and bilateral schemes. This is another challenge that must be faced in the coming century: achieving true integration. Our leaders have met with moderate success when responding to these challenges. In this framework, the foreign policy agenda has taken a spectacular turn, defining an orientation which is fundamentally economic and commercial. In this manner, the aforementioned integration attempts must be emphasized, as well as the strengthening of a less stringent customs and tax system, in order to promote commercial trade and foreign investments and, in general, regional capital flux. Additionally, the promotion of regional exportations to new markets has been intensified, and the European market, which presented a deficient volume, has been reactivated. Obviously, upon examining the constitution of our exportations, raw materials and semi-finished goods are emphasized, and as regards importations, our dependency on the North American economy is evidenced.

Therefore, it would be unfair to proclaim that nothing has been done to respond to the challenges of the Twenty-First Century. Efforts toward regional integration, the strengthening of democracies, the transformation of foreign policy agendas -going from a geopolitical profile to a geoeconomic profile-, the new approach to Europe and the "discovery" of the Pacific, are some of the indications that something is changing. However, this will not suffice if an assessment is not effected of the intellectual premises that generated the characteristic "personality" of our foreign policies.

In order to strengthen this argument, we must recall the main issued on the region's international agenda. From a political viewpoint, we must point out the democracy strengthening process, which includes the support of the Organization of American States, the fight against corruption, and the effort for evaluating the state of human rights in the region's countries. Within this framework, Latin American and Caribbean foreign Ministries are concerned over the growing significance, as a challenge to political stability, of the native Indian populations, terrorism and drug trafficking issues, as well as the normalization -and, sometimes, the deterioration- of civilian-military relations. From an economic viewpoint, we may observe the following: the development of new outward growth models, the obstacles to integration due to competition between countries for attracting foreign investment, the limitations to free importations, the problem of the accumulated external debt as a hindrance for obtaining new refinancements, and the lack of long-term foreign investments. From a social viewpoint, the following are evidenced: the increasing paralysis of the public sector in providing responses to social policies based on subsidies and social compensation, growing poverty and migrations toward other regions, and an added factor: the migration of middle-class sectors.

In this context, we must point out certain trends that are observed in the near future, and that are conforming a series of challenges for the region's foreign policies. In view of the idea of increased political complementation, and a possible Latin American league of nations, a greater significance of internal variables is noted, as well as the characteristics of the political systems for stopping these initiatives. That is, in view of the idea of perpetual Kantean peace, obtained from the external environment via integration and cooperation, the specifications of regional political life surge as an insurmountable wall, in addition to a dominant populist/nationalist/Government-based culture, the growth of the international autonomy of internal regions, political localism and the internal intervention of non-Governmental entities. Additionally, from an international perspective, a debate is underway on whether Latin America and the Caribbean should sustain the hemispheric alliance policy or achieve a sort of neo-Europeanism. Consideration must also be given to regional integration programs, due to the individual competition among its members.

Based on the aforementioned considerations, we may infer that Latin American diplomacy must adapt to the so-called transnational world, to the reconsideration of the strategic significance of the region's raw materials and to the challenge of penetrating Asian markets beyond Japan. From an internal viewpoint, the main challenge is the incorporation of entrepreneurial private sectors to the international initiatives generated by the Governments and specialists.

Latin America and the Caribbean are facing the Twenty First Century. We hope that the response of its leaders and its population will be the most appropriate for managing the current international uncertainty.

URL: http://www.internet.ve/analitica

Mensajes al Editor: editorva@ccs.internet.ve