SIZING UP THE NEIGHBORHOOD

DEBATE TEAMS ON BRAZIL

Resolved: Brazil should give up its demand for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

Rodrigo da Costa Serran Helen López Israel Muñoz Pineda Marianne Silva Batista Megan R. Horton Taylor Hadfield Axel Dávila Philipe Moura

Format: Two teams of four, one “affirmative” and the other “negative.” Two “constructive” speeches for each team and two “rebuttals.” 6 minutes each.

PREMISES

Prospects for projection onto global arena depend to a considerable extent on position within the hemispheric arena, thus focus on:

Relationships with other countries of the region,

Relationship with the United States, andChoice of strategic options (a.k.a. “grand

strategies”).

AFTER THE COLD WAR

1. Collapse of the Soviet Union2. U.S. military primacy: the “unipolar moment”3. “The End of History”?4. Transnationalization and non-state actors5. Process of “globalization”6. Shift from geo-politics to “geo-economics”7. Economic multipolarity: Europe, Japan, others?

CONDITIONS IN LATIN AMERICA

Ideological divisions: left, right, centerPrevalence of democratic discourseFocus on “strategic options”Unavailable alternatives:

Bolivarian dream of collective unity Rule of international law, organizations Social revolution

Thus: geo-economic option (with U.S. focused on geopolitics)

GEO-ECONOMICS: RULES OF THE GAME

1. Presumably “peaceful” competition2. Positive-sum, not zero- or negative-sum3. Goal: increase or guarantee share of economic benefits

—without destroying (or even defeating) rivals4. Repeated iterations5. Strategy: Maintenance of global “stability”6. Tactic: formation of “open” blocs

GEO-ECONOMICS (ii)Competitive arenas:

Consumer markets, natural resources (energy, water, etc.) Technology Financial markets

State roles: Direct participation Shaping of incentives Legitimacy on basis of “market discourse”

Regional integration: Strong seek to perpetuate primacy Weak seek to avoid exclusion Thus asymmetrical bargaining Hub-and-spoke configurations

RULES OF THE GEOPOLITICAL GAME

1. Nations can respond however they choose—including the use of indiscriminate force.

2. Preventive action is appropriate and acceptable.3. There is no need to adhere to international treaties or

conventions.4. Alliances are formed around one central issue—the anti-terror

campaign under U.S. leadership. Support is black-white. Democracy and human rights are secondary issues.

5. Spectator nations must tread cautiously.

RESPONSES FROM LATIN AMERICA

Broad sympathy; scores of own citizensOccasional satisfactionOAS support for action “as appropriate”Appeals for proportionalityFidel Castro: against terrorism and against

warPreferred option: the sidelines (as

“spectators”)Entanglements at the UN

… AND BARACK OBAMA?

Redefinition of war against terror Afghanistan > Iraq Al Qaeda ≠ Taliban Rules of game more subtly applied

Re Latin America, changes in rhetoric and emphasis rather than substance “Spectator” role regarding war on terror Immigration Drugs and drug trafficking Preference for geo-economic game

TWO-LEVEL GAMES

Geo-economic game + new geopolitical game, superimposed and simultaneous

Geopolitics > geo-economics if necessary Low priority for region Benefits of inattention (benign neglect?) National preferences: which game to play?

Examples: FTAs on basis of geopolitics Reluctance on immigration reform Allies in wars on drugs

Contradictions and trade-offs

PLAYING THE GEOECONOMIC GAME

1. TURN TOWARD THE NORTH

Vicente Fox (Mexico) Hopes for immigration reform NAFTA as resource Opposition throughout Latin America

Comrades in the War on Terror (Geopolitics too) Colombia Guatemala

The FTA Club Chile [special case] Central America + DR Peru Colombia Panama

2. SUBREGIONAL HEGEMONY

Brazil (Lula + Dilma) Grandeza brasileira Resistance to FTAA Mercosul and SAFTA and UNASUR

Venezuela (Chávez) ALBA (Alternativa Bolivariana para las Américas) International assistance programs Alliances with Cuba and “pink tide” countries Denunciations of Bush and USA Resistance to FTAA (r.i.p.)

3. THIRD WORLD SOLIDARITY

Brazil (Lula + Dilma) WTO Group of 20+ (a.k.a. 21) BRIC

Venezuela (Chávez) Non-Aligned Movement UN Security Council Petroleum exporters (including Iran)

4. BEYOND THE HEMISPHERE

Europe Divisions over Iraq Concern about EU future FTAs with Mexico, Chile Distancing from/by Spain

Asia Withdrawal of Japan Eruption of “China fever” PRC “strategic partnerships” with Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina,

Mexico; “cooperative partnership” with Chile, “friendly and cooperative relations” with Cuba

Iran? Really?

POWER RANKINGS:LATIN AMERICA

Population GDP (bns) GNP/capita 1. Brazil 195 2,143 9,5402. Mexico 113 1,035 8,9103. Venezuela 29 394 11,6304. Argentina 40 369 8,620

5. Colombia 46 286 5,480 6. Peru 29 154 4,6307. Chile 17 216 10,750others…?Note: NWFZ under Treaty of Tlatelolco (1967, 2002).

BLOCS AND ALLIANCES

Rio Group (1986, 23 members) Latin American Summit on Integration and Development (2008,

33 members) CELAC (2010, 33 members) Ibero-American Summits (1991) MERCOSUR (1991, 4 members plus) ALBA (2004, 6 + members) UNASUR (2005, 12 members) Alianza del Pacífico (2010, 4 members)

CHOICES AND COROLLARIES

Act alone in global arena (a dubious enterprise) Act in global arena with allies:

Within hemisphere Outside hemisphere

Define relationship with United States: Valued by USA Critical of USA Distant but correct

Demonstrate autonomy Establish links throughout developing world Seek level playing fields Focus on geo-economics > geopolitics

The End.