No cabe duda que la regionalización es una nueva tendencia que busca atemperar la debilidad de los Estados nacionales frente a una agresiva globalización. En las Américas este proceso ha sido lento y contradictorio. Por un lado, los EUA y Canadá han visto en la OEA el instrumento adecuado para esta regionalización. Pero, el resto de los países americanos, decepcionados por sus magros logros, han creado una serie de nuevos organismos regionales. Los que tampoco han contribuido a una unión regional efectiva. La presencia de los intereses de China, de la India -e incluso de Irán- en la región complica aún más el asunto.
By Jessica Rettig | 12 Apr 2012
CARTAGENA, Colombia -- The Organization of American States prides itself on being the world’s oldest regional organization. Yet, as its members prepare for the Sixth Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, this weekend, its relevance in today’s world, especially amid Latin America’s recent wave of regionalism, will be called into question.
The OAS remains the best-organized and most inclusive body in the Western Hemisphere, and apart from bilateral relationships, it is considered the prominent link between the United States and Latin America. Nevertheless, the region’s increasingly diversified global engagement and a growing sense of autonomy among Latin American nations has raised existential questions about the long-standing body, and by the same token, about the influence of the United States in Latin America.
Perhaps the most visible challenge today comes in the form of alternative regional groupings, such as the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), created by Brazil in 2008, or the smaller and more radical Bolivarian Alliance (ALBA), which began as an agreement between Cuba and Venezuela in 2004.
In addition, just this past December, in Caracas, Venezuela, regional leaders established the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) as their newest multilateral mechanism. Taking care to exclude the United States and Canada from its membership, certain regional leaders, notably Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, hailed CELAC as an outright rebuff of the OAS and its North American members’ role in the affairs of Latin America.
For Chávez and his fellow leftist counterparts in the region, such as Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa, CELAC’s creation marked “a point of arrival and a point of departure" for Latin America, as Chávez put it, a symbol of its success and a break from its dependence on the United States.
By contrast, other states in the region have adopted a more pragmatic, less political view of the newer regional forums. According to Sandra Borda, international relations professor at the University of the Andes in Bogotá, more-centrist countries such as Colombia simply see these new entities as additional forums to address the region’s problems, particularly those in which the United States does not necessarily need to play a role.
“[There’s a growing perception that] this region is powerful enough at this point in the story,” Borda says. “The U.S. is not in a position to intervene or exercise a lot of power over Latin American countries. So what’s the purpose of having the U.S. in these organizations?”
Indeed, Borda argues that rather than representing a rejection of the United States or a Cold War-like dynamic of picking sides, the rise of these new organizations may simply reflect a practical recognition that the United States has been increasingly less inclined -- and for domestic political and economic reasons, less able -- to intervene in Latin American matters.
Though the United States has in some ways worked to increase economic partnerships with many Latin American nations -- most notably through the trade agreements with Colombia and Panama approved last year -- it has been preoccupied elsewhere. Internally, debates over burgeoning federal deficits and a slow-going economic recovery limit its capability to deliver foreign or military aid. Likewise, even as its wars draw down in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States will continue to keep a close eye on the Middle East. Moreover, the Obama administration’s much-hyped “pivot” toward Asia makes it even less likely that Washington will prioritize Latin America among its list of geopolitical concerns.
Still, what some have called a lack of attention to Latin America may, in the end, be a blessing, as the region continues to seek solutions internally. The region has matured significantly, and though its nations still look to the United States for assistance on certain issues -- such as the lasting drug-trafficking problem in Colombia and Central America, for instance -- there are others where regional powers are now more confident in their own autonomy.
“They have been used to having the U.S. around for such a long time; it’s very difficult just to conceive the idea of solving a crisis without the U.S.,” Borda says. “But I think they are going to get used it.”
Partly as a result of the weakening impact of the United States, new regional groupings, particularly UNASUR, have become especially attractive for Brazil, which has emerged as Latin America’s standout global power. As it solidifies its economic potential as one of the so-called BRICS nations and seeks a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, Brazil’s reach throughout the rest of South America could be an important selling point. Such regional organizations could help to consolidate that influence, while also embedding it in a multilateral context that reassures Brazil’s neighbors.
That said, given the conflicting national interests, lack of trust and stark ideological differences among member states, it’s unlikely that any of these new organizations will make significant progress toward economic or political integration. Rather, in the foreseeable future, experts agree that these groups -- which fall significantly short of the OAS in structure -- will remain additional avenues for monitoring issues, defusing conflicts and fostering discussion within the region.
Even with its own limitations, the OAS is still much better-equipped financially and organizationally to encourage solutions on issues such as poverty, human rights and democracy than the other regional groups. And despite calls for its replacement, the OAS will continue to be a valuable nexus for both its North and South American members.
Jessica Rettig is a freelance journalist based in Colombia. She previously worked in Washington, D.C., as a politics and policy reporter for U.S. News & World Report.
OAS Still Relevant Amid Rising Latin American Regionalism
By Jessica Rettig | 12 Apr 2012
 |
| Cuenta la leyenda que el patio de la OEA hay una higuera tan esteril como su casa. |
CARTAGENA, Colombia -- The Organization of American States prides itself on being the world’s oldest regional organization. Yet, as its members prepare for the Sixth Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, this weekend, its relevance in today’s world, especially amid Latin America’s recent wave of regionalism, will be called into question.
The OAS remains the best-organized and most inclusive body in the Western Hemisphere, and apart from bilateral relationships, it is considered the prominent link between the United States and Latin America. Nevertheless, the region’s increasingly diversified global engagement and a growing sense of autonomy among Latin American nations has raised existential questions about the long-standing body, and by the same token, about the influence of the United States in Latin America.
Perhaps the most visible challenge today comes in the form of alternative regional groupings, such as the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), created by Brazil in 2008, or the smaller and more radical Bolivarian Alliance (ALBA), which began as an agreement between Cuba and Venezuela in 2004.
In addition, just this past December, in Caracas, Venezuela, regional leaders established the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) as their newest multilateral mechanism. Taking care to exclude the United States and Canada from its membership, certain regional leaders, notably Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, hailed CELAC as an outright rebuff of the OAS and its North American members’ role in the affairs of Latin America.
For Chávez and his fellow leftist counterparts in the region, such as Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa, CELAC’s creation marked “a point of arrival and a point of departure" for Latin America, as Chávez put it, a symbol of its success and a break from its dependence on the United States.
By contrast, other states in the region have adopted a more pragmatic, less political view of the newer regional forums. According to Sandra Borda, international relations professor at the University of the Andes in Bogotá, more-centrist countries such as Colombia simply see these new entities as additional forums to address the region’s problems, particularly those in which the United States does not necessarily need to play a role.
“[There’s a growing perception that] this region is powerful enough at this point in the story,” Borda says. “The U.S. is not in a position to intervene or exercise a lot of power over Latin American countries. So what’s the purpose of having the U.S. in these organizations?”
Indeed, Borda argues that rather than representing a rejection of the United States or a Cold War-like dynamic of picking sides, the rise of these new organizations may simply reflect a practical recognition that the United States has been increasingly less inclined -- and for domestic political and economic reasons, less able -- to intervene in Latin American matters.
Though the United States has in some ways worked to increase economic partnerships with many Latin American nations -- most notably through the trade agreements with Colombia and Panama approved last year -- it has been preoccupied elsewhere. Internally, debates over burgeoning federal deficits and a slow-going economic recovery limit its capability to deliver foreign or military aid. Likewise, even as its wars draw down in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States will continue to keep a close eye on the Middle East. Moreover, the Obama administration’s much-hyped “pivot” toward Asia makes it even less likely that Washington will prioritize Latin America among its list of geopolitical concerns.
Still, what some have called a lack of attention to Latin America may, in the end, be a blessing, as the region continues to seek solutions internally. The region has matured significantly, and though its nations still look to the United States for assistance on certain issues -- such as the lasting drug-trafficking problem in Colombia and Central America, for instance -- there are others where regional powers are now more confident in their own autonomy.
“They have been used to having the U.S. around for such a long time; it’s very difficult just to conceive the idea of solving a crisis without the U.S.,” Borda says. “But I think they are going to get used it.”
Partly as a result of the weakening impact of the United States, new regional groupings, particularly UNASUR, have become especially attractive for Brazil, which has emerged as Latin America’s standout global power. As it solidifies its economic potential as one of the so-called BRICS nations and seeks a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, Brazil’s reach throughout the rest of South America could be an important selling point. Such regional organizations could help to consolidate that influence, while also embedding it in a multilateral context that reassures Brazil’s neighbors.
That said, given the conflicting national interests, lack of trust and stark ideological differences among member states, it’s unlikely that any of these new organizations will make significant progress toward economic or political integration. Rather, in the foreseeable future, experts agree that these groups -- which fall significantly short of the OAS in structure -- will remain additional avenues for monitoring issues, defusing conflicts and fostering discussion within the region.
Even with its own limitations, the OAS is still much better-equipped financially and organizationally to encourage solutions on issues such as poverty, human rights and democracy than the other regional groups. And despite calls for its replacement, the OAS will continue to be a valuable nexus for both its North and South American members.
Jessica Rettig is a freelance journalist based in Colombia. She previously worked in Washington, D.C., as a politics and policy reporter for U.S. News & World Report.
1 comentario:
Admiring the hard work you put into your website and detailed information you provide.
It's awesome to come across a blog every once in a while that isn't the same outdated rehashed material. Fantastic read! I've bookmarked your site and I'm including your RSS feeds to my Google account.
My web site: Excess Baggage to Austria.
Publicar un comentario