If the stage for South America were that of the frame of a totally open economy, the surpluses of industrial production of the most diverse parts of the orb –naturally or artificially produced- will be dumped onto the South American market, amongst others, and they will end up destroying the industrial park of Argentina-Brazil and, in that same way, throwing large groups of the population into unemployment. For countries like Venezuela, Peru or Colombia, the irruption of the surpluses of global industrial production would inhibit any attempt of industrial development but, for countries like Argentina and Brazil, an uncontained irruption of these surpluses of production, by provoking the annihilation of their industrial parks, would mean a catastrophic set back to the condition these countries held until 1930: that of producers of raw materials and agricultural non-manufactured products and importers of goods and services with better technology. In synthesis, going back to occupying the post that Adam Smith had assigned them in the international division of labor.
Such a setback would not only be incompatible with the sustainment of the current populations of both countries but it would also be incompatible with the preservation of their democratic regimes. The devastation of the Argentine-Brazilian industrial park would mean, therefore, the annihilation of democracy and social hecatomb, a situation that could lead to a process of territorial fragmentation similar to the one lived by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with the implosion of the socialist system.
This fragmentation process that, above all in the case of Brazil, might not only be well looked upon by the hegemonic structures of world power but also might be well received on behalf of these important exogenous stimuli. After this eventual social hecatomb, Brazil could end up fragmented into several States. Something like an American “civil war”, but with an inverse result: those regions whose primary production is more important would fall with ease into the temptation of adopting a primarily exporting model and would break loose from the “inefficient” industry and bureaucracies of the rest of the country.
Very on the contrary, if the countries of South America are able to construct an effective “South American Union of Nations” by mid-decade of 2020, that would take them to the implementation of a common economic-diplomatic-military program, they would then be in a condition to negotiate with the rest of the powers, thirsty for raw materials, the possibility of them accepting that the South American community carry out an active pro-industrial policy that will have to be extremely selective so that it will be acknowledged by the international hegemonic structures of power.
Through an active pro-industrial-technological policy, the countries of South America would moderately open up their economies to the industrial production of the rest of the planet. It will not have to do with taking the idea of autarchy to a South American level but rather with determining the productive sectors to safeguard in order to maintain an industrial structure in accordance with the sustenance of the population of South American countries avoiding in that way the possibility of mass unemployment that would inexorably take them, as we have already shown –above all in the cases of Argentina and Brazil-, to a social crisis incompatible with the preservation of their democratic regimes and their respective territorial and national unities.
In exchange, if the stage is one of a “Union of South American Nations”, that is able to establish a diplomatic program in common and a like policy before foreign investment, they could be able to avoid foreign investment from aiming at the achievement of predatory extractive activities that are incompatible with the sustainable development that South American societies need.
Well, I think that there is an problem with this way to see the region in a geopolitical way.
First, I want to establish some context.
South America is commonly used in this part of the world (The Americas) for refer to a group of nations between Colombia and the Southern peak of Argentina-Chile. Everything from Panama, and the North, is another region(s).
In the remaining regions, we can divide it in 3: Mexico, Central America (From Guatemala to Panama) and the Caribbean.
I focus on this part, because I want to establish some geopolitical context in which we can understand this region.
First. I want to focus in Central America. Central America historically, has been influenced by foreign companies (Fruit companies). These companies had a lot of power in these nations. This is where the concept “Banana Republic” came from.
These countries are basically tropical, small, and their influence is very small in comparison with another nations in the region. Today some of these nations are the most violent countries in the world. Sonly Panama and Costa Rica have stability and are economically more developed that their counterparts.
Then we have the Caribbean, very similar to their Central Americans neighbors, but we can divide these nations in 2: The Spanish Caribbean, somehow similar to Central America. And the Non-Spanish Caribbean. Mainly small nations, and some are even colonies from the UK, France, or the Netherlands. We can add Belize, and the Guyana on these context. Usually very small, with only one important city, which is a Port. Very depend on tourism and exports in some product, and as their influence are very small. They are basically irrelevant, and different to the rest of the Spanish speaking nations in the region.
The Caribbean and Central America are very small for establish influence. And specifically in the non-Spanish Caribbean, some European powers, and the USA even own some territory there. The American, British, Dutch, and French Influence in the region is very high. Somehow higher that any other Spanish Speaking country in the region.
If you see and analyze the remaining nations, you have South America, (Anything between Colombia-Venezuela and Chile-Argentina) and Mexico. And if we take in consideration that Central America and the Caribbean are mainly influenced by the USA, or Great Britain (Belize is part of the commonwealth) you have Mexico very isolated from South America.
Mexico is basically, the Latin American country that share a lot of cultural background with the other Spanish speaking countries, but that’s it. Mexico actually is very isolated since it’s independence, and the country is more connected towards North America, and is currently focus on Asia.
Mexico have a very different political history in relation to the Spanish speaking world. As Mexico had not been in a dictatorship, since 100 years ago. That political system can be understood as a Partisan System in which the ruling party can be very powerful, similar to what we had in the China today. Just add many parties there. And there is not a real opposition in the Political System. There are opposite parties, but as there can’t be a absolute majority, then they can’t take over the country, as could happen in a bi-partisan or in a one party system. There are like 3 options, many small parties, and independent candidates. With this, you can have Mexico having its own political system. Also it’s connection towards the USA, (Economically, Cultural, Geographic) make the country to have a similar presence in Latin America, just as the UK in Europe.
Mexico share it’s problems with Central America, and Colombia. If you want to put a connection between Mexico and Latin America.
Then you have South America. South America is basically where all the important political things happen. South America is currently divided in 2 blocks, MERCOSUR, and the Pacific Alliance. (Mexico is part of the second one).
MERCOSUR is an economical-political block in the region, Is the biggest block. And we have Brazil as it’s leader. Brazil as is also part of the BRICS, we can see that country becoming a regional power toward the region. The only problem for Brazil, is the Language. We don’t have these linguistic differences as the European union, but as almost all speaks Spanish, or Portuguese, and the Spanish Language unite the Spanish South American countries, we have a strange relation. In which Brazil is the “Different one” in relation with other countries. Mexico could be the second regional power but it seems that it’s isolation, do not really help them. Central America have it’s own block, and the Caribbean have it.
Now, As Mexico is a very large country, maybe that is a mental illusion than between Mexico and Argentina, you can unite these nations, but many people (We also seems to) ignore the fact that Central America and the Caribbean are very small nations with almost no power, and are influenced by external nations.
Also, Mexico is divided in regions, and the people in these regions have different interest.
The North side of the country (Where I came from) are basically, the bridge between Mexico and the USA. And as that region have it’s economical interest in the USA, then is very hard for make them look towards the south. Also considering that the region is basically, against everything that MERCOSUR does.
Southern Mexico is more interested in looking toward Latin America. The center of the country is like a neutralized between these 2 opposite reactions. Central Mexico in the other hand, is more centralized. So you have the regions of the country with their own interest. These interest, make the country to not be fully integrated towards Latin America. So, if you want to see a unified block, it might start from Colombia, (There is currently one, called UNASUR).
What I always say is that Mexico is not South America, because Central America and the Caribbean are just more focused on their own issues. These small countries have another interest in relation to South America. These different interest make it very hard to make one common track for the region.
Posts: 11,769 Likes: 9,596
Ethnicity: Royal Blood Country: USA mtDNA: H11 Politics: Not interested Religion: Christian (BUT NOT Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox, Mormon, Jehovah Witness, Methodist, 7th Day Somethings, and more to add later) Age: Young Member Admiration & Reason: Polaris. The universe needs him.
Elizabeth — Very determined in her endeavors, never affected by anything that gets in her way.
Said by a smart Arktos member,
"A slavic girl may be so sweet. The nicest one you'll ever meet. She might seduce you if she can. You'll think she is your greatest fan. But cross her, and your fate she'll seal, with a will of titan steel."