scholarly journals Brazil’s foreign policy and the eternal quest for Latin American integration

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 10-23
Author(s):  
W. A. Sánchez
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Regional Integration ◽  
Western Hemisphere ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
The Us ◽  
Transformation Processes ◽  
Latin American And Caribbean

Brazil has historically been regarded as the natural leader of Latin America, given its level of development, the size of its economy, its military might and its ambitious foreign policy. This image was cemented during the presidencies of Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff, who supported Latin American integration (particularly via the creation of such blocs as UNASUR and CELAC) and diminishing Washington’s historical influence in the Western Hemisphere. However, the situation has dramatically changed with the rise to power of President Jair Bolsonaro, a staunch supporter of the US in general (and President Donald Trump in particular), which has affected Brazil’s role in the region. Based upon the analysis of specific domestic and foreign policy components, the author draws conclusions on how Brazil’s prospects as a participant (or even the key motivator) in the transformation processes in the region have changed. Brazil is no longer perceived as the axis of attempts at regional integration, but rather “just another separate state” taking care of its own interests. Brazil’s economic crisis and Bolsonaro’s strategy (or the lack thereof) regarding the COVID-19 pandemic have negatively affected Brazil’s image even further. Then again, as this analysis seeks to demonstrate, Latin America has a mixed record when it comes to integration attempts, as regional governments are zealous guardians of national sovereignty. Hence, while there have been some successful regional thrivings towards promoting cooperation, the rise of some supranationalist organization similar to the European Union – is a dream. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as Latin American (and Caribbean) blocs do not need supranationalism to be effective, but it shows the limits of regional integration initiatives.

scholarly journals Regional integration and Brazilian Foreign Policy: Strategies in the South American space

2013 ◽  
Vol 21 (48) ◽  
pp. 51-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristina Soreanu Pecequilo ◽  
Corival Alves do Carmo
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Regional Integration ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
South American ◽  
Theoretical Studies ◽  
Integration Process ◽  
Foreign Policy Strategies

The aim of the article is to present, based on theoretical studies of integration, the evolution of this process in Latin America and, most recently, in South America. Based on these studies, the goal is to analyze the role played by Brazil in the process, which defines as priorities of its foreign policy a regional and global framework for its international action that is based on both cooperation and power projection.The research has been conducted based on theories of integration, an historical background on Latin American integration and in Brazilian foreign policy, through its contemporary agenda. The answer was based on a comparative agenda and in a bibliographical critical analysis of the research material.The main findings of the paper point out that Latin American integration has specific features linked to the economic, political and stragetic realities of the continent that show the limitations of some theories applied to the European process, also that it depends on Brazilian foreign policy actions, that still sees the region as instrumental to its interests. So, Brazil sometimes fail to fulfill some requisites of integration that are essential to sustain its projects. Therefore, there is a cycle of enlargement and deepening of regional integration process in this political space that point out to the need of a more sustained compromise of Brazilian foreign policy towards these projects. If Brazil continues not to sustain these projects, they will lose momentum and significance once more, increasing power asymmetries in the region.

scholarly journals The Shaping of EU-Mercosur Relations: From Altruism to Pragmatism and Liberalism to Illiberalism

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn Marie Dudek
Keyword(s):  
Latin America ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Regional Integration ◽  
Development Programs ◽  
The Us ◽  
Trade Regimes ◽  
Eu Policies ◽  
Eu Competition Policy ◽  
Liberal Trade ◽  
The Eu

Deeply-embedded norms of liberalism and protectionism alongside EU policies focusing on promoting development and regional integration have shaped EU-Mercosur relations.  These stand in stark contrast to the policies of the US, the historic hegemon in the region. This paper utilizes historical institutionalism to understand how the liberal tenets of EU competition policy and the protectionism of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) have affected EU-Mercosur relations. Particular foci include Spain’s role in spearheading efforts to promote EU-Latin American relations and the way EU competition policies directed against monopolies in Europe spurred increased investment in Latin America, especially the Southern Cone.  The latter prompted the EU to forge closer ties with Mercosur, encouraged cooperation and development programs and spurred regional integration and liberal trade regimes in Latin America.

scholarly journals Latin American public opinion vis-à-vis regional integration (1995-2018)

2021 ◽  
Vol 53 (199) ◽  
pp. 33
Author(s):  
María Victoria Alvarez
Keyword(s):  
Latin America ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Regional Integration ◽  
National Level ◽  
Influential Factors ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Latin Americans ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Individual Economy ◽  
The Eu

Literature on opposition to regional integration has concentrated on the European Union (EU). So far, very few systematic attempts have been pursued to explain opposition to regional integration in Latin America or to identify its main influential factors. Based on Latinobarometer surveys, two main findings emerge from this paper. First, it confirms that opposition to regional integration is not a generalised attitude among Latin Americans. Secondly, the way in which citizens across Latin America evaluate regional integration is strongly influenced by the same predictors as in the EU. Together, citizens’ assessments of economic performance (both at the individual and national level) enjoy a preponderance to account for their position regarding regionalism. Others variables, i.e. age, ideological position, and level of education have a more limited explanatory value while occupation is not significant. Thus, economic variables such as citizens’ perceptions of their national and individual economy have proven to be directly linked to support for/opposition to economic integration.

Brazil’s Role in Latin American Regionalism

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier A. Vadell ◽  
Clarisa Giaccaglia
Keyword(s):  
South America ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Regional Integration ◽  
South American ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The South ◽  
Integration Model ◽  
Early 21St Century ◽  
The One ◽  
Latin American And Caribbean

The roots of Latin American regionalism blend together with the birth of the region’s states, and despite its vicissitudes, the integrationist ideal represents the most ambitious form of regional feeling. It is an ancient process that has undergone continuous ups and downs as a result of domestic and foreign restrictions. In the early 21st century, the deterioration of the “open regionalism” strategy, along with the rise to power of diverse left governments, led to the development of a “physical-structural,” “post-liberal,” “post-neoliberal,” or “post-hegemonic” integration model. In this context, Brazil—governed by Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva—constituted itself as a crucial protagonist and main articulator of the South American integrationist project. From this perspective, in addition to the existing MERCOSUR, UNASUR was created, and it encompassed the whole subcontinent, thus reaffirming the formulation of regional policies regarding the concept of “South America.” At present, however, a new stage of these regionalisms has started. Today, the Latin American and Caribbean dynamics seem to bifurcate, on the one hand, into a reissue of open regionalism—through the Pacific Alliance—and, on the other hand, into a fragmentation process of South America as a geopolitical bloc and regional actor in the global system. Regarding this last point, it is unavoidable to link the regional integration crisis to the critical political and economic situation undergone by Brazil, considered as the leader of the South American process. In short, the withdrawal of the Brazilian leadership in South America, along with the shifts and disorientations that took place in UNASUR and MERCOSUR, have damaged the credibility of the region’s initiatives, as well as the possibility to identify a concerted voice in South America as a distinguishable whole. That regional reality poses an interesting challenge that implies, to a great extent, making a heuristic effort to avoid being enclosed by the concepts and assumptions of the processes of regionalism and integration that were born to explain the origin, evolution, and development of the European Union. From this perspective, the authors claim that the new phase experienced by Latin American regionalisms cannot be understood as a lack of institutionality—as it is held by those perspectives that support the explanations that they “mirror” the European process—but rather it answers chiefly to a self-redefinition process influenced by significant alterations that occurred both in global and national conjunctures and that therefore, have had an impact on the regional logic. Given the regional historical tradition marked by vicissitudes, the authors believe that they can hardly talk about a “Sudamexit” (SouthAmexit in English) process, namely, an effective abandonment of regionalisms. Recognizing the distinctive features of Latin American and Caribbean countries, rather, leads us to think of dynamics that generate a complex and disorganized netting in which the political-institutional course of development of Brazil will have relevant repercussions in the future Latin American and Caribbean process as a whole.

Overstretching or Overreaction? China’s Rise in Latin America and the US Response

2021 ◽  
pp. 186810262110282
Author(s):  
Xiaoyu Pu ◽  
Margaret Myers
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Latin American ◽  
The United States ◽  
China’S Rise ◽  
The Us ◽  
China's Rise ◽  
Latin American Countries ◽  
Latin American And Caribbean

This article examines how the Chinese elites are interpreting China’s growing presence in the Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) region and the various ways in which the United States is responding to China’s expanding activity in the region. Some of China’s elites caution that China’s international posturing could be overly assertive. Regarding China’s growing role in the LAC, they have made a note of US sensitivities, in addition to China’s challenges and limitations in various Latin American countries. Regarding the US response, some US concerns may be legitimate, and others are less valid. Looking ahead, even though US–China interactions in the LAC will remain competitive, the US and China could potentially avoid counterproductive policies while also pursuing pragmatic co-operation. While China does not yet face a serious problem of strategic overstretching in the LAC, China’s domestic debate on the topic will provide feedback to China’s policymakers and promote fruitful China–LAC relations.

MERCOSUR and the European Union: Comparative Regionalism and Interregionalism

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrés Malamud
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Regional Integration ◽  
Role Model ◽  
Economies Of Scale ◽  
Central American ◽  
Trade Association ◽  
Political Scientist ◽  
The European Union

Integration attempts in Latin America have historically been linked to the European experience. Transatlantic influence has gone from policy learning through institutional mimicry to direct funding. Modern Latin American regionalism dates back to 1960, when the Central American Common Market and the Latin American Free Trade Association (LAFTA) were founded. Both associations were a response to the creation of the European Economic Community in 1957 and the fear that “Fortress Europe” would cut extra-regional markets off, so alternatives should be developed. The Latin American blocs aspired to overcome the small size of the national markets by fostering economies of scale. Shortly thereafter, European-born, U.S.-based political scientist Ernst Haas—jointly with Philippe Schmitter—put to the test the neofunctionalist theory he had developed for Europe to analyze Central American integration, correctly diagnosing the latter’s limitations and forecasting its setbacks. LAFTA also faltered and failed and, in 1980, the Latin American Integration Association (ALADI by its Spanish acronym) replaced it. A decade later, ALADI would become MERCOSUR’s umbrella organization. After the third wave of democratization, which in Latin America started in 1978, new attempts at regional integration took hold, and MERCOSUR was initially considered as the most successful. Successive leaders of the European Union (EU) nurtured big hopes and devoted a great deal of attention to EU–MERCOSUR relations, first assisting with integration technology, material resources, and intellectual guidance and, since 1995, conducting several rounds of negotiations to strike a trade deal. The path that had led to MERCOSUR resembled that of the EU, as it started in 1985 with functional and sectoral integration (wheat and oil prominently, in place of coal and steel) around the Argentina–Brazil axis. A few years later, in 1991, the binational association was opened up to Paraguay and Uruguay and transformed itself into a typical Balassa-like organization, prioritizing broader market integration over focused sectoral integration—just like the Treaty of Rome had done in Europe. Intra-regional trade tripled during the first seven years, but it later stagnated and never bounced back. As a result, the member states decided to up the rhetorical ante and broaden the areas encompassed by the organization rather than fostering economic interdependence or deepening the level of regional authority. An optional tribunal and a powerless parliament were established in 2002 and 2005 respectively. The outcome was grim: more institutions on paper did not enhance performance in practice. Having exhausted the internal agenda, the external agenda remained the only one where positive developments were still expected. In 2019, after twenty years of bumping negotiations, a political agreement on a comprehensive trade deal was reached with the European Union, MERCOSUR’s role model and largest trade partner. If this agreement is signed and ratified, it will become the largest interregional arrangement ever.

scholarly journals Latin America: Demographic Dynamics and the Migration Processes Transformation

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-140
Author(s):  
N. Yu. Kudeyarova
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Central America ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Regional Integration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Western Hemisphere ◽  
Migration Activity ◽  
Mass Migration ◽  
The Caribbean

Latin America is one of the high level migration activity regions. The mass migration flows are the part of the Western Hemisphere South nations history for more than a century and a half. Both the structure and direction of that flows have been significantly transformed during that period. While being the transatlantic flows recipients at the end of the XIX – beginning of the XX centuries, the Latin American States turned into donors of human resources in the second half of the XX century due to the profound demographic transformation. The aim of this paper is to analyse the demographic transformations impact on the emigration mobility models development in Latin America and the Caribbean countries. Demographic changes were manifested in different ways in countries with a large share of European migrants and those that were not affected by mass migrations flows at the turn of the XIX – XX centuries. The Central America countries and Mexico have experienced the most profound population explosion that subsequently affected the intensity of the migration movement to the United States. The paper examines the main migration directions of Latin America and the Caribbean residents, identifies two basic mobility source areas that demonstrate different strategies via different destination countries choice. While the United States has become the leading destination country for Latin American migrants, accounting for 93% of migrants from Central America and Mexico, the South American migration is mostly intraregional. The largest regional integration associations migration policies implementation reflects this difference. Spain has become a significant extra-regional migration destination for South America. At the end of the second decade of the XXI century, global economic transformations affect the migration dynamics of Latin American subregions, producing powerful migration crises and local tensions.

scholarly journals Dreaming on Latin America: Reflections on Russian Diplomacy in the Region

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 521-533
Author(s):  
Viktor Lazarevich Jeifets
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Statistical Data ◽  
Caribbean Region ◽  
Soviet Policy ◽  
Key Features ◽  
New Challenges ◽  
Media Review ◽  
Latin American And Caribbean

The article contains an outline of evolution of so-called Russian return into Latin America. The author tries to analyze how Russian foreign policy towards the Latin American and Caribbean region over the last three decades pointing some its key features and trying to define existing obstacles for its implementation, and to make some conclusions about possible prospects for Russias position in the region facing new challenges. Based on a literature and media review and a survey of documents and available statistical data, as also on the analysis of official statements, the aim of this article is to contribute towards a more profound understanding of Russias policy in Latin America. The extension of the article doesnt permit to make a thorough research of all the details of Moscows return to the continent; however, the author will refer to Venezuelan case at the contemporary stage as one of the important issues for Russian policy. The crisis in Venezuela proves to be a test for Russia: is it able to maintain an influential actor in Latin America or not. To sum up, this case is important in the context of this article as it shows if Russian diplomacy in Latin America is really new or it is a re-edition of Soviet policy toward the region.

The Monroe Doctrine 2.0 and U.S.-China-Latin America Trilateral Relations

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 202-222
Author(s):  
Marcos Pires ◽  
◽  
Lucas Gualberto Nascimento ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Latin American ◽  
The United States ◽  
Western Hemisphere ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Monroe Doctrine ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
Cuban Government

The election of Donald Trump caused a change in the direction of U.S. foreign policy for Latin America with the imposition of new sanctions on the Cuban government (starting a new cold war with the island) and the attempted regime changes in Venezuela and Nicaragua, whose governments are seen as a threat by Washington’s elite. In September 2018, during a speech at the opening session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Donald Trump took up the principles of the Monroe Doctrine as formal a U.S. policy and rejected the alleged interference of foreign states in the western hemisphere and in the internal affairs of the United States — a direct allusion to China and Russia. This change in U.S. policy toward Latin America has had a great impact on Sino-Latin American relations in the context of political pressures and aggressive rhetoric seeking to curb the Chinese presence there. This article explores the motivation behind the new attitude of the United States in its relations with Latin America and how it impacts Sino-Latin American relations.

scholarly journals US and EU in Latin America: contours of competitive interaction

2021 ◽  
pp. 0
Author(s):  
Ilona Gritsenko
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Latin American Country ◽  
The United States ◽  
Competitive Interaction ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Eu

The paper outlines the contours of modern competitive interaction between the United States and the European Union in Latin America. Based on the Latin American country strategies of the US State Department and the European Commission documents, the author traces the priorities of the above mentioned global players in the region, highlighting those of them that are areas of conflict of interests between the US and the EU. Special attention is paid to the differences and commonalities in their approaches to topical issues and problematic items of the Latin American agenda.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document