Amb. Julio GARRO
I will begin by briefly reviewing Latin America´s evolution in the last few decades to give context to the current dynamics of our regional organizations and to what - I think - we have learned about ourselves as a region.
- O -
After the debt crisis of the 80s, in what many experts have called the Lost Decade for Latin America, the 90s came with a new disposition towards liberal democracy and economic freedom, in tune with the ideas followed in many other regions of the world.
There was a firm belief in what was called “the Washington Consensus”, i.e. a meeting of minds among the financial organizations and the US government that brought about many countries around a series of economic reforms aimed at economic liberalization and interdependency. This, with the conviction that there was an inextricable connection between democracy and prosperity based on open markets.
However, the model came to a harsh reality check during the 2008 financial crisis. It made some in our societies rethink on the effectiveness of democratic systems and the international liberal order. This not necessarily meant that we argued over the legitimacy of democracy itself -at least not at the beginning and at least not all- but about the way we were implementing it. Credibility in the economic system and international order was also shook and its effects hit the political class.
These international incidences led in many instances to a prolonged period of populism. A phase that in a way is still in progress and that is estimated to have climaxed circa 2014. A moment when the commodities super-cycle burst, seriously affecting Latin America, which has since lived through a series of pendulum swings in the political spectrum, having experienced populisms of different political colors.
This polarity and divisiveness in our societies has been the result of a loss of faith in the international liberal order due, in many cases, to a stagnation of economic growth and the failure of the system to deliver prosperity to a large part of the population.
Common values and beliefs that seemed ingrained in our societies, like the benefits of modernization and the link between democracy and prosperity, started to falter and in several cases gave space to antiestablishment leaderships and extremisms.
Such changes in the internal politics of many countries were, of course, later reflected in foreign policy. It could be perceived in a loss of faith in traditional multilateral institutions, in part by their inability to avert economic crisis and, more recently, wars. This instability has been reflected in our regional organizations dynamics, as well as in their maneuverability and projected strength.
- O -
If these ideas have some merit, it may be worth exploring now how some of them have played out in Latin American regional organizations, and why some have worked and why others, not so much.
In our regional experience, it is necessary to distinguish between permanent organizations and mechanisms. Among permanent organizations, we can find the Organization of American States (OAS), the Andean Community, the Central American Integration System (CICA), the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) or, more recently, the Pacific Alliance.
While, on the other hand, we also have mechanisms of various types, including: the ailing CELAC (the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States), UNASUR (the Union of South American Nations), and PROSUR (the Forum for the Progress of South America), both disappeared; and the emerging Consenso de Brasilia.
The difference between them lies mainly in their rules and norms. In permanent organizations, States cannot deviate much from their objectives and goals and must follow their norms. Meaning there is a certain level of stability. They are more established bodies. As a matter of reference, the OAS is the oldest regional organization in the world.
In mechanisms, in contrast, goals are flexible, and their focus can vary according to the States that have more temporary influence and clout. In this sense, there is more instability, but at the same time they have more maneuverability, as they do not have a series of rigid rules.
Between these two groups of organizations, there are moments of convergence and divergence. The former occurs when mechanisms align with permanent organizations on certain issues, such as, for example, strengthening democracy. At a time, this was a topic with a lot of consensuses and allowed the creation of permanent rules -democratic clauses, for example- in organizations like the OAS and others.
However, when policy differences arise, mechanisms can usually disappear or go ineffectual with more ease. Thus, they function temporarily and mainly result in useful tools for short-term goals.
Having said that, in both cases, the dynamics and momentum of these organization and mechanisms are greatly affected by country coalitions where ideological debates permeate the relationship between States. But, we are living in tumultuous times, and differences have dominated political interaction, both within and among States. So, the main source of these problems at a regional level is the lack of control over the weight of ideological influence in relationships. It is a disruptive element.
Although, on a positive note, I must highlight that even this unsettling phenomenon has not completely affected regional stability. And the contribution of regional organizations to it has not been minor.
Exhibit one, the lack of international armed conflicts. In Latin America we seem to experience predominantly political confrontations and disagreements. But even on highly sensitive issues, such as boundary disputes, we have not resorted to armed conflict. This is something that I would like to feature as an encouraging example that we devoutly hope to maintain.
Many sensible cases have been brought to the International Court of Justice (CIJ) under the Pact of Bogotá. Global principles established in the United Nations Charter, are basically the same at the regional level. We have rather effective dispute resolution mechanisms.
Another lesson I believe worth sharing from the Latin American experience is an ambivalent adherence to a couple of concepts that have acquired an “intermestic” nature: democracy and human rights. On the one hand, there is a conviction that stability has been linked to democratic systems. That is, there is a high level of agreement on the concept of democracy. There are no discrepancies on it as a goal. Only on how to apply it. Even if it´s a big only.
There is also a consensus on the importance of human rights. Everyone claims to respect them and criticizes those who allegedly do not. It is a common value in the region. It is a reference topic in Latin America’s neighborly relations. And a vivid topic in regional organizations debates.
