has become almost a commonplace pose that Chile and other countries stable and democratic they must come from the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR).
The reasons are varied from the “proliferation” of agencies and that would suffice the OAS, that UNASUR was created by Hugo Chávez and Lula Da Silva, in response to views that currently represent the mature Chair and irresponsible policies. Others add that the fact that Member States do not have have to agree in a Secretary-General would mean the ineffective organism: really just a challenge to the capacity of countries to protect their own interests.
For two centuries, Latin America (today next to the Caribbean including English-speaking countries) has not been able to influence the world according to its territory, population, and economic and cultural level. The idea of Simón Bolívar of a great Confederation collided with the distrust with respect to our own chances of achieving their own our own stability. In addition, it was at that moment of favouring independence as a nation, what was reasonable.
However, the sum of decades without proper Latin American institutions only served for the republics did not never acquire the collective weight in the international system that corresponds to their intrinsic weight. We are in many respects about 10% of the international system and are not involved in major decisions.
My experience of 12 years in the OAS showed me that this organization is necessary as a space for dialogue with the United States and that, as a Secretary-General, said if it did not it would have to create it. But, the reality is that in many important problems, as for example delete or radically change the veto in the UN Security Council or allow other permanent members – among them Latin America – are conflicting interests with USA, power with which it is possible to reach agreements on issues of democracy, fight against drug trafficking, the defense of human rights, where the Inter-American system has mechanisms and a court in San Jose.
However, not having a strong political system, properly Latin American as the community of Latin American and the Caribbean (CELAC), before its serious crisis was UNASUR, increases the asymmetry of power with the great world power which is our neighbour that will even affect to move toward a more egalitarian dialogue.
The origin of the Union linked to Chavez and Lula, should be less decisive than the role of policy coordination that UNASUR can and should play. In its first years of operation, the block was able to install a dozen of South American advice in various areas of social development, defense and natural disasters, in which progress was made in the coordination of policies, issues which undoubtedly favours the identification of areas of cooperation.
In addition, South America and 12 countries – is a natural area for cooperation and actions to schedule policies that can give collective resonance to the conglomerate. And yet, in coordination with the CELAC which are 33 countries, which has been consistently in dialogue with the European Union and China.
Win something Chile if UNASUR sinks? Nothing, as other multilateral schemes will remain, but in the actual political Latin American, which has been elusive, will remain very weak. As regards the proliferation of agencies is not a real problem: are the States and their Governments who sovereignly decide what problems lead to treatment and to which agency.
Colombia announced that it will come out of the Union. Without going any further, when the previous Colombian Government sought a headquarters to carry out the final process of talks with the FARC argued for Cuba, a country of CELAC, as a meeting place. Cuba has many differences with the countries of the Group of Lima, but in Latin American international politics can bring. That kind of reasons apply also to my trial of UNASUR.
Moreover, the Chilean “exceptionality” would be its capacity for stable development and on that basis make agreements with other countries to maximize our ability to affect the international system.
The existence of UNASUR is important to us, it allows us to operate more effectively in a great subcontinent, where we have always had Gravitation and complex relationships with neighbors.
The pending issue will be Nicolas Maduro. Regarded with a certain height, it is difficult to understand if the countries of the Group of Lima, which has justly criticized the Venezuelan regime decides to destroy UNASUR because it has not been able to bring about a deal in Venezuela: nobody has been able to do so.
The existence of UNASUR is positive for Latin America and South America and has allowed us to represent our people and their needs in international fora, in a world with a multiplicity of actors and a context progressively more complex for diplomacy.
Poured in this op-ed content is the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial line nor the counter position.
