Further Interdependence, Greater Demands On Security
Francisco Rojas Aravena,
Director FLACSO-Chile
Towards a New International System
Essential aspects of the international system changed due to the globalization process.
Changes and speeding up of communications, transportation means and ways of production
affected a basic concept of the traditional international system order: sovereignty. From
an international system, based on nationally-defined sovereign international capacities,
we moved to an increasingly interdependent international system, where State's capacities
decreased. States quitted controlling such fundamental question as the financial flow,
communications and technological development, just to mention three important aspects.1
Within this context, the end of Cold War decisively contributed to make changes in the
international system dynamic and to project the same. Reference frames, which were the
basis for 50 years, disappeared together with the vanishing of Soviet Union and the states
which made up such international block. These decreased sovereign capacities and the
emergence of the Soviet state and of others, let new States to arise and made it clear the
emergence of new international non-State actors, which have acquired a significant
influence in different fields, especially in the economic one, but also in questions
associated with security.
New York and Washington's attacks forced a reassessment of the main issues of
international security, since such attacks clearly proved that within the globalization
context, security weaknesses and failures in one point affect the whole system. These
attacks, in turn, and especially the kind of response, proved the need of building a new
system of international rules. In order to accomplish this, the establishment of a
significant coalition is required, which is able to organize a world international system
that gives stability and governability. Of course, this involves a greater weight on
multilateralism, which was already proved by the appearance of new threats. In relation to
this, we can find the renewed urgency of reaching an agreement for all international
public assets, which must be promoted and respected by all actors, especially by the
States which continue to be the main actors of the international system. This will be
possible as long as a cooperative multilateralism is made effective with an
emphasis on building new initiatives from shared diagnoses and joint actions. Actions
based on this multilateralism may ensure the reinstitutionalization and the strengthening
of a world and regional multilateral system.
The emerging international system is characterized by the establishment of a de facto
international system made up by the victorious main powers of cold war. This international
system can be called "Western", although the States that make up the same exceed
the geographical definition of such a term.2 In this system,
the North-Atlantic states can be found, plus Australia, New Zealand and some Asian states.
Latin American countries are also located here, since they share the same values, although
great differences in their ability to incorporate to this international system can be
noted.
The establishment of this kind of system is possible on the basis of certain principles
and values mutually shared, among which the following can be mentioned: democracy, market
and human rights defense. To these, the non use of force to solve issues among the states
and the non proliferation of mass destruction weapons should be added as essential
principles.3 The fight of terror as a basic threat to freedom
is fully undertaken by all actors.
It is from this international system where bases can be laid to define the new world
international public assets, as well as the ways and procedures to ensure the world
stability and governability.4 This is a process under
construction, with the United States playing an essential part due to its leadership and
power abilities. United States, in this sense, is the single superpower of the world, but
beyond the unilateral inertia of its policies, it has not the abilities to ensure
stability and governability in the current scenario, on the basis of just its criteria and
options. Moving to multilateral ways is necessary, especially in the areas of finances,
trade, culture and others, even in the military field. In the context of globalization,
vulnerabilities are many and there are not enough resources in order to have utarky-based
full security. An international system, which is developed and founded on globalization,
means ever increasing world interdependence links, to which unilateralism is not the
proper answer.
Discussions after September 11 refer to the extent and size of changes in the
international system trends. The first question is if the world-reaching international
terrorism is an element able to change the priorities of the world at the same time in the
different regions of the planet or else, if beyond its violence, the horror of its attacks
and the huge losses in materials and people is still a peculiar event, that is to say,
despite its actions could develop an event of world impact, they are local or
under-regional due to their location and objects.
Anyway, the significant fact for the Latin American countries is given by the answer of
the United States, which stated that they were in war against world terror. This is a
first priority and, therefore, this has an effect upon the definition of the agenda of the
world and of the hemisphere, also meaning that the priorities and resources through which
United States relate to the world are rearranged.5 For the
American continent, this is associated with both situations of conflict, such as the war
in Colombia, and with processes of economic-political nature, as the promotion of the Free
Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA). In this case, part of the discussion is about
which will be the priority extent of such regional trade agreements as this within the new
American priority order.
In short, we can say that the main trends which affect security in the Latin American
and Caribbean countries at the beginning of XXI century are five: i) the end of cold war,
ii) globalization and democracy, iii) changes in sovereignty, iv) policies of regional
disarmament, v) institutional weaknesses in security issues.
Each one of these trends affects the region in the integration-security link, whether
by generating positive incentives or else making barriers to appear which must be
overcome. Changes in sovereignty and institutional weaknesses are the two trends affecting
most the security-integration link.
Latin America: A Permanent Integrating Will
The establishment of regional integration processes has been a permanent Latin American
aspiration and it has been present from the very independence as a supra-regional project.6
For almost two centuries of independence, the countries of the region have searched for
and generated integration initiatives of different kind: some of them have focused on an
"inward" integration model, basically driving an import substitution process and
some times political agreements have been set in order to constitute major units, such as
the Federation of Central American States or projects of trade freeing of different kind.
In the post-Cold War period, the Americas have been crossed by different kinds of
integrating initiatives: there are clearly established sub-regional markets and with
binding agreements all over the hemisphere.7 The main
initiatives express in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Central
American Integration System (SICA-MCCA), the Caribbean Community and Common Market
(CARICOM). In South America, the two great sub-regions express in the Andean Community and
MERCOSUR. To these efforts of economic complementation and integration, the efforts made
in the hemisphere in the trade field must be added, such as ALCA, regional efforts as the
South American-Brazilian initiative and several sectorial initiatives of sub-regional
nature. The initiatives already mentioned express also in the field of defense, with some
of them having hemispheric nature, such as the Summit of Ministries of Defense, and other
ones having a sub-regional nature,8 as the agreements in each
one of the different geographical areas. It is also necessary to point out that the
hemisphere is intertwined by different bilateral agreements, which promote complementation
among countries. Although said agreements have a strong emphasis on the neighboring field,
they go beyond the physical integration, joining countries which are located in very
different regions, such as the agreements between Chile and Canada, and Chile and Mexico
for example.
These initiatives have come up around what is called by us Summit Diplomacy ,9 that is to say, the regular meetings of presidents in order to
promote sectorial initiatives or enlarge the areas of cooperation. As regards the
hemisphere, the main initiative of presidents diplomacy is the Summit of the Americas,
from which the possibility of building a Free Trade Agreement of the Americas is driven.
In the defense field, we find an equivalent in the Conferences on Defense Ministries,
which focus the initiatives coming up from the Presidents' mandate on the international
security issues.
When evaluating ten years of operation, one of the clear results of the Summit
Diplomacy is the excess of initiatives and the difficulties to implement the same.
Although a strong political weight is kept in this mechanism, the capacity to carry out
the plan of actions is reduced, which affects further possibilities of coordination, as
well as the generation of a process that strengthens the integrating trends.
The above gets more importance due to the structural heterogeneity of Latin America. We
can note two clearly marked areas when seeing the Americas, where the political-strategic
characteristics of each one of them are most important. On the one part we have the north
of Latin America and the Caribbean Basin, where the United States' interests have
historically expressed with the greatest force and clarity. This is the sub-region where
they have exerted the greatest influence and with the highest level of military
intervention. In this region three sub-regions can be distinguished: Mexico, the Caribbean
islands and Central America. The second region is South America, which is a very important
area from the political and strategic point of view, with Brazil trying to play the
prevailing part. In this area, we can distinguish the countries forming part of MERCOSUR
and the Andean Region.
According to the recent developments, the NAFTA agreement has produced an increasing
level of interdependence between Mexico and the United States, which has consolidated. The
Central American region, in addition to its own integration process with landmarks in the
field of security as the Framework Treaty on Democratic Security, is also searching for
setting a link between the sub-region and the United States.
In the South American field, both the Andean initiatives and MERCOSUR and Chile as a
country, have tried to associate with United States through a trade agreement. The more
general frame of economic complementation will be given by ALCA.
It should be pointed out that Latin America and the Caribbean is a diverse,
heterogeneous and scattered region with great assymetries among the countries making it
up. Sub-regions and countries can be clearly distinguished by their level of economic
development. The amount of natural resources and the industrial and technological
capacities have high levels of differentiation. Their political institutionalization is
not homogeneous, which expresses in different extent in their governability capacity. From
the security point of view, the main problems have been overcome and the differences
associated with the territorial sovereign axis in the intranational field were also
solved. As regards the intranational aspects, the inner conflicts have increased, many
times due to the inability of the State to exert monopoly in using the force. The region
also shows heterogeneity in its economic development, as well as in the unequality of
income distribution, and the same could be mentioned for a number of indicators.
Through the Rio Group, the region has tried to act "as just one voice", but
the level of coordination of policies which are able to express in effective courses of
action has been very restricted. In the last meeting of Rio Group held in Santiago in
2001, the establishment of a number of mechanisms was intended in order to ensure a better
coordination. Faced with such a significant fact as that of the regional and institutional
response to the attacks of September 11, there rose, however, coordination difficulties
and there was not a single answer. The support to the United States was expressed through
a reactivation of the Inter American Treaty on Reciprocal Aid (TIAR) and a resolution by
the OAS.10
From this point of view, the countries of the region faced great difficulties to take
part effectively in the defining processes of international public assets of the current
historical time and to produce rules for the international system under construction.
Although individually the countries of the region have a very limited power in the
international system, the may exert a significant influence as a group. Acting as a whole
is the essential condition for this, since only this will make it possible for them to
incorporate to those stating the rules and not be just the object of those which establish
the same.11
Interdependence or Integration
Interdependence and integration seem to be synonyms, but we can distinguish them from
the analytical point of view. Today, for instance, as a planetary system we are greatly
interdependent in environmental issues, even in financial issues, this being the result of
the fact that the planet operates as a global ecosystem in environmental issues and that
the financial system operates as just one system all over the world, but this does not
mean that integration policies agreed have been set in any of these important areas.
Integration processes involve and reflect a high degree of political will and they
express in a discourse and practice which promote links and interdependence beyond the
trade aspects. This would be the most significant difference between the NAFTA process as
a essentially trade agreement in North America, and MERCOSUR, which object goes beyond the
trade aspects, being able to be kept as a political entity among the trade and economic
turmoil.
The existence of great interdependence differentials has different effects on politics,
on sovereignty and on a number of fields, where specific vulnerabilities can appear. Also,
the interdependence processes generate more force and capacity in specific areas. The
concept of sovereignty for instance, changed in the frame of globalization and national
borders quitted to be effective barriers.12 The collapse of
sovereign frames in this globalization context, let it possible the rising of new added
ways of interdependence and interrelationships which strengthen the sovereign action
capacity of the States making up the same. This means that in the globalized world,
sovereignty is lost on the one hand, but on the other part sovereign capacities increase
if effective processes of interdependence and integration are promoted on the basis of
association. This can be achieved by the formation of binding international systems.13
Although the States have little individual abilities to control and take effective
decisions in the environmental field, economic processes and in relation to organized
crime, the States may associate and coordinate policies at multi-lateral level in order to
strengthen their abilities and to reach binding agreements in these vulnerable areas and
produce a power-increasing effect, thus increasing their capacity.
A new definition of the concept of sovereignty will be necessary within the context of
the globalization process. The de facto international system existing now sets some
rules which limit the sovereign exercise, but it should be noted that this international
de facto system is founded on the agreements which reflect its values and which were
stated multilaterally with a significant degree of pluralism, although not of
universalism.
Changes in sovereignty affect international security in a fundamental way. The
international system is demanded to take specific actions and measures from specific
national fields. Sovereign impermeability ceased and today sovereignty is expressed in an
associated way as the single option to make actions effective in critical and high
sensitivity areas.
Due to these international transformations, to be able to guide the interdependence
processes and, even more, the integration processes, is a fundamental requirement for
those in charge of driving the international public policies. This is the reason why a strategic
meaning rises around integration and interdependence. The decoding of this strategic
relationship is a significant task to improve the public policies.
Reviewing the Strategic Meaning
International security and defense have a low priority and demand in Latin America, but
domestic security has a high priority and demand. The problems which come up from the new
agenda require urgent solutions that increase the governability capacity, but effective
and efficient solutions are not perceived, nor solutions which are ethically acceptable of
a political or military nature based on unilateral actions. The establishment of/u>
cooperation means the creation of alliances and the development of coalitions with a
strategic meaning,14 that is to say, the generation of a
vision and an a meaning for the actions with a long-term projection. This orders and
subordinates the particular interests in order to achieve mutual interests, including
meeting a significant part of the particular interests too.
The strategic variable is the one making the formulation, coordination and application
of policies possible, and it also guides the definition of purposes and objectives,
establishes a coordinating role by limiting the courses of action and looking for
coherence among them. Finally, it is the key in the application since the strategic
variable defines the allocation of resources.
In the Americas as a whole, the sense of community is under construction, since it did
not exist effectively in the cold war period. This sense of community is founded on values
mutually shared and also on the establishment of a global political, values and ethical
frame based on Western values. Especially, the trilogy made up of peace, democracy and
development represents this projection, and these three elements result in an essential
value mutually shared, as the promotion and protection of human rights.
We are living a historical time in Latin America, which is characterized by the
appearance of a sub-regional multipolarism, which places democracy as a central value and
which has increasingly demilitarized its security relationships. This is an ongoing
process and, therefore, with important vulnerabilities and weaknesses. The process does
not have a global coherence dimension, which allows to visualize equivalent progress in
the different subject areas. In fact, this process shows progresses in segments concerning
economic, security, technical cooperation and cultural relationships issues, as evidenced
by each one of the sub-regional processes, and even inside of each one of them.
Interdependence generates an association process, which has no equivalent reciprocity
relationship among the actors involved. This may occur, because the specific
interdependence process can be essentially given by the "dependence" of one
actor on the another, both for quality and quantity reasons. A commercial relationship may
get a strategic nature, when these dependence conditions are produced between the supplier
and the consumption market. The essential aspect is given by the fact that this
association may increase the symmetry degrees among the actors in order to establish a
"complex interdependence" as defined by Keohane and Nye.15
This is what made the increase of the association links possible, as well as the reduction
of polarization possibilities after the establishment of a mutual independence network. We
find an equivalent situation in the security issues, when different actors define a threat
together or set an object to be reached. In this case, the possibilities of forming
coalitions and associations increase. On the contrary, when perceptions of mutual threats
arise, the prevailing scenario is a zero sum game vision, though which escalation and
militarization try to replace cooperation.
It is within this frame where we must analyze how to build and ensure a greater
reciprocity as an increasing way of association, which is valid for the relationships
between two actors. Also, the effects should be considered that the associations of two or
more actors may produce in other States or actors, since they may perceive that their
interests could be affected. This is why the establishment of multilateral spaces and fora
are necessary, since this is what made more transparent relationships possible and in
favor of the mutual benefit.
Relationships as the result of processes of approaching, complementation,
interdependence and integration produce specific vulnerabilities or perceptions of them.16 It is here where the conflict-resolution mechanisms play a
decisive part, as well as the early alert mechanisms and tools to build trust. The
interdependent process generates specific vulnerabilities in several areas in one way or
another, which is offset with the increase of capacities in other areas. But, the
mechanisms already mentioned are required in order to set a balance between the quality
and quantity aspects, especially when any interdependence and integration process limits
the spaces to the domestic political decisions. This implies to properly coordinate the
taking of multilateral policies in the international field with the implementation of
domestic public policies which are consistent with said decisions.
Latin America: Opportunities for Cooperation
Although in the Latin American region, the processes of political and economic
integration have not achieved the expected results, a significant increase can be shown in
the factual interdependence levels. This opens opportunities for a greater degree of
cooperation within the frame of the high regional heterogeneity. But also the
establishment of institutional frames is required in order to prevent situations of
conflict and channel the problems that may be generated by this greater degree of
interdependence. The development of specific instruments of observation and early alert
capacity is essential, since this is a deficit area of the region, together with the high
degree of weakness in the institutionality of international security.17
A number of trends shows that there are opportunities to move on in this field, but
they alone cannot ensure success. The political will expressed in terms of institutional
construction is required in order to achieve the objects of stability and pro-activity
around the values associated with the international security, especially, with the object
of peace.
Among the main trends which show greater opportunities for cooperation, the following
can be mentioned:
1. The end of the main conflicts in the territorial axis among the states with the
greatest power. The cycle of border conflicts seems to come to an end, at least among the
lower-size countries.
2. The sub-regional cooperation has increased and is materialized in specific
agreements on the area of defense and in initiatives leading to increase cooperation in
this field.
3. Latin America and the Caribbean have been defined as a denuclearized zone and free
from mass destruction weapons, with its central purposes being that of becoming a peace
zone.
4. The establishment of fora for the coordination of policies with a hierarchy going
from the dialogue among presidents to the dialogue of experts. The Diplomacy Summit and
the meetings of ministers may express the degree of political will in any given time.
5. The institutional instability has made the operation capacity of many agreements
difficult. Without an effective institutionality, no progress in terms of constructing an
international system of security will be made evident.
6. the above, a substantial deficit must be added, which should be overcome, that is,
the establishment of a common concept on international security for the Americas. Over a
decade of cold war, the region has not been able to agree on and establish a new concept
on international security, without which the dealing with the new demands on security will
not be possible. This concept requires a holistic view able to join the dimensions of the
traditional security, along with the appearance of new forms of security and new threats.
In the essential aspects, the formulation of a concept is necessary, which is able to
organize the State security, international security and human security properly. Although
each one of these dimensions has its own characteristics, the new security should be able
to organize the answers required in each one of these fields.
The establishment of a common conceptual frame will open opportunities to the
development of:
1. Greater multilateralism. This will allow to enlarge the association
and matching of each actor according to the subjects of the international agenda.
2. More cooperation. The subjects of the new agenda on security, from
terrorism to drug control, require cooperative answers, in which the influence axis is not
in the military aspects but in the wider coordination of policies.
3. The agreements on a frame of interpretation and action on international
security will allow the establishment of binding juridical agreements around a
Multilateral System of International Security for the Americas.
To reach these agreements before 2004 is the goal set by the Chiefs of State and
Governments of the Americas, which purpose became more important after the terrorist
attacks of September 11. This goal becomes even more important with the increase of war in
Colombia and its threat of going beyond its national borders.
Despite its deficits and difficulties to establish governability, democracy in the
Western hemisphere has a critical responsibility in defining the new concept, which must
be able to prevent conflicts, develop mechanisms of early alert and ensure a sustainable
peace. Without a common conceptual frame in security, the progress in the integration
processes will be limited. Due to the institutional deficits and the lack of a conceptual
frame, the increased interdependence may open new spaces of conflict instead of favoring
the opportunities to reduce and limit conflicts. This is highly dangerous due to the
structural heterogeneity of the region and the facility to transfer instability.
Reasserting principles and values is important, but not enough. The level of
hemispheric and regional interdependence demands an effective institutionality in the area
of the international security. The mandate of the Chiefs of Government and Chiefs of State
evidences the same. The time has come to implement and make concrete this demand, which
will allow the stabilization and peace of this region.
Endnotes
1.
Ohmae, Kenichi, El fin del Estado-nación. Ed. Andrés Bello. Santiago,
1997.
2. Kruger, Richard L. y Frost, Ellen L. (Eds.) The Global Century.
Globalization and National SecurityEra.. Vol. I y II. Institute for National Strategic
Studies. National Defense University, Washington D.C., 2001.
3. Keohane, Robert. O. y Joseph S. Nye Jr., "Globalization: What's
New? What's Not? (And So What?)." in: Foreign Policy. Spring 2000.
4. Kaul, Inge, Isabelle Grunberg y Marc A. Stern, Global Public
Goods. UNDP/Oxford University Press. Nueva York, 1999.
5. Hoge, James F. y Rose, Gideon (Ed.) "How did this Happen?
Terrorism and the New War." Public Affairs. New York, 2001.
6. The integrative perspective has been expressed by the
"Bolivarian Ideology" and its expression "patria grande".
7. "Integración y Comercio en América." Nota Periódica,
Octubre 1999. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo.
8. Grabendorff, Wolf. "Perspectivas de una integración política
de América del Sur." Nueva Sociedad 177, Caracas, Enero-Febrero 2002.
9. Rojas Aravena, Francisco (Ed.) Multilateralismo: perspectivas
latinoamericanas. FLACSO-Chile/Nueva Sociedad. Caracas, 2000._________________________
(Ed.) Las Cumbres Iberoamericanas. Una mirada global. FLACSO-Chile/Nueva Sociedad.
Caracas, 2000.
10. Tokatlian, Juan Gabriel. "La inesperada (y temeraria)
resurrección del TIAR." Foreign Affairs en Español. Primavera 2002. ITAM,
México, 2002.
11. Tulchin, Joseph S. y Espach, Ralph H. (Eds.), Security in the
Caribbean Basin. The Challange of Regional Cooperation. Lynne Rienner, Colorado, 2000.
12. Krasner, Stephen D., Sovereignty, Organized Hipocrisy,
Princeton, University Press, Ithaca, Princeton, Nueva Jersey, 1999.
13. Sassen, Saskia, Losing control? Sovereignty in a Age of
Globalization. Columbia University Press. Nueva York, 1995.
14. Rojas Aravena, Francisco (Ed.), Argentina, Brasil y Chile:
Integración y Seguridad. Nueva Sociedad/FLACSO-Chile, Caracas, 1999.
15. Keohane, Robert O. y Joseph S. Nye. Poder e interdependencia.
La Política Mundial en Transición. GEL, Buenos Aires, 1988.
16. Domínguez, Jorge I. International Security and Democracy.
Latin America and the Caribbean in the Post-Cold War Era.. University of Pittsburgh
Press. Pittsburgh, 1998.
17. Rojas Aravena, Francisco (Ed.). "Cooperación y Seguridad
Internacional en las Américas" Nueva Sociedad., Caracas, 1999.
