Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T09:48:35.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

South American Market Integration: The Argentina-Brazil Rivalry Myth and Motivations for the Southern Common Market

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2016

Trygve Alexander Giaever*
Affiliation:
Miami, Florida
Julian Schofield*
Affiliation:
Concordia University
*
7311 NW 12th Street, Suite # 22 - FPY20322, Miami, FL 3191, email: [email protected]
Department of Political Science H-1225-65, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Boulevard Ouest, Montreal, Quebec, H3G1M8, Canada, email: [email protected]

Abstract

This paper revisits and rebuts the mainstream view that Brazil and Argentina were led to form the Southern Common Market to end more than a century of rivalry and competition. We find the elements characterizing an interstate rivalry diminishing in the nineteenth century through the promotion of peaceful settlements and strategic alliances while those that could prompt security concerns disappeared years before the Southern Common Market was formed. Except for diplomatic disputes over the distribution of shared water resources, a disagreement settled in 1979, the decades preceding the Treaty of Asuncion were typified by security alliances, co-operation on economic complementarity and the promotion of bilateral institutions. We find little evidence for the implied security motivations being proposed in the literature. Rather, the establishment of the Southern Common Market was driven primarily by Argentina's and Brazil's desire to improve economic performance and advance political leverage through the promotion of a common stance in global affairs. This view challenges a common component in integration theory that, as applied to the European Union and elsewhere, asserts the privileged role of security concerns as prime driver for integration. This matters because there is a misapprehension that affects both the theory about integration as well as the formulation of policy prescriptions for South America.

Résumé

Cet article réfute la vue dominante que le Brésil et l'Argentine ont été amenés à former le Marché commun du Sud pour mettre fin à plus d'un siècle de rivalité et de concurrence (Kaltenthaler et Mora, 2002: 72–97). Nous retrouvons une diminution des éléments caractérisant une rivalité inter-étatique dans le XIXe siècle à travers la promotion des règlements pacifiques et des alliances stratégiques, tandis que ceux qui pourraient susciter des préoccupations de sécurité se sont resolu plusieurs années avant le Marché commun du Sud a été formé. Sauf pour les différends diplomatiques sur la répartition des ressources en eau partagées, un désaccord réglé en 1979, les décennies qui précéde le Traité d'Asunción ont été caractérisés par des alliances de sécurité, la coopération sur la complémentarité économique et la promotion des institutions bilatérales. Nous retrouvons que les motivations de sécurité implicites se perpétuent dans la littérature sans fondements de preuve et que le Marché commun du Sud est portée principalement par l'intérêt de l'Argentine et le Brésil pour améliorer leur performance économique et leur influence politique à travers la promotion d'une position commune dans les affaires mondiales. Cela remet en question un ingrédient commun dans la théorie de l'intégration qui, appliquée à l'Union européenne et ailleurs, affirme le rôle privilégié des préoccupations de sécurité comme premier pilote pour l'intégration. Cela est important parce qu'il ya un malentendu qui affecte à la fois, la théorie de l'intégration ainsi que la formulation de recommandations politiques pour l'Amérique du Sud.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albright, D. 1989. “Bomb Potential for South America.Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 45 (4): 16.Google Scholar
Alimonda, Hector and Steiger, Bill. 1994. “Mercosur, Democracy and Labour.Latin American Perspectives 21 (4) 2133.Google Scholar
American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise. 2003. “Israel's Wars and Operations: Operation Opera—Raid on Iraqi Nuclear Reactor.” http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Osirak.html (August 9, 2013).Google Scholar
Bennett, D. S. 1997. “Measuring Rivalry Termination, 1816–1992.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 41 (2): 227–54.Google Scholar
Bernal-Meza, Raúl. 2008. “Argentina Y Brasil En La Política Internacional: Regionalismo Y Mercosur (estrategias, Cooperación Y Factores De Tensión).” The Scientific Electronic Library Online SCIELO—Revista Brasileira De Política Internacional. http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbpi/v51n2/v51n2a10.pdf (February 4, 2013).Google Scholar
Bethell, Leslie. 2009. The Abolition of the Brazilian Slave Trade Britain, Brazil and the Slave Trade Question, 1807–1869. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
Brigagao, Clovi and Valle Fonrouge, Marcelo F.. 1998. “A Regional Model of Confidence Building for Nuclear Security in Argentina and Brazil.” The International Journal of Peace Studies. http://www.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/vol3_2/Brigagao.htm (March 21, 2013).Google Scholar
Botto, Mercedes and Tussie, Diana. 2007. “De La Rivalidad a La Cooperación: Límites Y Desafíos De Un Contacto Creciente.” Facultad Latinoamericana De Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO). http://www.flacso.org.ar/uploaded_files/Publicaciones/rivalidad.cooperacion.al_tussie_botto.pdf (August 09, 2013).Google Scholar
Carasales, Julio C. 1995. “The Argentine-Brazilian Nuclear Rapprochement.” James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. https://www.nonproliferation.org/wp-content/uploads/npr/carasa23.pdf (July 13, 2013).Google Scholar
Center for Strategic Defense Studies. 2008. “Statute of South American Defense Council of UNASUR.” Unión de Naciones Suramericanas - UNASUR. http://www.ceedcds.org.ar/English/07-Southamerican-Defense-Council/03_CDS_Statute.html (August 21, 2013).Google Scholar
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). 1982. “Argentina's Nuclear Policies in Light of the Falkland's Defeat.” http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0001265543.pdf (Mar 16, 2013).Google Scholar
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). 1983. “Brazil's Changing Nuclear Goals: Motives and Constraints.” 1983. www.cia.gov (Mar 17, 2013)Google Scholar
Centro Superior de Estudios de la Defensa Nacional de España (CESEDEN). 2010. “La Creación de UNASUR en el Marco de la Seguridad y la Defensa. Ministerio de Defensa.” Documentos de Seguridad y Defensa. http://www.defensa.gob.es/ceseden/Galerias/destacados/publicaciones/docSegyDef/ficheros/029_LA_CREACION_DE_UNASUR_EN_EL_MARCO_DE_LA_SEGURIDAD_Y_LA_DEFENSA.pdf (August 22, 2013).Google Scholar
Descalzo, Guillermo. 2012. “El Programa Misilístico Argentino Cóndor.” Misil Cóndor. http://www.gdescalzo.com.ar/misilcondor.htm (August 9, 2013).Google Scholar
Diehl, Paul F. 1985. “Contiguity and Military Escalation in Major Power Rivalries.” Journal of Politics 47: 1203–11.Google Scholar
Diehl, Paul F. and Goertz, Gary. 2000. War and Peace in International Rivalry. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Do Couto E Silva, Golbery. Conjuntura Política Nacional: O Poder Executivo; &, Geopolítica Do Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Livraria J. Olympio Editora, 1981.Google Scholar
Domínguez, Jorge I., Mares, David, Orozco, Manuel, Palmer, David Scott, Aravena, Francisco Rojas and Servín, Andrés. 2004. “Disputas Fronterizas En América Latina.” Foro Internacional 44.3 http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~jidoming/images/jid_disputas.pdf (Jan 28, 2014).Google Scholar
European Commission. 2007. “Mercosur Regional Strategy Paper, 2007–2013.” European Union—External Action. http://www.eeas.europa.eu/mercosur/rsp/07_13_en.pdf (August 02, 2013).Google Scholar
Fanelli, Bruno. 2008. “Analysis De La Integracion Argentino-Brasilena.” Working Paper no. 9. Centro Argentino De Estudios Internacionales. http://www.iadb.org/intal/intalcdi/PE/2008/01370.pdf (April 01, 2013).Google Scholar
Fernandes, Ananda S. 2009. “A Reformulação Da Doutrina De Segurança Nacional Pela Escola Superior De Guerra No Brasil: A Geopolítica De Golbery Do Couto E Silva.” Red De Revistas Científicas De América Latina, El Caribe, España Y Portugal. http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=193314422012 (August 09, 2013).Google Scholar
Foro De São Paulo. 2014. “Final Declaration of the 20th Meeting of the São Paulo Forum.” Encuentro del Foro de São Paulo Archivo. http://forodesaopaulo.org/final-declaration-of-the-20th-meeting-of-the-sao-paulo-forum/ (October 15, 2014).Google Scholar
Gardini, Gian L. 2005. “The Hidden Diplomatic History of Argentine-Brazilian Bilateral Integration: Implications for Historiography and Theory.” Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 30 (60): 6392.Google Scholar
Ghosn, Faten, Palmer, Glenn and Bremer, Stuart. 2004. “The MID3 Data Set, 1993–2001: Procedures, Coding Rules, and Description.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 21: 133–54.Google Scholar
Gochman, C. and Maoz, Z.. 1984. “Militarized Interstate Disputes, 1816–1976: Procedures, Patterns, and Insights.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 28: 585616.Google Scholar
Guerra-Borges, Alfredo and Ugarteche, Óscar. 2009. Fin De época: De La Integración Tradicional Al Regionalismo Estratégico. México, DF: Siglo Veintiuno Editores: 86.Google Scholar
Hensel, Paul R. 1996. The Evolution of Interstate Rivalry. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois.Google Scholar
The International Institute for Strategic Studies. 1980. The Military Balance, 1980–1981. London: IISS.Google Scholar
The International Institute for Strategic Studies. 1983. The Military Balance, 1983–1984. London: IISS.Google Scholar
The International Institute for Strategic Studies. 1989. The Military Balance, 1989–1990. London: IISS.Google Scholar
The International Institute for Strategic Studies. 1990 The Military Balance, 1990–1991. London: IISS.Google Scholar
Jaguaribe, Helio. 1987. “La Integracion Argentina-Brazil” Inter-American Development Bank—Revista Estudios. http://www.iadb.org/intal/intalcdi/integracion_latinoamericana/documentos/129-Estudios_1.pdf (May 1, 2013).Google Scholar
Jones, D.M., Bremer, S.A. and Singer, J.D.. 1996. “Militarized Interstate Disputes, 1816–1992: Rationale, Coding Rules, and Empirical Patterns.Conflict Management and Peace Science 15 (2): 163213.Google Scholar
Kacowicz, Arie Marcelo. 1994. Peaceful Territorial Change. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Kacowicz, Arie Marcelo. 2000. Stable Peace among Nations. Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Kaltenthaler, Karl and Mora, Frank O.. 2002. “Explaining Latin American Economic Integration: The Case of Mercosur.” Review of International Political Economy 9 (1): 7297.Google Scholar
Kiguel, Miguel A. and Liviatan, Nissan. 1995. “Stopping Three Big Inflations: Argentina, Brazil, and Peru.” The National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/chapters/c7663.pdf (March 15, 2013).Google Scholar
Mansfield, Edward D., Bearce, David H. and Pevehouse, Jon C.. “Preferential Trading Arrangements and Military Disputes.” In Power and the Purse: Economic Statecraft, Interdependence, and National Security, ed. Blanchard, Jean-Marc F., Mansfield, Edward D. and Ripsman, Norrin M.. London: F. Cass, 2000.Google Scholar
Manzetti, Luigi. 1993. “The Political Economy of Mercosur.Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs. http://www.jstor.org/stable/165956?seq=3 (September 26, 2013).Google Scholar
Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de la Republica Oriental del Uruguay. 2006. Archivo de la Presidencia. “C.E. Nr 158933.” http://archivo.presidencia.gub.uy/_Web/proyectos/2006/05/R%20592%20AS.%20228_30%2005%202006_00001.PDF (Feb 13, 2013).Google Scholar
Neto, Tomaz E. 2013. “O Tortuoso Caminho da Cooperação entre Brasil e Argentina: De Itaipu ao Mercosul.” Revista Conjuntura Austral. http://seer.ufrgs.br/ConjunturaAustral/article/view/33015/25322 (October 21, 2013).Google Scholar
Oppenheimer, Andres. 2005. Cuentos Chinos: El Engaño De Washington, La Mentira Populista Y La Esperanza De América Latina. Buenos Aires: Editorial Sudamericana.Google Scholar
Organization of American States. n.d. “SICE: Trade Policy Developments: Mercosur-Israel.” Organization of American State's Foreign Trade Information System http://www.sice.oas.org/tpd/MER_Isr/MER_ISR_e.asp (August 21, 2013).Google Scholar
Oribe Stemmer, Juan. 2008. El Umbral de la Triple Alianza: Correspondencia de los Representantes Diplomáticos Británicos En El Río de la Plata Y Documentos Complementarios de la Región, Enero 1864-agosto 1865. Montevideo, Uruguay: Ediciones De La Banda Oriental. 9.Google Scholar
Oteiza, Enrique. 1998. “Informe Anual 1998. Capítulo VII: Inmigrantes.” Centro De Estudios Legales Y Sociales. http://web.archive.org/web/20070610215422/http://www.cels.org.ar/Site_cels/publicaciones/informes_pdf/1998.Capitulo7.pdf (September 2, 2013).Google Scholar
Peixoto, Juliana and Loza, Jorgelina. “La Relación Argentina: Brasil: Entre la Administración de Conflictos y las Políticas de Cooperación.” Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO). Revista Estudios N° 18 Centro de Estudios Avanzados Universidad Nacional de Córdob: 2. http://www.flacso.org.ar (April 30, 2013).Google Scholar
Porter, Gareth. 2006. “Argentina's Iranian Nuke Connection Delhi Hotels.” Atimes.com. Asia Times Online. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HK15Ak03.html (August 9, 2013).Google Scholar
Remmer, Karen L. 1998. “Does Democracy Promote Interstate Cooperation? Lessons from the Mercosur Region.International Studies Quarterly 42 (1). http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2600816.pdf?acceptTC=true&acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true (May 19, 2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Secretaria del Mercosur. 2013 “Tratados, Protocolos y Acuerdos Depositados en Paraguay.” http://www.mre.gov.py/tratados/public_web/ConsultaMercosur.aspx (March 5, 2014).Google Scholar
Secretaría del Mercosur Sector de Asesoría Tecníca Consultoria Económica. 2005. “Las Asimetrías y las Políticas de Convergencia Estructural en la Integración Sudamericana Mercosur.” http://www.iadb.org/intal/intalcdi/PE/2009/03260.pdf (October 15, 2013).Google Scholar
Selcher, Wayne A. 1985. “Relaciones entre Brasil y Argentina en la Década Del 80: De Una Cautelosa Rivalidad a Una Competencia Amistosa.” IEI - Instituto de Estudios Internacionales - Universidad De Chile. http://www.revistaei.uchile.cl/index.php/REI/article/viewFile/15825/31918 (February 15, 2013).Google Scholar
Simancas, Francisco. 1999. “La Integracíon Argentino-Brasileña y el Mercosur.” Universidad Central De Venezuela—Revista Venezolana de Análisis de Coyuntura V (1) http://www.sicht.ucv.ve:8080/bvirtual/doc/analisis%20de%20coyuntura/contenido/volumenes/1999/1/12-Simancas.pdf (August 13, 2013).Google Scholar
Skidmore, Thomas E. 1969. “Brazilian Intellectuals and the Problem of Race.” Occasional paper no. 6. Graduate Center for Latin American Studies, Vanderbilt University. http://discoverarchive.vanderbilt.edu/handle/1803/3439 (September 1, 2013).Google Scholar
Sowers, Thomas E. II, and Hensel, Paul R.. 1997. “Parity, Disputed Issues, and the Evolution of Interstate Rivalry.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Peace Science Society (International), Indianapolis, Indiana.Google Scholar
Thompson, William R. 1995. “Principal Rivalries.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 39 (2): 195223.Google Scholar
Timerman, Héctor and Patriota, Antonio. 2011. “Veinte Años De Cooperación Estratégica En El área Nuclear.” Brazilian-Argentine Agency for Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials (ABACC). http://www.abacc.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/discurso_chanceleres_IN.pdf (June 30, 2013)Google Scholar
Tussie, Diana and Deciancio, Melisa. 2009. “Documento de Trabajo Nr. 20: Argentina en Su Busqueda por un Lugar en el Mundo.” FLACSO, Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales—Sede Académica Argentina. http://rrii.flacso.org.ar/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/doc20.pdf (June 09, 2013)Google Scholar
Van Klaveren, Alberto. 1990. “Democratización y Política Exterior: El Acercamiento entre Argentina y Brasil.” Revista Cibob D' Afers Internationals 18: 1344.Google Scholar
Wayman, Frank W. 1996. “Power Shifts and the Onset of War.” In Parity and War, ed. Kugler, Jacek and Lemke, Douglas. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Wesemann, Kristin. 2014. “Lonely Together South American Alliances MERCOSUR and UNASUR Face Crisis.” Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung. Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS) Foundation. http://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas_36787-544-2-30.pdf?140207134321 (November 12, 2014)Google Scholar
Whigham, Thomas. 2010. La Guerra De La Triple Alianza. vol. I. Asunción, Paraguay: Taurus.Google Scholar
Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control. 2011. “Iran Nuclear Milestones.” http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/iran/nuke-miles.htm (August 9, 2013).Google Scholar
Wrobel, Paulo S. 1999. “From Rivals to Friends: The Role of Public Declarations in Argentina–Brazil Rapprochement.” Report no. 27. The Henry L. Stimson Center: Washington DC.Google Scholar