Three visions for Latin America

The collapse of the FTAA negotiations and the protests at the Summit of the Americas has opened the question of the future of Latin America. The continuing export of Bolivarianism and cheap oil from Venezuela, the election of Morales in Bolivia, the emergence of Obrador in Mexico, and the re-emergence of Ortega in Nicaragua all add to this uncertainty. Forces are pulling Latin America in different directions: "complimentarianism" (aka socialist democracy) vs. capitalism/free trade; Bolvarianism and solidarity vs. bi-lateral negotiations. In all aspects, the key is MERCOSUR.

MERCOSUR is by far the largest and dominant trade agreement in the region, and is largely designed to meet the same ends as the EEC/EU: increasing the freedom of movement of goods, people, and money. It is more like precursors to the EU as MERCOSUR does not constitute a common internal market and has nowhere near the powers of Brussels. What it does do, however, is create a forum and create greater interdependence and cooperation. More on this point later.

The aforementioned tensions can be simplified by thinking of them as Chavez vs. US. Each has a model for the future of Latin America: Chavez sees a Bolivarian Socialist Union and the US sees a continuation of its regional hegemony. Neither is the best the region can do, and that is why MERCOSUR, led by Brazil and Argentina, must present a strong third option modeled after the EU.

Chavez dreams of a socialist union of Latin American countries, with himself as a modern day Simon Bolivar freeing Latin America from the economic colonialism of the US hegemony. While Bolivar may ostensibly be the hero he follows, his program more closely resembles that of Qadaffi. Both are military men who ran coups, and both try to create solidarity among Cold War pawns who have not seen the benefits of globalization. Qadaffi first tried to create an Arab union/Islamist union and when that failed, he tried the same in Africa. None of his attempts to create a transnational political union succeeded. Read his Green Book, especially on democracy and economics, for more examples of the similarities between the two leaders and their visions.

The US sees Latin America's role as subordinate to US interests and seeks policies that will support and enable its regional hegemony. This is not a viable (economically or politically) scenario for Latin Americans and feeds the popular support for Chavez, Morales, and socialism. Chavez, for example, could create all the current policies and programs that he has without his strong anti-US rhetoric, but that rhetoric creates more support for him because the people have not seen the benefits of globalization and view the US unfavorably. Qaddafi thought that by standing up to "Western Imperialism" he would become a world leader and people would follow; that did not happen and it will not happen for Chavez either.

The third option is to emulate the EU in greater cooperation and creation of a common market and currency. Interestingly, this free market federalism is similar to what Simon Bolivar tried to establish (with himself as dictator). Just as the ECSC was the building block of the EU, MERCOSUR can be the building block of a Latin Union. The region needs enhanced cooperation and free trade, but also can benefit from the solidarity that such a union would provide towards external markets.

Now that Venezuela has joined MERCOSUR, this third option is viable. Chavez, Kirchner, and Lula have the tools to integrate and grow Latin America--now they have to move on it.