By Mg. Claudio L. Thomas
Just as in the '90s the open regionalism was the theoretical matrix of a world shaped by the Washington Consensus, the successive crises of the developing world since the second half of those years, promoted from the beginning of the '00 the search and the design of new superseding schemes: the ALBA, the UNASUR, CELAC and the reverted MERCOSUR, were breaking the strictly economic-commercial logic to begin to implement schemes registered in the autonomous regionalism post-liberal.
The synthesis seemed to have been achieved with the signing of the Treaty of Brasilia in 2008, giving rise to UNASUR, in which the Latin American subregion emerged as its own project and was immediately consolidated with the formation of CELAC in 2011, whose embryo must be traced in ALBA ; But no, the return of the primacy of the economic-commercial dimension returns to break off the delayed attempts to integrate the great nation south of the Rio Grande deliberately separated, at the behest of the external variables that shape the International System and the internal variables, read political projects of the local elites, whose vigilance was always the lights of Europe and later, of the United States.
How does the story continue?
The mirage of broad integration and not only that framed in the postulates of the liberal market economy, in pursuit of an autonomous regional project faded away as the economies of the South Pacific together with Mexico dusted off the failed masterful recipes. to upgrade a new open regionalism hand in hand with the PACIFIC ALLIANCE, probably as a response to the progressive advance in the subregion as well as to the neutralization of the FTAA in 2005 under the influence of MERCOSUR.
Some questions to deepen the analysis: what is the disadvantage of having political projects of different intention and perspective? Are they mutually exclusive? Can they be complementary? Is it feasible and feasible to try to think in these terms?
The responses to be tested will be the most varied, but what is clear is the different conceptions that are intended for the region in a regionalized world; while UNASUR's gaze is synthesizing, endogenous and autonomous, the proposal of the PACIFIC ALLIANCE is linear, exogenous and dependent on the world market; While the first promotes inward development, the second continues to meet the needs of the capitalist global market, which is a mark of the nineteenth-century international division of labor that has been reserving for us the implacable role of producers of raw materials. Probably, in these considerations we will find the answer.
Integration, development and international insertion, undoubtedly, the choice of the integration project will depend on the type of development and international insertion of the region; the new open regionalism it would consolidate the original tendency to "offer" our vast and vital resources to the world; the post-liberal autonomous regionalism It must still overcome the extractivist logic and generate a development that considers nature and its virtues as common goods and not as strategic resources, much less as merchandise, which approach open neo-regionalist.
Latin America, depending on the projects in conflict such as for biodiversity and common goods flaunted, like the legend of 'El Dorado', there is an urgent debate on the mode of development of the region, which transcends and surpasses extractivism but without losing the perspective of a collective insertion in the International System; On the one hand, it would be very auspicious and pertinent to include in the debate Good living or Sumak kawsay, characteristic of the primordial ancestral tradition of our original America and, on the other hand, Brazil, should define when it is going to make the firm decision to drive the region not only with its export-import and investment capacity but also by its definition based on assuming the political leadership of the region bearing the regional voice in all the diplomatic spaces of the world, since today more than ever, Latin America is going to define itself, in the terms set out so far, according to where Brazil does it.
Three issues to reveal:
1- How far will the United States allow, within the framework of the reconfiguration of its global hegemony, that the States of the South advance with their autonomic course?
Institutional ruptures in several of ours, military bases close to common and vital natural resources ...
2- Will spying be the reason for the Brazilian president's displeasure the trigger for the assumption of the autonomic leadership of Brazil, as the leading voice of the region?
3- Has the time come to structurally discuss another development model based on socio-economic and environmental harmony in the region, with the added value of Good Living?
Then, it is understood that it will be essential to choose the appropriate integration scheme that not only seeks regional solutions to its subregional conflicts but also understands development as the identity way of being and being in a world where multipolarity begins to be the profile that gradually begins to configure.
The regional project should be based on a broad integration, which consolidates our common history and vindicates us in the face of a world that has long chosen a role and a function for us; But the way to go and to retrace is in our hands. Or at least this is the argument to begin to rewrite History from the South, with the sky upside down.