Given that the E.C with very different languages and cultures is gradually coming together as one unit why doesn’ t there appear to be a similar progressive cohesion with the central and south American Spanish speaking countries ?
Same language,very similar historical backgrounds and even the politics seem to the untutored eye to be very alike amongst most of the nations in that part of the world.
A Portugese friend has told me that his language and Spanish are mutually understandable(He says that the Spanish sound as though they are speaking with a mouthful of bubblegum)so theres even a case for including Brazil.
Surely closer ties would be mutually beneficial economically,not to mention national security generally and crime fighting for all concerned ?
I realise that patriotism and historical disagreements most probably play their parts in the process but is it ever likely to happen even by stealth?
I’d particulary like to hear from Dopers actually living in that part of the world though all are welcome of course.
Mods,wasn’t sure if this is the correct M.B. to post this so move as you see fit.
The worst fights are between brothers. Unlike Europe, Latin America has no been taught the foolishness of nationalism by a couple of dreadful wars.
Also, in Latin America a lot of national identity is made up of being against the (fill in the blank). Uruguayans hate both Argentines and Brazilians. (And for perfectly good historical reasons.) Bolivians hate Chileans. Part of being a Bolivian is opposing Chile.
On a more practical level, more power pooled at the top means less for the local bosses. Why would they want that.
While they might not have learned from them, Latin America is no stranger to dreadful wars. The War of the Triple Alliance killed off up to 90% of Paraguay’s pre-war population.
Western Europe has more recent, more bloody, and vastly more materially destructive events to convince them of the value of reducing national differences, AND they had the Cold War to unite them in a shared worry.
The FTAA is dead in the water, and OAS, I should think, has limited perceived legitimacy in LA just because the U.S. belongs to it. But there is also Hugo Chavez’ fledgling Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas and – much more important in the long run, I expect – the Union of South American Nations, now being organized as a merger of Mercosur and the Andean Community. The USAN, or “Unasur,” is consciously modelled on the EU. It includes every South American state but French Guiana.
Of course, it’s not really going to come together until this Colombia-Venezuela friction settles down.
The simple answer is that real international governance requires some measure of liberal democracy to succeed. Autocratic states will sign treaties, and will cooperate when the rulers think cooperation is productive. But no autocrat would dream of giving up any real power to some supernational organization.
Latin America will need another full generation of liberal democracy before the risk of returning to autocracy can be dismissed. And until then, any suprantional organization is temporary.
Hey, we´ve made friends with the Brazilians, we´re cool now.
The Argentines on the other hand have been acting naughty lately.
Political unification is a matter of degrees, currently there are already (as pointed out) movements in that direction. On the other hand what´s written in paper doesn´t necessarily translate to realities, and for example there´s a fair amount of trouble with the MERCOSUR where the smaller countries see how Argentina and Brazil play theyr own game without justly adressing the concerns and necessities of all the other members. That is one of the reasons why the plans for a MERCOSUR parliament have been put on ice.
Good link,I learned a lot but I think maybe that the Organisation was too ambitious in its recruitment drive having too many disparate members with too many different priorities,I can see that a Chilean,a Jamaican and a Canadian might share the same concerns but not as close to home as it were.
I think also that Lemur has a good point in that the area needs a longer period of experiencing liberal democracy before a further drawing together can be possible and also though I love the guys having the U.S. as a member is NOT a good idea as at best it could be seen as overshadowing and having undue influence on any decision making by the member states and at worst the organisation being perceived as an American puppet group.Neither of which would do anything for their credibility.
Could the Latin American “Macho” culture also be a stumbling block for interstate co-operation?
Or is the Macho reputation a misconceived stereotype?
