Print
Rate this article
(no votes)
 (0 votes)
Share this article

With Argentina and Brazil opposing the Venezuelan Mercosur presidency, as well as severe economic problems facing the region, hope for a genuinely progressive Mercosur looks increasingly threatened. Marcelo Montes, professor of international relations at the National University of Villa Maria in Argentina, shares his views on the integration process in Latin America and suggests what Russia can do to avoid making the same mistakes.

With Argentina and Brazil opposing the Venezuelan Mercosur presidency, as well as severe economic problems facing the region, hope for a genuinely progressive Mercosur looks increasingly threatened. Marcelo Montes, professor of international relations at the National University of Villa Maria in Argentina, shares his views on the integration process in Latin America and suggests what Russia can do to avoid making the same mistakes.

Mercosur is facing a lot of problems nowadays, partly due to controversy over the Venezuelan presidency. How is the situation going to develop from your point of view?

Mercosur was established in 1991, and it happened mostly because the situation in the region was favourable. Brazil and Argentina stopped concentrating on military and nuclear competition. Moreover, there was friendship between two presidents – J. Sarney (Brazil) and R. Alfonsin (Argentina) – which laid the foundations for Mercosur. At the end of the 1990s, there was devaluation in Brazil, the so-called caipirinha effect, in Mexico called the tequila effect, and in Russia, the vodka crisis. Argentina thus faced a lot of economic problems because of its dependence on the Brazilian market. In 2001, the Argentine economy collapsed, and Mercosur was struck with even greater problems. Brazil never again expressed its willingness to strengthen relations with the union. I don’t know if Brazil, in light of its domestic crisis, will be able to lead the Mercosur integration process. In fact, I don’t see any interest from the Brazilian business. Argentina has no capacity or power to rebalance the union. I would say that the future of Mercosur is now in question.

If we are talking about Venezuela – its membership began with Lula da Silva’s desire to show the rest of the world that Brazil had strong leadership in the region. Lula da Silva invited H. Chavez to join Mercosur out of his own political necessity. Brazil has been trying to occupy a place in the UN Security Council for a long time, and it was a great opportunity to demonstrate its position in the region. I don’t understand Venezuela’s membership in the union from an ideological point of view. Its domestic problems will not allow it to responsibly act as the president of the union.

Can we say that integration in Latin America has reached a dead end?

There is integration in certain spheres; I would name the auto and metal-mechanic industries. We cannot talk about farm and service sharing; thus far integration is purely industrial. There is no complete integration, it’s only partial. Now that Lula is not here and Dilma has been suspended, Mercosur has lost its leadership in the region. One should not forget that Sao-Paolo industrial lobbyists were integral to creation of Mercosur, so the union was purely industrial to begin with.

Uruguay and Paraguay used to have real intentions of integration, while Argentina and Brazil are more reluctant at this point. Smaller countries understand this tendency – that’s why Uruguay is trying to strengthen its relations with the US. Now, Uruguay and Paraguay have come to lose their interest in this integration process as well.

Is there something Eurasian Economic Union can learn from Mercosur?

Eurasian integration is very young and has clear leadership of Russia. We see certain similarities with Mercosur and the leadership of Brazil. The main lesson Russia should learn is that the role of “big brother” is not as efficient as it seems. I am convinced that there can be no real integration if only one country has its interests fulfilled.

Is there interest on behalf of Latin American countries to strengthen bilateral ties with Russia?

Russia’s main clients in Latin America are the biggest economies of the region: Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina. The bilateral relations are much more important than regional cooperation as it is. It’s interesting that we cannot consider ideological realities here. From this perspective, Venezuela should have been the main partner, but it’s far from that.

The expectations for cooperation are much greater than the reality. There have been certain surprises: look at Ecuador and Chile. Chile is one of the most open economies in the world and was interested in strengthening ties with Russia against the sanctions background. Brazil, on the other hand, has so many bureaucratic problems nowadays that it cannot concentrate on further development of bilateral relations.

Interviewed by Mariya Smekalova, RIAC website editor

Rate this article
(no votes)
 (0 votes)
Share this article

Poll conducted

  1. In your opinion, what are the US long-term goals for Russia?
    U.S. wants to establish partnership relations with Russia on condition that it meets the U.S. requirements  
     33 (31%)
    U.S. wants to deter Russia’s military and political activity  
     30 (28%)
    U.S. wants to dissolve Russia  
     24 (22%)
    U.S. wants to establish alliance relations with Russia under the US conditions to rival China  
     21 (19%)
For business
For researchers
For students