 |
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 21 - 27 September 2000 Issue No. 500 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 21 - 27 September 2000 Issue No. 500
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
Egypt Elections Development Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Special Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Cardoso's goal
By Hisham El-Naggar
Getting together is a good idea when there is something to talk about. So South America's leaders recently congregated in Brasilia to discuss Colombia's worsening civil strife and Washington's decision to get involved in it -- not Vietnam-style, but by proxy. A one-billion-plus aid package and a visit by US President Bill Clinton to Bogotà has sent Brazilian politicians teetering on the brink of a nervous breakdown. The reason? Colombia has a lengthy, thickly-forested and devilishly porous border with Brazil.
But there was more to the summit than the Colombian crisis. Latin Americans feel that they are at a crossroads. After a decade when all but Cuba adopted laissez-faire economics, there is a sense that the hallowed market has not delivered. Growth, though impressive, has tapered off in the last couple of years as foreign investors reacted to financial crises worldwide. Nor has growth narrowed social differences -- the main source of conflict, armed or otherwise, in the region.
Conflict, of course, means internal strife. One remarkable feature of Latin American countries is the relative paucity of war between them. Once in a while there is a border dispute, not to mention the near-conflagration between El Salvador and Honduras years ago over a football match that went wrong. But cross-border conflicts have been few and far between, with the local military preferring to aim at compatriots.
Even violence as such is becoming less frequent. Mexico's Chiapas insurgency seems close to a final solution. Virtually everywhere else, guerrillas -- urban or rural -- are facing extinction. Colombia is the glaring exception, and one which continues to disconcert other Latin Americans. Not only is there a risk that fighting, refugees and arms smuggling might spill over, but drug-trafficking, which thrives on civil war, has a habit of spreading -- which is why Brazil's unmonitorable frontier with Colombia is a problem.
The fact is, borders across South America are permeable. Occasionally tense relations -- say between Colombia and Venezuela, or between Chile and Bolivia -- have rarely prevented citizens of one country from travelling to the other, usually even without the benefit of a visa. At times, one might even be tempted to think that the whole business of nation-states is an iffy thing in this part of the world. The fact that Spanish and Portuguese are spoken throughout the region has fostered a common identity (though different, they are still mutually intelligible). Football matches between countries sometimes do breed riots, but so do tournaments within the same country.
So, do all Latin Americans belong to a "patria grande", one common homeland? Argentines adore Brazilian beaches, and South Americans with money quite enjoy vacationing in Cancœn and Santo Domingo. Many citizens from other Latin American countries flock to universities in Argentina and Mexico.
However, Latin Americans do not all hold the same view of their destiny. As regional blocs (based on convenience rather than common culture) become the norm, the region's main actors are struggling to find a group to which they can belong.
It is not the same for everyone. Mexico has already decided that its future lies in close cooperation with its northern neighbours through membership in NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay are convinced that, trade disputes notwithstanding, their association through Mercosur is a firm commitment. Others are scrambling to take sides; the Andean Group (including a few countries in the northern half of South America) and a Central American grouping being the most practical alternatives open to them.
This does not prevent Latin American presidents from holding frequent summit meetings. Perhaps the country that most ardently believes in Latin American political cooperation ("unity" would be an exaggeration) is Brazil. Given its size and its determination to break out of the isolation to which its difference of language (albeit a slight difference) once appeared to have condemned it, Brazil stands a good chance of emerging as something of a regional leader.
For instance, Latins closed ranks behind Brazil, expressing their concern over US policy in Colombia's civil conflict. Of course voicing alarm does not cost Latin American presidents very much. It was the least they could do for Brazilian President Enrique Fernando Cardoso. His command of Spanish, which he speaks almost as well as his native Portuguese, was undoubtedly an asset.
