THE UNION OF SOUTH AMERICAN NATIONS

1
THE UNION OF SOUTH AMERICAN NATIONS
AT THE
ONSET OF A SOCIO-REGIONAL
INTEGRATION
ERIKA PAREDES SANCHEZ PRESIDENT NESTOR KIRCHNER FELLOW 2011 ERIKA PAREDES SANCHEZ PRESIDENT NESTOR KIRCHNER FELLOW 2011 2
Abstract The present thesis focuses on the study of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR). It aims at evidencing how this process differs from other historical efforts that have been principally driven by imported economic models of integration without accounting for the diverse social and local realities across the region. UNASUR has a clear ambition to reach an integral level of cooperation on multiple levels between its member countries, based on the social dimension of integration and in the local needs of each of the member countries. The research elaborated in this paper explores the new dimension of the proposal of UNASUR in an effort to analyze and understand how the proposed social mechanisms could contribute to long-­‐
term integration and to the reduce major problems in the region —decrease the indicators of poverty and inequality—. This goal demands a deep analysis of the subregional and macroregional blocs, followed by the study of theoretical frameworks for understanding the existing theories of regional integration and the role that the social dimension plays within it. Finally, this thesis analyzes the sustainability of this process by using a system of analysis of integration that accounts for political, dimensions, historical, institutional factors II Table of Contents The Union of South American Nations At the onset of a socio-­‐regional integration ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS IV INTRODUCTION 1 I. A THEORETICAL APPROACH OF REGIONAL INTEGRATION 1. POLITICAL SCIENCE’S THEORIES OF INTEGRATION 1.1. FUNCTIONALISM 1.2. NEOFUNCTIONALISM 1.3. INTERGOVERNMENTALISM AND LIBERAL INTERGOVERNMENTALISM 1.4. FEDERALISM 1.5. TRANSNATIONALISM 2. ECONOMIC THEORIES OF INTEGRATION 2.1. TRADE INTEGRATION 2.2. MONETARY INTEGRATION 3. MODELS OF ANALYZING REGIONAL INTEGRATION 3.1. HISTORICAL INSTITUTIONALISM 3.2. SYSTEM OF INDICATORS OF REGIONAL INTEGRATION (SIRI) 4. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: SOCIAL MECHANISMS OF INTEGRATION IN THE FRAMEWORK OF UNASUR 4.1. RESEARCH QUESTION 4.2. HYPOTHESIS 5. CONCLUSIONS OF THIS CHAPTER 5 6 6 6 7 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 13 13 14 15 II. REGIONAL INTEGRATION IN SOUTH AMERICA: EXPERIENCES AND OPPORTUNITIES 17 1. THE SOUTHERN COMMON MARKET (MERCOSUR) 2. THE ANDEAN COMMUNITY OF NATIONS (CAN) 3. COMMUNITY OF LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN STATES (CELAC) 4. OTHER REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS 5. LESSONS LEARNED AND NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE REGION 5.1. LESSONS LEARNED 5.2. CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES 6. CONCLUSIONS OF THIS CHAPTER 18 19 20 21 22 22 22 23 III. UNASUR: A NEW CHALLENGE FOR THE REGION 25 1. EVOLVING FROM A “COMMUNITY OF NATIONS” INTO A “UNION OF NATIONS” 2. TO WHAT EXTEND CAN THE UNASUR BE CONSIDERED A MODEL OF SUSTAINABLE INTEGRATION? 2.1. ACTORS 2.2. STRUCTURAL FACTORS 26 27 27 28 III 2.3. INSTITUTIONALIZATION 2.4. IMPLEMENTATION 3. MAJOR CHALLENGES FOR UNASUR 4. CONCLUSIONS OF THIS CHAPTER 31 32 33 34 IV. SOCIAL MECHANISMS OF INTEGRATION 37 1. POVERTY AND INEQUALITIES IN SOUTH AMERICA 2. HEALTH PERSPECTIVES 2.1. HEALTH COUNCIL 3. EDUCATION PERSPECTIVES 3.1. COUNCIL OF EDUCATION, SCIENCE, CULTURE, TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION (COSECCTI) 3. CONCLUSIONS OF THIS CHAPTER 37 44 47 48 51 52 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 53 REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 59 IV Acronyms & Abbreviations ALBA. Bolivian Alternative for Latin America and the Caribbean ASEAN. Association of Southeast Asian Countries CAN. Andean Community of Nations CELAC. Community of Latin American and Caribbean States CM. Common markets CSN. Community of South American Nations CU. Customs Union EC. European Community ECLALC. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean EMU. Economic and monetary union EU. European Union FDI. Foreign Direct Investment FLACSO. Latin American School of Social Sciences FTA. Free trade areas/agreements FTAA. Free Trade Agreement of the Americas GDP. Gross Domestic Product IADB. Inter-­‐American Development Bank IIRSA. Initiative for the Regional Integration of Infrastructure in South America LAIA. Latin American Integration Association MERCOSUR. Southern Common Market NAFTA. North American Free Trade Agreement OAS. Organization of American States OEI. Organization of Iberoamerican States OCA. Optimum currency area OTCA. Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization PAHO. Pan American Health Organization RTA. Regional Trade Agreements SELA. Latin American Economic System SIRI. System of indicators of Regional Integration UNASUR. Union of South American Nations WHO. World Health Organization WTO. World Trade Organization V Introduction Launched in 2007, with the approval of twelve member countries, the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) is one of the latest effort at establishing a socio-­‐economic and political integration process in the demographic region of South America. The UNASUR proposal differs from other historical efforts that have been principally driven by economic articulation without accounting for the diverse social and local realities across the region. UNASUR has a clear ambition to reach an integral level of cooperation on multiple levels between the member countries, based on the social aspect of integration. This unprecedented cooperation agreed upon between Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Surinam, Uruguay and Venezuela articulates areas such as infrastructure, education, health, social development policies, culture and security. UNASUR is the answer to the economic reforms mirrored by subregional organizations during the nineties, which were mostly influenced by the multilateral financial organizations and by the agreements adopted in the World Trade Organization (WTO) (SELA 2008). In this period, support for various social development areas was reduced and new policies were oriented towards macroeconomic balance and modernization of productive sectors. However, these policies developed a high concentration of economic power and big inequities in income distribution (SELA 2008). By the end of that decade, the negative results of the liberal economic reforms gave rise to the debate and inclusion of the social dimension in most of the subregional blocs (Joost 1995). The research elaborated in this paper explores the new proposal of UNASUR, which strongly integrates a social dimension in an effort to analyze and understand how the proposed social mechanisms will contribute to long-­‐term integration and to the reduction of poverty and other socio-­‐economic, and political inequalities in the region. As in the case of other member-­‐state unions, UNASUR proposes macro-­‐level changes to standardize outward-­‐facing international policies that will enhance the negotiating power and stability of the region on the global playing field. However, the real innovations introduced by UNASUR lie in its social ambitions, based on the goals of reducing poverty and inequalities within the region. The macro-­‐level changes are expected to cooperate with internal policy reinforcing both outward and internal political and socio-­‐economic unity. Its stated main goal is: “to create a space of integration and an union in the cultural, social, economic, politic fields between its peoples; it gives priority to political dialogues, social policies, education, energy, infrastructure, finance and environment, among others. Its objective is to eliminate socio-­‐economic inequity, to achieve social inclusion and citizens participation, to strengthen democracy, and to reduce asymmetries by strengthening the sovereignty and independence of states1 (UNASUR 2004)”. 1
Original language: La Unión de Naciones Suramericanas tiene como objetivo construir, de manera participativa y
consensuada, un espacio de integración y unión en lo cultural, social, económico y político entre sus pueblos,
otorgando prioridad al diálogo político, las políticas sociales, la educación, la energía, la infraestructura, el
financiamiento y el medioambiente, entre otros, con miras a eliminar la desigualdad socioeconómica, lograr la
inclusión social y la participación ciudadana, fortalecer la democracia y reducir las asimetrías en el marco del
0 Previous efforts by subregional integration organizations like CAN (Andean Community of Nations) and MERCOSUR (Southern Common Market) have made attempts towards similar ends with their preferential trade agreements and customs unions, respectively. However, these previous efforts have given little importance to the majority of the fields mentioned in the UNASUR excerpt above, and were, at best, only considered as incidental on the agendas of these previous organizations. The fact that these incidentals appear, first and foremost, wholly integrated into the very thread of the definition of UNASUR reinforces that they truly are the most important factors for which the proposal was created. The common challenge agreed upon by its members is to reduce the rates of poverty and inequality that characterize the region. A new factor to be considered as part of the efforts of integration of the region is the creation of a new region bloc on the year 2010, this latest initiative is the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC). This research focuses on understanding “to what extent the new mechanism of integration —mainly the social mechanisms— proposed by UNASUR are contributing to long-­‐term member state integration and to the reduction of poverty and inequalities in South America?” To elaborate a hypothesis to answer this statement, the following corollaries are proposed: i) Poverty and socio-­‐economic inequality are problems are local problems of the regions, these are shared by all of the members of the Union, constituting a common obstacle that forms the basis to reach a common objective along long-­‐term agreements. In this context, UNASUR reinforces long-­‐term integration and promotes advances towards equality through south-­‐south cooperation and common institutionalized policies and bodies working collectively across all of the member states. ii) Previous attempts at regional integration in South America have historically been fragmented and overambitious. UNASUR, has made socio-­‐economic equality a goal of integration at the core of its institutional processes. This methodology may bring harmonization and unity through novel approaches to the institutional mechanisms and channels developed by the previous regional organizations. iii) The integration processes do not constitute an imported model based on foreign or imposed methodologies, but were spawned by and have been built upon pre-­‐existing national and local initiatives. They aim to reinvigorate working processes by instating new and unique agendas preconditioned for the regional reality. iv) One the one hand, the prevalence of existing regional blocs and the creation of new ones reinforce the proposals of a model of integration based on the local needs and local reality of the region. One the other hand, the over creation of new bodies can create fragmentation and lost of interest by country members. This research is structured into four parts: Theoretical Foundations of Integration, Historical Perspectives of the Region, Institutional Integration policies of UNASUR, and finally, the Social Dimension of integration. fortalecimiento de la soberanía e independencia de los Estados.
1 Part One provides a theoretical framework for understanding the existing theories of regional integration and the role that the social dimension plays upon it. An analysis of the theoretical models is presented explaining the motivations and strategies of regionalism, as well as to demonstrate how the social mechanisms of integration can reinforce a long-­‐term integration and promote a reduction of poverty and inequalities. The analysis looks at various theories developed by economists and political scientists to create a hybrid model used as a baseline for comparison alongside the processes implemented by UNASUR. The System of indicators of Regional Integration (SIRI) was used to study UNASUR, this model is based on a deep analysis of the different aspects involving the current existing models of regional integration around the world. SIRI proposes a group of variable categories that are related with the level of specificity of the indicator system and with several dimensions: political-­‐legal dimension, economic, mobility, cultural, security and cooperation. Part Two approaches an historical analysis of regional integration in South America. A historical perspective of regional institutions and methodologies is necessary to understand conventional initiatives in place that were developed over fifty years ago. This analysis will help elucidate the crises and turnovers experienced by existing institutions, and how the political and economic instability of the region have impacted these projects. The results from Part Two will provide a strong foundation for the innovations and challenges introduced by UNASUR. On one hand, UNASUR is a regional organization that belongs to larger continental organizations and longer integration processes2. For some states, its creation was considered as a fragmenting process for the integration of the entire continent, and specifically with relation to the already existing larger states’ associations. UNASUR pursuits the strengthening and cohesion of Latin America and the Caribbean, because it aims at achieving further alliances between the current subregional organizations, CAN and MERCOSUR. This section shows as well, how the several negotiation processes and achievements carried by MERCOSUR and CAN represent factors that could reinforce the basis for this Union, but also how their harmonization represents a significant challenge for the Union. The experience of the subregional and the macro-­‐regional blocks represents a rich basis for the strengthening of the social policies in the region. It is important to remember that the core of these organizations was centralized in the achievement of economic growth. Nevertheless, integration in the fields of health, education, security has also developed some roots (Marin 2000). Part Three will focus on an analysis of the scope and institutionalism of UNASUR, by using the SIRI methodology. Recent studies carried out by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean suggest that the promotion of integration through the development of formal mechanisms can help to achieve growth and to reduce inequalities and poverty in South America (CEPAL, 2008). These projections are consistent with the expectations and goals that are being promoted by UNASUR. 2
UNASUR is part of the Organization of American States, the Latin American Association for Integration, (ALADI), the
Organization of Iberoamerican States (OEI), the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean
(ECLALC), the Latin American Economic System (SELA) and the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (OTCA).
2 Part Four is an analysis of the social mechanisms of integration developed by UNASUR. First, a foundational background of social situations in South America will be presented, demonstrating the situation of South America in terms of poverty and inequality, proceeded by further analysis on the role of the social dimension−specifically, in the fields of health and education−. 3 I. A theoretical approach of regional integration 4 I. A THEORETICAL APPROACH OF REGIONAL INTEGRATION Regional integration is a wide branch of international studies; it has been studied in several fields and has adopted multiple definitions according to the context in which it is being used. In order to have a better understanding of the processes and outcomes involved in regional integration, an analytical framework adapted to its specific context must be developed. Theorizing in social sciences requires understanding social reality, since theory is more the ability to illustrate than to prove (Chryssochoou 2009). Several theoretical models exist in the field of regional integration, and each is adapted for specific integration processes and outcomes. Such theories cannot, for example, be applied exactly in the same way to a process in Africa as they can to one in Europe or America. In some cases, theories can be combined, because some regions have reached a wide number of integration fields that cannot be explained by a single theory (Antje & Diez 2009). There have been several attempts to create common models to monitor and evaluate regional integration processes (De Lombaerde 2006). In the case of UNASUR and for the purposes of this research, the analysis will be contained within its own context and no attempt will be made to compare UNASUR processes with those of other pre-­‐existing organizations such as the European Union or the African Union. Theorizing integration is not about explaining the causality of multiple interactions, but is rather about the meaning and nature of its social and political constitution, and the inevitable normative questions to which its study gives rise (Chryssochoou 2009). In South America, the variation and vulnerability of integration processes creates an obstacle to develop a standard theory that exactly describes its process and results. Therefore, a theory can serve to understand the conditions of human association within a larger polity, as well as the possibilities of improving the quality of the debate (Ibid). Several researchers3 in the fields of social sciences have attempted to theorize upon regional integration, while others hesitate to elaborate upon anything more than descriptive commentaries. Standing theories are generally oriented towards political science and economy. Among the theories that are broadly accepted by researchers, we can find Functionalism, Neofunctionalism, Intergovernmentalism and Federalism in political sciences and Customs Union Theory and Optimal Currency Area in the economic field (Mattli 1999). Additionally, multiple proposals about how to evaluate and monitor this process have been presented. The System of indicators of Regional Integration (SIRI) offers an option to better understand these processes. When theorizing regional integration, it is necessary to apply a variety of approaches in order to develop a better understanding of what the larger entity looks like in the different stages of its evolution (Chryssochoou 2009). Integration is not a result, it is a process in constant change and evolution, that has to be analysed as such. Likewise, the majority of theories developed in the XXI century focus on these areas: structure, institutionalization, effects, process, scope and level of integration. To this end, our research on UNASUR takes into consideration the historical institutionalism of the preceding organizations, as well as a deep analysis of the new features adopted by UNASUR. Throughout history, the definition and meaning of integration have evolved among researchers. In 1958 Ernest Haas notably described integration as “the process whereby 3
Among the most important researches in this field we can mention: Ernst Hass, Andrew Moravcsik, David Mitrani,
Karl Deutsch and Walter Mattli
5 political actors in several, distinct national settings are persuaded to shift their loyalties, expectations and political activities toward a new centre, whose institutional process demand jurisdiction over the pre-­‐existing national states” (Haas 1958:16). More recently however, the notion of integration has evolved into a more positive light. The following definition, proposed by Oliver Dabène in 2009, more accurately describes the present-­‐day process in Latin America, whereas he writes that regional integration is “a historical process of increased levels of interaction between political units (sub national, national or transnational), provided by actors sharing common ideas, setting objectives, and defining methods to achieve them, and by so doing contributing to building a region” (Dabène 2009:10). 1. Political Science’s Theories of integration
1.1. Functionalism
David Mitrani developed the theory of functionalism based on the belief that in an international system, working peace4 is more effective than a protected peace. It is a theory that breaks away from the traditional link between authority and a definite territory by ascribing authority to activities based in areas of agreement (Mattli 1999). According to Walter Mattli (1999), political divisions are a source of conflict among nations. These divisions can be transcended by looking for areas of mutuality and establishing a working web of international functional institutions, managed by technical elites, in which and through which the interest of all nations are gradually integrated. Areas of functional cooperation are likely to be found in the “low-­‐politics” area of economic and social life. Prosperity through economic integration is the guarantor of a stable and peaceful international system (Mattli 1999). It is a theory about the functions of international society based on the principle of technical self-­‐determination, reliance on non-­‐
coercive means of large-­‐scale community-­‐building and a mistrust of formal constitution-­‐making (Chryssochoou 2009). It intends to explain why collective action in specific, functionally linked areas of cooperation is a more attractive option to unilateral state action (Ibid). Through cooperation and integration, countries find a mechanism to obtain and promote long-­‐term peace by giving up a part of their sovereignty. In the case of UNASUR, the Union is based on the belief of keeping peace in the region, even though countries in South America have been free of international confrontation for over a decade. Therefore, since peacekeeping is not the fundamental reason at the origin of this regional block, we cannot use this theory as an analytical framework. 1.2. Neofunctionalism
Neofunctionalism emphasizes the role of non-­‐state actors, characterized by a regional 4
David Mitrani is considered the father of functionalism, he defined working peace as process that brings nations
actively together; in David Mitrany, A Working Peace System (Chicago: Quadrangle, 1966).
6 organization that involves the interests of governments, associations and social movements and enhances the level of dynamic and integration of the region (Schmitter 2004 cited in Chrissochou 2009). This theory was originally proposed by Ernst Haas inspired through the context of the European Union. Haas has defined it as a modus of bureaucratic interpenetration, in which different actors decide to shift their focus on collaborative action to the point that competences −functional, jurisdictional, others− become blurred, identities overlap and loyalties coexist. Integration is reached by mutual reinforcement. The theory is founded on the convergence of demands among national governments and a propensity for further integrative action, facilitated by the new central authorities (Chryssochoou 2009). Neofunctionalism assumes that the scope and level of integration are mutual reinforcements: as new areas of policy action are added to the common framework, the regional involvement increases and supranational institutions gain additional responsibilities (Ibid). The theory of neofunctionalism maintains that political integration and the growth of authority at the supranational level occur as a long-­‐term consequence of modest economic integration. Integration in one sector creates pressures for integration in related sectors, and so on; this process is called functional spillover (Rosamond 2000). Haas considered integration as a process “whereby political actors in several distinct national settings are persuaded to shift their loyalties, expectations and political activities toward a new centre, whose institution process or demand jurisdiction over the pre-­‐existing national states” (Haas, 1958). This theory cannot be yet applied to the case of UNASUR for two main reasons. First, UNASUR is in a process of consolidation that began with a cooperation and harmonization in several fields; it is not a case where countries have agreed to submit their loyalties, expectations or all political activities to a core institution that has a bigger jurisdiction over its members. Secondly, UNASUR has not been approved by all the parliaments of the region and they have not instated an operative regional parliament that will have the power to take decisions concerning all of the members of the Union. 1.3. Intergovernmentalism and Liberal Intergovernmentalism
Intergovernmentalism considers integration as a series of bargains between heads of governments of the leading states in the region (Mattli 1999). Political leaders sacrifice part of their country’s sovereignty to attain common goals; and bargaining in this context tends to converge to the lowest denominator of the larger states’ interests, since they have a de facto veto over strategic issues (Ibid). This approach to integration treats states and national governments as the main actors in the integration process (Rosamond 2000). This theory is reduced, considering that it only takes into consideration the role of states, because integration is less likely to depend on only one side −national government. Nevertheless, in the current stage of UNASUR this theory matches the process that is being introduced, because it is based and constructed through presidential agreements. Moreover, active diplomacy is being promoted in the presidential and ministerial summits, thus we can observe that national governments are at the centre of this integration. Liberal Intergovernmentalism is a variant of intergovernmentalism, developed by Andrew Moravcsik in the European context. This theory proposes two stages: in the first stage major 7 decisions are taken and national preferences are determined by the constraints and opportunities imposed by economic interdependence. Then in the second stage, the outcomes of interstate bargains are determined by the relative bargaining power of governments and the functional incentives for institutionalization (Mattli 1999). The demands for integration are fueled by a process of domestic politics whereas integration outcomes are supplied as a consequence of intergovernmental negotiations, wherein supranational institutions are of limited importance to the process of integration (Rosamond 2000). In the case of UNASUR, the liberal intergovernmental theory can be used to analyze the main fields of cooperation, for example how the decisions are made in the security, health or education’s councils. 1.4. Federalism
Federalism is a multilevel political arrangement based on a constitutional system of delegated, reserved, or shared powers, whose multiple interactions aim to serve the sovereign will of federal democracy (Chryssochoou 2009). Daniel Eleazar defined a Federation as "a compound polity compounded of strong constituent entities and a strong general government, each possessing powers delegated to it by people and empowered to deal directly with the citizenry in the exercise of those powers" (Ibid). Federalism works as a system that promotes "unity through diversity", fostering a voluntary union of states and peoples, whose principal purpose is to recognize, preserve and formally accommodate distinct interests (Burgess 2004). This formal agreement is rooted in the idea of an equal partnership between the respective bargain used upon the notion of mutual reciprocity: the idea that all participants will not only make decisions for the general welfare of the whole, but that will also refrain from taking decisions that knowingly do harm either to other members or to the union as a whole (Ibid). According to Antje & Diez (2009) unions are not confined to their origins, they evolve in both size and scope, while new bargains are formulated and agreed upon as circumstances change. The Community of South American Nations (CSN) transformed into a union in 2007, namely UNASUR. This juridical and political upgrade towards a union implies that a regional organization acquired more powers and roles. So, could it be said that the process experienced by UNASUR is similar to the one implemented by the European Union? We propose this is not the case, even if the transition from CAN (a community) into UNASUR (a union) was a determining point for regional constitution and institutionality. The transformation represents the beginning of a process in which member states accepted to be part of a union of states, constituted by formal bodies and adapted to the context of South America. However this process is not similar to that of Europe because the EU took several decades to be consolidated to the point of reaching a supranational parliament that controls the decision-­‐making process that concerns all of its constituents. UNASUR is a young process, which is being built and shaped according to local trends and circumstances. Yet, it can take several turnovers until being fully constituted, since only half of the national parliaments of its member countries have voted and accepted the Constitutive Treaty of UNASUR. 8 1.5. Transnationalism
Karl Deutsch is the main proponent of the theory of Transnationalism. He considered it as the attainment of a "sense of community" and of institutions and practices strong enough and widespread enough to assure for long-­‐term dependable expectations of peaceful change among its population. Deutsch sees particular transactions equivalent to developing a community of citizens through a process of social learning. Although such an outcome would take a long time to materialize −in fact, several generations−. He suggested that what is important is that the uniting parts develop a community based on common identities, shared values, belief systems and a sense of common destiny, and that certain norms and habits of societal organization would emerge from the range of intensity of informal contacts (Chryssochoou 2009). This theory is likely to be the optimal case of integration of regional blocs, although, not all of the blocs go through the same process. In the case of UNASUR we cannot use transnationalism as an analytical theory, since the Union is in the process of constitution and because CAN and MERCOSUR have not yet converged their institutions, jurisdictions, and parliaments. 2. Economic Theories of Integration
Several theorists such as Raúl Prebisch (Ziesemer, 1994), Pierre Salama (2006) and Alicia Puyana (2003) see integration as a driving force to strengthen the economic development of the region. In this context, regional trade agreements (RTAs) represent the main tools to promote economic integration; if they are well implemented they can create competitiveness, as well as reducepoverty. CEPAL (2008) considers that the insertion of Latin American countries in the international economy would be fortified through effective regional integration, if it engaged on long-­‐term policies and south-­‐south cooperation. Regional trade agreements are beneficial or negative depending on their scopes and depths. Generally, the motivations behind various RTAs differ considerably in their contents, mainly on the tools adopted to achieve their objectives (Woolcock 2003). There are several political, economic, geographic and cultural factors influencing these agreements. For example, in the case of South America, geographic proximity represents an important condition for integration, since natural trading partners are more likely to commit into preferential arrangements (Pravin 2003). According to Panitchpakdi (2008) the only way to ensure development gains is by having an integrated approach to trade, meaning a combination of a wide range of economic, social and political objectives. On the other hand, new endogenous growth theories postulate that regional economic integration can lead to permanent changes in the rate of growth, if they integrate various transmission channels such as scale effects and the diffusion of knowledge and technology (Lombaerde et al. 2005). As such economic theories of integration can be broadly classified in two branches: trade integration theory and monetary integration theory. 9 2.1. Trade Integration
The trade integration theory is based on trade exchanges between states and regional blocs. There exist three main mechanisms to achieve trade integration: free trade agreements (FTAs), customs unions (CUs) and common markets (CMs). Free trade agreements are the favorite instrument employed to reach economic integration. When states sign an FTA they agree to liberalize their internal trade, without losing their autonomy at the external level of protection (Lombaerde et al. 2005). Customs unions establish internal free trade agreements combined with common external tariffs. States engaging in CUs agree to give up their national sovereignty over trade policy towards non-­‐members, plus they transfer it to a central common authority (Ibid). Common markets imply a free movement of factors of production -­‐ capital and labour -­‐ this is the deeper level of trade integration (Ballasa 1961 cited in Lombaerde et al. 2005). In most of the cases FTAs, CUs and CMs are studied as a global result of trade agreements. Traditionally, these agreements were mainly oriented towards trade factors, discounting the importance of having an integral socio-­‐economic and political strategy (Mattli 1999). Trade-­‐creation effects arise in the output of inefficient industries, which are then replaced after the removal of tariffs, by cheaper imports from more efficient industries in a member state of the union (Ibid). The net welfare of the members involved in these agreements will depend on the amount of trade created and diverted, as well as on the differences in unit costs (Jones 1985 cited in Mattli 1999). In the case of UNASUR, its preceding organizations -­‐ CAN and MERCOSUR -­‐ were mainly created under the parameters and results expected from trade integration. MERCOSUR was created with the goal of reaching a deep economic integration, now it works under a customs union regime. Even if CAN is not the result of merely economic ambitions, it has focused its work on the signature of several free trade agreements between its members and other regional blocs. It is important to remark that one of the driving forces under the creation of UNASUR was the signature of a free trade agreement between CAN and MERCOSUR in 2004. Since the beginning UNASUR has prioritized the social, energetic and infrastructure areas of integration, procrastinating the harmonization of trade policies among the states of the region. However, trade concerns are still at the core of integration since south-­‐south RTAs are quite beneficial for the region. For example, around 40% of developing countries’ merchandise exports are sent to other developing countries, there was an increase of 27% since 1980 (Panitchpakdi 2008). 2.2. Monetary Integration
The theory of monetary integration operates under the adoption of a common currency; it entails the acceptance of a common monetary policy and the establishment of a regional monetary authority. Monetary unions can become economic and monetary unions (EMUs), they represent a further stage of union that establishes a complete unification of fiscal and monetary policies coordinated by a regional authority (Lombaerde et al. 2005). In this case, the members of the EMUs become nations of the region (Ibid). In several regions, EMUs are considered as a means to deepen trade-­‐based integration schemes. Another branch of monetary unions are the optimum currency areas (OCAs), these areas constitute a space in which exchange rates are immutably fixed or where a common currency exists (Mattli 1999). Optimality is defined in terms of the ability of an area to achieve both 10 internal balance (full employment and low inflation) and external balance (payments equilibrium) in the least costly way (Ibid). Mundell, (1961 cited in Lombaerde et al. 2005) one of the fathers of this theory, proposed a model in which the exchange rates should be fixed within areas characterized by perfect intra-­‐regional factor mobility. Therefore, OCAs focus on the analysis of microeconomic and macroeconomic criteria used to determine the conditions and policies under which it is economically efficient to create monetary unions (Mattli 1999). In the context of our study, it is relevant to analyze the monetary theory since there is a first proposal developed by UNASUR for the creation of a monetary union. This proposal is based on the establishment of standard rates for the exchange of currencies between the member states. This initiative aims at reducing the transaction costs between currencies. 3. Models of analyzing regional integration
A myriad of hybrid models of regional integration have been proposed during the last decades, which have been developed with the aim of satisfying particular regional needs in specific contexts. It is also important to talk about the function or use of these theories. According to Antje Wiener and Thomas Diez there are three main functions of theory: i) Explanatory or Understanding, the why and how of its existence. ii) Descriptive and Analytic, includes definitions and concepts. iii) Critique and normative intervention, based on questioning the process and developing norms for the future (Antje & Diez 2009). A presentation of the perspectives the different perspectives are present Among the most prominent ones we can mention the theory of “Interaction of Markets and Political Institutions” developed by Walter Mattli. This theory analyses the process of inclusion of social and political areas into economic integration (Mattli 1999). “Historical Institutionalism”, developed by Olivier Dabène, is another theory proposed for the study of regionalism. . On the other, it we consider the explanatory function of a theory, an important model of monitoring and evaluating regional integration has been develop mainly by Philippe De Lombaerde (2006), it consists of a system of indicators of regional integration (SIRI). 3.1. Historical institutionalism
This theory was elaborated in the context of Latin America, and studies the long-­‐term implications of institutional choices made at a particular time (Dabène 2009). Furthermore, it assumes that actors are not perfectly knowledgeable about the consequences of their choices and suggests that their present behavior is constrained by past choices (Rosamond 2000). There is a wide set of theories of regional integration that can be used to better explain the process promoted by UNASUR. As explained earlier in this chapter, political science theories explain specific parts of UNASUR project, but they do not provide a solid analytical framework to study the role of social factors in the integration process. In respect to economic theories, we observed that these were merely focused on trade and monetary factors, and not on social factors. Nevertheless, economic goals have to be considered in the study of UNASUR, since in the long term the Union aims at harmonizing the experiences of CAN and MERCOSUR in the trade area. 11 Our analysis focuses on the influence of social mechanisms of integration on a long-­‐term state integration and on the reduction of poverty and inequalities in South America. To analyze this matter, a hybrid model that encompasses the social, economic and political dimensions of the process of integration of UNASUR has been proposed. Torrent (2006) developed an analytical framework adapted to the context of Latin-­‐American integration, which points out that integration processes in different contexts have a certain number of elements in common (Torrent 2006). This theory consists on a typology that analyzes the combination of preconditions, objectives, instruments and dimensions of a regional integration process. Each of these factors allows for a better understanding of the processes and results of integration. Analysis of preconditions. To understand integration it is necessary to analyze factors, such as population, geography, infrastructure facilities, economic indicators, political tendencies, common origins, cultural factors and political and juridical structures. Analysis of objectives. Analyzing global and specific objectives of regional integration blocs provides a basis to study the roots and future of integration initiatives. The global and specific objectives constitute the motive for integration of the members; in a majority of cases these encompass the following dimensions: intra and extra regional security, acquisition of negotiation power at the multilateral level, consolidation of internal reforms and attraction of foreign direct investment (FDI). Instruments of Analysis. Regional integration is an effort and a common task for states; therefore, it requires the use of effective instruments to influence the socio-­‐economic situation of the region. These instruments can be categorized in three ways. First, regional legislation and norms, these instruments consist of the analysis of the rules and norms related to the internal and external relations of the bloc. The second instrument are public activities, it consists of the support of activities involving the private sector and civil society. In this case, regional blocs promulgate and apply policies related to public services such as education, environment, labor standards or physical infrastructure. Public activities can have positive effects since they can define the instruments for the management of such policies. Finally, the traditional diplomatic instruments of dialogue and cooperation are considered as a tool that promotes decisions making, creates spaces of integration, and helps to overcome political emergencies. Dimensions of Regional Integration. This instrument is divided in the external dimension and in the effective content of integration. The external dimension of integration refers mainly to economic agreements, such as CUs and FTAs. This dimension is particularly important for south-­‐south agreements whose main objective is to increase the international negotiation power of the region and its insertion in the international system. The second factor involves the effective content of integration, and refers to the width and depth of integration. The width of any international agreement can be defined in terms of the number and scope of areas it involves, it can be determined through an examination of the scope of regional instruments. Depth refers to the degree that the areas of integration are subject to, and to the rules and common public activities developed to achieve them. 3.2. System of Indicators of Regional Integration (SIRI)
The System of indicators of Regional Integration (SIRI) is based on a deep analysis of the 12 different aspects involving the current existing models of regional integration around the world. Since there is a not one standing definition of regional integration, a myriad of factors can be taken into consideration when analyzing a model to monitor, evaluate and to be compare in between different process. According to De Lombaerde (2006) the definition of regional integration suggests the articulation of concepts like coordination or cooperation, which is why an evaluation should not be restricted to facts (actions, decisions, effects). SIRI appears as a proposal of a model to better understand and analyze regional integration. It is a model still in a process of construction which can be used to do an analysis of our study case –UNASUR–. SIRI proposes a group of variable categories that are related with the level of specificity of the indicator system and with several dimensions: political-­‐legal dimension, economic, mobility, cultural, security and cooperation. Conceptual framework of SIRI 4. Analytical Framework:
UNASUR
Social Mechanisms of Integration in the framework of
4.1. Research Question
To what extend can the social mechanisms of integration proposed by UNASUR contribute to a long-­‐term integration and a reduction of poverty and inequalities in the region? 13 4.2. Hypothesis
UNASUR is promoting a regional integration process that includes the social dimension of integration. The previous processes of integration carried out by CAN and MERCOSUR were mainly oriented towards economic integration, namely trade agreements and customs unions. The nineteen-­‐nineties was a decade characterized by reactivation of regional integration, with two main characteristics at stake -­‐democracy and neoliberal policies-­‐ (Dabène 2009). During the first decade of the twenty-­‐first century, integration goals were marked by the revival of a South American unity and a political tendency oriented towards the left, called XXI Century Socialism5. During the forty years of experience in terms of integration, the institutions involved have faced multiple crises that put its integration at stake, but the region is still promoting this process and is in a constant process of learning and adapting to the upcoming situations and realities. In this context, UNASUR opens a new horizon for integration in the region, as its main goal is to eliminate socio-­‐economic inequalities and reduce poverty, in order to achieve social inclusion and the participation of civil society by strengthening democracy and reducing asymmetries. We understand poverty as the percentage of the population whose income is below the cost of two basic food baskets (ECLAC 2009). Extreme poverty is considered as the people living conditions in situations of indigence, meaning the percentage of the population whose income is the cost of a basket of staple foods (Ibid). We have to be aware that in order to attain a long-­‐term integration the region needs to have a political strategic sense for the future. Having a strategic orientation means taking decisions that tend to prioritize “big politics” on the basis of the priorities of the members states of the regional blocs (Rojas 2007). In specific terms this involves agreeing on definitions of the purposes, the courses of action to attain them, and the resources allocated that will make success possible in the long-­‐term (Ibid). If having a strategic political orientation contributes to the long-­‐term regional policies of UNASUR, we can consider that long-­‐term integration can be defined as public policy that lasts at least one human generation, exhibits deep uncertainty exacerbated by the depth of time, and engenders public goods aspects both at the stage of problem generation as well as at the response stage(Sprinz 2009). Considering the above mentioned facts, our hypothesis relies on the idea that the social dimension of integration represents a mechanism that contributes to the reduction of poverty and inequalities in the region, as well as a mechanism to achieve a long-­‐term integration in South America for the following corollaries: i) Poverty and inequalities are problems that are shared by all of the members of the Union, therefore, they constitute a common problem and a common objective that are the basis to reach long-­‐term agreements; in this context UNASUR reinforces long-­‐term integration and promotes advances towards equality, because of south-­‐
south cooperation and common institutionalized bodies which work for the twelve members of the region. ii) The history of regional integration in South America has proven to be fragmented 5
XXI Century Socialism is considered a political system in which the state executes competencies related to the
regulation of its welfare and national income. Its objective is to reduce negative impacts of economic measures, by
proposing policies that benefit the entire population in a positive way. These policies have to guarantee the existence
of democratic institutions and the respect of human rights (Magallanes 2008).
14 and overambitious. UNASUR for the first time puts social factors at the core of institutional integration as a process and a goal of integration; this target can bring harmonization and union by approaching the institutional mechanisms and channels developed by the previous regional organizations. iii) This process was born from national and local initiatives, meaning that it is not an imported model that aims at copying other processes; rather it aims at starting an own agenda adapted to its own regional reality. 5. Conclusions of this chapter
The analysis of this section provided a framework for understanding the reasons behind integration processes and the corresponding results expected from each process. Through the exploration of the existing theories in this field, it becomes apparent that finding a framework that is consistent with the structure and goals of UNASUR is not an easy task. The theories reasoned out of the field of political science explain the political reasons behind integration and the mechanisms that the involved political actors use to achieve it. However, various regional historical factors make it evident that South American integration must be approached through unique and alternative perspectives. Neofunctionalism and Intergovernmentalism share with UNASUR the principle that nations mutually coordinate in political undertakings to achieve a stronger negotiating power. However, these two theories differ from UNASUR in the fact that the Union has not agreed to transfer its national governmental functions to a new governing supranational core. UNASUR promotes independently operating national-­‐level political units and policy-­‐
making, but they find in integration a mechanism of cooperation that reinforces common areas by benefiting all member states without affecting their respective sovereignty. Federalism is an advanced stage of integration, it works through a central authority, which in most of the cases are regional parliaments. Despite the fact that an adjunct proposal exists to create a regional parliamentary body within the context of UNASUR, less than half of the national parliaments have ratified it. On the other hand, trade-­‐based theories clearly propose a framework based solely on trade, which would not suffice for modeling our research question, as monetizing social benefits based on foreign trade returns. However, integration theories employing economic growth incubated through international trade agreements as a partial indicator to the overall social wellbeing is a plausible route to consider. In this context, the proposal of UNASUR focuses on reducing the growing social and economic gaps within the population, by leading a process of economic growth and social cooperation that benefits the population as a whole and not only to a smaller group. A step towards this goal was the signature of the free trade agreement between CAN and MERCOSUR, plus the ratification of the principles of human development. On the other hand, the proposal of a purely monetary integration model, where member states are married through a bond of a common currency cannot be assumed to be the root of UNASUR. The proposed hybrid framework encompasses the social, economic and political dimensions of regional integration and takes into consideration a broader perspective of development than that of solely economic growth as the core value. This framework used to analyze the UNASUR process is the System of Indicators of Regional integration, since it allows to take into consideration long term-­‐integration factors and social aspects of integration. 15 II. Regional integration in South America: Experiences and Opportunities 16 II. REGIONAL INTEGRATION IN SOUTH AMERICA: EXPERIENCES AND OPPORTUNITIES A handful of projects have materialized in social sectors as a result of South American integration, principally in the areas of social development, health, education, defense and energy. However, from a macro perspective, and as a result of unclear definitions of the objectives and role of the social dimension in the integration process, the social achievements garnished through the South America regional bloc integration have also been characterized as ineffectual (SELA 2008). In this regard, the governments of the region are confronting challenges to coordinate their external agenda, including globalization and economic and free trade negotiations, with their internal agenda, including the reduction of poverty and social inequities and exclusion (Ibid). It is imperative to recognize that many of the formal/institutional integration initiatives began developing over fifty years ago, reason why UNASUR is the result of an advanced process. Historical line of integration in South America 2010 Creation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States 2010 Signature of the Declaration of “Solidarity with Haiti”. 2009 -­‐ Creation of the Council of Education, Science, Culture, Technology and Innovation; Council of Infrastructure and Planning; Council of Social Development; and Council to Fight Drug Trafficking. 2008 -­‐ Creation of Union of South American Nations. -­‐ Creation of the Councils of Health, Energy and Defence. 2005 -­‐ The Free Trade Agreement of the Americas was not reached. 2004 -­‐ III Presidential Summit of the Community of South American Nations and creation of the South American Community of Nations. -­‐ Signature of a free trade agreement between CAN and MERCOSUR. 2003. -­‐ Venezuela retires from the Andean Community of Nations. 2002 -­‐ II Presidential Summit of the Community of South American Nations. 2000 -­‐ I Presidential Summit of the Community of South American Nations. -­‐ Creation of the Institute for the Integration of the regional Infrastructure in South America. 1991 -­‐ Signature of the Treaty of Asuncion for the creation of MERCOSUR. 1989. -­‐ Celebration of the Doha Round. 1980. -­‐ Signature of the Montevideo Treaty for the creation of the American Integration Association (ALADI). 1975. -­‐ Creation of the Latin American Economic System (SELA). 17 1969. -­‐ Signature of the Andean Pact for the creation of Andean Community of Nations. 1960. -­‐ Creation of the Free Trade Latin American Association. 1955. -­‐ Creation of the Inter-­‐American Development Bank (IADB) -­‐ Creation of the Economic Commission for Latin America (ECALC) 1948. -­‐ Creation of the Organization of American States (OAS) Thus, in order to gain perspective on the challenges facing the current administrative processes and governmental institutions, this chapter aims to provide an historical analysis of regional integration efforts in South America. We will explore the pre-­‐existing institutional foundations upon which the innovations and challenges introduced by UNASUR are built. The formation of UNASUR was considered by some states to be a mechanism of fragmentation against the existing processes of integration in the continent, in particular, those involving the macro-­‐regional organizations ALADI, OAS and CELAC. However, the reality is that UNASUR focuses on pursuing alliances across all of Latin America and the Caribbean, between the ongoing subregional organizations including The Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) and the Andean Community of Nations (CAN), as well as uniting countries that were previously members from such organizations such as Chile, Guyana, Surinam and Venezuela. The accomplishments of the pre-­‐existing regional institutions have paved the way for the strengthening of the social policies in the region. It is important to recognize that most of the alliances created by these institutions are backed by economic interests. Integration in the fields of health, education, and security has also established steady bearings (Marin 2000). This section will elaborate on how the negotiation processes and achievements implemented by MERCOSUR and CAN represent real factors that amplify the social dimension of the Union. UNASUR´s proposal might best be described as “an integral integration”, whose objective is to harness, channel, and harmonize the varied experiences and outcomes of the pre-­‐existing subregional processes. Fulfilling this description means facing several challenges, the first of which is to enable the Free Trade Agreement between the subregional blocs, followed by the implementation of infrastructural integration, and finally settling on mechanisms that will effectively reduce inequalities and poverty (Díaz & Cano 2007). 1. The Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR)
The Southern Common Market was formed in 1991 with the signing of the Treaty of Asunción by Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. Its main objective is to achieve subregional member-­‐state integration through the free circulation of goods, services and productive factors, as well, as the establishment of a Common External Tariff (CET). MERCOSUR has been working in the adoption of a common trade policy that would contribute to the coordination of macroeconomic policies and to the collaborative strategic development of countries’ legislations (MERCOSUR 1991). An important step in its development took place on 1994, when the Common Southern Market adopted a “Custom Union” trade model. 18 In the multilateral system, MERCOSUR shares a particular feature with other organizations which are characterized by having one or more small countries linked up with a larger country (Machado 2005). In this case, the large country that coordinates and promotes this process is Brazil, followed very closely by Argentina (Evans 2004). MERCOSUR is considered one of the few successful processes of integration in Latin America, although many challenges were faced since its creation. For example, one formidable challenge is the existing asymmetry between the members of MERCOSUR, mainly because Brazil and Argentina are economically strong competitors compared to Paraguay and Uruguay. The powerful nations also tend to maintain individual external policies that weaken the southern alliance on the whole, as exemplified by the Brazilian project to obtain a permanent seat on the Security Council (Hirst 1999). MERCOSUR accurately conforms to the criteria developed by the trade integration theories; it is an alliance that aims at reaching a unique market to reinforce economic growth through productive specialization, scale economies, exchange complementary processes and externalize negotiating power (MERCOSUR 1991). Successful results include the increase of intra-­‐regional trade and investment flows, an operational Common External Tariff structure, and a harmonized macroeconomic policy (Ibid). As opposed to other regions, MERCOSUR possesses an aggressive bloc negotiating power; it maintains bilateral and multilateral negotiations with countries such as Chile, Japan, China, and with blocs such as ASEAN and the European Union. MERCOSUR differs from CAN, the other South America subregional economic entity, in that it is not a trade-­‐dependent partner of the United States, but is rather focused on finding agreements especially with the European Union (Robin 2008). The Treaty of Asuncion did not provide specific details regarding the treatment of integration-­‐related social issues, however nine years later, in 2000 the Buenos Aires Charter on Social Commitment was signed trilaterally between Bolivia, Chile and the MERCOSUR bloc conglomerate, expressing: “that economic growth is a necessary but not sufficient condition for achieving a better quality of life, eradicating poverty, and eliminating discrimination and social exclusion;” (SELA 2008) and recognized “the primary responsibility of the state in formulating policies to combat poverty and other social ills and to support efforts by civil society directed at this goal.” (Ibid) In 2006 MERCOSUR defined and implemented social policies and its coordination mechanisms, it also create a social fund and a Social Institute (Ibid). Currently there is a Social Permanent Secretary, who works on issues from youth to the elderly, from food security to social economy. Although economists may criticize the efficacy of the social initiatives, MERCOSUR and their bloc members and neighboring countries have been actively working to improve social processes for over a decade, which constitutes a meaningful asset for UNASUR. 2. The Andean Community of Nations (CAN)
The Andean Community of Nations was created on 1971 by Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Chile. It builds on 39 years of experience in the political, legal, economic, social and environmental dimensions. The Community is currently comprised of four members including 19 Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. Chile and Venezuela were former members of this regional alliance, but they withdrew in 1976 and 2006 respectively. The associated countries include Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay and Brazil, who also constitute the member-­‐states in MERCOSUR. CAN has undergone several dynamic processes each of which was adapted to the substantial and demanding changes during the decades of the 70s, 80s and 90s. The nineties was particularly characterized by the consolidation of liberalization policies and market openness, and was the beginning of trade integration in the bloc due to the arrival of high capital inflows and trade openness (Reinoso 2000). CAN has profound experience in developing trade agreements that promote a broad market of goods and services, which has allowed the region to benefit from trade returns. A primary goal of the organization is to consolidate the existing free trade zone of goods and services and to imbue and reinforce behavior that will enhance a further degree of integration (CAN 2005).The existing alliance is known as an “imperfect customs union”, because the common tax agreement was partially adopted by its members (Reinoso 2000). Among the advantages of this bloc we can point out its focused effort on the promotion of non-­‐traditional and industrial trade exportations within the region, although there is a high tendency to look for external trading partners –especially the United States-­‐. This complements the fact that Andean economies are considerably fragile and vulnerable, and are characterized by a richness in a few select products, especially raw materials and agriculture (Casas 2005). Today the Andean Community of Nations (CAN) possesses a healthy infrastructure, showing signs of significant progress along institutional and organizational hierarchies. Its bodies include a Presidential Council, a Council of Foreign Affairs, a General Secretariat, a Court of Justice and the Andean Parliament. Nevertheless, the majority of these bodies have lost importance and power due to numerous political crises and the disaccord and incertitude of presidential agendas. One internal bloc crisis affected the region significantly when Venezuela left the community in 2006. Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela struggle with border protection issues, while Bolivia and Peru maintain a very long-­‐standing traditional disagreement as well (Rojas 2009). It is a positive sign that since its foundation, CAN has been promoting social and labor issues, especially during the late nineties when it began dealing with border problems and education-­‐related issues (SELA 2008). There is currently a social development plan in place in which issues like employment, health, education, rural development, food security, migration policies, environmental and culture are immersed. In 2004, CAN members approved the plan, with the establishment of the Integral Social Development Program (PIDS). On an institutional level, the social policy of Andean regional integration is implemented by the ministerial councils (on social issues, health, labor, social development, cultural and educational policies) and the social agreements. Nevertheless, the number of fields and objectives pursued by this organization are surprisingly high in relation to the budget and human resource capacity. 3. Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC)
On 2010 the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) was created by 33 states form the Americas. This was an effort to further integration in Latin America, since it was considered as an alternative to the Organization of American States (OAS), since it functions 20 without the participation of the United States. CELAC is the results of the Rio Group and the Latin American and Caribbean Summit on Integration and Development. Regarding the relation with CELAC and UNASUR, it is possible to observe that certain nations are more supportive to one organization than the other one. Although, the objectives of both blocs are similar and do not create differences between both bodies. It can also be considered, that CELAC can strengthen the integration between regional blocs from South America and the Caribbean. However, CELAC can also be considered as a new effort that can weaken the processes of institutionalization and future effects of UNASUR, because it requires more participation of the states in the meetings and in some cases overlaps some of the functions of UNASUR. 4. Other regional organizations
Other blocs in the region include the Latin American Integration Association (LAIA) and the Organization of American States (OAS), both of which are macro-­‐regional entities encompassing the UNASUR members plus all of the American countries. LAIA was created in 1960 and remains an active organization that in recent years has seen its influence and negotiating power reduced. LAIA, used to be a very important bloc implanting some of the most significant political and economic decision-­‐making policies of the region, however, political disagreements and several crises affected the region in recent decades, reducing the role of this organization on the continent (Robin 2008). LAIA was supposed to coordinate and arrange the signature of the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), but in 2003 a major upset occurred when the majority of votes were against it. Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela voted against; and Argentina, Brazil and Chile voted in favor, which clearly shows the economic and political tendencies of the South American countries (Girault 2009). OAS was created in 1948 and is a strategic player in the continental political and economic issues. Cuba is notably the only American state who is not a member.Some of the members of OAS consider UNASUR to be an organization that fragments the continental integrity by creating more subregional blocs. Contrarily, UNASUR has specifically stated that it is not their aim to create a parallel organization or to duplicate tasks, and that their goal is to strengthen integration through the consolidation of a south regional bloc. Some of the critiques made by leaders of the region6 consider OAS to be a closed organism where the important decisions are strongly influenced the Unites States. Other organizations operating in the region include the Bolivian Alternative for Latin America and the Caribbean (ALBA) and the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (OTCA). Since they are constituted by some of the UNASUR members, there are important incentives for cooperation between these bodies and the Union, but the risk of having an excess of objectives and agendas of work is ever-­‐present. On the other hand as mentioned before, CELAC has to be also considered among the regional organizations that have an influence on the process of institutionalization and future achievements of UNASUR. 6
Mainly diplomats from Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela and Bolivia.
21 5. Lessons learned and new opportunities for the region
UNASUR may benefit from the experiences of regional integration efforts of the pre-­‐
existing and current sub-­‐regional organizations, learning from their successes and failures, while at the same time developing its own long-­‐term processes. 5.1. Lessons learned
The preexisting regional blocs in South America have burgeoned out of the steadfast belief that intra-­‐regional trade contributes directly to the development of the region. The inclination towards trade policies has been present in the regional agenda for decades, in virtue of the abundance of resources of the region. Unfortunately, intra-­‐regional trade remains a weak force for growth in Latin America; in 2007 it reached only 18% compared to 66% in the EU and 33% in Asia (Rosales et al. 2008).This means that the region lacks a mindful dedication towards furthering intra-­‐trade alliances and south articulation. In legal terms, some authors like Rosales recommend that in order to reinforce integration, the mechanisms for conflict-­‐
resolution should be binding, therefore strengthening the institutions and agreements (Ibid). MERCOSUR is considered to be an exemplary implementation of integration, as it has established a meaningful trade agreement however, an integral aspect of the articulation of the various subregional blocs into these trade agreements is the incorporation of various mechanisms, rules, and agreements, such as the Rules of Origin, which must be harmonized and mutually recognized among all participants. A legitimate step towards this goal can be seen in the Free Trade Agreement signed in 2005 between CAN and MERCOSUR, in addition to the similar agreements between these organizations and the non-­‐member countries of Chile and Venezuela. In terms of regional trade, it is important to remark that after the failure of the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) the United State began bilateral negotiations with Peru, Colombia, Chile and Argentina. Considering the strong ties between the Andean countries with the US, this individualist negotiation approach weakens the goals of articulation of the South American countries (Salgado 2007). Aside from the weakening effect of the divergent negotiations taken on by the USA, other important reasons for deteriorated integration efforts include the mounting debts, the reductions in product exports, as well as the overly ambitious goals of the subregional organizations. Moreover, the existence of multiple development models, the lack of effective regional leadership, the high degrees of reciprocal mistrust, a region without a long-­‐term strategy and an excess of supply of proposals has vanquished many dreams of integration (Rojas 2007). 5.2. Challenges and opportunities
An important challenge for UNASUR is the convergence of the two pre-­‐established integration schemes that have their own juridical, economical and commercial standards and procedures (INTAL 2007). Combining these into a new structured body will take significant time and effort. Another challenge for UNASUR to overcome is the effectual reduction in financial and human resources and the low priority given by subregional blocs towards macro-­‐regional integration. 22 The advantage that UNASUR brings to the region is that its thematic councils benefit all twelve countries of South America, rather than perpetuating the historical and strategic factions between them. UNASUR’s promotion of regional infrastructure and economic integration for all countries means that, for the first time, the opportunity for macro-­‐level returns is a realistic and achievable metric. This added to the promotion and harmonization of common goals in the fields of health, infrastructure, economy, energy and education have significant potential to strengthen democracy and promote an effective fight against poverty and inequalities. UNASUR also represents a geopolitical gold-­‐mine of opportunity because its members amalgamate a vast reserve of resources (natural, mineral, fertile lands, water and energy) (INTAL 2008). The relation between these blocs would facilitate the entrance and trade routes of the southern countries into the South Pacific, which would reflect a reduction in transportation costs for the exportation to northern countries (Machado 2005). Finally, both CAN and MERCOSUR are embedded in into deeply seated regional trade agreements, which will facilitate the work. These organizations have developed a mechanism for non-­‐members attaining an “associated member countries” status; furthermore through their respective systems of associate-­‐members both organizations fulfill an equally extended union of participants. The presence of associated members of both organizations in each of them. Additionally, it is important to take in consideration the new trends of integration CELAC is proposing, since many of the declarations and proposals made in CAN, MERCOSUR and UNASUR are reflected in the guidelines of CELAC. 6. Conclusions of this chapter
This section demonstrates that the previous process of integration developed through CAN and MERCOSUR, were principally created for obtaining clear economic achievements, and in particular,of economic growth through trade liberalization. It is true that these blocs have a deep trade focus because they are respectively based on a free trade agreement and on a custom union. Although, even if trade is at the core of their integration, they have achieved positive results in social articulation by developing certain cooperation programs, declarations and thematic councils. In this context, UNASUR can take advantage of past experiences of the region, of its failures and successes. But at the same time, developing a long-­‐term integration process towards of a unified South America will doubtless require significant time and effort because of the complexity involved in the convergence and harmonization of the existing regional entities. Plus new processes of integration like CELAC have to be closely analyzed since they have an important influence in the development of UNASUR. 23 III. UNASUR: A new challenge for the region 24 III. UNASUR: A NEW CHALLENGE FOR THE REGION "The news is that South American and Latin American countries are now even more aware that there is not an individual exit. Either, we get together and agree on complementary policies, by executing an internal policy of help and solidarity that would help us to grow up together. Or we are going to finish another century poor, as we did during the XX century7” Ignacio Lula da Silva, President of Brazil (UNASUR 2010) In Latin America, social integration was developed mainly as a response to the economic disparities and social inequalities resulting from the liberal policies applied during the decade of the nineties. South America has been engaged in integration processes for upwards of forty years, and there are around a dozen initiatives launched in the region8. Nevertheless, this large amount of institutions does not guarantee the success of these regional strategies; and the opinions on the effectiveness and failures are widely divided among the community of researches. Some of them consider these regional blocs to be complete failures while others characterize them as slow but enduring projects that boast vast experience and profound knowledge. UNASUR represents one of the most recent initiatives, launched with the aim of strengthening the social dimension of regional integration in South America. In the past two decades, there has been a rapid emergence of regionalism around the world. Several theorists attribute this surge in regional awareness to a decline in the multilateral system that they believe is no longer working effectively (Joost 1995). In this context, UNASUR was originally created as the Community of South American Nations in 2004 and became a union by 2007. This regional block integrates twelve members: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Surinam, Uruguay and Venezuela. In the two years that have passed since its establishment, new initiatives in the domains of health, education, human development, energy, trade and security are currently operating under UNASUR administration. The UNASUR process is characterized by its holistic approach to integration and south-­‐
south cooperation, and differs from the previous processes of integration which were focused on economic strategies measuring success through monetary indicators alone, as previously explained in chapter two. The Union has stated its orientation towards a multi-­‐dimensional integration process, elaborating upon perspectives such as infrastructure, education, health, energy and security. It aims at stabilizing long-­‐term social and human development that would contribute to a better quality of life of its people, through the reduction of poverty and inequalities in the region. In addition to social unity, the union also has strong macro-­‐level economic and political goals, aiming to enhance the political unity and the international negotiating power of the 7
Translation by the author, original text: “La novedadesque los paísesestáncomprendiendo, cadavezmás, que no
existesalida
individual
paraningúnpaís
de
Suramérica
o
de
Latinoamérica.
O
nosjuntamos,
acordamospolíticascomplementares y comenzamos a ejecutar entre nosotrosunapolítica de ayuda, de solidaridad,
paracrecerjuntos, o vamos a terminarotrosiglopobres, comoterminamos el siglo XX”
8
Among the most important we can mention: CAN, MERCOSUR, ALCA, ALADI, ALALC, OAS, OEI, SELA, IABD,
PAHO and ELALC.
25 region. An internal integration is expected, in terms of strengthening the link between its people, by focusing on alliances and south-­‐south cooperation in the fields of health, education, energy, and security. Additionally, in the economic field, it aims at reinforcing intra-­‐trade channels between its members by continuing and improving upon the trade mechanisms between CAN, MERCOSUR, Chile, Surinam and Guyana. This economic goal is directly supported by the actions taken by CELAC. In order to understand to what extent these new social mechanisms of integration can contribute to a long-­‐term integration and to a reduction of poverty and inequities in the region, the hybrid framework presented in chapter one will be used as the basis for analysis. It involves the study of the core principles, mechanisms developed, preconditions of integration, legislation, norms, and dimensions of UNASUR. 1. Evolving from a “Community of Nations” into a “Union of Nations”
UNASUR was first conceived as the “South American Community of Nations” (CSN) in 2004 during the third South American Presidential Summit which took place in Peru. It is the result of several processes of integration, including LAIA, OAS, FTAA, combined with resolutions from the first and second summits of heads of state of South American countries in 2000 and 2002. As previously stated a determining factor for this integration was the free trade agreement signed between CAN and MERCOSUR the same year that the CSN was created. The member countries of the CSN were the same as those of UNASUR: Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay (MERCOSUR), Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador and Colombia (CAN), Venezuela, Chile, Guyana and Surinam. The CSN aimed at “developing a South American space that is integrated in the political, social, economic, environmental and infrastructural areas, in order to strengthen South America’s own identity and to contribute, on the basis of a sub-­‐regional perspective and in articulation with the experiences of regional integration, towards the strengthening of Latin America and the Caribbean, providing to the whole region a greater gravitation and representation in international forums” (Rojas 2007). The CSN developed a strategic plan targeting the social and cultural dimensions of integration based on south-­‐south cooperation. It mainly involves issues such as the overcoming of asymmetries, equitable integration, a new South American social contract, energy integration, infrastructure for regional interconnection, trade cooperation, industrial and productive integration, cultural identity, environment and defense (Ibid). In 2007, during the South American Energy Summit, the President of Venezuela9 proposed a deeper degree of integration that involved the creation of a “Union” of South American Nations (UNASUR), with a permanent secretariat headquarters in Quito, Ecuador (Rojas 2007). The change of denomination from CAN to UNASUR implied more that just a change of words; it responded to a concept of deep integration, and it constituted a moment of consolidation of several aspects that had been widely discussed during previous diplomatic channels. This modification signified a political willingness that aimed at reaching a new structural configuration of the region. Moreover, the establishment of the permanent 9
Hugo Chávez, President of Venezuela 26 secretary instead of a pro-­‐tempore secretary in the city of Quito, represented a significant step towards the institutionalization of this regional bloc (Díaz & Cano 2007). 2. To what extend can the UNASUR be considered a model of sustainable integration?
According to SIRI, several variables can be considered when analyzing the effects and sustainability of regional integration. This section proposes an application of SIRI’s variables to the case UNASUR, this action will contribute to have better understanding of UNASUR’s integration process. This study will bring clearer information to analyze the sustainability of this regional bloc, however, a deeper study based on a comparison with other regional blocs must be carried. It is recommended to use the European Union as a referent case for comparison. As indicated in the above table, SIRI is a proposal of variables that include actors, structural factors, institutionalization, implementation, effects and interdependence. SIRI VARIABLES Source: De Lombaerde and Van Langenhove (2006) 2.1. Actors
The actor’s category analyses the number and type of actors involved and their behaviour in the process of integration. It explores how the numbers of countries or regions involved with the regional body have a direct influence on the dynamics of the decision-­‐making process. 27 UNASUR, it is integrated by ten states which have democracy as a political model and at the core of its policy the maintenance of peace. UNASUR is not an isolated process, it is directly influenced by each of the decisions taken in the several structures of CAN, MERCOSUR, OTCA, OAS, LAIA and CELAC. Many decisions taken in one body are replicated in another context, with the aim of gaining more legitimacy and international support. Another clear example of this interaction is evidenced at moments where two summits take place at the same time, for example it can be the case of ALBA and UNASUR being held during the same week in a particular city. Having these encounters at the same moment helps to guarantee the presence of high-­‐level delegates of each government in both blocs meetings. UNASUR has been mainly agreed and ratified at the governmental level, non-­‐
governmental actors and civil society have not yet a full participation in the formal integration process and in the decision making. Many international blocs count with the support of civil society, as shown in the case of the European Union, in where several pools have been carried out inviting citizens to ratify the process and take decisions about its future. As UNASUR keeps increasing its institutionalization the participation of civil society will be certainly needed. Regarding the intensity of the involvement of each actor and how this influences the decision-­‐making process, it is possible to observe that there are nations that are placing more efforts into the promotion of UNASUR than others. This can be the case of Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela. Some states are more identified with the roots and philosophy of this process, and show their interest by having a high level presence in the multiple summits. However, other states, such as Chile, Colombia or Paraguay are more identified with the processes lead by Community of Latin American and Caribbean Nations (CELAC). The apparition of new regional blocs such as CELAC or ALBA makes this process more fragile, since fragmentation and division among actors starts to be a constant factor. One the other hand, UNASUR also reflects the non-­‐inclusion of the United States, a nations that has been deeply present in previous integration efforts. For these, and the reasons above mentioned the integration process lead by UNASUR is considered by some academics as a New South American Regionalism by many factors (Bonilla, Long 2010). 2.2. Structural Factors
Structural factors essential factors to be considered when taking in consideration the sustainability of an integration body. It can be studied from different angles, but mainly with an analysis of the objectives, the degree of commitment and expectations of the regional bloc. Proximity of actors, asymmetries, complementarities and patters of cooperation, integration and conflict are dimensions to be considered as well. General objective In order to understand the scope and innovation brought by UNASUR, it is necessary to analyze the general ambitions and the implications of initiating a new all-­‐inclusive integration project. According to the Constitutive Treaty of UNASUR signed in 2007, the general objective of UNASUR “is to build, in a participatory and consensual manner, an integration and union among its peoples in the cultural, social, economic and political fields, prioritizing political 28 dialogue, social policies, education, energy, infrastructure, financing and the environment, among others, with a view to eliminating socioeconomic inequality, in order to achieve social inclusion and participation of civil society, to strengthen democracy and reduce asymmetries within the framework of strengthening the sovereignty and independence of the States” (UNASUR 2007). Specific objectives The specific goals are divided in several categories related to the fields of politics, society, economy, culture, and infrastructure. Since this research focus on the analysis of the social mechanisms of integration, we will focus on the specific goals related to this area, which are principally oriented to address poverty, to eradicate hunger, to generate employment opportunities, and to provide better access to health and education. Among the most prominent goals in the social field of study are: an inclusive and equitable social and human development in order to eradicate poverty and overcome inequalities; the eradication of illiteracy, the universal access to quality education and the regional recognition of courses and titles; the development of concrete and effective mechanisms to overcome asymmetries; universal access to social security and health services; the development of an infrastructure for the interconnection of the region and among our peoples; economic and commercial cooperation; promoting economic growth and development to overcome asymmetries through complementary economic strategies among the region’s member states; citizen participation; and sectorial cooperation as a mechanism to deepen South American integration, through the exchange of information, experiences and capacity building (UNASUR 2007). Proximity of actors & structural complementarities As a result of some structural tendencies such as the increase in inequality and the lack of social cohesiveness, support for democracy by the citizens has decreased in the last few years. Therefore, the governability of political systems has been wrought with flaws and setbacks. For instance, between 1992 and 2007, eleven presidents of South American countries did not complete their constitutional mandates because of social discontent that led them to resignation (Rojas 2009). One of the larger advantages of UNASUR is that its main objective is not limited to economic development. It recognizes the existing asymmetries and pursues an equitable and fair distribution of income. It puts an important emphasis on access to education, cohesion and social inclusion. The Union also involves worldly concerns, including the preservation of the environment and sustainable development. This goal can reinforce a long-­‐term integration, because it objectifies the main social needs of the region through south-­‐south cooperation, although it risks being overambitious since the expectations affect and include so many dimensions. In global terms, the political region of South America has several strengths that can be used to reinforce its role in the international arena and also to strengthen internal cooperation. Characteristics such as being the fifth world economic power and having the fourth biggest population in the world10 place the region as a sizable competitor on the global playing field 10
In 2007 South America reached a population of 383 million inhabitants, exceeding the populations of the United
29 (UNASUR 2009). Additionally, it contains 27% of the world’s fresh water, it covers eight million square kilometres of forest surface, and has access to the Pacific and Atlantic oceans (Ibid). UNASUR’s member countries include the biggest producers and exporters of food in the world (CAN 2008); they possess a reserve of hydrocarbons that could supply energy to its population for at least one hundred years. The cultural dimension in South America is a determining factor and a strong force when implementing successful integration processes. Nearly 95% of the regional population share the same religion −Catholicism− and speak two Latin-­‐based intelligible languages −Spanish and Portuguese− (Ibid). Gravity type models of economic interaction have shown significant (negative) relationships between the intensity of economic relations between countries and their distance. There are internal economic cooperation agreements in between MERCOSUR and CAN, although the process of defining common cooperation initiatives is being debated. It has also been shown that proximity/distance is a typical multidimensional variable; physical, economic, political, cultural, linguistic and historical proximity are all relevant variables. The interconnectivity has not been yet considered as effective in the regions, distances are still important for the trade integration between its members. Regarding the linguistic characteristics Spanish and Portuguese which are the main spoken languages are intelegible. Structural Asymmetries Structural asymmetries can be seen in UNASUR, where the major economic and political powers are Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela. For many reasons, Brazil is one of the nations that have placed an enormous interest in this process. First, Brazil is deeply interested in having a support on the region on its candidature to have a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. This country is a growing economic power that it is gaining more and more international presence, by being a member of the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India & China) countries and the G811, therefore leading this process contributes to its importance at the international level (Bonilla, Long 2010). Patters of cooperation, integration and conflict Historically, South America has been a region characterized by military coups and governments led by the Armed Forces, but democracy acquired an important dimension since the end of the Cold War (Caetano 2009). Democracy is a key factor for most of the current standing regional organizations in the world, South America is not the exemption, since it is considered as a democratic region. According to Rojas, Latin America now converges on a democratic regime based on open and transparent elections, this is reflected in the acceptance of the OAS Democratic Charter as the essential document that manifests representative democracy, as a form of government (2004). One of the main weaknesses of the regional institutions in Latin America has been its overambitious objectives and agendas. This issue is also related to the vulnerability of their States and the European Union (CAN 2008).
It is a forum integrated by the governments of eight of the world's largest economies. 11
30 goals, since there is a strong lake of a long-­‐term agenda. On this context, by taking a closer look at the goals established in the Constitutive Treaty, we will gain insight on the scope of UNASUR’s ambitions. Infrastructure and geographic connectivity are grounded as principal points of convergence for integration in the region. UNASUR promotes the Initiative for the Regional Integration of Infrastructure in South American (IIRSA) and the bi-­‐oceanic corridor connecting the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans (Maira 2008). 2.3. Institutionalization
Juridical Instruments and Sources The main juridical source is the Constitutive Treaty of UNASUR singed on 2007. These juridical sources are adopted through diplomatic channels and represent mechanisms that reinforce the proposal of achieving integration through diplomatic means. In recent years, with the creation of the many organizations in the region, the high-­‐level governmental meetings have increased, achieving considerable quantities of positive regional agreements (Jarque et al. 2009). Headquarters The UNASUR permanent secretary is located in Quito and was instated with the goal of eliminating the bureaucracy of pro tempore secretariats rotating among the member countries. It is not one of the goals of UNASUR to increase bureaucracy, or to compete with the secretariats of CAN and MERCOSUR. Its goal is to create an institutional entity that reflects the existence of a newly articulated body with specific mandates and goals for the region. Governmental Bodies Council of Heads of State and Government. The Council of Heads of State and Government is the highest organ of UNASUR. Its responsibilities include establishing policy guidelines, plans of action, instating and backing programs, and to decide on the priorities to be implemented; to summon Sectoral Ministerial Meetings and to create Councils at Ministerial level; to decide on the proposals presented by the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs and to adopt the political guidelines for relations with third parties. Council of the Foreign Affairs Minister. This council’s functions are to adopt resolutions in order to implement the decisions of the Council of Heads of State and Government; to propose draft decisions; to coordinate positions on central themes of integration; to develop and promote political dialogue and coordination; to approve the annual program of activities; to approve resolutions and regulations; and to create working groups based on the priorities established by the Council of Heads of State and Government. Council of Delegates. The Council of Delegates has the functions to implement the decisions of the Council of Heads of State and Government and of the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, in alliance with the Pro Tempore Presidency and the General Secretariat. This council prepares meetings, drafts decisions, resolutions and regulations, ensures the compatibility and coordinates the initiatives of UNASUR with other existing regional processes. 31 General Secretary. Under the leadership of a Secretary General, this entity executes the mandates conferred upon it by the organs of UNASUR and represents them accordingly. Nestor Kirchner was appointed as the new Secretary General of UNASUR in 2010. Its headquarters are also located in Quito, Ecuador; and its responsibilities are to support the several councils, to propose initiatives and to oversee the implementation of the directives of the governmental bodies of UNASUR; and to prepare annual reports. Pro-­‐Tempore Presidency. The executive branch of the pro-­‐tempore president is charged with preparing, summoning, and presiding over the meetings of the bodies of UNASUR; to present to an annual program of activities, to represent UNASUR in international events, to fulfill commitments agreed upon by UNSASUR entities and to sign Declarations with third parties upon consent of the appropriate bodies of UNASUR. Thematic Councils. These councils represent the main mechanisms used by UNASUR to achieve lasting, long-­‐term integration of the region’s members. The councils are created according to the needs and demands of countries of the Union, providing a collective advantage through their content and scope, pushing for goals that challenge the common historical problems of its members. These mechanisms also reflect the aim targeting the two faces of integration, the internal and external dimensions of it. The currently operating thematic councils are: the Council of Health; the Council of Education, Science, Culture, Technology and Innovation; the Council of Infrastructure and Planning; the Council of Energy; the Council of Social Development; the Council to Fight Drug Trafficking; the Council of Defense; the Council of Economy and Finances; and the Electoral Council. 2.4. Implementation
As widely expressed in chapter two, one of the main goals of UNASUR is to reinforce regional integration, by harmonizing the subregional blocs and promoting unity in Latin America. UNASUR’s strategic agenda places the integration of the existing subregional blocs as a determining factor for success, because of their impressive track record and real-­‐world experience gained in recent decades. CAN and MERCOSUR have already been articulated through the UNASUR’s thematic councils and through the pre-­‐existing agreements between the two entities. The following table illustrates the South American institutional schemes, it gives a broad perspective of the existing decision making instances, as well as the challenge to harmonize them. An important remark concerning our topic of study is that UNASUR is first engaged with the social, infrastructure and energetic dimensions of integration rather than with trade. South American institutional schemes Andean Council of Presidents Andean Council of Foreign Affairs Andean Community of Andean Community Commission Nations (CAN) Andean Community General Secretariat Andean Community Court of Justice Andean Parliament Southern Common 32 Market (MERCOSUR) Summit of Heads of State Council of the Common Market Common Market Group MERCOSUR Trade Commission: Parliament of MERCOSUR Economic and Social Consultative Forum Administrative Labour Tribunal of MERCOSUR Permanent Tribunal for Review of MERCOSUR MERCOSUR Centre for Promoting the Rule ofLaw Secretariat of MERCOSUR Summits of Heads of State Meetings of Foreign Affairs Ministers: Sector Ministers’ Meetings Pro-­‐Tempore Secretariat Union of South American High Officers’ Commission Nations Thematic councils of: Health; Council of Education, Science, (UNASUR) Culture, Technology and Innovation; Council of Infrastructure and Planning; Council of Energy; Council of Social Development; Council to Fight Drug Trafficking; and Council of Defence. Additionally one of the big difficulties that regional organizations have to face are the overload presidential agendas. According to Francisco Rojas "its important to consider that presidents must schedule their participation in at least the following summits: a) those of the sub-­‐regional agreement they are a part of; b) those of the sub-­‐regional agreement with which they have association agreements; c) the Ibero-­‐American Summits; d) the CELAC Summits; and e) other specific summits. In addition, Chile, Peru and Mexico must participate in the Summits of Asia-­‐Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)” (Rojas 2007). 3. Major challenges for UNASUR
There exist multiple structural challenges that UNASUR must deal with, which are the result of unachieved agendas and overambitious goals of the previous integration processes. The Latin American School of Social Sciences and its Department for Integration Studies, identified the most relevant challenges (Rojas 2007). First of all, there is an oversupply of integration proposals that weakens integration: a high demand or overloaded agendas of the Heads of State, the oversupply of results lack of coordination, and most of the proposals fail to have an effective institutional structure to transfer capacities and to take sovereign decisions. Second, there is a poor exchange of information that creates debilitated coordination of initiatives between entities working in the region and between the different regions. Third, financial constraints appear due to increased competition for the development and investment resources. On the other hand, the reduction of asymmetries is a determining factor for the success of UNASUR, which constitutes a necessary condition for sustainability and legitimacy. It was the collective governments of the region and not UNASUR who agreed such a reduction based on 33 the principles of cooperation, solidarity, equity and social inclusion (Díaz & Cano 2007). But although this issue has been agreed upon at the highest political level, UNASUR has the challenge to making it real. The existence of large global competitors, like Brazil or Argentina, make difficult to eliminate asymmetries, although, through the existing social agreements and their correlations with economic goals, these asymmetries have the potential to be lowered. A significant challenge and advantage is that UNASUR is not limited to the convergence of economic agreements, its proposal is to promote these agreements with a social projection. Therefore, the goal is to promote progress by integrating the peoples and not only the economies (Maira 2008). Although, as mentioned in the previous chapter, a move towards convergence of the juridical, economical and commercial norms and procedures of the pre-­‐
existing subregional blocs will demand plenty of efforts and time. Finally, among the structural challenges that this region has to face we can enumerate: economic growth; the reduction of poverty, inequality and exclusion; the promotion of social cohesiveness; and the maintenance of a democratic regime. 4. Conclusions of this chapter
This chapter evidenced how UNASUR is a new proposal in the context that it is promoting integration based on a social dimension. It showed that this Union counts with several advantages such as pre-­‐experience on integration, abundant natural and mineral resources, similar religion and language, and geographic characteristics that allow for a effective integration in the social, economic, energy, infrastructural and cultural areas. Its objectives support our hypotheses, in which UNASUR for the first time stated as part of its objectives the goal of achieving a socio-­‐economic equality, by bringing harmonization and unity through articulated and common social targets. UNASUR’s proposal encompasses a radically different perspective on integration from the previous experiences in the region, because its main purpose is not to achieve economic growth but to face a common problem: reduce inequalities and poverty by maintaining strategies of growth that reduce them. About the instruments used by UNASUR, we can observe that there exist already structured bodies working on the articulation between the existing regional blocs. Moreover, these bodies dispose of strategies that reduce the duplication of tasks and reinforce the tools to reach an internal integration of the region. UNASUR promotes a long-­‐term integration process through its proposed system of common thematic councils that benefit the twelve countries of South America, instead of only a subgroup of countries. This sustains one of our third hypothesis, in which poverty and socio-­‐
economic inequality are problems that are shared by all of the members of the Union, therefore, it constitutes a basis to reach a common objectives and long-­‐term agreements. In this context, UNASUR reinforces long-­‐term integration and promotes advances towards equality through south-­‐south cooperation and common institutionalized committees working collectively across all of the member states. Benefits can be considerable, since UNASUR promotes regional infrastructure and economic and social integration for all. 34 This adds to the promotion and harmonization of common goals in the fields of health, infrastructure, economy, energy and education and thus has the potential to strengthen the democratic process and promote an effective fight against poverty and inequalities. Additionally, the positive structures and processes experienced by CAN and MERCOSUR provide foundational assets for long-­‐term articulations on the subject of economic integration in the region. However, UNASUR has the enormous challenge of merging the previous structures and mechanisms developed by its predecessors and to appropriate sources for sustainable funds for all of its members. 35 IV. Social Mechanisms of Integration 36 IV. SOCIAL MECHANISMS OF INTEGRATION This chapter analyzes the social mechanisms of integration developed by UNASUR, and is divided in two parts. First, an overview of the situation of South America in terms of poverty and inequality, that will allow us to understand why UNASUR has based its principles an strategies on overcoming this situation. The second part includes a thorough analysis of the potential of integration along health and educational dimensions in South America. Integration processes are mainly evaluated according to economic connotations, by trade theories, political economy schemes, among others. This is due to the fact that nearly all regional integration endeavors have historically been focused on integration for economic interests, while the social dimension has remained a secondary or complimentary goal. In most of the situations small nations converge on economic standards and agreements aiming to gain more competitiveness in the international sphere. In South America, CAN, ALBA and MERCOSUR are among these blocs. Other blocs are characterized by being powerful groups of nations that seek to strengthen their power and hegemony, such as the case of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or the European Union. UNASUR’s proposal for bloc integration, on the other hand, is to transform the subregional integration efforts initialized by CAN and MERCOSUR into a regional integration, through a constructive process building on experiences, achievements and frustrations of its precedents organizations (Borja 2009). As explained before, despite the efforts of these economically motivated subregional blocs, they have not been completely successful in their trajectories. In this context, the main point of our analysis is raised, to what extent UNASUR’s social mechanisms of integration contribute to long-­‐term integration and to the reduction of poverty and inequalities in the region?. We hypothesize that the success of long-­‐term integration processes is part and parcel of UNASUR’s proposals to instate and execute social mechanisms because they take in account the social reality of the region and resolve to approach integration not only from and economic perspective but with a high priority on the social dimension. 1. Poverty and Inequalities in South America
South America has shown positive economic growth in recent years, and likewise, poverty has been reduced, however inequities still persist. According to FLACSO, the Latin American region is one of the most inequitable regions in the world, meaning that thirty-­‐six point five percent of the population, representing 197 million people, still live in poverty, and slightly below half (71 millions) are now in indigence. According to the World Bank, inequality in Latin America and the Caribbean between the ‘70s and ‘90s was 10 points higher than in Asia and 17.5 points higher than that in 30 member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The social situation in South America is alarming in terms of poverty and inequality; its high rates show the reality of a growing region in the midst of glaring disparities. On average, inequalities in the South American countries reach 52%; its alarming how the inequalities in many cases are superior to 50%. This means that despite growth, inequalities are not being successfully reduced. Inequalities in the countries are divided as follow: Argentina (Gini: 0.519), 37 Bolivia (Gini: 0.565), Brazil (Gini: 0.594), Chile (Gini: 0.522), Colombia (Gini: 0.584), Ecuador (Gini: 0.504), Paraguay (Gini: 0.527), Peru (Gini: 0.476), Uruguay (Gini: 0.445) and Venezuela (Gini: 0.412) (ECLAC 2009). This table presents a table with indicators describing the inequalities in South America. These indicators illustrate the big inequalities of the region, especially between the rural and urban areas. Inequalities in South America South American: Gini Coefficient in Urban and Rural Areas (Values between 0 and 1) a/ Years National Urban Rural Argentina 1990 ... 0,501 b/ ... 2002 0,578 0,590 c/ ... 2006 0,519 0,510 d/ ... Bolivia 1989 ... 0,537 ... 2002 0,614 0,554 0,632 2007 0,565 0,499 0,599 Brazil 1990 0,627 0,606 0,548 2001 0,639 0,628 0,581 2008 0,594 0,586 0,534 Chile 1990 0,554 0,543 0,585 2000 0,564 0,558 0,511 2006 0,522 0,517 0,506 Colombia 1991 0,531 0,484 0,577 2002 e/ 0,569 0,576 0,499 2005 e/ 0,584 0,587 0,495 Ecuador 1990 ... 0,461 ... 2002 ... 0,513 ... 2008 0,504 0,480 0,458 Paraguay 1990 f/ ... 0,447 ... 2001 0,570 0,511 0,548 2008 0,527 0,468 0,582 Peru 1997 0,533 0,473 0,451 2001 0,525 0,477 0,439 2008 0,476 0,421 0,421 Uruguay 1990 ... 0,492 ... 2002 ... 0,455 ... 2008 0,445 0,446 0,393 Venezuela 1990 0,471 0,464 0,431 2002 0,500 ... ... 2008 0,412 ... ... a/ Includes persons with no income. b/ Metropolitan area. c/ Thirty-­‐two urban agglomerations. d/ Thirty-­‐one urban agglomerations. e/ Since 2001, the figures are not strictly comparable with those of previous years in urban and rural areas because of the survey's sample design. f/ Metropolitan area of Asuncion. Elaborated by: Erika Paredes Source: ECLALC. Statistical Yearbook for Latin America and the Caribbean. Santiago. Santiago: 2009. www.eclalc.cl 38 UNASURa : Gini Coefficient of income distribution, 1999 – 2009b Source: CEPAL, 2011 a
No comparable data for Guyana and Suriname. b
Urban area This information evidence a reduction on poverty, however the following table about income distribution indicates that despite the reduction of poverty, inequalities have increased. Income distribution DISTRIBUTION OF NATIONAL INCOME, URBAN AND RURAL AREAS (Percentage) Quintile 1 (poorest) Quintile Quintile Quintile Country Argentina (2006) a/ Bolivia (2007) Brazil (200
8) Chile (2006) Colombia (2005) Ecuador (20
08) Paraguay (2008) Peru (2008) Uruguay (2008) Venezuela (2008) Area Quintile 5 (richest) Decile 1 Decile 2 2 3 4 Decile 9 Decile 10 National 1,2 2,5 8,1 12,7 19,8 15,8 39,9 National Urban Rural National Urban Rural National Rural National Urban b/ Rural National Urban Rural National Urban Rural National Urban Rural National Urban Rural National Urban 0,5 1,7 0,3 0,8 0,9 1,0 1,5 1,7 0,9 0,9 1,0 1,45 1,58 1,63 1,17 1,66 1,02 1,43 2,11 2,15 1,83 1,81 2,35 1,82 1,49 1,7 2,7 1,1 1,8 1,9 2,2 2,6 3,0 2,0 2,0 2,6 2,47 2,76 3,49 2,29 2,94 2,16 2,6 3,52 3,45 3,12 3,09 3,87 3,41 2,91 6,4 8,0 5,5 6,2 6,4 7,2 7,8 8,6 6,6 6,4 8,8 8,05 8,77 9,04 7,56 8,91 6,65 8,5 10,11 9,93 9,34 9,32 11,07 10,24 9,01 11,7 12,4 10,7 10,4 10,5 12,1 11,8 12,2 10,4 10,3 13,4 12,65 13,1 14,01 12,19 13,41 10,71 13,73 14,7 14,6 14,08 14,14 15,24 15,23 13,74 20,1 19,7 18,6 17,3 17,2 20,5 18,7 17,9 17,2 17,2 20,2 19,93 20,28 20,49 19,75 20,84 17,25 21,65 21,22 21,67 21,46 21,53 21,22 22,47 21,27 17,0 16,3 19,0 14,9 14,9 16,2 15,5 13,5 14,8 15,0 15,3 16,1 16,18 15,12 15,68 16,03 13,69 16,33 15,52 15,88 16,36 16,38 15,2 16,39 16,35 42,7 39,3 44,8 48,7 48,2 40,9 42,2 43,0 48,2 48,3 38,7 39,34 37,33 36,21 41,37 36,2 48,51 35,76 32,83 32,31 33,81 33,74 31,05 30,44 35,23 39 Rural 1,94 3,21 9,7 14,52 21,78 16,28 32,57 a/ Thirty-­‐one urban agglomerations. b/ Municipal capitals. Elaborated by: Erika Paredes Source: ECLALC. Statistical Yearbook for Latin America and the Caribbean. Santiago. Santiago: 2009. www.eclalc.cl In 2008, the poverty average in Latin America reached 33% and extreme poverty 12.9% (ECLAC 2009). South America has even higher rates than the Latin American average, with 33.9% of poverty and 13.4% of extreme poverty (Ibid). The countries with the lowest rate of poverty are mainly the members of MERCOSUR with the exemption of Paraguay (58.2% of poverty) (Ibid). Chile and Uruguay have lead the way, championing reductions in poverty with a rate of 13.7%; followed by Argentina with 21% and Brazil with 25.8% (Ibid). Therefore the countries with the highest rates of poverty are the members of the CAN, Peru with 36,2%, Ecuador with 42.7%, Bolivia with 54% and Colombia with 56.1% (Ibid). In the next table is it possible to see the evolution of poverty in South America, it presents the evolution of poverty and extreme poverty from the decade of 1990 until 2007. Evolution of poverty in South America Country Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Ecuador Paraguay Peru Uruguay Venezuela Latin America South America: Evolution of Poverty (Percentage of total population) National Years Poverty National Extreme Poverty 1990 a/ ... ... 2006 b/ 21,0 7,2 urban 1989 c/ ... … 2007 54,0 31,2 1990 48,0 23,4 2008 25,8 7,3 1990 38,6 13,0 2006 13,7 3,2 1991 56,1 26,1 2005 d/ 46,8 20,2 1990 ... … 2008 42,7 18,0 1990 e/ ... … 2008 58,2 30,8 1997 47,6 25,1 2008 f/ 36,2 12,6 1990 ... … 2008 13,7 3,4 1990 39,8 14,4 2008 g/ 27,6 9,9 1980 40,5 18,6 1986 43,3 20,7 1990 48,3 22,5 1994 45,7 20,8 1997 43,5 19,0 1999 43,9 18,7 2002 44,0 19,4 2005 39,8 15,4 2006 36,3 13,3 40 2007 34,1 12,6 2008 33,0 12,9 a/ Metropolitan area. b/ Thirty-­‐one urban agglomerations. c/ Cochabamba, El Alto, La Paz, Oruro, Potosí, Santa Cruz, Sucre, Tarija and Trinidad. d/ Since 2001, the figures are not strictly comparable with previous years in urban and rural areas because of the survey's sample design. e/ Metropolitan area of Asuncion. f/ Figures of the National Institute of Statistics and Informatics (INEI) of Peru. These values are not comparable with those for previous years because of changes in the structure of the household sample survey. According to INEI, the new figures show an overestimation of 25% for poverty and 10% for indigence with respect to the previous methodology. Elaborated by: Erika Paredes Source: ECLALC. Statistical Yearbook for Latin America and the Caribbean. Santiago. Santiago: 2009. www.eclalc.cl UNASURa: Evolution of Poverty and Indigence, 1990-­‐2009 b
(Percentages of the population and simple averages) Source: CEPAL (2011) a
No comparable data for Guyana and Suriname. b
The simple average is obtained on the percentage of population below national poverty line in each group. In 2007, the overall South American population reached 383 million inhabitants, with Brazil at the top representing 51% of the whole, followed by 12% in Colombia and 10% in Argentina. CAN’s combined member-­‐country population represents 25% or 96 million inhabitants, compared to the 64% who reside in MERCOSUR member countries (CAN 2007). In economic terms, larger populations improve productivity while maintaining competitive production costs, although, the rates of unemployment in the region reached 9.3% in 2008 − an amount that is higher than the Latin American average of 8.3%, which may in part be attributed to the downturn in the global economy brought on by the North American economic crisis. (International Institute for Labour Studies 2008). However, despite the global recessions of recent years, the economies of the region’s countries has been positively growing now for six consecutive years. In 2008, the average growth of the UNASUR members was of 6.37% -­‐-­‐MERCOSUR reached 2.6% followed by a low 1.8% of CAN (ECLALC 2009). In 2007 the GDP of the region reached USD 2.3 trillion, even if this 41 amount is high it only represents 20% of the GDPs of the EU and the US (CAN 2008). Regional exports attained an amount of USD 453 billion while imports reached USD 333 billion (Ibid). In terms of per capita GDP, the countries with the largest incomes in 2007 were: Chile (USD 9,865), Venezuela (USD 8,601), Brazil (USD 6,819) and Argentina (USD 6,610) (CAN 2008). During the decade from 1997 to 2007, the rate of growth of South America by measure of GDP was 32.5%. Chile had the biggest growth rate at 44.2%, followed by CAN with 39.6%, MERCOSUR with 29.1 % and Venezuela with 32.7% (ECLALC 2009). The following table provides information concerning the rates of economic growth in South America, it indicates that the region has been constantly growing during decade of 1997-­‐
2007. However, this positive economic growth has been correlated with an increase of inequalities. Economic growth in Latin America South America: Growth rate between 1997-­‐2007 42 Venezuela 28 38 Suriname 50 26 Paraguay 43 39 38 Colombia 33 Brazil 33 35 Argenxna 0 10 20 30 40 50 Elaborated by: Erika Paredes Source: ECLALC. Statistical Yearbook for Latin America and the Caribbean. Santiago. Santiago: 2009. www.eclalc.cl UNASUR: Rates of growth and evolution of per capita GDP, 2000-­‐2011 a (In percentages and index 2005=100) Source: CEPAL 2011 a
The values for 2011 are estimates. 60 42 The distribution of the national income is also a metric that demonstrates the large disparities in the region. Annex II details the national income distribution in the member states of UNASUR, it puts in evidence the enormous disparities between the richest and poorest segments of the population. The situation is dramatic, in Bolivia, Brazil, Chile and Colombia the poorest tenth of the population does not even reach 1% of the national income, compared to the richest decile who make up more than 40% of the income. Moreover, on average the poorest quintile of the population have access to 3.7% of the national income, compared to 56.12% of the richest quintile (ELALC 2009). The development models being promoted by the governments of the region are diverse. The majority of the countries have accepted the perspective that human development is a necessary metric and thus, to be considered as a part of the goals of development. However, there are many disparages and degrees to which these principles have been implemented in their models; some have more social policies, while others show a high tendency to promote growth at any price. This difference in the views of the governments makes it difficult for Latin America to speak with one voice (Rojas 2007). If the economic development model contributes to the concentration of resources and does not successfully reduce unemployment and better wages, the vicious circle of exclusion, hunger and poverty perpetuates itself (Graziano 2009). In this sense, economic stability and growth is necessary −but not sufficient– to achieve successful advances in the social dimension. Development programs in South America have been characterized by policies that try to face this problem of social inequalities. For example, a very successful one was “Fome Zero” (Zero Hunger) in Brazil, whose strategy, proposed by the federal government, was to implement specific food and nutrition security actions and policies, and at the same time coordinate the social programs of other government bodies and civil society institutions (Graziano 2009). It was based on four pillars: access to food, strengthening of family farming, income generation and social empowerment. It has proved to be a very successful program, and in 2007, according to a report published by the Brazilian Presidency, the country reached the millennium development of reducing extreme poverty by half. In the face of this success, Brazil then extended their policy even further, to reduce extreme poverty another 25 percent by 2010 (Ibid). Programs like this are very prominent in the region, as evident by the experience in Ecuador where policies take shape in the form of supportive monetary vouchers to the poorest families and free public education. Bolivia and Peru have also developed innovative programs for the reduction of inequalities. Nevertheless, with all the attention and focus on these issues, the problem of inequalities and poverty remains far from being solved. In 2007, the region demonstrated economic growth above 4%, however, this growth is unequal across countries and inside them (Rojas 2009). In this context, UNASUR has developed the Council ofInclusive Human and Social Development, since inclusive human and social development is one of the main axes of this bloc. This council was created with a main focus on four components: First, the agreement on common targets for social regional development, with the aim to identify common targets and time frameworks for all of the members of UNASUR; second, promote horizontal technical cooperation by establishing mechanisms in which countries can share their successful experiences, find technical support, and participate in forums; third, the creation of a human development fund, in order to support national and regional strategies proposed by its 43 members; and finally, the creation of human and social development observatory, with the participation of academy and civil society (UNASUR 2009). The social dimension or social mechanisms include a myriad of dimensions. In the case of human development the strategy focus on the access of basic pillars: access to education and health, alimentation and employment. Because of the critical situation of health and education across large portions of the region, integrative strategies in these fields are some of the most important being implemented under UNASUR, and thus are the focus of the research presented here. 2. Health perspectives
“The gross inequalities in health that we see within and between countries present a challenge to the world. That there should be a spread of life expectancy of 48 years among countries and 20 years or more within countries is not inevitable”12. Michael Marmot (2005) Health must be examined within a political, economic and human development context, especially in South America, because it is a region that has been deeply linked to world changes during the last twenty to thirty years. The state of human health has been mainly influenced by phenomenons such as globalization, democracy, state reforms, social security crises, and an economic growth that contributed to the increase of inequalities and social exclusion. According to Marmot (2008), to reduce inequalities in health across the world there is a need to complement the development of health systems and the relief of poverty with actions focused on the social determinants of health. This would include taking actions not only towards the relief of poverty but also at improving the circumstances in which people live and work. This theory aims at reducing inequalities in health among and within countries by combining an active action between the social determinant of health −social gradient, stress, early life, social exclusion, work, unemployment, social support, addiction, food and transport−and the functioning of health systems (Wilkinson 2004). In South America, health agendas vary in scale and implementation between various levels, including national, bi-­‐national, and subregional efforts, such as in the cases of CAN, MERCOSUR, OTCA, and UNASUR. In a continental scope, the American Health Agenda 2008-­‐
2017 is currently active and at the global level the agenda of the World Health Organization (WHO) is being promoted. These agendas have a high degree of articulation, as well, as being overlapping and complementary in their action. The integration process laid out by UNASUR will reinforce coordination and promote a common implementation of strategies and solutions to problems. This implies that the new strategy led by UNASUR, has to acknowledge and harmonize the work of the diverse national 12
“There are gross inequalities in health between countries. Life expectancy at birth, to take one measure, ranges
from 34 years in Sierra Leone to 81 years in Japan. Within countries, too, there are large inequalities— for example
a 20-year gap in life expectancy between the most and least advantaged populations in the USA (Marmot 2005).
44 and subregional agendas. According to the Pan American Health Organizations (PAHO), even if some countries benefit from more strengths and capacities, an integrated strategy would challenge the main problems that affect the region. This integration process will demand coordination and concentration in areas, such as, budget, south-­‐south cooperation, harmonization of agendas and measuring the effectivity of tasks and actions. These new mechanisms represent a significant step towards the reinforcement of long-­‐
term integration in South America because health is strongly correlated to the inequalities and poverty faced by the region. Having this issue in the main agenda of UNASUR can promote a long-­‐term integration because its members face common health problems. A regional agreement on common strategies to tackle these problems represents a willingness of the member states to accept health as a real issue and cause for convergence on agendas through cooperative strategies advancing regional integration. Reducing inequalities and poverty involves identifying gaps in healthcare and services at various levels of society. Inequalities in access to healthcare is the result of scarce socio-­‐
economic opportunities of the population; this is a vicious circle that entangles the perpetuation of poverty and the obstructions of access to the market and social protection (Graziano 2009). Among the main challenges that the region faces in areas of health, a high incidence and prevalence of communicable diseases is a cause for particular alarm, especially within the poor and rural population. For example, malaria is an endemic disease of the region, the countries with the highest rates are Colombia, Guyana, Suriname and Venezuela. All members of UNASUR have included this issue in their agenda and are planning common strategies to reduce conditions for diseases, like malaria, that proliferate on the continent. Health systems have reached diverse degrees of development, in terms of structure and organization, methods of finance, legal frameworks, role of the state, integration of excluded groups, and public and privatized systems (OPS/OMS 2009). During the decade of the 1990s, these systems underwent a meaningful transformation towards a liberalization in policies that involved the privatization of many public systems (Gwatkin 2002). Currently, the health systems in South America vary widely between public and private sectors, with governmental and institutionalized health support from social security and the military. It is important to remark that Chile, Brazil and Venezuela have a complete health coverage system; in Colombia to two thirds of the population benefit from health coverage, and in Argentina and Uruguay half of the population is covered (OPS/OMS 2009). In Ecuador and Chile the private sector has an important role in filling the population’s needs (Ibid). In Bolivia and Ecuador around 45% and 27% (respectively) of the population does not have access to health services, followed by a 72.8% and 76% without health insurance (Ibid). Although, structural changes took place, the decentralization of the heath systems are advancing, new sources of financing are being integrated −especially for poor and marginalized population−. Another important dimension of health in South America are health human resources13. There was an increase of health human resources during the last decade, although, due to population growth, unequal distribution of the medical staff and lack of infrastructure; the efficacy of healthcare professionals is being limited (OPS/OMS 2009). Workers in the health 13
According to PAHO South America has around 656,000 doctors, 210,000 nurses and 330,000 dentists, which
means a rate of 16.9%, 5.4% and 8.8% per 10,000 inhabitants respectively.
45 sector are mainly situated in urban areas, where there exist eight to ten times more doctors than in the rural areas (Díaz & Cano 2007). Immigration into the big cities and emigration to developing countries also contribute to the inefficacy of health systems in the region. Between 1995 and 2007 the infant mortality rate in the UNASUR was reduced from 35.1 to 23.7 per 1,000 live births. In 2007, wide differences among member countries of UNASUR, as the minimum and maximum values of infant mortality by country ranged between 7.2 and 45.6 per 1,000 live births. The rate of maternal mortality in countries of UNASUR decreased from 169 to 113 per 100,000 live births in the period between 1990 and 2000, and 101 in 2008. However, levels of maternal mortality in the UNASUR still far exceed the rates observed in industrialized countries (CEPAL 2011). UNASUR: Infant mortality rate , children under 1 year, 1995 and 2007 (Per 1,000 live births) Source: CEPAL 2011 One of the most complex health problems is HIV/AIDS, in UNASUR the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the population between 15 and 49 years increased slightly from 0.52% in 2001 to 0.55% in 2007. However, this percentage is below the global prevalence for that age group. In 2007, the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in men between 15 and 24 years of UNASUR (0.80%) doubled the global value (0.40%), whereas in women the same age group, the prevalence was inferior to the global value, 0.45% and 0.60% respectively (CEPAL 2011). The access, availability, and use of medicines are a very controversial issue in the field of health, since medicines represent a basic element to treat diseases (Whitehead 2001). Authorities of the region are focusing their effort in the formulation of new policies that would determine a list of essential medications and treatments, the free use of basic medicines for targeted population groups, the improvement of the regulations and the production and supply of medicaments (Consejo de Salud 2010). CAN has already started to develop international policies in this area and UNASUR has prioritized a regional policy that aims to increase the availability, access and rational use of medicaments (SELA 2009). 46 2.1. Health Council
The institutional and operative mechanism designed to face the integration of the region in the field of health, is the Health Council of UNASUR. It was created in 2008 by the Council of Presidents of the Union; the council constitutes a regional space of integration in the field of health, combining the efforts and achievements of existing regional health policies to promote commonalities and coordinate homogenized programs. The main axes of common work and challenges defined in the South American health agenda are: development and consolidation of the Epidemiological Shield, development of universal health systems, universal access to medicines, promotion of health indicators, and the development and management of human resources in health (Consejo de Salud 2010). The Health Council officially began operation in April of 2009 with the Declaration of Santiago in Chile, reaffirming the need to consolidate South America as a space of integration in health by guarantying it as a fundamental human right. This council is aware of the scope of its ambitious aims, and thus has resolved to flexible and gradual implementation, harmonizing the existing agendas in the region. A step towards integration is the establishment of the council’s Coordination Committee, which has laid out a clear roadmap seeking out complementary policies between CAN and MERCOSUR. In May of 2010 the Council defined its five-­‐year health plan outlook, including actions and activities that the members should implement. An example of its actions is represented in the common concern of finding solutions for dengue fever, a disease causing affliction across the entire region. Other operating areas include the improvement of the quality of services, cancer, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, malnutrition and obesity (Declaration of Cuenca 2010). Another showcase are the agreements of the Sixth Meeting of South American Health Council of UNASUR, where the Ministers of Health decided to create a Risk and Disaster Network, aiming to reduce risks and to have an adequate response to disaster situations, through the strengthening and capacity building of national health systems. Additionally, a basis for a Drug Policy was agreed, reaffirming the importance of having a strategic regional approach to research, development and production of active pharmaceutical ingredients and drug’s quality. Regarding its institutionalism of the Heath Council, the following declarations have been taking since its creation on 2008: Resolutions and Declarations of the Health Council RESOLUTIONS & DECLARATIONS DATE Resolution VI Meeting of South April American Health Council, Asuncion. 2012 Act of the Coordinating Committee April Meeting preparatory to the sixth 2012 meeting of the South American Health Council, Asuncion. V South American Health Council Meeting, Montevideo. December 2011 47 Health council, Declaration of Cuenca. UNASUR Declaration of Health against the global threat of influenza, Geneva. June 2010 May 2009 Source: UNASUR, General Secretary, http://www.unasursg.org/ 3. Education perspectives
Regionalization is part of the process of globalization that can have various positive consequences on education. First, globalization creates the need to train a skilled labor force to abide competition in the international marketplace. This is beneficial because it motivates countries to improve their quality of education. Second, regional blocs, such as MERCOSUR, CAN, and EU put emphasis on elevated product and service quality through accepted agreements on quality standards and norms for its members (Hallak 2000). According to Hallak (2000) the link between globalization and education can take contrary paths: “on the one hand, globalization heightens the need for education and training, together with the social demand for them; on the other, the adverse effects of globalization make it increasingly difficult for a growing number of countries to finance their educational development in both quantitative and qualitative terms”. UNASUR has the privileged opportunity of gaining insight from the experiences of its regional predecessors, CAN and MERCOSUR, in the field of integration of education, but at the same time, it has the challenge to converge those processes and mechanisms across a larger, more socially stratified region. In this context, a prime determinant will be the level of successful south-­‐south cooperation, because only through cooperation, can an exchange of educational policies and programs be fostered. Through the creation of the Council of Education, Science, Culture, Technology and Innovation, UNASUR initialized a project that aims at reinforcing the quality and access to education, while taking on the others dimensions of integration in the region, including health, infrastructure, and trade. This council will be instrumental in guaranteeing the projection of UNASUR as a long-­‐term regional integration bloc by its dedication towards long-­‐term agendas enacted through common, strategic policies and sustainable programs. Another aspect of education that stands to benefit from regional integration is the convergence of common curricula between countries, while leaving room for national and local specificities (Hallak 2000). A convergence in this area leads to a general improvement in education by setting minimum standards that permit exchanges and mobilization of students and professionals. In Latin America, the Tuning Project attests to the possibility of a wider convergence through its pilot project combining the curricula of one hundred and ninety universities in twelve subject areas14 (Tuning Project 2007). The following table provides further information about the thematic areas that have been articulated along the continent. 14
These areas are: architecture, business, chemistry, civil engineering, education, geology, history, law,
mathematics, medicine, nursing and physics.
48 Participants of the tuning project Source: Tuning Project (2007). Reflections on and outlook for Higher Education in Latina Amerca: Final Report, Tuning Latina America Project. Bilbao, Universidad de Deusto. On a global scale, there has been a growing convergence of educational policy, providing more options to the individual in both developed and developing nations. This also has a reinforcing effect on regional integration strategy for education. Among the most important areas of concern in education that would benefit from convergence, we can highlight the priority of issues related to access, quality, gender equality, effectiveness of resource allocation, empowerment, collaboration and mobilization of all the stakeholders in the education sector. According to UNESCO (2009), having common priorities, such as, basic education for all, creates a goal that unites nearly all the developing countries. The new policies of South America, as proposed by UNASUR, have one common overarching challenge: to address the defects and reverse inequalities created by the liberal policies and privatization during the decade of the 1990s. For Klees (2008), neoliberal educational policies based on the increase of user fees, privatization and output-­‐based criteria, have hindered the education system worldwide causing more marginalization, exclusion and the maintenance of poverty. On the same line Hallak (2000) considers that globalization is characterized by a neo-­‐liberal principle of market freedom and reducing the role of the State, which, in many countries, has affected education finance and had detrimental effects on standards provided by governmental educational control mechanisms. Universal access to primary education has nearly been achieved across Latin America, and is being followed by a rapid expansion in primary, secondary and tertiary education(Hallak 2000). The region has experienced a wide range of governance reforms, including finance equalization schemes in Brazil and increased school choice and competition in Chile, although the results, in terms of reducing inequalities, have been mixed (Ibid). Even if UNASUR is close to achieve the universalization of primary education, it is fundamental to increase the access and completion of high school, as well as to improve the challenges of quality and equity in secondary and superior education. 49 UNASUR and other regions in the world: Net enrolment and gender parity in secondary education, 2008 (Percentages and rates of parity) Source: CEPAL (2011) Among the challenges facing South America in the field of education arethe improvement of child well-­‐being indicators, the increase of number of children enrolled in pre-­‐primary school, and of school-­‐life expectancy (UNESCO 2009). School-­‐life expectancy depends directly on efforts to expand secondary and post-­‐secondary education, and to reduce the disadvantages of speaking an indigenous or non-­‐official language. For instance, in Bolivia, 68% of Spanish speakers age 16 to 49 have completed some secondary education while one-­‐third or fewer of Quechua, Aymara and Guarani speakers have done so (Ibid) Finally, notwithstanding the significant efforts already made, there is still a need to increase post-­‐secondary attendance rates and to reduce adult illiteracy in the region (Brazil alone accounts for more than a third of the region’s illiterates, with 14 million) (UNESCO 2009). Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay are the closest in the region to achieving the indications of the Education for All Initiative of UNESCO. Another success of the region is the cooperative alliances that share social protection programs such as those in Ecuador and Brazil which promote cash transfers to poor families, improving child health and increasing enrollments (Ibid). On the whole, the promotion of higher education is also gaining ground in South America, because it brings many benefits, such as, the flourishing of knowledge and the training of key personnel as well as social, cultural and ideological progress. A final important factor to consider for education is the financial dimension, the majority of the UNASUR members have budget constraints, integration should be a mechanism to find common funds and invest them more effectively. On this context, members in the South American regional bloc constitute a significant beneficiary of external aid for education, principally in the basic and secondary levels; in 2006 the largest recipients were Peru (USD 66 million) and Brazil (USD 62 million) (UNESCO 2009). 50 3.1. Council of Education, Science, Culture, Technology and Innovation (COSECCTI)
This South American council is in charge of reinforcing integration efforts in the fields of education, science, culture, technology and innovation. It was created in 2008 and put into operation in 2010, oriented towards developing and expanding upon the successful experiences of the region in the field of education; fostering an integration of secondary and superior studies; encouraging a progressive convergence of educational programs; developing exchange of professors and students among the national systems; establishing a South American scholarship for exchanges; and developing courses related to integration (Díaz & Cano 2007). This council recognizes that there is a challenge to reduce the technological gaps existing between and within the members of UNASUR, which will take a long time to be achieved. It also aims at creating a space of coordination for the promotion of knowledge, the reclamation of the inventive capacity, and the promotion of intercultural strategies. The creation of this Council increases the methods and resources available for exchanging experiences on educational policies. By encouraging the encounters between ministers and also of technical staff, this council opens new forums for coordinating policies. Although, budgetary constraints are still a hurdle for this council, the region has agreed to create a fund to invest in, accommodate for, and improve upon the quality of education today. In April 2012 this Council elaborated on the Statement of Senior Delegates COSECCTI of 2011. With the presence of the Ministers of Education of UNASUR the Working Group Specialised Education agreed on its priorities and planning, including actions in two components: higher education and elementary and secondary education. More importantly, Ministers pointed out the creation of an Agency for Accreditation and Evaluation in South America under COSECCTI. This initiative purports to ensure the quality of programs and institutions of higher education, on the basis of harmonized criteria that are in line with the strengthening regional cooperation, the increase of students and proffesors’ mobility, and to protect the quality of teaching. Additionally, a Five Year Plan 2012 – 2017 was agreed to be presented to COSECCTI Coordinating Committee This Council has been strengthening its structure and institutionalism though multiple declarations in process of implementation. Resolutions and Declarations of COSECCTI RESOLUTIONS & DECLARATIONS DATE Act III Meeting of Senior Delegates of April the Working Group Specialised 2012 Education, Buenos Aires. Working Group Statement December especailizado culture, Quito. 2011 Statement of Senior Delegates COSECCTI. December 2011 III Meeting of Ministers of COSECCTI November 2011 51 Source: UNASUR, General Secretary, http://www.unasursg.org/ 3. Conclusions of this chapter
This chapter provided a close approach to the thematic councils of UNASUR, by analyzing the mechanisms proposed by them, as well as the context in which they are being developed. Concerning the health dimension, we can conclude that this area contribute greatly contribution towards the targets of UNASUR, since its members share common problems and challenges, as well as positive experiences in this field. On the other hand, the council dealing with education showed the importance of this field regarding integration linkages and also as a driving force to achieve positive socio-­‐economic results. We observed that the priorities agreed by the member states target common weaknesses. This council has the advantage of regionalizing the existing national working experiences. Nevertheless, this council had only been operative since only eighteen months, during this time it placed at the core of its work the harmonization of the agenda of the subregional blocs and common programs for basic and superior education. These fields represent a mechanism to reduce poverty and socio-­‐economic inequality, which are the problems shared by all of the members of the Union. It supports our first hypothesis, in which these mechanisms represent a common objective, which is the basis for long-­‐term agreements. It reinforces long-­‐
term integration and promotes advances towards equality through south-­‐south cooperation and common institutionalized bodies working collectively across all of the member states. Finally, UNASUR can champion long-­‐term integration because if it promotes all-­‐
encompassing regional unity, and is engaged with areas that are common to all of the members of the subregional institutions. Additionally, the strengthening of alliances in the region could be a determining factor to promote achieve and equitable economic growth and to reduce inequalities (Maira 2008). 52 General Conclusions The Union of South American Nations constitutes a unique regional integration model who’s guiding force behind the articulation, as well as the implementation and processes is based on satisfying a regional need for stability and inclusion across the social needs of the population. This paper has posed the question: to what extent the social mechanisms proposed by UNASUR contributes to long-­‐term member state integration and to the reduction of poverty and inequalities in South America? In order to answer this question, we have analyzed UNASUR against a backdrop of existing theoretical perspectives of regional integration, and in combination with frameworks developed by the existing subregional organizations in South America. Our hypothesis surrounding this topic includes the following three facets: i) Poverty and socio-­‐economic inequality are problems shared by all of the members of the Union, which constitutes a common obstacle that forms the basis to reach a common objective through long-­‐
term agreements. In this context, UNASUR reinforces long-­‐term integration and promotes advances towards equality through south-­‐south cooperation and common institutionalized bodies working collectively across all of the member states. ii) Previous attempts at regional integration in South America have historically been fragmented and overambitious. UNASUR, for the first time, has made socio-­‐economic equality a goal of integration at the core of its institutional processes. This methodology may bring harmonization and unity through novel approaches to the institutional mechanisms and channels developed by the previous regional organizations. iii) The integration processes do not constitute an imported model based on foreign methodologies, but were spawned by and have been built upon pre-­‐existing national and local initiatives. They aim to reinvigorate working processes by instating new and unique agendas preconditioned for the realities in the region. The first part of our analysis focused on the varying theoretical models on regional integration from leading political scientists and economists. This analysis provided a framework for understanding the reasons behind integration processes and the corresponding results expected from each process. Through the exploration of the existing theories of these fields, it becomes apparent that finding a framework that is consistent with the structure and goals of UNASUR is not an easy task. The theories reasoned out of the field of political science −including Functionalism, Neofunctionalism, Intergovernmentalism, Liberalism and Federalism− explain the political justifications for integration and the mechanisms used by political actors to achieve their goals. These theories have been evolving with the appearance of new integration blocs, a significant portion of which have been written according to the European Integration, as it is considered one of the most successful undertakings in the modern history of regional integration. However, various regional historical factors make it evident that South American integration must be approached through unique and alternative perspectives. Since the 1950s, the region has developed particular trajectories that make it difficult to scrutinize under exactly the same criteria used to analyze other processes elsewhere in the 53 world. Neofunctionalism and Intergovernmentalism share with UNASUR the principle that nations mutually coordinate in political undertakings to achieve a stronger negotiating power. However, these two theories differ from UNASUR in the fact that the Union has not agreed to transfer its national governmental functions to a new governing supranational core. UNASUR promotes independently operating national-­‐level political units and policy-­‐making, but they find in integration a mechanism of cooperation that reinforces common areas by benefiting all member states without affecting their respective sovereignty. Federalism is an advanced stage on integration, based on idea that all participants will not only make decisions for the general welfare of the whole, but that will also refrain from taking decisions that knowingly do harm either to other members or to the union as a whole. This theory proposes regional parliaments as a functional tool, in which all of the members are represented and have equal power of decision. Despite the fact that an adjunct proposal exists to create a regional parliamentary body within the context of UNASUR, less than half of the national parliaments have ratified it; and, seen in this light, the theory of Federalism can easily be discounted. Moreover, the existing subregional blocs mentioned in the analysis (CAN and MERCOSUR) both have appropriated parliaments, converging their historic organizational needs for more structured planning. The economic theories of integration are typically proposals based on trade and/or monetary integration. Trade-­‐based theories work through the harmonization and equalization of trade regimes among the members countries. Clearly, a framework based solely on trade would not suffice for modeling our research question, as monetizing social benefits based on foreign trade returns is only part of the equation. However, integration theories employing economic growth incubated through international trade agreements as a partial indicator to the overall social wellbeing is a plausible route to consider. And in fact, this is the reasoning and model employed by the aforementioned subregional blocs, especially in the decade of the nineties where liberal policies were implemented. The results of the model undertaken during this period brought a reduction of the rates of poverty, but an increase of socio-­‐economic inequality in the region. In this context, the proposal of UNASUR resolves on reducing the growing social and economic gaps between the population, by leading a process of economic growth and social cooperation that benefits the population as a whole an not only a small group. A step towards this goal was signature of the free trade agreement between CAN and MERCOSUR in 2004, in addition to the ratification of the principles of human development. The theoretical proposal of a purely monetary integration model where member states are married through a bond of a common monetary unit, while similar in goals to the economic stabilization brought about by a trade model, can be summarily dismissed as the motivating factor for UNASUR. The subject of monetary integration has been discussed in the context of UNASUR, but not formally proposed; there exist only one distant-­‐future proposal concerning the finances of the region with the creation and functioning of the Banc of the South. Since our analysis focuses on the role of social mechanisms of integration in South America, a hybrid framework was used to analyze UNASUR. This framework encompasses the social, economic and political dimensions of the process of integration in the region and takes into consideration a broader perspective of development than simply that of economic growth as the core value. After an analysis of the multiple definitions of integration provided by various 54 scholars, the System of indicators of Regional Integration (SIRI) was used to study UNASUR, this model is based on a deep analysis of the different aspects involving the current existing models of regional integration around the world. SIRI proposes a group of variable categories that are related with the level of specificity of the indicator system and with several dimensions: political-­‐legal dimension, economic, mobility, cultural, security and cooperation. According to SIRI, several variables can be considered when analyzing the effects and sustainability of regional integration. This section contributed to have better understanding of UNASUR’s integration process, however, a deeper study based on a comparison with other regional blocs must be carried. It is recommended to use the European Union as a referent case for comparison. This framework was used to study chapters III and IV and specifically helps to clarify the process implemented by UNASUR, and the role of the social dimension in reinforcing regional integration. Before using this framework for analyzing UNASUR’s strategies and proposals, we considered as a priority the analysis of the existing subregional and macroregional blocs. Therefore, the second part of this research presents the contributions and challenges of the subregional blocs −CAN and MERCOSUR− and macroregionalblocs −LAIA and OAS−. This section affirms that the previous processes of integration developed through CAN and MERCOSUR, were principally created for obtaining clear economic advancements, and in particular, that of economic growth through trade liberalization. It is true that these blocs have a deep trade focus because they are respectively based on a free trade agreement and on a customs union. Even though trade concerns are at the core of their integration processes, they have tangentially achieved positive results in social articulation by developing partnership programs, declarations and thematic councils. In this context, UNASUR can take advantage of the knowledge learned by pre-­‐existing subregional blocs’ and the failures and successes experienced in the region. But at the same, developing a long-­‐term integration process of a unified South America will doubtless require significant time and effort because of the complexity involved in the convergence and harmonization of the existing entities. One advantage is that CAN and MERCOSUR have developed mechanisms, such as, “associated member countries”, that guarantee the participation of ten out of the twelve members of UNASUR in each of their councils, plus Chile and Venezuela. In chapter III, we demonstrated how UNASUR is a new proposal in the sense that it promotes integration based on a social dimension. First, we considered the role of the preconditions of integrations of the bloc, and how can they contribute to a solid long-­‐term integration. Chapter three elaborated on the inherent advantages extended to the Union, such as pre-­‐
existing attempts at integration, abundant natural and mineral resources, similar religion and language, and geographic characteristics that allow for a effective integration in the social, economic, energetic, infrastructural and cultural areas. Second, the analysis of the objectives of this bloc supports one our first facet of our hypotheses, whereas previous attempts of regional integration in South America have historically been fragmented. UNASUR for the first time stated the goal of achieving a socio-­‐economic equality as one of its principal objectives, by bringing harmonization and unity through articulated and common social targets. 55 More specifically, the main goals include the elimination of socio-­‐economic inequity, the achievement of social inclusion and citizen participation, the strengthening of democracy, and the reduction of asymmetries by strengthening the sovereignty and independence of member states in the region. This proposal encompasses a radically different perspective on integration from the previous experiences in Latin America, because its main purpose is not to achieve economic growth but to face a common problem: reduce inequalities and poverty by maintaining strategies of growth that reduce them. With respect to the instruments used by UNASUR, it was shown that structured bodies are already in place, working on the articulation between the existing regional blocs. Moreover, these bodies are utilizing strategies that reduce the duplication of tasks and reinforce the tools to reach an internal integration of the region. At the international level, UNASUR is working towards the goals of achieving more negotiation power and global political and economic relevance. These characteristics reinforce our third hypothesis, in which the integration process of UNASUR do not constitute an imported model based on foreign methodologies, but were spawned by and have been built upon pre-­‐existing national and local initiatives. UNASUR aims to reinvigorate working processes by instating new and unique agendas preconditioned for the realities in the region. UNASUR promotes a long-­‐term integration process through its proposed system of common thematic councils that benefit the twelve countries of South America, instead of only a subgroup of countries. This further substantiates our first hypothesis in which poverty and socio-­‐economic inequalities are problems that are shared by all of the members of the Union, which constitutes a common obstacle that forms the basis to reach a common objective a long-­‐
term agreements. In this context, UNASUR reinforces long-­‐term integration and promotes advances towards equality through south-­‐south cooperation and common institutionalized committees working collectively across all of the member states. For an advanced research of this study, SIRI variables have to be advances in order to have a better understanding and a comparison with other processes. This will allow to have more fundaments to the hypothesis presented in this study. Benefits can be considerable, since it promotes regional infrastructure and economic and social integration for all. This adds to the promotion and harmonization of common goals in the fields of health, infrastructure, economy, energy and education have potential to strengthen the democratic process and promote an effective fight against poverty and inequalities. Additionally, the positive structures and processes experienced by CAN and MERCOSUR provide foundational assets for long-­‐term articulations on the subject of economic integration in the region. The combined impact of these features gives us the impression that UNASUR has serious potential to be a long-­‐term sustainable regional bloc. The multi-­‐faceted proposal under UNASUR confronts regional problems and adapts its structures dynamically to the current socio-­‐economic reality. On the other hand, it has the enormous challenge of putting together the previous structures and mechanisms developed by its predecessors and to appropriate sources for sustainable funds for all of its members. It is important to highlight that UNASUR has to face several other challenges as well: it encounters a region with several problems in the field of integration: many of its members are highly indebted; there has been a reduction of intrastate trade in the last decade; the goals proposed by the existing regional organizations are overly ambitious and in some cases unreachable; there exist a myriad of development models being used by the governments of 56 the region; there is a lack of effective regional leadership; there are high degrees of reciprocal mistrust and ideologies; and it is considered as a region without a long-­‐term strategy. On the other hand, South America is also a region with lots of potentialities and opportunities: it has implemented schemes of integration with juridical, economical and commercial norms and pre-­‐established procedures; all of the region has agreed to address the common goal of the reduction of the high inequalities and poverty; the Union represents a geopolitical opportunity because its members have a vast reserve of resources that can be more effectively administered and distributed among the population; and finally, from an international perspective, there is significant potential for achieving global recognition and relevance if the region stands as one unified voice. As mentioned in this analysis, the mechanisms proposed to reach a long-­‐term integration and a reduction of poverty and inequalities are the thematic councils and institutional bodies created by UNASUR. Chapter IV provides a closer look at these councils, by analyzing the mechanisms proposed by them, as well as the context in which they are being developed. Our study focused specifically on the areas of education and health, with a close examination of the Council of Health and of the Council of Education, Science, Culture and Technology. We conclude that the field of health contributes greatly towards the targets of UNASUR, since its members share common problems and challenges, such as the eradication of endemic diseases across the entire region. Additionally, South America contributes a plethora of positive experiences in this field and a wide variety of existing programs from which UNASUR’s health council can draw upon for inspiration. This council is already operating, it has mainly advanced on the harmonization of previous national, regional and world health agendas, aiming to guarantee agreements for a long-­‐tem policy in this field. The health agenda of UNASUR has already set concrete targets related to infectious diseases and health services, these have been agreed by all of the members of UNASUR. Similarly for the field of education, the education council demonstrated the importance of this field in UNASUR’s regional integration plans, where education is recognized as a driving force to achieve positive socio-­‐economic results. We observed that the priorities agreed upon in the field of education target common weaknesses and challenge structural areas. This council has the advantage of regionalizing the existing working experiences, such as the programs of education for all and the Tunning Project. An important outcome of this Council is the proposal for the creation of an Agency for Accreditation and Evaluation in South America under COSECCTI. This Agency purports to ensure the quality of programs and institutions of higher education, on the basis of harmonized criteria that are in line with the strengthening regional cooperation, the increase of students and proffesors’ mobility, and to protect the quality of teaching. As integration is the basis for the achievement of these important goals in the face of common problems that affect all the member states, positive steps towards equality and away from poverty and social inequalities will begin to take place in the region through the proposals enacted by UNASUR. The existing councils and the diplomatic channels represent real options to orient the process with a strategic dimension. The convergence of integration in this area 57 reduces fragmentation, therefore South America has more opportunities to reach common goals if its constituent states act as a bloc with one voice and a common target. “Building shared spaces for dialogue makes it possible to value the visions of each of the actors, the grounds from which they perceive different facts, and on that basis, to establish a process that allows to build shared visions. Thus, moving ahead with the effort of dialogue and engagement and of a greater inter-­‐institutional coordination, as well as an effective corporate action, is an essential task” (Rojas 2009:18). In conclusion, without a doubt, the social spectrum stands to gain a lot of attention in the coming years; our analysis shows that long-­‐term integration and a reduction of poverty and inequalities could be attained through the mechanisms, objectives and instruments proposed by UNASUR. However, important questions remain to be adressed on the social dimension of integration, for example, a specific analysis to understand the direct correlation between the social sphere and the macroeconomic strategies of the region. In this context, a study of the role of the individual free trade agreements between the member of UNASUR, and the United States and the European Union should be more thoroughly inspected. Another area that could benefit from further investigation is that of the political tendencies of the region, mainly related to the dissemination of political currents, such as, the XXI Century Socialism. The creation and improvement of labor standards has not been reviewed during this analysis, this area should be deepened in future researches. Finally, due to the important reserves of natural and mineral resources in the region, it is imperative to promote further investigative studies regarding the environmental policies of UNASUR in the context of sustainability. 58 References and Bibliography Abreu S. (1998). “Dos Bloques: ¿Quétipo de integración?”.La ComunidadAndina y Mercosur: Desafíospendientes de la Integración en América Latina.Bogota: Ministerio de RelacionesExteriores de Colombia. Antje W., Diez T. (2009). European Integration Theory. New York, Oxford Univesity Press. Behar J., Giacalone R. (2001). Integración Regional de America Latina, Procesos y Actores. Estocolmo: Instituto de EstudiosLatinoamericanos. Bonilla and Long. (2010). Un nuevo regionalismo sudamericano Íconos. Revista de Ciencias Sociales. Quito: Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales-­‐Sede Académica de Ecuador. Borja, R. (2008). “La integración: instrumento del desarrollo humano”, in Rojas F., Altamann J. (eds). América Latina y el Caribe: ¿fragmentación o convergencia?. Quito, FLACSO. Bouzas, R. (1999). “Las negociaciones comerciales externas de MERCOSUR: administrando una agenda congestionada”, in Roett R. Mercosur: Integración Regional y Mercados Mundiales. Roett R. Buenos Aires: Nuevohacer Grupo Editor Latinoamericano. Burgess, M. (2004). Federalism and the European Integration Theory. New York: Oxford Univesity Press. Casas A. (2005). Integración regional y desarrollo en los paísesandinos. Quito: CorporaciónEditoraNacional. CAN. (2004). XV Reunión del Consejo Presidencial Andino. Lima: Comunidad Andina de Naciones. CAN. (2005). Estrategia de desarrolloproductivo y comercialpara los paisesandinos. Lima: Secretaria General de la Comunidad Andina de Naciones. CAN. (2008). Princilapes Indicadores de la Unión de Naciones Sudamericanas 1998-­‐2007. Lima: Comunidad Andina de Naciones. CEPAL. (2008). La transformación productiva en América Latina 20 años después: viejos problemas, nuevas oportunidades. Santo Domingo: Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe. CEPAL. (2011). UNASUR: Un espacio de desarrollo y cooperación por construir. Santiago: Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe. Chryssochoou, D. (2009). Theorizing European Integration. New York: Routledges. Dabène, O. (2009). The Politics of Regional Integration in Latin America: the theoretical and comparative implications. New York: Palgrave Macmillan De Lombaerde, P. and L. Van Langenhove (2006), “Indicators of RegionalIntegration: Conceptual and Methodological Aspects”, Assessment and Measurement of Regional Integration. London, Routledge. Consejo de Salud. (2010). Declaración de Cuenca: Estrategias de Acción.Cuenca: Consejo de Salud de UNASUR. Di-­‐Filippo F. (1999).Las dimensionessociales de la integracion regional en América Latina. Santiago, Chile: CEPAL. Díaz M., Cano M. (2007). “La Unión de Naciones Suramericanas (UNASUR): Análisis e instrumentos”. In Cuadernos iberoamericanos. Guadalajara: Centro de Estudios de Iberoamérica. ECLAC (2009). Statistical Yearbook for Latin America and the Caribbean. Santiago, Chile: Economic Comission for Latin America and the Carabeean. 59 Ethier W. (1998).“Regionalism in a multilateral world”. Journal of Political Economy (106),pp. 1213-­‐1245. Evans D., Holmes P., Lacovone L., Robinson S. (2004). A Framework for Evaluating Regional Trade Agreements: Deep Integration and New Regionalism.University of Sussex. Farrell R. (2003). “Equality of Education, A half century of comparative evidence seen from a new millennium” in Arnove, R. and Torres C.A. Comparative Education: The Dialectic of the Global and the Local. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Gaspare G., Hiroi T. (2007) “Brazilian Regional Power in the Development of Mercosul”.Latin American Perspectives, pp. 34-­‐43. Graziano, J. (2009). The Brazilian Fome Zero Strategy. Santiago, Food Agriculture Organization. Gwatkin D. (2002). Reducing Health Inequalities in Developing Countries. Oxford: Textbook of public Heath. Haas, E.B. (1958). The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social and Economic Forces 1950-­‐57. Standford, CA: Standford University Press. Hallak, J. (2000). Politiques éducatives et contenus d'enseignement dans les pays en développement. Amiens: Bureau International d'Éducation. Hirst, M. (1999). “La compleja agenda política del MERCOSUR” in Roett R. Mercosur: Integración Regional y Mercados Mundiales. Buenos Aires: Nuevohacer Grupo Editor Latinoamericano. INTAL. (2007). "Comprendiendo el proceso de integración sudamericana en 2007." Integración en America Latina. Banco Internamericano del Desarrollo.http://www.iadb.org/intal/articulo_carta.asp?tid=5&idioma=esp&aid=307&cid=234&carta_id=5
16 INTAL. (2008). "Unión Sudamericana de Naciones: desafíos y oportunidades." Integración en America Latina. Banco Internamericano del Desarrollo.http://www.iadb.org/intal/articulo_carta.asp?tid=5&idioma=esp&aid=521&cid=234&carta_id=7
43 International Institute for Labour Studies. (2008). Deepening the Social Dimensions of Regional Integration. Geneva: International Labour Organization. Jarque C., Ortiz M., Quenan C. (2009). América Latina y la Diplomacia de Cumbres. Mexico: Secretaria General Iberoamericana. Joost, J. (1995). Regionalism and the global economy: the case of Latin America and the Caribbean. Hague: FONDAD. Klees, J. (2008). “A quarter century of neoliberal thinking in education: misleading analysis and failed policies”. Globalization, Societies and Education.Vol.6, no 4. Lombaerde G., Gavin B., Lombaerde P. (2005). “Economic Theories of Regional Integration” in Farrell H., Van-­‐
Langenhove. Global Politics of Regionalism: Theory and Practice. London: Pluto Press. Machado, L. (2005). “Globalización, integración y las relaciones Mercosur-­‐Comunidad Andina”. Integración, equidad y desarrollo. Quito: FLACSO Ecuador. Magallanes, R. (2008). "Del socialismo del siglo XXI a la propuesta de un socialismo para el sigglo XXI." Revista de Economia y de Ciencias Sociales Vol 14, no 3, pp. 33-­‐48. 60 Maira, L. (2008). “La Comunidad Sudamerica de Naciones y las Perspectivas de la Integración” in Rojas F., Altamann J. (eds). Las Paradojas de la Integración en América Latina y El Caribe. Madrid: Fundacion Carolina. Marmot M., Friel S., Bell R., Houweling T.A. (2008). “Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health”. The Lancet. Vol.372, pp. 1661-­‐69. Marin, R. (2000). “Los avances en el proceso de integración en América Latina y la evolución del Mercosur y la Comunidad Andina”. La Union Sudamericana: alternativa de integración regional en el contexto de la globalización. Quito: Universidad Andina Simon Bolivar. Mattli, W. (1999). The Logic of Regional Integration: Europe and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MERCOSUR. (1991). Tratado de Asunción para la constitución del Mercado Común del Sur. Asunción: Secretaría General MERCOSUR. OPS/OMS. (2009). Salud en Sudamérica 2008. Santiago: Organización Panamericana de la Salud. Paiva P., Gazel R. (2003).Mercosur: past, present and future. Belo Horizonte: Nova Economia. Panitchpakdi, S. (2008). “Introduction to Economic Integration” in McKinney J., Gardner. S. (eds). Economic Integration in the Americas. New York: Routledge. Pravin, K. (2003). Are Regional Trading Partners Natural?. Chicago: Journal of Political Economy. Puyana A. (2003). La integracióneconómica y la Globalización: ¿Nuevaspropuestaspara el proyectolatinoamericano?. Mexico: FacultadLatinoamericana de CienciasSociales. Rapoport M. (1995). Argentina y Brasil en el Mercosur: PoliticasComunes y AlianzasRegionales. Buenos Aires: FundacionKonrad Adenauer. Reinoso A. (2000). “ComunidadAndina, RegionalismoAbierto e IntegraciónProfunda”. InserciónEconómicaInternacional de América Latina.Santigo, Chile: FacultadLationoamerica de CienciasSociales de Chile. Robin, R. (2008). “Mercosur: política externa y perspectivas interregionalistas con las economías del norte”. Los nuevos enfoques de la integración: más allá del nuevo regionalismo. Quito: FLACSO Ecuador. Roet Riordan. Mercosur: Integración Regional y MercadosMundiales. Instituto del Servicio Exterior de la Nación Buenos Aires, Nuevohacer:1999. Rojas, F. (2007). Regional Integration: A Strategic Political Project. San José: Secretaria General de FLACSO. Rojas, F. (2009). “Integración en América Latina: acciones y omisiones, conflictos y cooperación”. IV Informe del Secretario General de FLACSO. San Jose: Secretaria General de FLACSO. Rosales O., Duran J., Saez S. (2008). “Trends in Latin American Integration” in McKinney J., Gardner. S. (eds). Economic Integration in the Americas. New York: Routledge. Rosamond, B. (2000). Theories of European Integration. New York, Palgrave Macmillan. Salama Pierre. (2006). Le défi des inegalités: AmeriqueLatine-­‐Asie: unecomparaisonéconomique. Paris: La Découverte. Salgado, G. (2007). Principales escollos para avanzar en la integración andina y latinoamericana: Eslabón hacía la integración Sudamericana. Quito: Corportación Editorial Andina. SELA. (2008). Social dimension of integration: Guidelines for an Action Plan in the areas of health, education, housing and employment. Caracas: Latin American and Caribbean Economic System. 61 Sprinz, D. (2009). "Long-­‐Term Policy Problems: Definition, Origin, and Responses." Breakthrough in Science, Markets, and Politics. MIT press, University of Michigan Press. Tuning Project (2007). Reflections on and outlook for Higher Education in Latina Amerca: Final Report, Tuning Latina America Project. Bilbao: Universidad de Deusto. Torrent, R. (2006). "Un marco analítico para los procesos de integración regional”. La Integración Latinamericana: Visiones Regionales y Subregionales. San José: Secretaria General de FLACSO. UNASUR. (2008).TradoConstitutivo de la Unión Sudamericana de Naciones. Brasilia: Secretaría General UNASUR. UNASUR. (2009). Documento de Trabajo: Estructura y Objetivos de UNASUR. Brasilia: Secretaria General UNASUR UNASUR. (2010), Acta de Constitución del Consejo de Educación, Cultura, Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación. Quito: Secretaria General UNASUR UNESCO. (2009). Regional overview: Latin America and the Caribbean. Geneva: International Bureau of Education of UNESCO. Valls, L. (1999). “Hacia un Mercado Común del Sur: Origenes, evoluciones y desafíos” in Roett R. Mercosur: Integración Regional y Mercados Mundiales. Buenos Aires: Nuevohacer Grupo Editor Latinoamericano. Whitehead M., Dalhgree G., Evans T. (2001). “Equity and health sector reform: can low-­‐income countries escape the medical poverty trap?”.The Lancet, Vol 358, pp 833-­‐36. Wilkinson R., Marmot M. (2004).“Les determinant sociaux de la santé”.Les Faits, deuxième edition, Organization Mondial de la Santé. Woolcock, S. (2003). “A trade framework for assesing regional trade agremets: WTO-­‐plus” in Sampson G.Regionalism, Multilateralism and Economic Integration: The Recent Experience. Hong Kong: United Nations University Press. Ziesemer T. (1994). Economic development and endogenous terms-­‐of-­‐trade determination: review and reinterpretation of the Prebisch-­‐Singer thesis. Geneva: UNCTAD. 62