With UNASUR, Latin America is following the example of the EU, trying to establish a zone of stability, economic prosperity and peace on the South American continent. But why has the European Union become a textbook example for peace while tensions still abound in Latin America?Ensuring a long and stable peace on a formerly war ravaged continent is probably the most impressive achievement of the European Union to date. Even though peace has become the natural condition for a whole generation of Europeans, it was far from self-evident that a continent like Europe could achieve this in mere decades.
The situation along many borders in Latin America on the other hand remain tense. Some days ago, Hugo Chávez declared at a graduation ceremony of sports students that he would sever all diplomatic ties with Colombia. It was his answer to allegations of President Uribe of Colombia, who had claimed that Venezuela is supporting the FARC guerilla. Colombia is waging a decades old counterinsurgency campaign against the FARC. Information that FARC has used bases in Venezuela several years ago are well known, and so far it is unclear whether the proof presented by Colombia is new, or just documents the old facts.
This new row about alleged FARC support is a new episode in the animosities between Venezuela and Colombia that became heated when the US boosted its military cooperation with Colombia and got permission to use several army bases on Colombian territory. Even though a war over these disagreements still seems very unlikely, it is worrying that a solution to the problem was not found in earlier stages. That both states are members of UNASUR, documents that Latin American integration has still not managed to fully display the stabilising effects that the European Union project had in Europe.
Why is this the case? Of course there were also political conflicts between European states during the European integration, for example regarding the accession of the United Kingdom disputed between France and Germany in the sixties. France took up an 'empty chair policy', refusing to take part in European Council meetings as long as a solution was not found, effectively blocking the EC at that time. Even many status questions between the sates remained unsolved, including contested borders. Still, cooperation never suffered significantly.
The hegemonic interests of the US and its meddling in Latin American politics could be an explanation for the stuttering start of UNASUR. After all, the relations to the US is one of the main divisive issues in Latin America. Europe had to fend off the influence of a regional hegemon, too, namely the USSR. The Iron Curtain documented the division of Europe regarding the role of the Soviet Union. Yet, the division did not run between the governments of the EU member states. The external factor of US foreign policy thus definetly figures into the less than perfect security situation in Latin America.
Still, ohter factors have a bigger impact, namely the legacy of self-sufficient armed groups in many parts of Latin America. Without the FARC threat Colombia would be less tempted to cooperate with the US military in spite of security concerns voiced by its neighbours, and the latest episode of the quarrel would not have occured at all. Armed groups in a region are an invitation to proxy warfare, used to pressure other governments by supporting its internal enemies. Additionally, these groups do not respect borders. A Colombian air raid on FARC bases on the Ecuadorian side of the border sparked tensions between Colombia and Ecuador several months ago. When these groups cross borders freely and provoke reactions, suspicion about the neighbour's involvement naturally arise.
In Europe, peace was a by-product of economic integration. The economies of the European states became intertwined to a degree that no one could start to manufacture arms without the other one knowing. Distrust was diminished considerably which ultimately led to further reapproachment and cooperation. Transparency could also be a successful recipe for guaranteeing more stability in Latin America, but it would not be a final solution. The threat of armed non-state actors has to be confronted as they will be a lasting source of instability in the region. Thus, cooperation in military matters will be necessary to stabilise the security situation in Latin America.
Unfortunately, cooperation in issues of security are not as easy to achieve as economic cooperations. They presuppose a certain level of trust as military cooperation is not always as clearly a positive-sum cooperation as economic coordination. The challenges in Latin America are thus greater than they were in Europe. The politicians will have to actively work on building trust and transparency, in order to then move forward to military cooperation. The self-sustaining process of reapproachment and trust building in Europe was in some ways a lucky coincidence. Thus, the individual responsibility of politicians in Latin America is higher. Both Uribe and Chávez did not live up to this responsibility in their crisis management. One can only hope that Colombian President elect Santos will push his reconciliation efforts forward that he started by inviting Chávez to his inauguration ceremony.
