Which Brazilian Policy for Regionalism? Discourse and Institutional Development in Mercosur
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Estudios Internacionales 175 (2013) - ISSN 0716-0240 • 41-61 Instituto de Estudios Internacionales - Universidad de Chile Which Brazilian policy for regionalism? Discourse and institutional development in Mercosur La política brasileña en materia de regionalismo. Discurso y desarrollo institucional en el Mercosur Marcelo de Almeida Medeiros* Clarissa Franzoi Dri** Abstract During the past decade, Mercosur has been insistently presented as the priority of Brazilian foreign policy. Nevertheless, in this period regional integration has neither deepened nor enlarged. This article aims to ex- plain this gap between discourse and practice by examining how Brazil’s regionalism policy is characterized. The analysis is based on a case study of the creation of Mercosur’s Parliament in 2006. Theoretically, we argue that discursive institutionalism and international regimes theory can largely account for the detachment of Brazil from Mercosur and the limited interdependence that has been built among these countries. The conclusion points to the induction of a low-impact regionalism that facilitates Brazil’s actions at the international level. Keywords: Brazil, Regionalism, Mercosur, Mercosur Parliament, Foreign Policy * Académico del Departamento de Ciencias Políticas de La Universidad Federal de Pernam- buco, Recife, Brasil. [email protected] ** Académica del Departamento de Economía y Relaciones Internacionales, Brasil. clarissa. [email protected]. Recibido el 21 de marzo de 2013. Aceptado El 24 de junio de 2013 41 Estudios Internacionales 175 (2013) • Universidad de Chile Resumen En el último decenio se ha insistido en señalar que el Mercosur tiene prioridad en la política exterior del Brasil. Sin embargo, durante este tiempo la integración regional no ha aumentado ni se ha profundizado. El presente artículo procura explicar este vacío entre el discurso y la práctica mediante un examen de las características de la política brasile- ña en materia de regionalismo. El análisis se basa en un estudio de caso sobre la creación del Parlamento del Mercosur en 2006. En principio, sostenemos que en gran medida el institucionalismo discursivo y la teoría de los sistemas internacionales pueden explicar por qué Brasil ha mantenido distancia del Mercosur y la limitada interdependencia que se ha construido entre los países que lo componen. La conclusión apunta a que se ha producido un regionalismo débil que facilita la acción del Brasil en el plano internacional. Palabras clave: Brasil, regionalismo, Parlamento del Mercosur, po- lítica exterior In practical terms, maybe we shouldn’t have so much confidence in the strict majority vote in international organizations and more confidence in the concurrent majority requirement and the forms of representation that are created. (Deutsch, 1981: 232) 42 Marcelo de Almeida y Clarissa Franzoi • Wich Brazilian policy for regionalism? In the field of foreign policy, the ved in the same «parliamentary packa- Southern Common Market (Mercosur) ge» as a means of convincing Uruguay had always been the declared priority and mostly Paraguay of agreeing to the of the Brazilian government under assembly. But the main barriers to the Lula. Strengthening relations with its consolidation of the common market South American neighbors, mainly with still persisted, such as limitations to free Argentina, was considered strategic by trade, difficulties in managing and ex- the government. Regional integration panding the common external tariff and already had a preeminent place in the the lack of free movement of people and 2002 Worker’s Party’s (PT, abbreviation policy-harmonization. Governmental in Portuguese) Government Program, discourse about regional integration in referred to as the main foreign poli- the end did not turn into practice, which cy tool at the very beginning of the became more evident during Lula’s se- document. Reconstructing Mercosur cond mandate. The 2006 Government through policy-coordination and the Program barely mentioned Mercosur, creation of political and juridical insti- which was discreetly included in the to- tutions was seen as a «decisive element» pic «Sovereign insertion in the world» in this area (Palocci, 2002: 6). In his (Garcia, 2006: 14). From 2007 on, the first international visit as president, in government devoted its attention to December 2002, Lula stated in Bue- broad South-South relations, enhancing nos Aires that Mercosur deserved an its dialogue with Asian and African «urgent deepening through concrete partners. Latin America was still a proposals»1. On that occasion, he priority, but attention was focused on expressly mentioned the need for com- new agreements rather than to the older mon institutions to improve political Mercosur. This trend continues in the cooperation, proposing the creation first years of Dilma’s presidency. of a directly elected parliament. In the Do these events represent a change following years, Brazil was indeed a in the Brazilian policy for regionalism central actor in the establishment of or the continuity of a strategy initiated the Mercosur Parliament (Parlasur) in some years ago? This article aims to 2006. analyze the motivations behind Bra- Nevertheless, Parlasur was one of zilian decisions in the regional arena. Mercosur’s very few achievements of In order to do so, we first present the the 2000s. Structural funds were appro- theoretical bases of our analysis. They are guided by the idea according to 1 «Lula propõe aprofundamento urgente do which regional integration in Latin Mercosul», UOL Últimas Notícias, 12 American in general, and in Mercosur December 2002. Available at http:// in particular, is not able to surpass the noticias.uol.com.br/inter/afp/2002/12/02/ so-called interdependence threshold, ult34u54542.jhtm, Accessed in 2 September 2012. that is, to achieve real economic in- 43 Estudios Internacionales 175 (2013) • Universidad de Chile tegration capable of creating a new Brazilian foreign policy register for politics beyond the nation- and Mercosur: between state. Brazil represents more than 2/3 of discourse and instrumental the wealth, population and territory of rationality Mercosur and its trade exchanges are progressively more diversified. This in- Within Latin America, Brazil’s case terdependence threshold is accentuated is emblematic especially because its by the relative cultural eccentricity of economy is the least dependent on Brazil in relation to Latin America. In Mercosur. With the economic reforms spite of sharing historical experiences initiated during Fernando Henrique with its Spanish-speaking neighbors, Cardoso and Lula’s governments, Brazil Brazil often adopts an isolationist began a process of detachment, distan- position reinforced by its continental cing itself from Mercosur and acting on dimensions and its particular coloni- its own. Positive results of these reforms zation process (Galvão, 2009: 74). As have increased the power asymmetries Fernand Braudel (apud Martinière, among Mercosur countries. This deta- 1978: 41) states, «Latin America is chment can be explained through the not ‘one’, a homogenous entity… it is combination of two theories related to ‘one’ by contrast, by opposition, taken institutional change: discursive insti- in its continental mass, opposed to the tutionalism and international regimes other continents, but it doesn’t prevent perspective. it from being deeply divided». According to Vigevani and Cepaluni The second part sheds light on the (2007: 1310), there is no important Mercosur’s main institutional evolu- rupture in Brazilian foreign policy in tion during the past years: the creation the period 1994-2010, but simply dis- of Parlasur. Brazilian support for the tinct emphases on already established regional parliament contributes to the objectives. Both Fernando Henrique understanding of the Brazilian perspec- and Lula’s governments searched to tive on Mercosur itself. We argue that achieve economic development and the intention of prioritizing regional political autonomy with their external integration was limited and more of a actions. Differences lie in the degree of rhetorical exercise than a real policy. autonomy and how it is maximized: Instead of deepening Mercosur, autho- through distance, participation or di- rities were looking to consolidate Brazil versification (Vigevani and Cepaluni, as an emerging power by re-launching 2007: 1313). Discursive institutiona- South-South relations. This strategy lism perspective treats change as an confirms the persistency of the Nation- endogenous process, thus offering a State in contemporary politics and new prominent place to Nation-States in ways regionalism is being applied in the regional integrations. It relativizes the st 21 century. direct impact of exogenous actions, 44 Marcelo de Almeida y Clarissa Franzoi • Wich Brazilian policy for regionalism? arguing that discourse and ideas should Pact, its contractual ambitions are be taken seriously to explain institutio- still beyond the effective capacity of nal change. Discursive institutionalism its members to reach agreement. The «is concerned with both the substantive fact that the common external tariff content of ideas and the interactive is not completely implemented reveals processes of discourse in institutional the development asymmetries and the context» (Schmidt, 2010: 1). Peter and gap between discourse and practice. Ernst Haas have also worked on the In fact, Mercosur has been diffusing a relations between ideas and the prag- self-image quite different from the facts, matic