D E P DIPLOMACIA ESTRATÉGIA POLÍTICA Editor Carlos Henrique Cardim Correspondence address: Revista DEP P.O. Box 2431 Brasilia, DF – Brasil CEP 70842-970 [email protected] www.funag.gov.br/dep The DEP Diplomacy, Strategy & Politics Review is a three–monthly periodical on South American affairs published in Portuguese, Spanish and English. It comprises the Raul Prebisch Project and is sponsored by the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Relations (MRE/Funag – Alexandre de Gusmão Foundation/Ipri – International Relations Research Institute), Construtora Norberto Odebrecht S. A., Andrade Gutierrez S. A. and Embraer – Empresa Brasileira de Aeronáutica S. A. International Cataloguing in Publication Data DEP: Diplomacy, Strategy & Politics / Raúl Prebisch Project no. 5 (january/march 2007). Brasília : Raúl Prebisch Project, 2007. Three–monthly Published in portuguese, spanish and english. ISSN 1808-0499 1. South America. 2. Argentine, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, Venezuela. I. Raúl Prebisch Project. CDU 327(05) DDIPLOMACIA E ESTRATÉGIA POLÍTICAP Number 5 January / March 2007 Summary Ideas, ideologies, and foreign policy in Argentina 5 José Paradiso Infrastructure integration in South America: 25 stimulating sustainable development and regional integration Enrique García Elections and patience 35 Antônio Delfim Netto The outlook for Chile-Bolivia relations 39 Luis Maira Colombia’s strengths 54 Fernando Cepeda Ulloa Foreign policy and democratic and human security 74 Diego Ribadeneira Espinosa Cheddi Jagan’s global human order 82 Ralph Ramkharan Ideas, ideologies, and foreign policy in Argentina Paraguay’s economic situation and prospects 88 Dionisio Borda A strategic regional view of Peru’s foreign policy 103 José Antonio García Belaunde Suriname by its authors 123 Jerome Egger Mercosur: quo vadis? 137 Gerardo Caetano Full Petroleum Sovereignty 171 Rafael Ramírez 179 Silvano Cuéllar – Allegory of the Nation María Victoria de Robayo 4 DIPLOMACY, STRATEGY & POLITICS – JANUARY/MARCH 2007 José Paradiso Ideas, ideologies, and foreign policy in Argentina José Paradiso* I n recent times, international relations scholars seem to have realized the importance of ideas and beliefs in the formulation of foreign policy. Constructivists, who openly challenge more traditional theories, have played a significant role in this regard. There is also a considerable wealth of research and analytical models that seek to dissect this connection and find evidence of influence or causality.1 In any public policy sphere, decision makers are often guided by a set of ideas that indicate how problems should be addressed. This premise served as the starting point for a famous essay showing how the Keynesian ideas were replaced by other models in England in the seventies. Curiously enough, it was Keynes himself who said that underlying every decision-making structure one can always find a trace of the ideas of economists and political thinkers. Of course, the question lies in their entity, the distance between the ideational time and the decisional time, and the consciousness the players have of this connection. Strictly speaking, nothing is simple with respect to ideas and ideologies, as witness the many definitions of ideology – Terry Eagleton mentions sixteen – * Sociologist and professor of the University of Salvador – Buenos Aires, Argentina. [email protected] 1 Yee, Albert S. The causal effects of ideas on policies. International Organization 50/1, Winter 1996. DIPLOMACY, STRATEGY & POLITICS – JANUARY/MARCH 2007 5 Ideas, ideologies, and foreign policy in Argentina and new contributions and discussions about the issue are constantly coming to the fore.2 This may explain why, to a large extent, the histories of ideas proceed directly to their description, sequential order, and interconnections before addressing their definition. The oft heterogeneous, complex nature of these representations of reality, which are constructed for learning about things and for guiding action in their midst, makes them refractory to excessively rigid boundaries; they overcome barriers, follow different channels, and blend together in multiple combinations that often lose sight of their origin. For easier exposition, we have adopted a quite common criterion, which distinguishes two main components in the complex field of ideation: on the one hand, thought systems that offer a wide, moderately consistent ensemble intended to answer most questions about man and the world, as is the case of conservatism, liberalism, socialism, etc. Each tradition holds to a weltanschauung that integrates into a common denominator a variety of unified manifestations and one or more than one philosophical referents. On the other hand, specific representations circumscribed to a given area of reality, such as the idea of progress, national interest, development, etc. or which reflect the thinking in a given institutional environment. Of course, there are many connections between ideological systems and individual ideational subjects, as the latter refer to one another in relation to the former. We can do without theories, although we know that these conceptual structures constructed in accordance with epistemological and methodological premises relate to one another through different idea and ideology channels. In this essay, conceived as a first approach to the influence of ideas and ideologies on the formulation of Argentina’s foreign policy, we adopt a historical perspective, distinguishing four major phases: from the stage of national organization to World War I; the period between wars to the end of World War II; the cycle from 1945 to1990; and the period from the end of the Cold War onwards. An Argentina seduced by free exchange The so-called oligarchic republic reconciled the conservative inclination of most of its leaders with liberal beliefs that had deep historical roots and were the source in which the great leaders after the battle of Caseros (1862) drank. 2 Eagleton, Terry. Ideología: una introducción. Paidós, Barcelona, 1997. 6 DIPLOMACY, STRATEGY & POLITICS – JANUARY/MARCH 2007 José Paradiso The national organization – the three constitutional administrations that succeeded each other between 1862 and 1880 – and its heirs cultivated a liberalism tinged with positivist tones, whose hard nucleus consisted of constitutionalism, the free market, and a limited, albeit not absent State. These ideas formed part of the prevailing thinking, shared, in different degrees, by most leaders and even by much of the Catholic wing, which, although in fierce opposition to lay legislation that was interpreted as instruments of a de-Christianization policy, rejected the absolutist forms of government and sincerely believed in the virtues of free exchange, values that were also shared by most of the emerging socialist wave and the rising radical party. In sum, laissez faire was an idea shared by both government supporters and its opponents, and was the cornerstone of a form of integration into the international scene that, through agricultural exports, ensured a generous inflow of capital, finished products, immigrants, and ideas. True, there were those who held to protectionist policies but even they abjured economic orthodoxy. When foreign policy issues were addressed, they related mostly to territorial boundaries and border conflicts – there was no hesitation in asserting the “country’s just rights,” whether they were such or not, although there were divergences about the way these rights should be defended and preserved. Some believed in power politics and war readiness, while others held to peaceful solutions, dialogue, and arbitration. Both camps referred to the concept of national interest but each interpreted this concept in its own way. The predominance of the inclination toward the peaceful settlement of interstate conflicts served the convenience of both internal and external economic agents but also found strong support in deep-rooted ideas about the role of international law as an expression of the civilizing progress desired by all. “Peace and administration” was the government formula that reflected a set of priorities and a cause-and-effect relation between order and material progress, which should be achieved both internally and in the conduct of diplomacy. The adherents of realpolitik saw things differently. The language of power, alliances, and equilibrium was best suited to their propositions and, although they did not prevail, they were quite successful in projecting the idea that the country had a cavalier attitude towards foreign affairs, adopting an erratic, vacillating diplomacy. Their interpretation of national interest was influenced by circumstances peculiar to the period: the arms race, the alliance and counter- alliance games, and the apex of geopolitical constructions, beginning with Rear- DIPLOMACY, STRATEGY & POLITICS – JANUARY/MARCH 2007 7 Ideas, ideologies, and foreign policy in Argentina Admiral Mahan’s theory of naval power. Be as it may, after the century’s first decade, the divergences that had fueled discussions had been overcome or were on the way to being solved. Although some were still claiming for territorial value and a more aggressive diplomacy, among politicians and intellectuals other ideas involving relations with the world were gaining favor. A prevailing feeling among the leading elites that had two consequences on the direction of foreign policy and of many diplomatic initiatives was the