Sub-Regional Cooperation, Hemispheric Threat: Security in the Southern Cone

  • David Pion-Berlin

Abstract

Three decades ago, realists would have felt thoroughly vindicated by the security environment in the Southern Cone and Brazil. “Beware of thy neighbor” was the motto for defense and security preparations. States assumed the worst about each other’s hidden intentions. They presumed that the military expenditures of their neighbors were offensive in purpose and sought to offset these with purchases of their own, thus giving rise to the classic security dilemma: the drive to make oneself more secure makes a rival less secure. If peace were to be preserved it would only be so through a strategic balance between competitors. Military-to-military cooperation was not sought because, in an atmosphere of mistrust, the costs of betrayal were high. Uruguay worried about encroachment from Argentina and Brazil, its giant neighbors. Argentina and Brazil had been perennial rivals for domination in the neighborhood and clashed over water rights. Argentina and Chile held on to long-standing disputes over borders and the Beagle Channels to the South.

Keywords

Expense Argentina Rium Doyle Indonesia 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    An exemplar of this theory is Andrew Moravcsik, “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics,” International Organization 51 (Autumn 1997): 513–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. On economic interdependence reducing the threat of war, see Richard Rosecrance, The Rise of the Trading State: Commerce and Conquest in the Modern World (New York: Basic Books, 1986)Google Scholar
  3. On the idea that democracies don’t fight each other, see Michael Doyle, “Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 12 (Summer 1983), 205–35.Google Scholar
  4. 2.
    MERCOSUR, “Declaración Presidencial Sobre Compromiso Democrático en el MERCOSUR,” X Cumbre de Presidentes del MERCOSUR, San Luis Argentina (June 25 1996). Available at http://www.mercosur.com Google Scholar
  5. 4.
    See Jorge I. Dominguez, “Security, Peace, and Democracy in Latin America and the Caribbean: Challenges for the Post-Cold War Era,” in International Security and Democracy: Latin America and the Caribbean in the Post-Cold War Era, ed. Jorge I. Dominguez (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1998), 3–28.Google Scholar
  6. 5.
    See David Pion-Berlin, “Will Soldiers Follow? Economic Integration and Regional Security in the Southern Cone,” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 42 (Summer 2000), 47–8.Google Scholar
  7. 6.
    See Patrick Morgan, “Regional Security Complexes and Regional Orders,” in David A. Lake and Patrick M. Morgan (eds), Regional Orders: Building Security in a New World (University Park, PA: Penn State University Press, 1997), 34–8.Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    For a listing of these accords, see Ernesto Lopez, “Un Sistema Subregional de Seguridad?,” Fuerzas Armadas y Sociedad 15 (October–December, 2000), 38–9.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    There is also a challenge here to traditional versions of security studies which defined security by reference to the analysis of military force, and conflicts between states in which a country’s insecurity derives from its vulnerability to opposing armies. See, for example, Steve Walt, “The Renaissance of Security Studies,” International Security Studies 35 (1991), 211–39.Google Scholar
  10. 13.
    OAS, “Strengthening Hemispheric Cooperation to Prevent, Combat, and Eliminate Terrorism,” Twenty Third Meeting of Consultation of OAS Ministers of Foreign Affairs (September 21 2001).Google Scholar
  11. 20.
    United Press International, “Brazil, Colombia Look For Harmony,” February 23 2004, lexis-nexis online.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© David Pion-Berlin 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Pion-Berlin

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations