AHC: Latin American Nationalism

And of course, there's always a more sucessful MERCOSUR, or more recently UNASUR. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if by the middle of the decade, South America achieves an EU-like level of integratiom.

I'm always surprised that this forum dismisses South American unions as ASB inmediatly without fail, yet the European Union has managed to emerge from a continent that was well known for its periodic wars and extreme nationalism before it.

You're right that's it's absolutely possible, but there are several massive obstacles.

1. Institutionalized corruption. Brazil is corrupt down to its core, and it's the biggest power, so who's going to enforce anti-corruption measures? Chile/Uruguay/other countries who get their shit together before UNASUR becomes significant won't join if this isn't dealt with.

2. Non-democracies. Obviously a UNASUR would support democracy. But the political situations in several countries definitely put a test to the definition of that word. Venezuela is obviously not, and they'll have to require Venezuela to reform if UNASUR wants any legitimacy, but what about a country like Argentina? It's in a very grey area.

3. Freedom of movement and equalization fund. It's sort of partially in place (freedom of movement) already, and already a massive disaster. You think there's a big difference in development between Poland and the UK? Try Bolivia and Chile. Or Paraguay and Argentina. Uruguay is closer to joining the EU than Paraguay is to being able to compare to Colombia. You think the Uruguayans and Chileans are going to give up their newfound riches to invest in countries that are deeply corrupt?

The EU didn't have nearly the levels of corruption, anti-democratic governments, or wealth gaps. There's a reason why the continent of war came together before the continent of relative peace, and it's all of that in combination.
 
Pan Latin-americanism is very common, especially in leftist circles. Just ask about the Patria Grande. It's impractical and overshadowed by country rivalries, but it exists and it's a real force, especially in modern times with the 'Pink Tide'. And I think it could become stronger with the right POD.

Have more leftist governments in the 20th century that sucessully overcome coups, and you might see the beginnings of alliances that could very well cover the entire continent. Easier said than done. And the U.S. might interfere.

A POD I thought of is a sucessful Bay of Pigs invasion. This sets distrust for the U.S. all across Latin America, and local alliances emerge. Things evolve from there.

A less likely, but interesting possibility (especially because of the cool name) is ATLAS, the international Peronist project. It could be combined with the above.

And of course, there's always a more sucessful MERCOSUR, or more recently UNASUR. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if by the middle of the decade, South America achieves an EU-like level of integratiom.

I'm always surprised that this forum dismisses South American unions as ASB inmediatly without fail, yet the European Union has managed to emerge from a continent that was well known for its periodic wars and extreme nationalism before it.
The stuff about the Bay of Pigs is interesting, maybe because of its higher profile than, say, the invasion of Granada. But the thing is, stuff like Bay of Pigs happened through the 20th Century and didn't lead to sucessful Latinamerican integration.
Maybe the ABC idea can continue post WWII (or in an ATL without WWII) and grow from there, though

You're right that's it's absolutely possible, but there are several massive obstacles.

1. Institutionalized corruption. Brazil is corrupt down to its core, and it's the biggest power, so who's going to enforce anti-corruption measures? Chile/Uruguay/other countries who get their shit together before UNASUR becomes significant won't join if this isn't dealt with.

2. Non-democracies. Obviously a UNASUR would support democracy. But the political situations in several countries definitely put a test to the definition of that word. Venezuela is obviously not, and they'll have to require Venezuela to reform if UNASUR wants any legitimacy, but what about a country like Argentina? It's in a very grey area.

3. Freedom of movement and equalization fund. It's sort of partially in place (freedom of movement) already, and already a massive disaster. You think there's a big difference in development between Poland and the UK? Try Bolivia and Chile. Or Paraguay and Argentina. Uruguay is closer to joining the EU than Paraguay is to being able to compare to Colombia. You think the Uruguayans and Chileans are going to give up their newfound riches to invest in countries that are deeply corrupt?

The EU didn't have nearly the levels of corruption, anti-democratic governments, or wealth gaps. There's a reason why the continent of war came together before the continent of relative peace, and it's all of that in combination.
2. Uh, what? Why? Because right wing think tanks in Washing don't like the Argentine president? Democracy in Argentina enjoys a perfectly good health, thank you very much
3. What newfound riches Uruguay has to invest in other countries?

Doesn't Argentina have a lot of corruption?
Oh, yes. Just to the north, the Paraguayan president is a cigarettes smuggler and there is likely to be a lot of other issues in the rest of the continent.
But I don't see how this is much of an issue against integration. Integration in South America isn't about Chile investing in cigarette factories in Paraguay. Is about getting better deals for inversions coming from outside the continent.
 
Even though the people have a heart it's going to be hard tackling countries with major issues. The most plausible scenarios for like-minded nations to unite and have those that remain form a EU-style union to help foster economic prosperity.

Corruption is a major issue. That requires revolution. But I don't know if that necessarily helps. Maybe better economic investment or toning down the drug wars can help.
 
Lation American nationalism is very old, as others have said. At first it was just Spanish-American nationalism, but later it become Latin American nationalism to encopass Brazil.

There were attemps of a union at the time of Bolivar. And despite great differences in many things (from food to the origin of each countries inhabitants, from religiousness to the people to which are the more popular sports practiced) there are indeed cultural similarities...starting by language, which is particularly important. When you live in a Latin American countries, one tends to focus on the difference. But when Latin americans live outside the region, in a different culture, the importance of similarities arrise. There might be more similarities than between European countries, t least in cultural terms (not in the level of development)

My view is that union attempts (ALALC in the 1960ies, ALADI in the 1980ies, CAN and MERCOSUR in the 1990ies, etc), have tend to fail because the institutions created weren't strong enough, and because, whenever there was a crisis, each country tried to do what it thought was best for itself, without caring on how it affected others, or the integration process. For example, Brazil devaluated its currency in the late nineties, deepely affecting Argentina, whose currency was tied to the dollar and couln't easily devaluate. This made Argentine exports to Brazil to expensive to compete, and worsened recession in Argentina. Then a serious crisis took place in argentina in 2001, which Argentina tried to solve the best it could, but without caring on how its policies affected others.

When you have both a democracy and ineguality & poverty, what governments can do is limited. Internal politics will always be more important than external politics, and whenever there's a crisis, people demand governments to take immediate short term actions to solve it, no matter how this affects integration attemps with other countries. It's something hard to overcome, but not impossible.

At least now there its much easier for a citizen of one Southamerican country to settle and work in another Southamerican country than it was 15 years ago. And commerce between countries of the region is greater than it was 15 years ago (despite the recent reduction of intrarregional trade flows, due to recession in Venezuela and Brazil).
 
Corruption is a major issue. That requires revolution. But I don't know if that necessarily helps. Maybe better economic investment or toning down the drug wars can help.
A revolution would only lead to a violent take over by people who would be able to rig the system so they can steal with impunity.
Fighting corruption needs a tight tax collection system, so ill gotten gains are hard to expend, an independent and competent judiciary and laws giving that independent judiciary the tools it needs to track down and incarcerate corrupt individuals.
 
Top