Conclusion

Abstract

Latin American countries embraced liberal democracy as the antidote to the past ills of military dictatorships, human-rights abuses and extreme poverty. Yet, more than twenty years on, states are still embroiled in armed combat with rebels who export their violence and traffic drugs across borders, threatening to draw neighbouring states into conflict with one another. Throughout the region, there is a tendency to supplement diplomatic action with military posturing. As ideological rivalries reassert themselves and competition for resources increases, so does the risk that political confrontation may once again get out of hand and destabilise regional relations.

The regional security architecture is not well-suited to controlling these risks, and neither the US nor rising power Brazil is playing the role of regional mediator. Though few incidents have escalated into war over the last two decades, the shifting regional power balance, together with a rise in authoritarian government and growth in defence spending, give cause for concern. This Adelphi analyses the sources of inter-state conflict in Latin America and the potential policy options to tackle the region's cycle of instability.

Notes

See Carlos Malamud Rikles, ‘El Consejo Suramericano De Defensa: Entre Grandes Expectativas Y Una Realidad Compleja y Fraccionada’, in La Creación de Unasur en el Marco de la Seguridad y la Defensa (Madrid: Ministerio de Defensa, January 2010), pp. 58–67.

Louise Arbour, ‘Next Year's Wars: Ten Conflictsto Watch in2012’,Foreign Policy, no. 27, December 2011, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/12/27/next_years_wars?page=full.

Michael Shifter, ‘Latin American Multilateralism: New Directions’, in Latin American Multilateralism: New Directions (Ottawa: Canadian Foundation for the Americas (FOCAL), 28 September 2010).

See Francisco Rojas Aravena, ‘The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States: A Viable Option to Consolidate Latin American Multilateralism?’, Latin American Multilateralism, pp. 18–22.

Krista E. Wiegand and Emilia Justynia Powell, ‘Unexpected Companions: Bilateral Cooperation between States Involved in Territorial Disputes’, Conflict Management and Peace Studies, vol. 28, 2011, p. 209.

Beth Simmons, ‘Trade and Territorial Conflict in Latin America: International Borders as Institutions’, in Miles Kahler and Barbara F. Walter (eds), Territoriality and Conflict in an Era of Globalization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 266. Simmons calculated the average annual loss in bilateral trade at $35 million and calls it significant. But when considering its significance, what should matter is the impact of the loss, not its specific amount. In 1995, Ecuador's GDP was $18 billion, while Peru's was $59bn, dwarfing the lost bilateral trade (see International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, April 1999).

For a discussion of the democratic peace, see Michael E. Brown, Sean M. Lynn-Jones and Steven E. Miller (eds), Debating the Democratic Peace (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996).