The periphery at the centre: an analysis of Latin American regionalism from the borders

ABSTRACT

The article analyses the role of border in theories and policies of Latin American regionalism. It shows that neither the explanatory ‘waves’ of regionalism in studies of International Relations nor Latin American regional integration policies have addressed borders seriously. Accordingly, it argues for a view of border regions as key political and epistemological places for understanding spatial relations between state, region, and globalization. Though some academic and political initiatives have started to unpack the Cartesian reading of border in Latin American regionalism, the article argues that further steps can be taken by treating borders (peripheries) as epistemological centres.

KEYWORDS:

• Border region
• regionalism
• Latin America
• International Relations Theory
• border studies

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the relevant contributions made to the first version of the article by professors Noé Cornago (Universidad del País Vasco, UPV-EHU), José Antonio Sanahuja (Universidad Complutense de Madrid, UCM), Nahuel Oddone (Instituto Social del Mercosur), Isabel Clemente (Universidad de la República, Uruguay) and Ana M. Bustamante (Universidad de Los Andes, Venezuela). Additionally, we would like to acknowledge the support given by the Aristos Campus Mundus Project (2018-2019) which was carried out through a partnership between the University of Deusto, the University Ramón Llull, and Boston College.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors

Ángela Iranzo ([email protected]) is a post-doctoral researcher in the Department of International Relations and Humanities at the University of Deusto, Spain. Her research interests are focused on International Relations Theory, Critical Geopolitics, Mobility Studies, human trafficking, and religion in international politics. She has carried out fieldwork in border areas such as those of Spain-Morocco and Colombia–Ecuador. She received a PhD in 2009 and was visiting scholar at SOAS-University of London (United Kingdom), LSE (United Kingdom) and Bogaziçi University (Turkey). She worked as an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science and as a director of the Centre for International Studies at Los Andes University (2011-16).

Sergio Caballero ([email protected]) is an associate professor in the Department of International Relations and Humanities at the University of Deusto, Spain; as well as Vice-Dean for Research and International Relations. His research interests are focused on regionalism, Latin American politics and EU-LAC relations. He received a PhD in 2012 and was visiting researcher in Stockholm, Lisbon, Bath, Buenos Aires, Montevideo, among others. He has published more than 30 academic writings. He worked as an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University Autonomous of Madrid (2011-16), and has been collaborating as external researcher for Instituto Complutense de Estudios Internacionales (ICEI).

Notes

1 Studies on regionalism tend to accept Dabène’s (2009) definition of regional integration as ‘a historical process of increased levels of interaction between political units (subnational, national, or transnational), provided by actors sharing common ideas, setting objectives and defining methods to achieve them, and by so doing contributing to building a region. There are three corollaries to this definition: (1) the process can encompass a great diversity of actors (private and public), levels (from below and from above) and agendas; (2) it can result from a deliberate strategy or emerge as an unintended consequence of a social interaction; and (3) not least, it can entail institution building’ (p. 34).

2 Decision 459 of 1999 established the ‘Community Policy on Border Integration and Development’, which created the High-Level Working Group for Border Integration and Development that in turn established Border Integration Zones through Decision 501 of 2001. This set up (for the General Secretariat of the Andean Community) the Border Integration and Development Projects Bank, supported by the Inter-American Development Bank and the Andean Development Corporation. Moreover, Decision 502 of 2001 created Binational Border Service Centers as instruments to deal with, amongst other issues, immigration and customs control. Additionally, the CAN has established measures such as the Andean Border Health Plan (through Decision 541/2003) and the Integrated Plan for Social Development (through Decision 601/2004).

3 These ‘four waves’ consist of the old regionalism, the new regionalism, post-liberal regionalism, and transregionalism.

4 The Program of Integration and Economic Cooperation between Argentina and Brazil was the forerunner of what became (from 1991) MERCOSUR.

5 States weakness was one of the greatest incentives to foster regionalism within the Mercosur, so rather than perceiving it as a way to launch inter-state policies, it was a strategy to reinforce national sovereignty (Gardini, 2010; Patricio, 2007).

6 ‘Cross-border integration does not simply occur as a result of debordering processes, but more fundamentally because of the fact that opening up borders represents opportunities for local and regional actors to take advantage of the cross-border context they are inserted in’ (Sohn, 2014, p. 593).

7 For further information on Mercociudades, see the official website: https://mercociudades.org/.

8 Hänggi (2006) speaks of three types of interregionalism: pure interregionalism (between regions), hybrid interregionalism (between a state and a region), and transregionalism, this last of which is the focus of the present study.

9 For further information on Focem and the Instituto Social del Mercosur, see the official websites: https://focem.mercosur.int/es/, and https://www.ismercosur.org/.

10 ‘Critical regionalism’ is a term coined by Clark and Christopherson (2009).