Geopolitics of integration, a Latin American perspective
Stockholm University, Sweden
[email protected]
Summary
The aim of this article is to highlight and analyze the contributions of Latin American geopolitical thought. First, it will be shown that there is indeed something that can be called Latin American geopolitical thought, with very deep roots reaching back to the colonial period. This thought is linked, very early on, to the new dimension called geopolitics, with respect to the analysis of the relationship between state, nation, territory, and the international system. As will be shown in the article, varieties of geopolitical thought emerge in different countries of the region, as well as in different dimensions of analysis. Second, we will focus on demonstrating that, beyond the differences, there are two common elements to highlight in the region's geopolitical thought. On the one hand, there is the dimension of "development," and on the other, "regional integration." These two elements can be viewed both separately and together, with the "geopolitics of integration" being the most important contribution from Latin America.
Keywords: geopolitics, integration, Latin America, development, regionalism
Geopolitics of integration, a Latin American perspective
Summary
The objective of this article is to highlight and analyze the contributions of Latin American geopolitical thought. First of all, it will be shown that there is something that can be called Latin American geopolitical thought, with very deep roots that go back to the colonial period. Isso is linked, since very long, to a new dimension called geopolitics, not that it says it respects the analysis of the relationship between the State, nation, territory and international system. As will be shown in this article, varieties of geopolitical thinking emerge in different countries and regions, as well as in different dimensions of analysis. Secondly, we will focus on showing that, beyond the differences, there are two common elements to highlight in the geopolitical thought of the region. On the one hand, the dimension of «development» and, on the other hand, the «regional integration». Two elements that can be seen separately and together, making “geopolitics of integration” the most important contribution to Latin America.
Keywords: geopolitics, integration, Latin America, development, regionalism
Geopolitics of integration, a Latin American perspective
Abstract
The objective of this article is to highlight and analyze contributions of Latin American geopolitical thought. In the first place, it will be shown that there is something that can be called Latin American geopolitical thought, with very deep roots reaching the colonial period. This thought is linked, very early, with the new dimension, called geopolitics, with respect to the analysis of the relationship between state, nation, territory and international system. As will be shown in the article, varieties of geopolitical thought emerge in different countries of the region, as well as in different dimensions of analysis. Secondly, we will focus on how, beyond the differences, there are two common elements to highlight in geopolitical thought in the region. On the one hand, the dimension of “development”, and on the other, that of “regional integration”. Two elements that can be considered separately, as well as as a whole, being the “geopolitics of integration” the most important contribution from Latin America.
Keywords: geopolitics, integration, Latin America, development, regionalism
Introduction
Latin America has a long history in geopolitical thought. The aim of this text is to show that the region has not only been a recipient of geopolitical thought but also contributes its own interpretations and insights. A central objective of this study is to highlight one of the most important of these contributions: the geopolitics of integration. This is not simply a phrase that encompasses a set of regionalist initiatives. As will be demonstrated here, the geopolitics of integration is a synthesis of different currents of thought, study, and action. It is a particular geopolitical perspective, one from the periphery.
Regarding the construction of the geopolitics of integration, this study will analyze regionalist currents that have promoted the idea of “development” from economic, political, and social perspectives. Here we find a confluence of ideas related to the pursuit of autonomy within the global system, in connection with geopolitical thought. The influence of cultural, identity-based, and philosophical ideas will also be analyzed, given their significant impact on thought. All of this, taken together, converges in Latin American geopolitical thought, which, despite its diversity, produces a particular approach to projecting the territorial dimension of the State in the pursuit of autonomy and development. It is important to emphasize that this study is not an analysis of Latin American geopolitics in general, but rather of one of its most prominent proposals: the geopolitics of integration.
The formulation of the geopolitics of integration will also be considered a product of the connection between geopolitics and a Latin American integrationist heritage. This must be viewed in terms of historical processes, with antecedents in the colonial period. National and subregional perspectives also converge here, among which there are differences, but also common elements that, towards the mid-20th century, culminated in the geopolitics of integration. While today there is common talk of a “return of geopolitics,” in the Latin American case, we would say that it is not “returning.” It simply never left, and has even developed. The geopolitics of integration is an example of this.
In the first section, we will analyze in greater detail the theoretical starting points of regional integration and its connection to geopolitics. The priority here will be to examine geopolitical texts that give greater prominence to regionalism as an ideological project linked to proposals and policies for regional integration. Next, we will consider the continent's historical background with respect to integration and regionalism, before moving on to the contributions of what is known as a "Latin American geopolitical school." Finally, we will present the most current expressions of the geopolitics of integration, examining continuities as well as some contemporary challenges and dilemmas.
Regionalism and geopolitics
Let's begin with a brief outline of the connection between regionalism and geopolitics, in order to situate the Latin American contribution. As is well known, the concept of "geopolitics" gained traction at the beginning of the 20th century, after being conceived in 1899 by the Swedish political scientist Rudolf Kjellén. While the concept of "region" has antecedents much earlier than geopolitics, it was also at the beginning of the 20th century that it began to garner more academic interest. This was largely driven by the demographic and urbanization development of industrial societies, which demanded new forms of planning by states. It was thus argued that regions were not self-determined or given by nature, but rather intellectually constructed concepts created through the selection of specific criteria. In other words, the conception of a region has political objectives, in many cases linked to economic structures. We must not lose sight of the role of culture, which is highly relevant when seeking common sentiments among the population inhabiting the territory identified as a region. The objective is to promote a degree of shared awareness, in order to avoid divisions and confrontations (James and Jones, 1954). States themselves are generally composed of different regions or are the product of a fusion of these. There is a constant reshaping of states in which continuous fluctuations are observed between national and “macro-regional” dimensions, through which forms of adaptation between territory and population are sought. In this way, the region can be seen as a “psychosomatic phenomenon” of the community that occupies a territory, attempting the consolidation of a “sovereign geopolitical unity” (Gottmann 1973, p. 15). In this quest for consolidation, the “region” is transformed into “regionalization” when we refer to the processes of social and economic integration, which in turn become “regionalism” when they are transformed into an “ideological project” for the construction of a “regional order” (Farrell, Björn and Luc Van, 2005, pp. 8-9).
The concept of “region” appears infrequently, if at all, in classic geopolitical texts. This is not to say that it did not exist, nor did the concept of “integration.” We find it implicitly in Friedrich Ratzel’s view of the trend toward increasing specialization of civilizations, driven by the constant “expansion of geographical horizons” of human society (Ratzel, 1969). Kjellén’s central objective was to develop a theory of the state, of which geopolitics was one dimension, the state’s “territorial consciousness” (Björk and Lunden, 2021). This was strongly linked to another dimension, political economy, understood as a means to compensate for any weaknesses the state might have in relation to more powerful states within a system. From the perspective of peripheral states, Kjellén’s approach can be seen as a kind of preamble to the idea of “development.” According to him, in the modern phase (early 20th century) of what he called the “planetary system,” it was essential for states with an agrarian production structure to initiate a process of industrialization to overcome their dependence on primary products. However, industrialization requires control of resources and markets (value chains and consumers), leading to an approach close to the idea of “integration,” through what the author called “blocs” of states. Hence, “regional integration” can be described as “the geopolitics of the weak” (Tunander, 2008).
As regards classical geopolitics, there is (after Kjellén) great interest, on the part of the German Karl Hausofer, in studying the fusion of “small states” in panregions (Dorpalen 1966, p. 143). More recently, the American geopolitician Samuel Bernard Cohen (2003) analyzes the role of what he calls “geopolitical regions,” but this is not related to the issue of regional integration.
The formation of the Pan-American space in 1889 is an important source of inspiration for analyzing the formation of regional and continental blocs, both in Europe and elsewhere in the world. We will see below that, with regard to integration, there were early models and initiatives originating from the Americas.
Geopolitics and American integration
The geopolitics of integration has several precursors in the colonial and independence periods. The integration process between Spain and Portugal, which resulted in the Iberian Union formed by both countries between 1580 and 1640, constitutes one of the antecedents for the formulation of a common state with continental aspirations in the Americas. Although this integration failed, attempts at reconciliation continued. For example, through the Treaty of Madrid, in which the Portuguese diplomat Alexandre de Gusmão (1695-1753), born in Santos, now Brazil, played a pivotal role. The creation of the United States of America (USA) in 1776 represents a more modern precursor to regional integration, whose subsequent growth was a mixture of integration and imperialism.
In postcolonial Iberian America, one of the first attempts at unification was monarchical. It occurred in the Río de la Plata region and sought union between Brazil and the United Provinces, which at that time were under the leadership of Buenos Aires. The Luso-Spanish political movement known as "Carlotism" aimed to establish a continental kingdom ruled by Princess Joaquina Carlota of Brazil (De Carvalho, 1959, p. 54), although it ultimately failed. The era of monarchism in Spanish-speaking countries had passed. The integrationist impulse, with a more modern and republican profile, was revived by Simón Bolívar, who, in 1826, attempted to form a federation with the new American states, excluding the Empire of Brazil and the United States. Bolívar's initiative failed, but it planted the seed for a reunification of the former provinces of the Spanish Empire under a new common framework.
Attempts to foster closer ties among the states of the Hispanic American region, and what would later be called “Latin America,” continued throughout the 19th century (Rivarola Puntigliano and Briceño Ruiz, 2013). However, it was in the mid-20th century that integration took a decisive step forward and reached higher levels. The creation of the Latin American Free Trade Association (LAFTA) in 1961 is a clear example of this, in which the key role played by the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), established in 1948, must also be considered. Through ECLAC and its technical experts, a series of ideas and projections crystallized into what was called “Latin American structuralism” (Rodríguez, 2006). By the early 1960s, this had transformed into a national and regional ideology through what was known as “developmentalism” (Sikkink, 1991). At the heart of this movement was the desire to overcome its peripheral and subordinate position in the international economic and political system. Its three central elements were industrialization, regional integration, and a more prominent role for the state.
A global and systemic vision played a central role. In this sense, the Argentine economist Raúl Prebisch was one of the first to frame the problems of peripheral development from a Latin American perspective within a global dimension. Prebisch diagnoses the causes of underdevelopment, analyzing the reasons for what he calls the “initial backwardness” of the periphery, which is incorporated into the global economic system through “outward-oriented development.” This approach introduces new technologies in enclave sectors that coexist with backward sectors, creating national systems with heterogeneous production structures (Rodríguez 2006, pp. 55-64). From this perspective, the global system had to be viewed as a unified whole, given that the situation of the periphery, as a supplier of raw materials, is linked to the predominance of the industrialized economies of the core. According to Prebisch, the path to breaking the peripheral isolation lay in active state intervention. Programming (planning) was also proposed, within which there would be import substitution policies and regional integration (Dosman, 2008), two central elements to promote industrialization.
Although ECLAC's technical experts did not discuss geopolitics or consider a nationalist dimension, the territorial aspect played a significant role. This role was manifested in the importance given to regional integration, seen as necessary to compensate for the shortcomings of peripheral countries in terms of controlling natural resources, expanding their domestic markets, and undertaking large-scale infrastructure and production projects. One limitation of ECLAC, due to its technical-economic mandate, was that it did not offer a clear proposal on foreign policy and geopolitics. It avoided going beyond the economic or "technical" aspects, in connection with cultural elements linked to regional nationalism. This connection develops from other fields, such as geopolitics.
Latin American Geopolitical School
A first step toward a vision related to the new currents of geopolitical thought at the beginning of the 20th century was the study by the Spaniard Carlos Badía Malagrida (1946 [1919]), who proposed an explicitly Ratzelian perspective directly linked to an integrationist proposal. Badía Malagrida, in a way, marks the subsequent line of thought regarding the geopolitics of integration, connecting his analyses and proposals with a territorial and historical perspective of the region; for example, the connection with Bolívar's quest to form a confederation of Hispanic American states. Although the work did not explicitly address Latin America, this dimension was already foreshadowed, given that Badía Malagrida's proposal included Brazil (a republic, like the rest of the Spanish-speaking countries, since 1889).
In Brazil, this study was taken note (Meira Mattos, 2007, p. 14), and it was also from this country that the development of geopolitics in the Latin American region was initiated. The first approach was proposed in a short article by Everardo Backheuser (1952 [1925]), which was later developed into a textbook on geopolitics (Backheuser, 1948). Likewise, the study of the territorial dimension gained significant momentum in the work of Mario Travassos (1947 [1935]), who aimed to focus attention on Brazil's continental (South American) projection. Although, as mentioned earlier, the South American continental dimension was not new in Brazil, the contributions of Backheuser and Travassos provided it with a geographical and geopolitical rationale. In this initial stage of geopolitical approaches (first half of the 20th century) from Brazil, this type of analysis expanded, although the issue of regional integration was not yet directly included. What is evident is a profound geopoliticization of the visions and strategies of the Brazilian state apparatus and important sectors of the political world. The ideas of Travassos and a group of subsequent geopoliticians played, for example, a key role in the initiative to move Brazil's capital from Rio de Janeiro to the new city of Brasília in 1960 (Tambs, 1970, p. 73). “Continentalism” and “industrialization” were two central themes in this. On the one hand, with respect to consolidating the state's control over the vast territory and its human and natural resources. On the other, with respect to promoting initiatives to add greater value and technology to national production, in order to improve the country's position in international trade.
The concept of “geopolitics” itself took somewhat longer to appear in Spanish-speaking America. The first antecedent may well be through the Cuban geographer (resident in Mexico) Jorge A. Vivó Escoto (Vivó Escoto, 1943; Cuéllar Laureano, 2012). Inspired by Ratzel and Kjellén, Vivó Escoto presented a geopolitical analysis of what he called “the Greater Caribbean” (including Mexico) and its global and regional geopolitical dimension. From this arose a call for the creation of a Latin American state in the form of a confederation, revisiting Bolívar's original proposal and Badía Malagrida's later suggestion, but this time clearly referring to the Latin American region. Later, an Argentine geopolitician, Jorge E. Atencio, developed this line of thought and its regionalist dimension, taking as an example the United States federalism, the Zollverein German and the idea of a Central Europe, in a proposal for Latin American and Pan-American unity (Atencio 1965, pp. 96-102). This was linked to the approach to development, which by the mid-twentieth century had already gained considerable strength among Latin American intellectuals.
During this period, a significant synergy of Latin American thought emerged regarding comprehensive regional visions. In Brazil, this was consolidated during the presidencies following Vargas, with a strong influence on strategic thinking and public policy in Argentina. This is clearly seen in the influential leadership of Juan Domingo Perón (1946-1955 and 1973-1974), who became one of the leading Spanish-speaking proponents of a geopolitics of regional integration. It was with Perón that the geopolitical vision of creating a South American Continental State within the Latin American national space was formulated. Perón articulated a clear geopolitical formulation on regional integration, connected to the economic dimension, in which he stated that:
Unity begins with union, and union with the unification of a basic core of cohesion. The immediate and near future, in a world highly influenced by economic factors, demands preferential consideration of this factor. No nation or group of nations can face the task that such a destiny imposes without economic unity (Perón, 1951, p. 115).
Latin American regionalism also draws from other sources. From the philosophical and cultural sphere, it is represented by figures such as the Brazilian Paulo Freire, the Peruvian Gustavo Gutiérrez, and the Mexican Leopoldo Zea (Devés Valdés, 1997, p. 13). It is also important to mention the contributions from literature, for example, the work on transculturation carried out by the Cuban Fernando Ortiz ([1940] 1995) and its subsequent connection to regionalism promoted by the Uruguayan Ángel Rama (1981). There is no doubt that popular and cultural elements are connected to and influence geopolitical thought in Latin America. Rodolfo Kusch's work on American geoculture (1976) is an example of this approach. Another branch of the cultural connection stems from the Catholic Church, from which the first entity bearing the name “Latin America” emerged in 1858: the Pontifical Latin American College. It was from within the Catholic sphere that, in 1955, an important entity arose from which a strong Latin Americanist impulse emanated: the Latin American Episcopal Conference (CELAM). Thus, regionalism gained momentum and was nourished by the development of new concepts, such as the “common Latin American home,” “Greater Homeland,” or “the home” of a united people (Rivarola Puntigliano, 2019).
During this period, a renewed “imagination” of regional space emerged, resulting from a convergence of ideas on development, autonomy, anti-imperialism, and, in some cases, Christianity and socialism. The call for a Greater Homeland is part of this regional nationalism, which serves as a conceptual platform for these synergies. One of its earliest sources was the Argentine thinker and promoter of regional integration, Manuel Ugarte. At the beginning of the 20th century, Ugarte envisioned a “socialist homeland” (Barrios, 2007, p. 70) and advocated for popular inclusion (the people), Catholic humanism, anti-imperialism, and, of course, integration. This Latin American regional nationalism was a powerful ideal that united disparate worlds, such as those of Christians and Marxists. The influence of the Mexican José Vasconcelos and the Peruvian Víctor Haya de la Torre on the region's political movements, for example, fostered a nationalist “psycho-territorial consciousness” within the “geopolitics of Latin American integration.” There is no space to delve deeper into this, but it is also worth mentioning the role of the Dominican Juan Bosch and the so-called “minority group” in articulating a geopolitical vision of the Caribbean (Beruff, 1967, p. 125) and its connection to Latin American geopolitics. Another relevant contribution in this regard comes from Vivó Escoto.
Beyond intellectuals or schools of thought, to understand the evolution of the geopolitics of integration, one must examine the (political) actions undertaken by states within the international context. Anti-imperialist themes have been a constant throughout our history: the emancipatory struggles against the Iberian empires, the invasion and dispossession of Mexico by the United States, with the resulting territorial losses, and the interventions of European powers all demonstrate this. The 20th century began with the confrontation between Colombia and the United States, culminating in the creation of Panama and the construction of the canal, which would have geopolitical implications for the entire continent. This occurred within the framework of the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, through which the United States claimed the role of hegemonic continental power. The constant violations of the sovereignty of Latin American states and the major economic crises of the early 20th century—within the context of the ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean) thinkers—left their mark on important sectors of the political and intellectual world of our continent. Thus, from the mid-20th century onward, new governments emerged with positive stances toward integration and development. Let us mention in particular the governments of the Chileans Carlos Ibáñez del Campo (1927-1937 and 1952-1958) and Eduardo Frei (1964-1970), Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala (1951-1954), Juscelino Kubitschek (1956-1961) and João Goulart (1961-1964) in Brazil, Arturo Frondizi (1958-1962) in Argentina, Juan Velasco Alvarado (1968-1975) in Peru or Carlos Andrés Pérez (1974-1979 and 1989-1993) in Venezuela. In the case of Brazilian leaders, the line initiated by Vargas of rapprochement and cooperation with Argentina and its neighbors was maintained, which was evidenced in practice by Brazil's decisive action in support of ECLAC or the creation of LAFTA (Furtado, 1985, p. 116; Rosenthal, 2004). In other cases, such as that of Carlos Andrés Pérez, the integrationist orientation was reflected in writings on the geopolitics of integration (Pérez, 1982).
There were common opinions between structuralism (ECLAC) and geopolitics regarding the need for a global projection and (at least among structuralists) regional integration, if the goal was to overcome a subordinate and peripheral position. But the geopolitical dimension of the regionalist movement went beyond (global) economic structures. From a political and geopolitical perspective (in many ways linked to developmentalism), the national dimension was added, which did not exist in the structuralist approach. An interesting, perhaps exceptional, example of the link between the “techno-economic” and the (macro)national dimension comes unexpectedly from the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), created in 1959. Under the presidency of the Chilean developmentalist Felipe Herrera, the IDB promoted itself as the “bank of development” and “of integration.” For Herrera, industrialization as the solution to underdevelopment had to be framed within a geopolitical and integrationist proposal (although he did not use these terms), centered on the creation of a “Latin American continental state” and a “continental people” (Herrera, 1964, p. 36). In this way, proposals on industrialization (used as a synonym for development) were linked to the geopolitical perspective, according to which subordinate states should seek expansion through union. That is to say, on the path of a “geopolitics of the weak,” in order to consolidate an autonomous position within the global system.
The influence of geopolitical and developmental perspectives on regional integration cannot be separated from proposals regarding autonomy, promoted by politicians and thinkers such as Juan Carlos Puig, former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Argentina (in 1973), and Helio Jaguaribe, founder of the influential Brazilian Institute of Economics, Sociology and Politics (IBESP). Autonomy is related to the establishment of alliances as a way to achieve solidarity-based integration linked to a shared strategic vision (Briceño Ruiz and Simonoff, 2015). From Puig's perspective, there are different dimensions of autonomy, and the objective is "secessionist autonomy." That is to say, when the peripheral country severs the umbilical cord that bound it to the metropolis. According to Puig, if sufficient viability is not achieved, or if it is not managed skillfully, the country will inevitably fall into a new dependency. One path toward viability is integration (Puig, 1980).
Puig was critical of ECLAC's economic perspective and argued that integration had to be viewed by understanding and analyzing the role of the major powers. In this sense, he advocated for strategic perspectives that sought the formation of a regional state to strengthen policies aimed at autonomy (Puig, 1987, p. 54). Integration would provide sufficient "critical mass" to overcome limitations imposed by core powers, for example, to carry out a process of industrialization (Simonoff and Lorenzini 2019, pp. 98-99). The autonomous dimension can also be seen in initiatives developed by international law, such as the Calvo Clause and the Drago Doctrine. Both were reactions to the hegemonic ambitions of the United States through the Roosevelt Corollary. The objective for Latin Americans was “to establish the legal equality of states and codify the principle of non-intervention within international law as a safeguard against foreign incursions” (Williams 2012, p. 123). As Atencio (1965, p. 178) pointed out, the essence of these responses lay in “the love of liberty, respect for sovereignty, the rejection of aggression, as well as the spirit of concord and solidarity.”
The aforementioned schools of thought and action gradually incorporated the theme of regional integration into the work of influential geopoliticians. One example is the Argentine Juan E. Guglialmelli, who argued that strengthening the national economy, autonomy, and defense capabilities were impossible without "continental integration." This meant forging closer ties with Brazil and uniting with Chile (Guglialmelli, 1979, p. 70). This integration was further solidified with the creation of the Argentine Institute of Geopolitical Studies in 1975 and the publication of its journal. Geopolitics At least in the early years, a perspective emerged that defended regional integration projects (Deciancio, 2017, p. 195). Between 1976 and 2002, this line of thought was continued by the Uruguayan journal Geosur (Fornillo, 2016, p. 138).
Current state of the geopolitics of integration
Paradoxically, it was during the 1980s and 1990s, after the rise of developmentalism, that the texts most clearly expressing the geopolitics of Latin American integration were published. Argentinean Florentino Díaz Loza deserves mention, as he focused on the nationalist dimension of regionalism through the concept of "Patria Grande" (Diaz Loza, 1987, p. 286). Another key text from a geopolitical perspective is that of fellow Argentine José Felipe Marini. Following the initial work of Carlos Andrés Pérez, Marini addresses a geopolitics of Latin American integration from a historical perspective (Marini, 1987). Furthermore, Marini grounds his contributions in a clear geopolitical perspective, drawing inspiration from classical geopolitics. From a strictly geopolitical perspective, one can point to the contributions of Peruvian Foreign Minister Edgardo Mercado Jarrin (1992), focused on Andean subregional integration, and those of Uruguayan Bernardo Quagliotti de Bellis (1983, 157-8), a promoter of “nationalist regionalism.” With the return of democracy to almost the entire region since the mid-1980s, these studies have aligned themselves with a renewed regionalist push, within the framework of what has been called a “geopolitics of cooperation” (Fornillo, 2016, p. 142).
The regionalist wave of the 1990s was highlighted by the creation of the Southern Common Market (Mercosur) in 1991, as well as a revival of other subregional projects in the Andean region, Central America, and the Caribbean. This occurred during the same period as a continental regionalist push from the United States, through President George H.W. Bush's Initiative for the Americas (1989-1993). Two other regional initiatives by the United States were the creation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the initiation of a process aimed at establishing a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Mercosur largely functions as a response and opposition from South America to these free trade initiatives, presenting a different model. It attempts, with great difficulty, to be a customs union, placing the industrial sector and the development agenda at its core. It is important not to lose sight of the fact that there were also other integrationist aspects such as the People's Summit (1998), in which a project for a continental space of democratic meaning was proposed, which gathers the ethnic, social-popular and regional diversity of America, which contributes elements of discussion with the alleged governmental and partisan alternatives to neoliberalism (Coronado, 1999, p. 141).
Beyond the dominant neoliberal views of the 1990s, this period saw the resurgence of regionalist, developmentalist, and identity-based elements that foreshadowed the political shift that would occur at the beginning of the 21st century. There is a tendency to overlook the Brazilian contribution, regionalist thought, and its geopolitical dimension. An example of this contribution from Brazil is the work of Darcy Ribeiro (1995), who challenges the view of the country as a “continental island.” Ribeiro sees “Brazil as a problem” when it is perceived as following the “island” model and proposes the path of a Latin American Greater Homeland (Patria Grande) as a way to achieve an autonomous position within the global system (Ribeiro, 2012). We should also add the contribution of the Brazilian sociologist Octavio Ianni (1988), who explored the concept of the fifth Latin American frontier. That is, the envision of a national sphere corresponding to an area of influence for future consolidation, beyond the current borders of individual states. If we add this to the geopolitical background surrounding Brazil's continental projection, its leadership will not be surprising, and it is not only related to its size.
But it's not just about Brazil, given the resurgence of the joint Argentine-Brazilian project. The integration process that culminated in Mercosur had the political and strategic objective of establishing the core of a future common market, as the basis for a continental projection across South America. The strategy was to begin by establishing a customs union with Argentina, which would then be extended to other South American countries. That was, and is, a difficult objective. Hence, as with the Latin American and Caribbean Association (LACA), integration is being sought wherever possible, for example, through the proposal of a South American free trade area. While this has also not yet materialized, there are initiatives for the creation of a South American integration space. It is in this context that we must consider the initiative of President Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1995-1999 and 1999-2003) and his convening of a Summit of South American Heads of State, held in Brasilia in 2000.
Emerging in the 21st century, the institutionalization of South America and the reaffirmation of its identity as a region are part of a process toward its consolidation as a geopolitical unit. While the Brazilian government has not embraced the national dimension inherent in the geopolitics of integration, this dimension underlies the vision of forming a South American community. Cardoso clearly articulates this strategic approach when he states that the FTAA is not an option: “our destiny is Mercosur” (Moniz Bandeira, 2003, p. 584). The profound impact of the 2001 Argentine crisis created the conditions for a new political shift in the region, with governments inclined toward the geopolitics of integration, thus opening a space for further integrationist progress. The two most relevant are the creation of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) in 2008 and the Community of Latin America and the Caribbean (CELAC) in 2011. The case of CELAC is innovative in the sense of unifying Latin America and the Caribbean in an intergovernmental institution.
The growing regional nationalist perspective in the work of Uruguayan scholar Alberto Methol Ferré is noteworthy here, as it represents the intellectual development of the geopolitics of integration. In line with previously mentioned proposals, Methol Ferré proposes a continentalist view of South America as a geopolitical unit within a Latin American national dimension (Methol Ferré, 2013). Inspired by Ratzel and with a strong historical perspective, he links Luso-Hispanic intellectual traditions on the state and the nation with modern Latin American perspectives, such as developmentalism, as well as regionalist approaches stemming from CELAM (the Latin American Episcopal Conference). In the 2010s, the intellectual dimension of the geopolitics of integration merged with political force through influential political leaders (some presidents) and social figures such as Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (2007-2015), Pope Francis (2013), José Mujica (2010-2015), Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (2003-2010), Hugo Chávez (2002-2013), and former Bolivian Vice President Álvaro García Linera (2006-2019). The latter highlighted the Plurinational State of Bolivia as a model for the democratic construction of Latin American unity in the form of a Plurinational Continental State (García Linera, 2013). Along these lines, we also find Mujica and Francis, both closely associated with Methol Ferré.
These positions faced a significant setback in the late 2010s, particularly regarding the South American dimension, given the change of government in Brazil under the presidency of Jair Bolsonaro (2019), who promoted the withdrawal of regional integration entities in his country. There is no space here to examine the reasons for this; suffice it to say that Latin American integration processes are subject to constant fluctuations. While Latin American geopolitics will not always be a guiding force in state policies, it will undoubtedly remain a factor to consider. This is due not only to the internal forces behind the resilience of integration, but also to the structures of the international system that push in this direction.
Conclusion
The starting point of this article was to argue that geopolitical thought and action have a long history in Latin America, dating back to the beginning of the 20th century. Secondly, it was argued that, unlike in other regions, geopolitics never ceased to develop in Latin America. One could even say that a Latin American school of geopolitics emerged in the mid-20th century. There are, of course, expressions specific to different countries, as well as different orientations of thought and areas of priority. The central point of this work is to show that one of the common geopolitical elements is related to the pursuit of unity among the countries of the region, what is currently known as “regional integration.” From this arises the geopolitics of integration, a product of the synthesis of different strands of integrationist thought and action. One of these is political economy, in which development is a central element. Another is the political dimension, which emphasizes the pursuit of autonomy. We must add here the philosophical and cultural approaches on which a Latin American "being" is based, with deep historical and cultural roots.
All of this connects to geopolitics, from which territorial integrationist dimensions are projected. American, South American, or Latin American continentalism is an example of how geopolitics connects with regionalist (national) cultural dimensions, such as that of Patria Grande (Greater Fatherland). There is also a connection to geopolitics from the economic dimension, something that in Latin America occurs largely through the concept of "development." Added to the concept of "autonomy," applied to the region's international integration, these different dimensions converge in what is called the "geopolitics of integration." As explained in this text, this geopolitical approach is rooted in a historical legacy of integration efforts that developed in the region. But it is not only about past developments; there is continuity to the present day, in which we see contributions from new schools of thought related to issues of the environment, gender, or ethnicity. An example of this is the notion of "plurinationality" applied to the regional sphere. New territorial dimensions are also emerging to which national aspects must adapt, for example, the inclusion of the Caribbean in Latin American integration systems. The same applies to the process of South America's formation as a geopolitical unit.
Geopolitics, in general, has had a realist bias that focuses its attention on “conflicts” involving great powers or empires. This was not the perspective of Ratzel and Kjellén, its creators; nor was it the perspective of many interpretations that emerged in Latin America, which consider geopolitics as a discipline related to economic development and national ideas in the pursuit of autonomy and sovereignty within the international system. Together, they construct a geopolitical vision that functions as a tool for overcoming a peripheral position. It is here that we find the Latin American contribution to the geopolitics of integration.
Highlighted
Atencio, Jorge E. (1965). What is geopolitics? Buenos Aires: High Tide.
Badía Malagrida, Carlos ([1919] 1946). The geographical factor in South American politics. Madrid: Reus Editorial Institute.
Backheuser, Everardo (1948). Course on general geopolitics in Brazil. Rio de Janeiro: Gráfica Laemmert Limitada.
Backheuser, Everardo ([1925] 1952). Politics and geopolitics, according to Kjellén. Geographic Bulletin, X
Barrios, Miguel (2007). Latin Americanism in the political thought of Manuel UgarteBuenos Aires: Biblos.
Beruff, Jorge Rodriguez (1967). Juan Bosch and the geopolitical visions of the Caribbean. Caribbean integration. Papers on social, political and economic integration (pp.120-137). Río Piedras: Institute of Caribbean Studies, University of Puerto Rico.
Björk, Ragnar and Lundén, Thomas (2021). Territory, state and nation. The geopolitics of Rudolf KjellénOxford: Berghahn.
Briceño Ruiz, José and Simonoff, Alejandro (2015). Regional integration and cooperation in Latin America: A reinterpretation based on the theory of autonomyBuenos Aires: Biblos.
Cohen, Saul Bernard ([1987] 2003). Geopolitics of the world system. New York: Rowan and Littlefield Publishers.
Coronado, Jaime Preciado (1999). Geopolitics of Latin American and Caribbean integration. A reading at the end of the millennium. Theoretikos electronic journal.
Cuéllar Laureano, Ruben (2012). Geopolitics. Origin of the concept and its evolution.Journal of International Relations of the UNAM,
De Carvalho, Delgado (1959). Diplomatic history of Brazil. São Paulo: Companhia Editora Nacional.
De Meira Mattos, Carlos (2007). Brazilian geopolitics. Predecessors and geopoliticians. General Meira Mattos at the Higher School of War. Rio de Janeiro: Higher War School.
Deciancio, Melisa (2017). The construction of the field of Argentine international relations: contributions from geopolitics. Journal of International Relations, Strategy and Security, 12
Devés Valdés, Eduardo (1997). Latin American thought at the beginning
of the 20th century: the vindication of identity. CUYO. Yearbook of Argentine and American Philosophy, (14), 11-75.
Diaz Loza, Florentino (1987). Geopolitics for the Greater HomelandBuenos Aires: Ediciones Temática SRL.
Dorpalen, Andreas (1966). The world of General Haushofer. Geopolitics in actionNew York: Kennikat Press.
Dosman, Edgar (2008). The life and times of Raúl Prebisch, 1901-1986. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
Farrell, Mary; Hettne, Björn and Langenhove, Luc Van. (2005). Global politics of regionalism. Theory and practiceLondon: Pluto Press.
Fornillo, Bruno (2016). South America's future: Global China, energy transition and post-developmentBuenos Aires: CLACSO.
Furtado, Celso (1985). the organized fantasy. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.
García Linera, Álvaro (2013). García Linera proposes the constitution of a Plurinational Continental State, Bolivia.comhttps://www.bolivia.com/actualidad/politica/sdi/67913/garcia-linera-postula-constitucion-de-estado-continental-plurinacional
Gottmann, Jean (1973). The significance of territory. Charlottesville: The University of Virginia.
Guglialmelli, Juan Enrique (1979). Geopolitics of the Southern ConeBuenos Aires: El Cid Editor.
Herrera, Felipe (1964). Integrated Latin AmericaBuenos Aires: Losada.
Ianni, Octavio (1988). National quest in Latin America. Advanced Studies, 2
James, Preston E. and Jones, Clarence Fielden (eds.) (1954). American geography. Inventory and prospectSyracuse: University Press.
Kusch, Rodolfo (1976). Geoculture of the American man. Buenos Aires: Fernando García Cambeiro.
Kjellén, Rudolf (1916). Staten som lifsform. Politika handböcker III. Stockholm: Hugo Gebers Förlag.
Marini, José Felipe (1987). Latin American Geopolitics of IntegrationBuenos Aires: Humanitas.
Mercado-Jarrín, Edgardo (1992). Peru. The new course towards its neighbors. New Society, (119), 22-27.
Methol Ferré, Alberto (1984). A synopsis. I. Imperial geopoliticians. Nexus, 3(I), 38-40.
Methol Ferré, Alberto (2013). The continental states and Mercosur. Montevideo: Hum Publishing House.
Moniz Bandeira, Luiz Alberto (2003). Brazil, Argentina and the United States: conflict and integration in South America. The triple alliance with Mercosul, 1870-2003Rio de Janeiro: Revan.
Ortiz, Fernando ([1940] 1995). Cuban counterpoint: tobacco and sugar. Durham: Duke University Press.
Pérez, Carlos Andrés (1982). The geopolitics of integration in Latin America. Journal of Integration and Development in Central America, (30), 59-72.
Perón, Juan Domingo [Descartes], (1951). Politics and Strategy (I do not attack, I criticize). The Baldrich – Space for National Thought, pp. 114-116. http://www.labaldrich.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Pol%C3%ADtica-y-Estrategia-Descartes-Per%C3%B3n.pdf
Puig, Juan Carlos (1980). International doctrines and Latin American autonomyCaracas: Simón Bolívar University,
Puig, Juan Carlos (1987). Latin American integration and the international regimeCaracas: Simón Bolívar University.
Quagliotti de Bellis, Bernardo (1983). Uruguay in the Río de la Plata Basin. In Luis Dallanegra Pedraza (ed.), The countries of the South Atlantic. Geopolitics of the Río de la Plata Basin (pp. 161-193). Buenos Aires: Pleamar.
Rama, Ángel ([1982] 2008). Narrative transculturation in Latin AmericaBuenos Aires: El Andariego.
Ratzel, Friedrich (1969). The laws of the spatial growth of states. In RE Kasperson and JV Minghi, The structure of political geography (pp. 17-28). Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
Ribeiro, Darcy (1995). Or Brazil as a problem. Rio de Janeiro: Fernando Alves.
Ribeiro, Darcy (2012). Latin America: to Patria Grande. Rio de Janeiro: Darcy Ribeiro Foundation.
Rivarola Puntigliano, Andrés. (2019). The geopolitics of the Catholic Church in Latin America. Territory, Politics, Governance, 9(3), 455-470. DOI: 10.1080/21622671.2019.1687326
Rivarola Puntigliano, Andrés and Briceño-Ruiz, José (2013). Resilience of regionalism in Latin America and the Caribbean: development and autonomyLondon: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rodríguez, Octavio (2006). Latin American structuralismMexico City: 21st Century.
Rosenthal, Gert (2004). ECLAC: A Commitment to a Latin American way toward development. In Unity and diversity in development ideas. Perspectives from the UN regional commissions (pp. 168-232). Indiana: Indiana University.
Sikkink, Kathryn (1991). Ideas and institutions: developmentalism in Brazil and Argentina. London: Cornell University Press.
Simonoff, Alejandro and Lorenzini, María Elena (2019). Autonomy and integration in the theories of the South: unraveling the thought of Hélio Jaguaribe and Juan Carlos Puig. Ibero-American. Nordic Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 48(1). https://doi.org/10.16993/iberoamericana.417
Tambs, Lewis (1970). Latin American geopolitics. A asic bibliography. Geographical Magazine, (73), 71-105.
Travassos, Mario (1947 [1935]). Continental Project of Brazil. Rio de Janeiro: Companhia Editora Nacional.
Tunander, Ola (2008). Geopolitics of the North: Geopolitik of the weak a post-cold war return to Rudolf Kjellén. Cooperation and Conflict, 43
Escoto lived, Jorge Abilio (1943). On the need to give a new organization to the political geography of the CaribbeanMexico: El Colegio de México.
Williams, Mark Eric (2012). Understanding US Latin American relations, theory and history. London: Routledge.
