Rethinking seminar

NAIROBI, OCTOBER 13, 2015

RETHINKING THE SOUTH

SU

MM

IT

OF

TH

E N O N - A L I G NE

D

MO

VE

ME

NT

Editorial......................................................................................................1

Opening words by H.E. Jhony Balza Arismendi,.............................................2Ambassador of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in the Republic of Kenya, during the seminar “Rethinking the South” Nairobi, October 13, 2015.

Speech by H.E. Mahmoud Ali Talaat, Ambassador..........................................5of the Arab Republic of Egypt in the Republicof Kenya.

Remarks by Mr. Kennedy G. Mokaya,............................................................8 Representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs& International Trade of the Republic of Kenya .

“Latin America and the Caribbean and their.................................................11role in the Global South scenario” by Hector Constant Rosales, Representative of the Ministry of People’s Power for Foreign Affairs of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

Remarks by H.E. Raúl Rodríguez Ramos,....................................................21 Ambassador of the Republic of Cuba in the Republic of Kenya.

“Non - Aligned Movement (NAM) prospects................................................24 and challenges”, by Mr. Mwandawiro Mghanga, Chairperson of Social Democratic Party of Kenya (SDP), and Chairman of the Kenya Venezuela Friendship Association.

Contents

RETHINKING THE SOUTH, NAIROBI, OCTOBER 13, 2015

emancipatory, sovereign ideas in almost 30 Nations of Asia and Africa that were leaving behind the colonial system of the time. This Conference of Bandung, Indonesia, was the forerunner of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries.

Today in this 21st century revitalising NAM is a task that can no longer be postponed, for today it has to face as many if not more challenges than yesterday. Designing an agenda that may be a retaining wall against hegemonism and unilateralism is a priority, it is a demand of the peoples of the South.

Taking on, with a great deal of creativity, old and new challenges is the urgent task that the history of this century has assigned to us.

Today we put in your hands this publication that brings together the presentations that opened the discussions among those present at the seminar. Here you will fi nd a broad vision of the South provided by 7 speakers, from 5 countries from 3 continents, with challenges and diverse experiences, gathered in Nairobi for a single purpose: revising, rethinking the challenges and problems of the South and those of NAM.

We welcomed Prof. Constant from Venezuela who through his speech opened a window into the Latin American experience on regional integration, which has been the driving force of South-South cooperation among nations. As Prof. Constant mentioned in his speech “it is not our intention to impose an approach or a model, for we believe in solidary and humanistic cooperation. What we want is to show our experience, to learn from mistakes and fi nd the similarities that will allow us to continue working on the strengthening of South-South.”

Two important Kenyan personalities, Kenedy Mokaya representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Kenya and Mwandawiro Mghang´a a former member of parliament and coordinator of the Solidarity and Friendship Kenya - Venezuela Committee (KVFSC) showed us the way in which Kenya has worked over the years as a member of NAM and the many challenges that lie ahead, generating a lively debate between the offi cial voice and the voice of the youth participating in this seminar.

Diplomats accredited in the Republic of Kenya Malek Hossein Givzad of Iran, Ali Mahmoud Talaat of Egypt and Raúl Rodríguez of Cuba

broadened the vision of this debate bringing in the positions and experiences of their respective countries from their deep knowledge of the situation of NAM in the international arena.

Finally we invite you, dear reader, to identify with this debate, as a Kenyan and as an African, as a male or female student, as a worker, as a farmer, as a citizen of the South, so that from your experience you may raise your voice and contribute to this better and multi-polar world that the peoples of the South are building.

Due to unavoidable circumstances the Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran could not attend the meeting. Your kind understanding of this matter is appreciated.

Jhony BalzaEmbassy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in Kenya, concurrent to Rwanda, Uganda, Tanzania and Somalia

SU

MM

IT

OF

TH


D

MO

VE

ME

NT NAM - NON ALIGNMENT MOVEMENTRETHINKING THE SOUTH, NAIROBI, OCTOBER 13, 2015

2

2016 is the year when the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela will preside over the Movement of Non-Allied Countries (NAM).

We are convinced that this multilateral body has old and new challenges to take on. The international circumstances call for a strengthened NAM,so that its initiatives may be more effective; therefore, revitalising it is an imperative for it to become a forum for discussion and refl ection on issues that are essential to the survival of the peoples of the South.

The Headquarters of the African Union in the city of Nairobi, Kenya, provided on Tuesday 13th October the opportunity to debate on vital aspects of the South related to NAM. Diplomats, politicians, professors and a good number of youth, about 80% of them university students, gathered at such venue in answer to a call to discuss, refl ect, become aware, deliberate and share general and specifi c views on substantive issues of the NAM agenda, which are part of the topics involved in South-South cooperation.

Rethinking the South, rethinking NAM, was the task proposed by the Embassy of the Bolivarian

Republic of Venezuela together with the embassies of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Arabic Republic of Egypt, accredited in the Republic of Kenya. We aimed to stimulate this debate as part of the initiatives for the promotion of the 17th NAM Summitin Venezuela.

We proposed to organise this seminar to create a forum for a public refl ection on different aspects that characterise a variety of visions on the South, onNAM. We wish to express our gratitude to ambassadors Malek Hossein Givzad from Iran and Mahmoud Ali Talaat from Egypt, who did not hesitate to provide their support when we spoke about the possibility of sponsoring an academic political space that would make it possible to listen to one another, to think about a never easy topic, RETHINKING THE SOUTH, RETHINKING NAM. So we agreed and on the 13th October we gathered together inorder to, beyond simple formalisms, debate on problems of the South as a political and geographical category.Rethinking the South, rethinking NAM, was the task.

This day of October 13 served to review the historical Afro-Asian Conference of Bandung, Indonesia, which in April 1955 opened the way for

Editorial

1

The Afro-Asian Conference of Bandung, Indonesia, in April of 1955, is the most signifi cant precedent to the creation of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries (NAM). This historic conference attended by 23 Asian countries and 6 African ones (Egypt, Liberia, Libya, Ghana and Sudan) defi ned ten fundamental principles that became a centrepiece for their development.

The overwhelming problems facing the countries of Asia and Africa, newly liberated from

the colonial order, were discussed in Bandung. It was necessary to consolidate their sovereignty and defi ne a common strategy for the defence of their interests. The global chess-board of the timehad to be restructured.

In the opinion of some scholars, Bandung meant “the resurgence of a part of the world that was aware of the signifi cance and importance of its raw materials and its strategic role in global geopolitics” There is no doubt that Bandung served to conceive and build South-South relations.

NAM was born 6 years after that April 1955 in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, in September 1961, through the inspiration of the heads of State Abdel Nasser of Egypt, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Jawaharlal Nehru of India, Sukarno of Indonesia and Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia.

The history of NAM has been characterised by a number of ups and downs caused by the complexity of international affairs. Hopefully some of our guests will say a few words about such complexity.

This year 2016 the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela will preside over this multilateral body. It will be the third country in Latin America and the Caribbean to preside over it, as previously did Cuba in 1979 and 2006, and Colombia in 1995. It

4

will be the responsibility of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to preside overit at a time of perhaps greater complexity, instability and turbulence in international relations in the twenty-fi rst century. Today’s time is one of continuous and permanent aggression against States that aspire to be sovereign.

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela will spare no effort to contribute to the development of new international geopolitics fostering the creation of a multicentre and multipolar world that favours the balance of the universe and planetary peace, as President Hugo Chávez rightly put it in October 2012. This year 2016 we will preside over NAM to articulate and work alongside Asia and Africa on the South-South cooperation that emerged as the foundation of the Conference of Bandung, Indonesia, in 1955. Africa and Asia face problems that are common to those we suffer in Latin America and the Caribbean. Overcoming the pressures of today’s neo-colonialism is an inescapable task.

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela will assume the presidency of NAM when some challenges dating 60 years back involving economic decolonization are still unresolved. They are as evident as ever, or have the inequalities of international systems been reduced by any chance?

Today it is appropriate to foster an intensive dialogue that will facilitate conditions to evaluate how we value the South, how we accept it, how much we have advanced since the Bandung Conference. Shall we continue being shy to highlight the consciousness of the South? Continuing to open roads until we meet to defend sovereign causes is a requirement, it was yesterday and still is today.

We have no doubt that Venezuela will be able to play a decent role to promote, facilitate and enable spaces that contribute to the defi nition of a strategic agenda that provides orientation for proposals on a model of development for the benefi t of the peoples. Transforming what is still invisible into visible and avoiding that they continue to offer us projects or schemes that only lead to the abyss.

The 21st century demands a change of paradigmthat promotes, fi rst of all, the participation of the peoples so that they tear down the wall of hegemony. People are the protagonists of this new history that is underway.

Today we can no longer postpone thinking ourselves from the South, it is urgent that we

recover the conscience of the peoples of the South. It is necessary to see the South as a political, economic and cultural benchmark. We must understand the South with its new subjects, with new roles. We must think of a South that has potential natural resources that are key to its autonomous development and growth. As President Chávez mentioned in the III Africa South America Summit (ASA), held in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea, in 2013 “it is in our continents thatsuffi cient political, historical, and natural resources required to save the planet from the chaos that has been throwninto are to be found. Let us not waste the opportunity afforded to us today by the sacrifi ce of our forefathers for independence”

It is not by chance that several countries of the South have become reference subjects and some of their economies have become the centre of global trade.

We need to interpret and think ofthe South as an entity that can bring the peoples together. Capable of fostering a cooperation that will become a tool for the twinning and integration of peoples. We need to foster a co-operation different from that which favours exclusively the economic elites. We require and need a cooperation capable of facing the humiliation brought about by neo-colonialism and its constraints.

Today we need to argue for a South-South cooperation grounded on mutual interest and respect for national sovereignty, this being an objective expressed in the Afro-Asian Conference of Bandung in 1955, which recently, in 2015, celebrated its 60th anniversary.

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela reiterates its commitment to the South as a historical, political, cultural and economic reference.

In this complex twenty-fi rst century, we face the challenge of consolidating the South as a reference for the construction of a multipolar world. No doubt that Venezuela will highlight the fundamental objectives represented by peace, justice and the legitimate rights we have as sovereign and independent countries.

Let us think and rethink the South; to this end you have the fl oor.

Thank you very much.

Opening words by H.E. Jhony Balza Arismendi, Ambassador of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in the Republic of Kenya, during the seminar “Rethinking the South” Nairobi, October 13, 2015.

3

SU

MM

IT

OF

TH


D

MO

VE

ME


of the movement, as well as the UN charter and international law.

Just recently, the conference to adopt the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development convened in New York, with the participation of several heads of states, including members of the Non-Aligned Movement. The adoption of the new development agenda represents new challenges as well as opportunities to our movement. To this effect, our movement remains committed to achieving sustainable development in an integrated and balanced manner of its three pillars: economic, social and environmental. In this context, Egypt reaffi rms its subscription to the movements’ position on the necessity of providing the adequate means of implementation to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, to contribute to eradicating poverty, unemployment and inequality in developing and least developed countries.

With that in mind, we believe that the Addis Ababa Action Agenda adopted in the Third Inter-national Conference on Financing for Development

in July 2015 includes various meaningful gains for our member states as far as funding for develop-ment is concerned. Nevertheless, there is a dire need for development partners to meet and upscale their current Offi cial Development Assistance com-mitments, in support of the aspirations of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

On Climate change, and looking ahead to COP21 to be held in Paris by the end of this year, Egypt calls on all States, including NAM member states, to work for a comprehensive and ambitious climate protocol, that will strengthen the multilateral rules-based system and address all the elements mandated by the Durban decision, in particular mitigation, adaptation, fi nance, technology development and transfer, capacity- building and transparency of action and support, in a balanced manner.

In that context, we also stress that developed countries, given their historical responsibility, need to take the lead in addressing this challenge in accordance with UNFCC principles and provisions, particularly, the principle of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective

capabilities, and provide fi nancial and technological support to developing countries.

Among the various issues our movement is involved in, reform of the United Nations remains one of the most signifi cant. As Chair of the movement from 2009 to 2012, and in line with the principles of the movement, Egypt was committed to strengthening the role of the United Nations as the central and indispensable forum for addressing issues relating to international cooperation for economic development and social progress, peace and security, human rights, and the rule of law.

We endeavored, along with all other NAM members, to put in place a reform of the organization that makes it more responsive, effi cient, and effective in its support to developing countries to achieve the internationally agreed development goals, on the basis of their national development strategies. We also remain commit-ted to a reform that is comprehensive, transparent, inclusive and balanced, fully respecting the politi-cal nature of the Organization, as well as its inter-

governmental and universal character. We also believe that UN reform is a dynamic and ongoing process, and is not an end in itself.

In the 2009 Sharm al Sheik summit, as well as in previous and later NAM summits, our heads of states reaffi rmed the longstanding positions of the movement on disarmament and international security. They reiterated their continued concern over the current complex situation in these issues, and called for further efforts to resolve the ongoing impasse in achieving nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation in all its aspects. Egypt believes that progress in this fi eld is essential to international peace and security.

Terrorism also poses as one of the most signifi cant challenges that face our countries. It is one of the most fl agrant violations of international law, including the international humanitarian and human rights law, in particular the right to life. Our movement has long called for an effective and sustainable answer to the threat of terrorism, reiterating the NAM long standing position that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic

6

It gives me great pleasure to be among you today, in the Non-Aligned Movement seminar in Nairobi. This year, our movement celebrates the 60th anniversary of the Bandung Conference, the fi rst major gathering of Asian and African Heads of States, convened in April 1955, in which a vision was incepted for a movement that stands for national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and security for non-aligned countries.

This Spirit of Bandung culminated in the establishment of our movement in 1961, which ever since has been a platform through which our member states have showed their commitment

to political determination, non-aggression, non-interference in internal affairs, advancing South-South cooperation, and promoting the Asian-African Strategic Partnership.

Egypt has previously hosted two NAM summits, in Cairo in 1964, and more recently in Sharm al Sheik in July 2009. To this effect, Egypt assumed its responsibilities as Chair of the Movement from 2009 till 2012. During its Chairmanship, Egypt pursued an active diplomacy, be it at the UN or in other international fora, expressing the views and defending the interests of the Movement’s members on various international Issues.

Egypt fi rmly believes that the present global scenario presents challenges in the areas of peace and security, economic development, human rights and the rule of law, among others. Also new and unprecedented challenges are emerging, in particular the current situation in the Middle East, the culminating refugees’ problem, as well as the threat of global terrorism. Egypt remains committed to the principles of the Non-Aligned Movement, as enshrined in the Declaration on the Purposes and Principles and the Role on the Non-Aligned Movement in the Present International Juncture adopted at the 14th NAM summit in Havana, and the Bali Commemorative Declaration on the fi ftieth anniversary of the establishment

Speech by H.E. Mahmoud Ali Talaat, Ambassador of the Arab Republic of Egypt in the Republic of Kenya.

5

SU

MM

IT

OF

TH


D

MO

VE

ME


Remarks by Mr. Kennedy G. Mokaya, Representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs & International Trade of the Republic of Kenya.

I am delighted to join you this morning. It is a privilege to address this distinguished gathering.

At the outset, I thank the Embassies of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Arab Republic of Egypt which are the Member Countries of the NAM Troika, for organizing this important seminar which is part of a series of events that will culminate in the 17th NAM Summit.

The upcoming NAM Summit, which will be hosted by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, offers a unique platform to exchange views on issues that are important to all of us. These issues include the recently adopted Post 2015 Development Agenda, the ongoing discussions on Global Warming and Climate Change, refugees, confl icts, terrorism and violent extremism, contagious diseases such as Ebola, and natural disasters, among other global challenges.

8

group, and that terrorism should not be equated with the legitimate struggle of peoples under colonial or alien domination and foreign occupation for national liberation and self-determination.

Financing terrorism is also a matter of grave concern to our member states that must be addressed adequately and fought with determination and persistence. Egypt condemns all kinds of support extended to terrorist organizations and groups, including fi nancial, logistical and human support, and call upon all states to work effectively to eradicate terrorism by curbing its fi nancing.

Fifty years ago when the founding fathers of our movement envisioned a non-aligned path, they had no doubts that challenges will ensue. Today, with emerging issues and changing times, the future of our movement will present as many challenges and opportunities as the past and the movement must continue to remain strong, cohesive and resilient in order to address them and preserve its historic legacy. The continued relevance and validity of our movement will depend on the unity and solidarity of its member states, as well as their ability to infl uence these changes positively.

To this effect, Egypt is committed to continue the relentless effort to pursue peace and economic development and prosperity for itself as well as all other member states, and will work closely with

the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, within the NAM Troika, as well as with all other member states, to achieve these goals, and to ensure that the revitalization and strengthening of the movement must continue to be proactive, advanced and consolidated.

Thank you.

7

SU

MM

IT

OF

TH


D

MO

VE

ME


global economy. We should refl ect deeply on this issue that is of importance to all of us.

The ongoing refugee crisis should concern us all. Hundreds, of thousands of men, women and children have been forced to leave their homes, fl eeing from war, persecution and death. Unfortunately, the focus of the world’s attention seems to be how to stop the refugee fl ows and never the causes.

We must show sympathy and compassion for the suffering by treating refuges like the human beings that they are. We must, also, act in accordance with international refugee conventions, including the 1951 Refugee Convention.

The risks posed by climate change are real. 2015 is a pivotal year for global action but progress is too slow and consensus is elusive.

In a few weeks the Conference of Parties on the United Nations Convention on Climate Change will get under way in Paris. We must all work together to ensure that we achieve balanced outcome at the negotiations. We must ensure that we achieve an ambitious and legally binding agreement within the context of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR).

Similarly we much ensure that the fi nal framework adequately addresses funding for climate change adaptation. We must also urge for the honouring of commitments already made by developed countries. Some have characterized our organization a talking shop. I disagree. Nothing could be further from the truth. In international multilateral negotiations, even the smallest, the

weakest countries have had their voices heard, only because of such groupings as NAM and G77 and China.

Finally, I reaffi rm Kenya’s commitment to the vision values and principles of the Non Aligned Movement. We will continue to support the organization so that it is able to promote economic cooperation and trade, to reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development.

We are confi dent that the organization will continue to play an important role in the changing dynamics of the South-South, North –South and Triangular relationship. We will continue to cooperate with the Member States of this organization to revitalize the organization to ensure that it plays its role effectively.

As the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela prepares to take over the chairmanship of NAM in early 2016, we wish them success. We have all the confi dence in their ability to steer this very important organization to new heights.

Your Excellency the Ambassador, please accept our congratulations and best wishes.

I thank you.

10

The NAM Summit will therefore, be an opportunity for self-assessment on how we have performed and on the future strategic direction of NAM. We must explore ways in which we can strengthen the organization and to give it renewed vigour, while preserving its basic inspiration and character. It must adapt to the changing realities so that it is better able to confront emerging issues.

Going to the theme of today’s seminar, we can observe that Global diplomacy in the 21st Century has been a time of a paradigm change in the way international relations are conducted. Today, world affairs are about managing the colossal force of globalization. Diplomacy now involves many different partners and stakeholders – agencies active in business, media, academia, think-tanks, science and technology, civil society, non-governmental organizations; and others.

We are also witnessing a global shift in economic development. Nations of the South such as China, the ASEAN and BRIC nations already account for one quarter of the global economy. In a short while, these markets will inevitably be the primary growth centres for global trade. Initiatives like the New Silk Road and the Eurasian Economic Union not only interface with one another; they converge and have a symbiotic relationship. They complement one another, but they are more than about Africa, Asia, or Latin America. They are

about synergies that connect every corner of the planet.

Since its inception 54 years ago, the NAM has had its successes. We founded this organization on a declaration of promotion of world peace and cooperation. This vision has underpinned our collective pledge to enhance peace and prosperity. However, continued global challenges make our organization as indispensable as ever. The Algiers Declaration underscored the need to allow the United Nations to be the sole legitimate forum for addressing global crises. Unfortunately, we are sorely challenged by unprecedented confl icts and by the scale of humanitarian emergencies.

The ongoing confl icts in Somalia, South Sudan, Libya, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan are cases in point. Confl icts result in death, suffering

and displacement of entire populations. Confl icts destroy a country’s infrastructure, divert resources, and disrupt economic life, including food supplies. They undermine education and health services. They destroy livelihoods.

We see prevention of confl ict as equal in importance to development and are inseparably connected. We cannot achieve peace or development in any meaningful way unless individuals and their rights are protected.

The geopolitics of energy, land and water will be the key resources this century and could be a source of confl ict. Climate change, rapid technology proliferation and shifts in centres of economic activity are major sources of change. Looming constraints of these resources could destabilize the

9

The geopolitics of energy, land and water will be the key resources

this century and could be a source

of confl ict.

SU

MM

IT

OF

TH


D

MO

VE

ME


European colonies in Africa and Asia) which leads to the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the Group of 77. Thereafter, the North and the South will begin to appear as two heterogeneous worlds, faced with different realities in a process of complex social, political, economic and cultural feedback.

The East-West confrontation having disappeared, there remains in fact the other paradigm, that [sic] of the North-South relations, developed countries against developing countries. (…) The States of the South were claiming a fairer international structure for the development of their economies. Their autonomous foreign policy was headed in that direction. That international behaviour focused initially on the demand for a new international economic order, (NIEO), which envisaged, among other things, the creation of international funds for aid to the third world, the transfer of technology, the transfer of industrial production to the countries of the South and the revaluation of the raw materials that were imported from underdeveloped countries. (Carrillo volcano, 1998:70)

In the 21st century the novelty lies in the fact that despite facing similar challenges, typical of the globalization of phenomena and of the growing interdependence in the economic, environmental and political fronts, the North and South built solutions and agendas which distance them ever deeper in a scenario of recurrent clashes of variable dimensions. This being the case, we could point to a North comprised of United States, Canada, European Union, Israel, Russia, Australia and Japan; and a South made up by Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa and Asia. As already noted, within these geographic groups signifi cant differentiations come into play, as is the case of China and Russia, whose positions echo a balance of power that we would have to analyse elsewhere2. The heterogeneous elements are so many that we must even differentiate the Government actions from the feeling of the populations of those very regions, as we are much more likely to fi nd similarities between the social demands of the

peoples of the North and those of the South, than between the political actions of the Governments of both areas.

Without being exclusive or exclusionary, the above defi nition makes it possible to generate a framework of understanding for the identifi cation of the internal and multilateral macro agendas of the North and South. In matters of immigration, environment or economic development, for example, the action of the North will be more conservative, defending development at any cost, promoting the expansion of transnational capital and will maintain permanently growing militaristic political or right-wing trends. On the same matters, the South will be recognized by advancing alternatives to ecocide and to the traditional fi nancial architecture, condemning any criminalization of migrants and their families.

Far from unfounded simplifi cations, the differentiation of agendas is a trait that has been emphasized in the 21st century and in which Latin America and the Caribbean have played a starring role. Indeed, with the political change emerged in the region after the arrival of Hugo Chávez, followed by another set of leftist leaders such as Lula, the Kirchners, Evo Morales, Pepe Mujica and Rafael Correa, the international discourse and action began to move further and further away from the North, which was evidenced by a growing public criticism of any hegemonic demonstration. This gave impetus to the reconstitution of what could be called “Discourse of the South”, which combines references to a glorious past or resistance, alongside a futuristic idea of progress and development; it is what we have called “futuristic past “.

The “futuristic past” claims fi rst of all the thinking of the native resistance in America and the independence feat of the 19th-century. Based on notions such as independence, anti-hegemony, sovereignty, integration and cultural resistance, the “Discourse of the South” that grows in Latin America and the Caribbean logically incorporates

2. Naturally, both in the North and in the South, but much more so in the North, it will be necessary to add to this defi nition the action of transnational companies and that of the large world fi nancial capital, that operate under the protection of the political, military and economic systems that they themselves infl uence. Even multilateral fi nancial institutions, such as the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund reproduce hegemonic practices proper to the North, as shown in Saxe Fernández, John y Delgado, Gian Carlo (2004): Imperialismo y Banco Mundial enAmérica Latina, Juan Marinello Research Centre, La Habana. On the other hand, but not less important, it should be emphasised that the ideological machinery of the North is accompanied by intellectual and media structures that promote and sustain it, creating a neocolonialism that hinders the emergence of actions divergent from those already established. Ananalysisonthis can be found in Lander, Edgardo (coord.)(2005): La colonialidad del saber, Editorial de Ciencias Sociales, La Habana; Dietrich, Hanz (2000): La crisis de los intelectuales, Edit. Política, Buenos Aires; and Dos Santos Theotonio (2006): Del terror a la esperanza. Auge y decadenciadelneoliberalismo, Editorial Monteávila, Caracas. Fortunately, in the course of the last few years, Latin America and the Caribbean have experienced increased interest in decolonisation studies, both, those made years ago by authors such as Enrique Dussel, and those generated by the new generations trained in the light of the political change in the region.

12

Over the last decade, since the beginning of the 21st century, Latin America and the Caribbean have lived a major resizing in all of their internal and external areas, with relative, direct and indirect, impact on international relations and the balance of world power. And this takes place hand in hand with a growing trend to bring back debates that seemed forgotten or overcome by the world intelligentsia (a result perhaps the famous “end of history” proclaimed at the end of the 20th century); as well as by the generation of socio-political phenomena and new theoretical conceptualizations that fi nd an interesting cultivation ground in the Latin American region.

In the lines that follow we will attempt to make an effort to display some of the characteristics of the Latin American and Caribbean resizing in recent years, taking the role of the region as a central element in the reconstruction of the ‘South’,

a geopolitical notion that concerns us particularly because of the conceptual dimension it contains.

1. The South in the 21st century: an unequivocal or a heterogeneous concept? Role of Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) in bringing dignity to a “futuristic past”

One might think, especially the new generations that have begun to be politically conscious in this Millennium, that the issue of the South is a novel or ethereal concept, a mere basic description of geography. The truth is that the South, which begins to take shape at the time of the American independence from Spain, takes on particular impetus between the 50’s and the 70’s of the 20th century, in the roar of the “Spirit of Bandung” (process of independence of the

“Latin America and the Caribbean and their role in the Global South scenario” by Hector Constant Rosales 1, Representative of the Ministry of People’s Power for Foreign Affairs of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

1. Internationalist UCV, masters in Political Science and candidate to Ph.D. in Latin American Studies by the University of La Sorbonne. Professor at the School of International Studies of the UCV.Member of the Management Council of the Institute for Research on the South (INISUR) and the Centre for Latin American Studies Rómulo Gallegos (CELARG).Career diplomat, currently serving as National Coordinator of Venezuela for MERCOSUR.

11

SU

MM

IT

OF

TH


D

MO

VE

ME


Rather than listing the number of integration mechanisms before and after the beginning of this century, what concerns us in this section is to assess the phenomenon qualitatively. In carrying out a study on the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), Preciado and Florido (2013: 191,192) indicate that the post-neoliberal era in Latin America and the Caribbean has the following elements of integration, among other features: a post-neoliberal community integration with a coalition supporting the hegemony of the left: UNASUR, MERCOSUR and CAN; a post-neoliberal integration of counter-hegemonic tendencies with a popular coalition, not necessarily partisan: ALBA; an orthodox neo-liberal integration with hegemonic ideas from the Mexican Government: NAFTA, CAFTA, CARICOM; and an orthodox neo-liberal integration from the diversifi cation of international relations, which would be the countries that promote trade agreements with Washington or the European Union, for example.

The birth of the today known as the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Nuestramerica - Trade Treaty of the Peoples (ALBA-TCP) constituted an important milestone in the history of the regional integration of the South, since it is the fi rst mechanism that arises with a logic different from the European-style traditional economic integration. But beyond that, it is the fi rst integration scheme that is recognized as a counter-hegemonic space, to which end it brings about new ideas for relations among its members and incorporates in its statements clearly anti-establishment rhetoric, in tune with the “Discourse of the South” outlined in the previous segment.

What will later be called New Strategic Regionalism is confi gured in Latin America and the Caribbean (...). It is characterized, fi rst, by an emphasis on the elements of the old strategic regionalism, particularly the establishment of strategic enterprises, products and industries, and commercial and industrial alliances related to the role of the State as a strategic actor. Second, the concept of multidimensionality beyond the economic sphere and the emerging common elements that characterize the socio-economic model of ALBA-TCP. Third, the economic policies built around the concept of sovereignty and the creation of a regional power around them. (Aponte Garcia, 2013: 241-242)

Besides, ALBA-TCP is accompanied by a number of proposals in the different areas of government action of its members (energy, culture, fi nancial), which makes its multidimensionality an innovative proposal. On the other hand, with the exception of the experience of the Association of States of the Caribbean (AEC) of the ‘ 90s that under Mexican –and to a lesser extent, Venezuelan-

infl uence tried to generate a compromise of the continental and island States of the Caribbean, ALBA-TCP is the fi rst integration scheme that manages to bring together countries of South America and the Caribbean in such a fl uent manner. Indeed, the fact that today the Caribbean feels part of the geographical mass of America is part of the achievements of this new South that is being reshaped.

After the ALBA-TCP there also other moments of integrationist importance, with the arrival of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) in 2006 and the CELAC in 2011, as well as the resizing of MERCOSUR. All these events happen in parallel with the decline of traditional spaces such as the Andean Community (CAN), the very AEC or the Latin American Economic System (SELA). Concomitantly, during the period of the emergence of these new mechanisms, Latin America and the Caribbean experienced an important strengthening of the presidential fi gure through permanent meetings at the level of Heads of State of the entire

region - case of CELAC and its predecessors - or the South American sub region - case of UNASUR and MERCOSUR with the accession of Venezuela and the expansion of its Associated States- something hitherto unusual and extraordinary. This made it possible, on the one hand, to advance in the generation of this new institutional framework; and, on the other, to generate a strategic empathy in the consolidation of the “Discourse of the South” and its actions with a net political vision.

For those who now observe the intensity of the regional agenda, it is diffi cult to imagine that, until recently, the leaders of the continent had never met. Ten years ago, the articulation of South America was just a dream. Today it is a reality. (…) In essence, UNASUR is the framework that seeks to articulate the relations of approximation and integration among South American countries in various fi elds. The declared aim of UNASUR is not to become a commercial block in the short term, but

14

Table 1: Characteristics of the South

Time Cultural South Social South Political South Economic South Conditioning factors

a marked contrast with the interventionist past in the region, placing the United States, and to a lesser extent the European Union, as its main perpetrators. But the Discourse of the South that starts in this century transcends borders and meets a similar discourse in the Middle East, in Africa or in intermediate powers such as China, where it also rescues, for example, the Pan-Arabist ideal or the sub-Saharan cultural claim.

To be effective and transcendent, this “Discourse of the South” was accompanied, in the Latin American and Caribbean region, by a sustained action to lay the foundations for a new global relationship. And to achieve this, probably the main element was the growth of new integrationist forms that sought, with greater or lesser success, to build a unifi ed bloc that added greater weight to the South in international relations still riddled with confl ict and social grief.

Now, we must also question ourselves about the existence of a markedly uniform South, without taking into consideration the international historical evolution or the constraints that have limited its development and expression. In the table below we can visualize - in a very general way - some of the features of the South in two great historical periods and according to four major dimensions.

In the last decade of the 20th century, but particularly in the fi rst years after the Bandung Conference, the notion of the “South” was automatically linked to a hope for the future - with the subsequent desire to implement original development models, which in the case of Latin America found echo in the ECLAC - arising from an international turning point in which the emergence of new States and the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries allowed actions fairly autonomous and anti-system. Many of the former colonies appropriated the control and exploitation of their abundant natural resources, achieving signifi cant impacts in the North-South relationship, as the Suez crisis in 1956, which demonstrated the power of negotiation in the hands of States just released from the colonial orbit.

2. Fragmentation and defragmentation in the continent.

One of the main contributions of Latin America and the Caribbean to the reconstitution of the South in the 21st century is the progress made in integration matters. Although a quick look at today situation could reveal further regional fragmentation, in the light of a greater number of integration and coordination schemes than those existing a decade ago a deeper study would show the elements, advances and challenges that have contributed to defragmentation.

Reclaiming of anything

autochthonous (at the Macro-state

level)

Maintenance of the values of the North

in the elites

Reclaiming of anything

autochthonous (at the level of

minorities, ethnic groups and

anything micro-local)

Progressive imposition of

Northern values upon the

population

Hope for the future

Hope for the future vs frus-

tration with the present

Autonomy

Antisystem rebellion

Transformation of alliances (Shanghai,

BRICS, UNASUR)

Autonomy

Counter-hegemonic discourse

NIEO

Abundant natural

resources as an element of

the negotiation

New International

Financial Architecture

Development Banks

Scarce natural resources

Bipolarity

Need for development

Multi-polarity

Environmental and ethical crisis

Induced wars

1955 - 2000

2000 - date

13

Own elaboration

SU

MM

IT

OF

TH


D

MO

VE

ME


ones (Pan-Americanism, risk of a Reconquista...) he had to face, Bolivar generated what could be considered as one of the fi rst attempts to systemic interpretation of reality. Through an understanding of the internal level (national and regional) and the external one (regional and international) of the newly independent states, the Liberator aimed his statesman actions towards the strengthening of two basic premises: freedom and independence.

But freedom and independence, according to for Bolívar, could not be achieved without the union and confederacy of the new republics; therefore, the training of citizens and the action of the States should lead towards the consolidation of the union of the South. Not being our purpose to study in depth the Bolivarian thinking, we shall affi rm, nonetheless, that while Bolívar was building his thinking, a Bolivarian doctrine was being formed with remarkable and multiple points in different subjects, and with some signifi cant features for the current interpretation of the Venezuelan vision of the world.

Dignity, solidarity, respect, sovereignty, self-determination, equality, freedom, human rights, are all Bolivarian principles that have been supplemented over the years by numerous other authors and protagonists of Nuestramerica, and which constitute a fundamental legacy in the new vision of the South. And, as we statedwhen dealing with the components of the Discourse of the South, it is from the recognition of this legacy, along with the demands of the struggles of natives and Afro-descendants, that the concept of sovereignty and autonomy of Latin America and the Caribbean is recovered in the 21st century.

3.2. Multidimensional sovereignty

Constant reference to the concepts of sovereignty and independence can be found

initially in the strongly anti-hegemonic rhetoric of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, which intensifi es after the coup of the year 2002, and as the Alliance with Cuba becomes stronger. But this rhetoric, which, nuances aside, will be equally fruitful in other leaders such as Lula, Kirchner, Morales or Correa, generates adequate space for a retreat of the infl uence of the USA in the area and for the development of alternative proposals to feed the regional autonomy.

It would not be true to say that anti-hegemonic or anti-imperialist rhetoric is limited and framed exclusively to leaders in such a contemporary period. Numerous were the characters, movements and political processes that maintained a logic of social or cultural resistance in Latin America and the Caribbean during the 19th and 20th centuries after the process of independence, although almost all were decimated by the imperial boot. The last decades of the 20th century, with the terrible social and economic balance bequeathed by neoliberalism, enhance the feeling of disrepute of the foreign policy of the United States, which becomes even greater under Georges W. Bush’s warmongering administration.

Hostility towards imperialism is something easy to corroborate in all the countries of Latin America. The glare that accompanied Clinton spring has been replaced by a blunt rejection of Bush (...) In this context the Governments that no longer obey blindly the mandates of the North are many. The old subordination of the past does not work, nor does it allow to preserve the status quo. (…) It is evident that the anti-imperialist awakening underway in Latin America relies on the erosion of neoliberalism (Katz, 2007:140-141)

Having then a social breeding ground prone to anti-imperialism, in addition to an unerring leadership to channel it, the adoption of

16

to extend possibilities in the areas of infrastructure, investment and energy, as well as other possible ones, such as security and defence policy, social policy, education and health. (Simões, 2011:16 / 26)

Although the greater diffi culty of the permanence of all these spaces is the articulation and coherence of agendas3- with the risk of duplication of efforts involved - it is interesting to know that the region has managed to mature in the handling of their potential disagreements, as it demonstrated, for example, by overcoming the bombardment of Ecuador by Colombia in the year 2008. And despite the diffi culty, the coups in Honduras or Paraguay generated a broad repudiation and positions far from the traditionally infl uential position of the USA. Even in Central America, a zone of major infl uence for the United States, the very crisis of global capitalism, coupled with popular pressure at certain times and/or the presence of Governments not as docile as before, it has been possible to advance in some autonomous mechanisms such as the trend towards the fi nancial integration of national banks in the sub region (Gandasegui, 2013).

And, in our view, the element that best encompasses the defragmentation strategy currently present in Latin America and the Caribbean is precisely the consensus of the leaders to advance towards common goals, without this making us be excessively naive and believe that all obstacles in the path have been overcome. If the rough coup de force of the region against the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) promoted by the United States was a victory on the road of defragmentation, the permanence of the logic of bilateral Free Trade Agreements and the campaigns of vilifi cation against the progressive Governments, orchestrated many times in the North4, are still existing diffi culties. Likewise, it will be necessary to follow up the development of the “Alliance of the Pacifi c”, which was seen by some as a counterweight to the Bolivarian “ideological rhetoric” of Latin America and the Caribbean.

However, when the “Discourse of the South” is accompanied by an integrationist and

defragmenting action in Latin America and the Caribbean, we are laying the groundwork for the reconstitution of the South to be true, given that the greater the integration of the South the greater will be the weight of the region on the scale of world relations, and the lower the chances of clashes that threaten the continental stability.

3. Sovereignty, trade, fi nance, energy and people. The forefront of South America.

In the case of Latin America and the Caribbean, both the “Discourse of the South” and its actions have orbited around several guiding principles that have served as shields and incentives to the heterogeneity in the region: self-determination, independence and sovereignty. This does not mean that such principles have been interpreted similarly by all Governments in the area, but they do constitute, at least between the years 2000 and 2010, a framework of minimum understanding.

3.1. Background: Bolivarian doctrine in the South

The Latin American 19th century was a century fi lled not only with militarily action, but also with intellectual and futuristic vision. Most of the heroes of independence combined their warfare activities with a prolifi c literary creation which was oriented to the birth of the new republics. The liberator Simon Bolivar was particularly outstanding through his genius and conceptual clarity in the concept of a free and independent America, setting even the basis of what would later become the American International Law (AIL), in clear contrast to the unilateral hegemonic pretensions of the nascent United States, which would become increasingly manifest with the passage of time.

We can say that the dream of Bolivar, in regional terms, referred to the formation of what we will call an “autonomous power block”. Despite the internal conditions (groups of power, lack of popular awareness, secessionism...) and the external

3. Some considerations about disagreements on integration mechanisms, particularly in matters of agendas and conception, can be found in the Yearbook of Regional Integration in Latin America and the Greater Caribbean 2007, published by Coordinadora Regional de InvestigacionesEconómicas y Sociales, Buenos Aires. Several authors refl ect on the topic in a chapter entitled “Tendenciashemisféricas de la región”.

4. Even though the core of the political and economic destabilisation of the progressive processes of the region is traditionally located in the United States, as proven by the participation of this country in the development of the coup d’état in Venezuela in 2002, and as has been revealed in the documents published by Wikileaks and by the former agents Assange or Snowden, in this case we refer to the North to extend the range of actors that have sought over the last few years to attack the image or the stability of s everal Governments of the area. In this case, it is worth mentioning, for example, the dispute between Argentina and Great Britain about the Falkland’s, where the latter Government ignores any multilateral attempt at dialogue. Likewise, in Argentina we must mention the nationalisation of the oil company YPF, former property of the Spanish company REPSOL, which generated a great deal of pressure on the part of the transnational company.

15

SU

MM

IT

OF

TH


D

MO

VE

ME


It is essential to recognize that the Bank of the South and the SUCRE are initiatives that respond to a historic moment with certain specifi cities that are worth rescuing. First, they are the result of a rethinking of integration in Latin America; (…) the upturn of the integrationist will happens in parallel with an increase in the political and economic dynamism of the South American region in recent years. (…) Finally, these alternative institutions are born under a severe economic and systemic crisis (...) of the self-regulated capitalism of the 21st century (Rosales, 2012:157)

Although in the case of the Bank of the South no further progress has been made in terms of its implementation due to lack of agreement among the partners on, among others, the structure of its share capital, both initiatives are part of the re-conceptualization of fi nancial sovereignty which has its main expression in the South, as economic development alternatives allowing to generate investment funds or credit policies aimed at infrastructure and the productive sector. As Hugo Chávez mentioned on some occasions, the mere fact of repatriating international reserves to a regional Bank would already be an unequivocal sign of independence.

To complete the subheading on multidimensional sovereignty, mention must be made of the aspect of safety that has prevailed in recent years in the area. Indeed, despite the defragmentation effort carried out from Washington through various means, such as the Colombia Plan, Latin America and the Caribbean has managed to remain and assert its position as a zone of peace and democratic stability. This claim is not of lesser importance when one can see that much of the South - particularly the

Middle East and Africa- still faces huge confl icts because of foreign interventionism or intra-regional dissidences.

Such is the magnitude of this entente cordiale in the region in favour of stability that from the year 2008 the extra-regional fragmenting strategy - with its internal agents - became much more direct and aggressive: the invasion and bombing of Ecuador by Colombia in March 2008, during a persecution of neogranadian guerrillas, was followed by the above mentioned coups d’état in Honduras and Paraguay. In all three cases, the concerted action of the region was masterful to overcome the crisis. After the initial discomfort of each action (primarily at the heart of progressive Governments and societies), the strategy to regionalize the solution to the crisis was the key element to maintain peace and preserve political alliances.

In the case of Colombia, the extraordinary meeting of the Rio Group, as well as the coinciding position in the framework of UNASUR, served to recompose the situation and generate the design of measures trusted by the military, to exchange arms statistics and to the joint study of the U.S. war strategy. In the case of Honduras and Paraguay, disrepute and the non-recognition of the coup leaders, even going as far as suspending the Paraguayan de facto Government from MERCOSUR, something hitherto unheard of, played an important role, above all in the countries aligned with the counter-hegemonic Latin America and the Caribbean option. This way, on the three occasions, the fragmenting groups were isolated, the intentions of the leaders of the coups and their interests were laid bare and the exercise of a regionalist diplomacy in which Presidents Chávez, Lula and Kirchner played a starring role was

18

autonomous measures becomes more plausible. If in the political sphere measures are refl ected in

the birth of the already discussed mechanisms of integration, in the economic sphere progress will be slower but not less innovative.

In the case of the ALBA-TCP, and based on the substantial oil reserves of Venezuela now used with a solidary vision, initiatives such as PetroCaribe will appear, whose purpose was to generate greater energy cooperation in the Caribbean area through a policy of fi nancing the oil bill of countries of the insular Caribbean and Central America, with the addition of the establishment of a social fund, the ALBA Caribbean fund, where part of the payments are reinvested. Up to the year 2013, there were eighty-eight (88) projects being implemented in 13 benefi ciary countries with an investment of over 200 million dollars (PDVSA, 2013:12).

Alone, the ALBA-TCP seeks to advance the principle of sovereignty in response to the various crises of the global system in its military, fi nancial, food or climate aspects. An interesting conceptual contribution to the matter has been provided by the advent of the “Grand national Enterprises”, as opposed to transnational enterprises, which account for the strengthening of the State in productive activity and redistribution of profi t; likewise the logic of the Peoples’ Trade Treaty seeks to enhance the “cooperative advantage” among the different links of the regional productive chain, avoiding the logic of the competitive advantages of the traditional school of integration.

In ALBA-TCP, sovereignty has become a crucial issue in the contemporary quest to build a new strategic regionalism. The concept of sovereignty is being increasingly built around the international political economy marked by the differentiation and the dynamics between the national (including State-owned enterprises and private) and international

companies, particularly in the cases of Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. Moreover, in a political economy that seeks to build alternatives to the fi nancial and commercial mechanisms and institutions, this search is taking shape within the triple crises of food, energy and fi nance. (Aponte Garcia, 2013:251)

But the most original proposal will come from the hand of what has been called New International Financial Architecture, which experiences a rebound from 2007 with the whiplash of the capitalist crisis manifested in the sectors of banking, real estate and employment of the North.

The new Regional Financial Architecture begins to be discussed within the framework of the Union of South American Nations (Unasur), at a time when the world economy is in crisis (2007-2008), as a way of reducing the region’s dependence on international fi nancial fl ows, reduce costs, provide the means to earn foreign currency for trade or for fi nancing in an autonomous way the development in the region. This new Regional Financial Architecture sits on three pillars. The fi rst of these would be the creation of a regional contingency fund, which would have the function of managing short-term liquidity problems of the economies involved. (…) The second pillar (...) would be the creation of a regional development Bank. (…) The third (...) would be the construction of a regional monetary space, a sort of regional unit of account, which would not necessarily unfold into a common currency for the various economies in the region, but that would allow the creation of a regional payments system, with less dependence on convertible currencies, in particular the dollar, for interregional transactions. (Days, 2011:259-260)

Out of these three pillars, substantial progress has been achieved in two: the payment system, whose most tangible example is the SUCRE – even though other payments experiences in local currency have been advanced in the Southern Cone - and the Development Bank or Bank of the South. Obviously, and more so with the existence of still dollarized economies as in Ecuador, the permanence of the dollar as the currency of exchange is a challenge for the strengthening of a new fi nancial architecture.

17

SU

MM

IT

OF

TH


D

MO

VE

ME


accompanied by transformative actions. A good example of the strength of the South was the II Summit of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in the year 2000, in Caracas, which focused on the world oil market. The idea is to ensure that the successes of Latin America and the Caribbean, within which stands out necessarily the construction and consolidation of a regional peace zone, arepart of the world heritage of the South. Ultimately, as adequately shownby polarity, the

further North we go the further South we will reach.

20

Sources

Anuario de la integración regional de América Latina y el Gran Caribe 2007, published by the Regional Coordinator of Economic and Social Reasearch, Buenos Aires

Aponte García, Maribel: El nuevo regionalismo estratégico del ALBA-TCP: Alternativas a las crisis alimentaria y energética en Silva Consuelo and Martins Carlos (coord.) (2013): Nuevos escenarios para la integración en América Latina, Editorial Arcis, Santiago.

Bruckmann, Mónica: Recursos naturais e a geopolítica da integraçãosul-americana en Rego, André, Silva Pedro y Bojikian, André (orgs) (2011): Governança global. A integração da América do Sul, Edit. IPEA, Brasilia.

Carrillo Volcán, M. (1998): El autonomismo en la política exterior de América Latina. El Estado en el proceso de globalización, Ediciones de la Biblioteca de la Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas, Venezuela.

Constant Rosales, Hector: El Sur en el siglo XXI: una aproximación desde Venezuela en Desidera, Walter y Alves, Rodrigo (coord.) (2012): Perspectivas para la integración de América Latina, Edit. IPEA, Brasilia.

Constant, Rosales, Hector (coord..) et al (2007): Fundamentos fi losófi cos para la nueva integración del Sur, Ministry of the Popular Power for Foreign Relations, Institute of High Diplomatic Studies Pedro Gual – National Assembly, General Directorate of Research and Legislative Development.

Dias, Marcelo: O Banco do Sul – Arquitetura institucional e proceso de negociação dentro de uma estratégia alternativa de desenvolvimento na América do Sul en Rego, André, Silva Pedro y Bojikian, André (orgs) (2011): Governança global. A integração da América do Sul, Edit. IPEA, Brasilia.

Dietrich, Hanz (2000): La crisis de los intelectuales, Edit. Política, Buenos Aires;

Dos Santos Theotonio (2006): Del terror a la esperanza. Auge y decadencia del neoliberalismo, Edit. Monteávila, Caracas.

Gandásegui Marco: Integración centroamericana y la crisis del sistema mundo en Silva Consuelo y Martins Carlos (coord.) (2013): Nuevos escenarios para la integración en América Latina, Editorial Arcis, Santiago.

Katz, Claudio (2007): El rediseño de América Latina, Edit. El perro y la rana, Caracas

Lander, Edgardo (coord.) (2005): La colonialidad del saber, Editorial de Ciencias Sociales, La Habana

Martins, Carlos: A America Latina e a economía mundial: conjuntura, desenvolvimento e prospectiva en Rego, André, Silva Pedro y Bojikian, André (orgs) (2011): Governança global. A integração da América do Sul, Edit. IPEA, Brasilia.

PetroCaribe en números (2013), S/E

Preciado Jaime y Florido Ángel: La Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños (CELAC): Integración “postneoliberal”, neoliberal ortodoxa y contrahegemónica en Silva Consuelo y Martins Carlos (coord.) (2013): Nuevos escenarios para la integración en América Latina, Editorial Arcis, Santiago.

Rosales, Antulio (2012): Revisitando el desarrollo. Construyendo nuevos vínculos: El Banco del Sur y el SUCRE, Edit. CELARG, Caracas.

Saxe Fernández, John y Delgado, Gian Carlo (2004): Imperialismo y Banco Mundial en América Latina, Centro de Investigación Juan Marinello, La Habana.

Simoes, Antonio (2011): Integración: sueño y realidad en Sudamérica, Edit. Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão, Brasilia.

consolidated.

3.3. Social participation and governmental agendas: the challenges of Latin America and the Caribbean in a strengthened South.

By way of an epilogue, we would like to briefl y consider three additional points that represent challenges to achieve a greater and better consolidation of the South from Latin America and the Caribbean. All processes that have been advanced in the region, and that have been briefl y addressed in previous lines, have had the participation – to a greater or lesser extent- of societies as their legitimizing element. From the Venezuelan participatory democracy to the citizen’s revolution of Ecuador, regional leadership has been accompanied by a substantial popular support (even in right or centre-right Governments as the Colombian one) that has served as a retaining wall for the increase of hegemony5.

While such social support is primarily related to the degree of social, political or economic stability that the Governments inspire, one may not fail to think that there is a greater degree of political awareness in the area and a better understanding of the benefi ts of the regional strategic vision built since the beginning of the century.

This being the state of affairs, a further strengthening of the South from this Nuestramerica will come from the hand of a necessary, accelerated and growing relationship between Governments and social demands, under the logic that regional integration, sovereignty and counter-hegemony lead to tangible benefi ts. One of the big problems presented by the regional integration in previous decades was precisely the divorce with the citizenry; at present, and despite a transnational mass media that still tends to defend fragmentation, there is a greater chance of continuing to deepen the role of Latin America and the Caribbean in the strengthening of the South: participation of Brazil

in the BRICS, growth of the intra-regional trade, growth of MERCOSUR as a space for economic articulation, sovereignty in strategic decisions, empathy among leaders, among others. But all of this requires more and more an integration that hasa social face.

The second element, a corollary of the fi rst, has to do with the preservation of the natural wealth of the region. Oil, fresh water, rare minerals, fauna and fl ora are surprisingly abundant in Latin America and the Caribbean. And this is the reason why it is attractive to the North, as well as to countries with sustained growth, such as China, which, despite its important role as an ally, will experience an increasingly higher demand for natural resources. In the case of the United States, according to Bruckmann (2011), the scientifi c strategy is articulated with its foreign policy to avoid any impediment in the supply of resources deemed vital; and this is a sensitive statement, out of 21 minerals for which the United States presents “total vulnerability”, 17 are imported mainly from Brazil and Mexico (idem). A strategy of sovereignty concerning resources of Latin America and the Caribbean, which requires avoiding ecocide “development at any cost” policies in the area, ensures a considerable weight to the South, especially in a context where the transnational presence in Africa and the Middle East in what seems a new colonial race for control of resources, has grown.

Finally, for the South to increase its role it is necessary that Latin America and the Caribbean manages to articulate more meeting spaces with their sister regions, as well as with those movements and social sectors of the North that identify with the demands of the South. The celebration of several high-level meetings with Africa, Asia or the Middle East in the past fi ve years, have served to fi ne-tune their collective and shared discourses. But the action must transcend rhetoric, which means that the “Discourse of the South” should be

5. In this case we are referring to the extent of participation in presidential elections, as well as to the continuous public support manifestations mobilised by Governments such as those of Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. The very continued stay in power of the same leaders (Chávez up to 2013, Evo Morales, Rafael Correa, Daniel Ortega, Ralph Gonsalves in San Vicente or RoosveltSkerrit in Dominican Republic, to mention but a few) or of the same political projects (the Kirchners in Argentina, the FrenteAmplio in Uruguay, for example) are undisputable proof of majority support of these Government options in recent decades, which can be explained theoretically as a reaction to the consequences of neoliberalism, as well as the result of the greater political awareness of the population.

19

SU

MM

IT

OF

TH


D

MO

VE

ME


and the ethnic confl icts have been expanding in different regions of the globe. Entire communities bound by history, economy and even blood have been divided, confronting each other and even making war on each other.

Today, insecurity and poverty are greater, while globalization is being imposed on our peoples as a strait jacket, preventing the implementation of national policies different from those dictated by the North. Total privatization and trade openings, at whatever cost, are presented as the only viable formula of success.

The hardly ever mentioned Third World external debt grows steadily and, combined with unfair terms of reference, constitutes today the main obstacle for development. Presently, it is over the hallucinating fi gure of 1.5 trillion dollars. Unemployment keeps growing and social development is being ruthlessly sacrifi ced.

Is it reasonable to accept the pretence that certain economic models imposed by the most developed societies and their specifi c patterns of political organization should become universal mirrors and the only yardsticks of legitimacy and righteousness?

How long are we going to silently watch the absurd wastage of resources by the opulent societies and the criminal mortgage of our children’s future in this unbridled race toward a global ecologic disaster that many are beginning to consider hopeless?

The production of increasingly sophisticated and lethal weapons goes on while their trade grows. The competition is fi erce among their powerful producers. Later the Security Council, where the main weapon traders seat as permanent members, intervenes as a peace maker on behalf of the United Nations. Has the end of the cold war, by any chance, resulted in a more noble use of the enormous resources previously committed to the arms race.

The U.S. Congress approves higher military budgets than requested by its government. What are those weapons for?? It is the emergence of a unipolar world that has aggravated the hegemonic tendencies that intend to act above the United Nations. There is an attempt to impose the will of the hegemonic powers on the Security Council and use it as an instrument to subjugate the world.

That policy is still more alarming and dangerous when formulated from the positions assumed by extreme right-wing groups that seem to be gaining considerable political ground in the United States. That’s how in the Nazi Germany the fanatic dreams to impose its ruling to the world emerged, albeit Hitler was not so powerful.

In the face of this danger and other threatening evils, it is our duty to resolutely strive for the democratization of the United Nations, so that the General Assembly may take its rightful place and the Security Council cease to encroach upon its functions and acting behind its back.

The privileges should cease and the permanent member status should no longer be an almost exclusive attribute of European nations, the nuclear

22

How long are we going to silently watch the absurd wastage of resources by the opulent societies

Our reason d’etre may have sustained changes but it has not ceased to exist.

Fidel Castro at the Non-Aligned Summit held in Colombia 20 years ago:

“Never before, since the inception of our Movement 35 years ago, were we so rebuffed and ignored in international politics or so discriminated against and neglected when it comes to development aid and credits; never before was the international economic order so unjust and one-sided. Sovereignty and the territorial integrity of the South countries had never been so much in jeopardy; never before was our independence in such peril, nor had such a fl agrant interference in our internal affairs been so devised’’.

The threat of war among the big powers was put farther away, but instability, social violence

Remarks by H.E. Raúl Rodríguez Ramos, Ambassador of the Republic of Cuba in the Republic of Kenya.

21

SU

MM

IT

OF

TH


D

MO

VE

ME


1. Introduction: history of NAM

The Non - Aligned movement (NAM) could be defi ned as an international organisation of countries that claim they are not aligned to any major power block. I say ’claim’ because the history of the world hitherto has been of class struggles at the national level and international level, between the exploited and the oppressed classes, between nations dominated and oppressed by imperialism and colonialism on the one hand and imperialist and colonial nations of the world on the other. Because of this it is hard to imagine that any peoples or nations can be neutral or non-aligned in national and international relations. However, NAM has existed and exists and as a matter of fact NAM countries form about two thirds of the members of the United Nations and fi fty fi ve percent of the population of the world.

The NAM was offi cially started in Belgrade in 1961. But it was the Bandung Conference of 1955

“Non - Aligned Movement (NAM) prospects and challenges”, by Mr. Mwandawiro Mghanga, Chairperson of Social Democratic Party of Kenya (SDP), and Chairman of the Kenya Venezuela Friendship Association.

24

powers or the overly wealthy nations. Let’s not hesitate. Let’s fi ght resolutely so that, in an extended Security Council, two more permanent memberships are conceded to Latin America; two to Africa, which has none; and two more are added to Asia where 60 percent of the world population lives.

The irritating veto privilege should at least be amended while that obsolete and anti-democratic instrument is still in force. Let’s put an end to the absurdity that among the few specially privileged, one country alone can override the will and decision of the rest of the U.N. member countries combined.

United, we are a force. United, our voice will be heard. United, we have to be taken into account.

We are not just spectators. This world is our world too. No one can replace our united action, no one can speak for us. Only together, only united can we reject the unjust world political and economic order that some want to impose on our peoples.

Our demands of today will not be voluntarily met. Compromising with the exploiters, acting with the weakness of the coward or neglecting the struggle for our most sacred and legitimate rights will not give us victory. Only the loyalty to the principles that gave life to our Movement, the fi rmness of our convictions and the determination of our concerted actions will lead us to the conquest of the future that our people deserve.”

For Cuba, the reestablishment of diplomatic relations between Cuba and the United States of America, the opening of embassies and the policy

changes announced by President Barack Obama with regard to our country constitute a major step forward that has elicited the broadest support from the international community.

However, the economic, commercial and fi nancial blockade against Cuba persists, bringing harm and hardships on the Cuban people, and standing as the main obstacle to our country’s economic development, simultaneously affecting other nations due to its extraterritorial scope, and hurting the interests of American citizens and companies. Such policy is rejected by 188 United Nations member states that demand its removal.

Under President Obama’s administration, the blockade has been further tightened and its territorial implementation has been intensifi ed through the imposition of 42 fi nes on US and foreign entities to the value of more than 13 billion US$.

Nevertheless, Cuba attained the Millennium Development Goals and offered its modest cooperation to other developing nations in various areas, something we shall continue to do to the extent that our limited capabilities will allow.

We shall never renounce honour, human solidarity and social justice.

Many thanks

23

SU

MM

IT

OF

TH


D

MO

VE

ME


2. The principles of NAM

Nevertheless, the founding principles of NAM that drew from the Bandung Conference were progressive in relations to the historical conditions of colonialism and Imperialism. The problem is that not all member countries have observed the principles in deeds. These principles of NAM could be summarised as:

(1) Anti Imperialism, anti - colonialism and anti - neo-colonialism,

(2) Struggle for international detente,

(3) Opposition to apartheid, racism and Zionism,

(4) Opposition to military alliances,

(5) Opposition to military bases of the imperialist powers on the territories of the so called Third World, and

(6) Struggle for new international economic order. According to NAM the new international economic order should be founded on full respect for the following principles:

The principles of NAM, including of the new international economic order, like those of the United Nations are noble and even if they are more often violated by NAM members that adhere to capitalist and imperialist policies, are noble and form the reason of supporting the existence of NAM. This is because they at least point the progressive moral values of international relations of peace and justice.

26

that was the direct antecedent of the process which eventually led to the formation of NAM Countries. At the Bandung Conference the participants adopted the following principles:

(1) respect of the basic rights of nations in keeping with the principles enunciated in the United Nations Charter;

(2) respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations;

(3) recognition of equality of all races and nations, both large and small;

(4) non - intervention and non - interference in the internal affairs of other countries;

(5) respect of the right of every nation to defend itself individually and collectively in agreement with the United Nations Charter;

(6) refusal to participate in collective defence projects designed to serve particular interests of the great powers, no matter which power they are; condemnation of any pressure put on another country at the instigation of any great power;

(7) abstention from any act or threat of aggression or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another country;

(8) settlement of international confl icts by peaceful means, such as negotiations

or conciliations, arbitration, international tribunals, or any other peaceful means which may be chosen by the interested countries in accord with the United Nations Charter;

(9) promotion of mutual interest and cooperation;

(10) Respect of justice and international obligations.

The founders of NAM in Belgrade were Josip Broz Tito, who was the President of the former Yugoslavia, Jawaharlal Nehru (India’s fi rst Prime Minister), (Gamal Abdel Nasser (Egypt’s second President), Kwame Nkrumah (the fi rst President of Ghana) and Sukarno (the fi rst President of Indonesia). The founder leaders of NAM proposed that developing countries should be neutral in relation to the then super powers of the Western and Eastern Blocks during the so called Cold War period. Other NAM leaders went as far as advocating that developing countries should not be capitalist or communist but should develop their own different ideologies, ideas which were not only unrealistic and opportunistic but were in fact unpractical under the material and historical conditions of the period in which international relations were characterised by the struggle between the progressive forces and the reactionary forces, between the powers that wished to eradicated colonialism and those that used all means to maintain the status quo of colonialism.

25

Sovereign equality of States, self-determination of all peoples, inadmissibility of the acquisition of territories by force, territorial integrity and non-interference in the internal affairs of other States.

The broadest cooperation of all the States members of the international community, based on equity, whereby the prevailing disparities in the world may be banished and prosperity secured for all.

Full and effective participation on the basis of equality of all countries solving the world economic problems in the common interest of all countries, bearing in mind necessity to ensure the accelerated development of all the developing countries, while devoting particular attention to the adoption of special measures in favour of the least, land-locked and island developing countries most seriously affected by economic crises and natural calamities, without losing of the interests of other developing countries.

(a)

(b)

(c)

The right of every country to adopt the economic and social system that it deems the most appropriate for its own development and not to be subjected to discrimination of any kind as a result.

Full permanent sovereignty of every State over its natural resources and all economic activities. In order to safeguard these resources, each State situation, including the right to nationalization or transfer of ownership to its nationals; this right being an expression of the full permanent sovereignty of the State. No State maybe subjected to economic, political or any other type of coercion to prevent its free and full exercise of this inalienable right.

The right of all States, territories and peoples under foreign occupation, alien and colonial domination or apartheid to restitution and full compensation the exploitation and depletion of, and damages to, the natural resources and all other resources of those States, territories and peoples.

(d)

(e)

(f)

SU

MM

IT

OF

TH


D

MO

VE

ME


reactionary leaders who embrace capitalism and neoliberalism and collaborate with Imperialism to exploit and oppress their people and regions. Only few members of NAM are led by leaders and regimes committed to the genuine struggle for the social and economic liberation of their peoples.

NAM has advanced over the years of its existence without a constituent charter and has been guided in its activities only by a set of principles and rules formulated in the course of fi ts work. This fact, just as the consensus used for the adoption of documents and decisions, has given NAM Countries the fl exibility which is essential for preserving the harmony of such a heterogeneous body that embodies contradictions.

In his wisdom of carrying along all members of NAM while maintaining its original progressive objectives and in order to preserve the movement, in his speech given during the Havana Declaration of 1979, Fidel Castro said that the purpose of NAM was to ensure “the national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries” in their “struggle against Imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or hegemony as well as against the politics of the great powers and blocs”.

5. Why should NAM continue to existThe 16th NAM summit took place in Tehran,

Iran, from 26 to 31 August 2012. It was attended by representatives from over 150 countries. Attendance at the highest level included 27 presidents, 2 kings and emirs, 7 prime ministers,

9 vice presidents, 2 parliament spokesmen and 5 special envoys. At the summit, Iran took over from Egypt as Chair of the Non-Aligned Movement for the period 2012 to 2015. The 17th Summit of the NAM is to be held in Venezuela in 20152016.

The host country of the 17th Summit - Venezuela - is expected to organise the Summit in the context of the present global issues and problems that NAM should address and unite around. Furthermore, Venezuela will remember the heterogeneous and contradictory nature of NAM in order to carry along all its members on a broad common agenda. This is a diffi cult task but nevertheless an important task that the host country must prepare to take in order to preserve the fragile movement. In fact, the reasons for the continuance of the existence of NAM are similar to the reasons of the continued existence of the United Nations. If anything, at least the two global institutions bring together the nations of the world to discuss pertinent international issues and problems and provided a semblance of peaceful co - existence between nations necessary for the conservation of peace and security. NAM and UN also at least point out the moral values needed by the world to make it more peaceful, just and secure than it is today.

After the fall of the former Soviet Union and the communist regimes of Eastern Europe, a process that started vigorously in 1989, the planet is now living under a unipolar world dominated by Imperialism. The relevance of NAM under the presence circumstances and particularly for the next Summit in Venezuela is to rally together as many NAM members as possible to meet to at least discuss and propose solutions to the existing

28

3. NAM during the Cold War

After the end of the Second World War, the United States, pursuing the aim of world domination, put into effect a number of unilateral and multilateral moves. The former included the proclamation of the Truman Doctrine and the implementation of the Marshall Plan on the international scene, while at home the reactionary Taft - Hartley Act was passed by Congress and the leaders of the Communist Party of the United States were prosecuted and tried.

On the multilateral level, the United States forced the formation of the Pact of Rio de Jaeneiro in 1947, of NATO in 1949, of ANZUS in 1951 and of SEATO in 1954, in addition to other military pacts.

Forced with the growth of military blocks forged and forced by the leader of capitalism and Imperialism, USA, the governments of the socialist countries - the Soviet Union, the Democratic Republic of Germany, Hungary, Poland and Rumania - concluded a Treaty of Mutual Assistance in Warsaw, at a time subsequent to the Bandung Conference.

The so called Cold War was in fact the struggle between world capitalism and Imperialism, led by the United States, and world socialism. led by the former Soviet Union. The principles of NAM found allies with the socialist countries while NATO, the bedrock of world capitalism, Imperialism and reaction has always been suspicious and many times hostile to the principles of NAM, which are naturally opposed to Imperialism, colonialism, neo-

colonialism, imperialist wars and the unjust world economic order, including today the neoliberal globalisation.

4. Contradictory nature of NAM

Despite being a large global movement in terms of membership and the percentage of the world population, NAM has always been a movement full of contradictions. The principles of NAM originating from the Bandung Conference are noble and progressive but have not always been observed by all member countries:

(a) One of the greatest successes of NAM was the struggle for the liberation of member countries from colonialism. But the regimes that came to power after colonialism were divided between those led by progressive and revolutionary leaders and those led by reactionary leaders. The progressive and revolutionary leaders opted for the socialist path of development, social and national liberation and were genuinely committed to the principles of NAM. On the other hand, the reactionary members of NAM opted for the capitalist path of development which made them to embrace Imperialism and neo-colonialism, against the social and national liberation of their countries, while contradicting and paying only lip service to the principles of NAM. For these reasons, progressive and revolutionary members of NAM found friends and allies in the Warsaw Pact Nations that supported them in the struggle against Imperialism, colonialism, neo - colonialism, apartheid, racism and Zionism. At the same time, the reactionary and pro - capitalism NAM members have always been covert and overt friends and allies of NATO.

(b) Some NAM members - reactionary ones - allowed/allow imperialist military bases in their countries and participate in imperialist wars on the side of Imperialism.

(c) Some members of NAM actively supported the struggle against apartheid while others collaborated with apartheid.

(d) Some members of NAM actively support the national liberation struggle of the people of Palestine from Zionism and Israeli occupation and oppression, while others pay only lip service to the struggle or collaborate with Israel and Zionism.

(e) In the struggle for a new and just world economic order many NAM countries are led by

27

The so called Cold War was in fact the

struggle between world capitalism and

Imperialism, led by the United States, and

world socialism. led by the former Soviet

Union.

SU

MM

IT

OF

TH


D

MO

VE

ME


international principle of peaceful co - existence in the world and the right of all nations to self - determination and sovereignty. It is blatantly interfering in the internal affairs of other nations, in particular of those that adhere to the principles of NAM of anti-Imperialism, anti-colonialism and anti-neo-colonialism;

(e) Despite the opening of the embassies of the United States in Havana and of Cuba in Washington, brought about particularly by the united diplomatic support of NAM countries for Cuba, the United States still continues its brutal economic, commercial and fi nancial blockade against Cuba, in gross violation of the human rights of the citizens of Cuba and of the international law and norms;

(f) Terrorism is now one of the greatest problems that confronts NAM members. It is an impediment to peace, security, development and democracy. NAM members should discuss about the root causes of international terrorism that include the violation of the founding principles of NAM and propose solutions and actions away from those of Imperialism that is often part and parcel of the problem;

(g) In addressing the issue of a new and just world economic order, NAM members should critically examine the impact of neoliberal globalisation and provide an alternative system in the interest of the majority of NAM citizens and the freedom and independence of their countries;

(h) Immigration - desperate people moving from their countries of origin (particularly from poor NAM countries) to ‘developed’ countries to fl ee the effects of neoliberalism: poverty, wars and the violations of human rights is have now

resulted in a global crisis with hundreds of thousands of poor people perishing in deserts and high seas in the process of desperately trying to enter rich North American and European countries.

(i) The issue of detente: NAM members should call for the destruction of all weapons of mass destruction by all nations of the world.

(j) The issue of conservation of the environment is one of the most important issues that must form the key agenda of the NAM summit, for it concerns the very existence of the human species and life on earth.

(k) The issue of the national liberation struggle of the people of Palestine remains. Israel and Zionism continue to deny the people of Palestine the right to their nation and freedom while violating their human rights despite numerous United Nation’s resolutions.

(l) Western Sahara is still illegally occupied by Morocco (a member of NAM) and remains the last colony in Africa.

Mwandawiro Mghanga

30

contradictions under the unipolar world. While doing this it is important to remember the history of NAM, its founding principles and lessons from earlier Summits and to apply them critically under the present material and historical conditions in the world.

The issues that should form the agenda of the 17th Summit in Venezuela include the following:

(a) Imperialism, led by the United States and its NATO allies, is on the offensive more than ever before and is executing actions intended to dominate the world politically, economically, culturally and militarily while threatening and violating global security and peace;

(b) The imperialist’s wars have escalated leading to interference in internal affairs of

nations and the destruction of nation - states: former Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Ukraine. Imperialism, led by United States, is also interfering in the internal affairs of Venezuela - the host of the next NAM Summit;

(c) While the military block of the Warsaw Pact no longer exists, NATO continues to exist and is in fact expanding to former Warsaw Pact nations and posing a threat not only to Russia but also to members of NAM, including of Africa, Latin America and Asia - including China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Lebanon and India. This provocation led nations to pursue the formation of military blocks and to escalate the accumulation of weapons, including weapons of mass destruction;

(d) Imperialism is grossly violating the

29

SU

MM

IT

OF

TH


D

MO

VE

ME


SU

MM

IT

OF

TH


D

MO

VE

ME

NT

SU

MM

IT

OF

TH


D

MO

VE

ME

NT RETHINKING THE SOUTH, NAIROBI, OCTOBER 13, 2015

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela will spare no effort to contribute to the development of new international geopolitics fostering the creation of a multicentre and multipolar world that favours the balance of the universe and planetary peace.

President Hugo Chávez October 2012.

Rethinking seminar

Documents

Transcript of Rethinking seminar