NationStates Jolt Archive

Comunidad Sudamericana de Naciones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_American_Community_of_Nations
What do you think? Will it happen? Good idea or bad idea? Please specify if you are actually from S. America or somehow directly connected.

A quote:
"We are here to make Simón Bolívar's dream real. [...] Sooner, rather than later, we shall have a single currency, a single passport... Sooner, rather than later, we shall have a parliament with directly elected representatives for this new nation that we are creating today." — Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo, 8 December 2004.

I'm thinking it will turn South America into another trading block like the EU. The idea will probably work to promote domestic industry which will be bad for the US considering we benefit very heavily from NAFTA.

A single currency will be much more of a problem than a benefit at the moment. You have to have a very high degree of economic integration for it to work. A single currency means that contries lose the ability to use interest rates to smooth out cycles of boom or bust and get stuck with a one interest rate fits all, which is more likely to fit the needs of the bigger nations such as Brazil than smaller nations such as Bolivia. I'd say that a single currency was a bad idea for Europe (although damn convenient for tourists). If Europe wasn't ready, South America certainly isn't.

Free trade, gradually introduced, is a good idea. Zero tariffs will cut down on wasteful smuggling and will help improve productivity. (Free trade does not create jobs, it allows people to concentrate on what they are good at and trade for stuff they find difficult to make for themselves.)

Free movement of people is a good idea.

I like to see this as a part of barriers across the world being lowered.

It would be good for them, I feel the actual free trade (as opposed to 'free trade' in name only) is almost always good when introduced at an appropiate pace. It would be bad for us here in Australia because we compeate with South America in many industries: beef; bananas; sugar; wine; wool et cetera.

I think that its current form; a free trade pact that resolves many of the problems with the current trade-relations system in South America, is a good thing.

Going beyond to fuse their economies and perhaps even creating united political bodies? I don't see a need for them to fuse their economies just yet, perhaps in 50 years or so. As for political unification; as a barganing power on the world scene, South America has very little pull indeed.

It would be interesting to see if a unified South American body would have any more power internationally than the induvidual states do now. How well would they use such power, and what would their goals be?

It would be bad for us here in Australia because we compeate with South America in many industries: beef; bananas; sugar; wine; wool et cetera.

But as South America grows richer, partly from free trade, they will be able to afford to buy Australian TV shows and other goods from us. And besides we have a lot of agricultural tech they can buy from us. Those Europeans and North Americans have such good soil they're not used to dealing with problems we in the southern hemisphere are used to. And Australia has huge growing markets in China, India, Indonesia, etc. so South American competition won't hurt us.

How well would they use such power, and what would their goals be?

To protect and benefit their citizens. That means preventing/staying out of wars. Preventing crime, terrorism and environmental disasters.

Hopefully they won't use their power to act out ideological fantasies on the world stage.

Perhaps they should include something in their charter about acting in the rational interests of their constituants?

I don't see a need for them to fuse their economies just yet,

Huh? That's the most important thing! There are people in South America who are dying from poverty. Anything that reduces poverty will save lives. Free trade is not some miracle cure for poverty, but properly introduced will help and will save lives.

I think Latin America really ought to work on bolstering their own domestic economies before engaging in a trading bloc like the E.U. I have a strong affinity for South America and it's always been a dream of mine to visit Chile, since one of my grandparents was born there. I really want to see S. America do what's in its own best interest.

I say they wait about 20 years, for the economies of Argentina, Uruguay, and Venezuela to stabilise, and for Chile, Brazil, and Argentina to take stronger leading roles as economic catalysts before any economic bloc takes shape.

To protect and benefit their citizens. That means preventing/staying out of wars. Preventing crime, terrorism and environmental disasters.

Huh? That's the most important thing! There are people in South America who are dying from poverty. Anything that reduces poverty will save lives. Free trade is not some miracle cure for poverty, but properly introduced will help and will save lives.

Well, hopefully that is their goal, nobody really knows just yet. Thats the problem with Superstate solutions, they tend to be top-down affairs.

As for FUSING their economies, thats a very different thing from opening a free-trade pact. You realize the difference I trust, but I'll explain it for others.

Free-trade is removing tarriffs and barriers between states. This allows free-flow of goods between states without worrying about extra costs driving down sales. This promotes commerce, but allowing the market to decide what people buy.

Fusing an economic system, making all member states abide by one set of rules and regulations, replacing all their induvidual monetary systems with one unified system...that can easily destroy an economy.

If one nation is rich and another poor, their needs will be very different. Some economies have problems with inflation, but what about those who are troubled with devalued currency? Fusing their economies fully too soon will cause all parties to be troubled.

Just think about moving in with someone, would you share a bank account, not knowing how good with money they are? Of course not, only by integrating more fully, only by reaching a level of parity will such a move be profitable for South America.

bump
(for the benefit of people in the Americas, for which it is daytime now)

I don't know if it's a good thing. It will happen to a limited degree, to act as a check to US economic imperialism if nothing else. My question is, will Cuba be allowed to join, and if so, will it?

Before the Andean Group and Mercosul (living in Brazil the spelling is a little different) can merge there needs to be some considerable strengthening of Mercosul at least. (The andean nations group may also need this given the current tensions between member nations). There are strong parallels between the situation in South America with the situation in Europe at the time of the formation of the EU.

In mercosul there are two major players (Brazil and Argentina) with a third sitting on the sidelines watching (Chile). This is equivalent to France and Germany in Europe with the UK being the observer. As the Eu seems to have worked as a trading block, I have agreat deal of hope for mercosul, particulalrly as there seems to be a political commonality between the leaders of the countries involved. There are advantages that South America has over Europe, particularly with respect to language. However there are disadvantages in terms of the variations in the degree of development of the nations involved. Within Mercosul, the variation is not too great, but between Mercosul and the Andean Nations there is a large discrepency. Bolivia is seriously underdevelopped in comparision to Uruguay, for example. Variations of this type caused stress in the EU, between Germany/UK and Greece/Portugal for example. However there the difference was more of the nature of the economy rather than the degree of development.

Would a common South American Block be good for the region. Yes, in that it would protect the nations involved from predatory trade practices originating in the first world. However I believe that the EU, geographicaly related model, is not necessarily the best model for the developping world.

It would be better for nations at similar stages of development to unite, rather than those that happen to be physical neighbours. This would mean linking the Mercosul nations with South Africa, India, China, Mexico etc. rather than with Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia etc.

The Andean nations would do well to link up with Nigeria, Egypt, Central America, Indonesia etc. where the level of industrial development is more equilibrated.

I don't know if it's a good thing. It will happen to a limited degree, to act as a check to US economic imperialism if nothing else. My question is, will Cuba be allowed to join, and if so, will it?IMO all latinAmerican countries should have a Union like the EU...

and it would be easier than EU because they all speak spanish ( exept Brazil, but they are very similar languages)...and they dont have centuries-old conflicting civilizations like the EU.

the new Block should sign trade treaties with the US.

it would be in both sides best interests

...
It would be better for nations at similar stages of development to unite, rather than those that happen to be physical neighbours. This would mean linking the Mercosul nations with South Africa, India, China, Mexico etc. rather than with Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia etc.

The Andean nations would do well to link up with Nigeria, Egypt, Central America, Indonesia etc. where the level of industrial development is more equilibrated.In a way you are alienating the Northern side of SA...do you realize?

In a way you are alienating the Northern side of SA...do you realize?

Yes I do realise that if they are self delusional about the relative development of the North of SA compared to the South, they could be alienated, however, at times the facts are painful.
There is a clear development gap between the North - Northwest of South America and the South - South East. It is no-ones fault, except perhaps that of geography. Nearly all terrains are easier to develop than Amazonion rainforest on Andean mountain foothills, or high Andean desert plains.

Would you try to claim that the industrial development in the USA was the same between New Mexico and Ohio? Or in Europe that Germany and Portugal have the same industrial base. I hope not. Geography and climate play roles in development rates and trends, South America is too big to be homogenous. Even Brazil, by itself, is too big for this. There are some states of the world that have to be recognised if progress is to be made. This progress, I am suggesting, would be better for all concerned if countries in similar situations co-operated, and geographical proximity was not considered as being all important.

I think the nation that has the most to loose with unity is Brazil. They will not allow a agreement to reduce their influence on their neighbours. The rest of SA will want to impose tools to curb this influence. I see this as the biggest hurdle and an unresolvable one. The only way might be to form the union without Brazil and show a strong economic incentive for them to join and accept restrictions.

I think the nation that has the most to loose with unity is Brazil. They will not allow a agreement to reduce their influence on their neighbours. The rest of SA will want to impose tools to curb this influence. I see this as the biggest hurdle and an unresolvable one. The only way might be to form the union without Brazil and show a strong economic incentive for them to join and accept restrictions.

If narrow short term thinking is used, this is probably true. Argentina might like to claim that it has most to lose for the same reasons though.

However in the long term, Brazil stands to gain much more from South American unity than it would lose at the start. It would require some political courage to go ahead with such unification, much the same way as the founding of the EU required this.

Brazil's influence on its neighbours is actually not as powerful as most Brazilians would like to think. There is a language barrier, and a culture difference due to the difference in colonization. However Brazil does act somewhat, in combination with Chile, as a relatively stable base upon which South America in general can build and Argentina in particular can rebuild. (Hopefully with some industrial diversity this time)

Brazil is a strong advocate of mercosul, and of regional mutual support. It does have strong misgivings about the FTAA proposals as there are too many unilateral restrictions involved. Politically it is recognised here that if we, as a nation wish to be, or continue to be, influential in the region then we have to be involved in any local economic associations, regardless of the short term disadvantages that these may bring to Brazil.

Me being a southamerican, cannot say I do not dream with the possibility, but in reality it is highly improbable to happen in the current circumstances. There has been a lot of american disinformation about the "bolivarian" dream, tho, mainly because of Chavez.

..There are some states of the world that have to be recognised if progress is to be made.....
Brazil is a third world Country full of poverty and Favelas...are you a native Brazilean...or a Nationalizado?

BTW there is great differnce between the south and the North of Brazil(rich and very poor)...Yet they dont have to belong to different trading blocks.

Brazil is a third world Country full of poverty and Favelas...are you a native Brazilean...or a Nationalizado?

BTW there is great differnce between the south and the North of Brazil(rich and very poor)...Yet they dont have to belong to different trading blocks.

Full is an exageration. There are favelas here, as there are projects in the USA or council estates in the UK. Yes we are a third world country with poverty present, as are the majority of countries in the world. I do not claim otherwise. But South Africa is a third world country, Mexico is a third world country, China is a third world country etc. I was just suggesting that not all third world countries have the same state of development, politically or industrially. Even the first world countries have poverty (with a few exceptions he says looking at the Vatican), not necessarily to the same degree now, but it was certainly very similar when they were at the same stage of industrial development. Think mid 18th century.

Sou imigrante de primeira geração, não natural, não nacionalizado. Mas vivo com os brazileiros, não com os imigrantes. Sou casado com mulher brasileira e tenho um filho brasileiro. (I am a first generation immigrant, not native, not naturalised. However I live with the Brazilians, not with immigrants. I am married to a Brazilian woman and have a Brazilian son.)

There is a difference between the South and South East Regions of Brazil when compared to the North, North East and Center West Regions. However this difference is reducing rapidly at the moment. There is a large amount of investment being made in the North East and Centre West in terms of attracting industry. The North, being almost exclusively amazonian rainforest is only very sparsely populated and is being transformed economically by tourism and ecological activities. It is still a very wild west style region, with little law, government or control in parts.

There have been, and there still exist, some seperatist movements in Brazil based on this North South difference, but they do not have much popular support. As such Brazil is, in the same style as the USA or Cananda, or Russia, a country with distinct regional flavours and cultures, but nevertheless still one country.

Yes, it would make more sense, economically for the South and South East of Brazil to joiun Mercosul and the rest to join the Andean group, however politically that would be impossible. The economic problem is an internal one for Brazil to deal with.

...I am married to a Brazilian woman and have a Brazilian son.

You lucky SOB :D

congrats.

I think the nation that has the most to loose with unity is Brazil. They will not allow a agreement to reduce their influence on their neighbours. The rest of SA will want to impose tools to curb this influence. I see this as the biggest hurdle and an unresolvable one. The only way might be to form the union without Brazil and show a strong economic incentive for them to join and accept restrictions.Fist:
Brazil influence is already balanced by Argentina...(Brazil does not call all the shots)..in a way they would be the France and Germany of SA.

second:
Brazil has just won some trade disputes with Canada (Bombardier VS Embraer)...But Brazil does not have enough weigth when it deals with the US or EU...

thats when a LatinAmerican Union could help Brazil.

Fist:
Brazil influence is already balanced by Argentina...(Brazil does not call all the shots)..in a way they would be the France and Germany of SA.

second:
Brazil has just won some trade disputes with Canada (Bombardier VS Embraer)...But Brazil does not have enough weigth when it deals with the US or EU...

thats when a LatinAmerican Union could help Brazil.

Well Brazil has just won battles in the WTO with both USA and with the EU. (Just being in the last six months. ) In the USA case it was over cotton, with the EU it was about sugar. Whetehr the USA and the EU will comply or not, is of course another matter.