CC BY
25
Section 9. Political science
Galym Maral,
graduate student, the Faculty of International Relations Gumilyov L. N.., Eurasian National University E-mail: [email protected] Zholdasbekova Akbota, associate professor, the Faculty of International Relations L. N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University E-mail: [email protected]
GEOPOLITICAL CHANGES IN LATIN AMERICA: ARGENTINA AND URUGUAY
Abstract: In the present paper, a short analysis of the geopolitical system of the modern world is described with the example of such countries of Latin America as Uruguay and Argentina. The author gives several, the most significant events in the history of these countries, which had a significant effect on their development.
Keywords: geopolitics, development, geography, relationships, Latin America, Argentina, Uruguay.
The current stage in the development of geopolitics reflects a transitional stage in the formation of a new system of international relations and it is characterized by the need to analyze the global distribution of forces and the search for options for its subsequent dynamics.
The configuration of regions and interregional spaces is changing. Entire states disappear from the World map; new national and regional centers are emerging. Each state, to varying degrees, has its own interests in the international arena. However, the study of political processes is directly tied to the territory on which they flow, and any generalization requires a specific analysis.
When analyzing the definition of force in the world arena, as a rule, relations between political actors of power, or states, are taken into account. Since these political units are defined by the territory and the relations between them are determined, among other things, by spatial relations, geography plays an essential role there [1, 26].
The 21st century is the time of the historical rise of the developing countries. The processes taking place in Latin America confirm it. Over the past decade, many states in the region have strengthened economically, modernized their internal socio-political structures, benefited from the fruits of globalization, and strengthened their positions in the world arena. The changes affected different areas and markedly transformed the regional political and economic context.
The people of Latin America for more than three centuries were in colonial dependence on Spain and Portugal, later
joined by England, Holland and France. They become independent subjects of international politics only at the beginning of the nineteenth century, after the outbreak of the war for independence and the formation of sovereign states [2].
The end of the 20th century, of course, made changes in the geopolitical system of the force fields of the continent. New processes in politics and economy have emerged and are being activated, which are largely due to the acceleration of scientific and technological progress, the formation of trans national companies, i.e. globalization of all spheres of social life of the planet. An important feature of these changes is that all countries of the world are drawn into their orbit. And, Latin America fully experiences the positive, as well as negative, impact of the new unknown situation.
Today, the free countries of the continent have difficulties in economic development. They are looking for ways to integrate into the world economy, like internal causes — stagnation in the economy of Latin America, non-competitiveness of their products in the world market, unsustainable economic development, rising unemployment, inflation, social tension, etc.; and the most important external reason is the globalization of the world economy as one of the key global economic processes of our time [2].
In this paper, we give a brief analysis of the changes that have occurred in the geopolitical situation in Latin American countries, like Argentina and Uruguay.
The geopolitical identity ofArgentina was largely formed in the context of state ideology, which promoted the ideas about
the territories lost in the XIX century. One of the country's foreign policy constants may have been the assertion that the country lost vast territories on the continent as a result of the expansion of neighboring states or provincial separatism. It has been used in the official discourse of Buenos Aires for decades regardless of the type of regime or government in power. Apparently, the idea of the "lost territories" is rooted in the same period of state consolidation and the implementation of the national construction project, which required the formation of a new national identity in the absence of religious, linguistic and cultural differentiation. One way to achieve this goal was to believe that the country "lost" significant territory because of its ambitious neighbors, which deprived the country of its legitimate inheritance from the metropolis.
Shortly before the First World War, Argentina was considered one of the most prosperous and wealthy countries in the world. Suffice it to say that Argentina, in terms of per capita income, was on par with France and Germany and was significantly ahead of countries such as Italy and Spain. Neighboring Brazil lagged behind Argentina five times, and Japan, one of the world leaders of the late XX century, almost three times.
To understand how significant Argentina's economic success was, it suffices to say that the metro in Buenos Aires was launched as far back as 1913, and the city itself was compared to Chicago.
The reasons for Argentina's then success are simple. First, at her disposal were almost unlimited spaces of free fertile land. Secondly, a relatively high level of education among the population has opened up opportunities for the use in agriculture of technology leading at that time. As a result, migrants who settled in the Latin American country quickly made it an exporter of grain, wine and meat to virtually all regions of the world.
Changes for the worse began in Argentina during the global crisis of 1929. The collapse of the American stock exchanges and the Great Depression that followed in the United States and Europe, first of all, hit the producers of raw materials, including agricultural ones. At the same time, Argentina initially did not hurt as much as the neighboring countries: by the mid-1930s, it had been able to return to sustainable economic growth for a short time.
Accustomed to a certain standard of living, the Argentines were not ready for several years of "tightening the belts." As a result, the power in the country was captured by the military junta, which mainly defended the interests of big capital, especially the British. The change of power was accompanied by riots, exacerbated the contradictions in the society and the growth of the economy did not help.
In 1943, Argentina experienced a new military coup. It played a key role in the history of the country because he gave way to the big politics of one of the most controversial figures
in Latin America of the XX century - Juan Peron, an officer who in the new government took the post of Minister of Labor. Peron promoted the adoption of new legislation in the interests of the working class, and it became one of the most progressive at the time in the world. After Peron's victory in the presidential elections in 1946, Argentina went along the social-democratic path of development.
Since then, the Argentine economy is developing somehow. In the mid-2000s, however, it was possible to return to growth due to another round of raw material prices, but the new global crisis again interrupted this movement. The government, which no one now wants to lend, has resorted to "unorthodox" practices such as the nationalization of the oil industry and the actual withdrawal of private pension savings.
As a result, for 2013, Argentina per capita GDP is two and a half times less than Italy and Japan. Lagging from such developed commodity countries as Australia and Canada, is increasing every decade. Even in comparison with neighbors (which since then was also worn fairly), Argentina looks weak. In 1913, its GDP was 3.8 thousand dollars (1990) per capita, while Chile - less than 3 thousand dollars, and Brazil - and at all 800 dollars. After a hundred years, Argentina and Brazil are on the same level (11.5 and 11.3 thousand dollars), but Chile is way ahead: the per capita income in the state on the other side of the Andes exceeds 15 thousand dollars [2].
Why the modernization of Argentina in the XX century was a failure? It seems that the mistakes did not lie in the choice of specific economic prescriptions. Yes, the Social-Democratic orientation of Peron and the Peronists after half a century seems to be a wrong decision, but in fact, at the same time most of the countries of Western Europe went also, where there was nothing like Argentine shocks. The same can be said about the reforms of the 1990s: neoliberalism has significantly helped the US or Asian countries, and in Argentina it crashed.
Most likely, the degradation ofArgentina is not connected with the economy, but with politics. The lack of democracy and the prevalence of oligarchic interests, on the one hand, and thoughtless populism, on the other, throwing extremes to extremes, the management of the economy by incompetent military personnel - all this in the sum and gave a sad result.
In Europe, states could afford socialist practices, because they had behind their back powerful traditions of local self-government. In Argentina, however, the power was too centralized, there were not enough checks and balances to it. As a result, now there is no reason to say that Argentina will one day regain the economic power of the beginning of the 20th century and again become, if not a global, then at least a regional leader.
Recently, the international press has focused on Uruguay and appreciated a number of factors that make the country attractive and relatively untypical in the Latin American context
today: a small, magnificent territory of fertile lands; political and economic stability; friendly and relaxed lifestyle; progressive tax, social security and other strategies (for example, the legalization of abortion, the consumption of marijuana and homosexual marriage); accounting offoreign investments; Improving poverty, unemployment, underemployment and inequality, and a modest president, whose simple, modest habits and standard of living have not changed since coming to power.
Demographers argue that Uruguay is an atypical case in other respect, too: it did not go through peaks of population growth and an early decline in mortality and birth rates gave it a demographic profile more similar to the advanced countries than to its developing neighbors, though still sharing with the latter the same struggle to overcome economic under-development. Such demographic evolution contributed to a generalized perception of a lack of population problems and, consequently, to the absence of specific policies. Problems existed, though, compounded today by a low fertility rate, concentration of population in a small coastal area and few cities, low immigration inflows, and continuous population ageing and emigration. Internal migration from the countryside to the coast has historically been the first step in a long journey that extends beyond the country's borders as a significant part of the total population moved subsequently abroad. Thus, in terms of migration flows Uruguay passed from being a receiving country up to the 1950s to a sending country since then and depopulation became a structural problem [4].
However, it is not until the mid-2000s that the magnitude of the emigration problem was acknowledged and both population and migration issues entered the governmental agenda and political discourse.
Uruguayan governments have, indeed, made considerable efforts to reach citizens living abroad. Following the global trends, several initiatives were put forward: a new discourse on renaming the diaspora and its role in the nation; updating legislation to institutionalize the rights of migrants; new bureaucratic units responsible for migrants' affairs; a number of linkage programs for attracting migrants from the motherland and the promise of including and expanding participation in political life through extra-territorial voting rights. The emphasis on communication and absentee voting rights promised not only to strengthen government bonds, but also to make an effective concept of citizenship that transcends territorial boundaries and redefines the idea of the nation. Nevertheless, this initiative could not overcome the political and social opposition. Most likely, this year it will be restored as the national elections approach.
Among other lessons, Uruguay shows that the direction of state emigration policy requires the political commitment of concrete participants to prosperity. It is not the state as a
unitary apparatus or political parties, but specific individuals and offices that politically push for transnational initiatives. The emigration policy also requires articulation between symbolic and rhetorical initiatives and concrete measures to grant rights and the participation of emigrants. The patria peregrine label (country of the Sacrament), designed to emphasize that emigrants are still part of the nation, was too vague, did not resonate with the Uruguayans' double obligations abroad and did not give them identity, which jeopardized the chances of their creation as subjects and interlocutors. The use of this terminology also calls into question the conceptualization of the problem and political intentions, since it involves redefining boundaries when in fact the political and social ideas about the people are still strongly tied to the territory in Uruguay. As the discussion on non-territorial voting rights illustrates, two points of view remain: official political discourse emphasizes the concepts of national identity and unity, a collective commitment to national construction and a sense of responsibility for the destiny of the country, even if it is at a great distance; on the contrary, other political and social actors argue that the physical presence on the territory at the time of the suffrage ultimately contributes to the strengthening of ties between the state and the interrogation that those who are physically absent make decisions about the lives of those who actually suffer the consequences of decisions.
Bureaucratic practices are a major obstacle to policy consistency and sustainability, as well as society's low capacity to exert strong pressure or push for its agenda. Thus, the sustainability of emigration policy in the long run is contingent not only on state's capacity to reform itself but also on society's ability to acquire a greater voice and more organizational capacity as well as to engage broader sectors with the re-construction of national membership along pluralistic and non-territorial lines.
In sum, Uruguay is a critical case to study emigration policies because, in contrast to other cases, discursive mechanisms have included but not targeted elites exclusively, new re-conceptualizations of the citizens abroad failed to re-incorporate them into the nation, state strategies have not prioritized financial flows but political issues and, rather than capitalizing on migrant transnational networks overseas, the state implemented a top-down, state-led model on diverse migrant organizations that largely backfired [4].
To sum up, the modern interpretation of geopolitics is much broader than the traditional study of the interdependence between the state of the states on the map and their internal politics or behavior on the world stage. To understand the constants and variables of international politics, as well as geopolitical codes of individual states, it is necessary to take into account a number of intangible factors that affect not only
the national, but also the geopolitical identity of specific countries. The geopolitical identity of the country, which is still largely due to geographical determinism, is a combination of a
complex of factors (historical, socio-cultural, ideological, economic) and acts as a kind of projection of its self-perception to the outside.
References:
1. Collected Works of the Second Scientific and Practical Conference "Problems of Geopolitics, Geoeconomics and International Relations. NATO's advance to the East - security problems of Russia, CIS countries, Europe and Asia. " 20-21.11.07, - St. Petersburg, Russia. Ed. A. P. Kudinova. Red. Technic. Uni., 2008.- 26 p.
2. Geopolitical changes and development trends of the Latin American continent URL: https://textbooks.studio/uchebnik-geopolitika/geopoliticheskie-peremenyi-tendentsii.html
3. Uruguay's economy challenges the new government URL: https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/uruguays-economy-challenges-new-government
4. Uruguay: tiny country, big population problems URL:https://sotonpolitics.org/2014/04/21/uruguay-tiny-country-big-population-problems/
