Geopolitics and regionalism: A Latin American perspective

The issue of regional integration has been widely analyzed and debated for a long time. Yet, there is still limited connection between issues geopolitical perspectives. With an analysis focused on Latin America, this study aims to map out theory practice subject. In doing so, the explores different points view in relation regions geopolitics, how these two elements are combined specific topic integration. This article shows that, contributions, such as so-called ‘geopolitics integration’. Different variations across time states identified, well common search ‘autonomy’ ‘development’ related ‘nationalism’ ‘resistance’ toward imperialism. El tema de integración se ha sido ampliamnete analizado y debatido desde hace tiempo. Sin embargo, perdura una conexión limitada entre temas perspectivas geopolíticas. Con un análisis enfocado en América Latina, este artículo busca estudiar la dimensión teoríca práctica sobre el tema. Se exploran diferentes puntos vista con respecto relación entreregionalismo geopolítica, muestra cómo estos dos elementos combinan específico regional. demuestra que Latina hay contribuciones esta temática, como llamada ‘geopolítica integración'. Si bien geopolíticas distintos países o períodos históricos, comúnes región, búsqueda ‘autonomía’ ‘desarrollo', relacionados dimensiones ‘nacionalistas’ ‘resistencia’ al imperialismo. ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????“???????”???????????????????????????????????????“????”?“??”?????“??”?“??”? regionalism America depth extent link geopolitics limited. An aim relevant research regionalism, with focus American ideas initiatives regarding (RI). perspectives RI appear be more nuanced than elsewhere field, unique contributions that will point out. case nonhegemonic countries, can seen “geopolitics weak” (Tunander, 2008). Such where integration” strongly associated policies “developmentalism” “autonomy.” As scholars out, dimension matters, since “if one treats countries unit fails pay attention effects dynamics, risk missing result fail understand causal processes” (Mainwaring et al., 2007, p. 200). Regions complex evolution change world system nations. It here most fruitful. When territories become “geopolitical units,” they often form part economic or political systems, generally nested into each other. Sometimes, find synergies integration, other times, conflict fragmentation. advanced units” states, belonging economic, political, cultural systems at global levels. Because politics, culture, policymaking so relevant, it strong influence thinking. Despite increasing mention studies quite English-language literature, used synonym “conflicts” great power interests (Jay, 1979, 488; Kacowicz, 2000). There much do incorporating geography territorial dimension, which societies linked separated by rivers, roads, mountains, leading construction types (Söderbaum, 2016, pp. 98–99). Moreover, could regarded contribution go beyond what some argue difficulties grasping existing concepts tools (Tiilikainen, 2019). addresses, line research. first section deals origin concept “geopolitics” its links regionalism. Next, turns origins later Then, outlines features linkage development, nationalism. final section, current new geopolitics. Geopolitics takes us spatial power. “regions” ways, “regionalism,” is, envisioning enlargement state's space, “optimal” size. According Friedrich Ratzel, “men from larger conceptions carry idea districts lesser concepts. native who aware only his own state always disadvantage him knows least two” (Ratzel, 1969, 26). when space increases, need reformulate national consciousness fit forms amalgamation peoples, which, Ratzel's view, demands put all powers operation. A driving force behind process constant movement communities constantly, union disintegration. Ratzel (1969), even though break up, long-term tendency expansion “geographical horizons,” he sees “spatial motif” historical development (pp. 18, 21). Regionalism type expansion, visible projection shifts units states. Inspired anthropogeographic perspective, Swedish scientist Rudolf Kjellén (1916) placed central importance role state, coined 1899 (Holdar, 1992). was elaborate would consist several dimensions; called “geopolitik.” defined knowledge about geographic organism, social phenomenon (företeelse) room (Kjellén, 1916, 39). ways through (geopolitical) analyzed, leads “regional” approach. Beyond similarities broader theme “space,” “territory” connotations. Stuart Elden (2013, 18) explains, territory bounded under control group people, fixed boundaries exclusive internal sovereignty. Adding definition outlined above, said becomes “geopolitical” management (or over) terrain. advance industrialization, techniques territories, resources, went hand emergence analyze (states regions) systems. context spoke growth states,” defining “the sign either preparations for, remnants, process” (1969, 17). then formation people enjoy closer relationship particular 22). “classical” creation cohesive community element territory. explained Rivarola Puntigliano (2016, 5), Kjellén's interest centered aiming homogeneous enough develop “economic solidarity” feeling within those intending create should consider people's “hunger belong,” “politics identity,” law order, aspects envisioned spaces. apply nation-state alliances. ‘state blocks’ (Björk & Lundén, 2021), while predecessor Karl Houshoffer referred ‘Pans’, Pan-Americanism important source inspiration (Dorpalen, 1966). modern Samuel Cohen (2003 [1987]) ‘geopolitical regions’, although does not really concern we refer ‘regional “region” history, also gaining early 20th century. Part growing motivated urbanization communities, demanded city planning. 1950s, Association Geographers presented (James Jones, Hartshorne, 1954), pointing self-determined nature-given objects, but intellectual created selection certain features. due complexity regions, no matter well-designed managed strategies might be, government alone produce them. Richard Hartshorne pointed identification needs conviction minds groups region. must “be accepted stronger any lead conflict” (Hartshorne, 1954, 193). 1960s, continued studied “new geography,” open porous constructs understood historically, international transformation (Paasi 2018, 3). views, region tangible entity terms territory, “psychosomatic community” occupying space. crucial if plans cohesion, perhaps notions sovereignty (Gottmann, 1973, 15). during period upsurge analyzing regionalisms Europe, Africa. Still, (particularly outside America) disconnected field (Nye, 1968). 1990s, regionalist received renewed impetus regionalism” “rediscovery (Lawson, 2009). Pundits saw “regionness,” referring levels interdependence, communication, homogeneity, capacity act resolve conflicts (Hettne Inotai, 1997, 6–7). Another “regionalisation,” (Hurrell, 1995, 32). concept, taking place framework “regionalisms,” “ideological project” “construction order” specified geographical (Farrell 2005, 8–9). awareness among 11). Along vein, “world regions” have described emerging actors evolving dialectical processes. 1950s “porous remerged describe “a regions,” globalization erosion (Katzenstein, 1). attracted using conceptual references “regional state” (Ohmae, 1996), “region world” 2007), “megaregions” 173). interesting topic, “securitisation,” discursive ‘construction’ nations, dichotomies justify (Buzan Waever, 2003). neglect theories, “sadly neglected stepchild” (Harvey, 1985, 141). “return geopolitics” 2010s, reconnection dimensions (Guzzini, 2012), projects arising after failure “American empire” borderless globalized (Smith, 2003, 28). China pushed forward return “continentalism” shaping “emerging behemoths” (Kaplan, 2013 [2012], 100). along lines see openings studies, shown below. My proposal explore acknowledging quoted rarely general. review regionalist-oriented studies; main goal attempts unify both dimensions, highlighting particularities thinking America. Since colonial power, scope were positions policymakers pundits Here, lie roots contemporary If means occupied state) around it, paving way Francisco Miranda (1750–1816). Briceño-Ruiz 25) before independence, key leaders, Miranda, “continental unity” Hispanic-American territories. United States' founding fathers, adopted phrase “concordia res parvae crescunt: discordia maximae dilabuntur” (small grow harmony, ones fall pieces discord). Many found proposals Libertador, Simón Bolivar (1783–1830), Amphictyonic Congress Panamá, 1826, confederation independent Hispanic republics. Spanish, French, British, US ambitions immense resources. Unity, preamble weak,” safeguarding against bigger powers. failure, Bolivar's initiative starting imaginary concerns outlook, work Spanish diplomat Carlos Badía Malagrida (1946 [1919]) initial step. integrated Although word “South America” book's title, Malagrida's reference historic “Hispanic (including Antilles). vision, particularly pundit time, project 1826. advocated Confederation, comprising sub-confederations (different Bolivarian project) Brazil included (Badía Malagrida, 1946, 34). took upper over differences Luso became influential promoting region, including (de Meira Mattos, 14). (2017), Brazilian precedents integration.” Much had dream union, achievements Dynastic Union Spain Portugal (1580–1640), aimed build “Pan-Hispanic” empire. visions collaboration unity did disappear policymakers. One example Brazilian-born Alexandre Gusmão, played Treaty Madrid 1750. Minister Foreign Affairs republic, Quintino Bocaiuva (1889–1891), alliance Argentina. Later, another Affairs, José Maria da Silva Paranhos Junior, known Barão Rio Branco (1845–1912). goals conformation Argentine–Brazilian–Chilean (ABC) alliance, South until 1930s diffused systematized perspective 61). Everardo Backheuser's brief mid-1920s (1952 [1925]) pioneering textbook (Backheuser, 1948). further step Mario Travassos, emphasis Brazil's “continentalist” (Travassos, 1947 [1935]). continental outlook production clearly oriented RI. integrationist developed Spanish-speaking side probably heritage mentioned above. 1940s, Cuban Mexican geographer Jorge A. Vivó Escoto (Cuéllar Laureano, 2012; Escoto, 1943), inspired Kjellén, “Great Caribbean” Mexico). study, confederation. scholar, Argentine E. Atencio, appealed federalism, German zollvereing, “Mitteleuropa” advocate (Pan) (Atencio, 1965, 96, 102). gained unprecedented 1950s. At push, forces organizations, example, Nations Economic Commission (most acronym CEPAL), 1948, later, Free Trade (LAFTA), 1961. Raúl Prebisch, CEPAL's General Secretary highly Even avoided contributed introducing fostering “development thinking.” Reminiscent arguments classical Prebisch (1981) held peripheral needed since, large markets, abundant natural resources…are better position circumscribe penetration centers areas activity negotiate conditions made” (p. 205). CEPAL provided domestic markets answer demands. reasons 1960s support RI, achieving greater autonomy development. “found friendly reception policy groups, wherein elites pertinent theories wide spectrum viewpoints origins” (Kelly, Hence, elaboration far writing specifically perspective. president Getulio Vargas (1934–1945, 1951–1954) prominent leaders influenced geopoliticians, Travassos. Vargas' were, turn, Juan Domingo Perón (1946–1955 1973–1974). spokesperson powerful intellectuals movements supported. Some supporters explicitly geopoliticians therefore overviews (e.g., Child, 89). Among politicians pursuing mid-20th century, I add Ibañez del Campo (1927–1937, 1952–1958) Eduardo Frei (1964–1970) Chile; Colonel Jacobo Arbenz Guatemala (1951–1954); Juscelino Kubitschek (1956–1961), João Goulart (1961–1964) Brazil; Velasco Alvarado (1968–1975) Peru. maintained course initiated President Vargas. fundamentally concerned Argentina entities LAFTA (Furtado, 116; Rosenthal, 2004). From never economics. acknowledgment (systemic) periphery autonomy, manifested policies. move capital Janeiro Brasilia 1960. year others LAFTA, path strengthen states' system. Industrialization active goals. Integration development-oriented institutions Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), 1959. Under presidency Chilean economist Felipe Herrera, promoted itself “bank Herrera action, industrialization underdevelopment, together proposal, namely (Herrera, 1964, 36). Proposals (development) connected subordinate uniting, consolidate autonomous developmentalist cannot scholar former (in 1973) Puig, founder Instituto Brasileiro Economia, Sociologia e Política (IBESP), Helio Jaguaribe (Briceño-Ruiz Simonoff, 2015). establishment “alliances” “solidary strategic vision state. Puig critical Cepalian “isolated” arguing He outlooks overcome domination powers, required departure recognition “dependent position,” conforming (Puig, 1987, 54). industrialization. same true Jaguaribe, whom “development” country's viability, conduct strategies. words, stratification limitations set foreign finding “critical mass” (Simonoff Lorenzini, 2019, autonomic integration-oriented 19th avoid bulwark hostile external big Later examples Calvo Clause Drago Doctrine, reactions hegemonic Roosevelt Corollary Monroe Doctrine. They “aimed establish juridical equality codify principle non-intervention hedge incursions” (Williams, 2012, 123). geopoliticians. Atencio (1965, 178) essence response “love liberty, respect sovereignty, rejection aggression, spirit concord solidarity.” present general Guglialmelli. obsessed expansionism (Child, 95), Guglialmelli argued strengthening economy, potential defense possible without vertebration,” meaning relations Chile (Guglialmelli, 70). Estudios Geopolíticos 1975, publication journal Geopolítica, venues opened diffusion Gugliamelli's ideas. Melisa Deciancio (2017, 195) years entirely strategy, frontiers, projects. 1976 2002, Uruguayan Geosur pursued (Fornillo, 138). integrationist-oriented 1980s, Argentines Florentino Diaz Loza, upheld nationalist patria grande (Diaz 286). Coronel Marini, write integration,” rooted (Marini, 1987). Peruvian Edgardo Mercado-Jarrín (1992), Andean subregional Bernardo Quagliotti Bellis (1983, 157–158), outspoken promoter “nationalist regionalism.” democracy mid-1980s, calling cooperation” 142). elaboration, increasingly highlighted. particularity mixture “autonomy” positions. good example. based civilizational mix historical, philosophical, cultural, deeply Several earlier, basic fragmented nation. Developmentalists, views. wrote people” unite situation underdevelopment (1967, 21–22). “nationalist” thread Marini (1987) (1983). Another, politically Norberto Ceresole, whose pledge 1970s) Venezuelan Hugo Chávez (1998–2013). Ceresole's case, like (earlier) socialist leader Vivian Trías (1967), action capitalist system,