The high tables of the United Nations refer to Latin America as “The mystery zone”. Mystery because despite the fact that we are united by more similarities than differences, both in character and in problems, the region has not yet found a model of political agreement and economic integration make a change in the lives of Latin Americans or position our area in a more defined way in the world. If we ask a European, a Chinese or an American what does Latin America want, they will answer us and with good reason, that they simply do not know.
At an ideological and political level, the region has not had common reference points for decades; Nationalist and statist positions alternate with efforts to insert themselves into globalization, visions of a revolutionary left with great speeches and few results with neoliberal economic recipes that fail to reduce social gaps and tend to concentrate more income. At the end of the nineties there seemed to be a coincidence that democracy would be the irreplaceable model. Thus, exactly 20 years ago the Inter-American Democratic Charter, by which all the states of the continent adhered to its ideals and practices. Today it is clear that there is not even that consensus around democratic principles and practice.
For many years, Latin Americans were united by a justified rejection to the maneuvers and interventions of the United States in the region. Since the end of the Cold War and the conflicts in Central America, Washington’s attention has turned to other parts of the world; the terrorist attacks of 9/11 ultimately removed our region from American priorities.
Without common enemies and without political convictions that generate an elementary consensus, Latin America has no other route than to identify itself in its problems (those are very similar) and to assume that the essential responsibility to overcome its deficiencies and lags lies within it. region. Unfortunately, the temptations to blame the outside world, the past or ideologies remain, instead of looking inward and formulating inclusive and long-term strategies that change the course of each country and the region as a whole. No one is going to come and do our homework and it is not desirable either. Cases like that of South Korea or the same Vietnam —Both cut off and devastated by war — should encourage us to abandon the mania of making excuses instead of producing good governments and good results.
In this sense, it will be very interesting to observe if at the CELAC summit of these days in Mexico, Latin America and the Caribbean it is capable of generating a different vision, devoid of the traditional hollow rhetoric and more effective in triggering the development of the region.
Internationalist
– .
