pdf: 6.426kb - University of South Africa

Guyana
Guyana
dedicated a cover story to the event describing the
summit as `the first step in the construction of a South
American bloc which could confront American hegemony
in the Continent' (Veja 2000:42). The latter
stated that `today an increasingly confident and
assertive Brazil is emerging as both an American
partner and rival in Latin America, steering its own
course on political and economic matters' (Rohter
2000).
Nor was the significance of the summit lost on
Washington. The US ambassador to Brazil, Anthony
Harrington, said that:
Brazil has reached a level of international and
regional interest unprecedented in its history. The
country is today the spokesman of the developing
world, while also having a seat in important First
World forums (Veja 2000:43).
We share a common interest in struggling against
the protectionist barriers that limit the access our
products have to the markets of the developed
countries (Cardoso 2000).
The Brazilians do not regard an integrated South
America as an alternative to the FTAA, but rather as a
political effort to consolidate the South American
Continent as a unified partner in the FTAA negotiations.
This would only increase their bargaining
power. Furthermore, the commitment to democratic
values and the rule of law should be seen as the
seminal aspect of the summit (O Estado de SaÄo Paulo,
29 August 2000).
The Brazilian authorities played down any leadership
aspirations on the part of Brazil. When asked,
they would refer to the summit merely as a `meeting'.
The light agenda of the summit was designed to give
ample opportunity to the South American Presidents
to meet informally with each other and to attend
official social functions. It was as if the Heads of State
had been invited to `an academic tea party' (Veja
2000:42)
To expect this first South American summit to make
dramatic progress towards solving the problems of the
sub-continent is clearly unrealistic. Necessarily there
was a large symbolic element in the meeting.
Unfortunately, misperceptions occurred, such as the
article published in the prestigious Latin American
Weekly Report (5 September 2000), in which it is
implied that the summit achieved little.
However, Veja and The New York Times both
understood the importance of the event. The former
And Riordan Roett, director of the Western Hemisphere
Programme at Johns Hopkins University,
wrote that:
It is clearly the judgement that the continent is now
ready for Brazil to assume a broader, more dynamic
leadership role in regional affairs. And it is now
understood in South America that the regional card
to play is one that is led from BrasõÂlia (Rohter
2000).
Conclusions
It is clear that the summit brought three new
phenomena to the fore in the international political
arena. Firstly, a new assertiveness in Brazilian Foreign
policy, for the first time showing the world that Brazil
is willing and able to take on a leadership role not only
in the hemisphere, but also in the developing world.
Secondly, the countries of South America, especially
Spanish-speaking South America, where balkanization
has hitherto been the rule, are now coming
together in an initiative which could strengthen the
whole continent.
Thirdly, Portuguese-speaking Brazil and the Spanish-speaking
countries, which before had limited
interaction with each other, are now establishing a
new community. The inclusion of the two small
northern tier countries is another positive new step.
In the words of President Cardoso:
Thus my vision for the South America of this
coming century is one of a vibrant region, guided
by the common ideals of liberty and justice,
increasingly prosperous and integrated, as well as
fully capable of confronting the challenges of the
knowledge society (Cardoso 2000).
ISSN 0256±6060±Unisa Lat. Am. Rep. 16(2) 2000 65