Latin American influence being wrestled away from US
Last week our Brazilian neighbours and brothers concluded
their own special strategic partnership package deal with China. Predictably,
and given the difference in the size of both economies, the numbers involved in
the Brazilian deal are larger than those of the deal with Argentina. But the
impact on the respective economies is likely to be impressive. And welcome by
both governments.
To say that “beggars are not choosers” sounds too harsh as
well as unfair at the time of describing the context of these agreements. But
it can be safely argued that China’s two South American partners were facing
economic difficulties at the time of negotiating the deals. Which is likely to
have made their negotiators a bit more concessive. Such is life, and there is
nothing intrinsically wrong with that.
It is a truism by now to say that China is making a
sustained effort to have a strong presence in the region. How much political
power and influence will this mean for China as a world power is still an
unknown factor. What is not unknown is that the Chinese advance is causing
concern in Washington DC.
It could gallantly be said that, if Washington is concerned,
it is its own problem. And that their opinion should not influence the policies
in independent South American countries. But it would be wishful (and reckless)
thinking. Even if geopolitics in the world are changing and the US — although
still the most powerful world player — is not any more as omnipresent as it
used to be. Washington still has considerable damage power. And it should not
be forgotten that South America is in their area of influence, and not in
China’s.
Moreover, many people who have strong reservations about US
domestic and foreign policy, have equally strong reservations about Chinese
policies. Which brings up the question about how much thought and time has gone
into analyzing the unwritten agenda behind these agreements.
José Alfredo Graça Lima, the Brazilian diplomat who
coordinated his country’s negotiators. said that there is no ideology behind
this deal. This writer begs to disagree and respectfully suggests that the
Itamaraty officer might want to take a new look at Hans Morgenthau’s classic
“Politics Among Nations.” Expanding a Nation’s power in a region or in the
world, is an ideology as comprehensive and all embracing as you can find.
Hopefully, the authorities in Brazil and Argentina have
considered what — unwritten — power games might be associated with these
agreements. Some signals are worrying.
As mentioned two weeks ago in this column, the mysterious
space base being built by China in Neuquén triggers concerns in Washington as
well as in some EU governments. True, China is not openly aggressive any more.
But some of its moves in this part of the world make people uneasy about
motives and objectives.
AntarcticA is another case in point
China’ presence in Antarctica is steadily and quickly
increasing. Last year it opened its fourth research station, and a fifth one is
already planned. In addition, it is investing in icebreakers and aircraft adequate
to operate in the Antarctic environment. Currently, its investment in
Antarctica is the highest amongst the Antarctic Treaty’s member states. Peter
Jennings — formerly a senior official in the Australian Ministry of Defence —
and currently executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute
speaks about a “deeper agenda” in China’s Antarctic policy, namely one that is
aimed at securing long-term food and energy supplies.
True, the Antarctic Treaty bans any non-scientific
extractive activities until 2048. But every commentator adds the caveat that
the ban will be in force “as long as the Treaty does not fall apart.” And
history teaches that states are willing and able to tear up treaties if they
feel that circumstances justify it. Especially if they are powerful enough to
do so.
And China can wield that kind of power. Not perhaps in terms
of classical military strength, where the US is still ahead. But there are new
warfare formats.
Many argue that in addition to air, land and sea, new battlefronts
are found in the cyberspace, which is not currently a peaceful virtual
territory. And many accuse China to be one of the main aggressors. Battles in
the cyberspace are silent. And defeats are often keep silent, something made
possible by the fact that there is no body-count to report.
Interestingly enough, neither Antarctica nor the cyberspace
are conventional areas of conflict. It is very easy to avoid being pushed by a
powerful partner into compromising — and hence unwanted — attitudes on traditional
conflicts. It is less easy to get away from — say — a request for some friendly
support on Antarctic issues or on cyberspace matters.
Hopefully, there is no small print in the agreements signed
by Brazil and Argentina committing cooperation in areas which could become
sensitive.
CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario