In recent weeks, many observers of the Latin American military situation have detected what could be the beginning of a new arms race in the region. Brazilian President Luis Inacio "Lula" da Silva was photographed boarding the Tikuna, his country's first conventional, domestically built submarine. He used the opportunity to highlight his support for the Brazilian military.
Similarly, Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez has broadcast his intention to purchase Russian MiG fighter jets and Brazilian low-flying surveillance aircraft, and to expand military expenditures. He is doing so, perhaps, because of recent problems with Colombia. Even Chile, after a lengthy process of weighing its options, is still pondering whether to acquire a dozen American-built jet fighters or a joint Swedish-Brazilian alternative.
Is there a new arms race underway in Latin America? If so, is there any conceivable way it could help address the hemisphere's economic and social dilemmas?
Regional wars and border conflicts have existed since time immemorial in Latin America. There was the Chaco war and the Chilean-Bolivian conflagration in the nineteenth century, the so called "Soccer War" between Honduras and El Salvador in the 1960s, the clash between Ecuador and Peru in the 1980s, and Antarctic border disputes between Chile and Argentina that were finally settled in the early 1990s. But the main reason for heavy military spending in Latin America has always been chiefly domestic.
Either the military ran various countries, and gorged itself with hardware and troop increases, or weak civilian governments, terrified of military coups or blackmail, placated their armed forces with all sorts of unnecessary martial goodies. By international standards, arms spending in Latin America is low relative to GDP; but it is nonetheless excessive relative to the region's needs.
Today the situation is more complex. In Venezuela, keeping his former comrades in arms happy is obviously a concern for Chavez. But festering conflicts with his Colombian neighbors are also a factor, particularly in view of the constant accusations and suspicions that Chavez comforts and supports the FARC guerrillas in Colombia. High oil prices allow Venezuela to go on this military spending spree, and there seems little that anybody can do about it.
In Brazil, matters are somewhat different. Lula has been able to neatly dovetail his socialist roots with traditional Brazilian nationalism, which has always been strong in the country's armed forces. "O Brasil, pa's grande" is a universal slogan in South America's giant -- a country that has borders with nine neighbors and fears that its distant jungle frontiers cannot easily be patrolled.
Similar sentiments are apparent elsewhere in the region. But the question everywhere in Latin America is whether it would not be a better idea to implement former -- and perhaps future -- Costa Rican President Oscar Arias's idea of Latin American disarmament, to turn "spending on swords" into investments in ploughshares. Arias, the 1987 Nobel peace prize recipient, has a good reason for pushing this idea: his country has no standing army. Still, it is a bold initiative that should be revived in view of Latin America's incipient arms race.
Indeed, it could be the cornerstone of a new program for the next secretary-general of the Organization of American States, who is to be elected in the coming weeks. Obviously, I am rooting for the Mexican candidate, Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez. But whoever wins will need new ideas and initiatives to reinvigorate a dormant institution. Stopping Latin America's budding arms race is about as good an idea as there can be.
Jorge Castaneda is a former foreign minister of Mexico and currently a candidate for Mexico's presidency.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS