This dissertation responds to the modality of accumulative dissertation in the framework of the regulations in force at the Graduate School of the WiSo Uni-Hamburg in the winter semester 2014. According to these regulations, the accumulative dissertation must build an integrated body of at least three independent articles which are published, accepted, or publishable, provided that together they articulate and respond to a research question.
Co-authorship is regulated in such a way that at least half of the work in the articles must have been undertaken by the candidate to the qualification of Dr. phil. The articles in question must be integrated by means of two unpublished chapters, one introductory – this chapter – and another of conclusions. The bibliography is consolidated for all chapters, although in the independent versions each paper has its own references. In the case of this dissertation, the balance between a complete explanation, while sufficiently parsimonious, was achieved with the articulation of three papers.
The first corresponds to the definition of causal conditions based on the global level of analysis. This section consists of two chapters, 2 and 3. Chapter Two, entitled “Missing Geopolitical Links in Explaining the South American Defence Council”, corresponds to a paper of my exclusive authorship. In this document, statistical analysis was used to give empirical support to the thesis of the international deconcentration of national economic capabilities, in contrast to a concentration of gross national capabilities. Based on the
21 formula of concentration of Edward Mansfield (1993), it was demonstrated that between 1980 and 2013, global capabilities of gross wealth generation by the sovereign state passed through three clearly differentiated stages: late bipolarity (1980-1992), unipolarity (1993-2001), and economic deconcentration with reconcentration of other capabilities, above all military ones (2002-2013). The same formula of concentration that was used to measure the diffusion of GDP, but with material capability data from the CINC, generated contradictory results in the post-hegemonic thesis in the case of South America, as concentration increased instead of reducing. Nevertheless, the concentration of national capabilities forced the search for missing links that could explain the projects of the CDS and UNASUR. Geostrategic factors relating to the over-orientation of the US towards the Middle East, Central Asia and the Asia Pacific (2001-2006) were found. It is in this stage that the CDS takes form, is created and performs.
The combination of the statistical method with geopolitical analysis allowed the creation of a robust argument, giving way to the second section of the dissertation on the failing performance of the CDS. This section is composed of Chapter Three, entitled: “The South American Defence Council Performance under Autonomy Pressures”. This paper, again of my exclusive authorship. The evidence processed under a neoclassical realist framework and through the descriptive inference method of process tracing suggests that the autonomist aspirations of the distinct governments of the region, especially the secondary regional powers, not only limited the scope of the institutional design of the CDS, but also continued to be presented and have obstructed the possibility of achieving the limited aims proposed in 2008-2009. These national (individual) aspirations have undermined the possibility of a hypothetically collective objective such as regional autonomy. In this sense, the South American regional power, Brazil, was contested by the agendas of the secondary powers, but also its own internal crisis since 2015, which also affects the possibility of a better performance of the CDS. This chapter presents as a question an idea central to this doctoral dissertation and which could be useful for the analysis of regional security institutions both in South America and the rest of the Global South: the paradox of autonomy.
Chapter Four corresponds to the third paper written for this dissertation, entitled: “Flaws of Security Regionalism in the Global South: Lessons from the South American Paradox of Autonomy”. This paper also of my exclusive authorship. The reason behind this choice relates to the fact that the chapter has a conceptual character and lays its foundations on
22 theoretical development based on case studies (George and Bennett, 2004). This paper gathers the lessons learned from the research and opens discussion on the real possibilities of comparative studies of regional security based on the theoretical and methodological approach applied throughout the preceding chapters. The paradox of autonomy occurs in the tension between national autonomy – the freedom of decision and action that a state can enjoy in the international system – and regional autonomy – referring to that of regional groups organised in regional schemes. Most of the literature on autonomy assumes that this is a common South American – and Global Southern – objective. The explanatory model of the paradox of autonomy agrees with this statement in principal, but at the same time challenges it in two ways. Firstly, in terms of homogeneity: the paradox of autonomy is a subsidiary model of structuralism, so it assumes that the regional hierarchy is fundamental in the prediction of foreign policy behaviour. And secondly, it contrasts the notions of “common” and “collective”, while the paradox lies in the potential conflict between the notion of autonomy as a recurring objective and that of autonomy as a shared objective.
It is understood that for regional powers, and secondary powers, autonomy is a key objective. However, from a rational choice point of view, the lesser the capacity, the greater the need for external cooperation. Asymmetries generate stimulus for bandwagoning, and can leave aside autonomous objectives in favour of security, growth and/or development objectives. Thus, the paradox of autonomy is commonly presented at the level of secondary powers, because for them, collective (regional) autonomy can be both a route and an obstacle for individual (national) autonomy. Thus, even considering the possibility of autonomy as a common objective, it might not be considered a collective objective.
In sum, the three central chapters of this dissertation fulfil the three distinct phases and dimensions in the process of answering the research question posed. The first of the chapters, Chapter Two, contributes structural criteria on a solid empirical base which allows the identification of the conditions that facilitated both the emergence of the CDS and the search for greater autonomy by South American states. Additionally, it offers indications of how those conditions affected the performance of the Council. This is complemented with what is advanced in Chapter Three, whose main contribution is to establish a logical causal chain that allows the identification of the regional causes of the failings of South American security regionalism, without leaving aside crucial aspects of domestic politics that conditioned distinct foreign policy strategies and regional security
23 cooperation. The interaction of the two chapters is transcendental for this dissertation, insofar as it puts systemic and regional analyses in contact. This, in addition to including the security dimension and the fact of not being guided by political preferences or desires that try to force idealised realities, constitutes an important contribution to research on regionalism in the Global South, and in South America in particular. The lessons learned in the research processes of these chapters are translated into Chapter Four which has a clear theoretical orientation, but with the aforementioned empirical basis. The specific result is a chapter that systematises elements of the analysis of security regionalism, but which also contributes a theoretical framework willing to be tested in new comparative research designs. The general result is that of a dissertation that intends to open new avenues of research on regional security in the Global South from a rational and realist perspective.
24
Chapter Two
Missing Geopolitical Links in Explaining
the South American Defence Council
25
Abstract
The so-called post-hegemonic regionalism has emerged as the dominant explanation for the latest wave of South American regionalism. According to this, the regionalist phenomenon was a product of American decline, the rise of a multipolar global order, and autonomy reactions from South American governments. However, this thesis is insufficient to explain the poor performance of the South American Defence Council (CDS). This article presents a critique of that explanatory model. The shortcomings of post-hegemonic regionalism are exposed in explaining the CDS limited performance as an institution of security regionalism. Starting from the patterns of concentration of power and polarity in the international system, as well as changes in the U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS), an alternative explanation is proposed from neoclassical geopolitics, as a first step in the elaboration of a more robust explanation of the flaws of security regionalism in the Global South.
Keywords: post-hegemonic regionalism, South American Defence Council, security regionalism, neoclassical geopolitics.