|
It is Argentina's turn to hold the pro-tempore presidency of Mercosur
during the first semester of this year. A central question arises on this
regard: What is the benefit for the construction of Mercosur that can
result from this semester in which Argentina can have a leading role in
the joint work between countries, particularly taking into account the
changes that are taking place at the regional and global planes?
Whatever happens until the end of June, when the periodical Mercosur
Summit takes place, will certainly not depend only of Argentina. It is
clear that the construction of a regional integration space is a collective
task that can be nurtured by the contributions made by each partner in
view of their own national interests. Working together might then be decisive
in order to define the eventual achievements that are accomplished during
this period. In this sense, the future Chancellor of the newly elected
Uruguayan government has advanced his country's disposition for promoting
initiatives that facilitate the necessary adaptation of Mercosur to the
new regional and global realities. However, by exercising the pro-tempore
presidency, Argentina has even a greater chance of providing the political
thrust that is needed to move forward and, most significantly, to resolve
any existing entanglements.
The Treaty of Asuncion established that the participation of the Presidents
in Council meetings would take place "at least once a year"
(Article 11). However, it was precisely the need to ensure a continuous
flow of political support at the highest level that led, as soon as the
Treaty was signed, to contemplate that after each semester the work developed
by the several competent instances through numerous meetings, sometimes
weekly ones, should end with a Presidential Summit within the framework
of the Mercosur Council. This has been the procedure since then and later
was formally established by Article 6 of the Ouro Preto Protocol of 1994.
An influence in the idea of the semiannual frequency was the experience
of the preceding period of bilateral integration between Argentina and
Brazil (1985-1990), during which the biannual presidential meetings were
key to upholding the original political drive. Certainly, the precedent
that existed in the European regional space was influential as well.
An integration process which is multidimensional (not limited to the
commercial aspects), complex (the interests of the countries not always
concur and there are deep asymmetries), and dynamic (the contexts at the
national, regional and global planes are changing continuously), requires
a periodical boost at the highest political level. Its coordination is
precisely the main responsibility of the country that holds the temporary
presidency of Mercosur and of its multiple intergovernmental component
bodies. This becomes of particular relevance in the case of those bodies
that have the competency to plan roadmaps and concrete commitments, following
the mandates originated in the semiannual presidential meetings or through
their own initiative. We are referring to the Common Market Group and
the periodical Meeting of Ministers of Economy and Central Bank Presidents.
The periods of greater progress in the construction of Mercosur in it's
almost 20 years of existence, prove the effectiveness of the dynamics
that develops between the highest political level of each country and
the two mentioned bodies during the course of each semester. Such dynamic,
in the measure that it actually develops, can lead the semiannual meeting
between the Council and the Presidents to produce roadmaps and decisions
that allow moving forward with the integration process.
Given the low institutional profile that has been granted to the figure
of the Secretary of Mercosur, it is precisely in relation to such dynamics
of commitment building that the country that holds the pro-tempore presidency
can have a wide margin to influence, with its initiatives, the results
that are obtained at the end of the semester. The fact that no relevant
competencies have been granted to the Secretary increases the responsibility
of the country holding the pro-tempore presidency to attempt to finalize
the period with a clear added value for the construction of Mercosur.
At least three sets of priorities characterize the agenda of Mercosur
during this semester of Argentine presidency.
The first is related to the progress in significant matters that have
been left unresolved from previous periods. The most important of these
are outlined in the results of the last meeting of the Mercosur Council,
which took place under the Uruguayan presidency, in Montevideo, in December
2009, (on this subject please refer to http://www.mercosur.int/,
that includes the Joint Declaration of the Presidents of the member countries).
Some of these issues have been on the agenda for quite some time. Without
overlooking others, we can mention the most relevant which are: addressing
the existing asymmetries; institutional consolidation; the approval of
the Mercosur Customs Code; the elimination of the double charge of the
external common tariff; the mechanism for the distribution of customs
revenue; and the promotion of productive integration. Experience has shown
that it is not easy to achieve the necessary consensus regarding these
issues or to translate them into reality.
The second priority arises from those issues that Argentina, as the country
holding the presidency, will propose for consideration and eventually
for approval at the Council Meeting to be held in June and at the simultaneous
Presidential Summit. On this plane, there is ample room for the initiatives
that may be proposed also by other member countries -such the case of
Uruguay, as previously mentioned- as well as by the productive sectors.
These will become more effective in the measure that they result from
the interaction between counterparts in the different Mercosur countries,
especially within the network of business institutions. An example of
a proposal originating in the business sector and that could translate
into joint initiatives of companies with investments in several of the
countries of the region can be found in a recent article by Gustavo Grobocopatel
entitled "Mercosur is the sure path towards our progress". (See
the text of this article in Clarín newspaper of Monday 15 December
2009, page 31 on
http://www.clarin.com/). From the perspective of a businessperson
who runs operations in various countries of the region, he helps make
manifest the importance of a joint economic space -to which Chile is closely
linked as well- for the future development of its member countries, especially
when taking into account the new international realities. In the article
he affirms, "In times of struggle between the global and the local,
the regional option is inevitable and beneficial." He later adds,
"We should build a common agenda for growth, integration and improved
negotiation".
The third priority is related to the fact that the LAC-EU Summit will
take place during the month of May in Madrid (on this regard see the December
2009 edition of our Newsletter on www.felixpena.com.ar). Argentina and
Spain -the country that holds the European temporary presidency -have
an opportunity and a key responsibility to obtain on such occasion substantial
progress in the pending negotiation of a cooperation agreement between
Mercosur and the European Union. Due to its bandwagon effect and to its
political and economical impact, we may consider that this issue will
probably define the image of the Argentine period of Mercosur. Both the
Spanish and Argentine governments have given out clear signs of their
interest and willingness to achieve at least substantial progress in such
occasion. Likewise, the Brazilian Chancellor and the future Chancellor
of the new Uruguayan government have expressed similar intentions.
There are complicated entanglements that will be difficult, but not impossible,
to resolve in order to achieve such objective. These entanglements are
to account for the collapse of the negotiations in October 2004 (on this
matter refer to the April, May, June and July 2004 editions of our Newsletter
on www.felixpena.com.ar). However, the context has significantly changed
since then. Presently, there would seem to be more possibilities for introducing
flexibilities, especially in relation to sensitive matters in the planes
of both agricultural and industrial products. This will require ingenuity
and technical creativity as well as purpose and political drive, such
as was pointed out at the Mercosur-EU Business Forum (MEBF) Meeting with
the Presidents of Mercosur countries, held in Montevideo. On this occasion,
the MEBF members offered their collaboration. It would be advisable to
take full advantage of it. (For the full text of the declaration, see
http://www.mebforum.org).
On the technical front, there are mechanisms that are compatible with
the WTO regulations to resolve the most critical pending problems thanks
to the flexibility of Article XXIV of GATT-1994, without necessarily generating
precedents that are inconvenient for the other international trade negotiations
of both blocs. "Multi-speed" and "variable geometry"
instruments will allow to face the most sensitive entanglements. The existing
asymmetries between both regions and, especially, within Mercosur itself
require of their use. Additionally, the inclusion of "evolutionary
clauses" will allow to introduce progressive modifications to the
preferences that are granted initially once the Doha Round, also behind
schedule, is concluded.
It is in the political plane that actions are needed in order to make
the eventual technical solutions that lead to the Mercosur-EU bi-regional
agreement feasible. This leads to the central question: Are both regions
really interested in concluding an association agreement which, without
fully adjusting to the original idea nor to what would be advisable according
to a "textbook criteria", would allow to take a quantitative
leap in the transatlantic relations and would have a strong impact on
the international image of both Mercosur and the European Union?
The answer to such question demands that the relations between both regions
be analyzed within the broader scope of the issues that rule the agenda
of global governance -among which those that were discussed at the Copenhagen
Summit regarding climate change are a clear example, (on the subject see
our January 2010 Newsletter on www.felixpena.com.ar).
However, it also requires considering the fact that new players currently
have a growing presence in the South American space -such the case of
China. This is not a fact that escapes the attention of European businessmen,
particularly in relation to the future of industrial sectors in which
they have a significant presence in Mercosur countries -such as the automotive
sector, among others; or regarding the future international competition
to participate with equipment, services and investments in the development
of the huge potential of Mercosur countries -in particular, but not limited
to, Brazil- for the production of food and hydrocarbons.
If the answer to the question posed above were affirmative -and there
are many arguments in favor of this-, a main priority of the period of
the Argentine presidency would be to achieve at least some substantial
progress in the relations between Mercosur and the European Union, as
part of a more encompassing and diversified strategy for the international
insertion of its member countries. Eventually, the negotiating process
could end in the following semester, during the period of the Brazilian
presidency of Mercosur.
This would have a positive effect on our country's image in terms of
its ability to contribute a constructive leadership in the South American
space, particularly together with Brazil, Chile and Uruguay. It would
also benefit its image in regards to its disposition to generate inter-regional
cooperation spaces -in this case with Europe, but at a later date with
other big players of world trade- that are functional to its strategic
interests, without overlooking the legitimate interests of the productive
sectors. In addition, this would provide an appropriate background to
encourage creative solutions for other unresolved entanglements in the
construction of Mercosur and even in the bilateral relations between the
European and Mercosur countries.
This would seem more than necessary if it were true that none of the
partners, not even the one with the largest relative economic weight such
as Brazil, seem to have a credible alternative plan aside from the current
Mercosur. At least this seems to be the case if we include in our analysis
considerations other than the economic and commercial ones, such as those
of strategic nature that involve the peace and stability of the South
American regional space.
|
