Meeting of chancellors in the framework of the VIII Summit of the Americas in Lima – Peru (2018). At this summit, six member states of UNASUR agreed to temporarily suspend their participation in the organization. Source: Wikimedia Commons. Some rights reserved.Bolivia assumed the pro tempore
presidency of UNASUR on April 18. It started with a slap in the face: two days
later, the Bolivian chancellor was formally notified of the decision by the
governments of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay and Peru to "temporarily"
suspend their participation in the organization – a decision adopted a few before
during the Summit of the Americas. This decision could take UNASUR either to intensive care or to a terminal stage.

For some media it was a cause for
celebration. They argued that the organization is no longer operational, that it
is the expression of “Bolivarian”, ideology-based foreign policies that should now
be left behind, and that UNASUR has stopped being functional for some of its
member states’ foreign policies, particularly the new right-wing governments,
which prefer the Pacific Alliance as a more pragmatic and effective option. To
them, the withdrawal of these countries and the ensuing end of UNASUR would be
more than justified.

A more nuanced analysis of this decision
reveals, however, that this is not in fact a "withdrawal", nor does its
aim at shutting down the organization.

The document sent to the Bolivian
presidency mentions the "suspension of the participation in UNASUR
activities for an indefinite period of time", which does not imply a
denunciation of the international treaty which established UNASUR, nor a
definitive parting from it.

It is a new example of the empty chair strategy which was famously used in 1965 by the French government when it temporarily suspended its participation in the European Economic Community

It seems much more like a maneuver aimed at putting
pressure on the other member states: it is a new example of the empty chair
strategy which was famously used in 1965 by the French government when it temporarily
suspended its participation in the European Economic Community in order to
recover France’s right of veto on decisions which it considered were affecting
its national interest.

It is certainly true that today UNASUR
is not operational: it does not hold its mandatory annual presidential summit
and it is unable to reach an agreement on a new Secretary-General – the only
candidate for the post, José Octavio Bordón from Argentina, has been repeatedly
vetoed by Bolivia and Venezuela.

In fact, the official document on the suspension
of activities by the six governments specifically calls for "concrete
results to ensure the functioning of the organization in the coming
weeks".

In addition to the appointment of a new Secretary-General, it also
demands a revision of the decision-making processes which are currently based
on a unanimity rule, and a new course for the organization towards cooperation
in specific matters according to its members’ national priorities – such as integration
of physical infrastructures.

The move is a bold political wager: it could
unblock the appointment of the Secretary-General, but it could also aggravate
the fracture already existing in the region.

The initiative by the six governments has been presented in a carefully muted way – most of the
promoting foreign affairs ministries have not even announced it on their
websites – and they are not even trying to justify it just in terms of a better
functioning of the organization and the need to unblock decisions.

It requires
a broader interpretation – as part of the conservative restoration agenda of
the “new right” administrations, aimed at dismantling the legacy of the progressive
governments in the region.

This belies the allegedly "pragmatic"
nature of these governments' foreign policies and comes to prove that they too
have a clearly ideological bend.

But a political twist regarding regional
commitments could come at a high price, for it would clearly show that government
changes entail big foreign policy shifts, and that the UNASUR members are unwilling
or incapable of defining long-term policies – thus seriously damaging the
credibility of the member states and of the region as a whole.

The caricatured image being used to
portray UNASUR as an anti-imperialist "Bolivarian" tool is not only
inaccurate, but it reveals the intentions of those who try to discredit it. If
this had indeed been the case, it is hard to imagine how it could have managed
to maintain, as it actually has, the plurality of governments and interests in
its midst for ten years.

The organization has a satisfactory record on providing
services to the region, generating consensus, enhancing the international
presence of its members, effectively managing crises – such as the one that
Bolivia went through in 2008 -, and supporting useful cooperation initiatives
in fields such as physical infrastructures, public health, defense policies and
electoral processes.

UNASUR was also created to give South America more political autonomy on the global stage, as a soft-balancing instrument with regard to external powers. 

UNASUR was also created to give South America more
political autonomy on the global stage, as a soft-balancing instrument with regard
to external powers.

And there is no denying that it is wise to have an
organization such as this today as a foreign policy tool in the face of the United
States abrasive unilateralism, growing protectionism and rampant nationalism. In
a similar vein, the new European Union Strategy for Security and Foreign Policy
is also aimed at providing "strategic autonomy" to the EU without undermining
the traditional transatlantic bond.

It is true that UNASUR lacks a trade
integration dimension due to the opposition of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America –
Peoples’ Trade Treaty (ALBA) member countries, and that it
has not been effective in offering solutions to Venezuela’s entrenched and
difficult political crisis.

But it could hardly have done so, considering that
decisions at UNASUR require the unanimity of its member states – including the
claimants. And it should be borne in mind that the initiatives of the
Organization of American States (OAS), the Vatican and other actors – such as
Leonel Fernández or José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero – have not been successful
either.

UNASUR was created in 2008 in a context
full of tensions within the region and this did not prevent it from acting as a
platform for dialogue and agreement between governments of different shades.

Ten years later, new tensions and new divergences should not be the pretext to
destroy this significant acquis.