The positions of Argentina around the negotiations for the FTAA during the government of Eduardo Duhalde, 2002
I propose to describe the positions of the Argentine government regarding the negotiations for the FTAA during the year 2002. I observe the different attempts promoted by the presidents Eduardo Duhalde (Argentina) and Fernando Henrique Cardoso (Brazil) to reach a unity between the MERCOSUR and the C...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo revista |
| Lenguaje: | Español |
| Publicado: |
Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Historia
2018
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/RIHALC/article/view/20455 |
| Aporte de: |
| Sumario: | I propose to describe the positions of the Argentine government regarding the negotiations for the FTAA during the year 2002. I observe the different attempts promoted by the presidents Eduardo Duhalde (Argentina) and Fernando Henrique Cardoso (Brazil) to reach a unity between the MERCOSUR and the CAN and thus constitute a monobloc that, from their point of view, would have allowed obtaining better returns from the FTAA agreement. The exhibition is strictly chronological and descriptive, although I make some interpretations of the events that occurred during: a) the Second Summit of Presidents of South America held in July 2002 in the city of Guayaquil and b) the positions and resolutions adopted at the VII Meeting Ministerial of the FTAA, held in November 2002 in Quito, where an attempt was made to effect a common position among the various countries of South America. I show that these two moments were founding of what I call the politicization of the negotiations, because MERCOSUR and the United States tried to form alliances to strengthen their positions. The underlying hypothesis is that the positions of the Argentine government aimed to achieve a better position in the negotiations for the FTAA, and for this it sought the support of Brazil and the rest of the countries of South America. The purpose of this positioning was to reach agreements that resulted in favorable commercial balances that help to recover the economy and, at the same time, allow responding to diverse social demands. From the point of view of Argentina, this position was based on the social insurrection of December 2001 that led to the end of convertibility and changes in the form of the state, which tended to respond to social demands that emerged during the struggles against neoliberal capitalism. Responding to these demands was a condition of possibility for the recomposition of political power and the conditions of accumulation after that social insurrection. |
|---|