Russia and Latin America

From Nation-State to Society of States

M. Astrada

• Publisher: Palgrave Pivot
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9781137308122
• eBook ISBN: 9781137308139
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Globalisation
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Today, extensive interconnected global processes provide non-state actors with a degree of agency that a 'System of States' paradigm cannot account for alone. Using Russia-Latin America relations as a case study and applying a Complex Adaptive Systems perspective, this work explores alternative international mechanisms of order and organization.

1

Mapping Complex Cooperative Networks: Society in International Organization

Abstract: This chapter lays out the theoretical framework used to analyze interstate relations, exploring alternative international mechanisms and principles of order and organization. The emergence of soft-power complex cooperative networks in interstate relations has facilitated various changes in how states interact within the context of an international system rooted in realpolitik. Complex cooperative networks present challenges and opportunities for states within the traditional system-of-states order. Such networks, e.g., the United Nations, provide alternative bases for state engagement based on more complex interaction because of the integrative effect that networks have on the fabric of international order and organization. Russia–Latin America relations are employed to empirically explore the impact of emergent complex cooperative networks.

Astrada, Marvin L. and Martín, Félix E. Russia and Latin America: From Nation-State to Society of States. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. DOI: 10.1057/9781137308139.

A society of states is premised on “soft power” notions and ordering principles. These include, among others, reputation, prestige, social capital, universal notions of justice, and international networks involving trade, finance conventions, diplomacy, and negotiations. In unison, these substantively impact, expand, and reconfigure the perceptions and behavior of international actors. According to Monocle Magazine, soft power refers to

the ability of a state to achieve a desired outcome through the leveraging of legitimacy, or better still, attraction. Soft power eschews the traditional foreign policy implements of carrot and stick, relying instead upon . . . reputation and benevolent disposition . . . soft power opens up a third front, supplementing the traditional mediums of international relations: governments and [state foreign policy makers].¹

Soft power, unlike “hard power”—viz., military capability, is distinct because states’ influence in international affairs is relational and fluid in nature; concepts, perceptions, and interpretation take place in an evolving systemic context, giving rise to complex adaptive behavior among the constituent components of the international system. Jonathan McClory notes that soft power is

the ability of a state to influence the actions of another through persuasion or attraction, rather than coercion . . . power can be wielded in three ways: threat of force (stick), inducement of payments (carrot) or shaping the preferences of others. Soft power eschews the traditional foreign policy implements of carrot and stick, relying instead on the attractiveness of a nation’s institutions, culture, politics and foreign policy, to shape the preferences of others.²

Accordingly, soft power has played a cardinal role in the instauration of a society of states via Complex Cooperative Networks (CCN).

In light of the role CCNs have come to assume in international organization, do societal notions of international order rooted in soft power create viable alternative spaces for a conceptual framework(s) and set(s) of empirical practices that challenge the intelligibility of international order under a state system paradigm? Is it the case that the state, which under a system-of-states paradigm is “politically incontestable,”³ is becoming less significant in an emergent society of states? Some commentators claim that there has been a continuous and relative decline of the nation-state in relation to other international institutional and non-state actors in world politics and international organization. In fact, Petras and Veltmeyer affirm that,

[n]otwithstanding considerable evidence of the state’s continued prominence and agency within the global development process, it is just as clear that under the present widespread structural and political conditions, the powers of the nation-state have been significantly eroded, giving way to the influence of international institutions.⁴

This work does not support the above line of thought. Rather, CCNs as expressions of international society and soft power are viewed as functioning in tandem with Realist notions of international order. CCNs have not made the state irrelevant or impotent; rather, they have enabled the state to grow, adapt, and expand. States are complex entities that function within a system. Within the systemic context, states are provided with various means to better stabilize international affairs by creating integrative and cooperative bases for interaction. The dissemination of universal values such as human rights and economic development and prosperity have enabled the state to adapt to a shrinking world; integrative political, economic, and social institutions, in tandem with linking technologies such as the internet have provided the state with the tools it needs to remain viable, responsive, growing, adaptive, resilient and relevant in an ever-changing, networked, and interactive world.

Society, complexity, networks and Russia–Latin America relations

To explore the impact of CCNs on international order/organization, Russo-Latin American relations are used to test and illustrate the utility of the CAS approach and assess the contention that the instauration of a society of states in various international settings is taking place in the present global order. Relations between selected Latin American countries and Russia may provide a vivid example of how a society of sates is evolving via cooperative, interactive networks, especially through global economic processes, involving production, trade, finance, and investment.

In the case of Russia and Latin America, relations have undergone a profound reorganization and have been repurposed since the disintegration of the USSR and the end of the Cold War. Previous relations were premised on Russia balancing US power, making incursions into the US’s sphere of influence or “backyard,” and supporting states on an ideological basis. Present relations are complex and variegated, based on a variety of levels—in particular trade, investment, and finance—that transcend the previous myopic basis for relations. For example, Sistema Económico Latinoamericano y del Caribe (hereinafter SELA) notes that the volume of trade between Russia and Latin American in the twenty-first century has almost tripled; relations have expanded in other economic areas that resemble society-forming attributes. Buttressing the argument of this work, the SELA study reports that

[Russia] has expanded cooperation in . . . the energy sector, mining, physical infrastructure and telecommunications and . . . military technology [and] on projects in the areas of oil prospecting and extraction, construction of hydroelectric power stations, space exploration, and the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes . . . The strengthening of the economic, trade and financial links between Russia and the countries of the region [are] based on a legal framework of agreements which is permanently renewed with new agreements among governments and companies of both parties.⁵

Russia–Latin America relations, on a regional level, provide an interesting case study because global trade in particular has assumed the properties of a transformative mechanism vis-à-vis societal notions of international organizations that transcend traditional state-centric ordering principles. This work contends that trade, as a form of soft power and complex adaptation, has provided a basis for developing complex, systemic “institutional mechanisms,” i.e., CCNs, for further enhancing and developing economic relations between Russian and Latin America. For example, while trade negotiations usually involve contacts between persons and organizations at the highest levels of government, negotiations entail various other actors that further expand the degree of integrative interaction. CCNs such as the OAS, MERCUSOR, ALBA, and the National Committee for Economic Cooperation with the Latin American countries are expanding and laying the basis for a sophisticated and complex basis for relations. The SELA study, also, reports that

the actions that have been developed to foster the relations between Russia and the countries of Latin America . . . are very particular for each country depending on the hierarchy, priority, and level of existing relations, and in addition, the type of negotiations and the methods devised for their direction and control.⁶

Present Russia–Latin America relations exemplify how states—developing and developed—are coping with the transformative shifts ushered in by the diffusion of power as the result of economic globalization.

CCNs which have created alternative possibilities for state behavior and relations are producers and products of the massive changes that have been setting the stage for the rise of networks, for complex state-to-state engagement and relations. Emergent CCNs are being utilized by Russia and its Latin American partners to realize strategic as well as a host of non-strategic interests and goals. It is instructive to note here a central point emphasized by the SELA study which is directly related to the argument of this work and to the notion of reciprocity among multiple institutional entities in a variety of issue-areas:

The legal and contractual basis for reciprocal cooperation is being consolidated with new inter-governmental agreements among economic agents and scientific institutes of both parties. The intensification of the political dialogue and high-level visits has played an important role in improving this legal basis . . . [relations] go beyond merely economic aspects, as they also deal with political, scientific, technological, humanitarian and even military issues.⁷

A systems approach to international society and organization

How do CCNs emerge, and what enables them to act effectively so that states have an alternative basis from which to engage in interstate relations? CCNs are premised on the notion of adaptive, evolving systems comprising state relations as opposed to fixed systems of knowledge and understanding. A Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) is comprised of layers of networked, interactive systems of knowledge that inform, complement, and produce opportunities and possibilities for the emergence of CCNs. Methodologically, General Systems Theory (GST) is based on the notion of “systems inquiry.” As Bela Banathy notes, generally speaking the concept of “system” refers to a configuration of individual parts connected and joined together by a web of complex and interdependent relationships; in a specific sense, system is defi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Introduction
• 1  Mapping Complex Cooperative Networks: Society in International Organization
• 2  Globalization, International Organization and the Rise of a Society of States
• 3  Exploring the Emergent State-Society Synthesis: RussiaLatin America Relations
• 4  Building Complexity: Select Case Studies of CCNsRussia and Latin America
• 5  Concluding Thoughts on CCNs in RussiaLatin America Relations
• Bibliography
• Index