The implications of IBSA for South-South interregionalism

Mónica Hirst, Professor - Universidad Torcuato di Tella, Buenos Aires

(27/11/07)

Parting from South Africa’s inspiration, Brazil’s initiative and India’s immediate acceptance, an attempt to transform coincidental or episodic, inter-state cooperation into a concrete cooperative agenda, took place in Brasilia 2003 when India, Brazil, and South Africa signed the Declaration of Brasília, instituting the IBSA as a trilateral forum for articulating interests and positions based on common interests. The initiative seeks to pursue five aspirations:

• to represent an affirmative voice of the emerging countries in the debate on globalization,
• to represent a counterpoint to the G-8,
• to emphasize the value of economic diplomacy as a tool for bringing countries together,
• to bolster the importance of development cooperation on the agendas for international negotiation,
• to bring pressure to bear as a voice of the South in the main multilateral forums (United Nations, International Monetary Fund, World Bank)

The IBSA initiative is innovative insofar as it brings together developing countries that are regionally based middle powers, opening space for an inter-regional agenda. In addition to permanent efforts to coordinate stances at multilateral forums, the three countries have expanded bilateral economic and political relations. The IBSA initiative has benefited from the positive political environment of its members and has relied upon the combination of three pro-active presidential diplomacies. But IBSA represents less than the sum of its members. All three carry strong identities within the international community: South Africa stands for the struggle against racism, India for the largest democracy and Brazil for the promotion of sustainable development.

In the period 2003-2007 seven IBSA high-level meetings have been held. In each occasion trilateralism has expanded scope and level of cooperation. Besides, a special deal between MERCOSUR and Southern African Custom Union to increase trade and investment between both economic blocs, negotiations took place to put forward health cooperation programs, particularly regarding biotechnology research and pharmaceuticals production. IBSA has also endorsed the idea that since the South is heterogeneous and asymmetric, different responsibilities and roles must be assumed. This explains IBSA’s decision in 2006 to create a development fund of $1.3 million to develop cooperative projects to be implemented in Guinea Bissau, Haiti, Laos, and Palestine.

Increased inter-governmental consultation and cooperation has deepened this south-south partnership. Foreign policy convergence between the three states has concentrated upon the need to strengthen multilateralism in world affairs with special emphasis on the need to reform the UN framework and the International Financial Architecture. Subtle differences, however, emerge in UNSC related matters. Wile India and Brazil have been explicit regarding their mutual support for each others candidacy for permanent membership, South Africa has been more cautious in recommending that reform must first be securely underway before opening the debate upon seat assignments. It must be stated however that more than contesting the world power structure, IBSA criticizes the distribution of power in specific agendas. Its aim is to push for the participation in the rule-making inner circle instead of accepting the condition of passive rule-takers. In this sense it intends to politicize but not ideologize world politics and economics. Furthermore the coalition has developed a niche diplomacy approach which addresses topics such as: the Palestine-Israeli peace process, the stability and unity of Iraq, a diplomatic solution for the Iranian nuclear program, the re-engagement in substantial work of the Conference on Disarmament .

It’s important to stress that the IBSA bloc has been particularly careful when addressing security issues. On the one side, no mention has been made of an agenda involving South America, South Asia or Southern Africa conflict-resolution, regional security and\or even humanitarian intervention; On the other, the use of the concept of human security which addresses social and environment disruptions as threats has been avoided.

There has been a deliberate effort to connect the strengthening of the IBSA initiative with the deepening of the bilateral ties between the three countries. In many aspects the agenda and political discourse of IBSA reinforces itself in bilateral terms. This is clear in the case of Brazil-India relations.

If and when IBSA cooperation spills over to the security field, this can open up space for a myriad of coordinated initiatives to take place, involving peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention, the promotion of 1) an agenda for peace – conflict prevention and post-conflict rehabilitation, and 2) a collaborative agenda between the UN and regional bodies (OAS, AU, ASEAN, MERCOSUR). IBSA states could also lead in defining a new model for multilateral security measures. Indeed, it has become crucial to avoid the worrying tendency for humanitarian intervention to replace development aid, as it is for trade negotiations to subordinate to security priorities, and for formal democratic rule to overlook the protection of human rights. But this kind of cooperation will move more slowly. While the possibility of deepening inter-regional relations is one of IBSA main attributes this potential is accompanied by a subtle premise of non-interference in each other’s regional affairs. Notwithstanding, inter-regionalism can be meaningful in a world where regions are to become relevant actors in the promotion of political and security stability.