BILATERAL MILITARY CO-OPERATION BETWEEN SOUTH AFRICA AND THE MERCOSUR COUNTRIES

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

IMPERATIVES AND MOTIVATIONS FOR CO-OPERATION

The evolution of the nation-state, especially during the latter half of the nineteenth century, imposed new and daunting challenges for the international system. One of the regular means of communication and interaction between and among such states was largely through war or threats of war. Violent inter-state conflicts were (and still are) a direct result of competition for possession of, or access to, natural resources and raw materials. These commodities enable states to sustain their military forces which, in turn, enable them to project power beyond national borders. It is this nexus between resources and the quest for power to which not only many violent international conflicts could be attributed, but also the widening gap between the global rich and global poor (also known as the Global North and the Global South respectively). As realists argue, « military power is a function of economic prowess ».3

FORMS OF CO-OPERATION

Co-operation among states could be conducted either on a bilateral or multilateral basis, but the former is more common. The strength of bilateralism lies in it being tailor-made to suit the unique circumstances and requirements of the parties involved. However, its glaring weaknesses include the fact that it fuels accusations of conspiracy among neighbours and has the potential of causing regional fragmentation, as one state’s ally could be the other’s foe. Furthermore, it reverts the international system back into the self-help approach which dominated the pre-First World War (WW I) era. Multilateralism recognises the interdependence and interconnectedness of regional and, in most cases, global needs. Multilateralism denounces isolationism and promotes constructive internationalism among states, thus compelling such states to consider the interests of other states before designing and implementing national policies.

Setting standards

The concern about standards stems from a host of factors, including unequal levels of development, technological advancement, maturity of political and economic systems and, most importantly, the anarchical nature of the international system. The realist notions of self-interest and the quest for superior relative power vis-à-vis other states are as valid in the twenty-first century as they were during the previous one. Devising international standards remains an international responsibility, but the implementation and supervision rests largely with individual countries. This self-monitoring of individual states is made possible by all types of sanctions and punitive measures that are put in place for those who flout the rules. Such measures could include blacklisting involved role-players; withdrawing international funding; and the possibility of losing market share in the global economy. Services and products susceptible to such strict international controls include aviation services, medicines and drugs, goods, nuclear facilities and so forth.

Allocations

The Westphalian notion that states are sovereign and equal lies at the root of this specific form of international co-operation. The equality of states presupposes that states should share equitably the resources that are deemed to belong to all humanity. Whether or not a state is capable of optimally utilising the resource is immaterial. For instance, most littoral states in the developing world have Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) which stretch far beyond their elementary naval capacity either to protect, defend or monitor them. Some states are said to have massive oil reserves in their continental shelves, but they do not have the technology, expertise and financial resources to benefit from this. This does not necessarily mean that they should lose ownership of such untapped resources.

CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS OF SECURITY

Since the beginning of the process of modern state formation in the nineteenth century, the quest for security has been a rallying point for populations living in independent and subordinate territories. Threats to security ranged from the denial of political and economic rights by colonial powers or governments serving sectarian interests at the expense of other citizens to the possibility of aggression by another power. All the efforts aimed at preventing or eliminating these conditions were generically referred to as ‘security’. But this concept remains elusive as it expands and contracts with time, place and circumstance. 3CHANGING NATURE AND FOCUS OF SECURITY The traditional conception of security emphasised the primacy of military threats and prescribed strong action – primarily military – as a response to such threats.
This approach has gradually lost favour and support. For the greater part of the Cold War era, inter-state wars were rare, especially in those regions in which both superpowers were actively involved. This restraint in resorting to war stemmed from fear of possible escalation to nuclear exchange involving the superpowers. Thus, indirect and, mostly, non-military strategies were used. For instance, the United States (US) made extensive use of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in its ‘containment strategy’, not only to gather information on the crucial elements of the Soviet Union’s economy, but also on how to sow political dissent inside that country. Realising that there was no immediate threat to its territorial inviolability, the US also concentrated on developing infrastructure such as new highways that could be used for rapidly transporting armaments throughout the whole country in the event of war.

READ  The socio-economic conditions of the returnees before migration

TABLE OF CONTENTS :

  • INTRODUCTION
  • 1. Objectives of the Study
  • 2. Problem Postulation
  • 3. Methodology
  • 4. Demarcation
  • CHAPTER ONE SECURITY AND CO-OPERATION: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
    • 1. Introduction
    • 2. International Co-operation
    • 2.1 Imperatives and Motivations for Co-operation
    • 2.2 Forms of Co-operation
      • 2.2.1 Setting Standards
      • 2.2.2 Obligations
      • 2.2.3 Allocations
      • 2.2.4 Prohibitions
    • 3. Conceptual Analysis of Security
    • 3.1 Security: A Common Understanding
    • 3.2 Changing Nature and Focus of Security
    • 4. National Security
    • 4.1 National Security: A Common Understanding
      • 4.1.1 Classical View of National Security
      • 4.1.2 Modern View of National Security
    • 4.2 Focus of National Security: Internal and External Dimensions
    • 4.3 Human Security
    • 4.4 Threats to National Security
      • 4.4.1 Military Threats
      • 4.4.2 Political Threats
      • 4.4.3 Environmental Threats
      • 4.4.4 Economic Threats
        • 4.4.4.1 Economic Facets of National Security
        • 4.4.4.2 Use of Economic Resources for Military Security
        • 4.4.4.3 Use of Military Resources for Economic Security
  • 5. International and Regional Security
  • 5.1 Collective Security
  • 5.2 Collective Defence
  • 5.3 Concert Security
  • 5.4 Common Security
  • 5.5 Comprehensive and Co-operative Security
  • 6. Global Security
  • 7. The Security Pyramid
  • 8. Conclusion
  • References and Notes
  • CHAPTER TWO THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AND STRUCTURE OF MERCOSUR
    • 1. Introduction
    • 2. Factors Necessitating the Establishment of Mercosur
    • 2.1 Military Developmentalism Doctrine
    • 2.2 Proliferation of Regional Organisations
    • 2.3 Conflict Potential
    • 2.4 Democratisation Process
    • 2.5 Globalisation
    • 3. The Establishment of Mercosur
    • 4. ‘Open Regionalism’ Concept
    • 5. Defining the Mercosur Group
    • 6. Mercosur’s Institutional Framework and Functions
    • 7. The Performance of the Mercosur Group
    • 8. Conclusion
    • References and Notes
  • CHAPTER THREE SOUTH AFRICA, SADC AND MERCOSUR: SOCIO-ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND SECURITY
    • 1. Introduction
    • 2. South-South Relations
    • 3. South Africa’s Socio-Economic Relations with the Mercosur Countries and Security Implications
    • 3.1 South Africa’s Official Views on Co-operation with South American Countries Prior to
    • 3.2 The End of South Africa’s Pariah Status and the Beginning of a New Era
    • 3.3 Relations with Individual Countries
      • 3.3.1 Argentina
      • 3.3.2 Brazil
        • 3.3.2.1 Historical Development of Relations
        • 3.3.2.2 Current Relations
      • 3.3.3 Paraguay
      • 3.3.4 Uruguay
      • 3.3.5 Bolivia and Chile
    • 4. Inter-Regional Co-operation: Mercosur and SADC
    • 4.1 The Debate on South Africa’s Strategic Orientation
    • 4.2 Mercosur and SADC: A Comparative Perspective
    • 4.3 Challenges and Prospects for Inter-Regional Co-operation
    • 5. Drug-trafficking Across the South Atlantic Ocean
    • 6. Some Broad Security Implications
    • 7. Conclusion
    • References
  • CHAPTER FOUR BILATERAL MILITARY CO-OPERATION BETWEEN SOUTH AFRICA AND THE MERCOSUR COUNTRIES
    • 1. Introduction
    • 2. Historical Military Relations
    • 2.1 Argentina
      • 2.1.1 Pre-1994 Argentine-South Africa Military Relations
      • 2.1.2 Post-1994 Argentine-South Africa Military Relations
        • 2.1.2.1 Military Representation
        • 2.1.2.2 Military Visits
        • 2.1.2.3 Military Training
  • 2.2 Brazil
    • 2.2.1 Pre-1994 Brazil-South Africa Military Relations
    • 2.2.2 Post-1994 Brazil-South Africa Military Relations
      • 2.2.2.1 Military Representation
      • 2.2.2.2 Military Visits
      • 2.2.2.3 Military Training
      • 2.2.2.4 Military Agreements
      • 2.2.2.5 Co-operation Between the Defence-related Industries
  • 2.3 Paraguay
    • 2.3.1 Pre-1994 Paraguay-South Africa Military Relations
    • 2.3.2 Post-1994 Paraguay-South Africa Military Relations
  • 2.4 Uruguay
    • 2.4.1 Pre-1994 Uruguay-South Africa Military Relations
    • 2.4.2 Post-1994 Uruguay-South Africa Military Relations
  • 2.5 Bolivia
  • 2.6 Chile
    • 2.6.1 Pre-1994 Chile-South Africa Military Relations
    • 2.6.2 Post-1994 Chile-South Africa Military Relations
      • 2.6.2.1 Military Representation
      • 2.6.2.2 Military Visits
      • 2.6.2.3 Military Training
      • 2.6.2.4 Mutual Agreements and Defence Industry Cooperation
  • 3. The Nature of Military Capabilities of South Africa and the Mercosur
  • Countries
  • 4. Conclusion
  • References
  • CHAPTER FIVE MULTILATERAL MILITARY CO-OPERATION IN THE SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION
    • 1. Introduction
    • 2. Defining the South Atlantic Region
    • 3. Inter-American Security System
    • 4. Southern Cross Alliance
    • 5. The South Atlantic Treaty Organisation
    • 6. Zone of Peace and Co-operation in the South Atlantic (ZPCSA)
    • 6.1 The ZPCSA as a New Alternative
    • 6.2 Denuclearisation
    • 6.3 South Africa and the ZPCSA
    • 6.4 The Naval Military Potential of the ZPCSA
    • 6.5 A South Atlantic Rim Association
    • 6.6 Joint Military Exercises
      • 6.6.1 Exercise ATLASUR
      • 6.6.2 Exercise UNITAS
      • 6.6.3 Exercise TRANSOCEANIC
    • 6.7 Prospects and Challenges of the ZPCSA
    • 7. Conclusion
    • References and Notes
  • CHAPTER SIX EVALUATION
    • 1. Summary
    • 1.1 Security: A Conceptual Framework
    • 1.2 Historical Development and Structure of Mercosur
    • 1.3 Socio-Economic Co-operation and Security
    • 1.4 Bilateral Military Co-operation Between South Africa and the Mercosur Countries
    • 1.5 Multilateral Security Co-operation in the South Atlantic Region
    • 2. Assessment
    • 3. Research Findings and Testing of Propositions
    • 4. Recommendations for Further Study
    • Abbreviations
    • Bibliography
    • Summary
    • Opsomming

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
SOUTH AFRICA’S SECURITY RELATIONS WITH THE MERCOSUR COUNTRIES

Related Posts