Search

Begin New Search Political Geography South America Publication Year within 5 Years

481. CoronaShock and Socialism

Author:
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
Publication Date:
02-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
Abstract:
In late December 2019, the Wuhan Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in central China’s Hubei Province detected cases of pneumonia of an unknown cause. In the first few days of January 2020, Chinese authorities were regularly informing the World Health Organisation (WHO) as well as other major countries and regions with close ties to China’s mainland, such as Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan about the outbreak. On 5 January, the WHO released its first briefing on a ‘pneumonia of unknown cause’ in Wuhan. Little was known about the virus, neither how to properly understand it nor whether transmission could occur between humans. The genome sequence for the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) was published by the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) on 12 January. Dr. Zhong Nanshan, a leading Chinese pulmonologist who is advising the Chinese government on this pandemic, confirmed human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus on 20 January. As soon as it was clear that this virus could be transmitted between humans, the Chinese authorities acted. Wuhan, a city of 11 million people, was shut down, the scientific establishment in China – and its collaborators around the world – went to work to understand the virus and the disease (COVID-19), and medical personnel in China rushed to be trained and to help break the chain of the infection. Inside Wuhan, the neighbourhood committees, which include members of a range of other associations, Communist Party cadres, and volunteers of all kinds, hastened to assist with temperature checks, food and medicine distribution, and assistance in hospitals. After ten weeks in lockdown, Wuhan opened once more on 8 April. On 15 May, the authorities started to test all the residents of Wuhan once again in order to protect public health and to resume social and economic activities (China shared the results of this test to aid with studies on the feasibility of the herd immunity theory). On 30 January, WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared that the outbreak constitutes a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). From its Geneva headquarters, the WHO sent up a flare which effectively read: a highly contagious virus has been detected that requires stringent measures of tests, physical distance, and aggressive sanitation. At this point, in the aftermath of 20 January, a gulf opened between the capitalist states and the socialist states. Our analysis shows four main areas of differentiation between the socialist and capitalist approach to the virus. The socialist approach is based on: Science-based government action Public sector production of essential materials Public action mobilised to facilitate social life Internationalism In the capitalist states (such as the United States, Brazil, and India), the governments have instead operated in a hallucinatory manner, pretending that the virus is either not real or not contagious and hoping that some extraneous factor would protect their citizens from its dangers. For-profit sector firms have failed to provide the necessary equipment, while public action has been hard to galvanise in atomised societies that lack the habit of organisation and struggle. Finally, to cover up their incompetence, the ruling political class in these states has resorted to stigmatisation and jingoism, using – in this case – the lethal combination of racism and anti-communism to blame China. In this report, we look at three countries (Cuba, Venezuela, and Vietnam) as well as one state (Kerala, India) to investigate how these socialist parts of the world have been able to handle the virus more effectively.
Topic:
Governance, Capitalism, Pandemic, COVID-19, and Socialism
Political Geography:
India, Asia, Brazil, Vietnam, South America, Cuba, Caribbean, Venezuela, North America, and United States of America

482. CoronaShock and the Hybrid War Against Venezuela

Author:
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
Abstract:
Swiftly moves the Coronavirus and COVID-19, dashing across continents, skipping over oceans, terrifying populations in every country. The numbers of those infected continue to rise, as do the numbers of those who have died. Hands are being washed, tests are being done, physical distance is being observed. It is unclear how devastating this pandemic will be or how long it will last. On 23 March, twelve days after the World Health Organisation declared a global pandemic, the UN Secretary General António Guterres said, ‘The fury of the virus illustrates the folly of war. That is why today I am calling for an immediate global ceasefire in all corners of the world. It is time to put armed conflict on lockdown and focus together on the true fight of our lives’. Secretary General Guterres talked about silencing the guns, stopping the artillery, and ending the airstrikes. He did not refer to a specific conflict, leaving his plea to hang heavily in the air. After six weeks of deliberation and delay caused by Washington, in the first week of May, the United States government blocked a vote in the UN Security Council on a resolution that called for a global ceasefire. The United States blocked this resolution, but even this resolution did not turn its attention to the kind of war that the US is prosecuting against Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela – among others. Instead, it has imposed a hybrid war. The US military complex has advanced its hybrid war programme, which includes a range of techniques to undermine governments and political projects. These techniques include the mobilisation of US power over international institutions (such as the IMF, the World Bank, and the SWIFT wire service) in order to prevent governments from managing basic economic activity; the use of US diplomatic power to isolate governments; the use of sanctions methods to prevent private companies from doing business with certain governments; the use of information warfare to render governments and political forces to be criminals or terrorists; and so on. This powerful complex of instruments is able – in the plain light of day – to destabilise governments and to justify regime change (for more on this, see the Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research dossier no. 17, Venezuela and Hybrid Wars in Latin America). During a pandemic, one would expect that all countries would collaborate in every way to mitigate the spread of the virus and its impact on human society. One would expect that a humanitarian crisis of this magnitude would provide the opportunity to end all inhumane economic sanctions and political blockades against certain countries. On 24 March, the day after UN Secretary General Guterres’s plea, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet agreed that ‘at this crucial time, both for global public health reasons, and to support the rights and lives of millions of people in these countries, sectoral sanctions should be eased or suspended. In a context of [a] global pandemic, impeding medical efforts in one country heightens the risk for all of us’. A few days later, Hilal Elver, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, said that she was gratified to hear both Guterres and Bachelet call for an end to the sanctions regime. The problem, she indicated, lies with Washington: ‘The US, under the current administration, is very keen to continue the sanctions. Fortunately, some other countries are not. For instance, the European Union and many of the European countries are responding positively and easing sanctions during this time of the coronavirus. They are not completely lifting sanctions but interrupting them, and there are some communications going on, but not in the US, unfortunately’. On 6 May, three other UN Special Rapporteurs – Olivier De Schutter (on extreme poverty and human rights), Léo Heller (on human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation), and Koumbou Boly Barry (on the right to education) – said that ‘in light of the coronavirus pandemic, the United States should immediately lift blanket sanctions, which are having a severe impact on the human rights of the Venezuelan people’. Nevertheless, the Trump administration has brushed aside all concern and continued with its agenda of hybrid war towards regime change.
Topic:
Conflict, Pandemic, COVID-19, and Hybrid Warfare
Political Geography:
South America, Venezuela, North America, and United States of America

483. Youth in Brazil’s Peripheries in the Era of CoronaShock

Author:
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
Abstract:
Today’s youth tend to feel lost amidst organisations forged in previous decades. Major left-wing organisations created in the 1980s now face challenges to incorporate them. That doesn’t mean that youth are not engaged in politics, that they are not taking part in collectives, or that they are not forging their own social networks. Our challenge is to understand where and how young people are taking part in politics, becoming collective actors, and sharing their experiences, distress, dreams, and solutions.
Topic:
Culture, Youth, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Brazil and South America

484. Latin America Under CoronaShock: Social Crisis, Neoliberal Failure, and the People’s Alternatives

Author:
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
Abstract:
The emergence of COVID-19 in Latin America and the Caribbean has accelerated – sometimes dramatically – a series of economic and social processes that had long been underway and revealed the result of decades of neoliberal policies. The increasingly authoritarian policies, precariousness of labour, and the current social crisis are among the consequences of the neoliberal model, which puts capital before people.
Topic:
Labor Issues, Neoliberalism, Pandemic, COVID-19, and Political Crisis
Political Geography:
South America, Latin America, and North America

485. Popular Agrarian Reform and the Struggle for Land in Brazil

Author:
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
Publication Date:
04-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
Abstract:
This dossier discusses the current stage of the struggle for land in Brazil; at its epicenter is the contrast between two vastly different agricultural models: agribusiness versus agroecology. Key to the agroecological model is the concept of popular agrarian reform, which proposes the full-scale reorganisation of landholdings that goes far beyond democratizing access to land, challenging the hegemonic form of capital and presenting a different conception of and a model for agriculture and agrarian life.
Topic:
Agriculture, Reform, Land, and Farming
Political Geography:
Brazil and South America

486. The domestic risk of Chinese partnerships: cross-conditionality and coalition building

Author:
Alejandro Angel
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Conjuntura Austral: Journal of the Global South
Institution:
Conjuntura Austral: Journal of the Global South
Abstract:
Chinese credits became a viable, and preferred, alternative during the pink tide in part because it lacked traditional conditionality clauses. However, these financial operations, as well as others, often imply the existence of cross-conditionality. In opposition to traditional variants of conditionality, cross-conditionality implies that operations in the realms of trade, finance, or aid for development can be jeopardized as a response to decisions taken by national authorities that change previously agreed conditions in parallel projects. The main objective of this study is to explore the possible consequences of cross-conditionality, particularly the political consequences, in the Brazilian government’s coalition building. The hypothesis is that cross-conditionality represents a similar risk than the one that traditional conditionality represented in terms of national autonomy insofar as national governments would still have their hands tied, although for different reasons. We find that cross-conditionality affects the coalition-building efforts of national governments since it can be used to affect key government partners. In Brazil, agribusiness, a key partner of Bolsonaro’s government, is the sector that could be potentially affected if the Chinese government decides to implement cross-conditionality as a retaliatory measure to hostile policies or declarations of the Brazilian government vis-à-vis Chinese interests.
Topic:
Development, Partnerships, Trade, Coalition, and Cross-conditionality
Political Geography:
China, Asia, Brazil, and South America

487. DIPLOMATIC NARRATIVES ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION: POWER, COOPERATION AND PERSPECTIVES FROM BRAZIL AS A DEVELOPING COUNTRY

Author:
Iara Costa Leite, Júlia Mascarello, and Nicole Aguilar Gayard
Publication Date:
04-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Conjuntura Austral: Journal of the Global South
Institution:
Conjuntura Austral: Journal of the Global South
Abstract:
This article adopts a different stance towards materials on science diplomacy produced by its practitioners, broadly understood here as those individuals or organizations involved in the practice of science diplomacy (including, for instance, scientists and diplomats): it sees such materials as composed by narratives, rather than scientific categories that describe and analyze social phenomena.6 Our focus is on frames and causal perceptions related to STI and international relations as elaborated by diplomats in Brazil, where the authors are based. Together with China, India, Russia and the United States, Brazil has become a central stage for competition between developed countries' science diplomacy initiatives (FLINK; SCHREITERER, 2010). Our aim is to map and systematize narratives on STI authored by Brazilian diplomats and their connections with international relations. We understand narratives broadly, related to how diplomats perceive STI and associate it with power, development, competition and cooperation in multiple geometries (bilateral, multilateral, North-South, South-South) and sectors (nuclear, economic, environmental etc.).
Topic:
Diplomacy, Science and Technology, Power, and Cooperation
Political Geography:
Brazil and South America

488. FROM SCIENCE DIPLOMACY TO EDUCATION DIPLOMACY: THE BRAZILIAN CASE

Author:
Gabriela Gomes Coelho Ferreira and Amacio Jorge Silva Nunes de Oliveira
Publication Date:
04-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Conjuntura Austral: Journal of the Global South
Institution:
Conjuntura Austral: Journal of the Global South
Abstract:
Actions of science diplomacy are typically described in literature as related to developed countries. This is due to a perspective in which science is a hard power resource or, even when it is perceived as a soft power resource, it is an extension of a country’s hard power. Because of that, science diplomacy has been normally related with developed countries, especially during the last century. Therefore, it seems quite unusual to picture a developing country like Brazil pursuing such an elaborate strategy. Nevertheless, Brazil has been signing Cultural Agreements since 1930’s, using science as a diplomatic tool to overcome regional frictions. We also briefly show its development into a complex education diplomacy strategy that lasts until today. We intend to demonstrate the smart strategy deployed by Brazil, a developing country, in using the soft power of science since the 1930’s not only despite its lack of hard power, but as an alternative to it. The Brazilian diplomatic body used the legitimacy given by science to establish important dialogues with key countries, starting from those in Latin America—therefore, using science diplomacy to overcome regional frictions since the beginning of the last century.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Education, Science and Technology, and Soft Power
Political Geography:
Brazil and South America

489. BRAZIL AND ITS REGIONAL PROJECTION: PERSPECTIVES ON HEGEMONY AND REGIONALISM IN SOUTH AMERICA IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA

Author:
Fernando José Ludwig and Ítalo Beltrão Sposito
Publication Date:
04-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Conjuntura Austral: Journal of the Global South
Institution:
Conjuntura Austral: Journal of the Global South
Abstract:
story of its foreign policy, also changing its behavior, subsequently, concerning South American regionalism. Its projection is based on the values already found in the international community, and the same happens through the conquest of new attributes and activities within the international system. This insertion is linked to the reconfiguration of the international plan itself after the bipolar conflict. Now, regarding the domestic plan, this projection took place right after the rearrangement of the Brazilian political system, that is, in the process of democratization in Brazil, which is inaugurated with the promulgation of the Federal Constitution of 1988 (BRASIL, 1988).
Topic:
Foreign Policy, History, Regionalism, Regional Power, and Post-Cold War
Political Geography:
Brazil and South America

490. Fragile States Index 2020

Author:
Fund for Peace
Publication Date:
05-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Fund for Peace
Abstract:
The Fragile States Index, produced by The Fund for Peace, is a critical tool in highlighting not only the normal pressures that all states experience, but also in identifying when those pressures are pushing a state towards the brink of failure. By highlighting pertinent issues in weak and failing states, The Fragile States Index — and the social science framework and software application upon which it is built — makes political risk assessment and early warning of conflict accessible to policy-makers and the public at large.
Topic:
Democracy, Fragile States, Brexit, COVID-19, and Instability
Political Geography:
Africa, Iraq, United Kingdom, Europe, South Asia, Sudan, Central Asia, Middle East, India, Uzbekistan, Libya, Colombia, South America, Lebanon, Mozambique, Chile, Côte d'Ivoire, Global Focus, and Burkina Faso