Europe and America- Similarities and Differences in Security Structures by Modern Diplomacy

â&#x20AC;&#x153;The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by foolsâ&#x20AC;? Thucydides

www.moderndiplomacy.eu

EUROPE AND AMERICA SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN SECURITY STRUCTURES

PROFESSOR ANIS H. BAJREKTAREVIC MODERN DIPLOMACY ADVISORY BOARD, CHAIRMAN Geopolitics of Energy Editorial Member Professor and Chairperson for Intl. Law & Global Pol. Studies

LUÍSA SOUTO MAIOR MONTEIRO MODERN DIPLOMACY SENIOR EDITOR Luísa Monteiro is a Master’s student in Communication and Semiotics at Pontiﬁcal Catholic University of São Paulo. Her researches are centered in Communication and Politics

The developmenT of securiTy sTrucTures in europe European imperialism and monarchies The concept of balance of power The World Wars Europe before WWI The post-Versailles order and the concept of collective security The great depression and WWII The concept of collective defence and NATO The collective concept of cooperative European security The Council of Europe (CoE) The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) The European Union (EU) The European common foreign security policy (CFSP) The European security defense policy (ESDP) The post-cold war international order The presenT inTernaTional order The developmenT of securiTy sTrucTures in america Differences in colonization process â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Spanish and British approach The Spanish decline The Bourbon monarchy in Latin America Early revolutionary movements

The North American process The North American independence The Latin American independence process The sTruggle for poWer and challenge for order Liberal and conservative movements What went wrong with Latin American republics TWo differenT americas North Americas empire building and in contrast Latin America Manipulation of the Latin America governments Cold war and the NATO The organization of American States (OAS) Latin Americas alternative to the OAS Trade agreements North American free trade agreement (NAFTA) Mercado comĂşn del sur (MERCOSUR) The Pacific Alliance Trilateral diplomacy (U.S., Western Europe and Japan) currenT siTuaTion and fuTure ouTlook feW similariTies and greaT differences beTWeen europe and american securiTy sTrucTures securiTy sTrucTures on The inTerneT

INTRODUCTION

THE MAIN OBJECTIVE of this production is to elaborate the similari-

ties and diﬀerences between the security structures of the European and the American continents by comparing their diﬀerent political, social and economic development throughout history.

It is based on the following hypothesis: the historical development of a nation’s security structure is a direct consequence of its historical experiences; the consolidation of a nation’s security structure is directly interdependent with its political and economic situation. In order to stabilize security it is therefore essential to ensure sustainable economic growth and cooperative international relationships. The first part of the document will comprise an outlook of the European history and the role of its dominant players and institutions. It will also emphasise the development of the European Union as a global player and the challenges that the EU had to overcome in the past and will meet in the future. Its second part will comprise an elaboration of the historical development of security structures in Americas. This work tries to outline the effects of the American continent discovery, giving an analytic approach on how the colonization and independence processes shaped American societies to extensively diﬀer from one another. As a conclusion, we will draw a comparison between the security structures in Europe and America by outlining the interrelationships between the two systems. Additionally, we aim to provide explanations for the current challenges that Europe and Americas have to face, as well as manifest the future perspective of the two continents, concerning online and oﬄine relations.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF SECURITY STRUCTURES IN EUROPE

THE CREATION AND DEVELOPMENT of any security structure is

closely related to the political, economic and social situation as well as the cultural tradition and history in a specific state or region. Changes in the security structure of a State are usually directly related to an event that triggers such changes. In History, the diďŹ&#x20AC;erent nations who civilized the European continent experienced lots of cultural collisions due to its relatively small continental size and accordingly physical proximity and density of its population. In addition, Europe has never been rich of resources like Africa or Americas, which have been colonized mainly because of the old European civilization needs for resources.

It was therefore a necessity for the European civilizations to develop a form of political interaction, either by using soft powers, such as diplomacy or cultural influence, or hard powers, like military force. The diďŹ&#x20AC;erent interests of the European nations consequently led to armed conflicts, and the current (peaceful) security situation in Europe evolved over many decades of war.

EUROPEAN IMPERIALISM AND MONARCHIES

The Roman concept of a security structure is seen as the first large scale security structure of historic importance. Due to the cultural, military superiority and the strong Roman struggle for territorial expansion, it was necessary for the Roman emperors to establish a security structure that protected them from barbarian invasions and inner state unrest, due to the rapid and diverse population growth of its conquered civilizations. The Romans established obligatory military service to constantly supply their armed forces with manpower as well as to build strategic defence structures such as the Limes wall. With the annexation of Egypt, the Romans were also the first to seize overseas control of another civilization and integrated the Mediterranean Sea within their imperial borders. The great upheavals in the 4th and 5th century facilitated territorial pressure onto the Roman borders, which the empire could not withstand, resulting in the collapse of the Great Roman Empire, thereby a new outlook for Europe was given. The remaining Western Roman Empire continuously influenced the development of Europe by spreading Christianity (stablished as the main religion in the Roman Empire in 380 AD), in that way showing religion as a new driving factor of geopolitical changes; therefore, the establishment of a unitary creed can be seen as one of main reasons for military conflicts in Europe. Religion became a main interest and reason for political interaction and cooperation, resulting in the installation of the Pope as a supreme authority (and great land owner) in Europe.

Picture 1 The Roman Empire (at its biggest extension)

By the end of the first millennium, the main reason for conflict was the struggle for power, wealth and glory. High population growth and Christianity as a driving force for socio-cultural development led to the flourishing of agriculture, crafts, trade and commerce, but at the same time these were the most important factors for conflicts. Equally, the rise of the Islam as a rival religion and the splitting of the Roman Empire created a rivalry relationship between Roman and Byzantine empires. Feudalist structures in Europe can be seen as an effort to make a decentralized socio-political system by creating reciprocal relationships with regional leaders. State’s security structure introduced mutual obligations between the regional leaders and the central governing power, granting the land owners a certain amount of autonomy and the monarchs their military allegiance. Thereby the periodical need of strengthening a state’s military power additionally led to the formation of military nobility, and systematic concentration of resources led to military innovation. (EB, 2009) From a historical perspective, the Crusades manifest is an example for a joint religiously-sanctioned military effort in order to pursue economic and/or political interests. At the same time, the Crusades mark the beginning of a European trend for military intervention outside its geographical borders in order to seize control over other territories and resources[1]. The European monarchies secured their continuity not only by military power, but preferably by forming strategic alliances. While France and England became effective states, the Holy Roman Empire ended up with inhibited efforts to consolidate, because of the medieval fragmentation of authority between secular rulers and their clerical counterparts – pleading their own autonomy, which was a way of keeping the empire pacific to its whole extension. The Thirty Years War of 1618-48 started as a religious conflict that involved an effort to impose the Holy Roman Empire’s authority on Protestants within Germany. It expanded into a long lasting conflict between Habsburg Austria and Bourbon France, which led to Swedish and Danish interventions that left Germany divided and impoverished, even after the Peace of Westphalia. A French-led alliance blocked the Habsburg bid for hegemony in Europe and preserved the autonomy of German princes and city-states, creating a power vacuum in Central Europe that lasted until Prussia united Germany in 1870. Europe became a system of independent states in which “the preservation of a balance of power among all the members of the system”[2] prevented any monarch from gaining hegemony.

The Thirty Years War ended with the treaty of Westphalia. This Treaty confirmed the new state system that built coalitions rather than aspiration for hegemony. It is seen as the first cornerstone of a multilateral Europe as it legitimated the right of sovereigns to govern their peoples free from outside interference. During the Renaissance, state power rose and the legal concept of sovereignty emerged, thereby making basis of today’s international system. The state system set Europe apart from other regions and joining the system as Russia did in the eighteenth century meant becoming part of Europe[3].

THE CONCEPT OF BALANCE OF POWER Balance of power can be defined as the equilibrium in the power distribution between states. The main idea was to keep the balance through alliances and prioritise the empowerment of states over the individual esphere. The preservation of balance of power was a usual justification to go to war. It is convenient to use balance of power to explain the behaviour of European states, mostly because it is based on the theory that all states act to preserve their own interests, by preventing domination by any other state, or building up power and forming alliances. For example, the growing strength of France and Spain and their perceived struggle for the creation of a Universal Monarchy in Europe was countered by the British eﬀorts to ally with other states. The European system of balance of power was temporarily overthrown during the time of Napoleon’s conquest, which was based on the idea of universalistic security rooted in the spirit of the French revolution. After his defeat, during the Congress of Vienna in 1814-15, the European powers represented by the Austrian Chancellor, Prince Metternich, and the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Castlereagh, tried to establish a balance of power that should prevent both France and Russia from exerting too much influence in European aﬀairs. The 1815 Treaty of Paris provided periodic meetings of the Great powers (including Britain, Russia, Austria and Prussian Germany) to discuss mutual interest. In the 19th century there was a period of peace in Europe. It was a result of three principles: the peaceful settlement of the French conflict, the balance of power established by the Quadruple[4] and Holy Alliance[5] , and the establishment of the Congress system described by international conferences and solutions by mutual agreement.

However, opportunities for revolutionary movements and ideologies were provided by disagreement between the Great Powers over relations with the Ottoman Empire. The impact of nationalism and the industrial and commercial rivalry in late 19th century led to the formation of primarily linguistic-based nation states. The emergence of the German Empire due to Bismarckâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s successful eďŹ&#x20AC;orts to unify all German States under Prussian sovereignty marked a severe shift of power to Central Europe. The growing military influence and imperialistic tendencies of the German Empire as well as technological advances resulted in an unstable and inflexible security situation, which consequently led to a new formulation of foreign policy goals as well as an industrial growth to commence an armament race. The general role of having a powerful navy in oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s military forces became vital to secure important ship and trade routes in the European sea.

THE WORLD WARS

DURING THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, attention was again

drawn to European colonial expansion policies, as the growing population, the growing economy, the technological advancements and the leftwing ideological tendencies (due to an uneven wealth distribution system which posed a threat to the stability of the European balance of power). Especially the Central European security situation did not seem to be any longer suﬃcient.In the German Empire, Bismarck`s main concern was security. Since the Empire was well geographically positioned and felt pressure from many fronts, Kaiser Wilhelm II introduced a new ‘Weltpolitik’, as opposed to Bismarck’s previous ‘Realpolitik’ – the former, more aggressive, prioritised a strong navy and colonial acquisition, whereas the latter was mostly centred in protecting frontiers and making use of its then strong diplomacy. Although it can be seen as a consequence of the German Empire’s eﬀort for imperialistic expansion and securing peace, the military operations in Africa and the negotiated alliances limited the diplomatic options in a way that European relationships became more and more fragile, rather competitive than peaceful.

The rivalry between Germany and Britain had many reasons and caused many issues. Being generally anti-German and anti-French, the British were politically isolated in continental Europe, nevertheless they still were a powerful – and, somewhat, feared - state. Equally, Britain saw Germany’s heavy expenses on its naval military capacities as a threat to its naval supremacy. The formation of the ‘Triple Entente’ with France and Russia in 1907 was a strong sign for a European trend of focusing political efforts more on Europe itself and less on its colonies. The strong linguistic, cultural and historic bond between Germany and Austria-Hungary resulted in a reliable alliance, dividing Europe into two power blocks. Later on, in its years of conflict, the European security coped with negative factors, such as the complexity of the diplomatic relations between the European states, the Austria-Hungarian construction of different nationalities within its territory and the fading Ottoman Empire. The German Schlieffen Plan for military mobilization[6] left little alternatives for the other states but to consider mobilization as well. The ‘Blank Cheque’, a German declaration to support whatever Austrian-Hungarian military measures against Serbia, which was accused by Austria of being involved in the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo, finally led to the outbreak of a great power conflict due to the Russian support to Serbia, dragging the European continent into a devastating total war. The World War turned out to be very costly regarding human lives and economy, because of technological advances in military warfare. After War lasted longer than any of the powers had expected, that resulted in significant devastation over Europe. High inflation, food storages and war weariness within the population brought many doubts and criticism directed to the governments. The 1917 revolution in Russia led to the fall of the Tsarist system as well as to the retreat of Russia in Brest-Litovsk, and the entry of the U.S. into war due to commitments with Britain – all of it resulting in the victory of the Allies. War caused fractures and an immensity of Europe reconstructing tasks forced leaders into peace negotiations. Talks were led by Woodrow Wilson, who primarily wanted to establish a ‘just and lasting’ system of international relations by forming an international body – the League of Nations – to govern the rebuilding processes and to ensure the peaceful settlements of future disputes. At the same time, democracy extension and application of self-determination became a central policy, which ultimately led to the remaining monarch system power reduction.

Picture 2 Europe After WWI

Picture 3 Europe After WWI

THE POST-VERSAILLES ORDER AND THE CONCEPT OF COLLECTIVE SECURITY

By signing the Treaty of Versailles, Germany accepted full responsibility for causing the war (guilt clause), with the background to provide a legal basis for the introduction of Wilsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 14 points. The reparation duties imposed on Germany, the loss of its colonies, as well as the disarmament of the German army, navy and air force, created a new economic and military power vacuum in central Europe. The disintegration of the Habsburg Empire and the territorial losses of Germany and Russia resulted in the creation of new states in central and South Eastern Europe based on the principles of self-determination and self-government by drawing frontiers along ethnic lines. The 14 points also provided the basic framework for the installation of the League of Nations in order to not only govern the emergence of new European states under an international regime based on rule of law, but at the same time to replace the balance of power system with a concept of collective security. The League of Nations, established with the Versailles Treaty and based on the concept of collective security, created to provide a forum for resolving international disputes, was the very first global collective system being supported by the international organization. This collective security can be understood as a security arrangement in which all states cooperate collectively to provide security for all by the actions of all against any states within the groups which might challenge the existing order by using force. The main contrast between the system of balance of power and a system of collective security is that the approach on military action is by jointly made decisions and no longer by engaging in war for immediate national interest. The biggest weakness in a system of collective security is the commitment of its members. The League of Nations faced major problems with its memberâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s commitment, seen in the fact that the United States, a leading international power, did not entirely join nor give its support to the organization[7] .

The system of collective security is based on four main principles: EVERY STATE has to be in the collective security arrangement and committed to it for it to work. NO STATE can block the decision making process (this was a major issue with the League of Nations, as it gave every state veto power, as well as with the UN, which fives it to 5 nations). Should vetoes be allowed, the collective security arrangement is greatly weakened as one country can subvert a democratic decision. IN ORDER to be able to eﬃciently sanction other countries, the international economy has to be suﬃciently interdependent so that sanctions harm the intended country enough, but do not harm the countries doing the sanctioning. And for sanctions to work, the universality of their application is especially for countries to trust collective security, they have to know it works well enough to safeguard their security and, at the same time, potentially attracts other countries to join and thereby increase the security system. In a collective security system, the joint sanctions against aggressors require a high level of cooperation between its members, at economic and military levels. However, due to the low-level involvement of the U.S as well as the exclusion of remaining big powers[8] and the lack of consensus over the development of a functioning world economy, the system had many failures and ultimately led to the Great Depression of the 1930’s.

THE GREAT DEPRESSION AND WWII Keeping the peace in Europe was not an easy task, mainly because of the growing German resistance against the Versailles reparation criteria (how much each defeated country would pay, based on its resources and role played in the War). Germany remained the biggest potential power due to its demography and heavy industry, even though its army was severely reduced. The growth of strong right-wing tendencies reflected a growing pragmatic nationalism, with the ideal of regaining the economic and military leadership as well as the recovery of the lost territory in Eastern Europe. At the same time, France and Britain could not execute their plans to reduce their own military capacities (and thereby their military expenses) for the threat of another German rise. One of the main reasons for the failure of the League of Nations was the impossibility of finding a compromise between Germany’s demand for equality and France’s demand for security. (FPRI, 2009)

The collapse of the world economy following the Wall Street Crash on ‘Black Tuesday’ in 1929 had a major impact on international relationships and devastating effects in virtually every country. Personal income, tax revenue, profits and prices dropped, and the international trade volume was cut down by a half to two-thirds, as well as unemployment in the U.S. rose to 25% and, in some European countries, to 33%. The Depression impacted hard heavy industry as well as the construction business, stagnated in many countries. Most of the countries were pulled down by the U.S. economy and, in order to prevent global trade from collapsing, individual nations used protection policies, such as the 1930 U.S. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act or retaliatory tariffs. While the Great Depression made some countries more peaceful than never, in others it led to opposition figures coming to power which again favoured conquest as a means of alleviating the economic situation. As a direct result, the international atmosphere became hostile once again. The existing world order finally was challenged by Hitler, who succeeded, opportunistically taking advantage of the arising situations, in overthrowing the Versailles Treaty, demonstrating his willingness to make moves to win land in the East and make Germany the strongest power in Europe. The unification of Germany and Austria, in complete disregard of the Versailles Treaty, and the rearmament of the German army and navy were showing the emerging failure of the European security. The so-called Anschluss[9] , justified with an overwhelming demand of German-Austrians for unification, immediately focused attention on other German-speaking minorities and their nationalist attitudes in other countries[10] . Moreover, the failure of the Allied powers to find consensus with other possible allies, notably Russia, severely strengthened Hitler’s military ambitions[11]. It was also at hand that military dictatorships (mainly in Germany and Italy) found it easier to react more effectively to changes in the political environment than the democracies that depended on the majority decisions, especially in the context that Britain and France as the two most important representatives of the Allies were unable to agree on many issues due to distancing from each other’s foreign policies. The resulting loss of influence in the question over Poland finally persuaded Hitler to launch his blitzkrieg-offensive and start the World War II. The situation in Europe experienced another drastic change following Hitler’s successful military campaigns. The Third Reich dominated Europe, after having counted for several decisive victories over enemies (France, Belgium, Poland), and the diplomatic connections made by Hitler prove

to be stronger than those of the Allies. Economically, Europe was organized for short-term exploitation by Germany in order to cope with Germany’s needs for food supply, raw materials and fuel, and the anti-Semitic measures created cheap additional workforce. It was not until Hitler made two biggest mistakes, the overestimation of Germany’s strength (Operation Barbarossa[12] ) and the underestimation of the enemy’s (the declaration of war against the U.S), did the Allied forces have a realistic chance to defeat the country. (IMEH, 2008)

While the First World War was essentially a war on European territory, which spilled over into other continents and in which non-European nations (namely, the U.S. and Japan) interfered, the Second World War expanded globally and ended with Europe in ruins, its economy devastated and the continent divided into the spheres of influence of the armies of the U.S and the USSR. (IFPR, 2009) After 1945, two major powers dominated over Europe – the USA and the USSR - who were declared winners of the war. It was therefore up to them to shape decisions over European matters. The shift of power towards Washington and Moscow, the major diﬀerences in the bipolar ideologies of the super powers and disagreement over the future administration of the resulting power vacuum in the centre of Europe led to establishment of the Iron Curtain as the main division line between communist satellite states of the Soviets and the Western democracies[13] .

The eďŹ&#x20AC;orts were driven to restabilising military security (by the partial demilitarisation and denazification of Germany) and (re)gaining the political control over the continent, through the principle of self-determination and democratization of peoples, as well as the gradual polarization between the two political systems in vogue. The threat of communism became the main political issue. The shattered economic situation in Europe depended on external help, and the USA decided to oďŹ&#x20AC;er a massive economic aid program known as the Marshall Plan[14 . This was less of an act of humanity than a way to limit the communist influence in Europe. Also, rebuilding Western Europe was beneficial for the U.S. economy, because the U.S. could invest in Europe as to have good trading partners in return.

The League of Nations was then replaced by the United Nations Organization (UNO), another international organization meant to conciliate the interests of diverse nations, the stated aims of which are: cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights and world peace. The UNO was founded in 1945 to provide a platform for dialogue to anticipate wars between countries. The international financial and monetary order was to be regulated by the outcomes of the Bretton Woods Conference[15] , when agreements were signed to set up the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), the General Agreement on TariďŹ&#x20AC;s and Trade (GATT), and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). These institutions were created to accelerate the post-war reconstruction process in Europe and to aid political stability. The administration of the Marshall Plan and the institutionalization of the funding processes led to the foundation of the OEEC, later OECD, which was a first major attempt in establishing a sustainable allEuropean market and a free trade area.

THE CONCEPT OF COLLECTIVE DEFENCE AND NATO

The concept of Collective defence can be seen as an arrangement, usually formalized by a treaty and an organization, among participant states that commit support in defence of a member state if it is attacked by another state from outside the organization. This can involve conventional or nonconventional, military and non-military action. The system of collective defence also needs the construction of multiparty alliances, which may be beneficial but also risky. The joint effort of the member states, the combining and pooling resources, significantly reduce a single state's cost of providing for security. The creation of NATO brought about some standardization of allied military terminology, procedures, and technology, which in many cases meant European countries adopting U.S. practices. On the other hand, the resulting reduction of military expenses liberated great proportions of budgets for non-military expenditures, such as health care and education systems. The factor behind the creation of NATO was the Berlin Blockade, when Stalin-led Russian forces cut off the Allied forces in West Berlin. NATO is the first security system based on collective defence. The NATO was founded under the principle that an armed attack against one or more member nations is to be considered as an attack against all members. The creation of the NATO as Europe’s principal defence system was to be confronted by the Russian-led Warsaw Pact, joined by most nations in Central and South East Europe, which can be seen as the result of the rejection of Russia as a member by the NATO countries. The creation of the Warsaw Pact[16] as a second international collective security system ultimately led to a periodic military stalemate known as the Cold War. During this period, external security of Europe has become a matter to the external (US) and peripheral (USSR) players with only limited influence from the European states. The onset of the Cold War persuaded many Western European democracies that the European long-term reconstruction would require a common economic, political and military integrative effort. (IMEH, 2008) As the Cold War came to an end and so did the Warsaw Pact, NATO reinvented itself to be the armed branch meant to defend the security structures (this time, of Europe as a whole).

Even though the UN itself has its own troops, their roles are totally diﬀerent – the first has much less humanitarian and much more political and military influence power.

THE COLLECTIVE CONCEPT OF COOPERATIVE EUROPEAN SECURITY The European politics in the second half of the 20th century was characterized by the conclusions of two world wars, leaving the need for permanent protection from military aggression. European nations understood the need for unification process, which was based on shared security interests. The primary objective became the promotion of cohesion and the development of a European identity based on mutual interdependence and it is reflected in the European institutionalization.

THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE (COE) The Council of Europe (CoE), founded in 1949, is the oldest international organization working towards European integration. It has a particular emphasis on legal standards, human rights, democratic development, the rule of law and cultural co-operation. Furthermore, the Council of Europe's activities are to introduce standards, charters and conventions to facilitate cooperation between European countries and promote further integration[17] . The rule of the CoE, being a true pan-European institution, is that membership is open to all European states which seek European integration. As a requirement, these states had to accept the principle of a European law in order to demonstrate their ability and willingness to guarantee democracy, fundamental human rights and freedom to their people. Agreements over political issues such as combating organized crime, corruption, human traﬃcking and other matters have massively contributed in the increase of European security.

THE ORGANIZATION FOR SECURITY AND CO-OPERATION IN EUROPE (OSCE) 2.5.2. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) was developed from its beginnings as an outcome of the Helsinki conference into the world's largest security-oriented intergovernmental organization. What started with the 1973 Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) during the process of recognition of the European borders and had its breakthrough in East-West relations with the signing of the Helsinki Final Act in 1975. The resulting installation of permanent communication channels between the member states including the two superpowers USA and USSR was an immense achievement, as the irrevocable commitment to mutually beneficial dialogue instead of mutually assured destruction substantially increased European security, changed the international order and ended the Cold War. (CSCE, 2009) The Helsinki Final Act itself concluded three main recommendations, which were 1) European security matters, 2) cooperation on matters of economy, science, technology and environment, and 3) cooperation in humanitarian and other fields (OSCE, 2017). As a main issue, the OSCE’s focus on human rights protection prevented nations from violations against human rights by justifying them to be internal aﬀairs, but to face international acclamation instead. Other main issues of the OSCE are conflict prevention, border management, arms control and military reform, and combating terrorism. The guidance of relations between the participating members was outlined in the ‘Helsinki Decalogue’, which contained the following ten principles[18] : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty Refraining from the threat or use of force Inviolability of frontiers Territorial integrity of States Peaceful settlement of disputes Non-intervention in internal aﬀairs Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief 8. Equal rights and self-determination of peoples 9. Co-operation among states 10. Fulfilment in good faith of obligations under international law

It can be said that the security approach of the OSCE is focused on the politic-military dimension, by setting up mechanisms for conflict prevention rather than conflict solution, by creating greater openness, transparency and cooperation. As a security system based on collective security, the OSCE decision making process requires the consensus of all involved parties. (OSCE, 2009)

THE EUROPEAN UNION (EU) The origins of the EU can be found in 1951, when the Treaty of Paris was signed, creating the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). The Treaty of Paris was an international treaty based on international law, designed to help reconstruct the economies of the European continent, prevent war in Europe and ensure lasting peace.[19] The proposed plan was that Franco-German coal and steel production would be placed under a mutual authority within the framework of an organization which would be open for participation to other European countries. The political objective of the ECSC was to strengthen Franco-German cooperation and eliminate the possibility of war. In the tailwind of the OSCE two other communities were founded in aim of creating a federal Europe: the European Defence Community (EDC) and a European Political Community (EPC). (EB, 2009) The Treaties of Rome which were signed on 25 March 1957 represent the two main treaties of the European Union, signed by Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and West Germany. The first established European Economic Community (EEC) and the second established European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom) were the first international organizations to create a common market and customs union among its members. The aim of the EEC was to establish a common market based on the four freedoms of movement of goods, persons, capital and services and the gradual convergence of economic policies. The EEC Treaty laid down guiding principles and defined the framework for the legislative activities of the Community institutions.[20] The EAEC was established for the purpose of developing peaceful applications of atomic energy. The Treaties of Rome were concluded â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;for an unlimited period' (Art. 240 of the EEC Treaty and Art. 208 of the EAEC Treaty), which gives them almost a constitutional character. (EP, 2009)

The treaties of Rome were amended in the process of further improvements of the institutions. The first Enlargement of the EC[21] required a consensus over strategic and political direction, and prior to the EPC’s efforts for foreign policy cooperation, it was decided to accurately organize regular meetings of the Heads of European States (the ‘European Council’). The introduction of the heads of government as the ultimate source of authority, with foreign ministers at their side, was believed to be the only way to ensure coordination and consistency. The regularity of the meetings is what makes the fundamental diﬀerence to other institutional frameworks. The main developments of the first treaties are also related to the creation of the own resources of the Community, the reinforcement of the budgetary powers of the Parliament, the election by direct universal vote and the set up of the European Monetary System. (IEU, 2002, pp <2631>) The ability of the EC to contribute to the European security was based on its statutory dedication to improve political stability and security by economic growth and distribution of wealth. The system was meant to attract new members, which had to fully adopt the customs of the EC as well as to accept the institutional authority and, in exchange, could benefit from the economic prosperity, which experienced a strong support of other European states. The EU Enlargement resulted in a powerful expansion of the existing security community towards the communist states[22].

THE EUROPEAN COMMON FOREIGN SECURITY POLICY (CFSP)

With the end of the Cold War, the bipolarity of the two long-standing security structures disappeared and created a policy vacuum which had to be filled with a new European approach. The Europeanization of security policy seemed necessary because of the step-by-step withdrawal of the USA from European matters. With the deepening of economic integration, the EU’s international role as an economic power but a political lightweight in foreign policies and security issues was accented. (EUWC, 1998, pp <65-73>)

The CFSP was formally established by the Maastricht Treaty on European Union, which came into force in November 1993 and has been consecutively amended with the Treaty of Amsterdam and the Treaty of Nice. The emergence of the CFSP can be considered as the outcome of a historical process in which institutions and developments in the international and European system have evolved and merged over time. While its precursor, the EPC, was legally non-binding to its members, the CFSP’s statutory basis in the Maastricht Treaty upgraded the political dimension of European foreign security policy in the international environment by legally committing each member state to ‘ensure that their national policies conform to the common positions’ and to ‘undertake an uphold in the joint actions’ launched by the EU as a whole. (IEU, 2002, pp <210-216>) The institutional structure of the CFSP is at the same time very centralized and decentralized in the sense that most policy-making is carried out within the Council and its agencies, and the member states governments have the right to influence the policy-making and the setting of agendas. The limits of the CFSP influence are its non-involvement into trade policy, development aid policy and its lack of military deterrence and capability of resolving a security crisis without assistance from the NATO, the USA or the UN. (IEU, 2002, pp <221-223>)

THE EUROPEAN SECURITY DEFENCE POLICY (ESDP) One of the most sensitive issues for the CFSP was the development and implementation of a common defence policy and a common defence. The Western European States demand for the implementation of existing defence mechanisms and policies into the EU, including bilateral cooperation between the WEU and the NATO. The concept of a ‘foreign and common security policy’ was ambitious but pragmatically executed in its beginning due to diﬀerent interests of the members in the CFSP. The European Parliament has repeatedly welcomed the debate on European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), in recognition of the its rapid development, therefore the European Parliament set up a new Sub-Committee on Security and Defence (SEDE) within its Foreign Aﬀairs Committee, after having consistently criticized the lack of a parliamentary dimension in the development of ESDP and a serious democratic deficit. (EP, 2009)

The European Parliament referenced the importance of developing the military assets and capabilities of the Member States as well as the civilian instruments of conflict prevention and crisis management[23] . Subsequently the EP has adopted specific resolutions on the European Security Strategy and implemented the ESDP in 2008. The European Security Strategy (ESS) outlines the collective aspiration of the EU to sustainably establish a wide-range international security policy and has become the key reference document for policy developments under ESDP, including defining relations with the United Nations, the NATO, and other Regional Organizations and strategic partnerships.

THE POST-COLD WAR INTERNATIONAL ORDER The end of Cold War replaced the old European approach on sustaining a peaceful balance between the Western European states and the communist satellites with a period of concentration on domestic issues. When the Soviet system collapsed due to the deterioration of its economy, it forced the EU to open the union for further accession. The security system has been adjusted in the following directions: The institutional foundation of the EU, NATO and CSCE had to be reinforced and actualised; secondly, the existing security arrangements had to be adapted to the present requirement of a more multi-functional security approach; and thirdly the EU, NATO and CSCE had to continue their contribution to the expansion and maintenance of the European security.

THE PRESENT INTERNATIONAL ORDER

THE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS are nowadays characterized by heterogeneity rather than conflicts. Current global governance (a political transnational regulation of players and processes) reflects its neoliberal transboundary origin, at the same time it deals with the rising power from emergent countries. They challenge it from within, by making use of traditional supranational structures to legitimate themselves as they pose a threat to the current system, by choosing less liberal policies concerning global governance institutions[24] . For the EU, the progress of this process of the power shift reflects on how it conducts and organizes its communication with the world.

The EU role on the international stage requires a co-existence with nations with diďŹ&#x20AC;erent social systems and political administrations, and implies in trying to take a leadership role in the global economy. The depth of relationships between the EU and other States can be outlined into four layers: the prospect of membership of the EU, the level of association with the EU, the access to the EU market and the degree of reciprocity involved and finally political and security considerations. (IRL, 2008)

The latest war Europe is fighting is against terror. The European countries react dually as refugees fleet to their borders, many of them Muslims, looking for shelter from either civil wars in Africa and the Middle East or the ISIS expansion. Those nations find themselves internally and externally pressured to welcome this contingent of people, as international organs and the press position themselves favourably to the immigrants. Even so, countries with a small population or that struggle to recover from the economic crisis still find difficulties to module their positions, as xenophobic feelings and the necessary effort to educate, locate and maintain those people increase. The insecurity generated by the political and economic panorama appeals to far-right activists in parties across the continent to spread anti-immigration messages, making use of visual symbols and social media (DOERR, 2017), dividing public opinion and increasing the fear of terrorism. This new situation with the refugees (even though receiving migrants is no new news for Europe, which had some remarkable policies, like the ‘Gastarbeiter’ in Germany) demands a redesigning of policies, both in short and medium term, and global agreements on inequality and redistribution. However, after two years of a consistent influx of foreigners, countries have followed an opposite direction and gradually oppose to the creation of practices for a general well-being that would involve the refugees (KAASCH, 2016). More than never, the EU cannot work as one security structure, for the EU countries are more likely to enter bilateral agreements than multilateral ones, because of different economic, political and security levels. A great sense of instability is now stablished as one of greatest potencies in the EU leaves the block – the United Kingdom. Brexit had many reasons, but we would rather outline three of them, starting by xenophobia. As the fear in Europe grew with the more constant terrorist attacks, it was easy for the British (especially the elderly, that had significant participation in the referendum about Britain’s leaving) to link the increasing number of immigrants to the unemployment rates and the insecurity feeling in the continent. In addition, there was the belief that Britain had lost its autonomy for being part of the EU. Like any other economic union, the EU has some principles that are agreed by the member states and must be followed. Amongst them, for example, was the decision of allocating extra resources for aiding the refugees in the continent; even though the UK did not directly receive them all, paying for the maintenance of the block and its expenses was still its duty.

Last, but not least, still the lack of information was an issue, since many of the voters did not know the possible eﬀects (or reasons) for Britain’s exit – and the number of online researches increased exponentially in the first hours of Brexit’s announcement. In a nutshell, what is currently seen in Europe is a sense of uncertainty (that also includes divergences between the countries that form the UK), as the security structures seem weaker and face a hard time in which neither the diplomatic cohesion that empowers the Union, nor the eﬀectiveness before seen in protecting the nations members is present (in a war against an untraceable enemy and an imminent crisis).

THE DEVELOPMENT OF SECURITY STRUCTURES IN AMERICA

d \

DURING THE COLONIAL PERIOD in Americas, the first challenge came from the necessity of Colonial powers to protect their new territories and resources from each other. Like security concern of the time can be seen in the collection of military fortresses built by the Spanish empire in the Caribbean to protect gold and silver shipments and to defend the island and continental colonies from the British attack during the Spanish and Austrian succession wars in Europe; in both cases, the British tried to undermine the military capacity of Spain by attacking ships on route to Europe.

The greatest military attempt in the Americas undertook by the British is known as “The war of Jenkins’ ear”. The casus belli behind the British campaign was, along with the continuous harassment of British ships by the Spanish Armada, the boarding of the English brig “Rebecca” event, in which the Spanish Captain Julio Leon Fandiño severed the ear of his British counterpart, Captain Robert Jenkins under charges of piracy. The British response to this attack was the greatest naval mobilization in the history of warfare before the allied landing in Normandy during WWII. The attempt was also one of the greatest failures in military history, as regardless of the great superiority of the British fleet, the British were defeated.

Apart from being the last frontal British attempt to conquer the Spanish territories in Americas this is also a good example of how conflicts in America during the colonies were just an extension of the struggle for balance of power in continental Europe.

DIFFERENCES IN COLONIZATION PROCESS – SPANISH AND BRITISH APPROACH

The different ways in which the British and the Spanish colonized the natives and organized the land are two of the most important factors in American societies and events up to date. The British approach allowed settlers to own land, which in many cases was for them to work independently (the North American native population was never large enough and it was reduced further, thus never used as labor force, a role played by the African slaves; also, there was not a large mixture of races, making the process diverge even further from that in Latin America). The white North Americans saw themselves as free men with right to influence and be part of decisions affecting their communities and interests. Also, having the British in the colonies was a way of guaranteeing their security, which means that, in many ways, colonizers were attracted, banished or, sometimes, kidnapped and found a chance to have a place on their own in the new land. The Spanish approach was different, mostly due to the vast population of natives, but also to the Iberian mentality; the mixture of natives and Spanish enlarged the population (further increased by the offspring of natives, Spaniards and mestizos) introducing a sort of caste system, (in general terms, more European ancestors meant a better position in society, whereas being born in Spain meant a higher standard in comparison to simply having European blood) the top-links were occupied by the Spanish and criollos (American-born Spaniards) it is not only, but to a great extend, due to this differentiation that the independence process was successful; Spaniards occupied top positions as Viceroys (only four) and Oidores (judges in control of the Audiencias Reales, courts of law with administrative and political powers) a total of 13 by 1777.

Also the Audiencias were a strong influence when setting borders to the actual republics, in which these two institutions embodied the authority (thus, were responsible for keeping the colonies secure and productive) of the King. Creoles inherited great extensions of land with the natives included, to engage in diﬀerent productive activities (such as mining and agriculture) using the natives for the labor just as their Spanish parents did. Creoles were not allowed to high positions in politics and justice (keeping them subdued to the King’s will) but started to become a powerful and influential economical elite. The Iberian colonization had, thus, as its ultimate objective to exploit the natural resources in the colonies, which makes it totally diﬀerent from the British. Colonizers, for their turn, did not prioritize sustainable structures, since it was not their intention to live in the colony; rather, they saw their situation as temporary and used the natives as workforce.

THE SPANISH DECLINE

On November 1st, 1700, Charles II of Spain died leaving no heir to the throne of the great Spanish Empire. The reign of the Spanish monarch was far from easy, mostly due to his own mental and physical disabilities. This event started the war for the Spanish succession (1702-1713), a conflict between the European powers originated from the need to reach a balance of power in Europe. The fight extended to the colonies of all European monarchs, becoming a real global conflict. The British (which would emerge as the new global power and “champion” of balance between European monarchies), the Dutch (which proved an unexpected and great challenge) and the Austrian rulers joined forces to stop France from taking over the Spanish crown. The treaty of Utrecht (1713) ended the war and allowed Philip of Anjou (Philip V of Spain), grandson of Louis XIV of France, to become the king of Spain but to a very high price: Spain transferred its Italian dominions and Flanders to Savoy and Austria, the British took over Gibraltar and Minorca, and were also allowed exclusive right to the slave trade supplying the Spanish Americas (this trade imposition on Spain was to ignite the Jenkins’ ear conflict).

THE BOURBON MONARCHY IN LATIN AMERICA The new French ruler in Spain started a reform to reorganize the very core of Spanish-French politics and its role in Europe. The first change was of religious nature: the extinguished Habsburg rule of Spain was based on power distribution between the monarch and the church giving great power to the Church embodied in institutions like the Holly Inquisition. The process of evangelization during the colonization presents a good example of the association between church and monarchy: unlike Africans, Native Americans, in the eyes of the church (hence the monarchy and society) were uncivilized creatures (with much thought spared on whether or not they had souls) and it was a religious duty to teach them about God and Christ. The mentality about religion is so strong that still today many Iberians would passionately defend what they did as good and full of Christian virtue. Truth is, religion was just an excuse to subdue, dominate and expropriate the land of the natives turning them into free labor. A very effective doctrine of whip and cross, and the self given right of western civilizations’ tradition to justify violence in the name of greater purposes, but with the only objective of ravaging as much wealth as available in the shortest time possible. The French Bourbons’ mentality towards wealth was not different but they saw the role of the church (not religion) differently. According to them, the king’s will was above all possible ethical or religious principles because the king’s power to rule was given by God directly. This approach was far more absolutist than the Spanish and it proved to be so when the reforming hand of Charles III reached the Americas. By 1750, the Creole aristocracy’s influence in the Americas was greater than ever, their position as wealthy, educated and capable administrators facilitated their access to new administrative positions in the viceroyalties and Audiencias, they were involved in all levels of trade and production and started to regard the Spanish rule as weak and corrupt - a power that didn’t allow the colonies to exploit their full potential and which affected their own interests constantly. The Bourbon monarch had a very clear mindset about the role of its colonies in the Americas: more control, more taxes and a hardcore mercantilist trade practice to bolster the Spanish economy.

New administrative organs were created, viceroyalties and individual territories were reduced to improve control and Creoles were to be removed and not allowed into any administrative, judicial or political position. The reform of the trans-Atlantic trade was implemented to greatly benefit Spain: the production of wine, wheat and olive oil in the colonies was forbidden to foster Spanish exports, also the textile industry was regulated.

EARLY REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENTS

The reforms to the colonies exacerbated all levels of society: the Creoles resented the transatlantic trade monopoly imposed by Spain; the increment in taxes put more pressure in land owners and miners and was transferred to the native workers as they had to pay greater tributes. The result of this social unrest was the uprising of diďŹ&#x20AC;erent regions; large revolts took place in Peru and Nueva Granada. The leader of the Peruvian revolution, Jose Gabriel Condorcanqui (known as Tupac Amaru II) started a revolution against the Spanish rule; although he first found some sympathy from the Creole aristocracy, the level of violence against white men shown by the oppressed natives made the creoles change sides fearing an internal racial conflict. It was a short lived revolution (1780-1782) which failed due to the lack of unity between different native tribes and a failed collaboration with the Creole population. The second revolution exploded in Nueva Granada (that comprises Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela and Panama) in 1781. The town of Socorro revolted against measures taken to limit the local tobacco production. Guided by Jose Antonio Galan, a group of native and mestizo tobacco producers (known as los Comuneros) marched to the capital; they also found some support from the capital Creole elite and the church, but concessions were made and the support didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t last long[25] . Although these two small conflicts didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t last very long and were far away from being part of an independency movement, they are of transcendental importance in Latin American history. First, they proved that the century-old Iberian ruler was not undefeatable and second; the way the Spanish punished both Tupac Amaru II and Jose Antonio Galan (public dismemberment and exhibition) proved that, if the Independence was ever to become a reality, it would only do so by means of war.

Nevertheless, the lessons left to learn from both revolts were not for the Spanish or the native and mestizo rebels, but for the Creole aristocracy, who found itself trapped between their condition of privileged American born white-men, far above in society and wealth from the numerous natives and diﬀerent castes, but subordinate to peninsular Iberians. This is the reason for how security in Latin America has been by far a more internal-national struggle to reach a balance of power (in the governments) between classes that lasts up to the present.

THE NORTH AMERICAN PROCESS

In the second half of the 18th century, many differences between AngloAmerican and Ibero-American colonies were evident. Regardless of the similar strong and imposed mercantilism in practice by both the British and the Spanish, differences arise from the political and social structure “exported” from both nations to the colonies. The social structure of the thirteen British colonies is far simpler than that of south and Central America; there are only American English men and African Slaves. Any of both is a natural of the region and the role of the natives was always a little less than insignificant, since Indians were little used as labor force and a process of substitution of the people took place – the slaughter of natives for the occupation from whites and slaves. Also the other difference derives from how the British government was divided in two: Crown and Parliament. Besides the general feelings of moral superiority many of the Anglo-Americans had towards the British whom they saw as corrupt and working in detriment of the well-being of the colonies, the embrace of the republican values influenced the vision of a government and society where power should not be hereditary, where people should be sovereign and oriented towards a greater common good. The rights and liberty of the citizen were core values and government was to follow the rule of law and constitution. Many laws and taxes were imposed by the British on the colonies after the Seven Years War. The rigid navigation acts based on a mercantilism which only benefited Britain and the increase in taxes to provide for an increased level of security in the region was seen as illegitimate based on the fact that the colonist had no representation in the Parliament.

A succession of events started in 1764 when the British parliament imposed again more restrictions with the sugar, currency and Quartering acts which increased hostilities further. In 1773 and 1767, the famous Tea Act provoked the famous Boston Tea party incident and the Townshend act, imposing restrictions on paper and glass , consequently (and not intentionally) encouraging the Colonies to be more aggressive and boycotts widespread.

THE NORTH AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE

When the conflict started, two main factions emerged: the Patriots, fighting for independence and the Loyalists, which supported the crown. The final step taken by the British parliament was passing a set of acts which are known as the intolerable acts of 1774, after which the colonies decided to disregard the demands of the British and organized local governments and Security Council to face the forthcoming British response. The battle for American independency started in 1775 with a military incursion of 1000 men in Concord where the British troops had orders to arrest the standing revolutionary forces. On the same year the British King George III Proclaimed the state of rebellion in the Colonies declaring every man in arms against the British rule a traitor to the crown. The American Patriots earned their independency by a Treaty of Paris (1783) after a fight that lasted eight years (1775-1783).

THE LATIN AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE PROCESS The Process of independence in Latin America took longer due to many facts - different geographic regions and the interests of the different local aristocracies. There are different phases to the independence process in Latin America. The first one started with the drawing of the constitution of Cadiz in 1812 which limited the powers of the monarchy. The constitution was sort of a breath of fresh air for all the creoles feeling oppressed by their impossibility of controlling the destiny of the colonies due to the restrictions imposed during the bourbon reforms.

The constitution raised hopes but the peninsular government rejected a proposal from some Creole intellectuals of turning the colonies in a real part of the empire by allowing the trade with nations other than Spain, representation in the courts and Creole access to governmental positions. Spain was not able to allow any of this because it depended too much on the revenues from taxes and trade with the colonies. Although some Creole radicals were organizing revolts as early as 1810, the denial from the Cadiz government made clear that Spain needed the colonies more than they did Spain and that the only way out of Spanish domination was war. The process of independence diďŹ&#x20AC;ers from region to region but the real core of the process remains inalterable, the criollos were divided between royalists and revolutionists, according to their own personal and economic interests. The early revolutions in Latin America were greatly motivated by the intervention of Napoleon in Spain disrupting the situation of the colonies, it was not clear where power resided (the congress, the viceroys or the king) and the colonies moved to create local juntas to keep order. During the first part of the process Mexico, Nueva Granada and Rio de la Plata rose in arms against the Spanish rule. The process in Mexico was lead for the mestizo and native population and terrible massacres of Spaniards and royalist creoles occurred. The Process in New Granada diďŹ&#x20AC;ers from that in Mexico because it was not lead by the middle and lower social classes but by some of the wealthiest men, that is the case of Bolivar which was for example member of one of the richest Venezuelan families of Hacendados and Cacao producers. The revolution in Nueva Granada was far more elitist, setting up a congress which excluded all non-pure whites. The process in Rio de la Plata was mixed giving more rights to non-creoles but allowing the elites to exclude other classes from participation in many governmental instances.

All these independencies were short lived and by 1816 the colonies were re-conquered by the Spanish using the talent of men like General Pablo Morillo. The process of independence was nevertheless unstoppable and the caudillos of the revolution didn’t stop fighting. The mutiny of Cadiz in 1820 further undermined the position of the Spanish viceroys in the colonial capitals. Most of the territories of Latin America were free by 1824. In reality more than freedom, the only change in Latin America was the abolishment of the monarchy’s institutions, the power passed on to the creoles that were now free to do as they pleased with the land. For all the other classes the situation was exactly the same than before the liberation wars. Brazil was the only country with Portuguese colonization – even so, it still counted with Spanish territories, the Cisplatine, currently Uruguay. In Brazil, independence movements were diﬀerent because Dom João VI of Portugal came to Brazilian lands with the royal family during the Napoleonic expansion in Europe, turning the territory into the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves. As he returned to Europe and ordered that his son, Pedro de Alcântara, came back – that resulting in Brazil becoming a colony again -, independence was proclaimed at the margins of the Ipiranga river. It is to observe that, although considered independent, the Bazilian Empire was ruled by two emperors from the Portuguese royal family and the Empire years (1822-1889) were marked by popular revolts and conspiracy (like the Ecuator Confederation, the Balaiada, the Sabinada and the Farroupilha revolution, among others) and bloody repressive actions. Only after a military coup by Marshal Deodoro da Fonseca, did the country have a commoner (and military) ruler. The independence of the United States was also a strong motivation and role model for the revolutionary movements in Latin America. The speech of President Monroe, known as the Monroe doctrine, was also a bold move to make clear the position of the hemisphere regarding any European desire to further intervene in the region.

Although it was a very bold move because the USA didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t actually represent a great challenge to the European powers, it was a first proposition for security cooperation in the American continent and a milestone of the U S foreign policy. Europe played also another important role in the independency of the American continent; the continued confrontation of the diďŹ&#x20AC;erent European nations came to materialize also in the form of support to the liberation armies. Britain financed revolutionary armies in Latin America to further debilitate Spain and Spain and France financed also the liberation forces opposing the British rule. The conflict to finally balance power in Europe was eďŹ&#x20AC;ectively far from over but this process committed all the new and free American territories to Europe with the power of the external debt.

THE STRUGGLE FOR POWER AND CHALLENGE FOR ORDER

AFTER NORTH, CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA were declared free

from the European colonial power and political influence the whole continent was ravaged by diﬀerent wars. In the USA, the civil war between the northern and southern states caused more than half a million casualties. It was a high price to pay but it was required to build a stable and strong nation. The Confederate states were defeated by the United States of America achieving Abraham Lincoln’s goals: the abolition of slavery and the establishment of a federal government in all the States of the union. The case of Latin America proved to be again far more complicated than in the United States. The creoles became a ruling class but many divisions started to emerge between them as the process of defining how the new nations were to be ruled. Consensus couldn’t be achieved in many regions and separatist movements followed diﬀerent ideologies to back up their own interests. Simon Bolivar realized the great instability of the region and saw the need for establishing a central power able to rule and unify the region. His approach to achieve it was very authoritarian, he wanted to avoid elections, create commission which would protect the constitution and the civil rights. Part of his government plan was also to declare himself as president and be able to decide who his successor would be. All the liberal aristocrats refused such a form of government and the dreams of Bolivar of creating a Union of American nations perished.

Not only Peruvian and Bolivian societies refused to join forces with the Gran Colombia but Venezuela and Ecuador decided to part ways with the rule of Bogota. Mexico was also strongly divided after the failed attempt to turn it into a monarchy and many regions wanted to imitate the federal model being implemented in the USA. As afore mentioned, Brazil had a diﬀerent independence dynamics, due to its extensive territories. Right after the proclamation, there wecentre still several episodes of conflicts between those who supported and those who were against the Portuguese rule. Also, the country had to form its own specialized workforce (such as doctors and the military), building a stronger structure for an independent country. Even so, the Portuguese presence was strong and the Emperor soon lost his prestige, be that for the amount of power directed to his figure through the Poder Moderador, his diﬃculties in managing the public expenses (seen in the contracted Brazilian debts towards England and immense expenses in the lost Cisplatine War), or the chase against opponents (like in the murder of the journalist Líbero Badaró, the later dissolution of the parliament on the behalf of a mainly Portuguese council), which lead to more drastic reactions from the people.

WHAT WENT WRONG WITH LATIN AMERICAN REPUBLICS

Simon Bolivar on his death bed predicted that Latin America was to become a land without rule of law, without strong and organized institutions able to provide security and order; a region impossible to be governed. Many different factors made the process so difficult, as Latin American society is divided in its very core. It could be cataloged as a racist society but the large progeny produced from the mixture between European, African and the Amerindians made it differ from the widespread racism in for example, the Confederate States. The way Spain implemented the colonization made it a classist society in which being of European ascent meant being part of a privileged class and that only after the independence became the ruling sphere.

The very nature of the Spanish people, which, through History, has been very separatist and nationalist, could have had an impact in the process. The different regions in America were conquered by Iberians from different regions changing the culture and behavior of the Creole population. The Latin American ruling class divided regionally and politically differing greatly in their interpretations of order and power, these two divisions have encouraged conflicts in the region which still persist up to date, unlike the Portuguese continent-sized colony, whose different History – considering that it was once part of the United Kingdom of Portugal – led to a more centralized government and, as time went by, a great in influencer in South America. .

TWO DIFFERENT AMERICAS

NORTH AMERICAS EMPIRE BUILDING AND IN CONTRAST LATIN AMERICA The two American hemispheres diverged immensely throughout the last century; North America[26] became the richest nation on Earth with a system of government which allowed for great development and security. After the Spanish-American war, the US influence in the world expanded further into the Caribbean and the Philippines. It also played a decisive role in both world wars, achieving its position as global guardian for stability and security. The economic power of the USA also grew immensely thanks to its active and aggressive role during the industrial revolution, and is role in technological developments during the largest part of the 19th century.

The influence of the USA on Latin America[27] also increased notably after the First World War. Before that, Britain and Latin America were main trading partners, but after the war, the USA became the largest buyer of raw material and seller of manufactures to its southern neighbors. Latin America was by far a less developed area, the ruling classes benefited from the production and trade of raw materials and indulged on imported luxuries truncating the process of industrialization across the region.

The class divisions rooted in all Latin American peoples set the stage for revolutionary movements; instability worsened further by the dominant and imperialist power of the United States foreign policy which protected political and economic interest in the region trough military and economic pressure. The Monroe Doctrine together with the notion of “manifest destiny” have justified the interference of the United States in the aﬀairs of many nations. In the case of Latin America, the US approach has been to protect its own interests in detriment of weaker and less developed nations. The Monroe doctrine was the cornerstone supporting the creation of the Organization of American States with its agreements regarding defense and security cooperation and economic development, but there’s also a dark side to it.

By looking back in history, we can find a strong discrepancy between the ideal of American cooperation and the actions taken by the USA. As early as 1845 the United States began to expand by taking almost half of Mexico’s territory to open the doors to new settlements. It also took Cuba and Puerto Rico from Spain in 1898 to protect its interest on the extensive sugar production. In 1903 Panama declared independence from Colombia after the US military intervention, the construction of the Panama Canal was a major event for trans-oceanic trade from which the main beneficiary was the US – now, as they had planned before, a huge island. The Rooseveltian premise in which the US had the right to act as an “International Police Power” to correct any situation was contrary to the principles of a civilized nation. Truth is the USA government kept on using its “corrective” power in repeated occasions to realign Latin American nations which dared to behave according to their own national interest and in detriment of North American economic or political concerns.

MANIPULATION OF THE LATIN AMERICA GOVERNMENTS

One of the first domination “experiments” took place in Nicaragua, where, after Zelaya left power the country, it was a constant war until the United States brought to power a puppet of the imperial interest. The popular response was the creation of a guerrilla movement known as Sandinismo. The Sandinista movement receives its name from Cesar Augusto Sandino who fought against US presence in Nicaragua. Sandino was murdered in 1934 by the agents of the Nicaraguan National Guard specially trained by the USA. In 1937, Anastasio Somoza, the commander of the National Guard took office as dictator and ruled the county as his own private playground setting, a familiar dynasty which controlled the country until 1979, with the avail of the US. The same formula was applied for many years after and before the Second World War in different Latin American nations. The popular classes of Latin America created varied revolutionary guerrilla movements to oppose the established governments, which were seen as puppets of the US. The communist movement in Latin America rose as the only other option to confront the “giant from the North” domination. It was a very destructive process for Latin American societies. The American diplomacy exploited the historical social differences of the region with concessions to benefit corrupt dictators which granted anything the USA wanted and military support to suppress the communist guerrillas. Governments were regarded more than ever as enemies of the poor and civil societies which used brute force to eliminate any treat to their military rule affecting the very core of the conception people had of democracy and rights. Oppressive and murderous dictatorships took place after several cup d’état backed up by North American power, in their attempt to refrain communism. The years of dictatorship in Latin America are still a very unclear period of its history. Even nowadays there are missing militants, and the practices taken by both the guerilla insurgents and the military are not totally unveiled.

In Brazil, president Dilma Rousseﬀ, who was herself a former guerrilla, created the National Truth Commission in 2011 in the hopes of discovering, analysing and judging state agents involved in crimes against human rights.

COLD WAR AND THE NATO

The United States emerged from World War II as one of the foremost economic, political, and military powers in the world. Wartime production pulled the economy out of depression and propelled it to great profits. In the interest of avoiding another global war, for the first time the United States began to use economic assistance as a strategic element of its foreign policy and oﬀered significant assistance to countries in Europe and Asia struggling to rebuild their shattered economies. The lessons learnt from the past also encouraged the victorious allies to move towards a more joint approach to international politics and to create mechanisms to solve international disputes and aid economic development to strengthen security. Agreements were made and, in 1946, the UN charter was signed. UN organization was designed to promote international security, commerce and law. Also, in 1944, other international organs like the IMF and the World Bank were brought up to finally organize the financial and economic relations between the industrial potencies and integrate the concept of economic security during the Bretton Woods conference. The NATO agreement was signed in 1949 to challenge the further expansion of Russia in Europe. The NATO was a collective defence agreement between North America and Western Europe; its motto was that “an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies”[28] .It is important to mention that although the member states undertook the commitment of responding to an external attack on any of the member states, this response does not have to be of military nature. Amongst the European countries that had a role in the NATO agreement, it is important to briefly analise the French peculiarities. As a Gaullist heritance, French policy making followed a “sovereigntist” line during the Cold War, which im-

plied in aiming to be a third power besides the two then in vogue, the US and the USSR. That impacted directly in its search for a nuclear deterrent capability (as to recover from the loss of influence it suﬀered by the end of WWII) and on its a singular posture towards NATO (which led, somehow, to its military marginalization). After the end of the Cold War, France kept its goal of a geopolitical autonomy, even in a unipolar scenario, fantasizing with a European Defence rather than the NATO, and only in the last few years were they to admit that a plan for Euopean Defence was more like an ideal than a project (SCHMITT, 2016). The signing of such a treaty and the implementation of the Marshall plan to rebuild the devastation caused by the Second World War brought North America and Europe closer, creating a strong security, political and economic cooperation beyond what was ever to be achieved within any other blocks with diﬀerent agreements, both larger, like the UN, or smaller, like the OAS. It seems like a tacit pact between North America and Europe was signed to respect the Monroe doctrine and leave Central and South America to be an exclusive concern of the USA.

THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES (OAS)

During World War II most Latin American nations sided with the allies and gave a small contribution to the cause and the magnitude and consequences of the war raised and spirit of cooperation which materialized in International Organizations with the objective, among others, of pacific conflict resolution. The document signed to formalise a hemispheric security system was the Rio Treaty, in 1947 (PORTALES, 2013). This, along with the following agreements and organs formed from those premises were paramount to the development of a ‘contemporary regional multilateralism’, borrowing again the term from Portales (2013). The OAS charter was signed in 1948 and, besides its cooperative nature, it also embodied a new interpretation of President Monroe’s doctrine, allowing the United States to stop any influence from the Soviet Union on the continent.

This “self-given” right also enabled the manipulation and interference from the US in Latin America aﬀairs to benefit its own political and economic interests, always ensuring it mightiness over the continent. The OAS declares its purposes to be: “to strengthen the peace and security of the continent, to promote and consolidate representative democracy with due respect for the principle of nonintervention, to prevent and ensure the pacific settlement of disputes that may arise among member states, to provide for common action on the part of those states in the event of aggression, to promote by cooperative action the economic, social and cultural development, to eradicate extreme poverty and finally, to limit the amount of resources committed to military purposes fostering the investments in infrastructures for economic and social development” The OAS has been for the most part of the century, a paper institution eclipsed by the great power of the United States, unable to take any action when necessary - regardless of the organism maintained by the OAS, like the Inter-American commission on Human Rights (1959), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (1978), the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption (1996) and the recent Inter-American Convention Against terrorism (2003 - a response to the 9/11 attack).

Regardless of all this conventions, Latin American dictatorships supported (not always openly) by the US have been violating Human Rights with an impressive level of impunity for the most part of the century to protect corporate and geopolitical US interests. That’s the case of massacres and kidnappings perpetrated by the military in Latin American countries, the levels of corruption reached by these ruling classes were also unprecedented.

LATIN AMERICAS ALTERNATIVE TO THE OAS

These above mentioned facts, along with the traditional Latin American resentment of the U.S. domination of the OAS, have led to a predictable result: 32 leaders of the Rio group and the Caribbean Community nations in the beginning of the year 2010 decided to create a new alternative organization to the OAS, only excluding United States and Canada, named CELAC , Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y CaribeĂąos. It can be considered as a revolutionary step for Latin America to try to rule itself, even though this organization will most likely start to function after some time and even than it will take years to emerge with an agreed agenda, rules, resources and leadership. Another reason for creating an alternative organization to the OAS is the U.S. relationships with Cuba. Originally, Cuba was a member of the OAS, but it was suspended in 1962 and, therefore, the U.S, made a trade embargo against Cuba. The OAS was established in Washington with the United States providing its financial underpinning, but for Latin American countries it is no longer necessary, since their economic situation improved. For Latin America, the OAS represents power relations of 60 years ago, the situation as it was right after WWII, which does not mirror the situation nowadays. New provisionally called organization â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States can also never be formed, but this new organization should make U.S. reconsider their policy towards Latin Americas region.

TRADE AGREEMENTS

Besides the NAFTA, multi and bilateral free trade agreements involving the USA and Latin America are in very early stages. The attempt and impossibility to accomplish the Free Trade Area of the Americas showed how most Latin American nations feared finding themselves in the position of the Mexican Economy (considerably dependent of the USA) and how the

US expected Latin American nations to totally open their markets to the US and accept restrictions for them to access that of the US. The situation is diﬀerent between the Latin American nations with the materialization of diﬀerent regional agreements which have proven to be successful to some extent.

NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT (NAFTA)

NAFTA is a trilateral U.S. free trade agreement together with Canada and Mexico. The agreement came in force on January 1, 1994. It has two supplements – the North American Agreement in Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) and the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC). It administers the mechanisms specified under the NAFTA to resolve trade disputes between national industries and/or governments in a timely and impartial manner. It makes the world`s largest free trade area (in terms of GDP). NAFTA has eliminated trade barriers, increased investment opportunities, and established procedures for resolution of trade disputes. Most important, it has increased the competitiveness of the three countries involved on the global marketplace. This has become especially important with the launch of the European Union. In 2007, the EU replaced the U.S. as the world's largest economy. But in contrast of good things NAFTA rules protects the interest of large corporate investors, while undercutting worker`s rights, environmental protections and democratic accountability. NAFTA is still the largest free trade area in the world.

MERCADO COMÚN DEL SUR (MERCOSUR) A short while after the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community (1954) and the European Economic Community (1957), Latin America was already beginning to take its first steps towards regional integration. The treaty that created the Latin American Free Trade Association (ALALC), signed in 1960, provided for the creation of a free-trade zone. This choicenegotiation at the discretion of the member states rather than automatic reduction of import duties made the ALALC trade opening program develop reasonably well in its first years.

Despite its having stimulated mutual trading between member states, the distance between its original objectives and the results obtained was very great. The Latin American Integration Association, created in 1980 to replace ALALC, used other means to attempt member state integration. In place of the free-trade zone established by ALALC, an economic preference zone was established creating conditions favorable to the growth of bilateral initiatives. ALADI made possible agreements and joint actions between countries in the region which until then had only limited previous ties. The establishment of a common market, however, was still the longterm objective. Under the ALADI system Brazil and Argentina signed in 1986 twelve commercial protocols: their first concrete step towards the bringing of the two countries closer together that had officially been started in 1985. To supplement and improve on their former agreements, Brazil and Argentina signed in 1988 a Treaty for Integration, Cooperation and Development that set the stage for a common market between the two countries within ten years, with the gradual elimination of all tariff barriers and harmonization of the macroeconomic policies of both nations. It was further established that this agreement would be open to all other Latin American countries. After the accession of Paraguay and Uruguay a new treaty was signed to draw a common legal approach to trade and economic development in the region. The Mercosur was institutionalized in 1994 with the Protocol of Ouro Preto, where the agreement was finally given a legal structure and organizational chart. The main objectives are the free transit of production goods and services, fixing of a common external tariff, coordination of macroeconomic and sectorial policies of member states relating to foreign trade. More than a free trade agreement, it is a unified approach on tariffs and rules for the trade in the region. The treaty has helped the economic development of the region and strengthens the democracies of its members. In its 25 years of existence, there were many advances, such as the end of a rivalry and lack of trust between Brazil and Argentina, in the 80’s, agreements and measures concerning the presence of democacry in every member state, simpler traveling bureaucracy for its citizens, internal agreements that resulted in great exportation volume among members (therefore, an increase in GNP and the raise of wages from the sectors affected).

On the other hand, many criticise the stagnation the block finds itself in the last years, along with its inaptitude in striking a commercial deal with the UE,showing that it still has a long way to go, both in political and comercial aspects.

THE PACIFIC ALLIANCE

Formed initially by Chile, Peru, Colombia e Mexico in 2012, the aliance is inserted in the American panorama as a promise for the region – being responsible for 36% its GNP - and also as a counterpart to the conservative and statis Mercosur, that, as shown before, currently faces difficulties. The block has strong economic intentions and is oriented towards dealing with countries in Oceania, the US, Canada and the Asian Tigers. The state members have similarities, like former agreements with Asian countries and previous bilateral agreements with the US. Especially to Mexico and Colombia, some of those relations involved training and sourcing regarding the security structures, as the country helped in the war against the drug traffic. Opposed to some Latin potencies, those are, too, rightist commands, more aligned to the American purposes. To the US, having this group working and growing – in its first years, they have abolished 92% of the internal tariffs – is somewhat important, since it is a way of increasing its power over Latin America and it comes closer to the North American intentions when the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) was coined (even though it has been static for over ten years). Besides, it is also an open door to China’s interests, so it is convenient to keep active in the region and defent the ‘multilateralism’ – rather, the US try to reinforce its zone of influence. Lately, in 2016, the Trans-Pacific Partership (TPP) was signed. This trade also aims to connect Latin America to Asia, however those means differ. Although the treats might overlap each other for having members in common.when it comes to macro analisys, whereas the Pacific Alliance aims to strengthen the internal bonds and conjoint development, the TPP envisions an intercontinental fomentation of commerce, prioritizing, for example, the extractive industry, rather than the variety of new possible trades.

TRILATERAL DIPLOMACY (U.S., WESTERN EUROPE AND JAPAN)

Trilateral diplomacy refers to an idea promoted in the 1970s, that the countries of Western Europe, the United States and Japan shared common interests as democracies and industrialized nations. The idea inspired the formation of a Trilateral Commission to promote cooperation between the three regions to achieve common goals related to security, politics and economics. In the 1970s, the U.S. economy was weaker than it had been in recent years. Faced with a recession, rising inflation, and declining manufactures, the U.S. role in the world economy appeared to be shifting. At the same time the economies of Japan and Europe, especially Germany, had grown stronger in manufactures and banking. Emerging nations also sought revisions to the international economic system, encouraging cooperation among the economies of the developed world. Although trilateral commission did not achieve everything its founders had hoped for, this eďŹ&#x20AC;ort at trilateral diplomacy did promote stronger ties between Japan and Europe, a relationship that had previously been limited in scope. After the end of the Cold War, the Trilateral Commission has expanded its scope to include a wider sample of developed nations in Eastern Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. Although formal attempts to use trilateral diplomacy to solve problems have declined, the three regions maintain shared interests

CURRENT SITUATION AND FUTURE OUTLOOK

A NEW PROPOSAL FOR UNITY started in 2004, and in 2010 it was decided to create a stronger and broader union between the South American States known as the South American Community of Nations (UNASUR). The main goal of the organization is to get out of the North America’s ruling and to achieve a level of cohesion emulating that of the European Union with a joint security structure, the elimination of borders and barriers to trade. The potential of such a union is great due to the many economic factors located in the region (large labor force, natural resources and geographical location) but there are still challenges due to the political instability of certain governments, conflicts between states and lack of infrastructure. A populist posture is rising in South America. Nations in South America have moved towards leftist governments. Some, like Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia have done so in a somehow aggressive manner by nationalizing resources and corporations which were in the hand of multinationals and the local oligarchies – in Portales’ words (2013), “they have criticised globalization and the external opening of their economies, readopting a protectionist orientation”. Other countries, like Brazil and Argentina, have done so in a more mild and controlled way. One in special, Cuba, has opened itself this year to the dialogue with the mightiest American country – and to the worldwide influences, such as the Rolling Stones concert and the brand Chanel.

This new trend has also faced the opposition of other governments which don’t agree with the scheme and which have a very close cooperation with the US. The general feeling in the region, nevertheless, is that of unity and the realization of a continent which has been struggling to overcome its own diﬀerences. It is in part a revolution of classes looking to integrate traditionally marginal sector of society into the governments; a quest for equality and social justice. More than that, it is a search for conjoint identity. Also, regional security is threatened. The protagonists of the only potential major and ongoing conflict in the region are Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela. Once a same nation, the political situation in the three countries evolved very diﬀerent, especially Colombia which has been the scenario of a struggle between military, paramilitary and insurgent forces for the last 50 years fueled by the revenues of the drug trade. After years of tactical and military cooperation with the USA, the Colombian government under Alvaro Uribe has managed to restore the governability in many regions but this improvement has come with a high price for Colombia, regarding its relations with its neighbors. The internal conflict in Colombia has been reaching Ecuador and Venezuela for quite some time and the highest point of it was the invasion by the Colombian army of the Ecuadorian territory to bomb an insurgent encampment near the frontier with the aid of US military intelligence. The response of the deceased Hugo Chavez was the suspension of diplomatic relations and the militarization of the Colombian-Venezuelan border to discourage any similar attempt in Venezuelan territory, ever since the relations have kept on deteriorating with accusations rising from both sides. The latest event involved directly the presence of United States armed forces in Colombia with the signing of an agreement which allows immunity and free access of the US army to Colombian military bases. While many see the Colombian government as a factor of instability in the region, many others consider “presidents” such as Chavez to be modern dictators contrary to democracy which disrupt the natural process and dynamics of a nation’s development. The situation escalated further with Venezuela and improved with Ecuador, after Colombia publicly apologized, though always portraying its actions as ‘extremely necessary’. Only after a year did Ecuador and Colombia started reestablishing their relations – the same occurred to Venezuela and Colombia two years after Chavez’s death, led for his political heir, Nicolas Maduro, on the Venezuelan side, in 2015.

In November, 2016, the Colombian president, Juan Manuel Santos, was able to sign a peace agreement between the government and the FARC, after 52 years of army conflict. In the beginning of 2017, the same government started negotiating with the ELN (the second biggest guerrilla in the country), in Ecuador. It is to expect that, without the tension caused by the armed conflict against the guerillas, peace in this spot in Latin America will be much more likely to happen. Finally, the North American battle against terror brought tension to the region since 2001, after the World Trade Center attack. As the US assumed an aggressive posture, firstly in loco, then during the invasion of Iraq, it is to say that not only did some countries change their positions concerning American politics, but they also were hostile when it came to the theme (PORTALES, 2013, p .212). This â&#x20AC;&#x201C; to say the least â&#x20AC;&#x201C; lack of empathy among countries in America tends to increase as a republican Mr. Donald Trump was elected president in late 2016, with very rigid positions against immigrants and plans to discuss (maybe, redesign) multilateral agreements and blocks. He has already signed a decree barring immigrant from seven Muslin countries and another guaranteeing the US withdrawal from TPP. One of the next steps, it is said, is to renegotiate NAFTA, which raises concerns about a possible diplomatic crisis, especially with Mexico (the president sanctioned a document for the building of a wall to solve the problem of illegal Mexican immigration and considers to charge it from the Latin country through taxes up to 20% over imported Mexican goods).

FEW SIMILARITIES AND GREAT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EUROPE AND AMERICAN SECURITY STRUCTURES

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DENY the large effect Europe had all over the world during its Colonial expansion, modern Asia, Africa and Middle Eastern nations are clear examples of it. Nevertheless, it’s the Americas the region of the world which has been shaped almost entirely by the European will. After World War Two, Europe needed to be completely rebuild and found a collaborating partner to do so in the US. Latin America never found such a collaborating partner. There could certainly be some similarities between the two regions but the amazing difference in the balance of power present throughout both regions makes them disappear below their overwhelming differences.

After a long history of war and struggle for power, the European nations learnt from past experiences and developed a level of unity which not only guaranteed the internal security of the region but was also able to coerce its neighbors to join with the use of soft powers (like economy and diplomacy). The European Union has a great advantage in international politics with a joint vision and unified policy to deal with external challenges. In contrast , the EU can have problems with joint security structure, because of diﬀerent countries development levels.

This heterogeneity becomes even more blatant as the latest aspects of the crisis in Europe are analised – Europe has faced a 7-year crisis with stagnation and its most nefarious impacts came over the poorer countries, coming to extreme situations in Spain, Portugal and, in 2015, in Greece (whose left-wing government made a plebiscite to ask Greeks whether or not they should accept financial help from the EU and achieve milestones set by it, strongly discouraging them to vote ‘yes’). Also, the civil wars, famine and the increasing power of ISIS, among others, caused more than one million of African, Asian and Middle Eastern citizens to fleet to European countries. In the six first weeks of 2016, there were 10 times more refugees coming by sea than on the same period last year (the shabbiness of the transportation they use also happens to cause significantly more deaths). Usual destinations are the countries that can be reached by the sea – Like Greece and Italy -, and the Eastern European countries, too. Whereas the EU tries to design favourable agreements to absorb or deport those people, locally, the sense of insecurity and xenophobic speeches spread – it is, in fact, lots of people that arrive every day, but the idea is those people can legally work in their place of asylum, rather than living off the governments’aid packages. The bipolar historic relationship of the Northern and Southern American continent with Europe, but also the reciprocal historic relationship, resulted in different developments of the regions. The relations between the US and Europe always experienced a high level of interdependence and correlation in their economies, and therefore the success of their economic policies over trade relationships, but at the very same time their complex security arrangements, were based on the willingness of longlasting co-operation and mutual benefit. The relation between the US and Latin America is completely different. The historical development of the two regions resulted in the domination of the Northern over the Southern continent, both in economic and military terms. The main difference between Europe and America lies in its distribution of institutional authority: While in the EU, more or less regardless of their economic contribution and size, the members obtained an equal share in the democratic decision making process, the powers of the OAS were always limited and had no inference over the US foreign policy concerning Latin America. International relations in the Americas are even up to date more a matter of bilateral agreements than of multilateral cooperation, especially in the case of relations with the US, which still pursue

even unilateral impositions over weaker Latin American nations. Especially now, with the end of the Kirchner era and the rise of a Mauricio Macri very focused on the Argentinian recovery and expansion, besides extremely well defined pro-American objectives – Obama has praised the new president on his measures on his one hundred first days of presidency and both politicians defined some resolutions for the years to come, including American investments in the Latin country, ‘lightning up’ the rest of the region. Also, in a matter of political entities and groups, Americas have some peculiarities in comparison to Europe: firstly, there is a tendency for numerous organs approaching similar issues, which reflects 1) a political movement of making those groups broader with members and more superficial in their discussions, 2) inefficiency in following the issues purposed, along with inadequacy to some resolutions from these organs and 3) the creation of information ‘hubs’ for exchanges about internal politics, rather than places for their harmonization and coordination (PORTALES, 2013). Another specificity in Americas’ regionalism is that it has assumed a ‘presidentialiser’ mechanics, meaning, according to Portales (2013, p. 226), that chiefs of State gained a central role in pushing and giving continuity to regional politics; it also reinforced the role of presidential diplomacy in Americas, with a high number of presidents’ meetings (instead of summits, sometimes), as opposed to the classic ideal of multilateralism. That ended up reinforcing identities to a much higher level than it happened before Cold War. The Latin American countries currently find themselves in a struggle for organizing and reassembling with the European Union as a successful ideal. However, the domination of the US on common policies and trade agreements make it difficult for Latin American countries to evolve rapidly – some other factors have strengthened this sort of relation, such as the difficulties the countries face while proposing and negotiating agreements in blocks, economies very dependent on exportation (mainly of primary products), an economic crisis striking the continent and astronomic unemployment rates. Due to the unbalanced power between North America and Latin America, the only chance for success of the Latin American countries lies in the strengthening of their security and trade ties primarily with each other and secondly with another security bloc such as ASEAN or the EU.

SECURITY STRUCTURES ON THE INTERNET

IT IS RATHER NAÏVE, NOWADAYS, to restrict security to a physical (or, at least, an offline) existence. The internet was conceived to be a military resource, so it is no wonder that, along with all the facilities it brought to civilians worldwide, it would be also a useful artefact to modify how politics is thought internationally. Also, information and publicity are directly linked to the idea and the possibility of a democratic scenario – different groups in a well-functioning society tend to associate with each other, regardless of their differences, and the more fluid information is, the easier for this phenomenon to happen.[29] The first aspect in which the internet interacts with governments is through public opinion. There, as opposed to the vertical communication from means like the television or the radio, the web makes of each user a legit pole of information, organically differing engaging posts from the others. This situation helped create what is called ‘citizen journalism’, where every person can become a source of information.

It is because of conditions like these that the public opinion became stronger and stronger. This culminated in a very powerful will to manifest and share opinions, changing ideally small facts into important events. A clear example of this in Latin America are the demonstrations against (and in favour of ) the current government of Dilma Rouseﬀ.

In March, 2016, manifestations all over the country against the wrongdoings believed to be linked to Ms. Rousseﬀ got more people in the streets (3, 5 million) than the famous ‘Diretas, já!’, that guaranteed direct vote in Brazil after the military years (1,5 million). It can be said that popular pressure had paramount importance in the impeachment process that is being currently voted. Also, the internet foments the net-activism, which can be either a movement of internet users discussing concepts (and eventually reinforcing them with their physical presence, as afore said), but it can also relate to the action of hackers, as it happens with Wikileaks, a group of computer experts working towards leaking government related information they judge important of public knowledge. That, at the same time that seems dangerous to the diplomatic balance, is also a powerful tool of keeping it, by exposing acts that would be not perceived and, more than that, stimulating corrective actions and streamlining oﬃcial reactions. That much power attracts coercive measures, not only in Europe and Americas, but all over the world, especially in countries in authoritarian regimes. The Freedom House 2015 report about Freedom on the net[30] evaluates freedom according to: 1) obstacles to the access of internet, 2) limitations imposed to content and 3)violations of the users rights, such as surveillance and punishments – according to this document, whereas all the Western European countries analised, along with the US and Canada, where considered free, some key countries in Latin America, such as Mexico, Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela were considered partly free, contrasting with the results for Argentina and Brazil. This shows that not only are the economic agreements important when it comes to development, but also politic acts, and it becomes even more substantial once the subject is freedom. It also evidences that security structures might serve for sovereignty and beneficial trades, but it also can, unfortunately, serve as a device to prevent the government form its own people. A ‘freedom map’ from the report Freedom on the Net 2015, by the Freedom House. There we can see, in general terms (thereby, not specified by medium) the countries analysed by the report and divided into ‘free’, ‘partly free’ and ‘not free’.

When it comes to freedom of press, the situation becomes even more evident – most of the Western European countries, the US and Canada have a ‘good’ or ‘satisfactory’ relation with the press, while the whole Latin America, except for six countries has either ‘problems’ or ‘many problems’ with the local press. Naturally, the historic points previously analised interfered hugely on how freedom is taken in those countries. Also, it indicates that stable governments are more prone to have a good relation with the press and, may it be inferred, the stability and growth that such countries so avidly seek are too delayed by their inaptitude not to control, but to communicate with their presses. Picture of the World Press Freedom Index. The lighter the colour, the freer the country.

CONCLUSION

THE MAIN CONCLUSION after analyzing the evolution of the Security structures in both the Americas and Europe is that, just like our hypothesis says, a nation’s approach to security issues is a direct consequence of its past experiences and that the materializations of a given approach to security will only occur if certain required economic and international cooperation elements exist. In the case of Europe, a history of war, destruction and greed for resources needed and power brought the continent to the verge of destroying itself with the Second World War. Europe had to learn the hard way that, it is through cooperation, fairness, the rule of law and respect for the small differences between different peoples that a greater good can be achieved. The very existence of the European Union is evidence of how history shapes the present even if it’s only by avoiding to repeat past mistakes. It also proves that, international cooperation fosters economic growth and social well-being, which are in turn, necessary to cooperate more effectively.

From a historical perspective and regardless of the OAS, US influence has proven to be a main destabilizing and stagnation factor within Latin American countries. On the other side, the ideals on which the European Union has been founded and a closer cooperation with the EU could have positive eﬀects on the Latin Americas politics, economy and society. Recent events show that several South American states are trying to reduce and avoid US influence inside their borders, while others are increasing their level of cooperation, due to the fierce economic and political pressure of the United States. If things continue to develop that way, it could only be a matter of time until a major conflict escalates in this region.

The United States is facing great challenges in many different fronts and will have to totally restructure its foreign policy regarding Latin America. More horizontal cooperation and real multilateral agreements are needed if the US wants to avoid new conflicts and keep peace in the hemisphere. The European Union, having its main strength in economic co-operation, will consequently find herself in a world leading position. The global trade relationships and the strategic trans-Atlantic partnership will substantially ease the future European development. However, the further Enlargement and economic and political growth of the EU will constantly bring new challenges that the EU will have to face in a global approach, such as finding a sustainable solution for energy supply and global climate change. The US position differs little from the EU regarding economic stability, but it substantially differs concerning the security strategies. The US is exercising (and will do so in the future) its economic and military powers to create stability in a way the US assume is right. As a consequence, the US involvements are characterized mainly by their commitment to dictate the outcomes. The arising question for Latin America will be therefore, which transoceanic partner or partners will emerge as allies fostering a greater cohesion among and inside the hemispheres to further influence the development of the modern international order. Although the European economy is currently heavily struck by the global economic and financial crisis – much affected in the same way the US is – the worth and capacity of the EU as an institution ultimately manifests in its capability of absorbing any member’s economic and financial problems within the organization. That means that the EU’s security structure depends much on its capability of working “as a whole” and thereby unifying its capacities. Not only is the EU capable of rescuing stranded economies within the EU, but also it is still capable of providing economic and financial assistance to other nations and international organizations, thereby attracting others to cooperate with the EU, which ultimately increases the EU security. The situation of the US is a bit different: On the one hand, the US had to deal with heavy military expenses due to the Iraq and Afghanistan “military missions”, which consumed vast amounts of the US budget and forced the previous Bush administration and present Obama administration to take huge loans and increase the US external debts. On the other hand, the financial crisis is said to be “US-made” – meaning that the US’ overextension of its credits ultimately had devastating effects on all world economies.

It has to be stated that not all economies have been struck the same way – China, for example, has focused on cheap exports and savings, therefore China had built up huge foreign currency reserves, which now help China to gain more importance worldwide. However, the US now lacks the capacity of fixing both trouble spots at the same time: the military activities consume more funds that the US is able to spend if the US wants to fix its domestic problems at the same time. But if the US wants to maintain its leading position as the main provider of global security, it cannot ignore one of the two issues, which would mean that the US would give up the “American Way of Life”.

NOTES

[1] see Appendix I – Charts and Graphs – Map of the Crusades [2] Hay, W. A. (2003). Geopolitics of Europe. Orbis, 47(2), 295-310. [3] See Appendix I – Charts and Graphs – Treaty of Westphalia [4] see appendix – Charts and Graphs – The Quadruple Alliance [5] see appendix – charts and graphs – The Holy Alliance [6] The Schlieffen Plan, as it was called after WWI, was a domination plan conceived and executed by the homonymous chief of the German General Staff, which consisted basically in attacking both France and Russia and assumed some premises, such as 1) both countries would show animosity concomitantly; 2) the German military would defeat a supposedly weak French army and then migrate to the Russian borders. In reality, History did not happen as the chief had planned, so Germany had to eventually find a pretext to feud with France and force its way through Belgium, for which Britain declared war against it. The plan could have stablished the German mightiness, but was, instead, crucial for its defeat. [7] Even though president Wilson was one of the enthusiasts of the League of Nations, the American Congress found that joining it would seem dissonant from their external politics posture. [8] Germany and Russia were excluded from the decision making process of the League of Nations, notably were seen as ‚targets‘ [9] The annexation of Austria by Germany, a prohibited act in the Versailles Treaty. [10] The Munich Conference marked a peak in the German nationalists efforts to win lebensraum, when Hitler posed direct territorial demands on Czechoslovakia (Sudetenland), to be discussed by Britain (Chamberlain), France and Czechoslovakia, only to withdraw them one week later and demand complete occupation of the Sudetenland, the rejection of which gave Hitler the final justification for a military move. [11] The Nazi-Soviet Pact was a decisive event in Hitler’s efforts to outmaneuver existing military alliances in order to have territorial gains [12] The military campaign for the invasion of Russia. [13] The Truman doctrine marked a significant change in U.S. policies from attempting cooperation with the USSR to confrontation [14] Also the Colombo Plan was used for the Asian southeast with the same purposes of influencing the region. [15] "The nations should consult and agree on international monetary changes which affect each other. They should outlaw practices which are agreed to be harmful to world prosperity, and they should assist each other to overcome short-term exchange difficulties." [16] The Warsaw Pact can be seen as the military response of the Soviet Bloc to West Germany’s integration into the NATO, and it is the informal name of a mutual Defense Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual assistance between Russia and the communist states in Eastern Europe

[17] The aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realizing the ideals and principles which are their common heritage and facilitating their economic and social progress." Article 1 of the Statute of the CoE, Treaty of London, May 5,1949 [18] The Helsinki Decalogue, from the Helsinki Final Act, Helsinki Conference, July 30 to August 1, 1975, which was signed by 34 nations including Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Finland, France, the German Democratic Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, the Holy See, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the USA and Yugoslavia. (OSCE, 2009) [19]Europe will not be built in a day nor as part of some overall design; it will be built through practical achievements that first create a sense of common purpose'. (Robert Schuman, French Foreign Minister, 9 May 1950) [20] Which were: the common agricultural policy (Articles 38 to 43), transport policy (Articles 74 and 75) and a common commercial policy (Articles 110 to 113) [21] The UK joined on 1 January 1973, together with Denmark and Ireland; the Norwegian people had voted against accession in a referendum. Greece became a member in 1981; Portugal and Spain joined in 1986. (EP, 2009) [22] See Appendix – Charts and Graphs – Europe in 2000 [23] following discussions within SEDE on the scrutiny of ESDP, the European Parliament has adopted resolutions approving the deployment of ESDP operations in BosniaHerzegovina (EUFOR Althea), the Democratic Republic of Congo (EUFOR RD Congo) and in Chad (EUFOR Tchad/CAR) [24] Matthew D. Stephen, ‘Rising Powers, Global Capitalism and Liberal Global Governance: A Historical Materialist Account of the BRICs Challenge’, European Journal of International Relations. (2014, p. 889) [25] This region was the plot for riots that pushed the independence movements. As taxes raised and so did the labor journey for the Indians, there was a general feeling of dissatisfaction that led upper and lower layer of society to conceive a governing board called El Común. They protested against the work relations in 1871 and, as the movement got more adherence among the lower classes, the criollos decided to stick with the current order, that eventually suppressed the movement, killind the mestizo leader, José Antonio Galán, and exposing pieces of his body where the revolutionary met. [26] See Appendix – Charts and Grapsh – Norths America in Present days [27] See Appendix – Charts and Graphs – Latin America in Present days [28] As in http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm. [29] As described in the article ‘Engagement, disengagement, or exit: a theory of equilibrium associations’, by Elizabeth Penn. [30] https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/freedom-net-2015

BIBLIOGRAPHY Doerr, N. (2017) - Bridging language barriers, bonding against immigrants: A visual case study of transnational network publics created by far-right activists in Europe, Discourse & Society. Vol 28, Issue 1, pp. 3 – 23. Farmer, Alan (2008) – An Introduction to Modern European History 1890-1990; London, Hodder Education Kaasch, A. (2016) - Global social redistribution in the context of the refugee crisis, Global Social Policy, Vol 16, Issue 3, pp. 325 - 328 Stephen, M. D. - Rising Powers, Global Capitalism and Liberal Global Governance: A Historical Materialist Account of the BRICs Challenge, European Journal of International Relations. Published Online (2014), DOI: 10.1177/1354066114523655. McGoldrick, D. (1998) – International Relations Law of the European Union/ European Law Series; Longman, London and New York Penn, E. M. (2016) - Engagement, Disengagement, or Exit: A Theory of Equilibrium Associations. American Journal of Political Science, 60: 322–336. doi:10.1111/ajps.12198 Peterson, J. and Shackleton, M. (2002) – The Institutions of the European Union/ the New European Series; New York, Oxford University Press Portales, C. (2013). Where is multilateralism going in the Americas? Overlapping organizations in a period of global change, Lua Nova: Revista de Cultura e Política, (90), 203241. https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0102-64452013000300008 Rhodes, C. (1998) – The European Union in the World Community; Lynne Rinner Pb. London Schmitt, O. (2016): The Reluctant Atlanticist: France’s Security and Defence Policy in a Transatlantic Context, Journal of Strategic Studies, DOI: 10.1080/01402390.2016.1220367 http://history.state.gov/milestones http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10056/1038429-192.stm Encyclopedia Britannica (November 2009) http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/291225/international-relations/ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/473296/balance-of-power http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/125567/collective-security Foreign Policy Research Institute (November 2009) http://www.fpri.org/orbis/4702/hay.geopoliticseurope.html http://www.fpri.org/research/nationalsecurity/ http://www.fpri.org/research/terrorism/ OSCE (November 2009) – The OSCE factsheet http://www.osce.org/item/35857.html http://www.osce.org/activities/ http://www.osce.org/helsinki-final-act?download=true CSCE (November 2009) – Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe http://csce.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=AboutCommission.WorkOfCommission Williamson, C. (1992) - The Penguin History of Latin America; Penguin Books, London Eakin, M. C.(2007) - The history of Latin America, Collision of cultures; Palgrave Macmillan, New York Ferguson, N. (2008) - The Ascent of Money, a financial history of the world; Penguin Books, London Goodwin, Paul Jr.(2003) – Global Studies on Latin America/ 10th edition; McGraw-Hill, Connecticut

ADDITIONAL LIST OF RESEARCH MATERIAL Andrew F. Cooper and Thomas Legler - Intervention Without Intervening?: The OAS Defense and Promotion of Democracy in the Americas Monica Herz - Organization of American States (OAS) (Global Institutions) Jerome Slater - The OAS and United States foreign policy Edward J., Jr. Renehan - The Monroe Doctrine: The Cornerstone of American Foreign Policy (Milestones in American History)

APPENDIX – CHARTS AND GRAPHS All displayed maps per the Mr. Bajrektarevic’s idea made by Anneliese Gattringer.

Map of the Crusades Source: Pearson, Chronology of European History

Treaty of Westphalia Source: Encyclopedia Britannica

The Holy Alliance

Source: www.kish.org/pics/30_704.gif

The Quadruple Alliance

Source: www.kish.org/pics/26_660.gif

Europe in 2000

The new order in the EU - 2015. Available on: http://www.cartoonbrew.com/business/european-union-to-publish-twomajor-reports-on-animation-in-2015-109956.html

European Colonization

Source: www.kish.org/pics/18_405.gif

Latin America in Present days

Source: http://www.frenchcreoles.com/south_america_pol98.jpg

North America in Present days

Source:http://maps.unomaha.edu/Peterson/funda/MapLinks/NAmerica/N orth_America_pol97.jpg

â&#x20AC;&#x153;The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by foolsâ&#x20AC;? Thucydides