Lagos calls for dialogue with the US and admits disappointment with Mercosur
Former Chilean president Ricardo Lagos called for a closer dialogue between Latinamerica and Washington while de-mystifying the alleged negative influence of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez in the region. He also admitted he expected “much more from Mercosur”.
“We should have a more direct dialogue with United States”, Lagos was quoted in the Friday edition of the Argentine newspaper Crónica.
Lagos suggested as an alternative a “coordination instance with Washington” in the framework of the Group of Rio which brings together 22 Latinamerican countries.
The former president (2000/2006) said the US already has fluid dialogues with Europe, China and different regions of the world and considered “crucial” and “very useful” a similar discussion space with Latinamerica.
This way “we can tell the US what’s going to happen with the climate change issue, with migration or with the drugs trade”.
Regarding the alleged harmful influence for Latinamerica from President Chavez, Lagos said that the role played by the Venezuela leader “is very much exaggerated”. He has been legitimately elected and confirmed several times, nevertheless “one should not get distracted by his rhetoric”.
Further on Lagos said that Mercosur (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay) “has not responded as expected to the challenges faced”.
“I always thought that Mercosur, with a founding principle sustained on an organic common external tariff, should have improved with a better coordination of economic policies”, underlined Lagos.
Chile is an associate member of Mercosur and never accepted joining the South American trade block because it has a more open and liberal economy and has slashed tariffs to a minimum level.
Finally he argued that if Mercosur is to become effective, “it must have shared elements of economic policy in which all members believe or agree”.
This is particularly true since Brazil is pushing for trade liberalization and is willing to further open its home market to outside competition, while Argentina has a more conservative approach, limiting imports and promoting local industries behind protection mechanisms allegedly to create jobs.
Suggested Stories
-
Feb 10th 2012
Debate on Cuba’s attendance to the coming Americas summit in Colombia
-
Feb 10th 2012
US/Argentina discuss bilateral relation and regional democratic stability
-
Feb 09th 2012
Obama/banks mortgage-deal to rescue US doomed and struggling homeowners
-
Feb 09th 2012
Mujica says Mercosur is “a chewing gum”; promises trade deals with third countries
4 comments Feed
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
Really? Argentina has a more “conservative” approach?
Nonsense, and stop with PC language. It's a “Populist” approach...in other words, an Idiotic approach.
I bet Mercopress in the hands of Argentines. Good lord.
hey, look Malvinas; they have all kinds of protecctions, most of them alienated. Social protecction, political protection, economic protection, communicational protection, inmigrational, commercial, educational, mental. So much protection that they don´t live in modern world. I don´t understand why they don´t want to live in a city; Stanley without most of that protections should be another city of south atlantic & patagonia.
The only thing they don´t protect is enviroment; foreign vessels are overfishing every year for 100 millon people. That´s not fair for the region.
In EU you have a shameful situation, the worst case of protecctionism in modern world; agricultural subsidies. Why european farmers can´t compite with south americans farmers?? You are first world and we are third; shame on you.
Hey Gordon, you want your deficit cut?? cut agric subs.
It´s easy, UK is developed they protect farmers, we are developing and we protect industry, brazil is an industrial giant for us, we can´t compite as equals.
Cheers
I agree, My country and the crooks in the EU should stop the subsidies, and not only the agriculture subsidies. The US is willing to do that, but it's not possible if the Eu doesn't stop with it. Those agriculture subsidies don't make sense, but the EU bureaucrats are killing the farmers, and plenty of people in the EU nations are fed up with high taxes and demand a cut, that means also less money for those spoiled farmers. It's all a matter of time that it will stop :). The US is wide open for many products, but can do better. If a government serious want to protect it's industry but keep it's border wide open for business, cut taxes and wasteful spending. The higher the taxes you take from the people who create jobs, the less jobs there are, the more money for the crooks in the government, the more wasteful spending. Sounds familiar?
Now back to what I typed first...What Argentina is doing is not conservative, but populist=being Protectionist because it cannot compete with it's neighbor. well poor you..that's your own stupid fault. Is that the end of the world? Even if you know you will never become as strong like Brazil, big deal..you can still do what you must do to become a stable nation and keep the border wide open for business what is good for the people. Have a deficit with Brazil? big deal..make sure that you compensate that with other markets. But don't bitch about other countries about protectionism when it hurts your nation.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!