As discussed in previous chapters, the SSC norm regime can be viewed as made up of four fundamental principles – solidarity, partnership, respect for sovereignty and mutual benefit. This section seeks to determine whether the interviewees raised these principles in regards to SSC and how they were perceived. As explained in Chapter 1, the principles were not explicitly asked about during the interviews; the concern was rather whether the interviewees raised them of their own accord whilst discussing SSC more generally. This was therefore used as a means of determining whether the principles had resonated with this group of international observers – if they were repeated this could be taken as an indicator that the SSC norm regime had spread amongst potential followers (the LAC diplomats) or onlookers (Northern commentators). This section first discusses the rate of mentioning amongst both groups, before examining each principle in turn. Due to the relatively small sample size, this data should be used as suggestive of general trends at that moment in time (ie 2015), not conclusive. As such, for the purposes of this research, the qualitative data in the form of comments are more significant than quantitative breakdowns, although it serves to provide a brief overview of the interview responses.
Of the 28 interviewees, only three mentioned none of the principles (11%); however, only five mentioned all four principles (18%). The majority of interviewees mentioned two or more principles (75%).63 The breakdown of instances of the interviewees raising the individual principles is shown in Table 4.1.
63There didn’t appear to be any pattern or correlation as to which principles were mentioned by the interviewees who mentioned more than one principle.
Table 4.1: Number of interviewees who mentioned the SSC principles64 SSC principles
Solidarity Partnership Sovereignty Mutual Benefit
LAC diplomats 9/16 9/16 9/16 10/16
Percentage 56% 56% 56% 63%
Northern commentators 5/12 7/12 8/12 9/12
Percentage 42% 58% 67% 75%
All interviewees 14/28 16/28 17/28 19/28
Total percentage 50% 57% 61% 68%
The overall total of interviewees who mentioned each principle ranged from 50% to 68% – hence each principle was mentioned by at least half of all interviewees. Of note is the difference between the “relational” principles of solidarity and partnership, and the “practical” principles of sovereignty and mutual benefit – the relational principles being referred to by slightly less interviewees than the practical principles.
There was difference also between the responses of the LAC diplomats and the Northern commentators, as can be seen more clearly in Figure 4.1.
64This table reflects coding of the interview data according to these principles. This was not based on a text search for the exact wording of the principles but based on codes that included instances of these principles being mentioned, whether using that phrase or statements that meant the same thing.
That said, the wording was used often, especially for the principles of solidarity and partnership. These numbers do not include interviews with Brazilian and Venezuelan representatives. Percentages have been rounded up or down as appropriate.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Solidarity Partnership Sovereignty Mutual Benefit Pecentage of interviewees
SSC principle
Figure 4.1: Percentage of international observer interviewees who mentioned SSC principles
Northern commentators LAC Diplomats
Total
While the LAC diplomat group displayed relatively even results for the principles (each principle was mentioned by just over half of the sample), the Northern commentators showed more preference for certain principles than others. Of particular note is that solidarity was the only principle that was mentioned by more of the LAC diplomats than the Northern commentators. This may be because solidarity in regards to SSC is tied more specifically to the notion of “Southern”
solidarity; the LAC diplomats may have identified more strongly with this due to their being from the South. However, it may be that solidarity holds more resonance for those who are from countries that partake in SSC than observers. Mutual benefit, on the other hand, was mentioned by 75% of Northern commentators, and was also the most mentioned principle by the LAC diplomat group. The notion of both countries contributing and benefitting from the cooperation is one of the most practical aspects of SSC and what seems to set it apart from Northern-led cooperation – an aspect noted by many of the interviewees.
The data was also analysed by looking at how many individual instances there were of a principle being mentioned throughout all the interviews. That is, how many times each principle was mentioned, rather than how many interviewees mentioned them. The results of this can be seen in Table 4.2 and Figure 4.2.
Table 4.2: Number of times SSC principles were mentioned during the interviews65 SSC principles
Solidarity Partnership Sovereignty Mutual Benefit
LAC diplomats 20 22 25 17
Northern
commentators 12 11 17 23
Total 32 33 42 40
65This table and graph refer to the number of times each principle was coded as a separate
occurrence within each interview, hence the total number of codes attributed to each principle. Due to the difference in sample size between the LAC diplomat and Northern commentator groups, the numbers were weighted to allow for this so they could show a true comparison.
In line with the results above, this measurement also shows that the practical principles were mentioned more times than the relational principles. It also shows, however, that while less LAC diplomats mentioned each principle (as shown in Figure 4.1), those that did mention the principles mentioned them more times than the Northern commentators. This was the case for all the principles except for mutual benefit, where this trend was reversed. The biggest differences between the two groups were in amount of times the relational principles were mentioned, with the LAC diplomats appearing to be more enthusiastic to discuss solidarity and partnership throughout the interviews. However, sovereignty was mentioned the most times by the LAC diplomats and overall. This may be because it includes both practical and relational elements – that is, it relates strongly to issues of conditionality, as well as establishing respect in the relationship – and so can be valued (and discussed) in more than one way.
These numbers are of use to gain an overall picture of the data; however, as stated above, what the interviewees said in regards to these principles is of most value to this research. As such, each principle is now discussed in turn.
Solidarity – Southern and neighbourly
As shown in the tables and figures above, solidarity was the least mentioned principle in regards to both number of interviewees and number of times mentioned, with the Northern commentators less likely to mention solidarity than the LAC diplomats. The criteria to code solidarity included terms such as “brotherhood” and
“neighbours” (when used in a relational sense rather than purely geographic), and
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Solidarity Partnership Sovereignty Mutual Benefit
Number of mentionings (weighted)
SSC principle
Figure 4.2: Number of mentionings across groups
LAC Diplomats
Northern commentators
as such even despite the more generous definition of this principle it was still less likely to be mentioned and repeated than the other principles. Hence it may be viewed as the principle that has found the least amount of resonance with the international community who are observing SSC from afar rather than participating on the ground. That said, some general conclusions can be drawn as to what it meant to those who did mention solidarity and the role it was seen to play in SSC.
As discussed in earlier chapters, solidarity is presented by Southern donors as foundational to SSC and as a reason countries engage in it. This notion of working together out of solidarity was viewed by interviewees as related to a sense of similarity amongst the countries:
“The alikeness of, framed in political terms, not as a cultural-historical alikeness, but say political alikeness of having suffered from colonialism and imperialism, it was stronger in the origins of South-South cooperation I think.” [Int.#17.I-Com]
This similarity was not linked to a perception of the South as homogenous, but rather that global history and politics had resulted in a power imbalance between the North and South. Hence, the Southern countries were viewed as having a more equal starting point in terms of how they saw each other and SSC was therefore a means to help and assist rather than as a way for one country to dominate the other. This was connected to early SSC rhetoric, as seen in Bandung:
“South-South cooperation has a very strong political origin… it was born in Bandung in 1950s because they decided, again it was an expression of solidarity, we should, the South, the poorest countries and the gap was very wide at the time, work together and help each other. So this modality in addition to all the technical dimensions has a very strong political underpinning and it’s still there… which is different from the one of North-South.” [Int.#05.I-Ind]
Solidarity was also said to be based on the belief that all countries “deserve to develop” and SSC was a means to do this, especially as it was built on common challenges that could be tackled together; successes in one country could be replicated in other countries with similar problems (Int.#06.I-Dip). This belief in shared history and commonality therefore led to a type of solidarity that seemed decidedly “Southern”:
“Solidarity… is a sociological category, like you use it just to make it clear that you feel part of a group and not of another one and then you stick to that group instead of trying to pretend to be part of another group or trying to reach another group.
Solidarity then for me it’s a question about identity and that identity comes from recognising ourselves in our own conditions… That pushes you together and you find yourselves surrounded by people or countries in this case that think alike. You
acknowledge your own conditions and then you want to do something about those conditions without requesting it from the bigger countries.” [Int.#10.I-Dip]
Hence, the solidarity within SSC differs from solidarity that might be achieved between Northern and Southern nations – while there was acknowledgement of genuine friendship and desire to help, a lack of common identity or global political position were barriers difficult to remove. It was also stated that if solidarity were linked to a sense of similarity, this provided a problem for Northern countries that
“have shied away” from identifying with countries perceived to be less developed (Int.#17.I-Com) – thereby strengthening barriers that might have been overcome.
In regards to what solidarity within SSC looked like, interviewees discussed a focus on balancing out developmental differences between countries of the South, and working together to find common solutions and give the South a stronger voice. In this way, SSC was viewed as helping to bring countries closer to create stronger ties:
“So it’s a sort of solidarity among equals rather than rich countries providing cooperation to poorest countries. So this is a challenge but it’s… I would say a great challenge because it motivates [us] to try to develop on our own means sharing. Sharing tasks, sharing expenses but sharing also the benefits of the cooperation.” [Int.#24.I-Dip]
It was repeated by many of the LAC diplomats that this solidarity meant helping or forming relations with whatever means available, even if that is only in small ways such as sending diplomatic missions to begin talks. The example was given of Ecuador providing assistance to Haiti after the earthquake; although it may have had less to give than other countries, it was valuable to show their solidarity with that country in whatever way they could (Int.#25.I-Dip).
While Southern solidarity is particularly important to SSC, there was much talk of a more specific type of solidarity within the LAC region that drove the cooperation there. This solidarity was said to arise not only from geographical closeness but also a sense of brotherhood and neighbourly relations that came from similar histories and perhaps a propensity towards leftist politics at the time (Int.#13.I-Com). This solidarity within the region seemed to be more recent, however, than the mid-20th century origins of Southern solidarity generally:
“If you see the region 40 years ago there were still possibilities of war among countries in that region and there were open hostilities among the major countries.
And now that’s gone. So particularly in Latin America the real friendship is taking over the suspicions of the past and the idea of working together is very powerful. If
you run polls in the countries you still have issues like between Brazil and Chile and others, Peru and Chile. But in general people see their neighbours as friends and brothers and they don’t have resistance to collaborate with their neighbour.”
[Int.#05.I-Ind]
The integration projects that have emerged within the last two decades were also seen as expressions of this solidarity:
“It’s the vision of the region… in the past we don’t have this UNASUR, we don’t have Mercosur, we don’t have ALBA, we don’t have CELAC, now that they are thinking in terms of union, solidarity is becoming more active.” [Int.#25.I-Dip]
Most of the interviewees mentioned solidarity during broader discussions of SSC;
however, there were some instances of Brazil and Venezuela being specifically linked with this principle. Neither country was attributed with more solidarity than the other – this was somewhat surprising given Venezuela tended to promote solidarity quite heavily, particularly as it relates to challenging Northern power.66 In regards to Venezuela, solidarity was mentioned usually in association with ALBA and how that organisation had demonstrated a desire to develop all members equally (Int.#04.I-Dip). Brazil’s solidarity, on the other hand, was viewed as more political and as a way “to capitalise on the political climate of similarity” in order to show their SSC was more “appropriate” than Northern assistance (Int.#17.I-Com).
SSC was also viewed as a means by which Brazil could create more solidarity between itself and the region, which may have been lacking in the past (Int.#24.I-Dip). That said, there were also comments that Brazil was acting out of “a genuine solidarity motivation”, at least to some extent (Int.#18.I-Com).
Partnership – Redefining equality
While only around half of the interviewees mentioned partnership, the LAC diplomats that did speak about it raised the subject twice as often as the Northern commentators. As such, it seemed this principle held more resonance with the LAC diplomats (or those that mentioned it at least) than it did with Northern commentators. This may be because partnership was related to how the parties felt about the relations within SSC rather than what it looked like – hence it seemed to evoke more personal and emotive responses than the other principles. The emotive responses were most present in describing how partnership was especially important in SSC due to the fact that North-South relations were commonly seen as
66The interviewees from Bolivia and Ecuador were the most forthcoming in stating that Venezuela especially had acted out of solidarity (Int.#04.I-Dip; Int.#25.I-Dip). This was to be expected from two of Venezuela’s closest allies that also follow similar leftist political ideology.
neglecting this principle. Therefore South-South partnership was defined in opposition to North-South domination:
“[SSC] seems more of a partnership – it is definitely more heavy handed with the US and even in terms of, we’ve been, I would say strongholded to change many laws in Belize particularly having to do with the US and their financial rules and having to change our rules in Belize to suit and then still getting blacklisted even when you do what they say.” [Int.#08.I-Dip]
This statement shows the frustration felt within some North-South relations. This appeared to stem from the belief that the North doesn’t feel the South has anything to contribute and hence there can be no partnership when one party feels this way:
“The notion of thinking of poor countries simply as those waiting for a handout as opposed to those who are growing and open and willing to partner with you needs to be adjusted… That divide will continue because the people from the South are often viewed not as contributors of wealth, not as contributors of good but as parasites on the North.” [Int.#26.I-Dip]
In comparison to this treatment by the North, partnership within SSC was seen as valuable and greatly appreciated. The example was given of China becoming more involved in the Caribbean at the same time the UK was pulling back, and how the difference in relations was apparent:
“In the late to mid 2000s… we saw a contraction of those diplomatic presences in the Caribbean region. So you saw the UK relationship just disappear… So when these embassies were just drying up and moving out, China was just moving in and they were not at Acting High Commissioner level or Charge D’affaires or deputy, it was full ambassadorial level. Fully staffed, everybody you could possibly think was there, and you were treated as an equal. And that went a long way because the relationship never evolved past ‘you are a colony’ or ‘you were a former colony’.
Countries always felt that they were talked down to, they were dictated to.”
[Int.#27.I-Dip]
This idea of being treated as equals in a peer relationship was a common theme and seemed to be the defining characteristic of partnership within SSC. There was recognition that there were significant differences in size and power amongst the countries (especially between nations such as China and the small islands of the Caribbean), however the important point was that it didn’t feel like that. Hence, as mentioned above in regards to solidarity, partnership in SSC was about sharing the benefits and responsibility and in this way was linked with the principle of mutual benefit:
“Previously the classic or traditional cooperation usually was around programmes that were in a way imposed by the donors. So the country that would receive the
cooperation didn’t have the chance to discuss the contents on an equal-to-equal basis. Now in South-South it is absolutely cooperation between peers so there is known position, there is an open negotiation because they will share expenses and thus they share responsibilities in designing and planning the projects.” [Int.#24.I-Dip]
This partnership within SSC appeared to come easier when there was no negative (or sometimes very little) history between the partners that could taint the relations, as well as there being more common challenges to work on together. Hence, while one party may have been stronger in a particular area, the other may have different strengths it could share and so there was “mutual understanding of each other”;
therefore, while it may have been “an uneven partnership… it’s a partnership that is equally important for both” (Int.#10.I-Dip). This meant that while North-South relations had the potential to become a paternalistic relationship, this was less the case in SSC: “You don’t have any paternalism or you try not to have, it’s more difficult to have a paternalistic relationship in South-South Cooperation” (Int.#28.I-Br). Partnership within SSC was therefore viewed as not only beneficial for how the countries of the South related to each other but also as a means by which the South
therefore, while it may have been “an uneven partnership… it’s a partnership that is equally important for both” (Int.#10.I-Dip). This meant that while North-South relations had the potential to become a paternalistic relationship, this was less the case in SSC: “You don’t have any paternalism or you try not to have, it’s more difficult to have a paternalistic relationship in South-South Cooperation” (Int.#28.I-Br). Partnership within SSC was therefore viewed as not only beneficial for how the countries of the South related to each other but also as a means by which the South