André Luiz Cançado Motta and José Paulo Silva Ferreira
Publication Date:
07-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Conjuntura Austral: Journal of the Global South
Institution:
Conjuntura Austral: Journal of the Global South
Abstract:
The objective of this article is to investigate whether Cold War rivalry influenced the development of nuclear programs in Brazil and Argentina. The research employs a qualitative approach and bibliographic analysis of primary sources, including articles, books, and other relevant sources. The main hypothesis is to examine whether the culture of Cold War rivalry stimulated the development of nuclear programs in these countries, analysing the military and civilian intentions behind their nuclear technologies. While it is commonly reported that Latin America was under the influence of the United States (US) and the Soviet Union (USSR) during the Cold War, the cases of Brazil and Argentina show the opposite. Both countries adopted independent nuclear policies, seeking technological transfer through diversified and autonomous partnerships. Additionally, these divergent positions included arguments and actions regarding their respective nuclear policies. However, mutual distrust between Brazil and Argentina regarding the advancement and sophistication of their nuclear programs generated a dynamic similar to the Cold War in the Southern Cone region. This dynamic originated internally based on the logic of the two countries, despite the later creation of joint non-proliferation mechanisms.
Topic:
Cold War, Nuclear Weapons, Politics, History, Rivalry, Military, and Nuclearization
When mandatory preventative social isolation was announced in our country, only a few weeks had passed since 8 March, the date when women’s and the LGBTQIA+ movements once again put a political agenda and series of demands on the table. This agenda is linked to eliminating gender-based violence and inequality, which confront us in every aspect of life.
The COVID-19 pandemic brought visibility and clarity to many of the things that feminist and socialist movements have been saying for some time. First of all, that we live in a system that has reached atrocious and unprecedented levels of inequality, exclusion, hate, and discrimination as if it were ‘normal’ or ‘natural’. It is not an exaggeration to say that if we don’t put an end to this ‘normalcy’, we will drive straight towards the destruction of the planet and of humanity. Second, on a global level, COVID-19 has also made clear the importance of the state, once again shedding light on the vitality of state intervention — not just any kind of intervention, but the intervention of a state that cares for people and health and that preserves life. The pandemic has also put care work into the spotlight like never before, shedding light on tasks that have historically been feminised, socially and economically devalued, and which have become increasingly precarious.
Existing inequalities remain apparent. It is not the same to experience quarantine for those who live in houses and for those who live in shacks; for those who have work and those who do not; for those who have access to adequate infrastructure such as roads, internet, and transportation, and those who do not; those who have running water and those who do not; for women and for men; for cis women and for trans women… This inequality — which is normalised as if it were a natural phenomenon and not a political one — corresponds directly to the severity of the impact of today’s health crisis felt by different sectors of society.
For women and the LGBTQIA+ community, the inequality and oppression associated with this ‘normalcy’ are reflected by the exacerbation of gender-based violence, the increase in poverty, and the increase and overload of care work.
The enormous challenges that we face today are how to craft a strategy that takes the current emergency into account and that transcends it, and how to make sure that the impact of the pandemic doesn’t leave us even poorer, more subjected to violence, and more exploited. At the same time, we must work towards structural transformations that disarm relationships of power that reproduce violence and inequality.
The role that we have as militants of popular feminism is central in the tasks that lie ahead of us. In our country, thousands of us have met for over thirty-four years[1] to discuss a political agenda for the women’s and feminist movement, sharing with each other and organising ourselves in various parts of the country. We have a history of labour organisation, of fighting for our rights and fighting for our work to be recognised. We see ourselves reflected in the struggle for human rights in our country, in the madres and abuelas[2] who are part of the history of our movement.
In the last few years, the women’s movement has gained resounding strength. For five years, the Ni Una Menos (‘Not One Less’) movement has erupted in the streets of Argentina, putting on the agenda the urgent need of public policies to prevent gender-based violence and to provide aid to those who are subjected to such violence, demanding no nos maten más: stop killing us. With the Cambiemos (‘Let’s Change’) party in office[3] and the advance of neoliberalism, these debates of the movement lined up behind a new agenda. When there is an economic crisis, there is also a feminisation of poverty and of neoliberal policies, which hit women and the LGBTQIA+ community even harder, further exacerbating inequality. But the movement responded with organised resistance. The women’s movement led the first national women’s strike in 2016 and the massive ‘green wave’ during the debate on abortion in 2018, making it clear that the women’s and the LGBTQIA+ movement is among the most dynamic actors of our time.
Standing on the shoulders of the struggles that came before us and the sisters of our Patria Grande (‘Great Homeland’)[4] and of the world, we must work to emerge from this crisis better off than we are now, to put everything up for debate, and to assure ourselves that this debate comes from a popular, progressive, and feminist consensus.
Topic:
Politics, Social Movement, Feminism, Pandemic, and COVID-19
On 10 December, Alberto Fernández from the centre-left Everyone’s Front took over as the president of Argentina. His main challenge will be to end the economic crisis. His government will give up on the pro-market policies of its predecessors and try to renegotiate the foreign debt terms and attract investors. Argentina’s position on regional cooperation may lead to tension, in particular, within Mercosur. While the new government will seek stronger cooperation with the EU, its scepticism of the EU-Mercosur agreement may complicate the document’s ratification in Argentina.
Topic:
Economics, Politics, Regional Cooperation, and Treaties and Agreements
Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Uruguay, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Honduras, Costa Rica, Chile, Peru, Guatemala, Paraguay, Ecuador, Bolivia, El Salvador, and Panama