WHY IS humanity so divided? Why do people revel so much on bad terms? Why do countries continue to negate each other? Why countries do not push for integration? Why can we not work together for the good of humanity? Humanity thrives under conditions of real interdependence. Gandhi firmly believed that a world federation of interdependent states was the best way forward. Gandhi asserted: “My idea of nationalism is that my country may become free, that if need be the whole country may die, so that the human race may live.”
And Dr. Jagan expressed similar sentiments in his call for a New Global Human Order; the system for eliminating poverty and social exclusion through a structure of global governance grounded in a genuine North/South partnership and interdependence for shared benefits.
Excepting South America, most parts of the world are politically integrated, as Asia (Association of Southeast Nations), Europe (European Union), Africa (African Union), Caribbean (CARICOM), North America (NAFTA), etc.
South America holds abundant opportunities through integration, as attested to by the following: a population of almost 400 million; several ecosystems – Amazon, the Cordillera Andina, the Pantanal, the Pampas, the Cerrado; a Gross Domestic Product of US$1 trillion annually; an economic growth rate of 4.7% in 2005; lavish renewable and non-renewable energy resources; huge mineral reserves; a third of the world’s fresh water sources; abundant biodiversity; among others.
Clearly, genuine integration among South American countries will reduce vulnerability to foreign interference; strengthen each country’s sovereignty; reduce conflict between countries; arrest human and economic undercapitalization; and indeed, stop the social drama of poverty and exclusion of dispossessed people. Clearly, integration is good for South America; but why is it taking so long and after so many attempts?
After 200 years of attaining independence, South American republics are still stuck with their Balkanization; recall the failures of  Simon Bolivar’s efforts to integrate the northern areas of South America and Jose Artigas’s labors in the Rio de la Plata; then there are the Andean Community of Nations (CAN) and Mercosur (Southern Common Market), limited forms of regional integration with only a few countries as members of each; after a little more than 10 years, Mercosur still is not capable of  making possible the free exchange of goods and services and address trade disputes among its members; there also is Venezuela’s Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), strongly supported by social movements; and then the emerging regional prominence of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) that lost its zest when half of the Mercosur countries discarded its proposal at the Fourth Summit of the Americas in Argentina in 2005.

These regional integration models have not performed well; mainly based on economic and commercial aspects. Zibechi notes that integration mainly based on free trade guarantees inequalities, poverty, and social exclusion because it is driven by the profit motive and administered by large multinationals.
Through the Cuzco and Ayacucho Declarations of 2004, Presidents of the South American Republics have now concurred that they cannot rely on sustained economic growth to improve living standards and increase economic development; and they believe that economic growth and better standards of living can only come through an equitable distribution of income, access to education, social cohesion and inclusivity, and environmental preservation; a new model of integration has now begun to capture the imaginations of South American Presidents; an integration extending beyond the parameters of economic and other commercial aspects; the substantial terms of reference of Mercosur and CAN.
This new fledgling and fragile integration model, the South American Community of Nations (SACN), was birthed at Cuzco and Ayacucho; its real meaning is the integration of the peoples of  South America and the Caribbean; and SACN seeks to amalgamate into its fold the South American blocs (Mercosur and CAN), and Guyana and Suriname.
Given the increasing poverty and growing inequalities, the need for SACN (now called UNASUR following a name change on April 16, 2007 to the Union of South American Nations) is compelling; carrying an axis of social development compatible with environmental conservation and ecological balance; a multiethnic and pluri-lingual environment; people as participants; and social concerns and human development, transcending the purely economic and commercial aspects.
Presidents Hugo Chavez and Tabare Vasquez, at a Heads of States’ meeting in Brasilia in 2005, asked for greater insightfulness when developing the SACN institutional structures; and so, at an extraordinary meeting in Montevideo in December 2005, the High-Level Strategic Reflection Commission was born. Presidents selected their Emissaries to work on this Commission; to produce a draft Reflection Document which the South American Heads of State  reviewed in Cochabamba, Bolivia on December 8-9, 2006.
The High-Level Commission saw four Reflection Meetings: Two in Montevideo, one in Buenos Aries, and one in Caracas; with two working group meetings, one in Caracas and one in Montevideo. Another Reflection Meeting was scheduled for November 17, 2006 in Montevideo.
Apparently, the SACN had to grapple with two trends that have confronted imperialism in the region: The Bolivarian trend with leadership from Venezuela and with backing from various social and political movements in South America, and the neo-developmentalist trend led by Brazil and Argentina; and the economist Manual Hidalgo believes that both trends could converge under SACN.
The Cuzco Declaration, by not upholding economic and commercial aspects as top priority, enabled SACN to effectively address unevenness among countries. SACN gives priority to democracy, solidarity, human rights, freedom, social justice, respect for territorial integrity; equality among sovereign states, assertion of autonomy, and peaceful conflict resolution; SACN is a more inclusive regional integration model than its predecessors. This is the way forward for South America if it is to improve its competitiveness with an increasingly aggressive globalization; and so failure is not an option for SACN.  (First published in 2006)
(Feedback: pmperspectives@aol.com themisirpost.wordpress.com)