From antagonistic autonomy to relational autonomy: A theoretical reflection from the southern cone
Latin American Politics and Society, Spring 2003 by Russell, Robert, Tokatlian, Juan Gabriel
At the same time, relational autonomy should not be thought of exclusively in terms of the foreign policy of states (as did the realists and "utilitarians of the periphery"), but instead conceived and practiced from a perspective of world politics in which nonstate actors play an increasingly important role in the determination of contemporary international affairs.
Finally, relational autonomy does not imply any idealistic vision of world politics. On the contrary, it recognizes the relations of domination and subordination and the practices of power politics. From this viewpoint, relational autonomy becomes a more effective strategy, in the new "context for action," for diminishing asymmetries of power and counteracting those practices by means of competent, active, committed, and responsible participation in world affairs. Of course, the transition toward this type of autonomy is not a simple one; and nations, like persons, must learn and permanently stimulate it.
THE IMPLICATIONS OF RELATIONAL AUTONOMY
Various interesting aspects are derived from the transition from one type of autonomy to another for the states of Latin America. The first external circle for the exercise of relational autonomy consists mainly of Latin American countries. This was the case with traditional autonomy as well, but in a qualitatively different sense. Its scope beyond the region or subregional spaces depends on two factors that are both external to Latin America and may develop somewhat independently of each other: the logic prevailing in international anarchy (that of Hobbes, Locke, or Kant; see Wendt 1999, 259-308); and the conduct assumed by the United States regarding Latin America.
It is worthwhile to recall here that in ancient Greece, autonomy and hegemony were not contradictory terms. According to Jacqueline de Romilly, the hegemony of the powerful was preserved not only through active and generous conduct toward the weakest, but also through avoidance of any reduction of their autonomy (Romilli 1991, 67). Thus, in a scenario of international primacy characterized by a strong bias toward unipolarity and unilateral coercive policies, the practice of relational autonomy becomes impossible. It can coexist with an actor that possesses hegemonic capacities, but not with a country that succumbs to imperial temptations.
The level of autonomy of South American foreign policy strategies should not be evaluated in terms of a greater or lesser degree of opposition to the preferences of the United States. If autonomy is defined (and measured) as a country's ability to implement policies that serve its interests while maintaining and expanding its degrees of liberty, it is insignificant whether or not said practices coincide with the interests of the United States or other countries. Thus, cases of great degrees of autonomy can occur in combination with high levels of coincidence with U.S. interests. Once again, it is not a high or low level of opposition or confrontation that characterizes autonomy but a country's own capacity to establish and execute those policies that best serve its national interest.