Meeting of chancellors in the framework of the VIII Summit of the Americas in Lima - Peru (2018). At this summit, six member states of UNASUR agreed to temporarily suspend their participation in the organization. Source: Wikimedia Commons. Some rights reserved.Bolivia assumed the pro tempore presidency of UNASUR on April 18. It started with a slap in the face: two days later, the Bolivian chancellor was formally notified of the decision by the governments of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay and Peru to "temporarily" suspend their participation in the organization – a decision adopted a few before during the Summit of the Americas. This decision could take UNASUR either to intensive care or to a terminal stage.
For some media it was a cause for celebration. They argued that the organization is no longer operational, that it is the expression of “Bolivarian”, ideology-based foreign policies that should now be left behind, and that UNASUR has stopped being functional for some of its member states’ foreign policies, particularly the new right-wing governments, which prefer the Pacific Alliance as a more pragmatic and effective option. To them, the withdrawal of these countries and the ensuing end of UNASUR would be more than justified.
A more nuanced analysis of this decision reveals, however, that this is not in fact a "withdrawal", nor does its aim at shutting down the organization.
