A South American approach to metamorphosis as a horizon of equality: Focusing on controversies over lithium

Lithium is considered the ‘gold of the 21st century’ for its key role in the batteries needed for electronic gadgets but, more importantly, for the electric or hybrid cars that are supposed to replace oil-dependent vehicles in the face of climate change (Hollender and Shultz, 2010). The fact that a large portion of the lithium more easily available in the world lies in a triangle between southern Bolivia, northern Chile, and north-western Argentina (Mohr at al., 2012) has put these countries under the spotlight. Historically, exploitation of natural resources in Latin America has been conducted under colonial and neocolonial conditions, a kind of enforced inclusion that is based on domination and implies inequality between and within countries. However, as Ulrich Beck (2014) argues in his Seoul lecture entitled ‘Emancipatory catastrophism: What does it mean to climate change and risk society?,’ climate change represents the enforced inclusion of all peoples in one global community of risk. It is not about power relations between peoples and governments, but about a common threat. In this regard, he points at the ‘hidden emancipatory side effects of global risk.’ We are somehow on an equal basis in the face of the impending catastrophe: new ties, stronger and all encompassing, emancipate us from old ties. There are no masters and slaves when the whole house might go on fire. Emancipatory catastrophism implies a ‘metamorphosis of the world,’ says Beck: it is not revolution, which ‘follows the “either-or logic”,’ but something new: ‘its power is the power of side effects.’

Beck proposes ‘a new variant of critical theory,’ and stresses that ‘it is an empirical analysis of the normative horizon of the self-critical world risk society.’ Exploring what is going on regarding lithium mining and processing in South America may represent an empirical contribution to the discussion of the novelty of his proposal, and the accuracy of its implied prognosis. To begin with, I find it necessary to take into account the distinction between the theoretical framework represented by what Beck characterizes as ‘dependency theory,’ which somehow is linked to the analysis of colonialism and neocolonialism, ¹ and ‘cosmopolitization theory,’ which, as Beck argues, ‘creates a normative horizon and reflexivity’ about colonial history – a characterization that also helps us distinguish it from ‘globalization,’ whatever its many meanings. My departure point, then, is reflexivity. But although reflexivity is certainly a requisite, it may not be enough from the perspective of the weak part in the relationship – which is the one I intend to explore, partially in contrast to the perspective taken by Beck, who predominantly assumes the position of a scholar and a citizen of the world, able to name and to take responsibility for climate change. For the sake of the argument, allow me to simplify the analysis and say that Beck’s is mostly a vision from above. But how is the enforced inclusiveness that climate change imposes on us all seen from below? I am not talking in terms of a stratified vision of the world, such as the one suggested by world-systems analysis (or dependency theory), but in relational terms regarding our case, that has to do with the issue of technological innovation and natural resources.

Regarding reflexivity, historically, although Latin America’s dependence on the British Empire remained unacknowledged during the 19th century, Latin American progressive intellectuals became conscious of their countries being subject to a neocolonial situation in the late 19th to early 20th century, and denounced the situation in journalistic and literary texts to raise awareness (Vara, 2013). Let me try a further prerequisite, then: in the case of the mining of a natural resource, we can talk about cosmopolitization instead of neocolonialism, if officials of the nation-state government where the resource is located are not only conscious of the enforced inclusiveness but also have the political will and the symbolic, legal, and material resources to negotiate the terms of the inclusion. That is, we can talk about cosmopolitization when it is the situation that enforces inclusion of countries and/or social actors in a given global relationship; not an actor (be it a transnational company, a supra-national institution, or/and another, more powerful nation-state) that forcefully includes or engages another one in a given relationship. And it is important, too, that all of the parties involved in the situation have some sort of say, and the opportunity to intervene in decisions about the terms of their inclusion in the relationship. In this sense, there have been some very telling quotations from Bolivian officials. As the head of the division in the national mining agency that oversees lithium extraction stated in a news piece in 2009, ‘The previous imperialist model of exploitation of our natural resources will never be repeated in Bolivia’ (quoted in Romero, 2009). And later on, when President Evo Morales launched in 2010 a US$875 million investment in the mining and processing of lithium, he promised, ‘the [Bolivian] State assures the world the supply of lithium in quantities that are enough for electric vehicles, fuel for future nuclear fusion with clean electric power based on lithium at a fair price without speculation or monopoly’ (quoted in EA Bolivia, 2010). In these quotations –which are representative of the Bolivian government’s policy – the country is presented not as a passive actor, but as one willing to engage in the mining of lithium on its own terms and acting responsibly in the face of the current emergency of climate change.

But we must go one step further. Even this new kind of enforced inclusiveness does not necessarily imply a symmetric relationship. Certainly, not in our case. On the national layer, regarding electric cars, Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina are expected to provide as usual the natural resource, lithium; while Japan, Germany, or South Korea are expected to industrialize it, and to provide the technology, the batteries, and/or the cars – and, in turn, to buy the cars. What does it imply? Where is metamorphosis here? Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina are currently working on and negotiating from the position of suddenly empowered nation-states in a new geopolitical world. Maybe cosmopolitization has to do with the current power for negotiating the terms of the relationship, and a future horizon of some kind of symmetrization of the relationship. Let’s imagine the nationals of these three South American countries as saying: ‘We are not equal. But we have the right to aspire to be equals. And to be recognized as having this right.’ Somehow, this means that cosmopolitization theory has something to do with the possibility, even if remote, of overcoming the unequal relationship: not reversing it, not inversing it, but something else, as metamorphosis implies in contrast to revolution. Some kind of horizon of equality. Can we say that something of the sort is happening regarding lithium mining and processing in the region? On a technological level, while Chile and Argentina are already developing lithium batteries, Bolivian officials talk about developing technology to manufacture batteries and even cars. As President Morales has said, Bolivia wants ‘partners’ who will help the country develop an industrial strategy (quoted in EA Bolivia, 2010). More tellingly, when Argentinian officials talk about the current projects to manufacture lithium batteries locally, they claim to be pursuing ‘technological sovereignty’ in a similar vein as when they use the phrase ‘satellite sovereignty’ while referring to the first geostationary communications satellite built in the country – a first in Latin America, launched in October 2014. Or when they talk about ‘energy sovereignty’ while referring to the partial renationalization of the oil company YPF in 2012, privatized in the 1990s. It is also worth mentioning that Bolivia nationalized its gas companies in 2006, during President Morales’ first term. And there is another revealing quotation on the symmetrization perspective as a horizon of equality – and on its feasibility. President Morales talks about Salar de Uyuni, the largest reservoir of lithium in the world: ‘From this brine, there will be lithium cars coming out of Bolivia … . This is the dream. Without dreams, what’s anything worth? Dreams become reality’ (quoted in Wright, 2010).

But do these countries have the power to be heard? There seem to be some conditions for this. In an increasingly multipolar world, new progressive, Latin Americanist governments in South America may give new strength to the region. Some authors talk of a ‘pink tide’ and even of a ‘world revolution’ that would currently be taking place, and that has South American countries such as Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay among its protagonists (Chase-Dunn and Morosin, 2013). There are new regional institutions: beyond an enlarged Mercosur that now includes Venezuela, there is the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), created in 2008, and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), in 2011, which are already helping in coordinating regional policies. And there are talks about creating the Organization of the Lithium Producing Countries (OPPROLI) to coordinate state policies between Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina regarding lithium exploitation.

But this is not all there is regarding a horizon of equality. We also have to take into account the inner layer of actors, that is, local communities of workers and peasants in Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina – many of whom are native peoples. Historically, these groups have been the most negatively affected in cases of natural resources exploitation, many times with the complicity of local or national elites. This means that the category ‘nation-state’ has to be opened up in order to make sure that all the parties involved have a say in the reflexive enforced inclusiveness that cosmopolitization implies. Here it is important to note that Latin America is currently going through a cycle of environmental protest, that is, the coincidence of a large number of environmental controversies where most of the actors affected have a chance to be heard. Local communities are organized, have symbolic and material resources, are accompanied by intellectuals, scientists, politicians, and different kinds of national and transnational civil society actors, who help them go transnational when needed. And most national governments in the region seem convinced that the times of repression are definitively over. These are unprecedented conditions that help traditionally disenfranchised peoples gain visibility and have a voice. Some protests regarding lithium mining have already erupted (Göbel, 2013; Vara, 2012). It is not yet possible to predict the outcome, but at least some of the conditions to open up the discussion on if and how to mine and process lithium have been met. The same can be said about Beck’s metamorphosis: it is not yet possible to state that the ‘millipede revolution’ has begun. But some feet seem to be getting prepared in South America.