For your 2 replies, you must incorporate a minimum of 2 different resources citing them in current APA format. You may use the textbook, scholarly journals, the Bible, and governmental websites.
Post a substantive written response to 2 other classmates’ threads. Your response must identify specific weakness(es) as well as note the strengths of the post. By identifying a weakness (content based, not a spelling/grammatical aspect), you display the critical thinking skills required in a graduate course. Refrain from making statements like “I really couldn’t find a weakness to your thread but the assignment required it . . . ’’+ an insubstantial critique, as this is your chance to help your peer write stronger in their future threads. You should put as much time into your reply phase as you do your thread. The strongest scores on that portion are reserved for those replies that incorporate specific evidence rather than making opinion-based statements. Please maintain the proper tone in your critique by addressing the issues instead of attacking the person.
THE FIRST STUDENT- Hilary Wilkans
The countries of South America have many different regional trade agreements. However, there are only two groups of sub-regional trade, MERCOSUR and Andean Community of Nations (CAN). According to Thompson and Toledo (2001), “MERCOSUR is a free trade agreement among Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay” (p. 114). Silva (2012) describes CAN as, “an integration process in the Americas that started in 1969 with the signing of the Cartagena Agreement by Bolivia, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, and Peru.” (p.430). The two trade blocs have many similarities and also various differences. Beginning with the similarities between the two, both groups are customs unions. Each country that has joined either MERCOSUR or CAN has established and enforced a common external tariff (CET). Both MERCOSUR and CAN also contain four primary member countries and had hopes of becoming common markets. Although the two groups are similar, there are also various differences between them. For instance, MERCOSUR is thought to have a noticeably superior economic weight, whereas CAN is thought to be “one of the most institutionalized regional agreements among developing countries” (Lynch, p. 99, 2010). Andean Community of Nations also tends to be very skeptical regarding capitalism, in comparison to MERCOSUR who is not.
Along with the similarities and differences of these two trade groups, there is a major benefit to be considered. The benefit that comes from these trade groups is that they “have agreed to form a free trade agreement” (Lynch, p.87, 2010). Through having a free trade agreement it ensures that each country is able to export and import between each other without trade barriers. Unfortunately, although free trade is a major benefit that is found in this trade bloc, there are also reasons for countries to decide not to join either group. Many countries refuse to be a part of these trade groupings because of the hostility that they have towards other nations. Other reasons may stem from economic and political difficulties (Lynch, p. 116, 2010). Similarly to countries not wishing to join a regional trade agreement, there are many Christians who prefer not to join a church with a specific denomination.
I believe that one of the reasons Christians prefer to stay in a non-denominational church is that God asks us to be unified as a church body. Joining a specific denomination automatically disjoins you from a unified body of believers. In 1 Corinthians 12:12 Paul says, “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ.” (ESV). Another reason is because many denominations are judgmental towards each other. Through joining a non-denominational church you are agreeing to be in harmony with Christians who have differing opinions and convictions than yourself. Non-denominational churches are also focused on Christ and the core truth of the Bible, whereas, unfortunately, in many (not all) cases churches of a specific denomination are more focused on a legalistic approach to salvation.
Reference:
Holy Bible. ESV.
Lynch, D. (2010). Trade and globalization: An introduction to regional trade agreements. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Silva, A. C. (2012). Copyright Convergence in the Andean Community of Nations. Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal, 20(3), 429-470.
Thompson, H., & Toledo, H. (2001). Bolivia and South American Free Trade. International Trade Journal, 15(1), 113-126.
THE SECOND STUDENT- JOSH LOGGINS
In comparing the two sub-regional trade groupings in South America; MERCOSUR and the Andean Community of Nations (CAN), while benefits indeed exist for belonging to either of these trade blocs, some South American countries have chosen to remain independent, forgoing a petition for membership. The following efforts attempt to outline the positive elements of the trade agreements, and then offer specific reasons as to why prospective countries may choose to remain a non-member nation. In closing, a comparison between Christian denominationalism is compared to trade agreement membership.
Establishment and Benefits:
MERCOSUR was formed between the nations of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay in 1991 forming a free trade area, an agreement to ensure the free movement of goods and services between member countries (Genna & Hiroi, 2005). In 1995, a common external tariff (CET) was adopted, which legitimized the agreement as a customs union, an effort which successfully removed many economic barriers that existed between MERCOSUR’s four primary members (Lynch, 2010). MERCOSUR members also conform to various agreements that oversee currency exchange, taxes, investment, and education (Keller, 2012), efforts that promote unity in both economic and social areas throughout the region. In all, the primary benefits to MERCOSUR membership are found in the standardization of regulations between member nations in the effort to ease commerce (Gardini, 2007). In 2002, MERCOUSUR member countries, joined by Chile and Bolivia, united to form a free residence area, allowing citizens to obtain residence and a right to work in participating countries without a visa (Keller, 2012). In all, these agreements have attempted to provide a certain level of economic growth and infrastructure development in member countries, and have also established a trading bloc with third party members, including Bolivia, Chile, Columbia, and Peru (Lynch, 2010). While the third-party members are excluded from voting and policy formation (Lynch, 2010), each member nation brings additional economic benefits to the table, expanding the available market for goods among member nations.
The Andean Community of Nations (CAN) was formed in 1969 to promote the expansion of markets and economic development to the region, and currently consists of four member nations: Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, and Peru (Lynch, 2010). The most noted benefits that CAN has encouraged are a common market and customs union, a common external tariff (CET), a common tariff classification (NABANDINA), and a system of the rules of origin (Páez, 2008). The rules of origin are adopted across various sectors, including agriculture, intellectual property, investment, competition, and trade defense instruments, and have stood to ensure favorable conditions for economic growth and integration (Phelan, 2014). The efforts of conformity between CAN members were an attempt to achieve four main objectives; reducing dependency on other nations, increasing competitiveness on world markets, reducing unemployment, and improving the living conditions and welfare of member nations (Páez, 2008).
Why some countries decide not to join:
As to why some South American countries have elected not to join MERCOSUR, perhaps much concern is related to its most dominant member, Brazil (Lynch, 2010). According to research, in focusing on the four permanent members of the alliance, Brazil is the only nation to experience a surplus, while other members have been economically instable (Orcalli, 2012). Since the founding of the agreement, Argentina has experienced a deficit of 13.6 billion dollars, Uruguay a deficit of 11.8 billion, and Paraguay a national deficit of 12.6 billion dollars (Orcalli, 2012). This suggests that the agreement is not as favorable to smaller nations, as it is for larger and more economically stable nations. Permanent members are also subject to high common external tariffs on imports from non-member nations, which punishes consumers, limiting the goods that are produced in local markets (Orcalli, 2012). Perhaps, this is a primary reason why Chile never petitioned for full membership, but rather maintains a relationship as an associate member to the trading bloc (Lynch, 2010), without the full economic impact on their markets and industries.
An additional reason that some nations are detoured from entering into a pact with MERCOSUR is due to the opposing political views that member countries uphold. Brazilian political views are considered pragmatic, sensible and realistic, focusing on the substance and results of international relationships, ensuring the outcome of developed concrete results (Christensen, 2007). However, Venezuela, also a MERCOSUR member, is affected with a leftist government that is more concerned with gaining power than visual economic results, and Venezuela is also a nation that is openly aggressive against the United States (Christensen, 2007). In all, Venezuela’s entry into MESCOSUR has challenged agreements to promote capitalism and democracy, moving the alliance towards a more political direction as opposed to an economic bloc (Lynch, 2010). With countries seeking economic impact and not desiring to engage in a political showdown, perhaps more beneficial outlets exist.
As for the drawbacks to CAN membership, issues exist in the willingness for complete unification between both countries and various industry benefits. A primary issue is identified in the level at which member countries comply with a common external tariff (CET) (Lynch, 2010). CAN members Bolivia and Peru have traditionally failed to follow the tariff for various reasons, which arguably increases their ability to use other alternatives to trade than CAN member nations. In all, does not complying with a CET suggest that some countries are forced to pay specific tariffs that others are allowed to dismiss? Primarily, the less-developed nations with limited alternatives? This lack of unification of core members could indeed detour prospective nations from joining. A second issue is found in the benefits that Andean countries experience under the alliance, with a comparative advantage found in the areas of mining, energy, processed foods and textiles (Thomas, 2014). The sectors in CAN that benefit the least are agriculture and capital-intensive industries (Thomas, 2014), and this seems to be an issue for underdeveloped nations who depend on agriculture. Smaller nations, due to an underdeveloped infrastructure, could potentially rely on their agriculture industry as being their comparative advantage with other nation, which may be the deciding factor in not joining CAN.
Christians and Non-Denominationalism
Just as some countries choose not to enter into trade agreements due to political or formal conflict, professing Christians sometimes choose to attend non-denominational churches over traditional evangelical alternatives to become less affiliated with a specific doctrine. In some cases, it seems that denominationalism equals tradition or an association that may be taken as divisive. For the same reasons, countries may also choose to remain less formal, like Chile’s participation in MERCOSUR (Lynch, 2010), to some of the benefits that certain groups have to offer, but with less stipulations or guidelines to be held accountable to. While non-denominationalism does imply more freedom from man-made doctrine like Baptist or Presbyterian, it fails to identify a doctrine at all, presenting a valid issue for the justification of teachings and how they are compared to the truths of the Bible. In all, since a denominational church is aligned with defined and noted fundamentals, it potentially guards against false teachings or beliefs that may not be questioned in non-denominational churches. 2 Peter 2 and Matthew 7:15 warn believers about the rise of false teachings in the church that will take place in the coming days, and with the growth of so many non-denominational churches across America in recent years, perhaps many Christians should be concerned in what effect of biblical teachings are taking place in such churches. From personal experience, the non-denominational churches that I have become familiar with follow some aspect of a traditional doctrine, in many cases, Pentecostal system of beliefs.
References:
Christensen, S. F. (2007). The influence of nationalism in Mercosur and in South America: Can
the regional integration project survive? Revista Brasileira De Politíca Internacional,
50(1), 139-158. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0034-73292007000100008
Genna, G. M., & Hiroi, T. (2005). The effects of unequal size: Costs and benefits of unilateral
action in the development of MERCOSUR. Journal of Developing Societies, 21(3), 337-
355. Retrieved from http://jds.sagepub.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/content/21/3-
4/337.abstract
Gardini, G. L. (2007). Who invented Mercosur? Diplomacy & Statecraft, 18(4), 805-830.
DOI: 10.1080/09592290701807267.
Keller, M. (2012). Explainer: What Is Mercosur? Retrieved from http://www.as-
coa.org/articles/explainer-what-mercosur-0
Orcalli, G. (2012). MERCOSUR: A case for institutional failure. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Economics and Business Law, 1(3), 8-30. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate
.net/publication/232907055_Mercosur_a_case_of_constitutional_failure
Páez, L. (2008). Regional trade agreements and foreign direct investment: Impact of existing
RTAs on FDI and trade flows in the Andean Community and implications of a
hemispheric RTA in the Americas. Aussenwirtschaft, 63(3), 231-261. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/734595095?accountid=12085
Phelan, W. (2014). Enforcement and escape in the Andean Community: Why the Andean
Community of Nations is not a replica of the European Union. Journal of Common
Market Studies, 53(4), 840–856. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.
liberty.edu: 048/doi/10.1111/jcms.12222/abstract
Thomas, M. (2014). Domestic politics and non-compliance in the Andean community. The Latin
Americanist, 58, 7–58. DOI: 10.1111/tla.12040