Brazilian Foreign Policy Post-1985: Regional Challenges and Global Ambitions
Draft Paper
Flávia Santos Lloyd, M.A., J.D.
flavialloyd@gmail.com
Abraham Lincoln University School of Law
Fleming’s Fundamentals of Law
Abstract
Being the de facto leader of South America is something that Brazil is proud of, but being a de
facto leader does not necessarily equate to regional or global support and trust. This project
discusses the changes in foreign policy, diplomatic approaches, and theoretical perspectives in
Brazil post-1985 when democracy was reinstated. The collapse of the bipolar world after the end
of the Cold War coupled with the change to a democratic form of government forced Brazil to
review its realist positions, liberalize its markets, move to end absolute control of State
enterprises, and insert itself in the new globalized world order in line with liberal policies,
leading to positive and negative results. What this study argues is that the pursuit of foreign
policy under liberal principles has been an overall effective approach for the country. However,
democracy is still at its infancy in Brazil, which means that theoretical paradigms from the
authoritarian regime still linger in its foreign policy. The results are mixed policies and mixed
signals to the world, which affect the nation’s chances for success as a regional and global
superpower. Brazil needs global support to achieve its goals, but in order to get this support, it
needs consistency in its rhetoric, theory, and practice.
Panel:
Governance in Foreign Policy: External Relations and Diplomacy
Introduction
Developing nations face dilemmas and challenges in their quest for power, development,
and global relevance. Brazil’s case is not different. Since the implementation of democratic rule
in 1985, Brazil has seen successes and failures as a new democracy. Brazil is an important nation
because of its size, economic status, and fast development. Under the democratic administrations
of recent years, the country has significantly developed and many see a promising future in
Brazil’s horizon. As the largest country in South and Latin America, and with a history that goes
back to 1500, Brazil provides a complex web of factors that often point towards advancement,
but at the same time, suggest retrogression and stagnation in certain areas. Foreign policy is one
area that Brazil has struggled with in its new democratic reality.
Brazil’s post-1985 discourse in the diplomatic arena and foreign policy falls into both
realist and liberal patterns. Note, however, that governments do not follow only one particular
school of thought since these concepts are complex and have different ramifications in different
areas of a government. In the case of Brazil, there is a mix of theoretical positions, and the
country has a tendency to lean more towards liberalism since the democratic years, but to say
that Brazil is one way or another would be trying to fit the country into a particular shape or
pattern and that is not possible, at least for the time being. The reasoning behind this conclusion
is Synder’s (2004) proposition that using realism, liberalism, and idealism to discuss public
policy and reach generalized conclusions turns these theories into “…intellectual window
dressing for simplistic worldviews” (Snyder 2004, 54). Therefore, by trying to categorize Brazil
under a particular doctrinal school of thought, there must be an understanding that statements
cannot be broad or generalized.
Brazil has improved its stature on the world stage despite taking antagonistic foreign
policy stances, questioning the authority of the United States and other nations, and defying the
status quo. Brazil’s diplomatic decisions, positions, and relationships with North and South
America illustrate these approaches. With each new policy, however, come theoretical questions
that need to be answered to understand the sometimes conflicting messages Brazil sends to the
international community. Is Brazil staying in line with its nationalist and realist positions of the
military dictatorship years? Or is Brazil moving towards a more liberal stance that is supported
by the global marketplace even though the liberal paradigm may shock the nationalist conscience
that still is so pervasive in the Brazilian politics, policy, and even the diplomatic corps’ psyche?
There is no right or wrong way to answer these questions. Nonetheless, this analysis
focuses on the notion of theory and practice in Brazil’s foreign policy in the 28 years after the
end of the authoritarian regime. In recent years, the realities of an interconnected world and
international institutions have resulted in the liberalization of the realist norms of Brazilian
foreign policy. This theoretical framework is important and relevant to the study of Brazil as a
nation because it provides the reasoning behind foreign policy decisions that may seem
controversial or not based on sound policy. Understanding the basis for these decisions may not
lead to agreement with the policies, but it may clarify the reasoning and the school of thought
behind certain choices or rhetoric.
Brazil’s days of self-interest positions, military power, state diplomacy and lack of
acknowledgement of the evolving international world order are over, but it does not mean that
realism lost its presence. What democracy brought to Brazil, especially the governments of
Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1995 to 2002) and Luis Inácio “Lula” da Silva (2003 to 2010), is a
change with the recognition of the importance of the global economy, other states, international
institutions, and the pursuit of peace. These positions are consistent with a liberal framework. It
is interesting to see how both former presidents, who belong to parties that have radically
different ideologies, were overall in agreement with the direction that country was being led to in
terms of foreign policy.
Nonetheless, the pursuit of power in the realist context has not lost its significance and,
military power and what this type of power can accomplish are still important and relevant
considerations. In fact, the quest for power, a realist notion, seems to be the driving force behind
Brazil’s decisions. Consequently, the liberal shift has a more pragmatic character to it than a
complete ideological reshaping of Brazil’s foreign policy and diplomatic school of thought.
What this study will show is that a combination of liberal policies and the democratic rule are the
key elements for Brazil to continue on its successful path.
Literature Review
The literature in this area shows that through different policies and areas of government,
Brazil has changed its foreign policy, opened itself to coalitions, and sought alliances. Even
during two leftist governments (Lula and Rousseff’s), Brazil has been able to avoid extremist
positions such as the ones held by Bolivia, Venezuela, and Ecuador, to name a few. The
literature review is divided in two themes: 1) background/data information and 2) theoretical
works. The background/data information section discusses the works used that are relevant for
this project, but they do not address the liberal and realist analysis presented by this paper. The
theoretical section discusses the theories presented here, but they are not specifically applied to
the argument proposed by this analysis, which is that Brazil’s advancements and future depend
on the utilization of a liberal approach since the data shows that the move Brazil made towards
liberalization has been effective.
Bethell’s (2010) analysis discusses Brazil’s diplomatic and economic decisions, which
are often rooted in its dissociation with its geographical location and more linked to its cultural
heritage from Portugal and Europe. Bethell’s work (2010) fits in with the arguments presented
by other authors whose works are used in this analysis because it is consistent with the notion
that Brazil and its relationship with South and Latin America need improvement and the roots of
these problems are complex. The negative approach by Brazil and its inadequate efforts in the
Latin/South America relationships is a constant theme in this research. Nonetheless, there is no
specific theoretical explantion for why certain attitudes have been taken. The authors often focus
on the historical prism and not the theoretical aspect of the issues presented.
Bethell’s (2010) analysis points out that Brazil only recently started to move towards
engagement with its neighboring countries in South America, which is also something the
authors used in this literature review agree with. Brazil’s recent approach of working with and
improving relations with its neighbors is part of Brazil’s quest for regional power, but it is also a
quest for regional support, which are issues the country is still struggling to accomplish. Bethell
(2010) provides a context that describes and introduces the frame of mind that the nation is
operating under, which is a necessary foundation to understand why certain positions are or are
not taken by Brazil. This position is taken a step further in this analysis because Bethel’s mostly
focuses on historical and anthropological perspectives. Boadman and Wolfensohn (2011), a
significant source of data because of their analysis of Brazil’s relationship with the United States,
South/Latin America, and the world, is consistent with the general argument presented by the
other authors regarding Brazil’s foreign policy. While the authors do discuss the actual positions
taken by Brazil, the discussion of liberal and realist paradigms is missing.
Another work of significance for this project because of its narrow focus on strategy is
Brands (2010). Brands (2010) focuses on Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s (“Lula”) presidency from a
strategy standpoint, which is important in the study of the Brazil-U.S. relations and South and
Latin America relations. Brands (2010) focuses on three diplomatic strategies that Lula pursued
in his government to empower Brazil: a balanced approached regarding the United States’
influence; the development of coalitions in order to increase Brazil’s status and influence; and a
move towards engagement with other nations in South America. Brands’ (2010) arguments are
relevant because of his analysis of past issues, but he does not analyze theory or prescribe a path
for a better approach for Brazil to follow.
Brands (2010) also discusses the obstacles to the achievement of these goals such as
ineffective infrastructure, violence, high taxes, Brazil’s complicated relationship with its
neighbors, the long-term effects of Lula’s partnerships, and its relationship with the U.S., which
is something the author argues Lula and now the current administration have aggressively
pursued. Lula’s strategy was a powerful tool that helped Brazil in the international forum, but
he often was at odds with the United States’ positions on issues and his rhetoric was inconsistent
since he supported the notion that Brazil wanted to improve relations with the U.S., but at the
same time, he wanted to pursue coalitions with other weaker nations, a realist notion, to confront
the superpower.
In line with other authors that discuss the problems within the South American context,
but that leave theory and analysis of the future aside, Dominquez et al (2003) provide an
important insight on an obstacle Brazil has in its pursuit of regional power through diplomacy
and foreign policy: border and boundary disputes. The balancing act that Brazil must perform
here poses a threat to Brazil’s quest for regional power because sovereignty is important and
defending its borders is part of national defense. That said, Brazil borders 12 countries, and
diplomatic relations can and do become contentious because of border disputes.
While Domiguez et al (2003) explain the relative peace among the nations in South
America, the authors argue that the nations do have a history of conflict and tension because of
border and boundaries problems. Considering the size of Brazil and the defense policies
regarding its borders, border issues do affect Brazil’s diplomatic relations. Geography and
geopolitics are extremely important for Brazil and its foreign policy efforts. After all, “only
China and Russia have longer land borders than Brazil, which abuts on all but two of South
America’s 12 countries” (Eunaudi 2011, 7). The effects of military intervention in the area pose
questions about the intrinsic relationship among sovereignty, the need to secure borders, and the
need to maintain positive diplomatic relations. Dominguez et al (2003) work creates a context for
the author of this project to expand and discuss the balancing act between realist powers versus
liberal powers because the issues that fall under each theory, but are not addressed in their work.
Einaudi’s (2011) analysis of the Brazil-United States relationship is on point to the issues
discussed in this analysis because it discusses the strengths and weaknesses of Brazil, and the
reasons why both the United States and Brazil need to foster a good relationship. His argument
falls in line with other authors in this analysis, but under a narrower scope since the focus are
Brazil and the United States. However, the discussion of facts without their theoretical
foundation leaves a vacuum for the real understanding of positions taken by Brazil. This
relationship is important for strategic reasons for both nations, but Einaudi’s work allows the
author to use the data provided to show the conflicts between liberal and realist concepts that
both countries face in their relationship. Einaudi (2011) provides a condensed overview of key
areas relevant to the Brazil-United States relationship, and he ends his paper with prospects and
policy recommendations for the United States and Brazil, Einaudi’s (2011) arguments are
reasonable, but both countries have taken steps that undermine their relationship and the author
of this project expands of the aspect that Einaudi (2011) did not expand on.
In line with authors who present Brazil’s problems and ineffectiveness as a regional
leader, but who do not discuss the theoretical foundations underlying Brazil’s views and posture,
De Lima and Hirst (2006) present a detailed analysis of Brazil and its role as a state and regional
power. The authors detail Brazil’s efforts to be recognized as a “big country” in the world forum,
but they also discuss the pitfalls and needs of the nation that hinder its chances of ever achieving
the status it wishes in the world’s arena. De Lima and Hirst (2006) describe Brazil in a way that
provides data to show the geopolitical, social, and economic dynamics of the region - from the
multilateral approaches to the economy and diplomacy, the tense regional politics with its
neighbors, the relationship with the United States, to the challenges associated with social
inequality.
Varas’ (2009) analysis is applicable to this analysis because he addresses current
challenges affecting Latin America, Brazil included, from a global perspective. Topics such as
the current economic crisis and how the world order is affected by the challenges affecting
several regions of the globe are discussed, but Brazil is not the main focus and a theoretical
perspective is not addressed. Varas (2009) discusses inter-regional relations in South America,
extra-regional relations, and cooperation frameworks. The article highlights obstacles that Latin
America faces from the present time to the future and provides criticism to former and current
polices. Next, Vilela and Neiva (2011) provide data on Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Lula’s
diplomatic and foreign policy shift through presidential diplomatic engagement, which is an
important source of data for the author because it provides the author with information that
corroborates the theoretical arguments presented in this paper.
From a theoretical perspective, several works are also used, and these works, even though
relevant and applicable to the arguments presented here, do not make the connection between
realism and liberalism when examining the theoretical foundations of Brazil’s foreign policy.
Fernandez Xavier (2012) is one of the few works that spends a significant time discussing the
theory of Brazil’s foreign policy since 1990. Fernandez Xavier’s (2012) point of view is from an
insider since he is a former diplomat, but the author’s views are presented from a historical
perspective even when discussing theory.
Pautasso (2012) discusses foreign policy and theory from a South-American perspective.
He discusses the practical steps Brazil has taken to reduce the inequalities of the Mercosul and
the role liberal policies implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Lula had in the attempt
to improve the status of Mercosul. Note, however, that the inference of a liberal approach is
presented by the author of this analysis and not discussed in Pautasso’s (2012) paper. Paixão e
Casarões (2012) discusses the theoretical shift from realism to liberalism in the Fernando Collor
de Mello’s administration, and the role of the president and the Ministry of External Relations in
the pursuit of liberal policies. This paper is in line with the arguments presented in this project,
but the focus of Paixão e Casarões is only the two years of Fernando Collor de Mello’s
presidency, which means that the other recent administrations still need to be analyzed and
reviewed.
Walt (1998) and Snyder’s (2004) discussion about realism, liberalism and their principles
are used to provide the theoretical basis for the discussion and concepts discussed in this project.
They are important works that do not discuss Brazil, but they provide the theories necessary to
engage in this analysis. What these works have shown is a pattern of difficult relations between
Brazil, the U.S., South and Latin America. What these materials failed to argue or present,
however, is how the change in the political regime, the end of the Cold War, and most
importantly, a change to liberal thinking in terms of economic policies, have changed Brazil’s
status and propelled Brazil into the international forum. The arguments presented in this analysis
compliment the above mentioned works.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this project is to demonstrate the positive correlation between the pursuit
of more liberal positions and Brazil’s increased relevance in the world forum. The examples used
to illustrate said positions confirm the sound reasoning of this statement. The pursuit of more
power through military spending, attempts to control other neighboring nations, and protectionist
trade policies, which are positions consistent with the realist school of thought, have proven
negative and ineffective for Brazil. This paper’s goal is to illustrate how Brazil operates under
both theoretical paradigms after democratization in 1985.
Research Question
The working theory to be tested in this analysis is that Brazil will only be able to advance
in the global arena and foster more effective relationships with other nations if it is able to
change its protectionist economic policies, pursue more equilibrium in its relationships with
other nations in Latin America, continue on the liberal path, and work towards developing a
better relationship with the United States. In the past 28 years, several administrations have taken
steps towards these recommendations, but not enough has been done. Will Brazil be able to
achieve its goals if it there is no balance between its realist and liberal policies?
Theoretical Framework
Brazil’s diplomatic endeavors are a relatively new topic. Brazil returned to a democratic
system of government in 1985, after years of authoritarian regimes. In the first years of
democracy, diplomacy was not a significant concern for Brazil; a brief discussion about that time
period is included in this paper to provide context. After the election of Fernando Henrique
Cardoso in 1995, Brazil entered the world forum per se. Thus, the focus of this analysis is the
past 28 years. Diplomatic relationships since then are still evolving. Even though there are
studies about Brazil’s diplomacy, the subject is often discussed from a historical view. No other
work has analyzed each administration, compared approaches, and expanded on how each
administration pursued diplomatic policies under realist or liberal views regardless of political
party affiliation.
The theories used in this paper will be realism and liberalism. As Walt (1998) indicates,
the premise behind realism is that States are concerned about their self-interests and the States
actively pursue power or security. The paper will argue that realism does not provide an adequate
framework for Brazil’s success, and examples of policies developed under the realist premise
will be given to support this contention such as the still powerful military, the focus on policies
that go against the regional organizations such as Mercosul, Unasul, polices that are good for the
locals, but not for the global economy, among other examples.
The second theory presented in this analysis is liberalism. As Walt (1998) states,
liberalism is based on the notion that the quest for power is undermined by economic and
political needs and considerations. The argument presented is that Brazil’s goal of becoming a
global power can be achieved if it leaves its self-interests aside, or least remove this position
from the center of its foreign policy/diplomacy paradigms, and increase its cooperation in the
international economic and institutional arenas.
Significance of the Research Paper
Several authors discuss foreign policy after the end of the dictatorship and how Brazil
changed ever since, but no author presents a North-South analysis highlighting the events that
led to Brazil is today’s standing using a comparison between realism and
liberalism/neoliberalism as the foundational source. Demonstrating that the liberal approach is
better for Brazil does not only answer questions related to past decisions, but it also provides
ideas for the future. This project is important because it fulfills a void since the focus on recent
presidents is new, democracy is still at its infancy in Brazil, and the population still questions the
soundness of the liberal positions after years of realist indoctrination under the disguise of
national pride, nationalism, and love for the country.
Expressions such as “Brazil is ours,” “The Amazon is ours,” “Brazil, love it or leave it,”
“The Oil is Ours,” among others, are still commonly used in Brazil, but they are not used to
invoke patriotism. They are used to create fear in the population that other nations are coming to
take over Brazil; and therefore, protectionism and state ownership are the appropriate policies for
the country to defend itself against a takeover. The citizen’s position, even though important and
relevant, does not have a place in this discussion since the focus of the analysis is policy and
theory behind policy. Thus, the voter’s point-of-view is not discussed in this project.
Brazil’s current balancing act between what is good for the country, what is good for the
world, and what is good for the international institutions is a work in process with positive and
negative examples. A recent positive example of this balancing act is Brazil’s stance about the
United States’ alleged surveillance of communications of Brazilian citizens. Brazil is currently
focusing on sending a strong message to the United States to prove the value of Brazil’s
sovereignty by using its public diplomacy efforts to showcase the alleged threat to the Brazilian
sovereignty. At the same time, Brazil was the first nation to question the National Security
Agency’s (“NSA”) surveillance matter on a multilateral level by raising concerns about possible
violations of the Vienna Convention in the international organization context. Brazil’s diplomatic
efforts seek to gather support from the international community to take a stand against the
alleged violations. This example shows a balanced approach that shows the value of sovereignty
and the reliance on international organizations to address international issues.
This study provides a broad overview of Brazil as a nation, how the current foreign
policies shape its current status within the theoretical framework, and the key events and issues
that may shape its future. Colonization, slavery, racial, social, economic, and gender inequalities,
and the lack of a defined identity, are a few of the problems that led Brazil to its slow
development and long-standing status as a less developed Third World nation. While these are
internal problems, they reach in the foreign arena in through different ways. Since the end of the
authoritarian regime, the country has changed its foreign policy paradigms, among other
significant changes, that changed the country for the better. The security and defense structures
are also interconnected and important to Brazil’s foreign policy goals as shown with Brazil’s
attempt to send a strong message to the world about its military.
In sum, besides the discussion about topics that are relevant and timely, this study is
important because it explains how the move towards liberalism in Brazil took place and how it
relates to the country’s global agenda.
Research Design
The main goal of this project is to analyze Brazil’s diplomatic relationships with North
and South America to prove that some of its policies are hindering its goal of becoming a global
power; but at the same time, that the country’s liberal tendencies are putting the country on the
right path for success. This will be accomplished by dividing the analysis in several parts: 1) a
background section that will contextualize Brazil as nation; 2) a discussion about the transition to
democracy and the criticisms of the liberal model; 3) diplomacy, which is an introduction
regarding Brazil’s diplomatic thinking and theories to contextualize the discussion; 4) Brazil’s
current status, achievements, and obstacles to success - a discussion of Brazil’s current policies,
how they fit (or do not fit) in the global world order, and a prospective analysis arguing that the
nation’s policies will (or will not) help the nation’s goals; 5) the Brazilian defense and the realist
views; 6) Brazil, the United Nations, and the duality of Brazil’s approach; 7) Brazil and South
America - a critical analysis of some of Brazil’s polices with South America that have had
positive and negative results, and how they affected Brazil’s influence and power; 8) Brazil, the
United States, and the world - a critical analysis of some of Brazil’s diplomatic policies with
North America that have had positive and negative results, and how they affected Brazil’s
influence and power; 9) Foreign alliances to counter the United States’ and other superpowers;
10) a conclusion summarizing the data proving the theory that Brazil has pursued diplomatic
paths that will help the nation become more than a regional power if it continues on its current
path and eliminates its remaining outdated realist positions.
This project will use a mixed method approach. Therefore, quantitative and qualitative
methods will be used. In order to gather the necessary data for the study, several techniques will
be employed. First, a quantitative analysis will be done through the use of charts, data and
statistics, which are necessary information to explain Brazil’s diplomatic data and examples of
successful and failed policies. The second quantitative method employed will be the gathering of
data from governmental and private agencies to obtain information and data to support and
validate the concepts presented in the study. Tables, charts, and graphs will be used to provide an
organized and visually appealing presentation of the data analyzed.
The qualitative aspect will be demonstrated by the use of documented viewpoints of
several scholars who discussed Brazilian diplomatic relations, theories, history, and their
relationship with the country’s strategies, successes, and failures. Thus, the data collected in the
quantitative analysis will be used to substantiate and illustrate the author’s point of view and
prove or disprove the assertions made by the scholars used in the qualitative discussion.
Limitations of the Study
There are several limitations to this project. First, there are limitations on the availability
of data for the analysis. Obtaining materials from the Ministry of External Relations (“MRE”) /
Itamaraty was difficult and the coordination of interviews with the members of the diplomatic
corps was impossible because their availability was after the deadline submission of this project.
Second, this project is offering a broad analysis and the policies discussed here are used to
exemplify why the liberal approach has overall been better for Brazil. Thus, if there is no
significant in-depth discussion about a particular policy, it is intentional, since the goal is to
provide examples and not discuss the policies themselves.
Another limitation is the difficulty in compiling data from Itamaraty’s policies in line
with liberal and realist views in the past decades because, as Fernandez Xavier (2012) points out,
to date, the explanations from an ideological paradigm are insufficient to develop a comparative
study. Only in the Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Lula’s administrations Brazil has taken on
specific strategies for its insertion in the international forum, but even these positions are
inconsistent, which make it difficult to quantify them. Therefore, quantifying the data is one
major difficulty in analyzing Brazil post-1985. The policies are new. The way of thinking is new.
The data is new.
Background
This analogy may seem strange but, just like children, countries “grow up” and develop
depending on the way they were raised. For example, if a mother raises her child to be
successful, independent, educated, and prosperous, the child will most likely display some or all
of these traits; at the least, the child will have better chances for success. On the other hand, if a
mother has no expectations, dreams, or aspirations for her child and does not push the child to
achieve something, the child will most likely follow a less promising path. This is a broad
generalization, and as with every rule, there are exceptions.
Brazil was raised by its “mother,” Portugal, to be the source of its income, the recipient
of the lowest caste of individuals and outcasts of the Portuguese society, and a host country for
slaves brought from certain regions of Africa. This is a far cry from countries that were built
based on religious freedom, liberty, and dreams. Therefore, to discuss the theoretical foundations
of Brazil, one cannot forget its colonial roots that helped shape the country’s line of thinking and
subsequent policies.
Brazil was Portugal’s colony until its independence in 1822, but by then, the damage was
already done – the core of the country was established and the problems that plagued the
country, and still plague it to this day, can be traced to the country’s colonial beginnings. This
disparity, created by colonization, used to be evidenced by the nomenclature associated with a
country’s status in the global order: the First World (the industrialized powers of Europe, North
America, and Japan), the Second World (consisting of the Soviet Union and its allies), and the
Third World (independent and less-developed states that usually shared a colonial past) during
the Cold War (Kegley and Blanton 2011).
Currently, because of globalization, the end of the Cold War, and the development in
South America, and particularly in Brazil, it is difficult to classify countries with one specific
label. A specific nomenclature no longer fits all. Brazil is full of contradictions – one can see
significant developments in the South and Southeast, but at the same time, regions in the North
and Northeast do not have basic necessities such as sanitation, clean water, and access to
education. These striking differences within the country itself make it difficult to adequately
classify its status.
The economic background that explains Brazil’s lack of development comes from the
relationship between the colonies and the colonizers. For instance, mercantilism, defined as the
trade system that has as its goal the accumulation of wealth and power by supporting the idea of
exports over imports (Kegley and Blanton 2011), was the way Portugal saw Brazil: as a producer
of silver, gold, cotton, and other products that helped Portugal maintain its status in the global
economy of that particular time. This school of thought lost its appeal in the economic circles,
and the classical liberal economic theory and laissez-faire economics became common place
(Kegley and Blanton 2011). However, mercantilism had its impact in Brazil.
Another reason why economic development has been difficult for Brazil is the lack of a
solid political foundation. Since the country was founded to be basically a supplier of goods and
labor to Portugal, there was never a concern for the political order, constitutional rights, or the
standing of the country in the political world. Consequently, Brazil went through several
regimes. There is a correlation between the lack of economic development and political stability
in Brazil, which translate to other areas such as foreign policy. To illustrate this constant shift in
regimes, a brief overview is warranted. Brazil went through an imperial phase after its
independence in 1822, became a republic in 1889 shortly after slavery ended, became a fascist
dictatorship in the 1930s, went back to a democratic regime around 1945, then became a military
dictatorship in 1964, and finally democracy was restored in 1985 (Powell et al. 2011). These
were different regimes, with different economic orders, and world views. The lack of consistency
and stability had lasting effects on Brazil’s economy and its relationship with the world general.
Besides the lack of good government and effective management of resources, one of the
reasons why Brazil has been able to develop economically is the implementation of the
democratic rule since 1985. Brazil’s return to democracy is relatively recent, but the effects of
this stability have been felt in the social, economic, and global areas. The shift from an
agricultural and slave society to being a significant player in the industrial world has been
achieved through a difficult and complicated path. What can be concluded, however, is that post1985, with democracy and the implementation of liberal approaches, Brazil has reached a level
of global relevance and success that were unimaginable just a few decades ago.
Transition to Democracy and Criticism of the Liberal Model
Since the Fernando Collor de Mello’s administration (1990 to 1992 – short term because
the president was impeached), a slow liberalization of the Brazilian economy has taken place.
This was accomplished by reducing import taxes, privatizations of state-held businesses, and the
end of subsidies, which are just some examples of economic policies that had the goal to enhance
and change the national economy. However, these moves proved to be initially ineffective,
especially because some of Collor de Mello’s measures such as freezing prices, wages, and bank
accounts, were highly unpopular. The goal was to curb inflation, but most Brazilians did not
expect to wake up one day and have no access to their money and bank accounts. Thus, many
questioned the soundness of opening the Brazilian markets. Nonetheless, even during the short
period of his presidency, and regardless of the behaviors that led to his impeachment, Collor de
Mello can be credited with planting the seeds of liberalism in Brazil.
Some critics argue that the neoliberal model adopted by Collor de Mello’s administration
was not effective because Brazil opened itself to the markets in an undisciplined manner, without
any internal or external balances, which led to an increased dependency to other nations instead
of providing an equilibrium between national needs and the forces that drive the global world
(Fernandez Xavier 2012). It took Fernando Henrique Cardoso’s government (1994-2002) and
Lula’s (2003 to 2010) for the liberal approach to produce some positive results.
Another argument against the liberal approach was that richer nations preach liberal
positions to less developed states, but in reality, they do not follow through with the their own
end of the bargain and reciprocity is non-existent (Fernandez Xavier 2012). For instance, Europe
states that nations should open up their markets, but then, it does not open its own markets to the
primary products of the South. The United States criticize human rights violations in Asia,
Africa, and South America, but the United States does not sign the American Convention of
Human Rights and has the Guantanamo Bay base still in operation. China defends market
liberalization, but its currency is devalued to increase exports. These are just a few examples of
the reasoning behind Brazil’s reluctance when it comes to the liberal market approach and
effectiveness.
Brazil’s former president, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who did not belong to a leftist
party, believed that international capitalism had a negative effect for the developing countries,
which is a position that he later changed (Bitencourt). Fernando Henrique Cardoso’s policies
later reflect this change in opinion. The nationalist and protectionist mindsets are often seen in
Latin America and are not unique to Brazil, but even Fernando Henrique Cardoso had to adapt to
the new realities and challenges presented by globalization.
Fernando Henrique Cardoso paved the way for Lula’s success by developing the Real
Plan, which was successful in addressing the inflation problems. One of its main measures was
to sell government-held businesses. An example of one such inflation-reducing move was the
sale of state-owned Telebras, Brazil’s sole telephone and communication company (Rohter
2010). The company was ineffective because the government could not fund it adequately, which
mean that the company could not keep up with the demand for telephones, which in turn made
people go to the black market to purchase a phone, and a phone line would cost up to $1,500
(Rohter 2010). The author remembers family members in the 1980s checking their “lottery
number” to see if they were selected to receive a phone line that they had been paying for months
(if not years). Phone lines were such a high commodity that loans would be taken out on them,
almost comparable to an equity line of credit in a home in the United States. The point here is
that there was one state-run company, a supply that could not meet the demand, and a company
that drained the nation’s budget.
Fernando Henrique Cardoso seized on the opportunity to bring competitiveness to Brazil
by breaking up Telebras in regional divisions, and selling them to private investors regardless of
whether or not the purchaser was Brazilian, which a significant step in at that time considering
the fear of foreign investment in the country (Rohter 2010). Selling state-owned companies to
foreign entities when the rhetoric of “Brazilian-only” was so pervasive even in democratic
administrations qualified Fernando Henrique Cardoso’s moves as unprecedented. The result:
more competition, more access, better service, and even better reach since even the most remote
areas of Amazon now have telephone and cellular coverage (Rohter 2010). Move such as the
ones done with Telebras are liberal steps. Therefore, Brazil started to break its own traditional
realist positions. Foreign investors took notice of the Real Plan’s stability, the opening of the
country, and foreign investment became part of Brazil’s lexicon.
Lula’s government took over Fernando Henrique Cardoso’s government with the mindset
that Brazil needed to focus on three tendencies: 1) remove the illusion of harmony out of the
equation by transitioning from utopic multilateral positions to multilateral reciprocity between
central countries and emerging countries; 2) pursue policies that will eliminate, or at least reduce,
Brazil’s technological and financial dependency in other countries; and 3) reinforce the idea that
South America can be the platform needed for Brazil to project itself in the world forum (Cervo
2008).
However, there is one major issue that Cervo (2008) does not seem to factor in his
argument: Brazil’s strained relationship with South America. Brazil’s diplomatic and economic
decisions are often rooted in this dissociation with its geographical location and more linked to
its cultural heritage from Portugal and Europe (Bethell 2010). Recently, Brazil has started to
move towards an effective engagement with its neighboring countries in South America (Bethel
2010). It is also important to note, however, the feeling is mutual: Spanish America has never
thought of Brazil, with its Portuguese roots, as part of Latin America. This identity issue is not
something simple – it has a significant historical background that developed in a complex
context. Another significant issue is that Brazil’s identity has changed several times throughout
time. Brazil has wanted to be French; then Brazil wanted to be American; but Brazil has never
wanted to be South American.
This cultural distance from South America is a negative factor because as geopolitical
theorists have indicated, nations in the quest of power need to conquer others who have cultural
similarities to the conquering nation since it would be an easier assimilation process (Whittlesey
1943). Even though Brazil is not trying to conquer other nations in South America in the warfare
sense, the idea of cultural proximity would help Brazil in its acceptance as regional leader.
Whereas Brazil and other nations in South America share Catholicism as their religion, the
cultural affinity often ends at that point.
In sum, the lack of “latinidade” of Brazil poses significant challenges for Brazil’s quest
to become a superpower in the regional forum. What can be said, however, is that the realist
policies Brazil has pursued in the region added to the problem, led to mistrust, antipathy, and
resentment, which only hinder Brazil’s chances of regional leadership. Brazil has recognized that
self-interest and non-bargaining are not effective ways to pursue leadership, and even though a
more liberal approach has not yet solved all of the country’s problems, it has significantly
improved the South and Latin American relationships.
Diplomacy
Before discussing Brazil’s diplomacy, it is important to contextualize the role of the
diplomacy in a country because otherwise, it may seem that the author is advocating that Brazil
needs to take on the liberal doctrine at the expense of its internal needs. That is not the case here.
Diplomacy, external politics and international relations are intertwined concepts and cannot be
discussed in a vacuum. In this discussion, diplomacy means the defense of domestic interests in
the relationship with the other international actors. This means that the goal of diplomacy is the
pursuit of foreign policy that puts the world in a position favorable to the domestic sectors
(Fernandez Xavier 2012). What the author argues is that even if the multilateral agreements do
not necessarily guarantee success, what the world order has shown is that unilateral positions are
indeed deemed to fail and one main reason for these failures is the fact that several themes of the
world’s agenda cannot be looked at from a country’s isolated standpoint, regardless of how
powerful the country is (Fernandez Xavier 2012).
The Brazilian diplomacy has gone through significant shifts in thought, but these shifts
were not easy. The Ministry of External Relations (“MRE” - Itamaraty) still has a difficult time
distancing itself from the old practices of institutional and professional diplomacy to the
presidential diplomacy now in place, which was started by the Fernando Henrique Cardoso and
Lula’s administrations (Vilela and Neiva 2011). In these two governments, the president took an
active role and to a certain extent upset the institutional diplomacy by taking a more active and
pro-active role in the pursuit of diplomatic relations. The data supports this contention since up
to 2010, Lula and Fernando Henrique had spent 16% and 12% respectively outside of Brazil
compared to their democratic (post-1985) counterparts: 5% of Itamar Franco (president 1992 to
1994), 8% of José Sarney (president from 1985 to 1990), and 10% of Fernando Collor (president
from 1990 to 1992) (Vilela and Neiva 2011). This change shows that the executive realized that
presidential diplomacy, along with liberal policies, are good ways to obtain goodwill in the
international community.
This shift in the diplomatic posture is important because the Ministry of External
Relations /Itamaraty used to have a realist and pragmatic view of the international relations
(Fernandez Xavier 2012).This position was acceptable when the world order was a bipolar world
centered in the conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union because the existence of
this bipolar world supported the realist/neorealist views of the world (Fernandez Xavier 2012).
After 1985 and the end of the Cold War, the Brazilian diplomacy was faced with questions about
its beliefs and the stability of the status quo.
Brazil – Current Status, Achievements, and Obstacles to Success
Brazil’s former president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (“Lula”), is credited with changing
the status quo and empowering Brazil to a level that it has never seen before, even though his
policies may have perceived as too grandiose by some. On the other hand, others argue that
Lula’s grandiose expectations for Brazil and his vision for the country are the reasons for
Brazil’s success amidst so many challenges. Whether the critics and supporters are right or
wrong, it is undeniable that the foreign policy paradigms have changed under Lula.
Brands (2010) outlines the approaches that Lula followed that led to Brazil’s current
standing. The three diplomatic strategies that Lula pursued in his government to empower Brazil
were: a balanced approached regarding the United States’ influence; the development of
coalitions in order to increase Brazil’s status and influence; and a move towards engagement
with other nations in South America (Brands 2010).
Brazil had (and still has) many obstacles to its success. Historically, however, it would be
difficult to imagine that Brazil was ever going to be able to achieve any level of success.
Examples of some of these obstacles are: the regional differences and a condescending attitude
towards other nations in South America; the heritage of political instability from the
authoritarian period (1964-1985) in which Brazilian’s credibility was badly hurt abroad; the
constant financial problems, changes of currencies, rampant inflation, among other problems. To
illustrate the country’s instability: just between 1940 and 1995, Brazil had eight different
currencies (Rother 2010).
These examples are just some of the problems that Brazil had that made the country look
as an unfortunate and unfixable nation (Brands 2010). Additionally, social problems such as
poverty, an ineffective education system, lack of sanitation systems, lack of access to education
and basic healthcare needs in certain areas of the country made Brazil have a grim outlook. What
Brazil has on its side is a diversified economy in which the manufacturing of goods accounts for
more than a quarter of Brazil’s gross domestic product (“GDP”) of nearly two trillion.
Agriculture and mining are important areas as well, but they account for less than 10% of the
gross domestic product (Rohter 2010). The economy had potential and these two presidents
capitalized on it.
Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Lula’s governments also changed Brazil’s paradigm by
focusing on diplomacy and multilateral approaches. Brazil became active in international
institutions such as the United Nations (“UN”). It helped with the formation of Mercosul, one of
the trade agreements of the South, which was a significant step towards an opening of the
Brazilian market and allowed the beginning of the discussion on trade issues. Even though
Mercosul effectiveness is questionable, it still was a significant step taken by Brazil nonetheless.
A stable political system also aided in Brazil’s status, but most importantly, the reduction of
poverty through social programs was one of the major successful steps that gave Brazil the
international credibility it wanted (Brands 2010).
Brazil still has ineffective infrastructure problems; high rate of violence often related to
poverty and lack of opportunities; social, gender, and racial inequality; high taxes, and other
issues that while significantly reduced, still affect the nation’s ability to reach the level of success
it desires in the global forum. These internal issues are significant because regardless of realist or
liberal tendencies, the international forum is constantly monitoring the internal situation of a
nation to determine whether or not to regard the country seriously in its foreign relations.
Upcoming events such as the World Cup, the Olympics, and the Papal visit are some of the
events that will test Brazil’s infrastructures and readiness for a more significant international
voice and status.
Lula’s diplomatic moves also took place because of Brazil’s interest in the pursuit of a
seat in the United Nation’s Security Council. A seat in the UN’s Security Council means veto
power on important matters. One of Lula’s arguments for the inclusion of Brazil in the UN
Security Council is that the current makeup of the Security Council is not in line with the current
geopolitical realities of the world, and what was current in 1948 is not what it is current today
(Brands 2010). The confidence to pursue such a coveted role comes from Brazil’s economic
standing and its role in the global economy, a liberal perspective. However, this approach by
Lula was also rooted in the changes in military thinking and policies that have significantly
evolved since the end of the Cold War, but that are interestingly in line with a realist point of
view as well.
Brazil has also tried to establish itself in the world forum with its climate policies by
partnering with UN on several climate issues such as the hosting of the 1992 Conference on
Environmental Development, and by maintaining a dialogue with developing nations on climate
matters. This increased involvement with the UN and other international organizations show
Brazil’s engagement with the world, a liberal move. At the same time, in an example of the
constant pull and push between realist and liberal tendencies, Brazil is also worried about
international climate programs because of their effects on the economy in addition to posing
sovereignty questions.
With each step, unfortunately, there is a misstep. While Brazil is engaged in the liberal
stance of addressing and trying to work with international organizations, its trade policies are
still in line with the realist school of thought. The graph below shows how the Brazilian
economy is still very much closed when it comes to trade. A comparison among three Mercosulmember nations shows the disparity in trade since trade in Brazil represents a small percentage
of the country’s GDP compared to its neighbors (Boadman and Wolfensohn 2011). For a
country’s of its size, Brazil’s trade GDP is an indication of the remaining realist view in the
economy.
Trade disparity among three Mercosul countries
Brazil (25%)
Argentina (50%)
Chile (33%)
Brazilian Defense – a Realist View
One of the key changes in Brazil’s strategy to obtain more geopolitical power can be seen
through the modifications in the role of defense and military capability. Brazil’s actions in terms
of the military fall in line with the realist mindset because military power and state diplomacy are
basic elements of the realist theory. These efforts are important because they send a message to
the world that Brazil sides with peace and non-intervention approaches, a position actually
articulated in the 1988 Constitution, but it is ready to fight for its borders and is ready to help the
UN or other organizations in military and defense matters. This is an interesting shift because for
years Brazil wanted to distance itself from the military. After all, the Brazilian military had a
powerful political role in the nation during the authoritarian regime, which is not something that
the politicians or the people want to reintroduce to the Brazilian society. The transition between
military dictatorship and democracy was not an easy because the military power in Brazil was
threatened by democracy. Consequently, tensions between the military and the democratic
government ran and still do run high. What is being reintroduced now, however, is not the
military’s political power, but the military’s war power.
The first civilian president, José Sarney (1985 to 1990), created significant political
powers for the military, including a constitutional provision in the 1988 Constitution that
guaranteed the political role of the Armed Forces (Filho and Zucker 1995). The next civilian
president, Fernando Collor de Mello (1990-1992), started to move away from an allencompassing and powerful military by eliminating services and reducing the budget associated
with the Armed Forces, but these actions were not sufficient to reduce the powerful role the
military had gained in years of military dictatorship and during the Sarney’s presidency (Filho
and Zucker 1996). A few years later, the military pursued more active roles in other
governments, which is something that the liberal theory does not agree with because it reduces
the focus on the importance of international institutions or other sources of power.
This brief review of the power of the military in Brazil’s government shows that the
military had always focused on internal power. Brazil was not worried about going to war with
other nations or even defending itself from attack. Cushioned by the existence of the United
States with its large military capabilities in the same hemisphere, Brazil did not see the military
as a source of potential international power. Further, Brazil has had a history of relative peace
since its inception as a republic without wars or conflicts (even during the dictatorship years),
and a more peaceful history when compared to its neighbors in South America, which justified
the internal focus of the military.
This lack of perceived threat or aggression gave the Brazilian military the opportunity to
focus on political power, something that it had lost when the military dictatorship ended. It is
important to note, however, that Brazil’s military was (and still is) viewed by the public in a
negative light because of its lack of transparency and human rights violation during the years of
the military dictatorship. Consequently, from a public perception standpoint, military spending
was not viewed as a defense necessity, but as a form of pursuit of power by the former rulers.
Whereas some of this perception has changed, this negative view of the military remains vivid in
the Brazilian society.
After the Cold War, military thinking and the role of the military started to shift. Coupled
with democratic governments and a “National Defense Policy” led by a civilian Ministry of
Defense in the Fernando Henrique Cardoso’s government, the focus on the nation’s borders, the
safety of the Amazon, and the need for Brazil to have a more effective military became
paramount (Filho and Zirker 2000). Under the Lula administration, this idea of military presence
and importance can be illustrated by the difference in military spending: between 2003 and 2009,
spending in armed forces went from $9.23 billion to $23.9 billion (Brands 2010). Lula wanted a
strong military and spent the money to get it. Lula’s position was to be that military power was a
tool for international power and sovereignty.
Space also became important to Brazil in the form of a defense strategy. The
development of the Amazon Surveillance System (SIVAM), which is a complex network of
satellites, sensors and radars that monitors the activities and potential threats to Amazon and
parts of the neighboring countries, became the focus of the government (Brands 2010). To put
this issue in context and to understand the relevance of the concerns about the Amazon, an
understanding of the Amazon’s size is relevant here: the part of Amazon that is in Brazil covers
an area that is the size of the European Union. Air, space, and sea, became more important in the
democratic years because they can be used as tools for international negotiations and diplomacy
efforts.
What is happening in Brazil is a gradual shift, which was exacerbated during Lula’s
administration, from the military being an internal defensive and political tool to an institution
that takes a more pro-active role in protecting the country from potential internal and external
threats. The military needs to be ready to protect Brazil whether the threats are to the Amazon’s
resources or to the country’s offshore hydrocarbon sources (Brands 2010). The idea is that the
military needs to be able to protect, defend, and attack. The expenditures in arms and the push
for Brazil to become more self-sufficient in developing its own arsenal and tools are clear steps
that the nation is taking to show its new military strategy, which do not fall under the liberal
positioning advocated in this analysis.
Brazil, the United Nations, and the Duality of Brazil’s Approach
The shift in the way Brazil views defense is tied to Brazil’s ambitions of having a seat on
the UN Security Council. Brazil has been a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council
ten times. The last time was in 2010-2011, but a non-permanent seat is not what Brazil wants.
The Chief of Staff of the Brazilian Navy told an interviewer that countries with nuclear
submarines have a seat on the UN Security Council and have the technological power to become
a member of the UN; therefore, Brazil needs to have its own nuclear submarine development
program (Brands 2010). This is an interesting twist, because often times, the quest for military
power is tied to realist notions, but in this case, the realist approach aims to achieve a liberal
goal: to gain more status in an international institution, the UN.
In order to pursue this bid, Brazil led the UN mission in Haiti in 2004 in an effort to show
that Brazil can have a significant role in peace while simultaneously showing that it has a
powerful defense structure (Brands 2010). Brazil also led UN peacekeeping missions in Angola,
Mozambique, East Timor, Congo, among other places (Einaudi 2011). Considering the fact that
Argentina, Mexico, and other countries in South and Latin America are against Brazil’s UN’s
ambitions, Brazil has a significant challenge ahead to build regional support for its efforts.
The decision to use the military in order to pursue actions in the international arena is not
just made by the president. The process itself may not seem relevant to this analysis, but it is
because it shows that the whole government needs to be in theoretical agreement to pursue
international institution involvement. In the case of the UN’s missions, there are rigorous steps
that must be followed to authorize peacekeeping missions by Brazilian military forces. The UN
and Brazil work together through the MRE, which again, shows Brazil’s engagement in the
liberal process. However, the decision to engage in a mission goes beyond the MRE and the UN.
The UN first sends an informal request to Brazil (or any country it wishes to work with)
indicating its willingness to work together on an issue. Then, the MRE forwards the inquiry to
the President and to three other ministries: the Defense Ministry, the Planning Ministry, and the
Budget Ministry, each of which will evaluate Brazil’s potential involvement in the mission
(Defesanet). After many discussions and exchanges among the several ministries, the president
then will issue his or her position as to whether or not to support the mission. When the president
indicates his or her position on the matter, then a formal response is submitted to the UN
(Defesanet). The president then sends a message to Congress along with a comprehensive report
asking for permission to send the troops. If the Congress agrees, it then issues a decree
regulating and authorizing the country’s participation (Defesanet). Thus, while the president’s
position plays a major role, Congress has to perform its checks and balances to make sure the
president is not overstepping his or her bounds or pursuing actions that will harm the nation.
What this procedure illustrates is that it is not just the president who makes the decisions in the
international forum, which is consistent with the new liberal and democratic Brazil.
Nonetheless, these peacekeeping missions and involvement with the UN faces uphill
battles that may affect Brazil’s quest for power because while Brazil has sought more
engagement with international organizations and these engagements are illustrative of liberal
thinking, Brazil is still behind compared to other nations. For instance, when it comes to the UN,
several factors that are detrimental to Brazil’s standing in the international community: 1) Brazil
is 14th in ranking among UN troop contributors, which is less than Uruguay, a significant smaller
and less powerful country; 2) Brazil provides less than 1% of the UN’s regular budget and only
0.2% of the peacekeeping budget (Bodman and Wolfensohn 2011). Further, Brazil’s frequent
abstentions in several issues at the UN may be a way to express its discontent, but it may not
necessary a good way to engage with the international organizations and show Brazil’s
commitment and engagement in the liberal sense. Below is a list of UN Peacekeeping Missions
that Brazil has provided troops (United Nations):
Brazil’s Involvement in UN Peacekeeping
Missions
UNEF I (First United Nations Emergency Force
UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon)
ONUMOZ (United Nations Operation in
Mozambique)
UNAVEM III (United Nations Angola Verification
Mission III)
UNIMISET (United Nations Mission for Support of
East Timor)
MINUSTAH (United Nations Stabilization Mission
in Haiti)
MONUSCO (United Nations Organization
Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic
of Congo
From
To
Nov-1956
2011
Dec-1992
June-1967
Present
Dec 1994
Feb-1995
Jun-1997
May-2002
May-2005
Jun-2004
Present
2012
Present
Source: United Nations
As the information above shows, after the end of the dictatorship, regardless of the
financial issues Brazil has had with the UN, Brazil has taken a more active role in the world
affairs by engaging with international peace efforts. Even though Brazil is behind in terms what
it actually can do for the UN, the fact that it has participated in these missions helps Brazil obtain
the international creditability it seeks.
Compliance with international human rights conventions is another area that Brazil is still
in transition when it comes to the liberal and realist paradigms. The international community has
demanded action from Brazil, and the country has worked closely with UN agencies and World
Trade Organization (“WTO”) to address human and labor abuses. However, only in Dilma
Rousseff’s administration (2010 to present), and possibly because she was a victim of torture
during the dictatorship, more transparency regarding the wrongs done in the past are coming to
light and reparation is being paid to victims of torture during the dictatorship years.
Unfortunately, human rights is something that needs more attention in Brazil because
child labor, exploitation of foreign labor, and even slavery still exist and are common practices in
certain parts of country. The generalized premise is that these abuses only take place in the North
and Northeast parts of Brazil, regions stereotypically deemed behind in development compared
to the rest of the country. However, that is not the case. Human rights violations take place
everywhere. Just recently, illegal immigrants from Bolivia were found working in subhuman
conditions in a clothing factory in the megalopolis of São Paulo. This is a recurring scenario for
immigrants in Brazil. If Brazil wants a role in the world forum, it must work on improving its
human rights efforts. Working on human rights issues overseas and ignoring its own abuses is
not the consistent message the world is expecting from Brazil.
Brazil and South America
To understand Brazil’s relationship with South America and the ramifications to the
foreign policy arena, this basic premise needs to be understood: Brazil hesitates to characterize
itself as part of Latin America. At the same time, the region does not want to accept the
Portuguese-speaking nation as its own (Bodman and Wolfensohn 2011). Because of this tension,
South Americans generally believe that, regardless of the issue at hand, Brazilians do not have
the other nation’s best interest at heart in whatever deal it is being discussed or worked on. In
this case, the liberal and realist paradigms are applicable, but the cultural issue adds another layer
of difficulty in the analysis of a particular issue. Because of the cultural divide and the strained
relationship between Brazil and other Latin and South American countries, a review of some
recent events illustrate the current dynamic taking place in South America and Brazil’s role in
current events that damage and restrict Brazil’s liberal efforts.
Brazil is the biggest country in South America with a population of close to 200 million,
an extensive coast line adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, and an impressive amount of land that
dwarfs its neighbors. As geopolitical theorists would probably put it, one of sources of Brazil’s
powers derives from the size of its land. As De Lima and Hirst (2006) point out, one of most
significant factors that shape Brazil’s foreign policy has been its location. Brazil has an overall
history of peace that is not comparable with its neighbors because it pursues diplomacy over the
possibility of military dispute, which may leave Brazil economically vulnerable in certain
instances, but never vulnerable in its security (De Lima and Hirst 2006).
In theory, Brazil’s foreign policy goals in Latin America are presented as follows: 1) to
promote cooperation in South America; 2) to act as a mediator in regional conflicts; 3) to pursue
policies that avoid disagreements; and 4) to remain silent in the public forum when it comes to
disagreements with regional leaders (Varas 2009). This agenda has been pursued more actively
by Brazil since the second Fernando Henrique Cardoso’s administration (1996-2002) when
Brazil engaged in the pursuit of a leadership role in the region by arranging presidential summits,
acted as a mediator during conflicts, worked with Bolivia, Peru, Venezuela, and Colombia to
address concerns of the Amazon boarder, among other steps (De Lima and Hirst 2006).
The decision to pursue a more aggressive agenda in South America arose because Brazil
was reaching a level of stability that was unprecedented. The inflation, which had plagued the
nation for years, was under control. The country’s currency was also stable. Social programs
were at their infancy, but were already showing positive social and economic results, and a
significant middle class was developing. These factors led Brazil to believe that it could stop
being a “developing” nation or a “country with potential,” and in fact play a significant role in
the world’s affairs.
Having the foundation of a nation on the path of stability, Lula took the notion of South
American leadership to a different level. The MRE and Itamaraty sent a strong message that
Brazil was going to go after regional leadership. As De Lima and Hirst (2006) indicate, Brazil
took interest, engaged in South America’s matters directly, pulled strings, and tried to influence
the politics of the region. Brazil’s master plan was to leverage power locally to expand its role
and presence in the world affairs (De Lima and Hirst 2006).
However, these efforts have faced challenges. According to Varas (2009), the situation in
Latin and South America does not seem promising for Brazil. There is a lack of uniformity in the
region that makes the development of common policies and agreement on matters significantly
difficult. An example of the deterioration of these efforts is the loss of power of Mercosul,
Unasul, and other regional trade organizations (Varas 2009). The tensions in the region for the
past decade have been so significant that according to some this has been the “… lost decade for
integration in Latin America” (Varas 2009, 4).
Brazil has had a role in this lack of uniformity because it wants to be the regional leader,
but it does not do its part in order to establish itself as such power. Whereas Brazil is pursuing a
multilateral approach for its international relations, diplomacy, and trade, the regional level is
forgotten or not pursued in an adequate manner, which fail under the scrutiny of a liberal
analysis because the regional positions are mostly protectionist in nature. As Varas (2009) points
out, after the Cold War, Brazil emerged as a regional power, but it has not taken significant steps
to address regional causes. When Brazil does try to promote integration, it is perceived by other
nations with mistrust because Brazil’s focus on becoming part of the world’s big leagues comes
at the expense of high tariffs, discriminatory policies against members of Mercorsul, and other
actions that show Brazil’s stance that it will pursue what is good for itself, but not necessarily
good for South America. Because of said policies, Brazil does not have support regional support
for aspirations such as the UN Security Council seat, which Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina, and
Colombia, to name a few countries, do not believe that Brazil is prepared for such important role
of regional leader (Bodman and Wolfensohn 2011).
Mercosul, the common market of the South, has gone through a severe crisis and some of
the reasons behind this crisis is Brazil’s unequal bargaining position. Until recently, Brazil’s high
tariffs and positions made the Mercosul almost a moot agreement. In line with the liberalization
of the market promoted by President Lula, the Brazilian diplomacy took an initiative to in 2004
to try to reduce regional disparity with the creation of the Fundo de Convergência Estrutural do
Mercosul (FOCEM), which translates to the Fund of Structural Convergence of Mercosul, to
develop policies and create initiatives that support the regional integration (Pautasso 2012).
Pautasso (2012) highlights something important about the theoretical prism of Brazil when it
comes to foreign policy affecting the countries of Mercosul and the world when he argues that
Brazil suffered from theoretical instability evidenced by Brazil’s inconsistent external policies,
which is the main issue with Brazil’s current status. Consistency is important for credibility. The
chart below shows an example of measures implemented by FOCEM to help alleviate the
disparities among Mercosul nations.
How FOCEM will help stabilize Mercosul with Resource Allocation
Country
Brazil
Argentina
Uruguay
Paraguay
Deposits/Contributions
70%
27%
2%
1%
Withdrawal Limits
10%
10%
32%
48%
The contradiction is that Brazil needs South America. Part of Brazil’s strategy at this
point comes out need. Brazil imports 25% of the gas it consumes. The current administration
wants better relations with Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay in order to obtain more consistent
supply of gas from the region (Bodman and Wolfensohn 2011). Because of internal needs,
security and border problems, and other issues Brazil has tried to remain neutral on issues
concerning more extreme leftist governments such as Bolivia, Venezuela, and Ecuador’s.
Whether or not democracy is threatened in those countries because of the extreme left, Brazil has
taken a position that if the current situation is viewed in negative light by Brazil, any negative
comment or posture against governments in South America will only make an already difficult
relationship worse.
However, it is not only goodwill and wish to foster good relationships the reasons why
Brazil declines to get involved in questionable moves and policies of other nations in South
America. There are economic, border, and even security issues for Brazil’s lack of engagement
in certain issues. For instance, in the case of Bolivia, both countries have a lot to lose if their
relationship becomes negative: Brazil’s Petrobras (the partially state-controlled oil producer) is
the largest tax payer in Bolivia, which means Bolivia is wary of Brazil’s moves. On the other
hand, Brazil needs to control the narcotics that come to Brazil through Bolivia. Approximately
60% of all of the cocaine that enters Brazil comes from Bolivia (Bodman and Wolfensohn 2011).
The Brazilian-Bolivian border is longer than the U.S. and Mexico border, which is another
source of concern for Brazil. Decisions such as the one Brazil has made to avoid criticism of
Bolivia’s government show that Brazil’s focus on power can and will be overridden by political,
economic, and social considerations, which are fundamental principles of liberal thinking.
South and Latin American relations are fundamental to Brazil’s success. Diplomatic
efforts and more engagement continue under the Rousseff’s administration. However, the
mistreatment of immigrants, inconsistent policies, and negative propaganda in the media against
the Mercosul and other regional agreements are not effective ways for Brazil to reach its goal of
regional power. Regional power needs to be built on trust and open dialogue, steps that Brazil is
slowly following since the Fernando Henrique and Lula’s administrations.
Brazil, the United States, and the World – an Overview
Focusing on Brazil from a regional level is important because it provides an
understanding of Brazil’s regional status, but an understanding of Brazil’s relationships in the
global forum cannot be ignored in order to have an understanding of its liberal and realist views.
Additionally, Brazil’s relationship with other big powers, such as the United States, will allow
for a better understanding of the challenges the nation faces from practical and theoretical
standpoints.
Brazil has a difficult relationship with the United States and the disagreements cover
several areas such as Latin America, the Middle East, trade policies, monetary policies, and
many other matters. In fact, to sum up the U.S.-Brazil relationship one word can be used:
mistrust. Einaudi (2011) indicates several reasons why Brazil is important to the U.S. Brazil’s
land mass is the fifth largest in the world; it has more airports than any other nation except the
United States; it is on its way to becoming the world’s seventh largest economy; it has reduced
poverty and controlled its economy; it is currently revamping its infrastructure, and developing a
middle class with spending power; only to name a few examples of why Brazil is relevant to the
United States. Thus, a relationship with the arguable de facto leader of South America is an
important one for the United States from a strategic standpoint.
This relationship has not been an easy one, especially from an economic standpoint. One
of the main issues Brazil has with the U.S. (and with the European Union for that matter) is the
protectionism the U.S. has in the agricultural area that prevents Brazil from reaching its full
potential as a food producer (Einaudi 2011). Besides the economic discords, which are too many
to highlight in this analysis, Brazil is in search of legitimacy as a significant regional and global
power and it perceives the U.S. as a deterrent to its success.
Another example of economic issues are the United States’ protectionist measures in the
ethanol market, which lead to a barrier for the development of a global free market for ethanol
(Bodman and Wolfensohn 2011). To further illustrate the difficulty of the Brazil-US relationship,
in 2010, the WTO authorized Brazil to impose retaliatory tariffs against U.S. cotton subsidies
(Bodman and Wolfensohn 2011). Another issue that causes tensions between the nations is
soybeans. The United State is the biggest producer of soybeans, but Brazil is the country that
most exports soybeans (Rohter 2010). The United States closely monitors Brazil’s productions of
soybeans, and on the other hand, Brazil, working together with China on this issue, gets
information from a satellite that, among other things, track the harvest of the soybeans in the
United States (Rohter 2010). Add to the mix the lack of motivation of U.S. companies generally
have to do start business in Brazil because of the lack of a bilateral tax treaty, the tensions
between the two nations just seem to grow from every angle. These examples show how theory,
practice, and perceptions are all interconnected because the realist positions taken by both
countries have a practical negative effect as evidenced by the tensions between the two nations.
There are historical factors that are relevant here, but to summarize, Brazil’s main
concern is that Washington does recognize Brazil for what it is: a booming economy with
potential to become even more relevant in the years to come. Other countries in South America
feel the same way after the U.S. has shifted its focus to the Middle East. The Brazilian media
constantly highlights the missteps the U.S. has taken towards Brazil, even in the Obama
administration, which many expected that it would provide a positive change and bring
improvement in the Brazil-U.S. relations. Thus far, said expectations have not been met.
Highlighting the realist/protectionist positions of the United States is a common practice
in the Brazilian media, but Brazil responds to same policies with realist and protective measures
of its own. Besides agricultural disputes, another example of the disconnect between Washington
and Brazil is the issuance of tourist visas to Brazilians. With a strong middle class, Brazilians
now have money to travel abroad. Nonetheless, the U.S.’ process to be obtain a visa was
complicated and slow, and Brazilians were offended at the U.S.’ disregard toward this new
middle class. Delays and negative policies towards Brazilians led Brazilians to go spend their
money somewhere else where they felt welcomed. For the years the situation remained the same.
In the past two years, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the hiring of
more staff and the opening of more visa posts in Brazil to expedite the processing of visas, which
at the time was taking about 4-5 months to be issued. Recently, there have been more
controversies between the U.S. and Brazil, but the point is that to Brazilians, Americans think of
Brazil as an afterthought. Press releases may say otherwise, but this unfortunate perception
remains and it does have effects in the diplomatic relations between the two nations. Former
president Lula’s often caustic remarks about the U.S. did not help matters either. Below is Vilela
and Neiva’s (2011) data of how both Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Lula addressed the United
States in speeches and speaking engagements:
Fernando Henrique Cardoso (“FHC”) and Lula’s views about the United States
USA Favorable
FHC
Lula
USA Negative
USA Neutral
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Source: Itamaraty (2010)
As seen above, Lula’s leftist philosophy and position against the United States is much
more pervasive than Fernando Hernrique Cardoso. There is no data about the current president,
Dilma Rousseff, but she often refers to the United States in a negative or neutral (which can be
interpreted as negative in some instances since Brazil is often failing to support a U.S. policy).
These antagonist views of the U.S. are not helpful to Brazil because even though the country
may not need the U.S. is certain areas, support from the United States on matters would be
extremely beneficial for Brazil to achieve its goals.
Both nations need each other for strategic reasons. But Brazil, along with Latin America
for historical reasons, feel threatened by the U.S’ moves, which lead Brazil and other nations to
make questionable foreign policy moves to counter the power exercised by the U.S. Brazil’s
close relationship with Iran is an example that put the U.S. on alert. Lula publicly supported Iran
and condemned the international community, especially the United States, for its economic
sanctions on Iran. The relationship with Iran and the Middle East is not some anomaly in foreign
policy because beyond economic interests, Brazil has a significant Middle Eastern community of
approximately 12 million people, which is a significant social factor (Bodman and Wolfensohn
2011). Some argue that that the move by Lula was a diplomatic fiasco while others argue that it
was a bold move to show that Brazil thinks on its own and is not dependent on others for its
foreign policy. However, whether or not such strategic moves were effective still remain to be
seen.
The relationship among Mexico, Canada and Brazil, are cordial, but relatively distant
considering the potential for trade and bilateral relationships among these North American
nations. For example, according to the MRE, Mexico exported 0.9% of its products to Brazil and
Brazil imported 2.3% of Mexican products in 2008. The data regarding Canadian relations are
similarly low. In the case of Canada, bilateral relations have been worked on since 2004 after
years of disputes because Embraer contracts (Brazil’s airplane manufacturer) and the mad cow
disease epidemic (MRE). Both Canada and Mexico have several bilateral agreements with
Brazil, but the reality is that both countries could have more engagement with Brazil and viceversa. Mexico’s distant relationship with Brazil is something that Brazil needs to work on
because of the cultural proximity of both nations, which is something that can be used to Brazil’s
advantage. Considering that Mexico does not support Brazil’s bid for a UN Security Council
seat, the improvement of these relationships has a long way to go.
Based on the discussion above, an inference can be made: Brazil’s relationship with
North America also needs work, and a liberal approach would help the improvement of these
relationships because it would a message to the North American nations that Brazil is ready to
engage and make productive efforts. A difficult history should not be an impediment to the
development of effective working relationships.
Foreign Alliances to Counter the United States and Other Superpowers
Brazilian foreign policy and diplomatic efforts have gone two major processes in the
recent democratic years: from the pursuit of credibility to the pursuit of autonomy (Pautasso
2012). Understanding these concepts is important because the differences in ideology between
Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Lula show the still balancing act between realism and
liberalism. Further, this understanding explains Brazil’s positions against the United States and
other superpowers. In the Fernando Henrique Cardoso government, there was a pursuit of
credibility, which was characterized with liberal reforms as a way to insert Brazil in the global
era beginning with the acceptance of international agreements (Pautasso 2012). The reasoning
behind this posture was that Brazil could redress its deficiencies by engagement in multilateral
efforts.
In the Lula government, because of the leftist ideological framework of the Worker’s
Party, there was a shift to the pursuit of autonomy that still had the goal of a more prominent
international role for Brazil, but through the pursuit of the strengthening of Brazil’s sovereignty
(Pautasso 2012). Brazil continued to pursue international roles and status, but its goal was to
alter the relationships in the world to avoid falling into the pressure exercised by the superpowers
and to develop coalitions with other emerging countries (Pautasso 2012). These positions are
relevant to this analysis because these different positions show that liberal positions that can also
be used for realist purposes, which at first glance, seems like an incongruent notion. Lula used
diplomacy, foreign policy, and trade, as the conduit for the pursuit of more power without
“closing” the country in the realist sense.
Premised in this rationale, Brazil focused on South-South relationships to respond to the
United States and other superpowers. The goal of the Brazilian agenda seems to be to find a
better balance. To overcome some of the challenges presented by its relationship with the U.S.,
Brazil has expanded its diplomacy and reach across the globe in a move that geopolitical
theorists would call expansionist. The term BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South
Africa) was created by an American consultant, but Brazil has pushed to make it a reality in the
diplomatic setting (Eunaudi 2011). The issue with the BRICS countries is that unlike Mercosul
or other regional agreements, there is very little in common among these nations (Eunaudi
21011). They trade and have a relationship, but from a power standpoint, they may do very little
to advance Brazil’s agenda. That said, it is not a worthless effort in the overall scheme of things
because Brazil may achieve the global support it needs on several issues.
The expansion of Brazil’s strong relationship with Europe, its trading relationship with
China, its historical connection with Africa, its role as a donor nation in the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), and its history of successful conflict resolution, is just some of the
elements that have made Brazil successful even when agreements are not necessarily allencompassing. These coalitions and agreements have the goal to unite the less powerful so that
the less powerful have a voice against the superpowers.
The India, Brazil, and South Africa dialogue forum (IBSA) is another important
coalition. It focuses on strengthening the diplomatic ties among these nations by holding
ministerial meetings and summits to discuss global engagement (Flemes and Vaz 2010). The
main challenge this group faces is, again, geography because the security concerns of each nation
are varied and non-conformative. Note that Brazil’s alliance with India is not something new. In
2003, both countries collaborated to create the G-20 to give them more power in their
negotiations with the World Trade Organization, a liberal position because of the cooperative
nature of the agenda. At the same time, however, in line with realist tradition, Brazil is also
pursuing industrial and farm protectionist policies, which shows the duality of Brazil’s
theoretical standpoint. This duality is not good for the country’s image or its actual trade
relationships. One of the main complaints of other nations about Brazil is this type of
positioning. Brazil’s goal of trade liberalization in addition to more equitable access to markets
and, at the same time, protecting its domestic markets are difficult goals to accomplish when the
country goes back and forth on its positioning.
Brazil’s alliance with China is another key partnership that Brazil has in terms of foreign
alliances. China is Brazil’s largest trade partner and this relationship has transcended to Brazil’s
partially state-owned oil company Petrobras. Petrobras is one of most successful examples of a
balanced approach when it comes to protecting Brazil’s domestic interests and at the same time,
engaging in the global marketplace. In an effort to obtain more capital to continue its offshore
drilling, Brazil entered into an agreement with China that in exchange for $10 billion dollars
from Chinese capital, Petrobras will provide China with 150,000 to 200,000 barrels of oil a day
for the next ten years (Rohter 2010). Brazil’s ethanol cars and technology are also sources of
international power and reach since Japan, South Korea, and China are interested in using
Brazilian ethanol as fuel in order to improve their air quality.
Another approach Brazil has pursued to expand its reach in the international community
through liberal policies is Brazil’s attempt to gain status in the world with the spread of
multinational companies in Asia, Africa, Europe, South and even North America. As previously
discussed, Brazil does not have regional support for its bid to obtain a membership in the UN
Security Council, but Brazil does have a widespread international support for this goal from
other countries such as the Community of Portuguese Language Countries members (Portugal,
Angola, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, Saint Thomas and Prince, East Timor), the
United Kingdom, France, and Russia (Bodman and Wolfensohn 2011). This effective coalition
building is another example of how the shift from realism and to liberalism can produce positive
relationships for Brazil. Many other initiatives exist, but these are a few illustrations of Brazil’s
engagement in the world forum. Brazil is engaged; Brazil is active; Brazil is, through diplomacy,
searching for the legitimacy it believes it deserves.
Conclusion
Compared to the authoritarian years, Brazil has changed and it has changed for the better.
Liberalization of the markets may not produce immediate results, but what the trend in Brazil has
shown is that it works. What Brazil needs to do is to continue in the path it is currently following
in terms of coalitions, trade policies, and international engagement. The data shows that the
country is in the right path: in 2010 alone, the country spent R$1,6 billion in cooperation efforts
for international development (IPEA). Not only the amount is impressive, but the increase is also
significant since the amount spent in 2010 is 91% more than what was spent in 2009. This
investment was distributed in several fields such as international organizations, institutions,
peacekeeping missions, humanitarian aid, among other areas (IPEA). A promising factor, and
from the author’s perspective extremely relevant, is Brazil’s expenditures in Latin America. The
moneys dedicated to Latin America had the goal to integrate the nations through social,
economic, and cultural points in order to create a sense of community in Latin America. Brazil
cannot achieve global power without the support of Latin America and it is spending the money
to obtain the support needed.
If Brazil wants to continue this positive trajectory, it needs to work on obtain public
support for such measures. Educating the public is important because many people miss the
authoritarian years since the authoritarian regime was extremely effective in selling its program
to the masses regardless of what their actions actually did for Brazil’s present and future
(nationalization of private enterprises, closures of the market, changes in currency, among other
steps that were negative for Brazil). Thus, Brazil needs to promote liberal measures in truthful
light so that the people can make their own judgments. Press releases full of jargon and
complicated data are not effective ways to promote liberal ideas.
Another important recommendation is consistency. Brazil needs to improve its image by
being consistent in theory and practice. Arguing positions, supporting arguments, and then not
following through because of domestic pressure are not postures that will propel Brazil to the
superpower league. This translates to the diplomatic area because the diplomatic body, while
publicly in line with the president, offers discrete and continuous resistance to the liberal model.
Many of the individuals still in the diplomatic corps come from the realist school of thought and
a shift in the diplomatic philosophy needs to occur in order to create the cohesion and
consistency needed for advancement. Overall, Brazil has been successful in its attempts to obtain
a larger status in the world forum. It has accomplished successes such as avoiding being affected
by the financial crisis because of its diversity in the foreign investment area, a liberal position.
Cooperation and trade have benefited the country economically and Brazil is a good investment
to foreign investors. But liberalism also brought practical solutions to people’s lives. People can
import, export, and buy products in a competitive marketplace. Many individuals, such as the
author, still remember the effects of a closed market under the authoritarian regime: the lack of
food on shelves, lines to obtain basic necessities, the censorship of the media, and the
propaganda that promoted realist policies. What the past 28 years have shown is that Brazil
would not have accomplished what it has under the realist paradigm. Therefore, the future needs
to be focused on policies consistent with the liberal approaches.
Many questions remain regarding Brazil’s future. Next year’s presidential election may
change Brazil’s status. After all, Brazil has been governed by the same political party (the
Worker’s Party) for the past ten years. If Dilma Rousseff is not re-elected, Brazil’s outlook in the
international market and politics could completely change because she has been an extension of
the Lula in many ways (regardless of agreeing or non-agreeing with the President’s ideology).
The questions for Brazil would be: is the new president an extremist leftist who will pursue the
realist path of Evo Morales or Nicolas Maduro? Or will the new president follow the liberal path
that Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Lula paved for the nation? Or, if reelected, will Dilma
Rousseff’s current political troubles affect her ability to pursue liberal measures? The answers to
these questions will determine whether or not Brazil will continue to be what it is today, an
aspiring superpower.
Literature Cited
Barros, Sebastião do Rego. A Execução da Política Externa Brasileira: um balanço dos últimos 4
anos.” Revista Brasileira De Política Internacional 42, no. 2: 18- 28. International
Security & Counter Terrorism Reference Center, EBSCOhost
Bethell, Leslie. 2010. Brazil and 'Latin America'. Journal of Latin American Studies, 42(3), 457485. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022216X1000088X
Bitencourt, Luis. "Latin American Security: Emerging Challenges."
Bodman, Samuel, and James Wolfensohn. 2011. Global Brazil and U.S. - Brazil Relations:
Independent Task Force Report No. 66. New York: Council on Foreign Relations.
Accessed May 17, 2013. http://www.cfr.org/brazil/global-brazil-us-brazil-relations/p25407.
Brands, Hal. 2010. Dilemmas of Brazilian Grand Strategy. Strategic Studies Institute.
http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType =ip,url,
cookie,uid&an=71939669&db=tsh&scope=site&site=ehost.
Cervo, Amado Luiz. 2008. “Inserção internacional: formação dos conceitos brasileiros.
(Portuguese).” São Paulo: Editora Saraiva.
Dominguez, Jorge I., David Mares, Manuel Orozco, David Scott Palmer, Francisco Rojas
Aravena, and Andres Serbin. 2003. “Boundary Disputes in Latin America.”
Peaceworks 50.
Einaudi, Luigi R. 2011. Brazil and the United States: The Need for Strategic Engagement;
Center For Strategic Research; Country Overview. Institute for
NationalStrategicStudies.http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/hottopics/
lnacademic/?verb=sr&cs i=8406&sr=lni%2856PV-6PW1-JCBJK0XV%29&oc=00352.
Entenda como é decidida a participação de militares brasileiros em missões de paz.
http://www.defesanet.com.br/defesa/noticia/9161/Entenda-como-e-decidida-aparticipacao-de-militares-brasileiros-em-missoes-de-paz.
Fernandez Xaiver, Mateus. 2012. “A Inserção Internacional do Brasil nas Últimas
Décadas. (Portuguese).”Meridiano 47 – Boletim De Análise De Conjuntura Em
Relações Internacionais 13, no/ 134: 3-10. International Security & Counter
Terrorism Reference Center, EBSCOhost.
Filho, João R. Martins, and Daniel Zirker. 1996. "The Brazilian Military and The New World
Order." Journal Of Political & Military Sociology 24, no. 1: 31-55. International Security
& Counter Terrorism Reference Center, EBSCOhost.
Filho, João R. Martins, and Daniel Zirker. 2000. "Nationalism, National Security, and
Amazônia: Military Perceptions and Attitudes in Contemporary Brazil." Armed Forces
and Society 27, no. 1: 105-129. International Security &
Reference Center, EBSCOhost.
Counter Terrorism
Flemes, Daniel and Alcides Costa Vaz. 2011. Security Policies of India, Brazil and South
Africa – Regional Security Contexts as Constraints for a Common Agenda.
German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
Kegley, Charles W., Jr., and Shannon Lindsey Blanton. 2010. World Politics: Trend and
Transformation. 13th ed. Boston, MA.: Wadsworth Publishing.
List of Peacekeeping Operations 1948-2013.
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/documents/operationslist.pdf.
Paixão e Casarões, Guilherme Stolle. 2012. “O papel do Itamaraty na definição da política
externa do governo Collor de Mello. (Portuguese).” Revista Brasileira De Política
Internacional 55, no. 1: 135-153. International Security & Counter Terrorism
Reference Center, EBSCOhost.
País Investiu R$ 1,6 Bi Na Cooperação Internacional. Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica
Aplicada, 2013.
http://www.ipea.gov.br/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19209&c
atid=6&Itemid=4.
Pautasso, Diego. 2012. “Reorientação na diplomacia brasileira e o FOCEM: outra perspectiva
sobre a integração regional. (Portuguese).”Meridiano 47 – Boletim De Análise De
Conjuntura Em Relações Internacionais no. 139: 10-16. International Security &
Counter Terrorism Reference Center, EBSCOhost.
Powell, G. Bingham, Russell J. Dalton, and Kaare Strom. 2011. Comparative Politics Today: A
World View, 10th ed. New York, NY.
Rother, Larry. 2010. Brazil On the Rise: The Story of a Country Transformed. New York:
Palgrave MacMillan.
Sabatini, Christopher. 2013. “Will Latin America Miss U.S. Hegemony?”Journal of
International Affairs 66, no. 2: 1-14. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost
Snyder, Jack. 2004. One World, Rival Theories. Foreign Policy, November/December.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2004/11/01/one_world_rival_theories.
Varas, Augusto.2009. New Power Relations in Latin America and their Global Influence.
Norwegian Peacebuilding Center. Universidad de Los Andes
http:/www.ciaonet.org.ezproxy2.apus.edu/wps/noref%20/0019312/f_0019312_16
521.pdf
Vilela, Elaine, and Pedro Neiva. 2011. “Temas e regiões nas políticas externas de Lula e
Fernando Henrique: comparação do discurso dos dois presidentes. (Portuguese).”Revista
Brasileira De Política Internacional 54, no. 2: 70-96. International Security &
Counter Terrorism Reference Center, EBSCOhost.
Walt, Stephen. “International Relations: One World, Many Theories.” Foreign Policy, Spring
1998.
Whittlesey, Derwent. 1943. To the Second World War.