Core – Brazil v 1.0.0
**Amazon**
Impact – Biodiversity
Amazon deforestations causes extinction and turns warming
Takacs ‘96 (David, The Idea Of Diversity: Philosophies Of Paradise, 1996, p. 200-1.)
So biodiversity keeps the world running. It has value and of itself, as well as for us. Raven, Erwin, and Wilson oblige us
to think about the value of biodiversity for our own lives. The Ehrlichs’ rivet-popper trope makes this same point; by eliminating
rivets, we play Russian roulette with global ecology and human futures: “It
is likely that destruction of the rich
complex of species in the Amazon basin could trigger rapid changes in global climate patterns.
Agriculture remains heavily dependent on stable climate, and human beings remain heavily dependent on food. By the end of the
century the extinction of perhaps a million species in the Amazon basin could have entrained famines in which a billion human
beings perished. And if our species is very unlucky, the famines could lead to a thermonuclear
war, which could extinguish
civilization.” Elsewhere Ehrlich uses different particulars with no less drama: What then will happen if the current decimation of
organic diversity continues? Crop yields will be more difficult to maintain in the face of climatic change, soil erosion , loss of
dependable water supplies, decline of pollinators, and ever more serious assaults by pests. Conversion of productive land to
wasteland will accelerate; deserts will continue their seemingly inexorable expansion. Air pollution will increase, and local climates
will become harsher. Humanity will have to forgo many of the direct economic benefits it might have withdrawn from Earth's wellstocked genetic library. It might, for example, miss out on a cure for cancer; but that will make little difference. As
ecosystem
services falter, mortality from respiratory and epidemic disease, natural disasters, and especially famine will lower life
expectancies to the point where cancer (largely a disease of the elderly) will be unimportant. Humanity will bring upon
itself consequences depressingly similar to those expected from a nuclear winter. Barring a nuclear conflict,
it appears that civilization will disappear some time before the end of the next century - not with a bang but a whimper.
The Amazon is the lung of the earth—it is key to all biological functions.
O’Neal, 97 (Martin, “Rain Forest Depletion,” May 5,
http://www.northern.wvnet.edu/%7Etdanford/bio1/RAINFO.htm)
There are some really amazing facts about the Amazon rain forest. The Amazon alone covers
54% of all the world's rain forests, thus making it literally the lungs of the Earth. We
can say this because trees produce oxygen while they use carbon dioxide to maintain
their respiration. Rain forests cover about 7% of the Earth's surface, but host about 50-90% of
the plant and animal population of the entire world. The Amazon River has more species of
fish than the entire Atlantic Ocean does. In less than 25 acres of rain forest there are
more species of trees than the entire continent of North America. A tree found in Peru
was found to be the host to 43 different species of ants. There are more species of birds on a
Peru reserve than the entire United States has. A fact that is very highly regarded about the
Amazon rain forest is that of the 3000 species of plants that have been discovered
there, 70% of these plants have anti-cancerous properties. Also, 25% of these plants are now
used to combat cancer. So as humankind continues to harvest the Amazon rain forest
which covers 1.2 million acres and 9 countries, they should also try to consider the
devastating effects that it is having on our race along with all the biological effects
that it also carries. Although 1.2 million acres seems like a very large number, in the past four
decades that number was reduced in half to the current figure, so we see that this can not
keep happening with out some type of governing on what is occurring. If it does we may
become an endangered species.
Impact – Disease
Amazon deforestation causes the releases thousands of airborne viral diseases
Chivian, 93 (International Labour Organization,
http://www.ilo.org/encyclopedia/?doc&nd=857100187&nh=0&ssect=1)
Recently in Brazil, malaria has reached epidemic proportions as a consequence of
massive settlement and environmental disruption of the Amazon basin. Largely under
control in Brazil during the l960s, malaria has exploded 20 years later, with 560,000 cases
reported in l988, 500,000 in Amazonia alone (Kingman l989). In large part, this epidemic was a
consequence of the influx of huge numbers of people who had little or no immunity to malaria,
who lived in make-shift shelters and wore little protective clothing. But it was also an outgrowth
of their disturbing the environment of the rainforest, creating in their wake stagnant pools of
water everywhere - from road construction, from silt runoff secondary to land clearing, and
from open mining - pools where Anopheles darlingi, the most important malaria vector in the
area, could multiply unchecked (Kingman l989). The story of “emerging” viral illnesses may
hold valuable clues for understanding the effects of habitat destruction on human
beings. Argentine haemorrhagic fever, for example, a painful viral disease having a mortality
of between 3 and l5% (Sanford 1991) has occurred in epidemic proportions since l958 as a
result of the widespread clearing of the pampas of central Argentina and the planting
of corn (Kingman l989). The emerging viral illness which has had the greatest impact on
human health, and which may be a harbinger of future viral outbreaks, is AIDS, caused
by the human immunodeficiency virus - types l (HIV-l) and 2 (HIV-2). There is general agreement
that the current AIDS epidemic originated from non-human primates in Africa, which have acted
as natural, asymptomatic hosts and reservoirs for a family of immunodeficiency viruses (Allan
l992). Good genetic evidence exists for the links of HIV-l to a simian immunodeficiency virus in
African chimpanzees (Huet and Cheynier l990) and of HIV-2 to another simian virus in African
sooty mangabeys (Hirsch and Olmsted l989; Gao and Yue l992). Are these cross-species viral
transmissions from primates to humans the result of human encroachment into
degraded forest environments? If this is the case, we may be witnessing with AIDS the
beginning of a series of viral epidemics originating from tropical rainforests where
there may be thousands of viruses that could infect humans, some of which may be as
lethal as AIDS (approaching l00%) but spread more easily, for instance by airborne
droplets. These potential viral diseases could become the most serious public health
consequence from environmental disruption of the rainforests.
Release of these pathogens risk Human extinction—spread can happen within
hours
Butler, 04 (Rhett, “Impact of Deforestation—Species Loss, Extinction, and Disease,”
http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0904.htm)
The emergence of tropical diseases and outbreaks of new diseases, including nasty
hemorrhagic fevers like ebola and lassa fever, are a subtle but serious impact of
deforestation. With increased human presence in the rainforest, and exploiters
pushing into deeper areas, man is encountering "new" microorganisms with behaviors
unlike those previously known. As the primary hosts of these pathogens are
eliminated or reduced through forest disturbance and degradation, disease can break
out among humans. Although not unleashed yet, someday one of these microscopic
killers could lead to a massive human die-off as deadly for our species as we have
been for the species of the rainforest. Until then, local populations will continue to be
menaced by mosquito-borne diseases like dengue fever, Rift Valley fever, and malaria, and
water-borne diseases like cholera. Many emergent and resurgent diseases are directly
linked to land alterations which bring humans in closer contact with such pathogens .
For example, malaria and snailborne schistosomiasis have escalated because of the creation of
artificial pools of water like dams, rice paddies, drainage ditches, irrigation canals, and puddles
created by tractor treads. Malaria is a particular problem in deforested and degraded areas,
though not in forested zones where there are few stagnant ground pools for mosquito breeding.
These pools are most abundant in cleared regions and areas where tractors tear gashes in the
earth. Malaria is already a major threat to indigenous peoples who have developed no
resistance to the disease nor any access to antimalarial drugs. Malaria alone is cited as being
responsible for killing an estimated 20 percent of the Yanomani in Brazil and Venezuela.
Malaria—caused by unicelluar parasites transferred in the saliva of mosquitoes when they
bite—is an especially frightening disease for its drug-resistant forms. Thanks to poor prescribing
techniques on the part of doctors, there are now strains in Southeast Asia reputed to be
resistant to more than 20 anti-malarial drugs. There is serious concern that global climate
change will affect the distribution of malaria, which currently infects roughly 270 million people
worldwide and kills 1-2 million a year— 430,000-680,000 children in sub-Saharan Africa alone.
The outbreak of disease in the tropics does not affect only the people of those
countries, since virtually any disease can be incubated for enough time to allow
penetration into the temperate developed countries. For example, any Central African
doctor infected with the ebola virus from a patient can board a plane and land in
London within 10 hours. The virus could quickly spread, especially if airborne, among
the city's population of 8 million. Additionally, every person at the airport who is
exposed can unknowingly carry the pathogen home to their native countries around
the world.
Impact – Laundry List
Precluding the destruction of the amazon is key to finding a cure for AIDS,
preventing massive soil erosion, sea level rises, and global warming. The impact
is extinction.
Allard, 02 (Ryan, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “You Don’t Even Need Nuclear War,”
Just Cut Down More Trees!” December 9,
http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2006/teams/furness/bombtheamazon.html)
The Amazon Rain Forest has been in existence for thousands of years (Rainforest Alliance, 1999)
Ever since we knew how, we humans have been studying it, first for the sake of knowledge, but
then, for medicines, discovery of new species etc. We have since learned that the Amazon
supplies 20% (Raintree, 2002) of the world's oxygen and consumes poisonous carbon
dioxide, in other words, the Amazon rain forest is necessary for life on Earth. The
Amazon rain forest is home to half of the world's 30 million species of animal and
plant life (Forests.org, 1994). Its importance stems not only from the fact that it produces a
substantial fraction of the world's oxygen, which is vital for life, but also in the medicinal value
of its flora and fauna. Already, 25% of western pharmaceuticals are derived from rain
forest extracts (PBS, 1996) and we have only barely scratched the surface. Thousands of
species of trees are becoming extinct every year before we have had the chance to
test them. Numerous cures and/or treatments could be available in the forests, but
we may never find cures for cancer or AIDS since the forests are being destroyed at an
alarming rate. In addition, without the Amazon's trees, there would be nothing to
hold the soil together, so rain and wind would easily remove the once protected soil.
Erosion would be widespread in Brazil and the rivers would become even more silted than
they currently are. Substances like mercury, while stable in the earth, become poisonous in
water, and fish would accumulate them to pass on to organisms higher up in food chain, namely
humans. The entire area may even suffer from desertification. Increased carbon dioxide
levels enhance the Green-House Effect and we all should be aware of this process, publicized
as Global Warming. Furthermore, the consequences of Global Warming, are dangerous
enough to warrant thorough discussion on preventing them from occurring. These
consequences include; reduction of usable dry land area due to rising of ocean levels
and subsequent depletion in agriculture and probably flooding of cities. Innumerable
deaths will be the outcome of these events, and with the same fate befalling other
forests of the world, there will be two factors working against the existence of life as
we know it; no land and no oxygen. The planet is on that doomed trail, and we know
exactly where we will end; yet this issue is of the lowest priority to most large corporations
and governments. These corporations are some of the biggest supporters of deforestation
under the guise of 'Sustainable Development', although they are interested only in short term
profit. Even the Brazilian government is willing to destroy the Amazon.
Impact – Warming
Amazon deforestation will speed up warming and disrupt global food
production
Erb, 08 (Garry, “How rainforest deforestation affects food
supplies,”http://www.helium.com/items/276330-how-rainforest-deforestation-affects-foodsupplies)
Scientists say that at least 80% of the developed country's diet originated in the
rainforests, and the harvests of these fruits, vegetables, spices, coffee and nuts are abundant.
The grocery list includes avocados, oranges, lemons, bananas, pineapples, coconuts, mangos,
tomatoes, corn, potatoes, rice, yams, black pepper, chocolate, cinnamon, ginger and cashews,
just to name a few of the foods. In addition, as part of the rainforest ecosystem, more than
2,000 species of fish live in the freshwater Amazon Basin, which is more species than
in the entire Atlantic Ocean. The soil erosion caused by the destruction of the forests
will destroy the fish as well. In addition, deforestation contributes to global warming. As the
rainforests are being cut down, there is a massive amount of carbon dioxide being
released into the atmosphere emitting from what is left of the plants and trees. Global
warming interferes with the balance of nature, which will affect the world's weather
patterns and, in turn, will affect the growth of crops resulting in less food production .
There are five regions in the world where rainforests are located: Central America, The Amazon,
Africa, Southeast Asia and Australia. It is an enormous system covering over a billion acres, yet
that acreage is only about 6% of the world's total lands. But as humans continue to recklessly
interfere with nature, the consequences will be experienced worldwide.
The impact is extinction
Henderson, 06 (Bill, Countercurrents.org “Runaway Global Warming – Denial,” August 19,
www.countercurrents.org/cc -henderson190806.htm)
The scientific debate about human induced global warming is over but policy makers - let alone the happily shopping general
public - still seem to not understand the scope of the impending tragedy. Global
warming isn't just warmer
temperatures, heat waves, melting ice and threatened polar bears. Scientific
understanding increasingly points to runaway global warming leading to human
extinction. If impossibly Draconian security measures are not immediately put in place to keep further emissions of
greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere we are looking at the death of billions, the end of
civilization as we know it and in all probability the end of man's several million
year old existence, along with the extinction of most flora and fauna beloved to
man in the world we share. Runaway global warming: there are 'carbon bombs': carbon in soils,
carbon in warming temperate and boreal forests and in a drought struck Amazon, methane in Arctic peat bogs
and in methane hydrates melting in warming ocean waters. For several decades it has been hypothesized that rising temperatures
from increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels could be releasing some of and eventually all of
these stored carbon stocks to add substantually more potent greenhouse gases to
the atmosphere.
AT: Amazon Deforestation
No impact – no serious threat to Amazon
Morana and Washburn 2k, 6-26-2000Worldnet Daily,
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=4162
"The Amazon is actually the least endangered forest in the world
only 10 percent of the Amazon has
been converted to date from what was original forest to agriculture and settlement." The
finding that the Amazon rainforest threat is a myth based on bad science and political agendas
," states Moore in American Investigator's television newsmagazine documentary,
"Clear-cutting the myths," hosted by former CBS and CNN newsman Reid Collins. Moore explains that, in the 20 years of warnings about deforestation, "
--
especially by unlikely critics such as Moore, other scientists and inhabitants of the region -- is not expected to sit well with a movement that has enlisted schoolchildren throughout the United States and celebrities ranging from Sting to Alec Baldwin to
modern-day
environmentalism
confuses opinion with what we know to be true, and disguises what
are really political agendas with environmental rhetoric
There is a larger percentage of
the Amazon rain forest intact than there are most other forests in this world
Chevy Chase to Tom Jones and Tony Bennett. And which has also raised tens of millions of dollars for environmental activist groups. "This is where I really have a problem with
," says Moore. "It
. The fact of the matter is:
." Moore left Greenpeace, the organization he helped
found, in 1986, after finding himself at odds with other leaders of the group. "We had already helped the world turn the corner on the environmental issues," he said. "Once a majority agrees with you, its time to stop beating them over the head and sit
down with them and try to figure out some solutions." Yet, the notion that the Amazon jungles are threatened remains embedded in the popular culture: The 1993 animated feature, "Ferngully: The Last Rainforest," takes the Amazon's mystical charm
literally, showing magical rainforest fairies fighting for their lives against industrialist's chainsaws and bulldozers. National Geographic's "Rainforest: Heroes of the High Frontier" warns that "despite efforts to save it, the rainforest is being consumed at
an unprecedented rate." "Amazonia: A Celebration of Life" shows playful jungle animals being rudely awakened to the sound of chainsaws. The 1992 Sean Connery feature "Medicine Man" shows Connery discovering the cure for cancer at his
makeshift lab in the heart of a burning Amazon rainforest. He loses the cure when developers raze his facility in order to build a road. Environmental groups from Greenpeace to the Sierra Club to the World Wilderness Foundation to the Environmental
Dozens of other groups with names like Rainforest Relief
were created for the sole purpose of exploiting the issue
Defense Fund to the Smithsonian Institution conduct outreach efforts in the name of the rainforest.
Rainforest Action Network and Rainforest Foundation
,
. A tourist to Brazil who picks up a "Lonely
Planet" travel book will read numerous pleas for help: "Unless things change ... Indians will die with their forests," it pleads. "Invaluable, irreplaceable Amazon may be lost forever." "Lonely Planet" has company on the bookshelf: "At the current rate
The scientific evidence paints a
much brighter picture of deforestation in the Amazon. Looking at the NASA Landsat satellite
images of the deforestation rates in the Amazon rainforest, about 12.5 percent has been cleared.
Of the 12.5 percent, one half to one third of that is fallow, or in the process of regeneration,
meaning that at any given moment up to 94 percent of the Amazon is left to nature. Even the
Environmental Defense Fund and Sting's Rainforest Foundation concede
that the forest
is nearly 90 percent intact
the rainforests have only been around for between 12,000 and 16,000
years
in terms of the history of the earth, it's hardly a pinprick
there
are now still -- despite what humans have done -- more rainforests today than there were
12,000 years ago
the rainforests of the Amazon
are the least
endangered forests" because "they are the least suitable for human habitation."
of deforestation," Vice President Gore writes in "Earth in the Balance," "Virtually all of the world's tropical rainforests will be gone partway though the next century."
, among the fine print,
. Philip Stott of the University of London and author of the new book, "Tropical Rainforests: Political and Hegemonic Myth-making," maintains that the environmental campaigns have
lost perspective. "One of the simple, but very important, facts is that
," he says. "That sounds like a very long time, but
." Moore maintains that "
. The simple point is that
, the Congo, Malaysia, Indonesia and a few other parts of the world
No impact – Amazon resilient
Mongabay ’07 (9-5 “Brazil's threatened Atlantic forest may be more resilient than thought”
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0906-atlantic_forest.html)
The Atlantic forest of Brazil, one of the world's most threatened biodiversity hotspots, may
have served as a critical refuge for biodiversity during the ice ages. The findings suggest that
despite being reduced to just 8 percent of its original extent due to agriculture and urban
expansion, the Atlantic forest may be capable of recovery. In other words, the Atlantic forest
may be more resilient to change than previously believed. The researchers, from the French
Institut de Recherche Pour le Développement (IRD) and the University of São Paulo, used pollen
records for three species of trees to determine changes in historic Atlantic forest cover. The
study is published in French in the journal Diversity and Distributions and a press release from
IRD follows.
No impact – Amazon not key
Morana and Washburn 2k, 6-26-2000Worldnet Daily,
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=4162
Another familiar claim of the environmentalist community is that the Amazon constitutes the
"lungs of the earth," supplying one-fifth of the world's oxygen. But, according to
eco-scientists, the Amazon consumes as much oxygen as it produces, and Stott says it may
actually be a net user of oxygen
because the trees fall down and decay, rainforests actually
take in slightly more oxygen than they give out
The idea of them soaking up carbon dioxide
and giving out oxygen is a myth. It's only fast-growing young trees that actually take up carbon
dioxide
tropical forests of the world are "basically irrelevant" when it comes to
regulating or influencing global weather
oceans have a much greater impact. "Most
things that happen on land are mere blips to the system, basically insignificant
Antonio Donato Nobre of INPE, and other
. "In fact,
," says Stott. "
." Stott maintains that the
. He explains that the
," he says.
**Brazil Economy**
Yes Brazil Economy
Brazil’s economy is good
Ruchir Sharma is the head of Emerging Markets and Global Macro at Morgan Stanley
Investment Management, “Bearish on Brazil: The Commodity Slowdown and the End of the
Magic Moment” Foreign Affairs, 2012, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137599/ruchirsharma/bearish-on-brazil?page=show
Until recently, the consensus view of Brazil among investors and pundits was almost universally
bullish. Under the landmark presidency of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the country became known
as a paragon of financial responsibility among emerging markets. Having contained
hyperinflation and reduced its debt, Brazil weathered the 2008 financial crisis better than
most, growing at an average annual rate of nearly four percent over the past five years. And in
the last ten years, some 30 million Brazilians have entered the middle class, giving their
country, according to Brazil's promoters, the power to expand despite a turbulent global
environment and to reduce income inequality even as it grew elsewhere in Latin America.¶ This
decade of success has made Brazil one of the most hyped emerging-market nations, with one of
the two top-performing stock markets in the world and receiving more foreign direct
investment than most other countries. Over the past five years, the amount of foreign money
flooding into Brazilian stocks and bonds surged to record levels, with inflows expanding from $5
billion in 2007 to more than $70 billion through this past January. Brazil's rise has solidified its
reputation as a leading member of the BRICS -- Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa -the world's top emerging markets, which many expect to supplant the United States and
Europe soon as the largest drivers of the global economy.
No Brazil Economy
Brazil economic growth is dependent on commodity prices
Ruchir Sharma, the head of Emerging Markets and Global Macro at Morgan Stanley
Investment Management, “Bearish on Brazil: The Commodity Slowdown and the End of the
Magic Moment” Foreign Affairs, 2012, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137599/ruchirsharma/bearish-on-brazil?page=show
But problems loomed behind that veneer. For a nation supposedly taking its place as one of the
world's major economic powers, Brazil has proved strikingly cautious. To protect its citizens
from the economic turmoil that plagued it throughout much of the late twentieth century, the
country developed two signature policies -- high interest rates to control inflation and a welfare
state to provide a social safety net -- that have placed a hidden cap on expansion. Indeed, since
the early 1980s, Brazilian growth has oscillated around an average of 2.5 percent a year, spiking
only with increases in commodity prices. Even in the last decade, when Brazilian growth rose
above four percent and Lula hailed the arrival of his country's "magic moment," Brazil still grew
only half as fast as China, India, and Russia.¶ High interest rates in Brazil stymie the country's
growth by making it almost prohibitively expensive to do just about anything. Providing an
average return of about ten percent, those rates attract foreign capital, but that influx of
investment has driven up the value of the Brazilian real, making it one of the most expensive
currencies in the world. As a result, restaurants in São Paulo are more expensive than those in
Paris, and office space is pricier there than in New York. Hotel rooms in Rio de Janeiro cost more
than they do along the French Riviera, bike rentals are more expensive than in Amsterdam, and
movie tickets exceed the price of those in Madrid.¶ At the same time, the expensive real boosts
the price of exports from Brazil, undercutting the country's competitiveness in global
consumer markets. Although many major emerging-market currencies have risen against the
dollar over the last decade, the real is in a class by itself, having gone up 100 percent. This may
help manufacturing in the United States, but it harms it in Brazil, where the manufacturing share
of GDP peaked at 16.5 percent in 2004 and had fallen to 13.5 percent by the end of 2010. Few
developing nations have sustained rapid growth for even one decade, let alone two or three,
and virtually all of those that have did so by expanding their share of global manufacturing, not
riding the tides of commodity prices.¶ Brazil, however, has taken the latter path. China's
growth over the last decade made it by far the world's largest consumer of industrial raw
materials, and Brazil has capitalized on that explosion: in 2009, China surpassed the United
States as Brazil's leading trade partner. Given China's sustained success, few expected its
economy to slow or considered what that would mean for Brazil. But that decline is now under
way. This past March, Beijing stated that its growth rate in 2012 could dip below eight percent
for the first time since 1998. Unsurprisingly, around the same time, Brasília announced that its
growth rate had dropped to under three percent.
Impact – Economy
The Braziliian economy is critical to the entire Latin American economy, the US
Economy, and political and democratic stability in the region –
Donald SHULTZ, Research Professor of National Security Policy at US Army War College, “THE
UNITED STATES AND LATIN AMERICA: SHAPING AN ELUSIVE FUTURE,” March, 2000, pg. Online
@ http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pdffiles/PUB31.pdf
What are the major threats confronting Latin America,¶ how do they affect U.S. security
interests, and how is this¶ configuration likely to change over the next quarter¶ century?
Currently, there are several concerns. One of the¶ most important is the danger posed by
economic instability.¶ By late 1998, the international financial crisis that had¶ begun in Asia in
1997, and then moved on to devastate¶ Russia in the summer of 1998, hit Latin America. Brazil¶
seemed to be teetering on the brink of disaster. Capital¶ flight was depleting its reserves, raising
questions about the¶ country’s ability to pay its short-term debt. As the eighth¶ largest
economy in the world, Brazil accounts for almost¶ half of the output of Latin America, a
region which buys¶ roughly a fifth of U.S. exports. If the Brazilian economy¶ went into a deep
and prolonged recession, the spillover into¶ other countries might trigger social and political
turmoil¶ that could endanger the region’s young and still fragile¶ democracies. Similarly, the
impact on the U.S. banking¶ system and economy would be substantial. More than 450 of¶
the Fortune 500 companies do business in Brazil, which¶ receives more direct foreign
investment from the United¶ States than any other country except China. 11 Fears about¶ the
country’s economic health were already affecting the¶ U.S. stock market.
Solves war
Royal 10 – Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010, “Economic
Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,” in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and
Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of
external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of
attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defense behavior of interdependent
states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable
contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson’s (1996) work
on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a
pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As
such, exogenous shocks such as economic crisis could usher in a redistribution of
relative power (see also Gilpin, 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances,
increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fearon, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively
certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power
may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Seperately, Pollins (1996) also shows
that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among
major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic
conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland’s (1996, 2000) theory of
trade expectations suggests that ‘future expectation of trade’ is a significant variable in
understanding economic conditions and security behavious of states. He argues that
interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have
an optimistic view of future trade relations, However, if the expectations of future trade
decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the
likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access
to those resources. Crisis could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade
expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by
interdependent states. Third, others have considered the link between economic decline
and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong
correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of
economic downturn. They write, The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are
strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favor.
Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflict selfreinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. P. 89) Economic decline has been linked with an increase in the
likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across
borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the
popularity of a sitting government. ‘Diversionary theory’ suggests that, when facing
unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increase
incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a ‘rally around the flag’
effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995), and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence
showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and
Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for
democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to
being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that
periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically
linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlated economic
integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links
economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels. This implied connection between
integration, crisis and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves
more attention.
Impact – Proliferation
Brazilian economic stability is critical to avert Brazilian nuclearization and
multiple scenarios for nuclear conflict
Donald SHULTZ, Research Professor of National Security Policy at US Army War College, “THE
UNITED STATES AND LATIN AMERICA: SHAPING AN ELUSIVE FUTURE,” March, 2000, pg. Online
@ http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pdffiles/PUB31.pdf
While we are in a speculative mode, it may be useful to¶ raise the issue of whether, two or three
decades from now,¶ the United States might have to deal with a regional¶ hegemon or peer
competitor. The most obvious candidate for¶ such a role would be Brazil, which already
accounts for¶ almost half of Latin America’s economic production and has¶ by far the largest
armed forces in the region (313,250 active¶ troops).53 That country could very well assume a
more¶ commanding political and military role in the decades¶ ahead.¶ Until recently, the primary
U.S. concern about Brazil¶ has been that it might acquire nuclear weapons and¶ delivery
systems. In the 1970s, the Brazilian military¶ embarked on a secret program to develop an atom
bomb. By¶ the late 1980s, both Brazil and Argentina were aggressively¶ pursuing nuclear
development programs that had clear¶ military spin-offs.54 There were powerful military and¶
civilian advocates of developing nuclear weapons and¶ ballistic missiles within both countries.
Today, however, the¶ situation has changed. As a result of political leadership¶ transitions in
both countries, Brazil and Argentina now¶ appear firmly committed to restricting their
nuclear¶ programs to peaceful purposes. They have entered into¶ various nuclear-related
agreements with each other—most¶ notably the quadripartite comprehensive safeguards¶
agreement (1991), which permits the inspection of all their¶ nuclear installations by the
International Atomic Energy¶ Agency—and have joined the Missile Technology Control¶ Regime.¶
Even so, no one can be certain about the future. As Scott¶ Tollefson has observed:¶ . . . the
military application of Brazil’s nuclear and space¶ programs depends less on technological
considerations than¶ on political will. While technological constraints present a¶ formidable
barrier to achieving nuclear bombs and ballistic¶ missiles, that barrier is not insurmountable. The
critical¶ element, therefore, in determining the applications of Brazil’s¶ nuclear and space
technologies will be primarily political.55¶ Put simply, if changes in political leadership were¶
instrumental in redirecting Brazil’s nuclear program¶ towards peaceful purposes, future political
upheavals could¶ still produce a reversion to previous orientations. Civilian¶ supremacy is not
so strong that it could not be swept away¶ by a coup, especially if the legitimacy of the
current¶ democratic experiment were to be undermined by economic¶ crisis and growing
poverty/inequality. Nor are civilian¶ leaders necessarily less militaristic or more committed to¶
democracy than the military. The example of Peru’s¶ Fujimori comes immediately to mind.¶ How
serious a threat might Brazil potentially be? It has¶ been estimated that if the nuclear plant at
Angra dos Reis¶ (Angra I) were only producing at 30 percent capacity, it¶ could produce five 20kiloton weapons a year. If production¶ from other plants were included, Brazil would have a¶
capability three times greater than India or Pakistan.¶ Furthermore, its defense industry
already has a substantial¶ missile producing capability. On the other hand, the¶ country has a
very limited capacity to project its military¶ power via air and sealift or to sustain its forces over
long¶ distances. And though a 1983 law authorizes significant¶ military manpower increases
(which could place Brazil at a¶ numerical level slightly higher than France, Iran and¶ Pakistan),
such growth will be restricted by a lack of¶ economic resources. Indeed, the development of all
these¶ military potentials has been, and will continue to be,¶ severely constrained by a lack of
money. (Which is one¶ reason Brazil decided to engage in arms control with¶ Argentina in the
first place.) 56¶ In short, a restoration of Brazilian militarism, imbued¶ with nationalistic
ambitions for great power status, is not¶ unthinkable, and such a regime could present some
fairly¶ serious problems. That government would probably need¶ foreign as well as domestic
enemies to help justify its¶ existence. One obvious candidate would be the United¶ States,
which would presumably be critical of any return to¶ dictatorial rule. Beyond this, moreover, the
spectre of a¶ predatory international community, covetous of the riches¶ of the Amazon, could
help rally political support to the¶ regime. For years, some Brazilian military officers have¶ been
warning of “foreign intervention.” Indeed, as far back¶ as 1991 General Antenor de Santa Cruz
Abreu, then chief of¶ the Military Command of the Amazon, threatened to¶ transform the region
into a “new Vietnam” if developed¶ countries tried to “internationalize” the Amazon.¶
Subsequently, in 1993, U.S.-Guyanese combined military¶ exercises near the Brazilian border
provoked an angry¶ response from many high-ranking Brazilian officers. 57¶ Since then, of
course, U.S.-Brazilian relations have¶ improved considerably. Nevertheless, the basic U.S./¶
international concerns over the Amazon—the threat to the¶ region’s ecology through burning
and deforestation, the¶ presence of narcotrafficking activities, the Indian question,¶ etc.—have
not disappeared, and some may very well¶ intensify in the years ahead. At the same time, if the¶
growing trend towards subregional economic groupings—in¶ particular, MERCOSUR—continues,
it is likely to increase¶ competition between Southern Cone and NAFTA countries.¶ Economic
conflicts, in turn, may be expected to intensify¶ political differences, and could lead to
heightened¶ politico-military rivalry between different blocs or¶ coalitions in the
hemisphere.¶ Even so, there continue to be traditional rivalries and¶ conflicts within
MERCOSUR, especially between Brazil¶ and its neighbors, and these will certainly complicate
the¶ group’s evolution. Among other things, the past year¶ witnessed a serious deterioration
of relations between¶ Brazil and Argentina, the product partly of the former’s¶ January 1999
currency devaluation, which severely¶ strained economic ties between the two countries. In
part,¶ too, these conflicts were aggravated by Argentina’s¶ (unsuccessful) bid to join the North
Atlantic Treaty¶ Organization (NATO), which Brazilians interpreted as an¶ attempt to gain
strategic advantage. The upshot was that¶ relations soured to the extent where questions have
been¶ raised as to the continued viability of MERCOSUR itself. In¶ light of these problems, one
cannot but wonder what impact¶ a resurgence of Brazilian authoritarianism, combined with¶
a push for regional hegemonic status, would have on¶ Argentina, currently a “non-NATO ally”
of the United¶ States.¶ Finally, closer to home, there is the difficult problem of¶ U.S. border
defense. One suspects that the years ahead will¶ witness growing pressure to use Department
of Defense¶ personnel and resources to bolster law enforcement¶ agencies patrolling U.S.
frontiers to prevent illegal¶ immigration and drug smuggling. (Indeed, legislation has¶ already
been proposed authorizing the deployment of up to¶ 10,000 more troops on the Southwest
Border. In late 1998,¶ however, the bill was rejected by the Senate.) Since 1990,¶ the military
has been engaged in several thousand¶ operations along the frontier, running listening posts
to¶ assist the Border Patrol in tracking drugs and migrants,¶ building fences and barriers,
repairing roads, and helping¶ law enforcement agencies in counternarcotics operations.¶ Yet,
notwithstanding this aid, civilian agencies continue to¶ be stretched thin. The amount of drugs
coming over the¶ border has not been significantly reduced, and law¶ enforcement officials often
find themselves outgunned and¶ outmanned by their adversaries. Consequently, there is an¶
increasing temptation to look to the military for answers. 58
AT: Brazilian Economy
Economy resilient – diverse and shielded from downturns.
Associated Press 08 September 30, “Fitch: Brazil GDP to fall in 2009” Lexis
Fitch Ratings forecasts that Brazil's economy will grow by 3.3 percent next year, down from its
earlier predictions of a 5.1 percent expansion, the firm's Brazil director said Tuesday. The global
economic crisis is behind the revision. On Friday, JP Morgan Chase & Co. also reduced its 2009
forecast for Brazilian gross domestic product, to 3.2 percent, from 3.8 percent, analysts said.
But Rafael Guedes, Fitch's Brazil director, put a positive spin on the news. "The question is,
'Why is Brazil still growing given Brazilian economic history?'" Guedes told The Associated
Press, adding that "3.3 percent growth in an adverse environment is still very good for Brazil."
During financial crises in the 1990s, Brazil's economy was at the mercy of external factors.
"What is happening right now is quite the opposite," Guedes said. "Brazil will certainly be
effected, but less so." Brazil's economy is less reliant on exports than it used to be they
represent about 10 percent of Brazil's GDP now. Since Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da
Silva took office in 2002, Brazil's economy has become more closed, Guedes said, shielding it
from downturns in the U.S., Europe and China. And most important has been the rise of the
Brazilian consumer, making the domestic economy "vibrant and dynamic," with Brazilian firms
relying less on foreign consumers, Guedes said. On a more positive note, Fitch revised upward
this year's growth forecast for Brazil, from 4.6 percent to 5.1 percent. While the financial crisis
will certainly effect Brazil's fourth-quarter results, the first three quarters were good enough
to warrant the increase, Guedes said.
Economy resilient – diversified and insulated from global shocks
ETF Trends 08 Exchange Traded Funds, “Brazil ETFs Reflect Strong Economy on a World
Stage” http://www.etftrends.com/2008/08/brazil-etfs-reflect-strong-economy-on-a-worldstage.html
According to Alexei Barrionuevo for The New York Times, Brazil’s growth has been fueled through a
combination of respect for financial markets and targeted social programs, which are lifting
millions out of poverty. With a history of unequal wealth, Brazil has shrunk its income gap by 6% since
2001, diminishing the unequal distribution of wealth. This is evident in income among the
lower classes in Brazil. The bottom 10% of Brazil’s earners saw their income jump nearly 58% from 2001 to 2006 while
the top 10% of earners only saw an increase of 7%. Despite the numbers speaking for themselves, this
economic expansion is expected by many experts to last. Nonetheless, a strong currency and
inflation that has been kept in check for the most part has Brazilians spending rapidly, which
acts as the motor for the economy. With the United States and Europe struggling with
recession and housing crises, Brazil’s economy does not show the vulnerabilities of other
emerging markets. It grew 5.4% last year. Brazil’s economy is greatly diversified, as it has
opportunities to expand its booming agricultural sector into new fields. It also has many
untapped natural resources. Furthermore, new oil discoveries will push Brazil up into the top
echelon of oil producers within the next decade. Brazil’s national oil company, Petrobras, expects to be
producing 100,000 barrels of oil per day from one of its oil fields by 2010, and hopes to produce a million per day within 10
years. Similarly, Petrobras believes that anywhere between five and eight billion barrels of oil exist off the Brazilian coast. As
the slowdown of the global economy was originally thought to affect Brazil, this country has
been surprisingly resilient and has showed no signs of a hangover from the economic
problems the US and Europe face. Don Hanna of Citibank may put it best when it comes to the Brazilian economy,
“What makes Brazil more resilient is that the rest of the world matters less.”
Economy resilient – historically proven.
Simon Romero, 99, former Times correspondent based in São Paulo, former senior
correspondent based in Rio de Janeiro for America Economia, April 6, 1999, New York Times,
“Brazil, Though Struggling, Proves Surprisingly Resilient,”
http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/brazilresilient.htm
When the price of imported wheat rose more than 50 percent
Brazil
anticipated the worst. “We expected many of our clients to go bankrupt so we prepared
ourselves legally to get anything we could from them, like machinery
clients have shown unexpected willingness and creativity to
negotiate ways out of such outcomes
Brazil has had far fewer bankruptcies and business closures than analysts expected, even as
the country struggles with its deepest recession since the early 1990s
earlier this year, Lawrence Pih, the president of
’s largest flour mill,
,” said Pih, whose company, Moinho Pacifico, caters to a range of
companies from the corner bakery to large food processors. To his surprise,
. In March, Pih, a naturalized Brazilian from Shanghai, took legal action to recoup losses against only seven insolvent bakeries, fewer than he had expected.
In fact,
. In Sao Paulo, the nerve center of the economy, there were 1,035 court-
ordered requests in March to close companies, in a process similar to U.S. bankruptcy. That’s up only slightly from 982 in the same month last year, said the Sao Paulo Commercial Association, a trade group. In March 1996, the number totaled a record
1,455. These figures, combined with other data on inflation, foreign trade and industrial production, produce a picture of the Brazilian economy a lot less bleak than that painted by economists a month ago, when the country was ostracized after the
instead of cautioning investors of the possibility of a domestic debt default,
economists are working to convince people that a recovery could be swifter and stronger than
initially thought
As predictions of a return to hyperinflation and of an
exchange rate spinning out of control have given way to slower price increases and a
strengthening real, Brazilian stock and bond markets have responded with rallies over the last
several weeks unmatched by markets anywhere else
many companies had been made resilient by a history of
recessions that have winnowed the weaklings and made survivors wary of taking on risky levels
of debt. “Unlike the Southeast Asians, we’re used to repeated, traumatic recessions and high
interest rates
Surviving these crises has resulted in Darwinian selection
chaotic devaluation of the currency, the real. Now,
. For instance, after shrinking at a 3 percent rate in the first quarter compared with the last quarter of 1998, the gross domestic product should grow by half a percent in the second quarter and by as much as 2
percent in the fourth quarter of this year, said Alexandre Azara, an economist at Banco BBA Creditanstalt.
. Explanations vary for this turnaround in mood, which is rooted in better-than-expected economic indicators.
Emilio Alfieri, the economist for the Sao Paulo Commercial Association, said
,” Alfieri said. “
.” To be sure, the recession of 1999 comes after a
year in which the economy barely grew. This recession is the fourth large contraction in Brazil since the early 1980s. One other perspective on why Brazilian companies have survived this latest bout with a rough economy may have to do with what is
known in Portuguese as the “jeito” (pronounced JAY-too), a term that describes the ability of Brazilians to find clever solutions to legal, bureaucratic or financial quagmires. “The jeito provides more space for negotiating,” said Roberto da Matta, an
anthropologist at the University of Notre Dame who is considered an authority on the subject. “It is a bridge between two worlds, one in which old ways and common sense hold sway and another in which the new framework of society isn’t just or
Held virtually as a national characteristic in Brazil, a country with a large and intricate
bureaucracy
is now being employed by many companies as their only means of
survival.
rational.”
, the jeito, or its diminutive “jeitinho,”
AT: Brazilian Prolif
No prolif – unequivocal nonprolif credentials
Roberto Abdenur 04, Ambassador of Brazil, November 7, 2004, New York Times, “Brazil’s
Nuclear Program,” p. Lexis
‘‘Nuclear Secrets: If Brazil Wants to Scare the World, It’s Succeeding’’ (Week in Review, Oct. 31)
did not mention some important facts demonstrating Brazil’s unequivocal nonproliferation
credentials: Brazil’s Constitution states, ‘‘All nuclear activity within the national territory shall
only be admitted for peaceful purposes and subject to approval by the National Congress.’’
Brazil was central in creating the world’s first nuclear-weapons -free zone, in Latin America.
Brazil and Argentina took the innovative step of creating, in 1991, the bilateral Agency for
Nuclear Account and Control, which, with the International Atomic Energy Agency, applies
inspections in both countries. All nuclear facilities and materials in Brazil have been under
comprehensive safeguards since 1994. Brazil has become a champion of the integrity and
universality of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty -- so much so that a senior Brazilian
diplomat is due to preside over the next treaty review conference.
No prolif – regional integration and lack of motivation
Dr. Peter Lavoy, Director and Senior Lecturer in National Security Affairs at the Center for
Contemporary Conflict, and Robin Walker, Research Associate in National Security Affairs at
the CCC, July 29, 2006, online:
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/events/recent/NuclearWeaponsProliferation2016Jul06_rpt.asp,
accessed February 20, 2007
``Both Argentina
and Brazil have taken nuclear weapons production options off the
table, and while both maintain civilian nuclear programs, they are about technology and modernity, not military power.
Historically, Brazil sees itself as a potential power, and it uses this quest for greatness as a rationale for many of its actions.
Despite that, Latin
America is an isolated security environment and historically
militaries in the region have been more of a threat to their own countries than to
foreign powers. The regional integration of South America, both economically and in
security cooperation, further decreased the likelihood of international conflict. However,
Argentina and Brazil maintain their nuclear expertise and capabilities. The governing left-center coalitions have nationalistic
tendencies and view nuclear power as a way to demonstrate power, modernity and technology. Through its nuclear program,
Brazil has achieved energy autonomy. The possibility also remains for either Argentina or Brazil to export technology in order to
earn reciprocity in other matters.
No prolif and wouldn’t use nukes
Ira Chernus 04, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, January
2, 2004, Common Dreams, “Brazil: The Next Nuclear ‘Threat’?”
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0102-04.htm
In other words, don’t treat Brazil like the axis of evil. Brazil is a good guy, a U.S. ally. Shouldn’t
different rules apply? Yes, they should, in the opinion of James Goodby, a former arms control
negotiator in the Clinton administration. “Similar programs in Libya, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea
have rightly been seen as either direct or indirect threats to international peace and security,”
he explained in the International Herald Tribune. “Unlike Brazil, they harbor hostile intent
toward the United States,” and Bush is right to make them stop. But Brazil “presents the case of
an undoubtedly friendly nation.” Brazil would never use the weapons, Goodby concludes:
“Brazil’s nuclear aspirations lie in the fields of economics and status.”
**Brazil Leadership**
Yes Brazil Leadership
Brazilian influence grows ever stronger
John Paul Rathbone FT's Latin American editor 2011 “Foreign Relations: Brazilian influence
grows ever stronger”
“Brazil is very important to Peru,” says Rafael Roncagliolo, Peru’s new foreign minister, who
describes his approach as “absolutely pragmatic” and as focused on “strengthening regional
ties”.¶ He adds: “Nonetheless, while there are many opportunities, there are also problems and
threats. One problem is the need to remove commercial barriers and tariffs. One threat is drugs:
we don’t want to have the same supply relationship with Brazil as Mexico does with the US.”¶
Peru is currently the world’s largest producer of cocaine and Brazil – a rising consumer in its own
right – is increasingly an important onward shipment point to Europe’s fast-growing market for
illegal drugs.¶ Whatever the concerns, it appears that the links are only going to get stronger,
especially if Brazil’s early courtship of Mr Humala is anything to go by.¶ Political image-makers
from Brazil’s Partido dos Trabalhadores (Workers’ party) advised Mr Humala on campaigning
strategy and tactics. After he won the election, the first visit Mr Humala made as president was
to Brasília.¶ What is most extraordinary is that perhaps no country other than Brazil would have
been able to get away with the same strategy. It would have been unthinkable for Venezuela
or the US, for example, to have played a similar role in Peru without a huge outcry.¶ It speaks
to the might of Brazilian “soft power” – and the country’s huge gravitational pull on a
continent where it accounts for half the landmass and its neighbours cannot help but spin into
its orbit.
Brazil is quickly expanding its influence in South America
Vieira. PhD in International Relations (Department of International Relations, LSE)MA in
International Relations (Institute of International Relations, Catholic University of Rio de
Janeiro)BA in Social Sciences (Department of Sociology and Politics, Catholic University of Rio de
Janeiro) Lecturer in International Relations Department of Political Science and International
Studies ‘08
Since the beginning of the Lula administration in 2003, Brazilian foreign policy has been reoriented towards a renewed and more extended approach to regional politics. Under Lula,
Brazil’s foreign policy approach to South America has been outlined by a kind of ‘pragmatic
solidarity’ towards its neighbours. Rather than a purely altruistic approach to regional relations,
Brazilian diplomacy has delivered a number of ‘regional public goods’ (both material and
symbolic) to win over the support of neighbours traditionally reluctant to recognise Brazil’s
leadership role in the region.1 [1] This foreign policy strategy has been named by Rubem
Barbosa, former Brazilian Ambassador in Washington and London, as diplomacy of ‘generosity’.2
[2]¶ As a regional power, Brazil sought to enhance political influence by engaging in a number
of diplomatic missions throughout the region. Brazilian diplomacy has intervened in several
domestic and international crises involving Venezuela, Paraguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia
and Haiti. In 2004, Brazil sent a small force to war-torn Haiti taking over from American and
French forces commanding the UN peacekeeping operation (MINUSTAH) in that Caribbean
island. The key leadership role played by Brazil in Haiti, under the auspices of the UN, has
significantly raised Brazil’s international profile as a regional power.3 [3]¶ Rather than being
based on classical power attributes or ‘hard power’, Brazil’s influence in regional politics has
been achieved through “normative leadership” and the use of ‘opinion-shaping instruments’.4
[4] In this regard, the strategy of leading by example has been a strong feature of Brazilian
foreign policy. In 1998, for example, during a ceremony in the US State Department to mark
Brazil’s accession to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Brazilian Foreign Minister, Luis
Felipe Lampreia, hailed Brazil’s example as a force for peace and co-operation in South
America. In his words,¶ We believe Brazil has a positive role to play in the world. Brazil is proud
to live in harmony with all its ten neighbors, and to have done so uninterruptedly for well over
a century. South America today is at once the least-armed region in the world and we have
accelerated economic integration. We are setting an example of cooperation and solidarity.5
[5]¶ Brazil’s investment in ‘soft power’ as a means to increase its regional and global stature is
illustrated by its willingness to promote democratic rule and the peaceful resolution of
conflicts through the strengthening of multilateral mechanisms. More recently, it played an
important role within the ‘Rio Group’6 [6] while mediating disputes between Colombia, Ecuador
and Venezuela over the killing of a key member of the Farc guerrilla group by the Colombian
armed forces within Ecuadorian territory.7 [7]¶ The revival of ‘Bolivarianism’ by Hugo Chavez in
Venezuela as an alternative source of regional identity is a clear sign of a division in the
process of region building led by Brazilian diplomacy. However, the attractive power of
Brazil’s economy and its pragmatic stance on regional and global politics have outflanked
Venezuela’s ‘Bolivarian revolution’ in the struggle for the hearts and minds of Latin American
neighbours. Under Lula, the Brazilian government has invested in the diversification of Brazil’s
already powerful industrial sector and spent political energy trying to establish new (and
reinforcing old) regional institutions. Moreover, the recent discovery of massive oil reserves in
Brazil’s Southern coast has allowed Lula to minimize the importance of Venezuela’s only “trump
card” to win regional influence.8 [8]¶ Notwithstanding the Brazilian government’s increasing
political engagement in South America, the actual recognition of its regional leadership role
should not be taken for granted. According to Lima and Hirst, for example,¶ The expansion of
Brazil’s political involvement in local crises, together with growing trade and investment
activities with its South American neighbours, has not led to any easy or automatic
acknowledgement of the country’s regional leadership in world affairs.9 [9]¶ The advent of
open regionalism, which flowed from changes to the international political economy of trade
and the reconciliation between newly democratising governments in Brasilia and Buenos Aires
in the late 1980s, resulted in the formation of a common market in the southern cone
(Mercosur). While trade initially surged within the region, the dominance of the Brazilian
economy over the others was underscored by the unilateral decision to devalue its currency in
1999, a move that precipitated a meltdown in the Argentine economy and demonstrated that
even the newly founded benevolent relationship could have a negative impact upon its
neighbours.¶ In May 2006, the nationalisation of the gas and oil sectors by the Bolivian
president Evo Morales negatively affected bilateral relations with Brazil whose investments,
through the state-owned giant Petrobras, are close to US $1 billion. Moreover, Brazil has
struggled to gain support among its neighbours for a permanent seat in the UN Security
Council, with Argentina and Mexico openly rejecting Brazilian claims. More recently, Argentina
has angered Brazilian trade representatives by joining forces with India, China and Indonesia to
block a trade agreement at the latest Doha round of trade talks. Buenos Aires in turn has
accused Brazil of betrayal by moving away from Mercosur’s commonly agreed position on the
liberalization of the industrial sector.¶ Bilateral diplomatic relations with the United States, the
hemispheric hegemonic power, are also a key element of Brazil’s regional engagement. For the
US, Brazil has small strategic interest in South America, if compared with India, for example,
which is geographically located in a crucial region for the US’ ‘War on Terror’. However, bilateral
links have been growing due to co-operation in the strategic area of biofuels. Moreover, the
Bush administration has strongly invested in Brazil as an alternative source of regional
leadership given the divisive role played by Venezuela in regional politics. Diplomatic relations
between Brasilia and Washington have also been marked by tensions, mostly as a result of the
growing American military involvement in the Colombian conflict in the shared Amazon region.
The protection of Brazil’s sovereignty over the Amazon area has become a central aspect of
Lula’s national defence strategy and the US military presence in the Colombian Amazon is seen
as a potential threat to regional stability. Similarly, Lula has strongly reacted against criticism by
transnational environmentalists, backed by Western governments, who place responsibility for
the protection of the Amazon rain forest beyond the authority of the Brazilian government.¶ In
spite of persistent suspicion towards Brazil’s actual interests in regional politics, its global
stature and regional assertiveness has instilled admiration and respect by smaller states in the
region. Similarly, its macro-economic stability and democratic credentials have worked as a
powerful ‘soft power’ instrument vis-à-vis Brazil’s neighbours. Even Argentina, its most
strident rival, has been trying to emulate some of Brazil’s foreign and domestic policy successes.
In this respect, South-South alliances, such as the India, Brazil, South Africa Dialogue Forum
(IBSA), represent an important asset to Brasilia’s goal of consolidating its position of
leadership in South America. The recognition of this trilateral arrangement by the
international community at large will further legitimate the new role of Brazil as a global
leader and as the proper representative of South American interests.
Yes Brazil Leadership – Trade
Brazil has strong interest and leadership in the Doha Round
Saulo Nogueira, “THE INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CRISIS AND BRAZIL IN THE DOHA
DEVELOPMENT ROUND”, Institute for International Trade Negotiations,28/09/09,
http://www.nsi-ins.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/2009-Brazil-at-Doha-Paper.pdf
The DDR fits well within the national trade policy of increasing exports and expanding
market access for agricultural products, while limiting and challenging the agricultural¶ subsidies
of the developed nations. This explains why Itamaraty has placed the¶ multilateral negotiations
at the core of the country’s trade policy. Several times Foreign¶ Relations minister Celso Amorin
has stated that the Doha negotiations were the core of¶ national trade interest while the
bilateral and other negotiations were merely ‘options’.¶ Nonetheless, after the various halts in
the multilateral negotiations, a growing number¶ of critics have been pointing out that placing
all bets on the Doha Round has turned¶ costly, as other nations sign trade deals while Brazil
remains without any, significant,¶ trade agreement (Veiga, 2005).¶ Even though the Brazilian
government has faced some criticisms over the recent¶ legislations that were implemented, but
revoked, aiming at curbing imports, the position¶ and statements made by Itamaraty and
President Lula continue to be of condemning¶ protectionism during this economic crisis and
increasing efforts of closing the Doha¶ Round as soon as possible. Therefore, the demands
made by the national sectors¶ continue to find space in strategy formulation of Itamaraty, even
though the latter must¶ place these demands within the current context of the financial crisis.
Also, the¶ government has condemned some stimulus packages adopted by countries, like the
US,¶ that discourage imports from Brazil.¶ Conclusion¶ The political and macro-economic
contexts of Brazil during the previous multilateral¶ negotiations and the historic context of the
economy explain the positioning of the trade¶ negotiators during the Uruguay and the Doha
Round. The two main factors that explain¶ the positioning of Brazilian trade negotiators are: a
trade policy that had been devised to¶ open the Brazilian market significantly which was
approved by President Collor, during¶ the Uruguay Round, and the floating exchange rate of the
Real which made Brazilian¶ exports more competitive abroad, during the Doha Round, together
with the high¶ international agricultural commodity prices (Veiga, 2007). Both of these made the
trade¶ negotiators participate actively during the multilateral talks, all the while defending ¶
national interests of key sectors. The Brazilian leadership undertaken during the Doha¶ Round
in the agricultural topics can be attributed to the strong interest in this sector that¶ has grown
fast over the past decade, thereby becoming more politically relevant among¶ the trade policy
developers. Its better technical capacity allowed it to lead, together with
the Indian negotiators, the G-20 group of developing countries in questioning the
agricultural subsidies, while seeking significant tariff cuts, thereby allowing developing
countries to gain more room in international agricultural trade.
Brazil has high economic influence in Cuba
Raúl Zibechi is a columnist and international analyst for La Jornada, “Brazil's President Flexes
Clout in Cuba Trip: Rousseff Offers Closer Economic Ties, Reflecting Nation's Bid for Greater
Regional Leadership; Human Rights Remain Issue”, The Gaurdian, 2 October 2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/02/brazil-has-venezuela-back
Brazil—President Dilma Rousseff offered closer economic cooperation to Cuba during a visit to
the communist island on Tuesday, marking Brazil's highest-profile bid to transform its growing
economic might into diplomatic leadership in Latin America.¶ Brazil's state development bank
is financing a $680 million rehabilitation of Cuba's port at Mariel. Work on the port is being
managed by the Brazilian construction firm Odebrecht SA, which may also provide support for
Cuba's sugar industry, Brazilian officials have said.¶ Cuban President Raúl Castro, left, and his
Brazilian counterpart, Dilma Rousseff, review the honor guard at Revolution Palace in Havana on
Tuesday.¶ Ms. Rousseff's closer engagement of Cuba—she is visiting the island before a trip to
the White House— is the latest example of Brazil's strategy to expand its regional influence by
offering subsidized loans to poorer nations. In recent years, Brazil has disbursed tens of billions
of dollars around Latin America, and as far away as Africa.¶ But none of these efforts have the
same symbolic resonance as in Cuba, which has opposed the U.S. since shortly after Fidel
Castro's 1959 revolution and remains a lightning rod in U.S. domestic politics and a sticking point
for U.S. relations with other Latin nations.¶ "This is about growing Brazil's soft power on the
international scale and raising Brazil's role in the world," said Matthew Taylor, a Brazil specialist
at the American University's School of International Service. "Brazil is taking on a bigger role in
the hemisphere in terms of aid and finance, and by helping out Cuba they really draw attention
to this new role they are playing."¶ Although the U.S. has been the predominant power broker
in Latin America since the introduction of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, experts say the U.S.
doesn't oppose Brazil's bid for regional influence. Many analysts say they believe Brazil could
become a stabilizing force in a region known for political and economic volatility.¶ In Cuba, for
example, Brazil may provide a more moderate alternative to the impoverished island's main
economic benefactor, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. Mr. Chávez, a self-described foe of
the U.S., delivers some 100,000 barrels of oil and refined products to Cuba a day in exchange for
the services of Cuban doctors for Venezuelans in poor neighborhoods, along with other barter
arrangements.¶ Cuba, meanwhile, is desperate for economic lifelines. Raúl Castro, who has
taken over the presidency from his ailing brother Fidel, has experimented with limited economic
overhauls in order to bring life into a moribund economy, where citizens are still issued ration
books that allow them access to some basic foods at subsidized prices.¶ "The more normal
Cuba's economic relations are, the easier normalization with the U.S. will be in the future,"
said Archibald Ritter, an expert on the Cuban economy at Canada's Carleton University.
No Brazil Leadership
Brazil will fail to reach out to Cuba and Venezuela
Carlos Pascua is a Vice President and Director, Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution, “New
Directions in Brazilian Foreign Relations”, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,
September 28, 2007,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/english.brazil.foreignpolicy.pdf
The principal challenge within Washington is relative ignorance of the choices facing Brazilian
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (President Lula), whose second term in office began in
January 2007. The authors noted President Lula’s outreach to Venezuela, Bolivia and Cuba and
efforts to develop a South-South strategy during his first term, combined with lesser emphasis
on the relationship with the United States and the developed world. This had produced little
results and generated frustration and criticism within the Brazilian business community and
the media. The nationalization of Petrobras assets in Bolivia, Fidel Castro’s criticism of ethanol
production, and Hugo Chávez’s critical comments on the Brazilian Senate created uncertainty
within Brazil on the future direction of its foreign policy as a tool of national development.
Brazil lacks regional influence in Latin America
Carlos Pascua is a Vice President and Director, Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution, “New
Directions in Brazilian Foreign Relations”, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,
September 28, 2007,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/english.brazil.foreignpolicy.pdf
Based on a recent task force and report published by the Brazilian Center for International
Relations (CEBRI), he believed that Brazil lacked the committed economic and political
resources to play a leadership role in the hemisphere. Venezuela now challenged Brazil to
become the leader in South America, and consequently, Brazil’s claim to regional leadership
had been largely rhetorical. In the face of Venezuelan assertions as a petro-power and
increased political turbulence in the region, Brazil has to clarify its national interests and
develop a realistic strategy. In the day-to-day pursuit of its national interests, Brazil had failed
to develop a coherent and realistic strategy for South America. No proper regulatory
framework existed for the development of financial services, nor had the Foreign Ministry
tackled the increasing flow of illegal immigration, goods and arms. The government had
turned a blind eye to Venezuelan arms purchases —which were dangerous given the very
sophisticated missile weaponry and naval capability that President Chávez sought to acquire.
Rather than assume a global outreach, Brazil’s leaders in foreign policy had to better
understand the changes within the hemisphere and devote greater attention to relations with
neighbors.
**Brazil Stability**
Yes Brazil Stability
Brazil stable enough to attract international business
Collins 13 (Stuart, former managing editor at Business Insurance, “Brazil’s Stable Politics,
Economy Offset by Higher Taxes, Crime”, 6-23-2013,
http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/99999999/NEWS040102/120309899#1)
International clients of brokers and insurers that are attracted to Brazil by its stable political
and economic environment face levels of bureaucracy, taxes, crime and corruption that
typically are far greater than in their home markets, experts say. Many companies come to
Brazil because the business environment is more familiar than the other BRIC countries (Brazil,
Russia, India and China), said Keith Martin, Rio de Janeiro-based director of international trade
and investments with Aon Risk Solutions, a unit of Aon Corp. It also has a more stable public and
private sector and a better-proven legal framework than some other BRIC countries, he said.
However, it is not without issues, said Mr. Martin. Myriad complex tax rules, corruption and a
slow legal process are hurdles to overcome, he said. The levels of bureaucracy and lack of
transparency of rules make Brazil a difficult country to do business in, said Corina Monaghan,
New York-based vp at Aon Risk Solutions' political risk practice. “The complexity of tax rules is a
real shock for investors, and compliance is difficult because there is a lot of over-complication
and rules that are not common in the U.S.,” she said. The huge opportunities for foreign
companies in Brazil's growing economy have to be weighed up against the country's relatively
high taxes and labor costs, said Carlos Caicedo, analyst and head of the Latin American team at
London-based political risk consultancy Exclusive Analysis Ltd. “Foreign companies need to be
aware of the high costs of labor and taxes in Brazil. The tax system is antiquated and has grown
into a monster, with many layers of taxes,” he said. Labor laws are generous to workers and
distort the labor market, said Mr. Caicedo. There is a large “informal” job market in Brazil
because “favorable employee rights” discourage employment on a full-time basis, he said. The
tort system, which is similar to that in Continental Europe, also is bureaucratic, marked by a
large number of appeals and the slow processing of court documentation, said Mr. Martin. One
of the main problems for foreign investors in Brazil is corruption in Brazilian government
ministries, said Mr. Caicedo. Several companies have fallen foul of corruption; for example a
tender process for building a metropolitan rail system in São Paulo was canceled after
newspapers announced the winners six months before the closing date. The levels of political
risk in Brazil are now far lower than a decade ago, said Ms. Monaghan. But, while Brazil is
politically stable, there are differences in risk between its 27 states and 5,000 municipalities, she
said. For example, Brazilian foreign exchange rules freely allow dividends and capital to be
repatriated to investors outside the country, but some restrictions are imposed by certain
states, and this is not always well understood, she said. Political risk in Brazil has changed a lot in
the past decade, said James Thomas, Miami-based political risk and trade credit underwriting
manager for Zurich North America. “Ten years ago, people were buying currency convertibility
insurance, but this is rarely purchased today. The country now has low levels of political risk
compared with its neighbors, and expropriation risk and political violence are not really an
issue,” he said. However there is interest in political risk insurance for heavily regulated sectors
like mining and power by virtue of their complexity, said Mr. Thomas. Despite little risk of
political violence, there is concern among foreign companies with personal security and crime.
Kidnap and ransom and high crime rates are problems in Brazil, said Thomaz Favaro, Londonbased security and political risk analyst in the Americas team at global risk consultancy Control
Risks, a unit of Control Risks Group Holdings Ltd. “The security environment has failed to keep
pace with gains in the economy,” he said. Crime has been reduced in major cities like Rio de
Janeiro and São Paulo, but it has spread to smaller cities, and crime rates have risen in the north
and northeast parts of the country and midsize cities, said Mr. Favaro. The bulk is petty crime
and robbery, although theft is a particular problem. “Law enforcement on the road is poor, and
it is easy for thieves to steal cargo, even on major highways,” he said.
No Brazil Stability
No Brazil stability – middle class protests
Padden 13 (journalist, Voice of America, “Brazil’s Protests Spark Concern Over World Cup,
Political Stability” June 21, 2013, http://www.voanews.com/content/brazil-protests-worldcup/1686955.html)
In Brazil, anti-government demonstrations continue to grow in numbers and intensity as one
million protesters took to the streets in over 80 cities, some clashing violently with police.
Concern about the safety of the upcoming World Cup games is growing and the government’s
options to resolve the crisis are limited. The Brazilian government’s reversal of the transport
fare hikes that sparked nationwide demonstrations has done little to appease the protesters.
While the demonstrations have been mostly peaceful, there have been incidents of violence and
vandalism in some cities. In central Rio de Janeiro, 300,000 people marched and police
afterwards chased looters and dispersed people crowding into surrounding areas. The ongoing
unrest is raising concerns about the political stability of the government led by President
Dilma Rousseff and her Workers Party, known as the PT. There is also growing concern about
Brazil’s ability to ensure safety and security at the international sporting events it will host the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympics. Riordan Roett is director of the Latin American
Studies Program at The Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. He says the
protests are being fueled by a middle class which has grown to 40 million people, and business
centers in the south of the country that resent being heavily taxed to pay for government
handouts to the poor. “There has been a sense that the people who really run the country
financially - the south and southeast - are getting the short end of the stick with lousy schools,
terrible transportation, terrible medical care and a growing sense that Brasilia and the PT really
don’t care about Sao Paulo, the south and the southeast of the country,” Roett said. Carl
Meacham, the director of the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies in Washington, says there is little the government can do in the short term to address
the protesters’ demands. “The difficult thing is that in any democracy change is incremental. So
it’s not like the government’s going to be able to have a solution for all of these problems from
one day to the next,” Meacham said. Roett says the socialist-leaning government of President
Rousseff may be unable or unwilling to cut programs for the poor to appease the middle class,
and this issue will be at the center of the 2014 presidential election. “This provides a superb
opening for the opposition after twelve years of PT government to come forward and say, ‘See
we told you so. They don’t know how to govern. We are the opposition, we know do know how
to govern. We did govern from 1994 to 2000s,’” Roett said. Meacham says the $26 billion the
government is spending on the World Cup and the Olympics will continue to be a source of
anger. He expects major demonstrations to take place during the games. “I think it’s very
possible that these protests will be sort of a - not a sideshow, but they will definitely be part of
the narrative of the World Cup,” Meacham said. Brazil's economic uncertainty is also limiting
the government’s options. After nearly a decade-long economic boom, the country's economy
grew less than one percent last year and the annual inflation rate has climbed to 6.5 percent.
**Brazil-US Relations**
Yes – Brazil-US Relations
Brazilian-US relations are on the rise
Associated Press, “Vice-President Biden Says Brazil-US Relations Enter New Era” Huffington
Post, May 31, 2013 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/01/brazil-usrelations_n_3371818.html
BRASILIA, Brazil -- Stronger trade ties and closer cooperation in education, science and other
fields should usher in a new era in U.S.- Brazil relations in 2013, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden
said Friday.¶ Biden made his remarks after meeting with President Dilma Rousseff and Vice
president Michel Temer on the last leg of his three-day visit to Brazil.¶ "The president (Obama)
wanted to make a statement of the importance that the relationship with Brazil has for us,"
Biden said. "That is why the first state visit of the second administration is to your president. We
are pleased that your president has accepted the invitation."¶ "It is a sign of the respect we have
for Brazil. I hope 2013 marks the beginning of a new era in the relations between our two
countries," he added¶ The Oct. 23 visit will be an important diplomatic acknowledgment of
Brazil's growing influence – and also a shift back toward the middle for Brazilian foreign policy
under Rousseff.¶ Her predecessor, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, supported the Iranian government of
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's late president Hugo Chavez, both of whom
Rousseff kept at arm's length.¶ Brazilian Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota said U.S.-Brazil
relations should "focus on areas like science, technology, innovation and education."¶ Biden told
reporters he had a "wide-ranging discussion" with Rousseff who he said was a "leader who is
laser-focused on addressing the needs of the Brazilian people. I now understand why President
Obama considers her such a great partner."
No – Brazil-US Relations
Just rhetoric—no advancement of relations in the squo
Hakim, 2012
[Peter, Inter-American Discord: Brazil and the United States, 10-22-12,
http://www.thedialogue.org/page.cfm?pageID=32&pubID=3115]
Even more unsettling for US-Brazilian relations have been the clashes over global issues. Washington has been
especially troubled, and the bilateral relationship most bruised, by Brazil’s defense of Iran’s
nuclear program and its opposition to UN sanctions on Iran. The two countries have also taken conflicting positions on
nonproliferation questions, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and international responses to the uprisings in Syria and Libya. World
trade negotiations have long been a matter of contention for both nations.¶ Yet,
despite their persistent
disagreements, the US and Brazil are not antagonists or adversaries. The two countries have
maintained friendly ties for years. US presidents and other senior officials are welcomed in Brazil, and Brazilian leaders are
warmly received in Washington. The governments have consistently found ways to accommodate their differing views and defuse
tensions and conflicts. For instance, only months after Brazil campaigned against a US-Colombia security pact, it signed its own,
albeit modest, military accord with the US. Increasingly, Washington routinely defers to Brazil for leadership in South America—even
on issues where the two countries differ. The US has supported and appreciated Brazil’s management of the UN peacekeeping
mission in Haiti for the past seven years. President Obama even sought Brazilian help in dealing with the sensitive issue of Iran’s
nuclear ambitions—although it later regretted doing so when Brazil joined Turkey in a far more ambitious and public negotiating role
than had been anticipated. ¶ Brazilian and US leaders often publicly assert that their bilateral relationship is as good or better than it
has ever been, and claim that it is continuing to improve. Although
more commonly expressed by US officials,
it is not unusual for each of the two governments to refer to the other as a global or regional
partner—and to suggest that the two nations are working toward a more robust, even
strategic relationship. Yet, despite the continuing rhetoric, neither country has done much in
recent years to advance the development of deeper, more cooperative ties.
Relations are strained but not collapsed in the squo
Hakim, 2012
[Peter, Inter-American Discord: Brazil and the United States, 10-22-12,
http://www.thedialogue.org/page.cfm?pageID=32&pubID=3115]
US-Brazil relations reached a low point in the final year of President Lula’s government. On May
18, 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed outrage at Lula’s announcement from Tehran that he and his Turkish
counterpart had reached a breakthrough agreement with Iran on its uranium enrichment activities. Secretary Clinton quickly
condemned Brazil for meddling in a situation that it did not fully understand, and putting at risk a fragile international
consensus to impose new sanctions on Iran. The Financial Times reported “Hillary Clinton…all but accused Turkey and Brazil of being
international ingénues, suckered into a spoiling operation by Iran.” Secretary Clinton, however, may have been unreasonably critical
and dismissive of the Brazilian negotiating initiative—which had, after all, been initially encouraged by the White House. Moreover,
according to several highly regarded former US diplomats, the negotiations produced what Washington should have recognized as a
potentially useful outcome. Still, whoever was right, US-Brazil
relations were badly strained and have not yet
fully recovered.
Disagreements aren’t the issue—finding areas of cooperation is key to move
the alliance forward
Hakim, 2012
[Peter, Inter-American Discord: Brazil and the United States, 10-22-12,
http://www.thedialogue.org/page.cfm?pageID=32&pubID=3115]
To be sure, the US and Brazil should be working hard to resolve their disagreements. But discord is not the major
challenge confronting the bilateral relationship. Indeed, given the US’s worldwide interests and involvements
coupled with Brazil’s outsized global aspirations and its growing economic and diplomatic heft, the two countries should
expect to disagree and clash over many issues. And so far, the two counties have been remarkably successful in
accommodating their differences, keeping their clashes within bounds, and sustaining a friendly relationship.¶ No, the
central
problem for Brazil-US relations has not been their disagreements. It has been their inability to
find areas of agreement. An improved, more productive US-Brazilian relationship will require
the two countries to identify issues and goals on which they are willing to commit themselves
to sustained, long-term cooperation. ¶ For now, both nations seem comfortable with
maintaining the status quo in their bilateral relations. The two governments may have aspirations to reshape
global institutions and practices and to mold a new international order, but neither Brazil nor the US appears yet
ready to invest much in building a more robust relationship with the other.
Link – Energy
Consultation over energy is the key issue to US-Brazil Relations and the alliance
Langevin, 2012
[Mark, Ph.D., Director of Brazil Works and Mark is also Associate Adjunct Professor of
Government and Politics at the University of Maryland-University College, Energy and Brazil –
United States Relations, 8-20-12, http://www.brazil-works.com/energy-and-brazil-united-statesrelations/]
Energy has often played a central role in Brazil-United States bilateral relations. In the first half of
the twentieth century the United States based Good Roads Movement, fueled by the American Road Builders Association and the
American Automobile Association, paved the way for U.S. oil companies and auto manufacturers to bring fossil fueled cars to Brazil
(Downes 1992). In the decades following World War II, the U.S. strategic petroleum reserve and the “Atoms for Peace” program
pulled the largest nations of the Western hemisphere toward a close strategic orbit, including Brazil. It was not until the first OPEC
oil embargo in 1973 and the nuclear deal between Brazil and West Germany that bilateral relations slumped as Brazil placed its
national energy security ahead of its special relationship with the U.S. (Gall 1976:155). Since this critical juncture, Brazil
has
a world leader in biofuels, discovered massive offshore “pre-salt”
hydrocarbon reserves, and become a major international leader in climate change policy
negotiations.¶ Throughout the engagement and turbulence of Brazil-U.S. relations, particular
private sector interests and national foreign policies have swirled to elevate energy affairs
toward the top of the bilateral agenda. Both Brazil and the U.S. have called for greater
cooperation on energy matters in the past several years and under different administrations.
sworn off nuclear weapons, become
In 2007 then Presidents Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil and George W. Bush of the U.S. celebrated the biofuel boom by signing
theMemorandum of Understanding between the United States and Brazil to Advance Cooperation on Biofuels to foment bilateral
cooperation. During the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign then candidate Barack Obama promised an “Energy Partnership of the
Americas” to deliver up regional energy security in close cooperation with Brazil (Spencer 2009). In April of 2009, the U.S. ExportImport Bank extended a $2 billion facility to enable Brazil’s nationally controlled energy company, Petrobras, to obtain favorable
financing for the purchase of U.S. manufactured drilling equipment (United States Export-Import Bank 2011). In May of 2011 the
facility became operative and the Ex-Im Bank approved a request from JP Morgan Chase, acting as lender, to finance over $300
million in Petrobras’ purchases of U.S. manufactured products (Ibid.).¶ In March of 2011 Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff hosted
U.S. President Obama to herald the establishment of a “strategy energy dialogue.” Clearly,
both Presidents Rousseff
and Obama are keen on energy as a leading issue in bilateral affairs. This should come as no surprise
since Dilma is the former Secretary of Energy for the state of Rio Grande do Sul, former Minister of Mines and Energy, and former
Chair of Petrobras’ Board of Directors. Obama
has also emphasized the vital role of renewable energy
and energy security in domestic and foreign affairs, both as candidate and as president.
Today, both nations’ foreign policymakers recognize the key role of energy as a bilateral and
global issue of strategic importance; and the establishment of the bilateral Strategy Energy
Dialogue makes energy a pivotal matter for some time to come. This discussion paper examines this
fundamental bilateral issue and evaluates the challenges and opportunities for deepening bilateral and binational cooperation through the current set consultative mechanisms, including the Strategic Energy
Dialogue, across the subsectors of petroleum, ethanol, and electricity generation-transmission-distribution (GTD).
Cooperation over energy issues is key to overall relations
Joseph, 2012
[Regina, Reuters, America’s path to alternative energy runs through Brazil, 3-30-12,
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/03/30/americas-path-to-alternative-energy-runsthrough-brazil/]
On Apr. 9, President Obama will welcome President Dilma Rousseff to the United States on her
first official visit to the U.S. Brazil, which overtook the UK in 2011 to become the world’s sixthlargest economy, has South America’s second-largest proved reserves of oil after Venezuela
(and the 15th-largest in the world at 12 billion barrels of crude). If Brazil is equally engaged as a
U.S. partner (together with Canada and Mexico), a Western hemispheric energy corridor could
be built by treaty or convention, designed to harness the collective’s combined fossil fuel
capacity. Ultimately, these countries have the technological and industrial reserves needed to
jump-start the renewables sector as a replacement for its inevitably diminishing hydrocarbon
analog.¶ The consequences of such a partnership would extend far beyond the energy sector.
Commodities that will be in even greater demand, like food and water, could serve as an even
more powerful security link among the countries of the Americas, especially considering the
global agricultural dominance of Brazil and the U.S., and the freshwater reserve dominance of
Brazil and Canada. Such a collective could also serve as an important hedge against the
pressures that other rising powers like China and Russia will exert on energy, food and water
supplies.¶ But before that optimistic scenario can evolve, Obama would need to consider flipflopping on the U.S. position vis-a-vis President Rousseff’s upcoming trip. The U.S. is denying her
and her delegation the status of a “state visit,” which would confer a specific high-level value to
the meeting, ostensibly as punishment for the policy indiscretions of Rousseff’s ex-boss and
mentor, Brazil’s former President Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva.¶ Moreover, American promises of
support for India’s United Nations Security Council permanent seat bid, contrasted with
American “acknowledgment” for Brazil’s own bid, rankle in Brasilia, according to my reporting
and others’.¶ The current U.S. foreign policy stance toward Brazil carries a residual whiff of the
U.S.’s 1950s-era developmental economics approach to Latin America, as opposed to the more
robust economic amity extended to Asian rising powers. But by the same token, for real
improvement in crucial bilateral relations, Brazil will need to change its own hidebound leftwing political tendencies – the kind that recently led Rousseff, a former political prisoner, to
excoriate America’s Guantanamo policy while remaining mum on Cuba’s own history of
oppression during a state visit to Havana this past January. Only mutual acknowledgment by
Brazil and the U.S. of perceived double standards by the other will break the unspoken
diplomatic deadlock that threatens the potential for both to advance together.¶ The
administration’s shortsighted, hasty approaches to Brazil parallel its initial shortsighted, hasty
approach toward Keystone XL’s approval. Perhaps Obama will forge a new perspective with a
different eye to the former as he did to the latter, and in so doing, preserve America’s future
security.
Cooperation over energy is key to relations
Langevin, 2012
[Mark, Ph.D., Director of Brazil Works and Mark is also Associate Adjunct Professor of
Government and Politics at the University of Maryland-University College, Energy and BrazilUnited States Relations A Discussion Paper, 8-20-12,
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7MqlY1WLL8eZnJUNGxxZlpSQi1KcGRlYUlOeHRRZw/edit?pli=1
]
Energy has long been a challenge and an opportunity for Brazilian and U.S. diplomats and
lawmakers seeking to intensify bilateral cooperation. In many ways, bilateral energy cooperation has
largely developed through Brazil’s quest for energy security and its overlap with U.S. energy production,
consumption, and research and development (Langevin 2010). Contemporary bilateral energy relations are still informed by the oil
shocks of the 1970s which devastated Brazil’s balance of payments position and challenged U.S. foreign policymaking. By 1980 Brazil
was importing 83 percent of its petroleum consumption, valued at some 47 percent of all of the nation’s export revenues (Empresa
de Pesquisa Energética 2008). This overwhelming strategic energy deficit led Brazilian policymakers to double up on efforts to
achieve energy security and place energy production as the lynchpin of national development planning. Petrobras persisted in its
mission to discover oil in Brazil and around the world. Successive governments, both military and civilian, teamed up with sugarcane
growers and automobile manufacturers to insure the success of the now famous Programa Nacional do Álcool(National Ethanol
Program) or Pró-Alcool (Moreira and Goldemberg 1999). Brazil’s campaign to achieve energy security took on geopolitical
proportions as the military regime launched an aggressive plan to develop a national nuclear energy program in the early 1970s. This
program depended in large measure on transfers of U.S. capital and technology until the blockbuster nuclear reactor construction
deal reached with the West German government in 1975.¶ In 1972 Brazil and the U.S. signed a bilateral agreement to cooperate on
“peaceful” uses of nuclear energy. The agreement led to the construction of Brazil’s first nuclear reactor by the U.S. based
Westinghouse as well as the absolute dependence upon the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to supply Brazilian reactors with
enriched uranium. As Gall (1976) reports, the Brazilians were largely satisfied with their relationships with the U.S. government and
Westinghouse. However, in 1974 rising commercial demands surpassed AEC’s uranium enrichment capacity thereby leading the
commission to suspend new contracts for uranium sales to Brazil. Evidently, AEC’s decision to effectively limit Brazil’s access to
enriched uranium served to “tip” Brazilian policymakers toward the surprising strategic deal with West Germany. This case is
emblematic to the extent that it
demonstrates both the importance of bilateral cooperation to
advance Brazil’s national development goals as well as the pragmatic and political limits to
such sector specific cooperation in the absence of a broader strategic partnership.¶ Since Brazil’s
return to democratic rule in the 1980s, successive U.S. and Brazilian administrations have accelerated the
pace and amplified the scope of cooperation on energy matters. Foreign Minister Luiz Felipe Lampreia and
U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright signed a memorandum of understanding in 1997 (Republica Federativa do Brasil 1997)
that recast bilateral nuclear energy cooperation to allow for expanding commerce and exchange of information, technology,
equipment, and reactor fuels, all within the context of Brazil’s signing and ratification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).¶
Brazil and the U.S. intensified talks on energy cooperation during the overlapping period of the administrations of President Lula and
U.S. President George W. Bush, from 2003 to 2009. In 2003 then Minister of Mines and Energia, Dilma Rousseff, and U.S. Secretary
of Energy Spencer Abraham signed a modest MOU to establish and guide a series of consultative mechanisms to facilitate exchanges
on hydrogen fuel cell technology, carbon sequestration, bio-fuels, and electricity transmission (Republica Federativa do Brasil 2003).
The Lula-Bush presidential diplomacy reached its high point in 2007 with the presidents signing of the Memorandum of
Understanding to Advance Cooperation on Biofuels in São Paulo (U.S. State Department 2007). Lula described the MOU in the pages
of the Washington Post,¶ “We are launching a partnership to enhance the role of ethanol fuel in our countries’ energy mixes while
moving to make biodiesel fuel more widely available. Simultaneously, we are creating opportunities to expand these programs onto
the global stage (Silva 2007).”¶ The bio-fuel MOU recognizes the “strategic importance” of ethanol as a transportation fuel and
proposes to unleash “a transformative force in the region to diversify energy supplies, bolster economic growth, advance social
agendas, and improve the environment.” Although this agreement did not include biofuel trade liberalization between these two
largest producers and consumers of ethanol, it did raise expectations that both nations were moving toward a partnership based
largely on energy issues.¶ Upon his election in November of 2008, U.S. President Obama followed through on Lula’s vision by
accelerating bilateral energy consultation and cooperation. In July of 2010 Minister of Mines and Energy Márcio Zimmermann and
Secretary of Energy Chu signed an agreement to establish a U.S.-Brazil Bi-national Energy Working Group and Joint Action Plan to
attain¶ “the
mutual benefits of cooperation on a broad range of energy-related subject areas
that will contribute to the individual, bilateral, and regional energy security, economic
sustainability, and capacity to combat the effects of climate change(U.S. Department of Energy 2010).Ӧ
The working group is focused on five basic issue-areas, including: renewable energy, energy efficiency, oil and
gas and coal, civilian nuclear power, research and development collaboration between each country’s research
institutes. This cooperative effort may not lead to any strategic cooperation, but it does set up a collaborative
process for better understanding each nation’s energy interests, related private sector
activities, government policies and programs, and overlapping positions on global issues
related to energy security and climate change.
Energy is a key issue for US-Brazil Relations
Langevin, 2012
[Mark, Ph.D., Director of Brazil Works and Mark is also Associate Adjunct Professor of
Government and Politics at the University of Maryland-University College, Energy and BrazilUnited States Relations A Discussion Paper, 8-20-12,
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7MqlY1WLL8eZnJUNGxxZlpSQi1KcGRlYUlOeHRRZw/edit?pli=1
] /Wyo-MB
Interestingly, the 2001 CFR task force did not mention the importance of energy as either a
bilateral or regional policy priority. In sharp contrast, in 2011 the CFR composed another
independent task force that issued the report, “Global Brazil and U.S.-Brazil Relations,” and
asserted that “energy is and will remain a critical component of Brazil’s economic and political
agenda, driven by rising per capita energy consumption, development of substantial domestic
energy resources, and the need to expand existing energy infrastructure. Brazil’s investment in
this industry is a primary example of its domestic and international agendas reinforcing each
other. The United States and Brazil have common interests in improving energy efficiency,
reducing carbon intensity, promoting the development of biofuels, expanding the use of natural
gas, and managing offshore oil exploration and development(Council on Foreign Relations
2011:31).”¶ This most recent CFR report acknowledges Brazil’s noteworthy rise as a global
power in the last decade and analyzes the multiplying importance of energy at the global,
bilateral, and national levels of policymaking for both countries. In many respects, this CFR
taskforce recognized and the Obama administration is carefully measuring Brazil’s newly
gained geopolitical weight earned from the discovery of the massive, offshore pre-salt
hydrocarbon reserves in 2006. There are other energy issues of mutual interest, but it is
petroleum that now drives foreign policy discussions and offers the greatest challenges and
opportunities for bilateral partnership.
Energy is uniquely key to the new relationship
Bodman et al 11
[Samuel W. Bodman and James D. Wolfensohn, ChairsJulia E. Sweig, Project Director, The
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization,
think tank, July 2011
Independent Task Force Report No. 66 “Global Brazil and U.S.-Brazil Relations”,
http://www.cfr.org/brazil/global-brazil-us-brazil-relations/p25407?cid=emcBrazilTF_pressrelease-taskforce-07_13_11, \\wyo-bb]
President Obama’s visit to Brazil in March 2011 heralded a new phase of the U.S.-Brazil relationship.
With agreements that touched on a wide range of issues—including trade and finance, infrastructure
investment, civil aviation, energy, labor, education, and social concerns— presidents Obama and Rousseff
signaled to their respective countries that this bilateral relationship is poised to evolve into a
robust and mature friendship among equals. Yet most of the concrete deliverables announced during the trip
reflected only the low-hanging fruit of cooperation. If the United States and Brazil are invested in a serious
and deepening relationship, their conversation must continue. As in U.S. relations with such powers as
India, China, Russia, or Germany, frank and highlevel dialogue with Brazil will allow both countries to identify, acknowledge, and
manage issues of potential disagreement, which should not destabilize the relationship in its entirety.
Energy is a key component to the relationship
Bodman et al 11
[Samuel W. Bodman and James D. Wolfensohn, ChairsJulia E. Sweig, Project Director, The
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization,
think tank, July 2011
Independent Task Force Report No. 66 “Global Brazil and U.S.-Brazil Relations”,
http://www.cfr.org/brazil/global-brazil-us-brazil-relations/p25407?cid=emcBrazilTF_pressrelease-taskforce-07_13_11, \\wyo-bb]
The Task Force finds that energy is and will remain a critical component of Brazil’s economic
and political agenda, driven by rising per capita energy consumption, development of substantial domestic energy
resources, and the need to expand existing energy infrastructure. Brazil’s investment in this industry is a primary
example of its domestic and international agendas reinforcing each other. The United States
and Brazil have common interests in improving energy efficiency, reducing carbon intensity, promoting
the development of biofuels, expanding the use of natural gas, and managing offshore oil exploration and development. The
Task Force applauds the formation of a bilateral Strategic Energy Dialogue, announced by
Obama and Rousseff, to address a broad range of energy issues, including the safe and sustainable development of
Brazil’s deepwater oil and gas resources, as well as cooperation on biofuels and other renewals, energy efficiency, and civilian
nuclear energy. The
dialogue aims to encourage energy partnerships, create jobs in both countries,
make energy supplies more secure, and help address the challenge of climate change.17 The Task
Force urges both countries to ensure that this initiative becomes a self-sustaining endeavor that
brings together government officials, regulators, and the private sector to engage in
conversation, cooperation, and collaboration where appropriate.
Impact – Deforestation
US-Brazil relations solves Amazon deforestation
Zedillo et al ‘8 (Rethinking U.S.–Latin American Relations A Hemispheric Partnership for a Turbulent World Report of the
Partnership for the Americas Commission The Brookings Institution November 2008 Ernesto Zedillo Commission co-chair; Former
President of Mexico Thomas R. Pickering Commission co-chair; Former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Memb e r s o
f the Par t n e r s h i p for t h e Ame r i cas Commi ssi o n Mauricio Cárdenas Director of the Commission; Senior Fellow and Director,
Latin America Initiative, Brookings Leonardo Martinez-Diaz Deputy Director of the Commission; Political Economy Fellow, Global
Economy and Development, Brookings
The link between carbon-intensive activities and changes in the world’s climate is now well established, and the consequences will
be felt across the hemisphere. According to figure 2, if
current human activity remains unchanged, the
hemisphere will likely suffer from a variety of ecological shocks, including declines in agricultural
yields, water shortages, the loss of animal and plant species, and more frequent and destructive
storms in the Caribbean Basin. These extreme weather events could bring devastation to Central America, the Caribbean, and the
southeastern United States, imposing a heavy human and material toll. As we know from recent storms, the costs of replacing
homes, businesses, and infrastructure—along with the higher costs of energy if refineries and offshore rigs are damaged—will be
vast. Hemispheric Solutions Addressing the challenge of energy security will require making energy consumption more efficient and
developing new energy sources, whereas addressing the challenge of climate change will require finding ways to control carbon
emissions, helping the world shift away from carbon-intensive energy generation, and adapting to some aspects of changing
ecosystems. Potential
solutions to these problems exist in the Americas, but mobilizing them will
require a sustained hemispheric partnership. Latin America has enormous potential to help meet the world’s
growing thirst for energy, both in terms of hydrocarbons and alternative fuels. Latin America has about 10 percent of the world’s
proven oil reserves. Venezuela accounts for most of these, though Brazil’s oil reserves could increase from 12 to 70 billon barrels if
recent discoveries can be developed. Bolivia is an important producer of natural gas, Mexico has great potential in solar energy
generation, and several countries in the region could potentially produce much more hydroelectric power. Brazil is a world leader in
sugarcane-based ethanol production, and the United States is a leader in corn-based ethanol (figure 3). Solar and wind power,
particularly in Central America and the Caribbean, remain underdeveloped. To expand the hemisphere’s energy capacity, massive
infrastructure investments will be required. Major investments in oil production 13 (especially deep offshore), refining, and
distribution will be needed to achieve the region’s potential. Developing the Tupi project in Brazil alone will cost $70–240 billion.
Liquefied natural gas will become an important source of energy, but not before major investments are made in infrastructure to
support liquefaction, regasification, transport, and security. U.S. and Canadian electricity networks, which are already highly
integrated, can be further integrated with Mexico’s. Mexico also plans to connect its grid to those of Guatemala and Belize,
eventually creating an integrated power market in Central America. Power integration in South America will demand even larger
investments in generation, transmission, and distribution. Finally, reliance on nuclear power may grow because it is carbon free and
does not require fossil fuel imports. However, efforts to expand energy capacity and integrate hemispheric energy markets face a
variety of obstacles. Energy nationalism has led to disruptive disputes over pricing and ownership. Tensions
and mistrust in
South America have hindered regional cooperation and investment, particularly on natural gas. The
security of the energy infrastructure, especially pipelines, remains a concern in Mexico and parts of South America. Gas, oil, and
electricity subsidies distort patterns of production and consumption, and they are triggering protectionist behavior elsewhere.
Technology on renewables remains underdeveloped, and research in this area can be better centralized and
disseminated. Overcoming these obstacles will require high levels of cooperation among
hemispheric partners. In addition to developing carbon-neutral sources of energy, the Western Hemisphere has other roles
to play in combating climate change. The LAC region currently accounts for about 5 percent of annual global carbon emissions, and
emissions per capita are still relatively low compared with other regions. However, minimizing the LAC region’s future carbon
footprint will require new policies. Also, deforestation globally accounts for 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. The
Amazon River Basin contains one of the world’s three most important rainforests, whose protection can
therefore very significantly contribute to combating climate change. Brazil is pioneering the use of information
technology to lessen deforestation in the Amazon.
Amazon deforestations causes extinction and turns warming
Takacs ‘96 (David, The Idea Of Diversity: Philosophies Of Paradise, 1996, p. 200-1.)
So biodiversity keeps the world running. It has value and of itself, as well as for us. Raven, Erwin, and Wilson oblige us
to think about the value of biodiversity for our own lives. The Ehrlichs’ rivet-popper trope makes this same point; by eliminating
rivets, we play Russian roulette with global ecology and human futures: “It
is likely that destruction of the rich
complex of species in the Amazon basin could trigger rapid changes in global climate patterns.
Agriculture remains heavily dependent on stable climate, and human beings remain heavily dependent on food. By the end of the
century the extinction of perhaps a million species in the Amazon basin could have entrained famines in which a billion human
war, which could extinguish
civilization.” Elsewhere Ehrlich uses different particulars with no less drama: What then will happen if the current decimation of
beings perished. And if our species is very unlucky, the famines could lead to a thermonuclear
organic diversity continues? Crop yields will be more difficult to maintain in the face of climatic change, soil erosion , loss of
dependable water supplies, decline of pollinators, and ever more serious assaults by pests. Conversion of productive land to
wasteland will accelerate; deserts will continue their seemingly inexorable expansion. Air pollution will increase, and local climates
will become harsher. Humanity will have to forgo many of the direct economic benefits it might have withdrawn from Earth's wellstocked genetic library. It might, for example, miss out on a cure for cancer; but that will make little difference. As
ecosystem
services falter, mortality from respiratory and epidemic disease, natural disasters, and especially famine will lower life
expectancies to the point where cancer (largely a disease of the elderly) will be unimportant. Humanity will bring upon
itself consequences depressingly similar to those expected from a nuclear winter. Barring a nuclear conflict,
it appears that civilization will disappear some time before the end of the next century - not with a bang but a whimper.
Impact – Disease
Relations solve disease
Bodman et al 11
[Samuel W. Bodman and James D. Wolfensohn, ChairsJulia E. Sweig, Project Director, The
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization,
think tank, July 2011
Independent Task Force Report No. 66 “Global Brazil and U.S.-Brazil Relations”,
http://www.cfr.org/brazil/global-brazil-us-brazil-relations/p25407?cid=emcBrazilTF_pressrelease-taskforce-07_13_11,
Brazil’s investment in health research is providing tangible benefits and important successes in
developing interventions for disease, including HIV/AIDS and the so-called neglected diseases that
disproportionally affect low- and middle-income countries (such as malaria, tuberculosis, and leprosy). The
Task Force encourages the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the National
Institutes of Health to foster partnerships with their Brazilian counterparts to help build global
health capacity and collaborate in scientific research projects that could help generate novel
diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines.
Extinction
John D. Steinbruner, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution, “Biological Weapons: A Plague Upon
All Houses,” FOREIGN POLICY n. 109, Winter 1997/1998, pp. 85-96, ASP.
It is a considerable comfort and undoubtedly a key to our survival that, so far, the main lines of
defense against this threat have not depended on explicit policies or organized efforts. In the
long course of evolution, the human body has developed physical barriers and a biochemical
immune system whose sophistication and effectiveness exceed anything we could design or as
yet even fully understand. But evolution is a sword that cuts both ways: New diseases emerge,
while old diseases mutate and adapt. Throughout history, there have been epidemics during
which human immunity has broken down on an epic scale. An infectious agent believed to
have been the plague bacterium killed an estimated 20 million people over a four-year period in
the fourteenth century, including nearly one-quarter of Western Europe's population at the
time. Since its recognized appearance in 1981, some 20 variations of the HIVvirus have infected
an estimated 29.4 million worldwide, with 1.5 million people currently dying of aids each year.
Malaria, tuberculosis, and cholera-once thought to be under control-are now making a
comeback. As we enter the twenty-first century, changing conditions have enhanced the
potential for widespread contagion. The rapid growth rate of the total world population, the
unprecedented freedom of movement across international borders, and scientific advances
that expand the capability for the deliberate manipulation of pathogens are all cause for worry
that the problem might be greater in the future than it has ever been in the past. The threat of
infectious pathogens is
Impact – Economy
Relations solve economy
Bonoma, 2012
[Diego, 8-9-12, U.S.-Brazil Energy Partnership Offers Great Potential,
http://www.freeenterprise.com/us-brazil-energy-partnership-offers-great-potential]
The U.S.-Brazil energy partnership has the potential to foster energy security, economic
growth, and job creation—priorities for both countries. Reflecting this shared vision, President
Barack Obama and Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff last year launched the U.S.-Brazil
Strategic Energy Dialogue (SED), a presidential-level mechanism to strengthen bilateral
cooperation in this area.¶ We at the Brazil-U.S. Business Council applaud this effort towards a
bold bilateral partnership in energy. We have been vigorously engaged in energy cooperation to
deepen the commercial pillar of the U.S.-Brazil partnership, with an emphasis on trade and
investment promotion.¶ In this context, we worked closely with the White House, the U.S.
Department of Energy and other federal government agencies to launch the SED in August 2011.
On that occasion, deputy secretary of energy Daniel Poneman met with private sector
representatives in both São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, and officially launched the dialogue in
Brasília.¶ Further recognizing the importance of our energy partnership, this week, I moderated
a panel featuring key U.S. and Brazilian government officials at the 13th edition of the
Federation of Industries of the State of São Paulo’s Annual Energy Conference— Brazil’s largest
energy-related event.¶ During the panel, the Brazilian Ministry of Mines and Energy, along with
the U.S. Department of Energy, announced the next meeting of the SED in Washington, D.C. this
coming October. The Ministry also announced that the private sector will be, for the first time,
officially incorporated in the dialogue’s program of work – a longstanding request of the BrazilU.S. Business Council and our partners in the U.S. and Brazil.¶ The Brazil-U.S. Business Council
also launched this week its latest report: “The U.S.-Brazil Energy Partnership: Bolstering Security,
Growth, and Job Creation.” In this report, we talk about the state of the partnership and offer
recommendations for both countries to take advantage of the benefits it could bring.¶ The
potential is there for this energy partnership to develop into one of the world’s greatest and
bring real benefits for the citizens and economies of both countries. It’s great to see the
governments and private sectors of both countries’ taking steps toward it.
Solves war
Royal 10 – Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010, “Economic
Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,” in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and
Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of
external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of
attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defense behavior of interdependent
states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable
contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson’s (1996) work
on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a
pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As
such, exogenous shocks such as economic crisis could usher in a redistribution of
relative power (see also Gilpin, 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances,
increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fearon, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively
certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power
may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Seperately, Pollins (1996) also shows
that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among
major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic
conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland’s (1996, 2000) theory of
trade expectations suggests that ‘future expectation of trade’ is a significant variable in
understanding economic conditions and security behavious of states. He argues that
interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have
an optimistic view of future trade relations, However, if the expectations of future trade
decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the
likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access
to those resources. Crisis could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade
expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by
interdependent states. Third, others have considered the link between economic decline
and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong
correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of
economic downturn. They write, The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are
strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favor.
Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflict selfreinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. P. 89) Economic decline has been linked with an increase in the
likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across
borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the
popularity of a sitting government. ‘Diversionary theory’ suggests that, when facing
unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increase
incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a ‘rally around the flag’
effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995), and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence
showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and
Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for
democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to
being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that
periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically
linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlated economic
integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links
economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels. This implied connection between
integration, crisis and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves
more attention.
c
Impact – Laundry List
Relations solve and turn case – energy, climate change, prolif, and trade
Shifter, 2010
[Michael, Obama and Latin America: New Beginnings, Old Frictions, Current History109. 724
(Feb 2010): 67-73, Proquest]
The Obama administration's pragmatic and realist foreign policy orientation has logically meant
an interest in deepening relationships with the two most significant Latin American countries:
Brazil and Mexico. From the outset of his administration, Obama seems to have grasped the
vital importance of Brazil in helping to advance US interests and priorities in the region. Brazil,
increasingly active and influential in global forums such as the Group of 20, and with
aspirations to gain a seat on the United Nations Security Council, is regarded as a central
player on issues such as energy, climate change, nonproliferation, and the Doha round of
trade negotiations.
Relations solve and turn case – economy, proliferation, climate change,
renewables market and food security
Bodman et al 11
[Samuel W. Bodman and James D. Wolfensohn, ChairsJulia E. Sweig, Project Director, The
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization,
think tank, July 2011
Independent Task Force Report No. 66 “Global Brazil and U.S.-Brazil Relations”,
http://www.cfr.org/brazil/global-brazil-us-brazil-relations/p25407?cid=emcBrazilTF_pressrelease-taskforce-07_13_11
Cooperation between the United States and Brazil holds too much promise for
miscommunication or inevitable disagreements to stand in the way of potential gains. A
strengthened U.S.-Brazil relationship could be the basis for economic growth in Brazil, the United
States, and globally, as well as for lasting peace and democratic stability in the region, nuclear
nonproliferation, international progress on combating climate change, development of a
global renewable energy market, global food security, and more legitimate and effective
international institutions. Presidents Obama and Rousseff have laid the groundwork for progress on many of these fronts.
The moment to build on this positive foundation is now.
Impact – Terrorism
US-Brazil relations are key to military and security cooperation solves terrorism,
narcotics trafficking and organized crime
Brown, 2012
[Lieutenant Colonel Lawrence T. Brown, Restoring the “Unwritten Alliance” in Brazil—United
States Relations, Strategy Research Project, 3-23-12, http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA560773]
Strengthened military relations naturally flow from improved diplomatic ones. As ¶ regional leaders,
the United States and Brazil can focus their combined security efforts ¶ and resources against
common threats to the two nations—and to the entire Western ¶ Hemisphere. Intelligence sharing
during the upcoming World Cup and Olympic games, ¶ coordinated counterterrorism measures in the Tri-Border
Area, and disrupting narcotrafficking between South America and Africa are among the more pressing security ¶
cooperation initiatives that can bring greater security to both countries and to the ¶
hemisphere. Close security and defense cooperation in the future, absent the historic ¶ shadow of U.S. imperialism,
will help in re-establishing the “Unwritten Alliance” dynamic ¶ between the United States and
Brazil that flourished in the first half of the 20¶ th¶ Century.¶ When Brazil hosts the World Cup and Olympics in a couple of years,
it is in the ¶ U.S. national interest to assist Brazil’s efforts in countering terrorism, curbing drug 533¶ trafficking, and reducing
international crime. This United States provided similar support ¶ to South Africa during the World Cup in 2010 – assisting the
prevention of devastating ¶ terrorist attacks on that world stage. Averting another “Munich” is certainly in
the interest ¶ of the United States and indeed of all world sporting events. For the 2010 World Cup, ¶ South African security services
benefited from security grants and extensive training: ¶ “Specifically,
Anti-Terrorism Assistance has provided
Underwater Explosive, Critical¶ Incident, and Special Events Management, Chemical,
Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, ¶ and related equipment training.”¶ 42¶ Both the 2006 World Cup in
Germany and the ¶ following one in South Africa transpired successfully with low-key U.S. security ¶ assistance. There were no
terrorist attacks, despite ongoing large-scale operations ¶ against terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan at the time. When President
Obama visited ¶ Brazil in 2011, one of the agreements resulting from the trip was a Memorandum of ¶ Understanding (MOU)
between the U.S. and Brazil concerning world sporting events¶ cooperation. Security was one of the MOU’s six focus areas of
cooperation. This MOU ¶ is foundational for the U.S. Department of State and Defense to provide any future ¶ support desired by
the Brazilian government.¶ 43¶ One of the great strengths of the United States resides in its intelligence ¶ databases, whose holdings
and effectiveness have grown substantially since 9/11. For ¶ the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Summer Olympics in Brazil, an
intelligence sharing ¶ mechanism would help deter terrorism threats. Successful
physical or virtual sharing ¶ could
continue afterwards to address other regional security threats, such as drug ¶ trafficking or
organized crime. Of course, extending temporary intelligence sharing after ¶ the world sporting events may be problematic
due to Brazilian memory from its 534¶ authoritarian past, when the military regime collected intelligence to deter internal ¶
dissent.¶ 44¶ U.S. officials have the next four years to convince the Brazilian government of ¶ its benign intentions. With less than
two years before the opening kick of 2014 World ¶ Cup, beta testing of this provisional intelligence sharing arrangement should
begin ¶ immediately to track terrorist threats likely to originate in the “Tri-Border Area” of South ¶ America. ¶ Exposed Southern
Flank¶ The United States has long worried about the “Tri-Border Area” (The TBA is the ¶ name given to the area surrounding the
border shared between Brazil, Argentina, and ¶ Paraguay). In these border towns, laws are minimally enforced, money is laundered,
drugs, and people are trafficked. Organized crime and Islamic extremism ¶ have thrived
there due to a lack of effective law enforcement from the three border ¶ nations.¶ 45¶
Concerns increased after 9/11 that Al-Qaeda could transit potentially porous ¶ borders,
perhaps through Mexico, to attack U.S. interests in North America.¶ 46¶ Today, as ¶ the specter
of war with Iran rises because of its purported pursuit of nuclear weapons, ¶ the concern has
moved from devastating attacks from Al-Qaeda to devastating attacks ¶ from Hezbollah and
its patron Iran. As recently as October 2011, Iran was accused of ¶ authorizing and financing an assassination attempt against
¶ and weapons,
the Saudi Arabian ¶ Ambassador to the United States and of contemplating further attacks in Argentina.¶ 47¶ Successful terrorist
attacks against Argentina were carried out in 1992 and 1994 by a ¶ Hezbollah militant organization supported by Iran. Terrorists
exploited the TBA during¶ each operation.¶ 48¶ The most telling evidence of potential terrorist attacks out of the TBA ¶ surfaced
during a Hezbollah militiaman’s interview by the Spanish television station 535¶ Telemundo. During the interview, the Hezbollah
militant stated emphatically that if the ¶ United States attacked Iran, then Hezbollah would conduct retaliatory attacks inside the ¶
United States.¶ 49¶ One counterterrorism expert, Edward Luttwak, described Hezbollah’s ¶ most important base outside Lebanon as
the TBA from which they have already ¶ supported terrorist attacks: “The northern region of Argentina, the eastern region of ¶
Paraguay and even Brazil are large terrains, and they have an organized training and ¶ recruitment camp for terrorists.”¶ 50¶ The
historical evidence of terrorist activity emanating from the TBA is chilling. If ¶ the current crisis with Iran is not resolved by the time
of the 2014 World Cup and the ¶ 2016 Olympics, then the Brazilian government will need substantial help in preventing¶ potential
terrorist attacks to disrupt games that will attract a global audience. Even
now, ¶ Hezbollah terrorists may be
inclined to strike at Israeli or American targets in the ¶ Western Hemisphere in retaliation for a
recent UNSC resolution that placed additional ¶ sanctions on Iran. Hezbollah attacked its targets in
Argentina for lesser reasons in 1992 ¶ and 1994.¶ 51¶ This is why intelligence sharing with Brazil must start
now. The last time the ¶ United States held a 3+1 Group Meeting (Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina, and the United ¶ States) on TBA
security was in 2004.¶ 52¶ This Group should re-convene at the earliest ¶ opportunity to assess the current terrorist threat within
the TBA and to determine the ¶ probabilities of Hezbollah becoming operational if Iran is attacked.¶ 53¶ Nevertheless, ¶
collaborative intelligence initiatives must extend to the World Cup and Olympic ¶ timeframes if Iran continues to violate UNSC
resolutions concerning its nuclear ¶ program.
It is in both countries national interests to prevent attacks
against their ¶ homeland. Certainly, Brazil does not want its territory utilized as a springboard
for 546¶ attacks within the region. Full cooperation in this security arena will assist in
preventing ¶ the unthinkable until the Iran crisis over-dual use nuclear material is resolved.¶
Narco-Terrorist Connection¶ Cooperation in breaking the Brazil—West Africa narcotics
connection is ¶ another area where national interests converge. In 2009, Brazil became the primary ¶
embarkation point for South American cocaine headed for West Africa. In West Africa, ¶ “there is evidence by the U.S. Drug
Enforcement Agency (DEA) that Latin American ¶ traffickers are collaborating with Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and ¶
Hezbollah to smuggle cocaine to Europe.”¶ 54¶ The Executive Director of the U.N. Office of ¶ Drugs and Crime (UNODC) also
confirmed that
terrorists from Africa used money from ¶ drug trafficking to resource operations,
purchase equipment, and provide salaries for ¶ their ranks.¶ 55¶ It is common knowledge that
the United States conducts counterterrorist ¶ operations against AQIM, and seeks to stop any
funding derived from the transshipment ¶ of cocaine from Latin America. Although Brazil itself does not
produce significant¶ amounts of cocaine, it does have 10,500 miles of mostly unsecured coastline. In ¶ addition, three of the world’s
top producers of cocaine border Brazil: Columbia, Peru, ¶ and Bolivia. Brazil has invested more heavily in enforcing its borders since
the ¶ economic boom, but the United States could assist by continuing the same intelligence ¶ sharing mechanism that has been
proposed for the World Cup and Olympics. ¶ Additionally, Brazil’s unmanned
aerial surveillance (UAS)
program is currently in its ¶ infancy; it could benefit from the experience and systems of the
mature U.S. ¶ programs.¶ 56¶ Building on the predicted intelligence successes of the World Cup and¶ Olympics, this
cooperation could perhaps expand to neighboring countries. Eventually, 547¶ it could evolve
into a hemispheric security network serving the national interests of all ¶ participating nations.
Nuclear terrorism risks extinction
ALEXANDER (Dir. Inter-University Center for Terrorism) 2000
[Yonah, “Terrorism in the 21st Century”, Depaul Business Law Journal, p. ln
More specifically, present-day terrorists have introduced into contemporary life a new scale of
terror violence in terms of both threats and responses that has made clear that we have entered
into an Age of Terrorism with all of its serious implications to national, regional, and global
security concerns. n25 Perhaps the most significant dangers that evolve from modern day
terrorism are those relating to the safety, welfare, and rights of ordinary people; the stability of
the state system; the health of economic [*67] development; the expansion of democracy; and
possibly the survival of civilization itself.
AT: Brazilian-US Relations
Relations resilient – Disagreements don’t overwhelm the relationship.
Peter Hakim 04, president of the Inter American Dialogue, 2004
http://www.worldaffairscouncils.org/Great%20Decisions/topic6%20US%20Latin%20American%
20Relations.pdf
In the near future, Brazil, more than any other country, will affect Washington’s ability to advance its foreign policy agenda in Latin
America—and on some issues, it will influence the prospects of U.S. policy success outside the region. The
U.S. and Brazil
disagree on many issues, including the FTAA and other trade matters. The main test of the
relationship will not be whether Washington and Brazil can find areas of cooperation and
agreement. Instead, it will be whether they can continue, as they have done so far, to
accommodate their divergent national interests and goals, tolerate differing political
perspectives, and avoid conflict.
Relations resilient – We assume their disagreements argument.
Gentile 04 (Carmen, staff, United Press International, 11/3/04)
Amorim stressed that relations
between Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and the Bush
administration have been good in recent years despite occasional conflicts over trade and
other issues. Meanwhile, U.S. Ambassador to Brazil John Danilovich said Wednesday that during Bush's second term in office,
the United States and Brazil could go back to work on creating a free trade bloc in the Western Hemisphere, a proposal that has
been contested by Brazil in recent months due to the United States' unwillingness to make certain concessions regarding subsidies
and tariffs. Brazil would like a fresh start to relations with the United States, though doesn't really expect
much over the next four years regardless of who is in the White House. Although Bush vowed to improve U.S. ties with the region
when he assumed office in 2001, U.S. interest has been limited to trade issues and subsidies. Brazil has, for the most part, remained
off the Bush administration's radar, which has focused on Iraq and the war on terror. "The truth is that for countries like Brazil, it
makes little difference (is) elected president of the United States," Brazil expert and Harvard Prof. Kenneth Maxwell told the leading
news magazine, Veja. "The focus of American external policy will continue to be far from Latin America." Despite the scant attention
paid to Brazil over the past four years, U.S.-Brazilian relations have been acrimonious at times since leftleaning President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva took the reins of South America's largest country in January 2003.