{"id":111884,"date":"2013-04-01T17:25:12","date_gmt":"2013-04-01T20:25:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/?p=111884"},"modified":"2016-01-21T13:16:44","modified_gmt":"2016-01-21T15:16:44","slug":"brazils-position-in-the-world","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/brazils-position-in-the-world\/","title":{"rendered":"Brazil\u2019s Position in the World"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"The

CLARA LACERDA<\/span>The Ministry of External Relations Building in Bras\u00edliaCLARA LACERDA<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n

\u201cDiplomacy exists to defend the State, not just a government,\u201d says Ambassador Fernando de Mello Barreto.\u00a0 \u201cHence the perenniality of Brazilian foreign policy, with its consistently supra-partisan approach that is connected, as in most countries, to economic interests that are permanent.\u00a0 In the case of Brazil, that characteristic extends even further: the determinants of our foreign policy are found in the Constitution,\u201d he explains.\u00a0 This is not merely an opinion.\u00a0 Barreto \u201cproves\u201d the existence of that stability, in contrast to commonly-held views, in a meticulous analysis of actions taken by Brazil\u2019s foreign ministers during the last 25 years.\u00a0 The result was A pol\u00edtica externa ap\u00f3s a redemocratiza\u00e7\u00e3o <\/i>(Foreign policy after redemocratization), published by the Alexandre de Gusm\u00e3o Foundation.\u00a0 What one observes in the almost 1,400 pages of the study is that although Brazil has had several presidents, Itamaraty has been a rock of stability.<\/p>\n

\u201cOf course there have been differences in the priorities set by the various administrations.\u00a0 These have usually been subtle, despite their external appearance as breaks with the past.\u00a0 In general, changes in course were made because of changes in the external picture that demanded adjustments.\u00a0 But instances of a change in traditional policies have been rare, the diplomat finds.\u00a0 Even the advent of redemocratization did not change the picture: Olavo Set\u00fabal, minister of external relations under President Jos\u00e9 Sarney and the first to hold that post after the end of the dictatorship, said in a speech given upon his investiture that he would continue the military leaders\u2019 foreign policy.\u00a0 What Barreto demonstrates from the chronological trajectory of Brazil\u2019s foreign ministers is the validity of the theory laid out in a research study by Tullo Vigevani, a full professor retired from Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) and researcher at both the Center for the Study of Contemporary Culture (CEDEC) and the National Institute of Science and Technology for Studies of the United States (INCT-Ineu), supported by FAPESP.<\/p>\n

\u201cEven during the Lula (Luis In\u00e1cio Lula da Silva) administration, we did not see a significant break with historical paradigms of foreign policy, but rather a change in the emphases given to certain options that had opened up earlier with respect to our action on the world stage,\u201d Vigevani observes.\u00a0 \u201cWhat we see are distinct diplomatic traditions with differences in actions, preferences and beliefs, targeting different specific results while trying not to depart from the unvarying objective of developing this country economically and preserving a certain degree of political autonomy,\u201d he observes.\u00a0 And so, to this researcher the central concept that explains the course of foreign policy from 1985 to the present is the pursuit of autonomy.<\/p>\n

Vigevani\u2019s hypothesis is outlined in his book entitled Brazilian foreign policy in changing times: the quest for autonomy from Sarney to Lula<\/i> (Lexington Books) that recently went into its second printing in the U.S. Autonomy is understood as the ability of Latin Americans to protect themselves from the negative effects of the international system and the pressure exerted by more powerful countries.\u00a0 It is said to be expressed in three forms: by distance from those countries (the Sarney administration\u2019s option); by active participation in international institutions (as under the Cardoso administration); and by the diversification of partnerships and forums of action (during Lula\u2019s administration and continuing under Dilma Rousseff).<\/p>\n

And so, despite the absence of a rupture by the Sarney administration (1985-89), American pressures caused foreign ministers Set\u00fabal and Sodr\u00e9 to adopt more liberal and less independent postures because of the negotiations surrounding external debt and the disputes concerning patents in the fields of pharmaceuticals and information technology.\u00a0 The end of the Cold War placed the Collor government (1990-92) between two divergent postures in diplomacy: although Collor had departed from traditional practices in aligning this country with the values of the developed countries, Brazil grew closer to the Southern Cone.\u00a0 Rezek and Celso Lafer (who returned to Itamaraty under Cardoso), Collor\u2019s foreign ministers, were responsible for formulating a policy that led to the establishment of Mercosur under a treaty signed by Collor and adapted to the new era of open regionalism.<\/p>\n

\"Ceremony

PEDRO MENDEZ \/ AFP<\/span>Ceremony in Paraguay at which the Treaty of Asunci\u00f3n was signed that laid the groundwork for Mercosur in March 1991. From left to right: Collor de Mello; Andres Rodriguez, of Paraguay; Carlos Menem, of Argentina; and Luis Lacalle, of Uruguay.PEDRO MENDEZ \/ AFP<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n

\u201cInvariably, however, presidents and ministers of external relations placed high priority on relations with neighboring countries, especially the closest ones, such as Argentina, which still plays a central factor in achieving consensus in Mercosur,\u201d Barreto agrees.\u00a0 \u201cThat approach also came with redemocratization, which enabled Brazil to perceive that we have problems in common with the rest of Latin America,\u201d he says.\u00a0 When FHC (Fernando Henrique Cardoso) was Itamar Franco\u2019s minister of external relations, and later, as president (1995-2002), traditional themes of Brazilian democracy were resurrected, such as the expansion of national autonomy, summed up in the Brazilian intention to occupy a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, an aspiration raised back in the days of Sarney.\u00a0 \u201cOnce again, diplomacy benefited from democracy.\u00a0 Since we were a redemocratized country, we could demand the same from the UN and the other nations, which explains the question of the permanent seat,\u201d notes Barreto.\u00a0 \u201cOf course that issue could not even be mentioned during the military governments.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWith the end of the dictatorship, policies were adopted with respect to human rights, rejection of the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and support for the new ecological demands (under the Sarney, Collor, Franco, and FHC administrations).\u00a0 Brazil was no longer committed to the denunciations made by the military governments, could expand its presence on the international scene, and seek greater autonomy, thus facilitating the work of its diplomats,\u201d Barreto says.\u00a0 According to Vigevani, that movement reached its zenith during the Cardoso administration, when attempts were made to internalize the liberal changes suggested by globalization, while at the same time maintaining support for state-owned economic instruments.\u00a0 \u201cIt was a cooperative perspective, yet without failing to denounce international asymmetries and criticize the American policy of unilateralism,\u201d Vigevani opines.<\/p>\n

Consistency with the global agenda permitted the adoption of the \u201cautonomy through participation\u201d strategy in which Brazil did not isolate itself but worked with the rest of the world in the search for a position better suited to its new international influence.\u00a0 \u201cEven so relations with the United States were characterized by uninterrupted reiterations of longstanding issues.\u00a0 The appearance of a bilateral change was due more to actual actions and circumstances than to changes in Brazilian foreign policy,\u201d Barreto observes.\u00a0 The Lula administration (2003-2011) did not alter that essence, although it had opted for what Vigevani calls \u201cautonomy through diversification.\u201d\u00a0 The keystone was approximation among countries of the South to assume a larger role and increased bargaining power in international negotiations, instead of a unipolar world,\u201d the professor explains.<\/p>\n

\"068-071_Diplomacia_204\"<\/a><\/p>\n

In Lula\u2019s second term, the directives were pursued more deeply, with special attention to relations with emerging nations such as China, India, Russia, and South Africa, yet without prejudicing the Bras\u00edlia-Washington axis.\u00a0 \u201cImproved economic conditions in Brazil made it possible for the country to embark on a policy that would include Sub-Saharan Africa, from \u201cvocal action\u201d against apartheid<\/i> during the Sarney government to the more recent approximation and cooperation,\u201d says Barreto.\u00a0 Brazilian positions in the Middle East also remained stable.\u00a0 \u201cDuring the Collor government there was support for repeal of the resolution that treated Zionism as a form of racism; in the Lula government, Palestine was recognized as a State.\u00a0 In both cases, despite apparent differences, what occurred was simply an accentuation of clear tendencies that differed little from those of other members of the United Nations,\u201d the diplomat says.<\/p>\n

Vigevani emphasizes the contradiction between Brazil’s desire to be both a \u201cglobal trader\u201d and a \u201cglobal player.\u201d\u00a0 The effort to achieve diversification in partnerships with developing countries like China and India is an obstacle to the expansion in the scope of agreements with Mercosur countries, because resources and efforts at cooperation are being concentrated on actors who are more important than Brazil\u2019s neighbors,\u201d the professor observes.\u00a0 The relative insensitivity of certain groups to regional questions, allied with the priority placed by the Lula government on global issues such as intervention in Iran, makes it hard for Brazil to exercise its strategy of autonomy through diversification with countries in its immediate vicinity.<\/p>\n

But Fernando de Mello Barreto rejects the criticism that Lula\u2019s foreign policy was \u201cpoliticized.\u201d\u00a0 \u201cDiplomacy is politics, always.\u00a0 Just take a look, and you\u2019ll see that the great majority of ministers of external relations came from the world of politics.\u00a0 There were only two career diplomats \u2013 Luiz Felipe Lampreia and Celso Amorim,\u201d he recalls.\u00a0 \u201cBe that as it may, re-democratization was a road that took Brazil to a new international position.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Foreign policy under redemocratization pursued greater autonomy","protected":false},"author":24,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[165],"tags":[223],"coauthors":[117],"class_list":["post-111884","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-humanities","tag-diplomacy"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111884","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/24"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=111884"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111884\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=111884"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=111884"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=111884"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=111884"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}