Brazilian Foreign Policy Post-1985: Regional Challenges and Global Ambitions. Draft Paper. Flávia Santos Lloyd, M.A., J.D.

Transcription

1 Brazilian Foreign Policy Post-1985: Regional Challenges and Global Ambitions Draft Paper Flávia Santos Lloyd, M.A., J.D. Abraham Lincoln University School of Law Fleming s Fundamentals of Law Abstract Being the de facto leader of South America is something that Brazil is proud of, but being a de facto leader does not necessarily equate to regional or global support and trust. This project discusses the changes in foreign policy, diplomatic approaches, and theoretical perspectives in Brazil post-1985 when democracy was reinstated. The collapse of the bipolar world after the end of the Cold War coupled with the change to a democratic form of government forced Brazil to review its realist positions, liberalize its markets, move to end absolute control of State enterprises, and insert itself in the new globalized world order in line with liberal policies, leading to positive and negative results. What this study argues is that the pursuit of foreign policy under liberal principles has been an overall effective approach for the country. However, democracy is still at its infancy in Brazil, which means that theoretical paradigms from the authoritarian regime still linger in its foreign policy. The results are mixed policies and mixed signals to the world, which affect the nation s chances for success as a regional and global superpower. Brazil needs global support to achieve its goals, but in order to get this support, it needs consistency in its rhetoric, theory, and practice. Panel: Governance in Foreign Policy: External Relations and Diplomacy

2 Introduction Developing nations face dilemmas and challenges in their quest for power, development, and global relevance. Brazil s case is not different. Since the implementation of democratic rule in 1985, Brazil has seen successes and failures as a new democracy. Brazil is an important nation because of its size, economic status, and fast development. Under the democratic administrations of recent years, the country has significantly developed and many see a promising future in Brazil s horizon. As the largest country in South and Latin America, and with a history that goes back to 1500, Brazil provides a complex web of factors that often point towards advancement, but at the same time, suggest retrogression and stagnation in certain areas. Foreign policy is one area that Brazil has struggled with in its new democratic reality. Brazil s post-1985 discourse in the diplomatic arena and foreign policy falls into both realist and liberal patterns. Note, however, that governments do not follow only one particular school of thought since these concepts are complex and have different ramifications in different areas of a government. In the case of Brazil, there is a mix of theoretical positions, and the country has a tendency to lean more towards liberalism since the democratic years, but to say that Brazil is one way or another would be trying to fit the country into a particular shape or pattern and that is not possible, at least for the time being. The reasoning behind this conclusion is Synder s (2004) proposition that using realism, liberalism, and idealism to discuss public policy and reach generalized conclusions turns these theories into intellectual window dressing for simplistic worldviews (Snyder 2004, 54). Therefore, by trying to categorize Brazil under a particular doctrinal school of thought, there must be an understanding that statements cannot be broad or generalized. Brazil has improved its stature on the world stage despite taking antagonistic foreign policy stances, questioning the authority of the United States and other nations, and defying the status quo. Brazil s diplomatic decisions, positions, and relationships with North and South America illustrate these approaches. With each new policy, however, come theoretical questions that need to be answered to understand the sometimes conflicting messages Brazil sends to the international community. Is Brazil staying in line with its nationalist and realist positions of the military dictatorship years? Or is Brazil moving towards a more liberal stance that is supported by the global marketplace even though the liberal paradigm may shock the nationalist conscience that still is so pervasive in the Brazilian politics, policy, and even the diplomatic corps psyche? There is no right or wrong way to answer these questions. Nonetheless, this analysis focuses on the notion of theory and practice in Brazil s foreign policy in the 28 years after the end of the authoritarian regime. In recent years, the realities of an interconnected world and international institutions have resulted in the liberalization of the realist norms of Brazilian foreign policy. This theoretical framework is important and relevant to the study of Brazil as a nation because it provides the reasoning behind foreign policy decisions that may seem controversial or not based on sound policy. Understanding the basis for these decisions may not lead to agreement with the policies, but it may clarify the reasoning and the school of thought behind certain choices or rhetoric. Brazil s days of self-interest positions, military power, state diplomacy and lack of acknowledgement of the evolving international world order are over, but it does not mean that realism lost its presence. What democracy brought to Brazil, especially the governments of Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1995 to 2002) and Luis Inácio Lula da Silva (2003 to 2010), is a change with the recognition of the importance of the global economy, other states, international institutions, and the pursuit of peace. These positions are consistent with a liberal framework. It

3 is interesting to see how both former presidents, who belong to parties that have radically different ideologies, were overall in agreement with the direction that country was being led to in terms of foreign policy. Nonetheless, the pursuit of power in the realist context has not lost its significance and, military power and what this type of power can accomplish are still important and relevant considerations. In fact, the quest for power, a realist notion, seems to be the driving force behind Brazil s decisions. Consequently, the liberal shift has a more pragmatic character to it than a complete ideological reshaping of Brazil s foreign policy and diplomatic school of thought. What this study will show is that a combination of liberal policies and the democratic rule are the key elements for Brazil to continue on its successful path. Literature Review The literature in this area shows that through different policies and areas of government, Brazil has changed its foreign policy, opened itself to coalitions, and sought alliances. Even during two leftist governments (Lula and Rousseff s), Brazil has been able to avoid extremist positions such as the ones held by Bolivia, Venezuela, and Ecuador, to name a few. The literature review is divided in two themes: 1) background/data information and 2) theoretical works. The background/data information section discusses the works used that are relevant for this project, but they do not address the liberal and realist analysis presented by this paper. The theoretical section discusses the theories presented here, but they are not specifically applied to the argument proposed by this analysis, which is that Brazil s advancements and future depend on the utilization of a liberal approach since the data shows that the move Brazil made towards liberalization has been effective. Bethell s (2010) analysis discusses Brazil s diplomatic and economic decisions, which are often rooted in its dissociation with its geographical location and more linked to its cultural heritage from Portugal and Europe. Bethell s work (2010) fits in with the arguments presented by other authors whose works are used in this analysis because it is consistent with the notion that Brazil and its relationship with South and Latin America need improvement and the roots of these problems are complex. The negative approach by Brazil and its inadequate efforts in the Latin/South America relationships is a constant theme in this research. Nonetheless, there is no specific theoretical explantion for why certain attitudes have been taken. The authors often focus on the historical prism and not the theoretical aspect of the issues presented. Bethell s (2010) analysis points out that Brazil only recently started to move towards engagement with its neighboring countries in South America, which is also something the authors used in this literature review agree with. Brazil s recent approach of working with and improving relations with its neighbors is part of Brazil s quest for regional power, but it is also a quest for regional support, which are issues the country is still struggling to accomplish. Bethell (2010) provides a context that describes and introduces the frame of mind that the nation is operating under, which is a necessary foundation to understand why certain positions are or are not taken by Brazil. This position is taken a step further in this analysis because Bethel s mostly focuses on historical and anthropological perspectives. Boadman and Wolfensohn (2011), a significant source of data because of their analysis of Brazil s relationship with the United States, South/Latin America, and the world, is consistent with the general argument presented by the other authors regarding Brazil s foreign policy. While the authors do discuss the actual positions taken by Brazil, the discussion of liberal and realist paradigms is missing. Another work of significance for this project because of its narrow focus on strategy is

4 Brands (2010). Brands (2010) focuses on Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva s ( Lula ) presidency from a strategy standpoint, which is important in the study of the Brazil-U.S. relations and South and Latin America relations. Brands (2010) focuses on three diplomatic strategies that Lula pursued in his government to empower Brazil: a balanced approached regarding the United States influence; the development of coalitions in order to increase Brazil s status and influence; and a move towards engagement with other nations in South America. Brands (2010) arguments are relevant because of his analysis of past issues, but he does not analyze theory or prescribe a path for a better approach for Brazil to follow. Brands (2010) also discusses the obstacles to the achievement of these goals such as ineffective infrastructure, violence, high taxes, Brazil s complicated relationship with its neighbors, the long-term effects of Lula s partnerships, and its relationship with the U.S., which is something the author argues Lula and now the current administration have aggressively pursued. Lula s strategy was a powerful tool that helped Brazil in the international forum, but he often was at odds with the United States positions on issues and his rhetoric was inconsistent since he supported the notion that Brazil wanted to improve relations with the U.S., but at the same time, he wanted to pursue coalitions with other weaker nations, a realist notion, to confront the superpower. In line with other authors that discuss the problems within the South American context, but that leave theory and analysis of the future aside, Dominquez et al (2003) provide an important insight on an obstacle Brazil has in its pursuit of regional power through diplomacy and foreign policy: border and boundary disputes. The balancing act that Brazil must perform here poses a threat to Brazil s quest for regional power because sovereignty is important and defending its borders is part of national defense. That said, Brazil borders 12 countries, and diplomatic relations can and do become contentious because of border disputes. While Domiguez et al (2003) explain the relative peace among the nations in South America, the authors argue that the nations do have a history of conflict and tension because of border and boundaries problems. Considering the size of Brazil and the defense policies regarding its borders, border issues do affect Brazil s diplomatic relations. Geography and geopolitics are extremely important for Brazil and its foreign policy efforts. After all, only China and Russia have longer land borders than Brazil, which abuts on all but two of South America s 12 countries (Eunaudi 2011, 7). The effects of military intervention in the area pose questions about the intrinsic relationship among sovereignty, the need to secure borders, and the need to maintain positive diplomatic relations. Dominguez et al (2003) work creates a context for the author of this project to expand and discuss the balancing act between realist powers versus liberal powers because the issues that fall under each theory, but are not addressed in their work. Einaudi s (2011) analysis of the Brazil-United States relationship is on point to the issues discussed in this analysis because it discusses the strengths and weaknesses of Brazil, and the reasons why both the United States and Brazil need to foster a good relationship. His argument falls in line with other authors in this analysis, but under a narrower scope since the focus are Brazil and the United States. However, the discussion of facts without their theoretical foundation leaves a vacuum for the real understanding of positions taken by Brazil. This relationship is important for strategic reasons for both nations, but Einaudi s work allows the author to use the data provided to show the conflicts between liberal and realist concepts that both countries face in their relationship. Einaudi (2011) provides a condensed overview of key areas relevant to the Brazil-United States relationship, and he ends his paper with prospects and policy recommendations for the United States and Brazil, Einaudi s (2011) arguments are

5 reasonable, but both countries have taken steps that undermine their relationship and the author of this project expands of the aspect that Einaudi (2011) did not expand on. In line with authors who present Brazil s problems and ineffectiveness as a regional leader, but who do not discuss the theoretical foundations underlying Brazil s views and posture, De Lima and Hirst (2006) present a detailed analysis of Brazil and its role as a state and regional power. The authors detail Brazil s efforts to be recognized as a big country in the world forum, but they also discuss the pitfalls and needs of the nation that hinder its chances of ever achieving the status it wishes in the world s arena. De Lima and Hirst (2006) describe Brazil in a way that provides data to show the geopolitical, social, and economic dynamics of the region - from the multilateral approaches to the economy and diplomacy, the tense regional politics with its neighbors, the relationship with the United States, to the challenges associated with social inequality. Varas (2009) analysis is applicable to this analysis because he addresses current challenges affecting Latin America, Brazil included, from a global perspective. Topics such as the current economic crisis and how the world order is affected by the challenges affecting several regions of the globe are discussed, but Brazil is not the main focus and a theoretical perspective is not addressed. Varas (2009) discusses inter-regional relations in South America, extra-regional relations, and cooperation frameworks. The article highlights obstacles that Latin America faces from the present time to the future and provides criticism to former and current polices. Next, Vilela and Neiva (2011) provide data on Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Lula s diplomatic and foreign policy shift through presidential diplomatic engagement, which is an important source of data for the author because it provides the author with information that corroborates the theoretical arguments presented in this paper. From a theoretical perspective, several works are also used, and these works, even though relevant and applicable to the arguments presented here, do not make the connection between realism and liberalism when examining the theoretical foundations of Brazil s foreign policy. Fernandez Xavier (2012) is one of the few works that spends a significant time discussing the theory of Brazil s foreign policy since Fernandez Xavier s (2012) point of view is from an insider since he is a former diplomat, but the author s views are presented from a historical perspective even when discussing theory. Pautasso (2012) discusses foreign policy and theory from a South-American perspective. He discusses the practical steps Brazil has taken to reduce the inequalities of the Mercosul and the role liberal policies implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Lula had in the attempt to improve the status of Mercosul. Note, however, that the inference of a liberal approach is presented by the author of this analysis and not discussed in Pautasso s (2012) paper. Paixão e Casarões (2012) discusses the theoretical shift from realism to liberalism in the Fernando Collor de Mello s administration, and the role of the president and the Ministry of External Relations in the pursuit of liberal policies. This paper is in line with the arguments presented in this project, but the focus of Paixão e Casarões is only the two years of Fernando Collor de Mello s presidency, which means that the other recent administrations still need to be analyzed and reviewed. Walt (1998) and Snyder s (2004) discussion about realism, liberalism and their principles are used to provide the theoretical basis for the discussion and concepts discussed in this project. They are important works that do not discuss Brazil, but they provide the theories necessary to engage in this analysis. What these works have shown is a pattern of difficult relations between Brazil, the U.S., South and Latin America. What these materials failed to argue or present,

6 however, is how the change in the political regime, the end of the Cold War, and most importantly, a change to liberal thinking in terms of economic policies, have changed Brazil s status and propelled Brazil into the international forum. The arguments presented in this analysis compliment the above mentioned works. Purpose Statement The purpose of this project is to demonstrate the positive correlation between the pursuit of more liberal positions and Brazil s increased relevance in the world forum. The examples used to illustrate said positions confirm the sound reasoning of this statement. The pursuit of more power through military spending, attempts to control other neighboring nations, and protectionist trade policies, which are positions consistent with the realist school of thought, have proven negative and ineffective for Brazil. This paper s goal is to illustrate how Brazil operates under both theoretical paradigms after democratization in Research Question The working theory to be tested in this analysis is that Brazil will only be able to advance in the global arena and foster more effective relationships with other nations if it is able to change its protectionist economic policies, pursue more equilibrium in its relationships with other nations in Latin America, continue on the liberal path, and work towards developing a better relationship with the United States. In the past 28 years, several administrations have taken steps towards these recommendations, but not enough has been done. Will Brazil be able to achieve its goals if it there is no balance between its realist and liberal policies? Theoretical Framework Brazil s diplomatic endeavors are a relatively new topic. Brazil returned to a democratic system of government in 1985, after years of authoritarian regimes. In the first years of democracy, diplomacy was not a significant concern for Brazil; a brief discussion about that time period is included in this paper to provide context. After the election of Fernando Henrique Cardoso in 1995, Brazil entered the world forum per se. Thus, the focus of this analysis is the past 28 years. Diplomatic relationships since then are still evolving. Even though there are studies about Brazil s diplomacy, the subject is often discussed from a historical view. No other work has analyzed each administration, compared approaches, and expanded on how each administration pursued diplomatic policies under realist or liberal views regardless of political party affiliation. The theories used in this paper will be realism and liberalism. As Walt (1998) indicates, the premise behind realism is that States are concerned about their self-interests and the States actively pursue power or security. The paper will argue that realism does not provide an adequate framework for Brazil s success, and examples of policies developed under the realist premise will be given to support this contention such as the still powerful military, the focus on policies that go against the regional organizations such as Mercosul, Unasul, polices that are good for the locals, but not for the global economy, among other examples. The second theory presented in this analysis is liberalism. As Walt (1998) states, liberalism is based on the notion that the quest for power is undermined by economic and

7 political needs and considerations. The argument presented is that Brazil s goal of becoming a global power can be achieved if it leaves its self-interests aside, or least remove this position from the center of its foreign policy/diplomacy paradigms, and increase its cooperation in the international economic and institutional arenas. Significance of the Research Paper Several authors discuss foreign policy after the end of the dictatorship and how Brazil changed ever since, but no author presents a North-South analysis highlighting the events that led to Brazil is today s standing using a comparison between realism and liberalism/neoliberalism as the foundational source. Demonstrating that the liberal approach is better for Brazil does not only answer questions related to past decisions, but it also provides ideas for the future. This project is important because it fulfills a void since the focus on recent presidents is new, democracy is still at its infancy in Brazil, and the population still questions the soundness of the liberal positions after years of realist indoctrination under the disguise of national pride, nationalism, and love for the country. Expressions such as Brazil is ours, The Amazon is ours, Brazil, love it or leave it, The Oil is Ours, among others, are still commonly used in Brazil, but they are not used to invoke patriotism. They are used to create fear in the population that other nations are coming to take over Brazil; and therefore, protectionism and state ownership are the appropriate policies for the country to defend itself against a takeover. The citizen s position, even though important and relevant, does not have a place in this discussion since the focus of the analysis is policy and theory behind policy. Thus, the voter s point-of-view is not discussed in this project. Brazil s current balancing act between what is good for the country, what is good for the world, and what is good for the international institutions is a work in process with positive and negative examples. A recent positive example of this balancing act is Brazil s stance about the United States alleged surveillance of communications of Brazilian citizens. Brazil is currently focusing on sending a strong message to the United States to prove the value of Brazil s sovereignty by using its public diplomacy efforts to showcase the alleged threat to the Brazilian sovereignty. At the same time, Brazil was the first nation to question the National Security Agency s ( NSA ) surveillance matter on a multilateral level by raising concerns about possible violations of the Vienna Convention in the international organization context. Brazil s diplomatic efforts seek to gather support from the international community to take a stand against the alleged violations. This example shows a balanced approach that shows the value of sovereignty and the reliance on international organizations to address international issues. This study provides a broad overview of Brazil as a nation, how the current foreign policies shape its current status within the theoretical framework, and the key events and issues that may shape its future. Colonization, slavery, racial, social, economic, and gender inequalities, and the lack of a defined identity, are a few of the problems that led Brazil to its slow development and long-standing status as a less developed Third World nation. While these are internal problems, they reach in the foreign arena in through different ways. Since the end of the authoritarian regime, the country has changed its foreign policy paradigms, among other significant changes, that changed the country for the better. The security and defense structures are also interconnected and important to Brazil s foreign policy goals as shown with Brazil s attempt to send a strong message to the world about its military. In sum, besides the discussion about topics that are relevant and timely, this study is

8 important because it explains how the move towards liberalism in Brazil took place and how it relates to the country s global agenda. Research Design The main goal of this project is to analyze Brazil s diplomatic relationships with North and South America to prove that some of its policies are hindering its goal of becoming a global power; but at the same time, that the country s liberal tendencies are putting the country on the right path for success. This will be accomplished by dividing the analysis in several parts: 1) a background section that will contextualize Brazil as nation; 2) a discussion about the transition to democracy and the criticisms of the liberal model; 3) diplomacy, which is an introduction regarding Brazil s diplomatic thinking and theories to contextualize the discussion; 4) Brazil s current status, achievements, and obstacles to success - a discussion of Brazil s current policies, how they fit (or do not fit) in the global world order, and a prospective analysis arguing that the nation s policies will (or will not) help the nation s goals; 5) the Brazilian defense and the realist views; 6) Brazil, the United Nations, and the duality of Brazil s approach; 7) Brazil and South America - a critical analysis of some of Brazil s polices with South America that have had positive and negative results, and how they affected Brazil s influence and power; 8) Brazil, the United States, and the world - a critical analysis of some of Brazil s diplomatic policies with North America that have had positive and negative results, and how they affected Brazil s influence and power; 9) Foreign alliances to counter the United States and other superpowers; 10) a conclusion summarizing the data proving the theory that Brazil has pursued diplomatic paths that will help the nation become more than a regional power if it continues on its current path and eliminates its remaining outdated realist positions. This project will use a mixed method approach. Therefore, quantitative and qualitative methods will be used. In order to gather the necessary data for the study, several techniques will be employed. First, a quantitative analysis will be done through the use of charts, data and statistics, which are necessary information to explain Brazil s diplomatic data and examples of successful and failed policies. The second quantitative method employed will be the gathering of data from governmental and private agencies to obtain information and data to support and validate the concepts presented in the study. Tables, charts, and graphs will be used to provide an organized and visually appealing presentation of the data analyzed. The qualitative aspect will be demonstrated by the use of documented viewpoints of several scholars who discussed Brazilian diplomatic relations, theories, history, and their relationship with the country s strategies, successes, and failures. Thus, the data collected in the quantitative analysis will be used to substantiate and illustrate the author s point of view and prove or disprove the assertions made by the scholars used in the qualitative discussion. Limitations of the Study There are several limitations to this project. First, there are limitations on the availability of data for the analysis. Obtaining materials from the Ministry of External Relations ( MRE ) / Itamaraty was difficult and the coordination of interviews with the members of the diplomatic corps was impossible because their availability was after the deadline submission of this project. Second, this project is offering a broad analysis and the policies discussed here are used to exemplify why the liberal approach has overall been better for Brazil. Thus, if there is no significant in-depth discussion about a particular policy, it is intentional, since the goal is to

9 provide examples and not discuss the policies themselves. Another limitation is the difficulty in compiling data from Itamaraty s policies in line with liberal and realist views in the past decades because, as Fernandez Xavier (2012) points out, to date, the explanations from an ideological paradigm are insufficient to develop a comparative study. Only in the Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Lula s administrations Brazil has taken on specific strategies for its insertion in the international forum, but even these positions are inconsistent, which make it difficult to quantify them. Therefore, quantifying the data is one major difficulty in analyzing Brazil post The policies are new. The way of thinking is new. The data is new. Background This analogy may seem strange but, just like children, countries grow up and develop depending on the way they were raised. For example, if a mother raises her child to be successful, independent, educated, and prosperous, the child will most likely display some or all of these traits; at the least, the child will have better chances for success. On the other hand, if a mother has no expectations, dreams, or aspirations for her child and does not push the child to achieve something, the child will most likely follow a less promising path. This is a broad generalization, and as with every rule, there are exceptions. Brazil was raised by its mother, Portugal, to be the source of its income, the recipient of the lowest caste of individuals and outcasts of the Portuguese society, and a host country for slaves brought from certain regions of Africa. This is a far cry from countries that were built based on religious freedom, liberty, and dreams. Therefore, to discuss the theoretical foundations of Brazil, one cannot forget its colonial roots that helped shape the country s line of thinking and subsequent policies. Brazil was Portugal s colony until its independence in 1822, but by then, the damage was already done the core of the country was established and the problems that plagued the country, and still plague it to this day, can be traced to the country s colonial beginnings. This disparity, created by colonization, used to be evidenced by the nomenclature associated with a country s status in the global order: the First World (the industrialized powers of Europe, North America, and Japan), the Second World (consisting of the Soviet Union and its allies), and the Third World (independent and less-developed states that usually shared a colonial past) during the Cold War (Kegley and Blanton 2011). Currently, because of globalization, the end of the Cold War, and the development in South America, and particularly in Brazil, it is difficult to classify countries with one specific label. A specific nomenclature no longer fits all. Brazil is full of contradictions one can see significant developments in the South and Southeast, but at the same time, regions in the North and Northeast do not have basic necessities such as sanitation, clean water, and access to education. These striking differences within the country itself make it difficult to adequately classify its status. The economic background that explains Brazil s lack of development comes from the relationship between the colonies and the colonizers. For instance, mercantilism, defined as the trade system that has as its goal the accumulation of wealth and power by supporting the idea of exports over imports (Kegley and Blanton 2011), was the way Portugal saw Brazil: as a producer of silver, gold, cotton, and other products that helped Portugal maintain its status in the global economy of that particular time. This school of thought lost its appeal in the economic circles, and the classical liberal economic theory and laissez-faire economics became common place

10 (Kegley and Blanton 2011). However, mercantilism had its impact in Brazil. Another reason why economic development has been difficult for Brazil is the lack of a solid political foundation. Since the country was founded to be basically a supplier of goods and labor to Portugal, there was never a concern for the political order, constitutional rights, or the standing of the country in the political world. Consequently, Brazil went through several regimes. There is a correlation between the lack of economic development and political stability in Brazil, which translate to other areas such as foreign policy. To illustrate this constant shift in regimes, a brief overview is warranted. Brazil went through an imperial phase after its independence in 1822, became a republic in 1889 shortly after slavery ended, became a fascist dictatorship in the 1930s, went back to a democratic regime around 1945, then became a military dictatorship in 1964, and finally democracy was restored in 1985 (Powell et al. 2011). These were different regimes, with different economic orders, and world views. The lack of consistency and stability had lasting effects on Brazil s economy and its relationship with the world general. Besides the lack of good government and effective management of resources, one of the reasons why Brazil has been able to develop economically is the implementation of the democratic rule since Brazil s return to democracy is relatively recent, but the effects of this stability have been felt in the social, economic, and global areas. The shift from an agricultural and slave society to being a significant player in the industrial world has been achieved through a difficult and complicated path. What can be concluded, however, is that post- 1985, with democracy and the implementation of liberal approaches, Brazil has reached a level of global relevance and success that were unimaginable just a few decades ago. Transition to Democracy and Criticism of the Liberal Model Since the Fernando Collor de Mello s administration (1990 to 1992 short term because the president was impeached), a slow liberalization of the Brazilian economy has taken place. This was accomplished by reducing import taxes, privatizations of state-held businesses, and the end of subsidies, which are just some examples of economic policies that had the goal to enhance and change the national economy. However, these moves proved to be initially ineffective, especially because some of Collor de Mello s measures such as freezing prices, wages, and bank accounts, were highly unpopular. The goal was to curb inflation, but most Brazilians did not expect to wake up one day and have no access to their money and bank accounts. Thus, many questioned the soundness of opening the Brazilian markets. Nonetheless, even during the short period of his presidency, and regardless of the behaviors that led to his impeachment, Collor de Mello can be credited with planting the seeds of liberalism in Brazil. Some critics argue that the neoliberal model adopted by Collor de Mello s administration was not effective because Brazil opened itself to the markets in an undisciplined manner, without any internal or external balances, which led to an increased dependency to other nations instead of providing an equilibrium between national needs and the forces that drive the global world (Fernandez Xavier 2012). It took Fernando Henrique Cardoso s government ( ) and Lula s (2003 to 2010) for the liberal approach to produce some positive results. Another argument against the liberal approach was that richer nations preach liberal positions to less developed states, but in reality, they do not follow through with the their own end of the bargain and reciprocity is non-existent (Fernandez Xavier 2012). For instance, Europe states that nations should open up their markets, but then, it does not open its own markets to the primary products of the South. The United States criticize human rights violations in Asia, Africa, and South America, but the United States does not sign the American Convention of

11 Human Rights and has the Guantanamo Bay base still in operation. China defends market liberalization, but its currency is devalued to increase exports. These are just a few examples of the reasoning behind Brazil s reluctance when it comes to the liberal market approach and effectiveness. Brazil s former president, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who did not belong to a leftist party, believed that international capitalism had a negative effect for the developing countries, which is a position that he later changed (Bitencourt). Fernando Henrique Cardoso s policies later reflect this change in opinion. The nationalist and protectionist mindsets are often seen in Latin America and are not unique to Brazil, but even Fernando Henrique Cardoso had to adapt to the new realities and challenges presented by globalization. Fernando Henrique Cardoso paved the way for Lula s success by developing the Real Plan, which was successful in addressing the inflation problems. One of its main measures was to sell government-held businesses. An example of one such inflation-reducing move was the sale of state-owned Telebras, Brazil s sole telephone and communication company (Rohter 2010). The company was ineffective because the government could not fund it adequately, which mean that the company could not keep up with the demand for telephones, which in turn made people go to the black market to purchase a phone, and a phone line would cost up to $1,500 (Rohter 2010). The author remembers family members in the 1980s checking their lottery number to see if they were selected to receive a phone line that they had been paying for months (if not years). Phone lines were such a high commodity that loans would be taken out on them, almost comparable to an equity line of credit in a home in the United States. The point here is that there was one state-run company, a supply that could not meet the demand, and a company that drained the nation s budget. Fernando Henrique Cardoso seized on the opportunity to bring competitiveness to Brazil by breaking up Telebras in regional divisions, and selling them to private investors regardless of whether or not the purchaser was Brazilian, which a significant step in at that time considering the fear of foreign investment in the country (Rohter 2010). Selling state-owned companies to foreign entities when the rhetoric of Brazilian-only was so pervasive even in democratic administrations qualified Fernando Henrique Cardoso s moves as unprecedented. The result: more competition, more access, better service, and even better reach since even the most remote areas of Amazon now have telephone and cellular coverage (Rohter 2010). Move such as the ones done with Telebras are liberal steps. Therefore, Brazil started to break its own traditional realist positions. Foreign investors took notice of the Real Plan s stability, the opening of the country, and foreign investment became part of Brazil s lexicon. Lula s government took over Fernando Henrique Cardoso s government with the mindset that Brazil needed to focus on three tendencies: 1) remove the illusion of harmony out of the equation by transitioning from utopic multilateral positions to multilateral reciprocity between central countries and emerging countries; 2) pursue policies that will eliminate, or at least reduce, Brazil s technological and financial dependency in other countries; and 3) reinforce the idea that South America can be the platform needed for Brazil to project itself in the world forum (Cervo 2008). However, there is one major issue that Cervo (2008) does not seem to factor in his argument: Brazil s strained relationship with South America. Brazil s diplomatic and economic decisions are often rooted in this dissociation with its geographical location and more linked to its cultural heritage from Portugal and Europe (Bethell 2010). Recently, Brazil has started to move towards an effective engagement with its neighboring countries in South America (Bethel

12 2010). It is also important to note, however, the feeling is mutual: Spanish America has never thought of Brazil, with its Portuguese roots, as part of Latin America. This identity issue is not something simple it has a significant historical background that developed in a complex context. Another significant issue is that Brazil s identity has changed several times throughout time. Brazil has wanted to be French; then Brazil wanted to be American; but Brazil has never wanted to be South American. This cultural distance from South America is a negative factor because as geopolitical theorists have indicated, nations in the quest of power need to conquer others who have cultural similarities to the conquering nation since it would be an easier assimilation process (Whittlesey 1943). Even though Brazil is not trying to conquer other nations in South America in the warfare sense, the idea of cultural proximity would help Brazil in its acceptance as regional leader. Whereas Brazil and other nations in South America share Catholicism as their religion, the cultural affinity often ends at that point. In sum, the lack of latinidade of Brazil poses significant challenges for Brazil s quest to become a superpower in the regional forum. What can be said, however, is that the realist policies Brazil has pursued in the region added to the problem, led to mistrust, antipathy, and resentment, which only hinder Brazil s chances of regional leadership. Brazil has recognized that self-interest and non-bargaining are not effective ways to pursue leadership, and even though a more liberal approach has not yet solved all of the country s problems, it has significantly improved the South and Latin American relationships. Diplomacy Before discussing Brazil s diplomacy, it is important to contextualize the role of the diplomacy in a country because otherwise, it may seem that the author is advocating that Brazil needs to take on the liberal doctrine at the expense of its internal needs. That is not the case here. Diplomacy, external politics and international relations are intertwined concepts and cannot be discussed in a vacuum. In this discussion, diplomacy means the defense of domestic interests in the relationship with the other international actors. This means that the goal of diplomacy is the pursuit of foreign policy that puts the world in a position favorable to the domestic sectors (Fernandez Xavier 2012). What the author argues is that even if the multilateral agreements do not necessarily guarantee success, what the world order has shown is that unilateral positions are indeed deemed to fail and one main reason for these failures is the fact that several themes of the world s agenda cannot be looked at from a country s isolated standpoint, regardless of how powerful the country is (Fernandez Xavier 2012). The Brazilian diplomacy has gone through significant shifts in thought, but these shifts were not easy. The Ministry of External Relations ( MRE - Itamaraty) still has a difficult time distancing itself from the old practices of institutional and professional diplomacy to the presidential diplomacy now in place, which was started by the Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Lula s administrations (Vilela and Neiva 2011). In these two governments, the president took an active role and to a certain extent upset the institutional diplomacy by taking a more active and pro-active role in the pursuit of diplomatic relations. The data supports this contention since up to 2010, Lula and Fernando Henrique had spent 16% and 12% respectively outside of Brazil compared to their democratic (post-1985) counterparts: 5% of Itamar Franco (president 1992 to 1994), 8% of José Sarney (president from 1985 to 1990), and 10% of Fernando Collor (president from 1990 to 1992) (Vilela and Neiva 2011). This change shows that the executive realized that

13 presidential diplomacy, along with liberal policies, are good ways to obtain goodwill in the international community. This shift in the diplomatic posture is important because the Ministry of External Relations /Itamaraty used to have a realist and pragmatic view of the international relations (Fernandez Xavier 2012).This position was acceptable when the world order was a bipolar world centered in the conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union because the existence of this bipolar world supported the realist/neorealist views of the world (Fernandez Xavier 2012). After 1985 and the end of the Cold War, the Brazilian diplomacy was faced with questions about its beliefs and the stability of the status quo. Brazil Current Status, Achievements, and Obstacles to Success Brazil s former president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva ( Lula ), is credited with changing the status quo and empowering Brazil to a level that it has never seen before, even though his policies may have perceived as too grandiose by some. On the other hand, others argue that Lula s grandiose expectations for Brazil and his vision for the country are the reasons for Brazil s success amidst so many challenges. Whether the critics and supporters are right or wrong, it is undeniable that the foreign policy paradigms have changed under Lula. Brands (2010) outlines the approaches that Lula followed that led to Brazil s current standing. The three diplomatic strategies that Lula pursued in his government to empower Brazil were: a balanced approached regarding the United States influence; the development of coalitions in order to increase Brazil s status and influence; and a move towards engagement with other nations in South America (Brands 2010). Brazil had (and still has) many obstacles to its success. Historically, however, it would be difficult to imagine that Brazil was ever going to be able to achieve any level of success. Examples of some of these obstacles are: the regional differences and a condescending attitude towards other nations in South America; the heritage of political instability from the authoritarian period ( ) in which Brazilian s credibility was badly hurt abroad; the constant financial problems, changes of currencies, rampant inflation, among other problems. To illustrate the country s instability: just between 1940 and 1995, Brazil had eight different currencies (Rother 2010). These examples are just some of the problems that Brazil had that made the country look as an unfortunate and unfixable nation (Brands 2010). Additionally, social problems such as poverty, an ineffective education system, lack of sanitation systems, lack of access to education and basic healthcare needs in certain areas of the country made Brazil have a grim outlook. What Brazil has on its side is a diversified economy in which the manufacturing of goods accounts for more than a quarter of Brazil s gross domestic product ( GDP ) of nearly two trillion. Agriculture and mining are important areas as well, but they account for less than 10% of the gross domestic product (Rohter 2010). The economy had potential and these two presidents capitalized on it. Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Lula s governments also changed Brazil s paradigm by focusing on diplomacy and multilateral approaches. Brazil became active in international institutions such as the United Nations ( UN ). It helped with the formation of Mercosul, one of the trade agreements of the South, which was a significant step towards an opening of the Brazilian market and allowed the beginning of the discussion on trade issues. Even though Mercosul effectiveness is questionable, it still was a significant step taken by Brazil nonetheless.

14 A stable political system also aided in Brazil s status, but most importantly, the reduction of poverty through social programs was one of the major successful steps that gave Brazil the international credibility it wanted (Brands 2010). Brazil still has ineffective infrastructure problems; high rate of violence often related to poverty and lack of opportunities; social, gender, and racial inequality; high taxes, and other issues that while significantly reduced, still affect the nation s ability to reach the level of success it desires in the global forum. These internal issues are significant because regardless of realist or liberal tendencies, the international forum is constantly monitoring the internal situation of a nation to determine whether or not to regard the country seriously in its foreign relations. Upcoming events such as the World Cup, the Olympics, and the Papal visit are some of the events that will test Brazil s infrastructures and readiness for a more significant international voice and status. Lula s diplomatic moves also took place because of Brazil s interest in the pursuit of a seat in the United Nation s Security Council. A seat in the UN s Security Council means veto power on important matters. One of Lula s arguments for the inclusion of Brazil in the UN Security Council is that the current makeup of the Security Council is not in line with the current geopolitical realities of the world, and what was current in 1948 is not what it is current today (Brands 2010). The confidence to pursue such a coveted role comes from Brazil s economic standing and its role in the global economy, a liberal perspective. However, this approach by Lula was also rooted in the changes in military thinking and policies that have significantly evolved since the end of the Cold War, but that are interestingly in line with a realist point of view as well. Brazil has also tried to establish itself in the world forum with its climate policies by partnering with UN on several climate issues such as the hosting of the 1992 Conference on Environmental Development, and by maintaining a dialogue with developing nations on climate matters. This increased involvement with the UN and other international organizations show Brazil s engagement with the world, a liberal move. At the same time, in an example of the constant pull and push between realist and liberal tendencies, Brazil is also worried about international climate programs because of their effects on the economy in addition to posing sovereignty questions. With each step, unfortunately, there is a misstep. While Brazil is engaged in the liberal stance of addressing and trying to work with international organizations, its trade policies are still in line with the realist school of thought. The graph below shows how the Brazilian economy is still very much closed when it comes to trade. A comparison among three Mercosulmember nations shows the disparity in trade since trade in Brazil represents a small percentage of the country s GDP compared to its neighbors (Boadman and Wolfensohn 2011). For a country s of its size, Brazil s trade GDP is an indication of the remaining realist view in the economy.