O que é este blog?

Este blog trata basicamente de ideias, se possível inteligentes, para pessoas inteligentes. Ele também se ocupa de ideias aplicadas à política, em especial à política econômica. Ele constitui uma tentativa de manter um pensamento crítico e independente sobre livros, sobre questões culturais em geral, focando numa discussão bem informada sobre temas de relações internacionais e de política externa do Brasil. Para meus livros e ensaios ver o website: www.pralmeida.org. Para a maior parte de meus textos, ver minha página na plataforma Academia.edu, link: https://itamaraty.academia.edu/PauloRobertodeAlmeida;

Meu Twitter: https://twitter.com/PauloAlmeida53

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/paulobooks

Mostrando postagens com marcador Brazilian Foreign Policy. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador Brazilian Foreign Policy. Mostrar todas as postagens

terça-feira, 12 de maio de 2020

The Reconstruction of Brazilian Foreign Policy - former Brazilian ministers

The Reconstruction of Brazilian Foreign Policy

Published by O Estado de S. Paulo, Folha de S. Paulo, O Globo, Valor Econômico
May 8th, 2020


Despite our distinct political trajectories and opinions, we, who have all held high positions in the sphere of international relations in various governments of the New Republic, express our concern with the way in which the country’s foreign policy has systematically violated the guiding principles of Brazil's international relations as defined in Article 4 of the 1988 Constitution.

An innovative document in this sense, the Constitution states that Brazil “is governed in its international relations by the following principles: I- national independence; II- respect for human rights; III- self-determination of peoples; IV- non-intervention; V- equality between States; VI- defense of peace; VII- peaceful resolution of conflicts; VIII- repudiation of terrorism and racism; IX- cooperation between peoples for the progress of humanity; X- granting of political asylum”.

It furthermore states that “The Federative Republic of Brazil will seek the economic, political, social and cultural integration of the peoples of Latin America with a view to forming a Latin American community of nations.”

Comparing the principles of Brazil’s Constitution with the government’s actions in the realm of foreign policy reveals that the latter contradict the former in both letter and spirit. True national independence cannot be reconciled with subordination to a foreign government whose explicit political strategy is to promote its own self-interest above all other considerations. A government that declares itself a steadfast ally of that country relinquishes its own independence. In doing so, the current administration embraces an agenda that threatens to drag Brazil into conflicts with nations with which we maintain relations of friendship and mutual interest. Furthermore, it departs from the universalist principle of Brazilian foreign policy and its ability to open dialogue and build bridges with different countries, developed and developing ones, for our own sake.

Some other examples of recent contradictions with the provisions of the Constitution include the following: support for coercive measures in neighboring countries, violation of the principles of self-determination and non-intervention; vote in the United Nations for the imposition of a unilateral embargo in violation of the rules of international law,  equality of states, and peaceful resolution of conflicts; endorsement of use of force against sovereign states without authorization from the UN Security Council; official approval of political assassination and vote against resolutions by the Human Rights Council in Geneva to condemn the violation of such rights; defense of the policy of denying indigenous peoples the rights guaranteed to them in the Constitution; disregard for issues such as discrimination on grounds of race and gender.

In addition to contravening the Federal Constitution, the current strain/breed of foreign policy has imposed serious costs on the country, such as the collapse of external credibility, loss of markets, and capital flight. This damage will undoubtedly prove difficult to repair. 

Admired in the realm of environmentalism since Rio-92 and long viewed as a leader in sustainable development, Brazil now figures as a threat to itself and others due to the ongoing destruction of the Amazon and the worsening of global warming. Brazilian diplomacy, traditionally recognized as a force for moderation and balance at the service of consensus building, has become a subordinate player to an aggressive and dangerous unilateralism.

In Latin America, the nation has shifted from an advocate for regional integration to a supporter of interventionist adventures, giving way to extra-regional powers. We have given up the ability to stand up our interests by collaborating to deport Brazilian workers from the United States in inhumane conditions. We have done so once more by deciding to withdraw all Brazilian diplomatic and consular personnel from the neighboring country of Venezuela for purely ideological reasons, leaving behind helpless Brazilian nationals residing there. 

In Western Europe, we now antagonize important partners, such as France and Germany, in practically all fields. The current course of anti-diplomatic action distances Brazil from its strategic objectives by alienating nations that are essential to the implementation of the government's economic agenda.

The grave health crisis posed by Covid-19 further revealed the ineffectiveness of the current Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its counterproductive role in helping the nation gain access to medical products and equipment. The sectarianism fueling otherwise inexplicable attacks on China and the World Health Organization, coupled with the disrespect for science and the insensitivity to human lives demonstrated by the President of the Republic, has made the government an object of international derision and disgust. At the same time, it has also jeopardized the efforts of governors seeking to import products that are desperately needed to save the lives of thousands of Brazilians.

Rescuing Brazil's foreign policy will require a return to constitutional principles, rationality, pragmatism, a sense of balance, moderation and constructive realism. In this process of reconstruction, it will be incumbent on the Judiciary – guardian of the Constitution and the National Congress, representative of the people's will – to fulfill their role by ensuring that diplomatic actions truly abide by the principles laid out in the Constitution.

In order to respond to the yearnings of our people and the real needs of Brazil, foreign policy needs to elicit broad support in terms of opinion. It must be collaborative, with respect and consideration for all sectors of society. It also requires the engagement of our diplomatic corps at service of the country toward a State policy rather than partisan actions aimed at arousing spirits and exacerbating the prejudices of a reactionary minority. We offer our sympathy and decisive support for diplomats who have been humiliated and embarrassed by positions that clash with the best traditions of the Foreign Ministry.

Reconstructing Brazilian foreign policy is urgent and indispensable. By leaving behind this shameful page of subservience and irrationality, let us once again place at the center of diplomatic action the defense of our independence, sovereignty, dignity, and national interests. Let us embody once more all the values, including solidarity and the search for dialogue, that have helped build the heritage and boost the pride of the Brazilian people.

Authors: Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Aloysio Nunes Ferreira, Celso Amorim, Celso Lafer, Francisco Rezek, José Serra, Rubens Ricupero and Hussein Kalout. 

–– Fernando Henrique Cardoso is former President of the Republic and former Minister of Foreign Affairs;
–– Aloysio Nunes Ferreira, Celso Amorim, Celso Lafer, Francisco Rezek and José Serra are former Ministers of Foreign Affairs;
–– Rubens Ricupero is a former Minister of Finance, Minister of the Environment and a former Brazilian Ambassador to Washington;
–– Hussein Kalout is a former Special Secretary for Strategic Affairs for the Presidency of the Republic. 

domingo, 22 de setembro de 2019

The importance of presidential leadership for Brazilian foreign policy - Sean Burges (Foreign Policy, 2017)

O artigo abaixo foi escrito pelo brazilianist Sean Burges em 2017, ou seja, bem antes que se imaginasse que a diplomacia do Brasil e a sua política externa fossem ameaçadas por lideranças tão medíocres quanto as atuais.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

The importance of presidential leadership for Brazilian foreign policy
Policy Studies, 2017
Sean Burges

quarta-feira, 21 de agosto de 2019

Brazil: From Global Leader to U.S. Follower - Helder do Vale

Brazil: From Global Leader to U.S. Follower

Under the far-right Bolsonaro, Brazil is abandoning its regional leadership to align with U.S. interests in Latin America.

jair-bolsonaro-brazil-far-right-trump
Supporters of far-right Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro wave Brazilian, U.S., and Israeli flags. (Shutterstock)
Brazil recently gained the vaunted status of “Major Non-NATO Ally.” 
This title symbolizes the new, preferential relationship that Brazil has been pursuing with the U.S. as a result of the continued efforts by far-right President Jair Bolsonaro to inaugurate a new phase in Brazil’s global role.
Bolsonaro’s presidency has initiated deep changes in Brazilian foreign policy, which was traditionally based on multilateralism, non-interventionism, and a commitment to universal human rights. Bolsonaro’s abandonment of that traditional foreign policy is driven by his belief that despite changes in the world order, the future will remain U.S.-led — and, as such, a partnership with Washington is essential. 
With this partnership, however, Brazil is relinquishing its position as a global leader to become a junior follower of Donald Trump’s foreign policy.
Ideological affinity is a major component of Bolsonaro’s foreign policy, which has had practical and immediate consequences for Brazil. For example, due to Trump’s trade war with China, Beijing has been downgraded in the priorities of Bolsonaro’s government despite being Brazil’s main trading partner, and opportunities to increase trade in Asia are now willfully overlooked. 
Brazil’s prominent leadership role in Latin America is also being sacrificed as a result of its enthusiastic promotion of U.S. interests in the region.

Ideological Crusade and the U.S.
The new vision guiding Brazilian foreign policy is centered around anti-globalism and presumptions of Western cultural superiority. 
According to this worldview, Bolsonaro’s rise to power represents a unique opportunity to restore traditional moral values that will somehow help Brazil in its mission to save “Western Civilization” from decline. As such, a partnership with the like-minded Trump is imagined as a means by which to reaffirm the supremacy of the West.
These ideas form part of the broader ideological agenda which the current Brazilian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ernesto Araújo, has put forward in various articles. In one of his most notorious pieces, a journal article entitled “Trump and the West,” Araújo lays bare the version of Brazilian nationalism he aims to pursue: a national mission to, in essence, recover Brazil’s “Western soul.” 
The traditional nuclear family and Christian values — perceived as the hallmarks of “Western civilization” — are the central pillars of Araújo’s moral nationalism and, as such, should be seen as the foundation of Brazil’s new foreign policy orientation.

Consequences of Brazil’s Foreign Policy Shift
If Brazil’s new ideological position represents a stark renunciation of its previously active role in the building of a liberal world order, it is also becoming increasingly clear that the country will now abandon its previously progressive contributions to solving major global problems. 
As a consequence, Brazil will no longer be seen as a leader among developing countries — a widely-respected role that the country has played since 2003, when Brazilian governments prioritized South-South cooperation. 
Brazil’s radical shift in foreign policy orientation is already causing shockwaves at home and abroad. Bolsonaro often flirts with the idea of potentially withdrawing from the Paris Environmental Accord, having already abandoned the Marrakesh Migration Pact. Additional uproar emerged in Brazil due to Bolsonaro’s close ties to Israel and his promise to recognize Jerusalem as its capital and to close Brazil’s embassy in Palestine. In the past, Brazil has systematically defended the creation of a Palestinian state, and was among the first countries to open an embassy in Palestine. 
Being averse to both multilateralism and cooperation with developing countries, Bolsonaro seeks to keep his distance from the United Nations and the BRICS. More concretely, Bolsonaro considers the deepening or even the maintenance of established diplomatic ties with the BRICS group as detrimental to the new Brazil’s alliance with the U.S. Indeed, under Brazil’s new foreign policy priorities, China and Russia are now perceived as potential adversaries
In attempting to recover Brazil’s “Western soul,” Bolsonaro’s government hopes to receive U.S. support in its efforts to become a permanent member of the OECD. The Trump administration has indicated that the U.S. will support Brazil’s bid to gain admission to the OECD.
In Bolsonaro’s evolving geopolitical map, Brazil is slowly abandoning its regional leadership to align with the U.S.’s interests in Latin America. In this context, Brazil’s engagement with other Latin American countries is mainly based on ideological affinity. Hence Brazil is showing interest in strengthening bilateral relations with Chile, a country that Bolsonaro admires principally due to his admiration for Pinochet’s brutal dictatorship (1973-1989), and with Argentina, with which bilateral relations remain warm as long as the conservative-minded President Macri remains in power
Venezuela is, for quite different reasons, another important country for Bolsonaro. He uses Venezuela’s unrest to escalate the intensity of his rhetorical confrontation against the Venezuelan regime, which resonates powerfully with Bolsonaro’s supporters at home and abroad.

Opposition from within
The rationale for and discourse surrounding Brazil’s blind alignment to the U.S. is facing heavy criticism from parts of Bolsonaro’s own government. These dissident voices can be heard in the agribusiness sector, the military, and the Brazilian diplomatic corps.
Operating as they do within a clear set of international interests, agribusiness is a pragmatic group of actors who understand that Bolsonaro’s rhetorical tactics are harming their international interests. Those who consider China a pivotal player in the expansion of Brazilian agricultural exports are understandably disturbed by Brazil’s increasing distance from the BRICS. 
Parts of the Brazilian military also appear skeptical about Brazil actively positioning itself within the U.S. sphere of influence, believing this to be a blind alignment that could easily compromise the image of Brazil as a strong, autonomous country. 
Bolsonaro’s foreign policy also faces opposition from within Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where career diplomats are increasingly voicing their concerns over the president’s wanton abandonment of the multilateralism that Brazil has historically and effectively used to engage with the rest of the world.
In an increasingly dog-eat-dog world, Bolsonaro hopes that Brazil can establish itself as a privileged U.S. partner. However, given the waning support for Bolsonaro’s foreign policy at home, as well as its fundamental lack of pragmatism, these radical shifts in Brazil’s international affairs may ultimately prove to be ephemeral.

Helder F. do Vale is an Associate Professor at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies in South Korea. 

quarta-feira, 9 de novembro de 2016

Brazil in the World: um livro de Sean Burges: apresentacao no Itamaraty em 14/11, as 16hs


Sean Burges, professor titular de Relações Internacionais da Universidade Nacional da Austrália e Vice-coordenador do  Centro Nacional australiano para Estudos Latino-americanos encontra-se no Brasil, para participar de um encontro sobre cooperação ao desenvolvimento, envolvendo a Funag e Wilton Park.
Ele é autor de um livro precedente sobre o Brasil após a Guerra Fria: “Brazilian Foreign Policy After the Cold War” (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2009) e acaba de publicar  Brazil in the World: The International Relations of a South American Giant (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2016), sobre a política externa brasileira nas últimas décadas, tanto no plano multilateral quanto bilateral (China, EUA, América do Sul, Sul-Global). 


Para falar um pouco de seu último livro e de suas pesquisas sobre a diplomacia brasileira, o presidente da Funag, embaixador Sérgio Eduardo Moreira Lima, e eu, em minha qualidade de Diretor do IPRI, tomamos a iniciativa de organizar uma apresentação-debate na próxima segunda-feira, 14 de novembro, a ser feita na sala D do Itamaraty, às 16:00hs.
Creio que será uma excelente oportunidade para abordar com Sean Burges as grandes linhas da diplomacia e da política externa do Brasil nas últimas décadas.

 Sumário do livro:

1 Thinking about Brazil in the world 1
2 The domestic foreign policy context 25
3 O jeito brasileiro … the Brazilian way 48
4 Brazil’s multilateralist impulse 64
5 Trade policy 86
6 Brazil Inc. 110
7 Security policy 134
8 Brazil and Latin America 153
9 Brazil and the Global South 174
10 Brazil and the United States 197
11 Brazil and China 222
12 Conclusions and future possibilities 241

Description:


Drawing on over seventy interviews, fieldwork in five countries, and a comprehensive survey of government documents, media reports and scholarly literature, Burges examines a series of issue areas - multilateralism, trade, and security - as well as the pattern of bilateral relations in South America, the Global South and with China and the USA to trace how Brazil formulates its transformative foreign policy agenda and works to implement it regionally and globally.


                Specific focus is given to tracing how and why Brazil has moved onto the global stage, leveraging its regional predominance in South America into a global leadership role and bridge between the North and South in international affairs. The analysis highlights the extent to which foreign policy making in Brazil is changing as a field of public policy and the degree to which sustained political attention is necessary for a dynamic and innovative international engagement approach. Of interest to students, scholars and policy makers, this book casts light not only how an emerging power rises in the international system, but also isolates the blind spots that existing analytical approaches have when it comes to thinking about what power means for the increasingly vocal rising states of the global South.



                About the Author

                Sean W. Burges is Senior Lecturer in International Relations and Deputy Director of the Australian National Centre for Latin American Studies at the Australian National University and a Senior Research Fellow with the Washington, DC-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs.

sexta-feira, 6 de fevereiro de 2015

Brazil's Global Ambitions - Harold Trinkunas (Brookings)


Brazil's Global Ambitions
Harold Trinkunas
Brookings, 6 Feb 2015

Harold Trinkunas is the Charles W. Robinson Chair and senior fellow and director of the Latin America Initiative in the Foreign Policy program. His research focuses on Latin American politics, particularly on issues related to democratization and security. He has also written on terrorism financing, borders and ungoverned spaces.

The world's seventh-largest economy needs a foreign policy that matches rhetoric with capabilities.

When President Dilma Rousseff first took office in 2010, Brazil’s future looked exceptionally bright. For nearly a decade, the country had benefited from Asia’s enormous appetite for its commodities. This allowed Brazil to reduce poverty and expand the middle class while at the same time sustaining a remarkable growth rate, becoming the seventh largest economy in the world in 2014.
But by the time Rousseff was sworn in for a second term on January 1, 2015, she faced serious decisions about Brazil’s future. Brazil’s development model based on domestic consumption and commodity exports has reached its limits and the real is significantly overvalued, thus undercutting the competitiveness of its non-commodity-based export sectors. Moreover, the Southern Common Market, Mercosur, which had once showcased Brazil’s leadership in regional integration, now ties Brazil’s flagging economy to two of the most troubled economies in South America—Argentina and Venezuela. At the same time, the two most significant global trade negotiations in a decade, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, are nearing completion without Brazil.
Brazil has sought to play the role of a major power on the global stage since the beginning of the twentieth century, but it will not earn this status just by virtue of its size, burgeoning population and impressive economic achievements. Historically, rising powers acquired dreadnoughts or sizeable armies to achieve influence. Today, they also seek to become a permanent member on the United Nations Security Council or lead the World Trade Organization.[1] Brazil under Dilma stands at a crossroads: it can try to parlay its rising economic might and soft power into global influence, or it can remain a regional power, albeit a significant one, with limited influence on the course of world events.  To turn its aspirations into reality, Brazil will have to deploy its national capabilities more effectively to shape the rules governing the international order.

Hard and Soft Powers
Unlike other global powers, which employ economic and military hard power to play a role in shaping the international order, Brazil has primarily relied on its soft power and exhibited a notable reluctance to compel other states to follow its lead. Brazil’s largely peaceful history and secure geostrategic position meant that it never felt the need to project power abroad through military strength.
Unlike other rising powers, such as India and China, Brazil’s regional security environment is enviably peaceful, at least at the interstate level. This has not only allowed Brazil to escape the costs of creating a formidable military machine, but encouraged Brasília’s policymakers to believe that shrewd diplomacy was sufficient to propel them onto the world stage. In 2012, Brazil was 68th in the world in terms of military expenditure as a percentage of GDP, and 11th in the world in terms of total amount spent.[2] Although Brazil has steadily increased defense spending over the past two decades—and although its defense budget accounts for over half of Latin America’s total defense expenditures—this has not yet translated into concrete capabilities that would enable its armed forces to conduct significant combat operations beyond its borders.[3]
At the same time, Brazil has been reluctant to leverage its hard economic power, either in the form of rewards or sanctions, to make other countries follow its lead. Brazil has made large strides in reducing poverty and growing its middle class.[4] Its national development bank, BNDES, is a significant player in both internal and regional development, with a total lending volume three times that of the World Bank in 2011.[5] However, Brazil has shied away from committing economic resources beyond South America. And its official international development assistance remains quite modest.[6]
In contrast to these historical and self-imposed limits on the use of its hard power, Brazil wields significant soft power relative to many states. It ranks 17th in the world, according to the Monocle/Institute for Government’s 2012 ranking of soft power, ahead of developing countries and many of the rising powers.[7] The emphasis of its foreign policy on equity, inclusion and universal institutions appeals to many states, especially small and middle powers. Brazilian diplomats are widely respected for their professionalism and effectiveness, and Brazilians consider themselves to be particularly adroit at bringing together parties with opposing points of view.[8] Domestically, Brazil provides an attractive narrative of economic growth with a strong state and a growing degree of social inclusion. As Brazil has substantially consolidated its democracy over the past three decades, its political success story contributes to its prestige in international and regional forums.[9]

Constraints in Cooperation
Brazil’s renewed attempts to rise to major power status benefit from two unique opportunities. The first is Brazil’s ascendancy in South America. For most of the twentieth century, Argentina was a regional rival to Brazil in economic and military terms. The Argentine-Brazilian rivalry is now history, marked not only by diminished military competition, but also a mutual agreement on nuclear non-proliferation that consolidated Latin America’s status as a nuclear-free zone. The likelihood of interstate war in South America involving Brazil has become very low, further reducing Brazil’s need for military capabilities.
During the past decade, Brazil has also worked steadily to constrain challengers within South America, principally through regional integration and multilateral diplomacy.[10] The reduction in security tensions was complemented by the negotiation of Mercosur, a new common market arrangement initially formed with Argentina in 1988 and ratified by Paraguay and Uruguay in 1991. This set of negotiations and agreements transformed Brazil’s main rival in South America into a partner.[11] Brazil also laid the groundwork for securing its regional ascendancy through new multilateral institutions that excluded the United States. These institutions evolved under President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to become the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) in 2008. UNASUR excludes not only the U.S., but also Canada, Mexico and Central America, which are considered too politically and economically tied to Washington.[12] Most recently, Brazil has worked to create the Comunidad de Estados de Latinoamérica y el Caribe (CELAC), which includes South, Central American and Caribbean states—but pointedly, neither the U.S. nor Canada.
The second new opportunity arises from the fading of post-Cold War U.S. hegemony and the subsequent rise of global multipolarity. This geopolitical opening offers rising powers the opportunity to influence the international order more actively as their own capabilities improve relative to those of established powers. Moreover, the increasing number of powers critical in varying degrees of the existing liberal international order—Brazil is joined in this respect by Russia, China, India, South Africa, Turkey, and Iran—offers Brazilian policymakers a range of potential collaborators with common interests in revising the international system. Brazil hopes that the sum of the rising powers will have a greater impact than each acting alone.[13]
Since Brazil is not a regional rival to any of these nations, it can help facilitate multilateral networks among the rising powers. The BRICS summits, bringing together the leaders of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, formally launched in 2009, are one example of new initiatives that exclude the traditional major powers and provide opportunities to craft alternative global governance institutions. In August 2014, for instance, the BRICS nations announced they were forming an international development bank with over $50 billion in starting capital. Brazil shares with its new international partners an interest in defending their sovereignty and autonomy of action, as well as in opening room for their participation in global “rule shaping.”
Brazil also claims to represent the concerns of a growing number of small and middle powers in the international system about global inequality.[14] Why would smaller nations accept Brazil’s leadership? Brazil’s attraction for smaller states has an economic and cultural dimension, but it is based, more importantly, on its promised commitment to more democratic, equitable and universal international institutions once it becomes a major power.
Brazil has not been able to fully exploit these opportunities. It has had limited success in persuading other states in South America to adhere to the new order it purports to have created or to support it in global forums. For example, Brazil’s leadership was challenged by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, who used oil diplomacy and relations with leftist and progressive movements around the globe in a bid for global influence. Brazil defused Venezuela’s aspirations for regional leadership, but only by incorporating some of Chávez’s ideological proposals into UNASUR and CELAC.[15]
While Venezuela’s regional challenge has faded, other sub-regional institutions have emerged as would-be alternatives to UNASUR and Mercosur, particularly the Pacific Alliance between Colombia, Peru, Chile, and Mexico. The free-market foundation of these new groupings undermines the more political logic for integration that Brazil has promoted within UNASUR. In addition, Mexico’s re-engagement with South America has undermined Brazil’s claim to uncontested regional leadership. Mexico and Argentina have also quietly networked neighboring states to undermine Brazil’s campaign to win a permanent seat on the UN Security Council (UNSC).[16]
Perhaps most tellingly, Brazil’s historical reluctance to place limits on its sovereignty through adherence to rules-based international regimes has diminished the utility of Mercosur, UNASUR and CELAC as platforms for its leadership. These institutions all have limited budgets, small cadres of personnel and inconsistent leadership. In the absence of capacity and commitment, these new multilateral institutions have essentially devolved into opportunities for presidential summitry in the region rather than institutions that can govern interstate relations or bind the actions of member states. Their weakness highlights a central problem in Brazil’s multilateralism: a willingness to evade the rules of the institutions it creates. For example, Venezuela’s domestic legislation did not meet many regulatory requirements for admission to Mercosur, nor did it fully adhere to the institution’s democracy standard. Nevertheless, with consistent backing from Brazil, Venezuela was admitted over the objection of other Mercosur member states, such as Paraguay.
Brazil has also been unable to attract support for its aspirations from the U.S. and other established powers, a major problem when Brazil’s strategy relies on soft power. Its frequent criticism of the present international order limits the chances that such powers will support Brazil’s efforts to play the role in world affairs that it believes it deserves. Consider Brazil’s quest for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, spearheaded by former President Lula da Silva. The lack of U.S. support for its campaign has been a particular source of tension between Brasília and Washington, even though Brazilian diplomats recognize that Russia and China also oppose Brazilian permanent membership. Here, the contrast with Washington’s support for India’s bid for a permanent seat has been particularly galling for Brazilians.

Changing the Rules or Just Criticizing Them?
Brazil’s ability to act as a major power will depend on its contributions to shaping and enforcing the rules that govern the international order. Two recent episodes highlight the dilemmas Brazil faces: the global financial crisis and international responses to imminent threats to human security. Brazil has consistently privileged the use of diplomacy over all other state capabilities, but its reluctance to assume economic and military costs to contribute to global order prevents it from participating effectively. Moreover, its desire to minimize the role of military power in settling major conflicts, such as those in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, sometimes leads it to propose solutions that are discarded as unrealistic by the established powers.
Brazil had an unprecedented opportunity to insert itself into the heart of international economic and financial governance during the 2008 global financial crisis. The rising powers, which by and large were much less affected by the crisis, garnered even more importance once reform and recapitalization of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) became necessary. The incumbent major powers turned to Brazil, India and China for support after experiencing great economic turmoil, and Brazil was able to negotiate a redistribution of IMF voting weights to better reflect the actual economic power of the member states. Brazil’s role as a key member in the G-20, the small group of states that coordinate international economic policy, indicates that it has joined an exclusive group of major powers at least in the financial domain. This is quite a contrast to Brazil’s stance during the 1980s Latin American debt crisis, when it went along—often grudgingly—with IMF-recommended austerity packages.[17] Brazil’s challenge will be to translate its new institutional weight in the IMF—which has been delayed because of U.S. congressional inaction on altering member country voting rights—into meaningful, positive changes in how the IMF views the developing world and conducts its business.
Since its reluctance to use hard power diminishes its influence over policy outcomes, Brazil has been less successful as a global actor in responding to international security crises. Brazil is frequently critical of the selectivity with which international law is applied by the major powers, especially in cases where the international community intervenes in the internal affairs of states. Brazil’s stance runs counter to the prevailing liberal international order, which is premised on the belief that violations of popular sovereignty and humanitarian crises can at times trump national sovereignty and permit the use of force to pursue humanitarian goals or contain rogue states—and was codified in the concept of Responsibility to Protect.
Brazil’s participation on the Security Council during the 2011–2012 term brought it into direct conflict with this prevailing order.[18] First, Brazil’s decision to caucus with BRICS in the UNSC was not viewed positively by the three other permanent members of the Council. The matter came to a head during the UN response to the conflict in Libya in 2011. Brazil opposed the UN’s authorization of the use of force by NATO to justify an expanded campaign against a broad range of government targets in Libya, leading to the fall of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. The expansion of the intervening powers’ objectives in Libya provoked criticism from the BRICS and developing countries that Responsibility to Protect was being used as a cover for regime change.
Brazil, instead, proposed the concept of Responsibility While Protecting (RWP), advocating that before states deploy military force to protect civilians in humanitarian and human rights crises, they carefully consider collateral damage. The U.S. and many European states rejected RWP as unrealistic, thus highlighting the ongoing disagreement between Brazil and the West over norms governing the use of force in response to humanitarian crises.[19] In the end, the initiative, while a major Brazilian diplomatic effort, received scant support among the UNSC powers, demonstrating Brazil’s inability to influence the core security debates among the major powers and shape the rules governing the use of force in the international system.

Reconciling the Rise with Ambition
President Rousseff has some difficult decisions ahead of her in 2015. Brazil needs to implement an economic adjustment plan to address its overvalued currency, persistent inflation, high levels of consumer debt, and slowing economic growth. Brazil’s prospects in the energy sector, particularly the offshore oil field known as the pré-sal, are not as bright as they once seemed. Finally, Rouseff’s thin margin of victory in the 2014 presidential elections indicates that she will preside over a divided country in which the Brazilian middle class will continue to demand improved government effectiveness, efficiency and accountability.
None of these issues present an insurmountable obstacle to Brazil’s rise. Nor do they represent a long-term threat to its success. Brazil has an unprecedented set of opportunities: a large economy, considerable soft power, a lack of regional rivals, and a network of partners among other rising powers and the developing world. But Brazil needs to do a better job of using the hard power it does have—military or economic—while still maintaining its commitment to the norms that have historically guided its foreign policy.
Given that Brazil’s regional security environment is likely to remain peaceful, its shortage of military hard power is likely to endure, and the government is right not to emphasize this dimension. Rather, Brazil should seek another avenue to shape the international order by extending the scope and size of its contributions to international peacekeeping, focusing in particular on developing the types of capabilities that are in short supply among peacekeeping-contributing nations: intelligence, logistics, aviation, communications, command, and control. By developing these capabilities, Brazil would acquire greater influence on the terms under which its peacekeepers deploy and the UN mandates under which they operate.
Brazil can also achieve greater influence by extending the global reach of its humanitarian and development assistance. Brazil currently ranks 23rd among international donors.20 Although Brazil’s overseas development assistance has risen in the past decade, as the seventh largest economy in the world, Brazil should be able to increase its humanitarian aid contributions above the 0.2 percent of gross national income it donated in 2011.[20] Brazil has extensive domestic experience in developing social programs to reduce poverty and foster social inclusion. Through its Agência Brasileira de Cooperaçaõ, it is already using this knowledge in its international assistance programs in the Americas and parts of Africa. It could also expand the reach of its national development bank, BNDES, to fund a broader range of projects overseas and work with the new BRICS bank to ensure that its lending portfolio benefits from Brazil’s domestic experience.