Examining the Foreign Policy of Brazil - Research Paper Example

? Examining the Foreign Policy of Brazil Research Paper Introduction Brazil is a hugely populated nation. The economic value, the population, and the size of Brazil endowed the nation a greater status in global affairs than other Latin American countries, such as Chile and Argentina. In the 20th century, the country has become a more influential player in the global community. This was because of economic progress and its alleged hegemonic position in Latin America. More usually, Brazil’s representatives have thought that they were, to a certain extent, downgraded in international relations.1 The aspiration to be an international player has been a consistent subject in Brazil’s foreign policy ever since. In the early 21st century this subject is demonstrated in the movement to be involved in the United Nations Security Council. For the Brazilian people, this would suggest that the nation has finally gained its legitimate place among the world’s power blocs.2 This paper analyzes the foreign policy of Brazil. Analyzing the Brazilian Foreign Policy In earlier times, this aspiration to acquire credit and appreciation outside of South America has tended to isolate Brazil from its nearby fellow Latin American countries. The emphasis on relations with the world’s giants has existed for a long time. In the 19th century, the diplomatic focus was on preserving a strong relationship with Great Britain. In the 20th century focuses shifted and the United States came to be the goal of Brazilian foreign policy.3 In both instances political and economic concerns shaped Brazil’s foreign policy agenda. In the 19th and earlier 20th century Great Britain was the financier of Brazil, and in the 20th century, the U.S. became the leading source of foreign capital and trade partner.4 Relations with the U.S. have been the major element of Brazilian foreign policy over the years and interrelate with almost all other features of Brazilian diplomacy. There have been numerous agreements and disagreements between the U.S. and Brazil, the latter has not consistently embraced the American goals. During the post-Cold War period these gaps have been more noticeable, but the aspiration to develop an autonomous foreign policy agenda has been present for a long time. The motivating factors underlying this aspiration to differentiate themselves from the United States are diverse and are not embraced unanimously among Brazil’s powerful individuals. In Brazil, like in other South American countries, there is an emerging sentiment against the United States.5 It is a propensity that receives attention from time to time. The Brazilian foreign policy is also characterized by a Latin Americanist perspective. Yet, with regard to this, the Brazilian case to some degree differs to that of its Southern Cone’s neighbors.6 Primarily, there are the remnants of Brazil’s colonial history. From the latter half of the 18th century, Brazil was a colony of Portugal and this positioned the country in a unique set of geopolitical ties and, particularly, guaranteed unusually close relations with Britain. Furthermore, Brazil stayed under a monarchical government for the most part of the 19th century and hence was less motivated to recognize principles coming from the republican governments elsewhere on the region.7 Over time, this historical trend has nourished those political predispositions that have intended to separate Brazil from the rest of Latin America. Moreover, Brazil’s size has a massive influence. This has generated quite specific assumptions among the Brazilian politicians. Primarily, it pushes them to be internally oriented since expansion has occurred within the country. Brazil had to struggle with its boundaries and remove internal barriers. Brazil’s size has also created difficulties, and effective governance has been difficult to attain with domestic elites being an unfailing part of Brazil’s political sector.8 In the 20th century, Brazil’s economic capability and size has strengthened visions of global magnificence and of political action on the global arena. These aspirations have been fed by the country’s expanding industrial sector. Regional dominance has been an objective of Brazil’s foreign policy agenda for a long time and this has determined both the country’s relationship with other South American nations and with the U.S.9 In the case of the U.S., the ambition to be recognized as the most powerful country in the region has implied that precaution is exercised to cultivate strong ties with its neighbors. The relationship with Argentina is viewed as integral in this respect. In the case of relationship with the United States, the need for regional dominance has conflicted with the dominance of the U.S. in the Western hemisphere. Such clash of interests acquired the needed respite in the discussions that revolve around the advantages of Mercosur and free-trade zones.10 Brazil realized that the formation of a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) would signify the failure of any aspirations of regional dominance it may have had and strongly position the U.S. as the predominant authority in the Americas.11 The foreign policy of Brazil has changed remarkably in the past decades. The postwar period was characterized by an extension of a ‘special relationship’ with the U.S.12 However, the presence of conflict also was evident; thus Brazil attempted to proclaim an independent foreign policy under the administrations of Goulart and Quadros in the 1960s. Basically, in 1964, with Branco’s government, the special relationship resurfaced as the main principle of the Brazilian foreign policy.13 A decisive change occurred in the latter part of the 1960s toward a more vigorous, separatist principle for safeguarding and representing Brazil’s foreign policy goals. This change complemented, and originated from, the growth of the global economy and the emergence of the economic vision.14 Brazil viewed the developing countries as a vital trade zone and as a stage wherein it could occupy a powerful position. With the petroleum crunch in the 1970s and the start of the global debt crisis in the 1980s, foreign policy was once more reconstructed. During this period, finance and economics, instead of geopolitical and usual diplomatic concerns, dominated Brazil’s foreign policy; in the 1980s, the foreign policy plan was magnified unexpectedly to cover matters rarely regarded important in earlier decades—indigenous issues, regional integration, and the environment.15 After the shift to a civilian administration in 1985, Mercosur— a political and economic treaty among Brazil, Venezuela, Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina, and Bolivia—reoriented the strategic agenda of Brazil, both in political and economic terms. The formation of Mercosur, South America’s common market would be the prevailing subject in Brazil’s foreign policy.16 The presidency of Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who had been appointed as foreign minister and was prominent abroad, facilitated access into global circles. Cardoso has expressed more complicated objectives for Brazil’s status in the global order.17 Another issue in any study of Brazil’s foreign policy is the influence of a vital economic growth. This has been the core of national policy during the 20th century. Foreign policy is predominantly intended to foster Brazil’s growth and hence any modification in economic thought affects the development of foreign policy. The termination of the import substitution framework of economic growth triggered transitions to export-based development and free trade.18 The necessity of economic development in Brazil, as in the rest of the region, determines the nature of its relationship with the U.S. The disadvantages brought about by weak relationship with the U.S. are severe in terms of economic growth. There is a great incentive in sustaining good relationship with the U.S. Lula’s effort in 2005 to separate his administration from several of the more drastic and militant approaches taken by Venezuelan President Chavez explain this practical framework of hemispheric relations.19 Within the Brazilian perspective, hemispheric relations are determined by the necessity of economic development and the goal toward regional dominance. These two objectives are very complementary in the long term, but in the short term disagreements with the United States are severe and hence a balance has to be built between these two objectives. It is relevant to mention that the global order has been established or stable for certain duration of time, specifically in the sustained authority of the U.S. How to best handle this liaison has been at the core of Brazil’s foreign policy.20 At several instances Brazil have pursued the U.S. in order for regional dominance to be awarded to the nation and at other instances Brazilians has opposed U.S. involvement in the region so as to occupy that same dominant position. Over the past decades, in economic and political terms, there have been large-scale transformations in the global environment. There have been instances when the international setting has not been favorable to sustaining an autonomous foreign policy. The 1980s belong to this, the overlapping of the debt crisis and huge increases in interest rates harmed Brazil’s ability to operate and the price of challenging the hemispheric power became quite severe.21 In addition, the characteristic of Brazilian national identity influences the development of foreign policy. The nature of identity and the political environment are somewhat reliant on the characteristic of the incumbent political administration. The Brazilian military took over in 1964. The country was only restored to civilian rule in 1985.22 In these two periods a specific concept of Brazilian identity emerged. One of the major determining factors of national policies in the 1980s and 1990s was the way in which civilian rule addressed the military consequence. In Brazil the military had roughly two decades to spread their aspiration for the country and work toward their policy objectives.23 The characteristic of the shift to civilian regime in Brazil was not that devastating compared to Argentina and actually somewhat similar to that of Chile.24 Consequently, breaks or discontinuities in policy were not much of an aspect of the Brazilian transformation. A certain extent of continuity was also preserved by the characteristic of the agencies assigned to manage the foreign relations of Brazil. The ‘Itamaraty’ or the Foreign Ministry has enjoyed independence within Brazil’s political domain for a long time and the other components of the political structure seldom defy or question its decisions and rules.25 Similar to Chile and Argentina, there is a pattern of influences on Brazilian foreign policy development. The underlying factors are the same in all three instances but their comparative significance is distinctive in each instance. Brazil’s geopolitical aspiration, as well as its size, tends to influence all components of the structure.26 Its likely dominant position in the region determines Brazil’s relationships within the region, with the U.S. and in the rest of the world. Conclusions This is a favorable period of an analysis of the foreign policy of Latin American countries, specifically Brazil. Brazil is becoming more and more forceful in their relationship and transactions with the U.S. and the rest of the world. Transformations in the international political economy have provided Brazil more independence and thus hemispheric ties are currently in a period of instability. Power relations across the globe are evolving and Brazil is currently a major actor in international affairs. The presence of Mercosur endows Brazil much influence and importance in trade dialogues. In the latter part of the 21st century, Brazil’s relationship with the U.S. reached decisive reprieve.27 From the point of view of the field of International Relations the issue develops as to which framework most precisely captures the realities of Brazilian foreign policy development. Realist frameworks clarify the desire of Brazil to contend with the United States and the way in which it work toward stronger independence in the region. Nevertheless, at the peripheral region such is the need for growth that foreign development cannot be disconnected from local political needs. Certainly for Brazil, it is shown that foreign policy is strongly attached to national policy. These facts deviate from the classic realist perspective of foreign policy being an independent arena. Therefore, one should apply the ideas from other schools of thought so as to form a comprehensive, accurate image of the development of Brazilian foreign policy. In essence, Brazil’s international relations can merely be understood in terms of rivaling and different entities in a complicated social structure. References Almeida, J. (2008). Brazil in Focus: Economic, Political and Social Issues. New York: Nova Publishers. Beasley, R. et al. (2012). Foreign Policy in Comparative Perspective: Domestic and International Influences on State Behavior. London: SAGE. Burges, S. (2008). Consensual Hegemony: Theorizing Brazilian Foreign Policy after the Cold War. International Relations, 22(1), 65-84. Burges, S. (2011). Brazilian Foreign Policy after the Cold War. Florida: University Press of Florida. Cason, J. & Power, T. (2009). Presidentialization, Pluralization, and the Rollback of Itamaraty: Explaining Change in Brazilian Foreign Policy Making in the Cardoso-Lula Era. International Political Science Review, 30(2), 117-140. Eakin, M., Almeida, P., & Barbosa, R. (2005). Envisioning Brazil: A Guide to Brazilian Studies in the United States. UK: University of Wisconsin Press. Edwards, T. (2008). Brazil: A Global Studies Handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Gangopadhyay, A. (2003). Regional Issues in Brazil’s Foreign Policy. India Quarterly: A Journal of International Affairs, 59(1-2), 41-58. Gordon, L. (2001). Brazil’s Second Chance: En Route Towards the First World. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Mora, F. & Hey, J. (2003). Latin American and Caribbean Foreign Policy. UK: Rowman & Littlefield. Mullins, M. (2006). In the Shadow of the Generals: Foreign Policy Making in Argentina, Brazil and Chile. UK: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Roett, R. (1999). Brazil: Politics in a Patrimonial Society. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Roett, R. (2010). The New Brazil. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Sachs, I., Wilheim, J., & Pinheiro, P. (2009). Brazil: A Century of Change: A Century of Change. North Carolina Press. Smith, S., Hadfield, A., & Dunne, T. (2012). Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vigevani, T. & Oliveira, M. (2007). Brazilian Foreign Policy in the Cardoso Era: The Search for Autonomy through Integration. Latin American Perspectives, 34(5), 58-80. Read More