A Future among the BRICs?
Participants generally agreed that solidarity among the BRIC countries does not present a realistic foundation for Brazilian foreign policy, given the diversity of interests and values among the four countries. At times, Brazil has joined with some or all of the BRICs to challenge existing international institutions or stake out a common position in evolving regimes, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or the role of the dollar. Yet deeper analysis suggests real (and sometimes growing) divergence of interests and preferences among some of the BRICs. For example, the value of Brazil’s currency, the real, has jumped considerably over the past year, with many projecting increased appreciation in 2010. The real’s appreciation is due to low U.S. interest rates brought on by the financial crisis, as well as China’s decision last year to re-peg its currency to the dollar, and the resulting influx of global capital seeking high returns. These capital inflows and the resulting rise in the relative value of the real could have negative consequences for long-term economic growth, as domestic producers struggle to compete with Chinese companies who benefit from the lower relative prices caused by China’s currency peg. This analysis points to the heterogeneity among the BRICs and the limitations of solidarity among them to serve as the foundation for an alternative world order.
Prospects for Brazilian-U.S. Relations
As with many of its important relationships, Brazil is of two minds on how to work with the United States. In historical perspective, the most common Brazilian orientation toward the United States over the past six decades has been one of distancing, as opposed to engagement (much less alignment). Today, the posture is more complicated and ambivalent, thanks to a dramatic expansion of the bilateral agenda, globally as well as in the hemisphere. The result is a policy of selective engagement. Brazil works closely with the United States on issues of mutual interest. At the same time, the potential for a broader strategic partnership is constrained by Brazil’s continued mistrust of U.S. interventionism in Latin America; incompatible perspectives on global hot spots, notably Iran and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; and divergent attitudes on priorities in important realms like nuclear nonproliferation, climate change, and trade. As a result, Brazilian-U.S. cooperation often occurs under the radar, allowing Brazil to reap the benefits of a dialogue with the United States while continuing to present itself as willing to challenge U.S. hegemony. Participants discussed the desirability of creating, after the 2010 Brazilian presidential elections, a bilateral strategic dialogue between the two countries, modeled on the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue (SED).
Engaging with International Institutions
Participants generally agreed that Brazil’s continued ambivalence and lack of strategic vision about its role as a great power are likely to limit Brazil’s influence on global institutional reform. In some cases, to be sure, Brazil has played an active role in strengthening and reforming multilateral bodies. As noted, it was partly Brazilian diplomatic initiative that encouraged the shift from the G8 to the G20.
6
Similarly, Brazil has become a more active player in the Bretton Woods institutions, moving from a position of disengagement to contributing $14 billion to the IMF.
In other areas, however, Brazilian foreign policy thinkers have not considered the implications of global institutional reform. Brazil, for example, has long sought to reshape the UN Security Council into a more representative body. Should it successfully obtain a seat on the Security Council, however, it would presumably be asked to take a stronger position on the shaming and condemning of states such as Iran. Brazil’s historic support for state sovereignty and noninterference would be tested by the UN Security Council’s busy docket, which includes a number of global challenges that merit an active response. In other words, Brazil’s campaign for greater international responsibility has not been always been accompanied by an effort to update Brazilian foreign policy doctrines to address thorny problems such as human rights violations, nuclear proliferation, and the responsibility to protect.
In sum, Brazil seems finally poised to become the country of the present, rather than of the indefinite future. Brazil’s arrival as a great power will give it the potential to shape the emerging world and regional order. But playing the role of effective architect will require Brazil to make some difficult decisions about where its interests lie. Moreover, the clock is ticking. With elections on the horizon, the popular President Lula on his way out, and fears of a Brazilian economic bubble, a promising window for devising a coherent foreign policy may be about to close. This would be a shame, as Brazil has proven that it can in fact be a leader on crucial international issues, from climate change to the elevation of the G20. It would also be unfortunate from a U.S. perspective if Brazil were prevented from bringing its unique perspective to bear in breathing new life into outdated institutions and partnerships.
Council Foreign Relations
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário