Abstract
As mentioned in the Introduction, systemic explanations of the foreign policies of developing countries predominate. Recent efforts to create theoretical frameworks for the study of foreign policymaking in developing contexts deserve praise,2 but ultimately, their explanatory power can only be assessed in combination with detailed case studies.
No country escapes its destiny and fortunately or unfortunately, Brazil is condemned to greatness… Mediocre and petty solutions do not serve or interest Brazil We either accept our destiny as a great, free, generous country, without resentments or prejudices, or we run the risk of remaining at the margin of History, as a people and as nationality.
Ambassador João Augusto de Araújo Castro, 19721
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Justin Robertson presents six analytical categories of foreign policymaking in developing countries, consisting of: (i) conventional diplomacy; (ii) new state capacity, which focuses on the use of new techniques and technology to deal with increasing complexity of issues; (iii) capital-driven, highlighting the role of capitalist interests behind foreign policy; (iv) marginalization, in which the constraints imposed by international regimes and powerful states greatly diminish the scope for foreign policymaking in developing contexts; (v) regime or elite survival, or foreign policy as a power dispute between self-interested regimes and/or elites; and (vi) privatization, which emphasizes the role of non-state actors as actors in foreign policy. In “Introduction: The Research Direction and Typology of Approaches,” in Diplomacy and Developing Nations. Post-Cold War Foreign-Policy Making Structures and Processes, ed. Justin Robertson and Maurice A. East (Abington; New York: Routledge, 2005), 1–35.
For a classic study of Brazilian foreign policymaking, see Maria Regina Soares de Lima, “The Political Economy of Brazilian Foreign Policy. Nuclear Energy, Trade, and Itaipú” (PhD diss., Vanderbilt University, Nashville, August 1986).
Joaquim Nabuco, “The Nationality Sentiment in the History of Brazil,” address to the Hispanic Club of the Yale University, May 15, 1908. Quoted in Celso Lafer, “Brazilian International Identity and Foreign Policy: Past, Present, and Future,” Daedalus Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 129.2 (Spring 2000), 207.
On the need to consider both economic and political variables in the assessment of states’ goals, see Lawrence Krause and Joseph Nye, “Reflections on the Economics and Politics of International Economic Organizations,” International Organization 29.1 (Winter 1975), 323–342.
An interdisciplinary study on the FTAA from a Brazilian perspective is offered in Tullo Vigevani and Marcelo Passini Mariano, ALCA. O Gigante e os Anões (Sao Paulo: Editora SENAC, 2001).
For economic evaluations of the impact conducted in Brazil, see Honorio Kume and Guida Piani, “Alca: Uma Estimativa do Impacto no Comércio Bilateral Brasil-Estados Unidos,” IPEA Texto para Discussão No.1058, Rio de Janeiro, December 2004; João Alberto de Negri, Jorge S. Arbache e Maria L.F. Silva, “A Formação da Alca e seu Impacto no Potencial Exportador Brasileiro para os Mercados dos Estados Unidos e do Canadá,” IPEA Texto para Discussào No.991, Brasíia, October 2003. For a recent estimate, which points to the FTAA potentially providing more trade benefits to Mercosur than a Mercosur-EU trade agreement, see G. Philippidis and A.I. Sanjuán, “An Analysis of Mercosur’s Regional Trade Agreements,” The World Economy 30.3 (2007), 504–531.
Ben Ross Schneider, Politics within the State. Elite, Bureaucrats and Industrial Policy in Authoritarian Brazil (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1991), 7.
On the insulation of federal regulatory agencies set up by the Cardoso administration in the 1990s, see Paulo T.L. Mattos, “A Formação do Estado Regulador,” Novos Estudos CEBRAP 76 (November 2006), 152–154, http://www.cebrap.org.br/imagens/Arquivos/a_formacao_do_estado_regulador.pdf.
For critical views of the insulation strategy, see Carlos R. Pio da Costa Filho, “Liberalização do Comércio: Padrões de Interação entre Elites Burocráticas e Atores Sociais,” in Reforma do Estado e Democracia no Brasil: Dilemas e Perspectivas, ed. Eli Diniz and Sergio de Azevedo (Brasília: Universidade de Brasília, 1997), 174–184.
David Stark and Laszlo Bruzt, “Enabling Constraints: Fontes Institucionais de Coerência nas Políticas Públicas no Pós-Socialismo,” Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais 13.36 (1998), 13–40.
The term “efficiency islands” was commonly applied in Brazil to agencies with an outstanding performance in a predominantly inefficient bureaucratic structure, and which were usually “protected by the presidency through insulation.” For a history of the institutional development of Itamaraty, see Zairo Borges Cheibub, “Diplomacia e Construção Institucional: O Itamaraty em uma Perspective Histórica,” Dados 28.1 (1985), 113–31.
Former Itamaraty members have been invited to occupy high positions in various ministries. The military, in particular, much appreciated the institution, with a growing presence of diplomats in other ministries during the military regime. See Alexandre de S.C. Barros, “The Formulation and Implementation of Brazilian Foreign Policy: Itamaraty and the New Actors,” in Latin American Nations in World Politics, ed. Heraldo Muñoz and Joseph Tulchin (Boulder, CO: Western Press, 1984), 33.
As Brazilian diplomat Paulo Roberto de Almeida remarks critically, “the ‘excellence of Itamaraty’ is certainly one of the most entrenched beliefs in our professional group, having obtained a reasonable level of public acceptance, both internally and externally.” In Paulo Roberto de Almeida, Relações Internacionais e Política Externa do Brasil. Historia e Sociologia da Diplomacia Brasileira, 2nd ed. (Porto Alegre: Editora da UFRGS, 2004), 185. Original in Portuguese: “a ‘excelência do Iamaraty’ é certamente uma das crenças mais arraigadas em nosso estamento profissional, tendo obtido um grau razoável de aceitação pública, interna e externamente.”
In the words of Ambassador Luiz Felipe Lampréia, “Brazilian diplomacy does not invent interests, it identifies and projects them.” See Luiz Felipe Lampréia, Diplomacia Brasileira. Palavras, Contextos e Razões, 2nd ed. (Rio de Janeiro: Editora Nova Aguilar, 1999), 314. Original in Portuguese: “a diplomacia brasileira não inventa interesses, ela os identifica e projeta.” However, multiple interests and power sites exist in any society and the task of selecting what interests should count as national interests remains. See Leticia Pinheiro, “How Much Foreign Policy Teaching Can Be Foreign Policy Making?,” Paper delivered at the 4th Annual APSA Conference on Teaching and Learning in Political Science, Charlotte, North Carolina, February 9–11, 2007.
Andrew Hurrell, “The Politics of Regional Integration in MERCOSUR,” in Regional Integration in Latin America and the Caribbean: The Political Economy of Open Regionalism, ed. Victor Bulmer-Thomas (London: Institute of Latin American Studies, University of London., 2001), 195.
See Maria Regina Soares de Lima, “Ejes Analíticos y Conflicto de Paradigmas en la Política Externa Brasileña,” América Latina/Internacional 1.2 (October 1994), 31–33.
Ronald M. Schneider, Brazil. Foreign Policy ofa Future World Power (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1976), 101–107.
Former minister of foreign affairs Celso Lafer maintains that while many people can discuss national identity, for diplomats, their position in the debate has direct practical consequences. In Celso Lafer, “Preface” to O Itamaraty na Cultura Brasileira, ed. Carlos Leal (Rio de Janeiro: Livraria Francisco Alves Editora S.A., 2002), 10–11.
Afonso Arinos de Mello Franco, quoted in Brazil Herald, Rio de Janeiro, July 23 1962. Reproduced in E. Bradford Burns, The Unwritten Alliance. Rio-Branco and Brazilian-American Relations (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966).
In the period of the post-independence monarchy, many diplomats and foreign ministers came from the wealthy sugar-producing states in the northeast. Under the Republic, with the growing importance of coffee in the south-center, that area became the new source for young diplomats. E. Bradford Burns, “Tradition and Variation in Brazilian Foreign Policy,” Journal of Inter-American Studies 9.2 (1967), 202.
For an analysis of the contributions of individual diplomats in the formation of the Brazilian culture, see Leal, O Itamaraty na Cultura Brasileira; Teresa Malatian, “Diplomacia e Letras na Correspondência Acadêmica: Machados de Assis e Oliveira Lima,” Estudos Históricos 13.24 (1999), 377–392.
Celso Lafer, A Identidade Internacional do Brasil e a Política Externa Brasileira. Passado, Presente e Futuro (Sao Paulo: Editora Perspectiva S.A., 2004), 47.
See Zairo Borges Cheibub, “A Carreira Diplomática no Brasil: O Processo de Burocratização do Itamarati,” Revista de Administração Pública 23.2 (1989), 97–128.
On the experience of reforms of diplomatic institutions in France and Germany in order to respond to demands on international trade issues, see Paul Gordon Lauren, Diplomats and Bureaucrats (Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1976), 154–177.
For a recent analysis of the relevance of studies of diplomatic culture, see Andrew Hurrell, “Working with Diplomatic Culture: Some Latin American and Brazilian Questions,” Paper prepared for ISA Meeting, Montreal, March 2004.
Alexandre de S.C. Barros, “A Formação das Elites e a Continuação da Construção do Estado Nacional Brasileiro,” Dados no.15 (1977), 114–115.
See comparison in Barros, “A Formação das Elites,” Zairo Borges Cheibub, “Diplomacia e Formação do Estado Nacional,” Política e Estratégia 5.1 (1987), 56–68.
Norma Breda dos Santos, “História das Relaçães Internacionais no Brasil: Esbozo de uma Avaliação sobre a Área,” História 24.1 (2005), 11–39.
Pinheiro defines paradigm in diplomacy as the “the identification of theories of diplomatic action made up by a set of ideas which constitute a view of the nature of the international system on the part of the policymakers.” See Leticia Pinheiro, “Traídos pelo Desejo: Um Ensaio sobre a Teoria e a Prática da Política Externa Brasileira Contemporânea,” Contexto Internacional 22.2 (June-December 2000), 308. Original in Portuguese: “a identificação de teorias de ação diplomática formadas por um conjunto de idéias que constitui a visão da natureza do sistema internacional por parte dos formuladores de política.”
Monica Hirst and Maria Regina Soares de Lima, “Contexto Internacional, Democracia e Política Externa,” Política Externa 11.2 (2002), 78–98.
The role of the Brazilian state in economic development has been a central subject of research on the country. See, for instance, Peter Evans, Dependent Development. The Alliance of Multinational, State, and Local Capital in Brazil (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979).
Kathryn Sikkink, Ideas and Institutions. Developmentalism in Brazil and Argentina (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1991).
For comparative studies including Brazil, see Atul Kohli, State-Directed Development. Political Power and Industrialization in the Global Periphery (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), particularly chapters 4 and 5.
Gilmar Masiero, “Pragmatism and Planning in East Asia and Brazil,” in East Asia and Latin America. The Unlikely Alliance, ed. Peter H. Smith, Kotaro Horisaka, and Shoji Nishijima (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2003), 109–129.
For an analysis of the relation between nationalism and economic policies in Latin America during the 1930s, see Eduardo Devés Valdés, “O Pensamento Nacionalista na América Latina e a Reivindicação da Identidade Econômica,” Estudos Históricos 10. 20 (1997), 321–343.
A detailed review of the impact of the Second World War and its aftermath on Latin American economies is offered by Marcelo de Paiva Abreu, “Latin America: The External Context, 1928–1982,” in Cambridge Economic History of Latin America, Volume II. The Long 20th Century, ed. Victor Bulmer-Thomas, John H. Coatsworth, and Roberto Cortés-Conde (Cambridge;; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 101–134.
Nathaniel H. Leff, Economic Policy-Making and Development in Brazil, 1947–1964 (New York;; London; Sydney; Toronto: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1968), 4. Leff also highlights the role of economic policymakers in pushing the developmentalist project autonomously, even when different visions existed among the business groups in Brazil.
Maria Regina Soares de Lima and Mônica Hirst, “Brazil as Intermediate State and Regional Power: Action, Choice and Responsibilities,” International Affairs 82.1 (2006), particularly 22–25.
On the relations between the two countries, from the late 1800s through the 1930s, see Joseph Smith, Unequal Giants: Diplomatic Relations between the United States and Brazil, 1889–1930 (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1991).
W. Michael Weis, “Pan American Shift: Oswaldo Aranha and the Demise of the Brazilian-American Alliance,” in Beyond the Ideal. Pan-Americanism in Inter-American Affairs, ed. David Shenin (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2000), 139–140.
On the influence of U.S. military doctrines among the Brazilian military, see José Augusto Guilhon Albuquerque, “As Relações Brasil-EUA na Percepção dos Militares,” in A Política Externa Brasileira na Visão dos Seus Protagonistas, ed. Henrique Altemani de Oliveira and José A. Guilhon Albuquerque (Rio de Janeiro: Editora Lumen Juris, 2005), 15–27.
Jânio Quadros, “Brazil’s New Foreign Policy,” Foreign Affairs 40 (1961), 19–27.
See Fernando Henrique Cardoso, “O Modelo Político Brasileiro,” in O Modelo Político Brasileiro e Outros Ensaios, 2nd ed. (Sao Paulo: Corpo e Alma do Brasil, 1973), 50–82.
In conversations with former U.S. secretary of state and national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, Brazil’s minister of foreign affairs Antonio Francisco Azeredo da Silveira argued that Brazil could assist the United States in the development of “a more constructive dialogue with other countries,” particularly in South America. He also clarified that Brazil’s recognition of Angola’s independence was less a manifestation of Third Worldism than a result of Brazil’s interests in Africa. Henry Kissinger, Years of Renewal (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1999), 741–742.
Paulo Cabral de Mello, “O Brasil e os Problemas Econômicos Mundiais,” Revista Brasileira de Estudos Políticos 42 (January 1976), 155–156. Quoted in Schneider, Brazil, 34.
Mônica Hirst, “Pesos y Medidas de la Política Exterior Brasileña,” in América Latina: Políticas Exteriores Comparadas, vol.1, ed. Juan Carlos Puig (Buenos Aires: Editor Latinoamericano, 1984), 181.
Mônica Hirst, The United States and Brazil. A Long Road of Unmet Expectations. Contemporary Inter-American Relations Series (New York: Routledge, 2005), 8.
In an empirical study on national role conceptions, six out of ten foreign policy officials interviewed in Brazil during 1967 and 1968 identified internal development as a priority, with the second most cited national role (2) being that of independent or nonaligned nation. K.J. Holsti, “National Role Conceptions in the Study of Foreign Policy,” International Studies Quarterly 14 (1970), 274, Table 2.
For an analysis of the foreign policy under President de Mello, see Ademar Seabra da Cruz Junior, Antonio Ricardo F. Cavalcante, and Luiz Pedone, “Brazil’s Foreign Policy Under Collor,” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 35.1 (1993), 119–144.
Mario Antonio M. de Carvalho Vieira, “Idéias e Instituições: Uma Reflexão sobre Política Externa Brasileira do Início da Década de 90,” Contexto Internacional 23.2 (2001), particularly 249–255.
José Maria Arbilla, “Arranjos Institucionais e Mudança Conceitual na Política Externa Argentina e Brasileira (1989–1994),” Contexto Internacional 22.2 (July-December. 2000), 359.
For a summary of Cardoso’s intellectual path, see Mauricio A. Font, “Introduction” to Charting a New Course. The Politics of Globalization and Social Transformation, by Fernando Henrique Cardoso. Edited by Mauricio A. Font (Oxford; Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2001), 1–34.
For his autobiography, see Fernando Henrique Cardoso, A Arte da Política. A História que Vivi (Rio de Janeiro: Editora Civilização Brasileira, 2006). For an adapted and shorter version of his memoirs published in English, see The Accidental President of Brazil: A Memoir (Cambridge, MA: Public Affairs, 2006).
Rosemary Thorp, Progress, Poverty and Exclusion: An Economic History of Latin America in the 20th century (Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank, 1998), 255.
See Carlos Pio, “A Estabilização Heterodoxa no Brasil: Idéias e Redes Políticas,” Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais 16.46 (June 2001), 29–54.
Federico Neiburg, “Economistas e Culturas Econômicas no Brasil e na Argentina. Notas para uma Comparação a Propósito das Heterodoxias,” Tempo Socia Revista de Sociologia da USP 16.2 (November 2004), 177–202. The political empowerment of economists in Brazil is analyzed by Maria Rita Loureiro in Os Economistas no Poder (Sao Paulo: Editora da Fundação Getúlio Vargas, 1997).
Paulo Totti, “Definido prazo de integração das Américas,” Gazeta Mercantil, December 12, 1994.
On Mercosur’s persistent institutional deficit, see Mario Carranza, “Clinging Together: Mercosur’s Ambitious External Agenda, Its Internal Crisis, and the Future of Regional Economic Integration in South America,” Review of International Political Economy 13.5 (December 2006), 802–829.
Fernando Henrique Cardoso, “Globalization and Politics,” in Charting a New Course. The Politics of Globalization and Social Transformation. Edited and introduced by Mauricio A. Font (Oxford; Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2001), 244–250.
Fernando Henrique Cardoso, “‘Teoria da Dependência’ ou Análises Concretas de Situações de Dependência?” in O Modelo Político Brasileiro, 2nd ed. (Sao Paulo: Difusão Européia do Livro, 1973), 124.
For a commented collection of Ambassador Lampréia’s speeches during his time as minister, see Luiz Felipe Lampréia, Diplomacia Brasileira. Palavras, Contextos e Razões, 2nd ed. (Rio de Janeiro: Editora Nova Aguilar, 1999).
For Brazil’s commitments in the security area and its implications for the Western Hemisphere, see Mônica Herz, “Brazilian Foreign Policy since 1990 and the Pax Americana,” in Between Compliance and Conflict: East Asia, Latin America, and the “New” Pax Americana, ed. Jorge Domínguez and Byung-Kook Kim (New York: Routledge, 2005), 165–192.
Andre M. Nassar, Zuleika Arashiro, and Marcos S. Jank, “Tariff Spikes and Tariff Escalation,” in Handbook on International Trade Policy, ed. William A. Kerr and James D. Gaisford (Cheltenham; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2006), 236.
An explanation of Brazil’s foreign policy rationale is provided by the Brazilian ambassador to the United States, 1999–2004, Rubens A. Barbosa, in “A View from Brazil,” The Washington Quarterly 24.2 (2001), 149–157.
Emir Sader and Ken Silverstein, Without Fear of Being Happy. Lula, the Workers Party and Brazil (London; New York: Verso, 1991), 3.
On the Workers’ Party experience at the municipal level, see Gianpaolo Baiocchi, Radicals in Power. The Workers’ Party (PT) and Experiments in Urban Democracy in Brazil (London; New York: Zed Books, 2003).
Brian Wempler, Participatory Budgeting in Brazil: Contestation, Cooperation, and Accountability (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2007).
Wendy Hunter, “The Normalization of an Anomaly. The Workers’ Party in Brazil,” World Politics 59 (April 2007), 440–475.
Anthony Jarvis, “Societies, States and Geopolitics: Challenges from Historical Sociology,” Review of International Studies 15 (1989), 283.
Paulo Sotero, “Tropeço isola país nas negociações da Alca,” O Estado de S. Paulo, October 5, 2003.
Miriam Gomes Saraiva, “As Estratégias de Cooperação Sul-Sul nos Marcos da Política Externa Brasileira de 1993 a 2007,” Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 50.2 (2007), 45–46.
For a reflection on the relevance of the World Social Forum, see Boaventura de Sousa Santos, The Rise of the Global Left. The World Social Forum and Beyond (New York: Zed Books, 2006).
These preferential agreements covered a small list of products and are not expected to have a significant trade impact. See CNI, “As Relações Comerciais do Brasil com a India e a África do Sul,” Comércio Exterior em Perspectivca 14.8/9 (May-June 2005), 1–8.
For an analysis of the G20, see Amrita Narlikar and Diana Tussie, “The G20 at the Cancún Ministerial: Developing Countries and their Evolving Coalitions in the WTO,” The World Economy 27.7 (2004), 947–966.
Copyright information
© 2011 Zuleika Arashiro
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Arashiro, Z. (2011). Brazilian Foreign Trade Policy: Instrument for an Autonomous Nation. In: Negotiating the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Studies of the Americas. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230119055_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230119055_7
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-29473-2
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-11905-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave Business & Management CollectionBusiness and Management (R0)