The Geography and Demographics of Brazil - Essay Example

?How Democratization Impacted Upon Brazil’s Foreign Policy Introduction Almost four decades ago, a study took the occasion of Brazil’s announcement of its development of nuclear capability, against international pressure to observe that by the start of the next century, this country will attain the status of a major international power (Roett, 1975, p. 139). The premise for the statement may be somewhat off-base, given the present-day concern with sustainability and the preservation of the environment. However, the conclusion arrived at appears prophetic. In the 21st century, Brazil is indeed proving to be the most significant and influential Latin American state in the field of foreign affairs. The Geography and Demographics of Brazil Brazil has always had a unique sense of its identity as a continental country. Because of its vast land area and its sizable population it is, like the United States, Russia, China and India, bound to perform an important role in the international community. A country this size, dominating the greater part of South America, is bound to exert economic and political influence in the region and the world. It has, after all, the world’s eighth largest economy and fifth-largest land territory in the world (Da Cruz, 2005, p. 115). For instance, the magnitude of its people’s progress – 24 million Brazilians elevated from poverty, and 31 million more joining the middle class – is bound to create a sizeable ripple in the world economy (Vincent, 2010). The problems and challenges facing Brazil, and the manner in which she resolves them, will tend to exert an impact upon other states because of the country’s sheer size (Lafer, 2000, p. 208). The following figure shows a map of Brazil and its smaller neighboring states. Map of Brazil Source: http://www.brazil-travel-northeast.com/maps-of-brazil.html Aside from its geography and demographics, Brazil’s uniqueness lies in its remarkable history. The Brazilian people have been described as an amalgam of “whites, Indians, people of mixed race, freed blacks, and slaves,” according to Jose Bonifacio, Brazil’s “Patriarch of Independence” (Lafer, 2000, p. 211). In this sense, the country’s heritage and multinational cultural identity places it in a unique position to chart a destiny that makes the most of its multifaceted legacy. Brazil’s international identity places it at an advantage; although a former colony, it was distanced from international tensions that had occupied other nations in their search for a unique national identity. Brazil’s post-colonial history Brazil gained independence from the colonizers in 1822, and after that it gained freedom from monarchical rule in 1889 through a military overthrow. Between these years, a legitimate monarchy gave way to a well-established oligarchic republic where power was wielded by industrialists, coffee growers, and cattle ranchers (Lafer, 2000; Maitra, 2007). From 1889 to 1930, the country was run as a constitutional republic (i.e., the “First Republic”) with its old provinces granted autonomy as states, and collectively governed under the formal name, “The United States of Brazil.” In 1930, the Brazilian Revolution marked the end of the old republic and installed Getulio Dornelles Vargas in power. For this reason, 1930 to 1945 is known as the Vargas Era. While the early years had the benefit of a democratically eleted legislature, the years 1937 to 1945 saw Vargas transform into an authoritarian ruler who had abolished the former Constitution in a coup d’etat, shut down Congress, and assumed dictatorial powers. In 1945 Vargas was deposed, and the country redemocratized (Levine, 2003, p. 97). The subsequent period saw a populist regime followed by unsuccessful economic programs, for which reason the military intervened in 1964 in a revolutionary coup which again, as before, ended in dictatorship by 1985 (Levine, 2003). By 1985, democracy was again established, giving way to the first directly elected president (after the military regime) in 1989, in the person of Collor, who instituted economic reforms based on free trade and privatization. After Collor, Cardoso succeeded as president in 1994, and generally continued with Collor’s reforms; he was followed by Lula in 2002, who pursued a program for social change until he stepped down in 2010. While Western-style democracy had been elusive, Brazil’s consistent attempts to establish a lasting democracy has increased transparent interest aggregation, and may be credited with the more significant role Brazil is playing in global policy-making today (Armijo & Kearney, 2000; Levine, 2003). Brazil’s economic development In the era of 19th century post-colonialism, the new Latin American republics were relatively isolated, from each other and from the rest of the world. Political and economic power was concentrated in a few ruling landed families comprising the social elite, whose hold on power was further solidified with the endorsement and backing of the religious orders and the military hierarchies in the region. However, in the case of Brazil, the process of decolonization set it apart from other Latin American states because the former colony continued to maintain a functional relationship with its former colonizer, Portugal; in fact, the heir to the Portuguese throne, Dom Pedro, remained in the country as Brazil’s regent. As such, Brazil had the best of both words. The constitutional monarchy of Brazil was therefore elevated to the category of a “united kingdom” equal in stature to Portugal, while maintaining close ties with its former mother state and, therefore, benefiting from her support (Lafer, 2000, p. 211). In retrospect, the country’s internal macroeconomic programs hardly differed from that of its neighbours, and there has been little done as far as instituting structural reforms relating to domestic taxation, agrarian land distribution, and crime fighting. There has even been some measure of graft and corruption observed at the local level. However, Brazil’s aggressive foreign policy in defense of its interests in the international arena has challenged the power and growth of the large, developed powers, and is generally admired as a success story to be emulated in the emerging world (Lula, 2008, p. 51). Brazil had, since 2003, taken part in a series of alliances including: IBSA (India, Brazil and South Africa Dialogue Forum for economic, political and technical cooperation); the G$ (Brazil, India, Germany and Japan for UNSC enlargement of new permanent members) and G20 for both trade and finance. South American integration, spearheaded by Brazil, materialized in the South American Community of Nations (SACN), later renamed Union of South American Nations (Unasur). Mercosur (the Southern Common Market composed of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay) later entered into talks with international partners EU, Israel, SACU (South African Customs Union), and the SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation). Brazil also hosted the ASPA (South American and Arab Countries Summit) and the ASA (South American Africa Summit). After 2007, the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) was institutionalised (Pecequilo, 2010, p. 139). Brazil’s foreign policy development Brazil’s early foreign policy revolved about four major factors – Portugal due to their strong cultural and historical ties; England, which then dominated cross-border trade particularly with Brazil; and Argentina, because of Brazil’s concern with the balance of power in the region (Roett, 1975, p. 141). One of the country’s early unique diplomatic achievements is its peaceful negotiation of its borders with ten neighbors; it is one of the countries with the most number of neighbors, and likewise one of those with the least border problems among countries in the world. This accomplishment may be attributed to Rio Branco, Brazilian minister of external relations, representative and counsel in international arbitrations, from 1902 to 1912 when the border designations were drawn. Branco’s diplomatic style is what characterizes Brazil’s distinctive diplomatic conduct up to the present. (Lafer, 2000, p. 214-215). Brazil’s foreign policy under the leadership of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (2002-2010) is seen by many in the developing as well as developed world as assertive and relevant in the development of global political and economic affairs. Lula came into power in 2002 with a foreign policy distinguished by its highly nationalist agenda distinct from the regimes before it (Hurrell, 2008). Among Lula’s policies, that which was considered one of the most controversial was Brazil’s status of bilateral relations with the United States under his regime. On the one end, they were viewed as having weakened due to Brazil’s “new options” which comprised on the South-South cooperation axis. However, the move has also been seen as having strengthened the country’s political, diplomatic and economic profile (Pecequilo, 2010). Traditionally, Brazil’s foreign policy was defined by a bilateral hemispheric stance from 1902 to 1961, and largely as global multilateral between 1961 and 1989. The bilateral hemispheric direction resumed from 1989 to 1999 due to the end of the Cold War, and from 1999 to the present trends have once again been dominated by the global multilateral, since 2003 in particular (Pecequilo, 2010, p. 132). Prior to Lula’s ascent to power in 2003, the bilateral relations between Brazil and the US was characterized as “relatively distant”, for no other reason that there was a general absence of crises or issues to spur progress in this area. However, throughout the last decade of the twentieth century and into the first few years of the next, there were projects adopted towards “asymmetric globalization,” characterised mainly by integration within the region in South America. For Brazil, these marked a departure from the strategic alignment patterns that defined the earlier regimes, and for many, the changes were too discomfiting and suspicious. The purpose of “asymmetric globalization” was to provide a “constructive criticism” of globalization, that is, that from the point of view of Brazil as a developing nation there must be introduced changes in the pattern of international government and aid. During the period prior to Lula’s presidency, there was a change in the perception of US unipolarity; instead, partly because the perceived progressive weakening of the American economy, there was a conscious move towards a multipolarity with the rising economies such as China, EU, Japan, India, Russia and South Africa (Pecequilo, 2010, p. 134). These developed during the administration of Lula’s predecessors, Fernando Collor de Mello and Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who adopted a rather low-profile foreign policy stance (De Cruz & Cavalcante, 1993; Burges, 2006). In contrast, Lula’s administration ushered in a new direction in Brazilian foreign policy, partly due to major developments in the international community. Paradigm shifts in the global mindset were triggered by the end of the Cold War, the emergence of the transition economies, the monetary unionisation of the EU and the gradual decline of US economic supremacy that culminated in the economic crisis of 2008. Due to this realignment in world economic strength, nations responded with changes in their domestic and foreign policies throughout the first decade of the 21st century. For the Latin American region, Brazil was particularly poised to be at the forefront of this paradigm shift. During its return to the global-multilateral foreign relations platform, Brazil developed new ties with the newly emerging states, and pursued initiatives towards a new social dimension aimed at eradicating hunger, poverty, debt relief, and disease control. More importantly, Brazil began to assert its self interests, pushing for political and economic demands including proposals to establish equal and fair trade that addressed developing countries’ concerns, and the reform of international institutions and organizations. Rather than seek to identify itself with the First World nations, Brazil realigned itself with Russia, India, China and South Africa. These alliances served to increase Brazil’s bargaining power with the north, in particular with the US (Pecequilo, 2010, p. 138). Determinants of Brazil’s foreign policy The course Brazil has taken to emerge as one of the more influential forces in international relations is may be attributed to two factors. One is the fact that it is geographically situated in the Western hemisphere; as such, it is, as with all other countries in the region, historically influenced by the United States’ political might, and the strength of its economic and cultural sway. These set of circumstances has afforded Brazil a source of stability, one of the reasons why, as early as the first quarter of the twentieth century, the country has been able to peacefully settle all of its territorial disputes with the adjoining states. For this reason, the last century has proven Brazil to be a “geopolitically satisfied” nation which is markedly opposite to other countries in the region (Soares de Lima & Hirst, 2006, p. 22). It has anchored its stability on its unique diplomatic style, relying on peaceful solutions rather than in military campaigns in solving disputes Another major factor is its growing economy and strong export sector (Vincent, 2010). On the relation between economics and foreign policy, Soares de Lima and Hirst (2006) present an interesting insight: that foreign threats and risks are typically brought about by economic interests and perceived developmental imperatives. A country’s susceptibility to external destabilising forces is usually driven by economic considerations, seldom by military or security concerns. Because of this, a country’s foreign policy always has a “strongly developmental component” (Soares de Lima & Hirst, 2006, p. 22) – this means that economic modelling tends to shape foreign policy, and the choice of economic model is determined by factors that are domestic, regional, and more recently global integration. So-called “critical conjuncture” – or more simply, turning points that bring about a redefinition of the economic paradigm – have defined the economic model and, consequently, foreign policy. In the 20th century, two significant critical conjunctures influence Brazilian policy. First is in the 1930s, when the region’s economy shifted from the large-scale export of agricultural products to and import-substitution model. Second is in the 1990s, which marked the end of the “protected industrialization” regime on the basis of multilateral economic agreements, and its replacement with a model defined by globalization and competitive integration in the international market. The strength of Brazilian economy had played an important role in the shaping of its financial policy. The country’s rapid industrialization after the last world war marked it as one of the most successful economies to be built on ISI (import substitution industrialisation). It gave the state a major role in regulation, in incentive creation, and in production. The state likewise spearheaded in providing an ideal environment for attracting large-scale foreign direct investments (FDI) in broad industrial sectors. The combination of ISI and government’s initiatives in FDIs created inroads in the realization of Brazil’s clamour for differential treatment in trade accorded to developing countries (De Onis, 2000). Conclusion There are still persistent challenges facing the country, such as border security, drug trafficking, inflation, and the large foreign debt it inherited from its dictatorial past (Da Cruz, 2005. Still, the country’s unique diplomatic style of leadership from the time of Branco, down through Cardoso and Lula, has sustained the country’s foreign policy leadership. It is based on consensus-building rather than coercion or domination (Burges, 2006, p. 39). Despite periods of military authoritarian rule, the country’s strengths lie in its modern democratic platform, its multicultural past, its economic strength, its geography and demography, and especially its unique diplomatic style, have all worked to create a Brazil that is not a major global force in international affairs. There is every indication that this developing Latin American country will continue to exert a major influence in the course of world affairs well beyond the foreseeable future. References Armijo, L E & Kearney, C A 2008 “Does Democratization Alter the Policy Process? Trade Policymaking in Brazil.” Democratization, Vol. 15, No. 5, Dec 2008, pp. 991-1017 Burges, S W 2006 “Without Sticks or Carrots: Brazilian Leadership in South America During the Cardoso Era, 1992–2003” Bulletin of Latin American Research, Jan 2006, Vol. 25 Issue 1, p23-42 Da Cruz, J A 2005 “Brazil's International Relations at the Dawn of the Twenty-first Century.” Latin American Politics & Society, Spring 2005, Vol. 47 Issue 1, p115-122 De Cruz Jr, A S & Cavalcante, A R 1993 “Brazil's foreign policy under Collor.” Journal of Interamerican Studies & World Affairs, 00221937, Spring93, Vol. 35, Issue 1 De Onis, J 2000 “Brazil’s New Capitalism”. Foreign Affairs, Vol. 79, no. 3, May-June 2000, pp. 107-119 Hurrell, A 2008 “Lula’s Brazil: A Rising Power, But Going Where?” Current History. Feb 2008, pp. 51-57. Lafer, C 2000 “Brazilian International Identity and Foreign Policy: Past, Present and Future”, Daedalus, vol. 129, no. 2, pp. 207-238 Levine, R M 2003 The History of Brazil. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY. Maitra, S 2007 “Democratization of Brazil: Past Trends and Prospects” Global India Foundation. Pecequilo, C S 2010 “A New Strategic Dialogue: Brazil-US Relations in Lula’s Presidency (2003-2010)”, Revista Brasileira de Politica Internacional, (special edition) vol. 53, pp. 132-150 Roett, R 1975 “Brazil Ascendant: International Relations and Geopolitics in the Late 20th. Century”, Journal of International Affairs, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 139-145 Soares De Lima, M R & Hirst, M 2006 “Brazil as an Intermediate State and Regional Power: Action, Choice and Responsibilities,” International Affairs, vol. 82, issue 1, January 2006, p. 21-40 Vincent, I 2010 “Lula’s Surprising Legacy,” Maclean's, 8/30/2010, Vol. 123 Issue 33/34, p44-45 Visentini, P G F & Da Silva, A L R 2010 “Brazil and the Economic, Political, and Environmental Multilateralism: the Lula years (2003-2010).” Revista Brasileira de Politica Internacional, (special edition) vol. 53, pp. 54-72 Read More