![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
After passage of the 1988 Constitution of Brazil, successive democratic governments worked to build bridges between the nation’s foreign policy and its defence strategy, thus fostering a dialogue among administrations and constituencies under the aegis of the rule of law. It was under the Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff administrations that Brazil laid out a grand strategy, implementation of which was interrupted by the controversial impeachment proceedings of 2016. The argument unfolds from a consideration of Brazil’s development model and domestic politics as key structural variables in analysing the challenges faced in the conception and implementation of its grand strategy. The article is organised into two sections: (1) The sketch of a grand strategy: when Brazil’s foreign and defence policies converged; (2) An ambition frustrated? Or, the impact of Brazil’s development model and domestic politics on the conception and implementation of its grand strategy.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Carlos R S Milani is Associate Professor at the Rio de Janeiro State University’s Institute for Social and Political Studies (IESP-UERJ), and a research fellow with the Brazilian National Science Council (CNPq). Between January and December 2017, he was Visiting Researcher at the University of California, Berkeley. His research agenda includes Brazilian foreign policy, comparative foreign policy, development cooperation policies and politics, and thematic cartography applied to international relations. His latest books are Solidariedade e Interesse: motivações e estratégias na cooperação internacional para o desenvolvimento (2018), Brazilian Cooperation Agency: 30 years of history and futures challenges (2017, in Portuguese), Atlas of Brazilian Defence Policy (2017, in Portuguese) and Atlas of Brazilian foreign policy (2016, in English, Spanish and Portuguese).
Tiago Nery holds a PhD in Political Science from Rio de Janeiro State University’s Institute for Social and Political Studies (IESP-UERJ, 2015). His thesis was entitled ‘Brazilian foreign policy and UNASUR: geopolitics and the expansion of Brazilian capitalism in South America’. He currently works at the Department of International Relations of the State Government of Rio de Janeiro. He is the author of A economia do desenvolvimento na América Latina: o pensamento da Cepal nos anos 1950 e 1990 (2011, in Portuguese). His main research interests are international political economy, domestic and systemic dimensions of Brazilian foreign policy, Latin American studies and South America in global geopolitics.
Notes
1 Abshire DM, ‘Toward a grand strategy’, Harvard International Review, 11, 3, 1989, pp. 78–81; Brands H, Dilemmas of Brazilian Grand Strategy. Carlisle: US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute Monograph, 2010; Russel R & JG Tokatlian, ‘Grand strategy’, in Domínguez JI & A Covarrubias (eds), Routledge Handbook of Latin America in the World. New York: Routledge, 2015, pp. 58–73.
2 Arturi CS, ‘The theoretical debate on changes in political regimes: The Brazilian case’, in Codato AN (ed.), Transition and Democratic Consolidation, Studies on Contemporary Brazil. New York: Nova Science, 2006, pp. 77–102; Mainwaring S, ‘The Transition to Democracy in Brazil’, Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 28, 1, 1986, pp. 149–179; O’Donnell G, ‘Brazil’, in Kritz NJ (ed.), Transitional Justice: How Emerging Democracies Reckon with Former Regimes. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace (volume II: Country Studies), 1995, pp. 431–452; Rochon TR & Mitchell MJ, ‘Social bases of the transition to democracy in Brazil’, Comparative Politics, 21, 3, 1989, pp. 307–322.
3 Becker B, Geopolítica da Amazônia. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 1982; Costa WM, Geografia Política e Geopolítica, discursos sobre o território e o poder. S. Paulo: EDUSP, 1992; Miyamoto S, ‘Os Estudos Geopolíticos no Brasil: uma contribuição para sua avaliação’, Perspectivas São Paulo, 4, s/n, 1981, pp. 75–92.
4 Milani CRS & Pinheiro L, ‘The politics of Brazilian foreign policy and its analytical challenges’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 13, 2017, pp. 278–296; Sanchez Badin et al. ‘Política Externa como Política Pública: Uma Análise pela Regulamentação Constitucional Brasileira (1967–1988)’, Revista de Sociologia e Política, 27, pp. 125–143.
5 Cason J & Power T, ‘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, 2009, pp. 117–140; França C & Sanchez M, ‘A Horizontalização da Política Externa Brasileira’, Valor Econômico, 24 April 2009.
6 Articles 84 and 91 of the Constitution foresee that the members of the defence council are the vice-president, the president of the federal chamber of deputies, the president of the senate, the heads of the armed forces, as well as the ministers of defence, foreign affairs, justice, and planning.
7 Amorim C, A Grande Estratégia do Brasil: Discursos, Artigos e Entrevistas da Gestão no Ministério da Defesa (2011–2014). Brasilia/ S. Paulo: FUNAG/Unesp, 2016; Jobim N, Etchegoyen SW & Alsina Junior JP (eds), Segurança Internacional: Perspectivas Brasileiras. Rio de Janeiro: FGV Editora, 2010.
8 Cepik M & Bertol FL, ‘Defence policy in Brazil: bridging the gap between ends and means?’, Defence Studies, 16, 3, 2016, pp. 229–247.
9 Burges S, ‘Consensual hegemony: Theorizing Brazilian foreign policy after the cold war’, International Relations, 22, 1, pp. 65–84; Lima MRS & Hisrt M, ‘Brasil como poder intermediário e poder regional’, in Hurrell A, et al. (eds), Os BRICS e a Ordem Global. Rio de Janeiro: FGV, 2009, pp. 43–73.
10 Alsina Jr, João PS, Política Externa e Poder Militar no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Editora FGV, 2009; Brands H, Dilemmas of Brazilian Grand Strategy. Carlisle: US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute Monograph, 2010; Lima MRS, et al., Atlas of Brazilian Defence Policy. Buenos Aires: CLACSO, 2017.
11 To have an idea of how media outlets act in the field of foreign policy in Brazil, the Foreign Policy Observatory set up a methodology to assess their perceptions <http://cebrap.org.br/projetos/observatorio>.
12 Hirst M & Lima MRS, ‘Rethinking global and domestic challenges in Brazilian foreign policy’, in Domínguez JI & Covarrubias A (eds), Routledge Handbook of Latin America in the World. New York: Routledge, 2015, pp. 139–152.
13 Amorim C, A Grande Estratégia do Brasil: Discursos, Artigos e Entrevistas da Gestão no Ministério da Defesa (2011–2014). Brasilia/ S. Paulo: FUNAG/Unesp, 2016; Ibid.; Lieber RJ, ‘The rise of the BRICS and American primacy’, International Politics, 51, 2, 2014, pp. 137–154; Parisot J, ‘American power, East Asian regionalism and emerging powers: In or against empire?’, Third World Quaterly, 34, 7, 2013, pp. 1159–1174.
14 Danese S, Diplomacia Presidencial: história e crítica. Rio de Janeiro: Topbooks, 1999; Malamud A, ‘Presidential diplomacy and the institutional underpinnings of Mercosur: An empirical examination?’, Latin American Research Review, 40, 1, 2005, pp. 138–164.
15 IPEA (Instituto de Pesquisas Econômicas Aplicadas) and ABC (Agência Brasileira de Cooperação), Brazilian Co-operation for International Development 2005–2009. Brasília: IPEA & ABC, 2010. IPEA & ABC, Cooperação Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento Internacional 2010. Brasília: IPEA & ABC, 2013. IPEA & ABC, Cooperação Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento Internacional 2011–2013. Brasília: IPEA & ABC, 2016; Milani CRS, ABC 30 Anos: História e Desafios Futuros. Brasília: Agência Brasileira de Cooperação, 2017.
16 Seitenfus R, Haiti: dilemas e fracassos internacionais. Ijuí: Editora da Unijuí, 2014.
17 Amorim C, A Grande Estratégia do Brasil: Discursos, Artigos e Entrevistas da Gestão no Ministério da Defesa (2011–2014). Brasilia/ S. Paulo: FUNAG/Unesp, 2016.
18 Pham JP, ‘What is in the national interest? Hans Morgenthau’s realist vision and American foreign policy’, American Foreign Policy Interests, 30, 5, 2008, pp. 256–265.
19 Morgenthau H, Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1948.
20 Russel R & Tokatlian JG, ‘From antagonistic autonomy to relational autonomy: A theoretical reflection from the Southern cone’, Latin American Politics and Society, 45, 1, 2003, pp. 1–24; Giacalone R, ‘Latin American foreign policy analysis: External influences and internal circumstances’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 8, 4, 2012, pp. 335–353.
21 Bethell L, ‘Brazil and Latin America’, Journal of Latin American Studies, 42, 3, 2010, pp. 457–485; Lima MRS & Hirst M, ‘Brasil como poder intermediário e poder regional’, in Hurrell A, et al. (eds), Os BRICS e a Ordem Global. Rio de Janeiro: FGV, 2009, pp. 43–73.
22 Spektor M, ‘Brazil: Shadows of the past and contested ambitions’, in Hitchcock WI, Leffler MP & Legro JW (eds), Shaper Nations: Strategies for a Changing World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016, pp. 17–35.
23 Milani CRS, Pinheiro L & Lima MRS, ‘Brazil’s foreign policy and the graduation dilemma’, International Affairs, 93, 3, 2017, pp. 585–605.
24 Amorim C, A Grande Estratégia do Brasil: Discursos, Artigos e Entrevistas da Gestão no Ministério da Defesa (2011–2014). Brasilia/ S. Paulo: FUNAG/Unesp, 2016; Hirst M & Lima MRS, ‘Rethinking global and domestic challenges in Brazilian foreign policy’, in Domínguez JI & Covarrubias A (eds), Routledge Handbook of Latin America in the World. New York: Routledge, 2015, pp. 139–152.
25 A revisionist state is here defined as a state which is geopolitically dissatisfied, thus aiming to revise rules of the international game by investing in military power, participating in international institutions, resuming a norm-making role, deploying a global diplomacy, etc. There are variations on the states’ international revisionist behaviour; therefore, we consider revisionism within a political continuum from soft to strong revisionism, depending on level of dissatisfaction and the material/immaterial capacities of the state actor. Hurrell A, ‘Hegemony, liberalism and global order: What space for would-be great powers?’, International Affairs, 82, 1, 2006, pp. 1–19; Kastner SL & Saunders PC, ‘Is China a status quo or revisinist state? Leadership travel as na empirical indicator of foreign policy priorities’, International Studies Quarterly, 56, 1, 2012, pp. 163–177; Schweller RL, ‘Bandwagining for profit. Bringing the revisionist state back in’, International Security, 19, 1, 1994, pp.72–107.
26 Hurrell A, ‘O Brasil e os Estados Unidos: Reflexões Comparativas (ensaio analítico)’, in Hirst M (ed.), Brasil-Estados Unidos: Desencontros e Afinidades. Rio de Janeiro: Editora FGV, 2009, pp. 167–229; Lima MRS, ‘Brasil e Polos Emergentes do Poder Mundial: Rússia, Índia, China e África do Sul’, in Baumann R (ed.), O Brasil e os demais BRICS – comércio e política. Brasília: CEPAL/IPEA, 2010, pp. 155–176; Narlikar A, New Powers: How to Become One and How to Manage Them. New York: Columbia University Press, 2010.
27 We operationalise graduation in terms of relative material capabilities which imply differentiation, political will (expressed in the graduation choices), recognition by the major powers and other developing countries, cohesion among government and strategic elites, and societal support. We agree that the graduation process generates a dilemma due to the costs, uncertainties and risks associated with decisions taken at the domestic, regional and global or systemic levels. Milani CRS, Pinheiro L & Lima MRS, ‘Brazil’s foreign policy and the graduation dilemma’, International Affairs, 93, 3, 2017, pp. 585–605.
28 Milani CRS, ‘Brazil, democracy at stake’, Berkeley Review of Latin American Studies, University of California at Berkeley, Spring 2017, pp. 52–59.
29 Allison G & Zelikow P, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York: Longman, 1999 (2nd ed.). Boito A & Berringer T, ‘Social classes, neodevelopmentalism, and Brazilian foreign policy under presidents Lula and Dilma’, Latin American Perspectives, 41, 5, 2014, pp. 94–109; Gourevitch P, ‘The second image reversed: The international sources of domestic politics’, International Organization, 32, 4, 1978, pp. 881–912; Hill C, The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy. London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2003; Milani CRS & Pinheiro L, ‘The politics of Brazilian foreign policy and its analytical challenges’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 13, 2, 2017, pp. 278–296.
30 Carvalho MI, ‘Estruturas domésticas e grupos de interesse: a formação da posição brasileira para Seattle’, Contexto Internacional, 25, 2, 2003, pp. 363–401; Cason J & Power T, ‘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, 2009, pp. 117–140; Lima MRS & Duarte R, ‘Diplomacia Presidencial e Politização da Política Externa: Uma Comparação dos Governos FHC e Lula’, Observador On-Line, 8, 9, 2013, pp. 1–24.
31 Gourevitch P, Políticas Estratégicas en Tiempos Difíciles: Respuestas Comparativas a las Crisis Económicas Internacionales. México, DF: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1993.
32 Lima MRS & Hirst M, ‘Brasil como poder intermediário e poder regional’, in Hurrell A, et al. (eds), Os BRICS e a Ordem Global. Rio de Janeiro: FGV, 2009, pp. 43–73.
33 Cervo AL, ‘Political regimes and Brazil’s foreign policy’, Saraiva JF (ed.), Foreign Policy and Political Regime. Brasília: IBRI, 2003, pp. 341–361; Lima MRS & Hirst M, ‘Brasil como poder intermediário e poder regional’, in Hurrell A, et al. (eds), Os BRICS e a Ordem Global. Rio de Janeiro: FGV, 2009, pp. 43–73.
34 Bresser-Pereira LC, A Construção Política do Brasil: sociedade, economia e estado desde a independência. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2014; Carrillo IR, ‘The new developmentalism and the challenges to long-term stability in Brazil’, Latin American Perspectives, 41, 5, 2014, pp. 59–74; Ibid.
35 Cardoso FH, Xadrez Internacional e Social-Democracia. São Paulo: Paz e Terra, 2010; Ibid.; Paulani L, ‘A experiência brasileira entre 2003 e 2014: Neodesenvolvimentismo?’, Cadernos do Desenvolvimento, 12, 20, 2017, pp. 135–155.
36 Vigevani T & Cepaluni G, Brazilian Foreign Policy in Changing Times, the Quest for Autonomy from Sarney to Lula. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, Lexington Books, 2012.
37 Giacalone R, ‘Latin American foreign policy analysis: External influences and internal circumstances’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 8, 4, 2012, pp. 335–353; Russel R & Tokatlian JG, ‘From antagonistic autonomy to relational autonomy: A theoretical reflection from the Southern cone’, Latin American Politics and Society, 45, 1, 2003, pp. 1–24; Vigevani T & Cepaluni G, Brazilian Foreign Policy in Changing Times, the Quest for Autonomy from Sarney to Lula. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, Lexington Books, 2012.
38 Morgenthau H, Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1948.
39 Lima MRS, ‘A agência da política externa brasileira (2008–2015): Uma análise preliminar’, in Desiderá W & Ramanzini Junior H (eds), Crise sistêmica e inserção internacional: A política externa brasileira de 2008 a 2015. Brasília: IPEA, Funag, 2017.
40 Ibid.
41 Garcia, MA, ‘Avanços, Impasses e Desafios da Integração’, in Maringoni G, Schutte GR & Berrón G (eds), 2003–2013: uma nova política externa. Tubarão: Ed. Copiart, 2014, pp. 96–107.
42 Ricupero, R, A diplomacia na construção do Brasil: 1750–2016. Rio de Janeiro: Versal, 2017.
43 Hirst M & Lima MRS, ‘Rethinking global and domestic challenges in Brazilian foreign policy’, in Domínguez JI & Covarrubias A (eds), Routledge Handbook of Latin America in the World. New York: Routledge, 2015, pp. 139–152.
44 Amorim Neto O, De Dutra a Lula: a Condução e os Determinantes da Política Externa Brasileira. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Campus Elsevier e Fundação Konrad Adenauer, 2011.
45 Hirst M & Lima MRS, ‘Rethinking global and domestic challenges in Brazilian foreign policy’, in Domínguez JI & Covarrubias A (eds), Routledge Handbook of Latin America in the World. New York: Routledge, 2015, pp. 139–152.
46 Bresser-Pereira LC, A Construção Política do Brasil: sociedade, economia e estado desde a independência. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2014.
47 Boito A & Berringer T, ‘Social classes, neodevelopmentalism, and Brazilian foreign policy under presidents Lula and Dilma’, Latin American Perspectives, 41, 5, 2014, pp. 94–109.
48 Nery T, A economia do desenvolvimento na América Latina: o pensamento da CEPAL nos anos 1950 e 1990. Sao Paulo: Caros Amigos Editora, 2011.
49 Fonseca PCD, ‘Desenvolvimentismo: a construção do conceito’, Texto para Discussão, 2103 (IPEA), 2015; Ibid.
50 Boito A & Berringer T, ‘Social classes, neodevelopmentalism, and Brazilian foreign policy under presidents Lula and Dilma’, Latin American Perspectives, 41, 5, 2014, pp. 94–109; Berringer T, A Burguesia Brasileira e a Política Externa nos Governos FHC e Lula. Curitiba: Appris, 2015.
51 Ibid.; Carrillo IR, ‘The new developmentalism and the challenges to long-term stability in Brazil’, Latin American Perspectives, 41, 5, 2014, pp. 59–74; Musacchio A & Lazzarini S, Reinventando o Capitalismo de Estado: o Leviatã nos Negócios - Brasil e Outros Países. São Paulo: Portfolio-Penguin, 2015; Schneider BR, Hierarchical Capitalism in Latin America: Business, Labor and the Challenges of Equitable Development. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
52 Ibid.
53 Ibid.; Singer A, ‘Cutucando Onças com Vara Curta: O Ensaio Desenvolvimentista no Primeiro Mandato de Dilma Rousseff (2011–2014)’, Novos Estudos, 102, 2015, pp. 42–71.
54 Singer A, ‘A (Falta de) Base Política para o Ensaio Desenvolvimentista’, in Sibger A & Loureiro I (eds), As Contradições do Lulismo: A que Ponto Chegamos?. São Paulo: Boitempo. 2016.
55 Ibid.
56 Michel Temer, a traditional politician from the PMDB (centre-right political party which sponsored different governments, including Cardoso, Lula and Rousseff), was vice-president under Rousseff, and actively participated in the de-stabilisation of her government, thus benefitting from her impeachment in 2016. The impeachment demonstrates that the PMDB freely moves from the centre to the right within the political spectrum. After the June 2013 massive demonstrations, the PMDB moved to the right, which led to the growing importance of Eduardo Cunha, a fierce and conservative PMDB leader, who became President of the Chamber of Deputies in 2015 and played a central role in Rousseff’s destitution. In the beginning, Rousseff tended to consider Cunha a case of deviation within the chamber that could be contained by her vice-president. However, Cunha and Temer were actually allies, and both worked together to destitute Rousseff. Singer A, O lulismo em crise: Um quebra-cabeça do período Dilma (2011–2016). São Paulo: Companhia das letras, 2018.
57 Cepik M & Bertol FL, ‘Defence policy in Brazil: Bridging the gap between ends and means?’, Defence Studies, 16, 3, 2016, pp. 229–247.
58 Milani CRS, ‘Brazil, democracy at stake’, in Berkeley Review of Latin American Studies. Berkeley: University of California, Spring 2017, pp. 52–59.
59 Ibid.; Milani CRS, Pinheiro L & Lima MRS, ‘Brazil’s foreign policy and the graduation dilemma’, International Affairs, 93, 3, 2017, pp. 585–605.
60 Lobell SE, Taliaferro JW & Ripsman NM, ‘Introduction’, in Taliaferro JW, Ripsman NM & Lobell SE (eds), The Challenge of Grand Strategy, the Great Powers and the Broken Balance between the World Wars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012, p 15.
61 Document available at <http://www.secretariageral.gov.br/noticias/copy_of_titulo-da-noticia-entre-35-e-90-caracteres-com-espaco/BrasilUmPasemBuscadeumaGrandeEstratgia.pdf>.
62 Brands H, Dilemmas of Brazilian Grand Strategy. Carlisle: US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute Monograph, 2010, p. 5.
63 Milani CRS, Pinheiro L & Lima MRS, ‘Brazil’s foreign policy and the graduation dilemma’, International Affairs, 93, 3, 2017, pp. 585–605.