International thought in the Lula era

Abstract

In the last fifty years, Brazil began a rapid process of structural transformation, following the first stage of industrial development in the 1930s. Currently the country integrates the small group of countries which evolved from an initial peripheral and subordinate insertion dating back to the nineteenth century, part of the most dynamic segment of the semiperiphery. But this category, intermediate between the "maturity" and "backwardness", according Modernization theorists, or between the "center" and "periphery", as theorists of the Dependence defend, has undergone a process of overcoming considerable positive progress in the direction of the group of states that dominate the current world system. In this way, during the years 2003-2010, foreign policy, along with the formulation of a new regionalism as a strategy of global integration and a new ideal model of State, has been a key factor

Connections between populism and nationalism: Evidence from Jair Bolsonaro's speeches

“…Between 1945 and 1964, it was associated with political elites and left‐wing groups, who considered the ‘critique towards modern imperialism, Western or Northern’, to be fundamental (Bresser‐Pereira, 2018, p. 865). From the 1990s onwards, governments abandoned this viewpoint and foreign policy, especially under President Lula's administration, and began to employ multilateral strategies to promote national interests (Bernal‐Meza, 2010). During Bolsonaro's administration, however, the international diatribe surrounding the Amazon added fresh impetus to a discourse that rejects external interference in Brazil's sovereignty (De Sá Guimarães & De Oliveira E Silva, 2021; Macedo, 2021).…”

The Rise and Decline of Brazil as a Regional Power (2003–2016)

“…Guimarães (1999) pointed to reasons that countries such as China, India, and Brazil should have a distinctive place in the international system. Brazil represented South America in this group of emerging economies linked by their extraordinary economic development (Brainard and Martinez-Díaz, 2009) and had a vocation for regional leadership (Bernal-Meza and Bizzozero, 2014; Almeida, 2014; Bernal-Meza, 2010; Cervo and Lessa, 2010). Through its membership in BRICS it took its place on the world stage (Bernal-Meza, 2015a; Christensen and Bernal-Meza, 2014), and Beijing was seen as its most important global partner.…”

“…International strategies and visions differed under the governments of Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1995–2002) and Luis Inácio Lula da Silva (2003–2010). With Cardoso, policy was idealistic and allied with the order led by the United States while maintaining liberal multilateralism (Cervo, 2002; 2008); under Lula, it was realistic and counterhegemonic (Bernal-Meza, 2002; 2009; 2010; Pecequilo, 2008). Lula focused on South America, from which he sought to project Brazil internationally, and chose Mercosur as a central element of this regional positioning strategy.…”

“…Brazil was to become the axis of a South American subsystem that was not always explicitly acknowledged (Bandeira, 1996; Lima, 2008; Bizzozero, 2011; Almeida, 2014), and Lula sought to incorporate new partners into the bloc. For Cervo (2008) and Bernal-Meza (2010) he represented a shift in the approach to international policy and in the kind of state model that was considered necessary for Brazil’s incorporation into the systemic context of transitional global order in the capitalist economy/world. Both aspects established a party line regarding South American integration and cooperation vis-à-vis global political and economic systems.…”

A longa paz na América do Sul: questionamentos às teses da paz negativa na região

“…Por outro lado, mesmo existindo conflitos territoriais não resolvidos não há experiências na história latino-americana do surgimento de estados expansionistas territoriais, como no caso europeu dos séculos XVIII a XX. Talvez por esta razão, alguns estudiosos apontam que mesmo atores estatais, com significativas capacidades de poder na região, como no caso do Brasil, se tornem exemplos de países que emergem no cenário internacional praticando um revisionismo soft, quer dizer, promovendo mudanças internacionais no sistema multilateral de governança, em vez de promover doutrinas ou práticas de expansão ou anexação territorial (Bernal-Meza, 2010).…”