Belo Horizonte, Coração Eucarístico da PUC Minas, 29 a 31 de julho de 2015

Área temática:

Workshop Doutoral – Segurança Internacional, Estudos Estratégicos e Política de Defesa

Título do trabalho: A ATUAÇÃO DO BRASIL EM PAZ E SEGURANÇA INTERNACIONAL COMO FONTE DE NOVAS CATEGORIAS DE ANÁLISE PARA A TEORIA DAS RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS

Autora: Mariana Alves da Cunha Kalil, Universidade de Brasília (UnB) e Universidade Federal do (UFRJ)

2

RESUMO

A partir da narrativa sobre a história da política externa brasileira, busca-se compreender se o comportamento do Brasil no cenário internacional enseja o reconhecimento de novas categorias de análise para a Teoria das Relações Internacionais. Delimita-se essa narrativa àquelas acerca de temas sobre paz e segurança internacional, que envolvam, por exemplo, princípios como os de soberania e de não intervenção, sobretudo em arranjos multilaterais. Como agentes constituintes dessa narrativa, selecionam-se as publicações de acadêmicos sobre o tema, os pronunciamentos de autoridades como os Presidentes da República, os Ministros das Relações Exteriores, os plenipotenciários do Estado brasileiro em fóruns como o Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas, as notas à imprensa do Ministério das Relações Exteriores, os documentos e as notas lançados pelo Ministério da Defesa e os pronunciamentos do Ministro da Defesa. Foram feitas pesquisas de campo no Haiti, em Dezembro de 2014, e na Missão do Brasil nas Nações Unidas, em Janeiro-Fevereiro de 2015. Busca-se, neste momento, reunir estas oportunidades com as pesquisas em fontes primárias e secundárias em projetos para qualificação no Doutorado em História das Relações Internacionais do Brasil (IRel-UnB), a realizar-se até Novembro de 2015, com ao menos um capítulo da tese também já pronto, como requer o programa. Após a publicação de alguns artigos e de capítulo de livro sobre a temática do futuro projeto, bem como o debate dos mesmos em conferências nacionais e internacionais, tem-se em mente o conceito de stealth enlargement, ainda sem tradução para o português, como possível contribuição da narrativa identificada para as categorias de análise oferecidas pelas correntes tradicionais da Teoria de Relações Internacionais. Percebe-se, por sua vez, que a Oficina apresenta oportunidade inigualável para que a autora se conscientize a respeito dos métodos que irá adotar e da maneira como realizará a construção histórica e epistemológica da referida narrativa, além de estabelecer, mais precisamente, a delimitação temporal do objeto de estudos que, então, será entendido ou explicado, de acordo com a opção epistemológica adotada.

Palavras-chave: Teoria das Relações Internacionais; Paz e Segurança; Política Externa Brasileira

3

Introduction1

In a recent interview to BBC in Washington DC, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, , was happy to acknowledge Brazil’s role as a norm entrepreneur including in peace and security issues. Although such bit was not included in the publication, the current Permanent Representative to the repeated such position, for instance, in the occasion of training the new interns for the Brazilian Mission to the UN in . The author stumbled across this rhetoric in her five-week period of intense participation in the works within the referred delegation in Manhattan, after conducting a 10-days even more intense field research in Haiti.

Based on narratives around goals and principles of Brazilian Foreign Policy offered by certain protagonists in the Academia and in politics, the general aim of this research is to verify if Brazil’s behavior in international peace and security, during the twenty-first century, provides new categories of analysis for Theory (IRT). The leading entities regarding these narratives would be the Presidents of the Brazilian Republic, the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and of Defense, the Brazilian representatives in international fora such as the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), as well as the referred cabinets’ communications with the press and other official statements. The specific aims of this study are to analyze the contribution of the School of Brasília to the development of a unique thought in International Relations, as well as the concept of stealth enlargement as a possible Brazilian contribution to IRT.

The first premise behind this research is embedded in Keohane’s and Goldstein’s (1993) work, applied to the importance of ideas to Brazil’s Foreign Policy in the contribution of Kalil & Alves (2014). Suhayla and Vagner (Idem) state that the previous authors understand the general influence of ideas in foreign policies in three different manners: when their underlying beliefs provide roadmaps that enhance the agents’ understanding of their own objectives; when they have input in the outcome of strategic, yet undecided scenarios; when the ideas are part of political institutions. The axiomatic rationality that would indefectibly underpin the States’ actions according to most Realists and Rationalists would then be subject to certain specific ideas, what leads the way to diverse rationalities according to local, national and regional peculiarities, although the systemic variable is to be weighed.

1 This research is in its very first steps. Although primary and secondary, as well as field research have already been conducted rather broadly and specifically, the first steps of organizing the research, especially the theoretical and methodological tools are still being systematized. The author hopes to profit a lot from the debates in the workshop. 4

Keohane & Goldstein (1993) (Apud Kalil & Vagner, 2014) draw a line between tradition and policy, which, like this research, does not hold any concerns over the reason those ideas are originally adopted, be them partisan, sociological or else, and understands they might actually become traditions because of the very interest of certain entities. Nonetheless, even after those initial interests shift, those entrenched ideas will have already influenced the incentives the political agents face, hence, policies. This connection is why this research does not hesitate to place relevance in certain people’s ideas, especially when they represent an institution of a school of thought. The choice of which agents matter to Brazilian Foreign Policy in peace and security in the twenty-first century derived from the perception of the author following her field research in Haiti and New York, where she got acquainted with Brasília’s foreign policy decision-making, discourse-writing, as well as field action in peace and security from December 2014 until February 2015, alongside with research in primary and secondary sources regarding the 2003-2014 series. Chapter 1, in its turn, will clarify the motives behind such choices.

The second premise behind this contribution is that in the twenty-first century Brazil projects itself in the international arena as a protagonist whose undisputed national interest would be to provide a less unstable international environment for the country’s social, political and economic landscape, through the adoption of a participative diplomacy, both in negotiations and in the field of operations. In order to sustain this assumption, through its Presidential diplomacy, as well as through the roles of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and of Defense, the Brazilian State would infer a causal relation between imbalances in the international arena, be them security-, economy-, environment-related, and national growth and stability socially, economically and politically. According to Amorim (2012) and Congresswoman Perpétua Almeida (2012), Brazil has its

[O] opinions, suggests, criticizes and participates in the debate regarding which patter of national defense it deems appropriate for a country that occupies the sixth position in world economy and that plays a relevant role in the international landscape (Congresswoman Perpétua Almeida Apud Amorim, 2012) I would add the following: this interest expressed by several societal groups of interest portrays the Brazilian people’s determination to hold and active role in the construction of their own interest as an independent nation (Amorim, 2012) Not necessarily because of his position also as a former Minister of Foreign Affairs for most part of the twenty-first century so far, the former Minister of Defense’s quoted address coincides with his positions when ahead of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (hereinafter MFA).

Brazil is an important actor in the international landscape as for its dimensions, political and economic relevance, and the force of its identity. However, we are also a developing nation that resents its serious social and economic vulnerabilities (Amorim, 2003). 5

In this inaugurating speech for the Institute of Rio Branco’s (hereinafter IRBr) class of 2003, the then Minister of Foreign Affairs also highlighted his concerns regarding the historical negative externalities that have deeply harmed the country’s social, political and economic path. In 2004, Amorim complemented his thought on why the country not only does have a protagonist role in the multidimensional issues of the international arena, but also should have such an instance. He affirms that:

Our participation in the UN’s Mission to Haiti, moreover, is part of the principle that peace is not a free global public good: the maintenance of peace comes with a price. This cost is that of participation. Abstention or exemption of speaking or acting before a situation of crisis may represent exclusion also from the process of decision making or, worse, dependency upon other countries or regions (Amorim, 2004). As representative of the Brazilian State, insisted in a discourse that pictured Brazil’s foremost interest in the global stage as that of guaranteeing the international scenario does not represent a glass ceiling for the country’s social, economic and political development.2 Such an effort would have to be drawn through a perennial and firm discourse, as well as participation in the outcomes of negotiations: a diplomacy Amorim dubs active and conscious (Amorim, 2015).

Also, former President Luis Inácio Lula da Silva (hereinafter Lula) and President (hereinafter Dilma) highlight this premise in the discourses regarding international matters of peace and security, or general principles and guidelines for the country’s international relations. In her 2014 address to the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) President Dilma draws a causal relation between Brazil’s diplomacy rather institutionalist beliefs and the country’s persistent need to undergo fundamental economic and societal shifts:

The major transformation to which we are committed produced a modern economy and a more equal society. This demanded, concomitantly, strong civilian participation, respect to human rights and a sustainable vision regarding our development. This also demanded a foreign action epitomized by multilateralism, respect to International Law, the pursuit of peace and a solidary practice (Rousseff, 2014). In his 2009 address to the UNGA, President Lula similarly produces a causal relation between Brazil’s domestic evolution and the state of the art of international relations:

I would like to approach three central questions that seem to be interconnected, three threats that hover over our planet: the persistent economic crisis, the absence of a stable and democratic global governance and the risks of climate change. After presenting this causal assumption, Lula exemplifies it by drawing attention to the impact of foreign, be them economic, political or environmental, negative externalities in

2 A glass ceiling is one that is there, but one cannot see, thus unpredictably halting a certain evolution. 6

domestic and developing landscapes, usually, according to this line of thought, in light of phenomena that are under scarce influence of the most inflicted:

The effects of the crisis spilled over the whole world, harming also and foremost those that for years had been reconstructing their economies under major sacrifices. It is not fair that those who have nothing to do with it – the workers and the poor or developing nations - carry the burden of the costs of adventurous speculation. (…) But I am not under the illusion that we can solve our problems by ourselves, only domestically. The global economy is interdependent. We are all obligated to act beyond our borders. For this reason, it is high time to refund the world economic order. (…) The least developed and the developing countries have to increase their participation in directing the IMF and the World Bank. Without this, there will not be effective change, and the risks of new and even larger crises are inevitable. Only more representative and democratic international organisms will have the tools to deal with complex problems such as shaping the international monetary system. It is not acceptable that, after sixty-five years, the world is still under the guise of the same norms and values dominant by the occasion of the Bretton Woods Conference. It is not possible that the United Nations and its Security Council still play under the same paradigms that followed the Second World War. (…) It raises concern the developed nations’ resistance in accepting their share of duty in climate change negotiations. They cannot transfer the burden of their own and exclusive responsibilities to the shoulders of least developed or developing nations. (…) It does not suffice to remove the wreckage of a pattern that has failed, it is imperative to complete the birth of the future. It is the only way to compensate so much injustice and to prevent new collective tragedies (Lula, 2009). One of this research’s main objects of study is Brazil’s discourse and practice regarding peace and security on the multilateral stage in the twenty-first century. According to specialized literature, the years 2000 until 2002 would belong to a government whose Foreign Policy would differ, in certain key points, to that advanced thenceforth 2003 (Cervo & Bueno, 2009; Vigevani & Cepaluni, 2007). This series, as well as that from 2011 until 2014 will hence appear as comparisons that would help controlling to which extent the 2003-2010 discourses and practices are simple governmental input, carrying restricted middle/long term contributions to the country’s Foreign Policy or to International Relations in general.

The general aim of this research is to verify the possibility raised both by Brazilian literature on Brazilian Foreign Policy, as well as by the Brazilian State’s positions, especially regarding multilateral discussions over peace and security in the twenty-first century that insist these State’s practices would entail new categories for analysis in International Relations.

There are two specific aims of this research. One is to address what the Brazilian literature on Brazilian Foreign Policy has entailed in the scope of a self-proclaimed different epistemology under the guise of the school of Brasília - which generally shares its affiliation 7

with that of Argentina, namely those scholars who stem from the University of Rosario’s International Relations program, shaping a tradition that is dubbed the Brazilian-Argentinian School. These affirm a clear-cut goal to diversify concepts and theories generally applied to analyze Brazilian (and Argentinian) Foreign Policy (Saraiva, 2009). These authors find short from fruitful the effort to apply epistemological programs embedded in historical experiences and international political intentions of the West, especially those of the and Great Britain, to a specific reality. They, nonetheless, avoid establishing a theoretical debate that encompasses even those Western theories that recognize the historicism, as well as the political quality of mainstream International Relations Theory (IRT). The other specific aim is to verify the concept of stealth enlargement as one of Brazil’s contributions to IRT.

Hence, under this specific aim, this research intends to

(i) point a finger toward the direction taken by the Brazilian national debate over the country’s foreign policy positions regarding peace and security in the twenty first century via the recognition of four different agents that apparently dialogue, even if they avoid acknowledging each other’s existence, which will be verified contrasting hypothesis and arguments:

(a) the school of Brasília; (b) other scholars, namely those from Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo and Rio Grande do Sul, who coincide in their objects of study; (c) Itamaraty’s discourses and practices regarding peace and security in multilateral spheres, namely the United Nations; (d) the Ministry of Defense’s, as well as its Armed Forces’ discourses and practices in international security in the twenty-first century – especially the country’s participation in MINUSTAH, UNIFIL and MONUSCO.

Here, the underlying premise is that Foreign Policy is indeed a public policy, and that, in Brazil, those four agents are the key players when it comes to forging a legacy embedded in the country’s behavior in peace and security in the twenty-first century. This definitely mirrors how the West grasps the way a country presents its role, or which lenses pick the key political players in the issue, as well as in International Relations thinking to read foreign policy phenomena in multilateral peace and security questions in the twenty-first century.

8

(ii) overlap Brazil’s national debate regarding the country’s Foreign Policy and its discourse and practice on peace and security in the twenty-first century with the state of the art of International Relations Theory,

(a) by providing a matrix that inserts previous (a), (b), (c) and (d) under the ontological and axiomatic categorizations provided by realists, liberals, constructivists, post-colonialists and non-western theory authors when they consider the role and the quality of such variables as the State, the System and power in discourses and practices over peace and security in the twenty-first century.

Here, the foremost premise is that IRT literature is correct when it comes to the association of the US discourses and practices over peace and security in the twenty-first century are associated with the epistemologies the country’s national theoretical debate provokes.

(b) in order to analyze to which extent those four agents dialogue with IRT and what ontological and axiomatic exercises remain in the margins of foreign traditions, thusly, perhaps, providing new categories for analysis in International Relations.

(iii) In case the latter (b) is confirmed look out for at least one of these categories for analysis in International Relations Theory based on Brazil’s traditions in multilateral peace and security in the twenty-first century.

This dissertation’s hypothesis is that the Brazilian Foreign Policy thinking regarding peace and security before multilateral spheres in the twenty-first century provides different categories of analysis for International Relations Theory.

To verify this hypothesis, under the posed general and specific goals, the research is divided in the following chapters, besides the Introduction and the Conclusion:

Chapter 1 will present the narratives the school of Brasília and other Brazilian scholars forge on the country’s discourse and practice over multilateral peace and security in the twenty- first century, besides presenting the history Itamaraty, the Ministry of Defense and its Armed Forces tell when it comes to the same questions. Already pointing out to hypotheses, arguments and grasps they derive on the ontological and axiomatic intakes over the role and the quality of such variables as the State, the System and power, this chapter must provide data for the following. 9

Chapter 2 will then present the state of the art of IRT debates on the ontological and axiomatic role such variables as the State, the System and power carry in matters concerning peace and security in the twenty-first century. The presentation of each one of the chosen epistemologies intend to verify the originality of Brazil’s national contributions to the logics behind multilateral peace and security in the twenty-first century. Realism, Liberalism, Critical Theory, Constructivism, Post-Colonialism and Non-Western Theory were picked as the first two are the symbols against which the school of Brasília intend to derive their hypotheses, and these authors, as well as the other three agents narratives will be scrutinize in their actual divergence from those traditions. Critical Theory, in its turn, coincide with Brazil’s national IR thinking emergence, especially in the period when they kick-start their critique that underscore the consequences of universalizing Realism, as well as Liberalism. Constructivism and Post- Colonialism appear as epistemological propositions that might hold similarities to Brazil’s national IR thinking in peace and security, especially regarding the school of Brasília’s and of Rio de Janeiro (embedded at PUC-Rio), as well as the country’s decision-makers in Itamaraty, the Ministry of Defense and the Armed Forces rather intense exercise of epitomizing thusly- presented peculiar concepts in negotiations and activities. Non-Western Theories would be key to contrast not only the school of Brasília, but also the other Brazilian scholars’ constructs and governmental discourses and practices over peace and security in the twenty-first century that are supposedly embedded in realities that diverge from those in the West that have come up with IR paradigms of thinking and acting.

Chapter 2, thus, overlaps reflections gathered in Chapter 1 with those presented in itself, providing a framework for Chapter 3. This one, therefore, goes further into an analysis on the originality behind the Brazilian national narrative on multilateral peace and security in the twenty-first century. Here, the hypothesis will be directly verified. If it is sustained, and there is epistemological originality underpinning Brazil’s discourses and practices regarding multilateral peace and security in the twenty-first century, Chapter 4 will shed light on the concept of stealth enlargement as one of them, a proposal that will be the object of Chapter 4 also in case the hypothesis is not positively verified, as it will be scrutinized as perhaps a synthesis of several laid out IRT approaches. Therefore, if the hypotheses does not stick after being tested, Chapter 4 intends to present the theoretical background to which Brazil’s thinking around peace and security in the twenty-first century can be placed, which could lead to further epistemological reflections on actually original thinking and on the political consequences of adhering to one or another line of thought, especially for governmental entities.

10

References

AMORIM, C. (2003) Aula Magna do Senhor Ministro das Relações Exteriores Embaixador Celso Amorim no Instituto Rio Branco, Abril de 2003. Available from http://mundorama.net/2003/04/10/aula-magna-do-senhor-ministro-das-relacoes-exteriores- embaixador-celso-amorim-no-instituto-rio-branco-a-diplomacia-do-governo-lula-brasilia- 10042003/ Acessado em 09 de Junho de 2015.

AMORIM, C. (2004) Conceitos e estratégias da diplomacia do Governo Lula. In: Repertório de Política Externa: posições do Brasil. Available from http://funag.gov.br/loja/download/388- Repertorio_de_PolItica_Externa_Posicoes_do_Brasil.pdf Acessado em 09 de Junho de 2015.

AMORIM, C. (2012) Conferência do Ministro de Defesa Celso Amorim na Abertura do Seminário Estratégias de Defesa Nacional, Novembro de 2012. Available from http://www2.camara.leg.br/atividade-legislativa/comissoes/comissoes- permanentes/credn/noticias/conferencia-do-ministro-da-defesa-celso-amorim-na-abertura- do-seminario-estrategias-de-defesa-nacional Acessado em 09 de Junho de 2015.

AMORIM, C. (2015) Teerã, Ramalá e Doha – Memórias da Política Externa Ativa e Altiva. Editora Saraiva.

CERVO, A. L. & BUENO, C. (2009). História da política exterior do Brasil. São Paulo: Saraiva.

KALIL, S.; ALVES, V. C. (2014). Ideias e política externa: as relações do Brasil com o Terceiro Mundo durante o Governo Castelo Branco. Contexto Internacional, Rio de Janeiro, vol. 36, no 2, jul/dec.

KEOHANE, R. O.; GOLDSTEIN, J. (1993). Ideas and Foreign Policy: an analytical framework. In: ______(org.) Ideas and Foreign Policy: beliefs, institutions, and political change. New York: Cornell University Press.

LULA DA SILVA, L. I. (2009) Discurso de Lula na Assembleia Geral da ONU. Available from http://internacional.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,confira-integra-do-discurso-de-lula-na- assembleia-geral-da-onu,439777 Acessado em 09 de Junho de 2015

ROUSSEFF, D. (2014) Discurso da Presidenta da República Dilma Rousseff na abertura do debate de alto nível da 69ª Assembleia Geral das Nações Unidas. Available from http://www2.planalto.gov.br/acompanhe-o-planalto/discursos/discursos-da- presidenta/discurso-da-presidenta-da-republica-dilma-rousseff-na-abertura-do-debate-de- alto-nivel-da-69a-assembleia-geral-das-nacoes-unidas-onu Acessado em 09 de Junho de 2015 11

SARAIVA, J. F. S. [ed.] (2009). Concepts, histories and theories of international relations for the 21st century: regional and national approaches. Brasília, IBRI.

VIGENVANI, T. & CEPALUNI, G. A política externa de Lula da Silva: a estratégia da autonomia pela diversificação. Contexto Internacional, vol. 29, no 2, Rio de Janeiro.