4º Seminário De Relações Internacionais Da Associação Brasileira De Relações Internacionais (ABRI)

4º Seminário de Relações Internacionais da Associação Brasileira de Relações Internacionais (ABRI)

27 a 28 de setembro de 2018 na UNILA – Foz do Iguaçu

Área Temática: 05. Segurança Internacional, Estudos Estratégicos e Política de Defesa

OS LIMITES DA SEGURANÇA INTERNACIONAL NAS FRONTEIRAS BRASILEIRAS

Nome: Maurício Kenyatta Barros da Costa Doutorando CNPq pelo Instituto de Relações Internacionais da Universidade de Brasília, pesquisador do Grupo de Estudos e Pesquisa em Segurança Internacional da UnB (GEPSI-UnB) e, no momento de produção desse artigo, assistente de pesquisa no Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada (IPEA). Resumo: Esse artigo busca rediscutir as percepções brasileiras de segurança internacional, tendo como base a perspectiva local. Nesse sentido, o local abordado será a fronteira brasileira, marginalizada no processo de desenvolvimento econômico e político do país, mas, historicamente, importante para a defesa da soberania da nação. Nesse sentido, nos basearemos no conceito e na prática de transnacionalidade aplicada às dinâmicas de segurança fronteiriça para contrastar os limites da agenda de segurança internacional brasileira, mas também das próprias abordagens centrais desse campo de estudos. Nos utilizaremos o método de “Process Tracing” para trabalhar com os dados obtidos. O artigo será organizado em três seções: 1) as abordagens centrais no campo da segurança internacional, a perspectiva brasileira e a abordagem local das fronteiras; 2) em que medida o local (da fronteira) é apropriado ou excluído das abordagens centrais e da brasileira; 3) a institucionalização de percepções de segurança e defesa na UNASUL: uma alternativa sul-americana e a concepção regional de local. Essa discussão nos permitirá verificar em que medida as abordagens centras da Segurança Internacional nos permitem lidar com os desafios securitários brasileiros e se nossa própria estratégia está adequada. A UNASUL será utilizada enquanto contraponto para o desenho de um panorama mais abrangente da segurança sul-americana com o intuito de iluminar novas possibilidades regionais, que incluam concepções locais, para os desafios securitários que afetam as fronteiras brasileiras e os demais países da região. Palavras-chave: Fronteira, Segurança Internacional, Brasil, Defesa.

1. BRAZILIAN STRATEGIC CULTURE: APPROPRIATIONS OF THE LOCAL

The Brazilian Strategic Culture is formed by multiple features, some of them related to appropriations of local, which is possible to detect by tracing a genealogy of the idea of border in International Relations and correlated areas of knowledge production, encompassing theoretical approaches, concepts, ideas, designs and actions.

A genealogy of border idea Border ideas in International Relations are multiple and diverse, going well beyond the simple delimitation between national spaces. We can say the transformations of the boundary concept follow not only the practical and cartographic developments, but also the evolution of multidisciplinary theoretical knowledge. Moreover, existing perceptions and classifications depends on the political thought or the analytic lens adopted, as well as on the historical context to which they refer (PAASI, 1996; HOUTUM, 2005; MORACZEWSKA, 2010). At the beginning, border notions were known as a front idea, a separation between two organized groups or communities, usually marking the preexisting cultural and civilizational differences. These delimitations were not fixed and were sustained by the force available in these communities to protect their lands. The front would be conformed from the line of defense punctuated of fortifications or walls directed to the protection of a certain collectivity, according to a defensive system against barbarians’ attacks (FURQUIM JUNIOR, 2007; FERRARI, 2014). From the emergence of modern structure of State and Nation-State, artificial boundaries or cartographically established limits gain relevance. In this case, border landmarks would be nailed to the ground with the intention of creating an imaginary line, with the practical effect of constitute a legal control line of a Nation-State. Borders are formally created by a long process of political and diplomatic negotiations aimed at pacifying the understanding of the end and the beginning of a political-territorial domain. Later territorial and political talks, a joint territorial demarcation commission is formed to place landmarks along the territory to determine borders. In a complementary way, diplomacy and national governments rely on the so-called natural border to refer to the existence of a vital space belonging to a nation, people or community, even before it was established and developed there. As Magnoli (1997, p.17) remembers, "natural boundaries anchor the nation in its own physical geographic reality making it prior to men and history."

In a border region, cities, populations and individuals are engulfed by dynamics of centrifugal and centripetal forces that establishes a biosocial interface. By representing both the resistance of state to assert its nationality and the plan of contact between different systems or sets of believes, where use to happen many original phenomena and the influence of "them" on "us", it creates social particularisms of inhabited border areas (RAFFESTIN, 1993, p.165-167; FERRARI, 2014; MACHADO, 1998, p.41-42; MACHADO, 2005, p. 260). Borders as an area of political action refers to a territorial portion of public power, where established authorities can implement programs and joint actions between nationalities and subnationalities and jurisdictions and domestic policies of each country are applied. Border strips include twin cities, which are linked by geographic proximity, and may or may not generate cultural and cooperative approaches (ALVES, 2015). Border as a link of regional integration absorbs processes of interdependence, regionalization and globalization, creating a zone of transnationality which is subject to a series of local and international influences that reconfigure this divided space. It is thus distinguished from the classical meaning of division between groups from the relation of identity / otherness and the classical conception of national territory. Border as an intersubjective space of interaction engender through social and cultural linkage a distinct identity, which reciprocally incorporate habits, customs, values and idiomatic expressions to people living in these areas, distinguishing them in a certain way from those ones in central cities of the country and approaching them by their proper way of interacting from those ones in the political community on the other side of the border, which allows the occurrence of true cross-border societies (SILVA, 2008; FARRET, 1997). Berta Becker (2006, p. 57) reminds us that each side of borderland has different cultural, social, economic, political and demographic structures, at the same time “places of instability and mutability, where reactions and conflicts of different natures can arise”, ranging from group and individual aspirations of local populations to external pressures. To think international relations locally is to acknowledge border as a symbol of social construction that acquires specific qualities (symbolic meanings) by dealing with imaginary, spiritual and immaterial flows and representations, concomitantly inclusive and exclusive in relation to shared values, habits and customs. Border as a locus of concern is filled with negative references in order to reach elites perceptions and collective mentalities. On one hand, it is seen as an inhospitable and empty place, a void of anarchy where incivility, violence and permissiveness reign. On the other hand, it marks the idea of nation established by a national ethos responsible in creating a universe of otherness. That is, a focus for the upsurge of nationalism, for the outbreak of xenophobic movements, of

2 subjection and prejudice against the other, the foreigner; environment of confrontation and conflict, survival of the state of nature, fragmentation and imprisonment. Indeed, borders could be seen as special places where turbulence does acts on the horizon of the global international society, spreading ideas, contaminating minds and influencing political agendas. In Badies’ words (2005, p. 12), “que tout le monde puisse aujourd’hui communiquer avec tout le monde tend à affaiblir les frontières ou, en tout cas, a les dotes d’une signification nouvelle”. The symbolic and the tangible meet themselves when borderlands turns into a permissive place for circulation of transnational illicit acts of all kinds, playing against regional stability and affecting agents resolve of ordering global international society. As Procopio (2000, p. 107) exemplifies, the "versatility of the narcotics trade" defines it as a global problem, but it is locally understandable by dealing with the dynamics of transnational organized crime and illegal crime in the Amazon. In the same way, border can be understood as a space of diversity denoting peculiar places, representative of a diversity of cultures, languages, creeds, habits, customs and values in general, defined by a mixture of racial and ethnic identities that engage and connect proper and unique dynamics of alliance and solidarity, of integration and approximation, which catalyze and sustain political conciliation movements. According to Adam Watson (2004, p. 480), "multi-ethnicity and multiculturalism are defining civilizational aspects, which can contribute to think of accepted values and norms throughout the international system". Although IR field in Brazil is not keen on studying borders (SCHERMA, 2015), one could find some works that collaborate tangentially and indirectly to Border studies. First, a set of works that deal with the processes of regional integration, both in its most economic, political and cultural motto (RHI-SAUSI; ODDONE, 2009). Second, there are studies focused on historical and juridical-political framework of the conformation of national borders and boundaries in the field of International Law, Diplomatic History and International Relations of Brazil (CERVO & BUENO, 2010). A third group of studies is concerned exclusively with transnational (illicit and migratory) forces and with (territorial) conflicts and disputes between neighbors, looking at border relations as a locus for propagating historical disagreements and as a gateway to the flows of the transnationalised information society. A fourth group design the development of the international order in the 21st century as a heritage of Westphalian Peace (1648), which ended religious conflicts in Europe and founded the predominance of the sovereign state, the main political entity in the organization of international relations (KISSINGER, 2015).

The traditional view of geopolitics has given rise to many classifications over the years, such as those of natural borders, political boundaries, boundaries such as lines, borders as movement, boundaries in the conformation of the living space, "spiritual borders" and the principle of "inviolability of borders", amorphous borders, plastic morphological boundaries and shifting borders, moving borders, antecedent borders, subsequent boundaries, superimposed boundaries, and consequent borders. Soft and hard borders, hot and cold borders, living and dead borders; physical, geometric, cultural, and complex boundaries, composed of several elements and factors. And Armando Corrêa da Silva also presents an interesting classification of the natural and artificial borders from the natural, linear and spiritual trinomial in his analysis (MARTIN, 1997; KNAUSS, 2004). All these studies propagated the idea of borders as part of a national state composed of territory, people and sovereignty, with boundaries being the limits established to separate independent political organizations. Nonetheless, critical approaches derived from anthropology and geography correlate identities and boundaries with constructivist and decolonial perspectives, and have produced insights and reflections that build an interesting theoretical substrate for updating the debate in IRs, both addressing the social, political and cultural constitution of borders as the transformation of their political perception in time (GROVOGUI, 2012; MALLAVARAPU, 2012; LÓPES-ALVES, 2012). In these perspectives, the obsession with borders (FOUCHER, 2009) reflects the various episodes and historical processes of dehumanization of territory, overlapping the state over the lives of those who lived in these regions, creating a reality based on difference, separating space and time from stories, societies, economies, states and languages (FOUCHER, 1991, p.38; HOUTUM, 2011). In this case, therefore, globalization would not have led to the end of inter-state borders, but rather to a resignification or conceptual renewal, since borders are increasingly alive and dynamic, and it is necessary to study the change of their meaning and her effects rather than enact their end (FERRARI, 2014; PAASI, 1999). Returning to the traditional theoretical perspectives of IR, one can see that border idea acquires three functions: disintegration, fragmentation and integration. Border policies may present the preponderance of a function to borders, but relations with neighbors or other countries may change these functions depending on the case or depending the international bodies with which the country is bound. Realism emphasizes action at the border as a reflection of demarcation or border disputes depending on the national interest. Creation of protection infrastructures and rigid procedures to control the flows of people and goods. In case of conflict or disagreement,

4 border barriers can be quickly militarized or protected by walls. This boundary presents the original barrier function with which it was created. People need visas or other documents to enter the territories. In case of threats, special procedures for entry into the country can be adopted. Security prevails over the economic benefits of cross-border cooperation (MORACZEWSKA, 2010). Pluralism (transnational view) takes the border as a porous line, where the state tries to control flows to accept only those ones beneficial to it. Local cross-border cooperation is possible. Non-state actors tend to defend this perception. The border is still important because it represents a bridge, that is, the initiative to go beyond the idea of border as a barrier (MORACZEWSKA, 2010). Cross-border regions are established, and there is dynamic cooperation between border towns and villages. At the same time, state elites are concerned that decisions taken outside their territory must be implemented or affected within them. The fragmentation function of the border means that the state adopts an attitude of permeability in relation to some flows and impermeability in relation to others given the benefits of interdependence and, at the same time, the vulnerabilities generated or accentuated by that same interdependence. The state becomes more sensitive to external events because of the permeability of boundaries, which motivates them to influence those events to minimize the negative effects they may experience (MORACZEWSKA, 2010). Globalism (globalist view) assumes border as a virtual line in the internationalization of markets and divisions of economic interests’ logic of thought. It makes more evident a concept of 'space of flows' and the symmetry between the States. Domestic and international actors are designed to deal with (control) the difficulties of economic flows. Borders has only symbolic importance separating economic markets rather than between nations, because it is not a barrier in any dimension, and being free for goods, capital, information and people. Border integration marks the connection of states with common interests, interrelationships and values, leading to a process of deterritorialization of some attributes, duties and threats related to the State. When the state expands the process of economic integration, standardizes legal norms and market rules through participation in international organizations and community structures, the duties and threats mentioned above increase (MORACZEWSKA, 2010). In the critical view, border is perceived subjectively, being a result of historical, human and social processes. In this way, border is not an imposition, but a development of social processes of a certain locality. The border importance is relative, it depends on the way it is appropriated by the various discourses, like the ones of securitization or emancipation. This border function is of interaction with the various realities and times that

5 are imposed on the territory in a local, national, regional, transnational and global way. Action at the border is geared towards the vivification and governance of this region by shared and socially inclusive means.

Table 1 – Theoretical Approaches and Boundaries

THEORETICAL APPROACHES

Realism Pluralism Globalism Critic

Dividing line Porous line Virtual lines Subjective Line Determining System and Disappears in Drawn as a nationality/ State and favor of market result of sovereignty influenced by boundaries. historical, human transnational and social IDEAS Separation of forces. processes. spheres of influence and interests.

Intense Moderate Low Relative Shaping Acknowledging Encompassing Establishing military an extensive deterritorializatio relational power DESIGNS strategies and agenda linking n processes and connections in tactics. issues-areas facilitating terms of into borders economic securitization or regions. international emancipation. forces.

Blocking Paving the way Driving thru Meaning A wall against A bridge A corridor of Interactions threats, risks between states forces and between local and and non-state economic inhabitants with FUNCTIONALITY vulnerabilities; actors, as well dynamics of transnational and as the means of capitalism and global forces, action of globalization.

Guardian of transnational giving meaning state forces. to IR. sovereignty.

Infrastructure Gradual Making market Vivifications construction; establishment of system and the policies, Securitization infrastructure as legal system governance ACTIONS of border and a way of heterogeneous. social militarization of integrating and arrangements, it when there generating links Building ties shared are conflicts. of between State management of interdependence and capitalist questions, social ; Opening forces inclusion. channels for flows of goods, people, money and information.

Source: author’s creation inspired on MORACZEWSKA (2010).

Territorial Geometries Partnerships, consortia, subnational cooperation, and neighborhood development are some of the geometries acquired by shared territorialities in South America. The neighborhood in the Southern Cone refers to the traditional relations with countries such as Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile and Argentina, hence Brasilia and Buenos Aires form a kind of political and economic axis in that neighborhood. The Amazonian neighborhood, on the other hand, refers to growing relations with countries of this region such as Bolivia, Peru, Colombia, Venezuela and Guyana, in which cities like Brasilia and Caracas will play a decisive role in the integration of this neighborhood. For example, the third summit of Presidents in the twin cities of Rivera and Livramento between Lula and José Mujica has become a symbol of the feelings of brotherhood. The Uruguayan-Brazilian border was valued as a historic meeting point between two peoples which, according to President Lula "have learned, with solidarity and tolerance, to share the same space [...] in a relationship that reflects the complexity and richness of the process of integration". In the end, agreements were signed for access to health services for residents of border cities and navigation on Lagoa Mirim via Uruguay and Brazil, as a factor of economic and social development (RPEB, 2010).

At this local and regional scale, twin cities are the ones that best characterize the reality of the border zone, by condensing within themselves the integration and conflict potentials that affect the rest of the border and the country on a reduced spatial scale. In addition, they make it possible to assess the impacts of cross-border flows in the country's large urban centers (INTEGRAÇÃO, 2005). In 2014, Brazil established a clear conception of twin cities to direct specific policies. According to this definition, municipalities must be cut by the border line, dry or fluvial, linked or not by infrastructure; And have a population of more than two thousand inhabitants and economic and cultural integration with the neighboring country (INTEGRAÇÃO, 2014). Some critical notes can be made regarding this nomenclature, which is important for clarifying and directing the Brazilian view on twin cities, but it does not find support in neighboring countries that may have other definitions. In addition, cities that do not have desired levels of integration will not be considered twin cities, failing to address these strategic locations through targeted policies (COSTA, 2017) In Brazil, 32 twin cities are considered, considering Porto Mauá (RS) and Santo Antônio do Sudoeste (PR), which join this group in 2016, 16 of these cities are in the southern region, 8 in the central region and 8 in the northern region of the country. The twin cities are places of great possibility of integration, but also suffer from the limits imposed by the States and the conflicts that emerge from border interactions, being, in those cases, also necessary a two-dimensional look about them (INTEGRAÇÃO, 2016; COSTA, 2017). In Uruguay, there are 6 twin cities with Brazil (NAVARRETE, 2006; RÓTULO; DAMIANI, 2010). According to the Brazilian definition, we can add Uruguaiana, totaling 7 Brazilian twin cities with Uruguay. Paraguay has 4 twin cities with Brazil, 1 with Brazil and Argentina and 2 with Argentina, totaling 7 twin cities. On the Brazilian side, we can consider a total of 10 twin cities with Paraguay (INTEGRAÇÃO, 2016).

Shared Territorialities Multiple meanings of boundaries are related to the creation of the idea of shared territorialities, assuming ideas as a power force when establishing perceptions, images, beliefs, and mind maps that guide decision making (MARTINS, 2007). Likewise, the boundaries establish the link between shared territorialities and common concerns. On the one hand, territorialization of a given space and the social relations undertaken in it, involves the entire territory beyond the border regions through practices and speeches. On the other hand, the concerns are common among actors and agents, be they States, subnational governments, local public authorities, indigenous people, businessmen, migrants and refugees. At the same time, levels of partnership are established by connecting different

8 sides of the borders by varying degrees of permeability and governance mechanisms of cross-border movements (NEWMAN, 2003). The emergence of shared territorialities is based on boundaries as the result of human relations, both political and discursive processes, produced historically, socially and politically over time in the sense of separating or bringing together individuals (HOUTUM, 2005; DIENER; HAGEN, 2012). Shared territorialities involve a series of political and social processes, whether of conflict or negotiation, based on national or foreign interests, or reflections of the hegemonies or affirmations of the lives of those who live in them. Territoriality itself is an ideological and discursive practice that transforms spaces. National histories, cultures, possibilities of economic success are created and the resources available are territorially defined (PAASI, 2011). Shared territorialities in border regions that have traditionally divided perceptions, perspectives, and interests create common concerns that need to be managed (as their power relations) through governance mechanisms and management of differences. Practices, based on social relations of power, generate rules that creates order that affects the daily lives of individuals, for example, the quantity of product that can be crossed from one place to another without paying taxes, who can cross borders and the type of vaccines and health care needed. The territorial (symbolic and institutional) format, historically constituted, determines the type of shared territoriality established in each region, but it is not immutable. The discourses on the shared territorialities become materialized in the normative frameworks that discipline the cooperation between subnational entities of different countries; Indigenous narratives and traditional communities that explain their inherent transnationality to that place; In the experiences of traders who transit between places buying and selling goods (legal and illegal); In the contraband and misdirection that feed the formal and informal relations of the local inhabitants and travelers. Shared territorialities (and their common concerns) are therefore not restricted to border spaces, and are often more forcefully symbolic and political in the centers through the introjection of the nation into the individual (PAASI, 1999; PAASI, 1996). The various episodes of seizure of narcotics and weapons carried out by the Federal Police of Brazil near the great urban centers of the Southeast of Brazil showed that the route usually begins in the south and west arcs of the South American borders. South American territoriality with its borders - disintegrative institutions originally designed as barriers, with national centers geared to their seas, looking outside the region itself - have much to report on cooperation and integration in the region on sensitive and

strategic issues, besides allowing the configuration of a security design that surpasses those of the traditional approaches. Even if one cannot speak of a unifying or unified identity, there are common concerns that arise from needs that mix discourses of appropriation of the territorial space (ideological, religious, moral or nationalist) with challenges of public policies (health, education, security).

2. PLACE OF BORDERS IN BRAZILIAN PUBLIC POLICIES One of the places to understand the development of Brazilian perception of international security is based on a critical reading of the official view consolidated in the documents of National Defense (National Defense Policy and National Defense Strategy of Brazil), including its updates that are in process and discussion in the National Congress since the year 2016. To contrast this official position, we will use a critical approach of security that emerge from national borders.

National Defense Policies (NDP) Brazil's National Defense Policy (NDP), of 2012, defines security as a condition in which the state is free of risks, pressures and threats, safeguarding its sovereignty and national integrity. This security condition allows the state to promote its interests and safeguard the rights and freedoms of its citizens. This same document emphasizes that security must be guaranteed not only by the Defense Ministry, but also by others, such as Justice and Citizenship, Foreign Affairs, Finance and National Integration (DEFESA, 2012). The NDP draft of 2016 corroborates the Security and Defense concept of the 2012 documents. However, it emphasizes the need for greater articulation between the various Ministries responsible for Security. This articulation is important to consolidate the country's National Power, understood as the capacity of the Nation to achieve and maintain the National Objectives, listed in the National Defense Strategy (NDS), in accordance with the National Will. The National Power manifests itself in five expressions: politics, economic, psychosocial, military and scientific-technological. In this sense, security is the condition of the normal life of the State and its citizens, enabling the development of the country in a sovereign way and free from international constraints and pressures (DEFESA, 2016). National Power and Defense enjoy the benefits of this security situation, but are developed to guarantee them, as a nation insurance against threats. Official documents seek to harmonize the conceptions of security and defense to later present the Brazilian perception of international security, which is based on the constitutional principles of the country: national independence; Prevalence of human rights;

Self-determination of peoples; Non-intervention; Equality between States; Defense of peace; Peaceful settlement of conflicts; Repudiation of terrorism and racism; Cooperation between peoples for the progress of humanity; And granting of political asylum. Among these, the principles of nonintervention, the defense of peace, and the peaceful resolution of conflicts that guide the official Brazilian perception of international security stand out (DEFESA, 2016; CONSTITUIÇÃO, 1988). The constitutional principles are aligned throughout the country's history without involvement in conflicts with neighbors and in other parts of the world, determining harmonious coexistence with other nations, and characterizing Brazil as a multilateralist and pacifist country in terms of international security (DEFESA, 2016; CONSTITUIÇÃO, 1988). Brazilian Foreign Policy is characterized as the cornerstone of the international security of the country, precisely because of a multilateralist and pacifist perception. However, the use of the Military Expression of National Power is a possibility in case of threats to national interests, when negotiations cannot solve the problems and guarantee national sovereignty (DEFESA, 2016). In the 2012 NDP, the borders are considered as regions sensitive to military incursions due to the occupation of land space across the globe. In the same Policy, transnational illicit acts and the instabilities that sometimes emerge in neighboring countries are the main risks to the borders of the country. In this sense, it is necessary to revive the borders and the presence of the State in these regions, since there are many territorial portions of the country with low population density and low state presence. Social and environmental issues are relevant in this security scenario in addition to issues of public security, national defense and infrastructure (BRASIL. MINISTÉRIO DA DEFESA, 2012). In the 2016 NDP, the border issue keeps its space and increases it to some extent. The increase in its relevance is due to the flow of people, goods and assets, which generates an integration and approximation of Brazil with its neighbors. These flows and integration existing in some points of the border arouse the interest of transnational criminal activities, which demonstrates the vulnerability of the border permeability, and demands constant vigilance and coordinated action between defense agencies and public security in Brazil and those with their neighboring counterparts. Environmental issues and the dispute over natural resources may attract the interest of extraterritorial powers to Brazilian borders (BRASIL. MINISTÉRIO DA DEFESA, 2016).

National Defense Strategy (NDS) The NDSs of 2012 and 2016 will highlight the importance of the tripod: presence, monitoring and control of Brazilian borders. In this sense, programs such as the Calha Norte

(PCN) and the Promotion of the Development of the Border Strip that appear in the 2012 NDS and the Integrated Border Monitoring System (SISFRON) that appears in the NDS of 2016 contemplate this need of new borders barriers and a capacity for reaction and deterrence at the borders, but without undermining the legal flows to the country. In the 2016 NDS, elements of intelligence, public security and surveillance are mentioned as important for this national effort (DEFESA, 2012; DEFESA, 2016). Official National Defense documents portray local specificities in terms of their present and possible vulnerabilities, risks and threats with the aim of establishing strategies and actions to respond to these challenges. However, the place as a producer of security perceptions and new security logics that can be distinguished from those in the centers does not exist. This non-existence is due to the function that Armed Forces and National Defense have in the country as forces of national integration that seek to disseminate nationality, patriotism, identity and national interest ideas even where there is a low presence of the Brazilian State. This national conception produces a national perception of international security that we seek to demonstrate. In short, local is understood by contextualization from border cases that demonstrate the limitations of a national perception influenced mainly by the center of the country, as well as from the limitations of theoretical models imported from other countries. Finally, the importance of national perception and of theories and of the place as the only valid producer of truths about its existence is not ruled out, but the analytical vacuum left by the limitations of each perspective is sought precisely to find ways of deepening the debate and better understand the local amid the national in the production of international security prospects.

3. COMMON PREOCCUPATIONS IN SOUTH AMERICA

Concerns may vary according to country's position in the hierarchy of international relations, the type of neighborhood that surrounds itself, participation in regional blocs and international organizations, as well as through interaction with other states and non-state actors. These relationships generate new interests and new commitments that can change the functionality of border (MORACZEWSKA, 2010). As Milton Santos (1994) reminds us, we live the "transnationalization of the territory ... even where the vectors of globalization are more operative and effective, the inhabited territory creates new synergies and ends up imposing on the world a revenge." Likewise, common concerns are connected to vulnerabilities, sensitivities and susceptibilities present in border spaces, here drawn on Nye’s work on the subject.

Vulnerability represents the weaknesses, in this case of the State (lack of resources, limitations on access and presence in the territory, difficulties of articulation with the federated entities, among others) arising from political choices or lack of them and that weaken the country security (RODRIGUES, 2013). Sensitivities represent the epidermal character of borders, which are sensitive to interactions with the external side. An insensitive border would be an impermeable one, which does not occur in the Brazilian case, which has a border sensitive to the political, economic and social crises of the neighbors and sensitive to various human, material and economic flows by these regions, whether legal or illegal. The susceptibility depends on interplay of state capacity and readiness, arising on the extent to which it is shaped by economic, social and political marginalization. Moreover, susceptibility in all dimensions (political, societal, economical) affects local populations brings some relevant consequences like anxieties, resentment and preoccupations, which links the global with the local.

A. Securitizations a. Space Scales The proportion of concerns is equivalent to the extent of boundaries and limits between Brazil and its neighbors. The Brazilian borders reach 16,886.5 km (third largest extension of the border on the earth) and a border that includes 27% of the national territory. This means, on the one hand, that there is a vast region that, because of its characteristics and proximity to the external environment, is treated differently in the national legal-territorial order, both because of specific border characteristics and because of political options and strategic objectives for that territory. Currently, the Brazilian border area covers 10 states, 588 municipalities, 120 located on the border line and 32 of these are twin cities, housing around 11 million people and bordering 10 South American countries (INTEGRAÇÃO, 2005). Most of the municipalities in the border area are in the Southern Arc, totaling 418, which represents about 71% of the border municipalities. This characterizes the South Arch as the densest demographically, even more when considered its extension in relation to the North Arch. The Central Arc contains 99 municipalities, and although it does not have the same amount as the Southern Arc, it is an arc characterized by large amounts of flows at the border. Finally, the Northern Arc contains 71 municipalities, the border arc with less flows and less demographic density. The complexity of Brazilian boundaries in geographic terms is also a relevant variable to consider the different concerns that may arise, being terrestrial, defined by some watershed or geodesic, lakes, rivers or channels. This illustrates the need for different

measures to protect the borders and some of the complications that each type of territory imposes for its protection, since fluvial boundaries such as those separating Tabatinga (Brazil), Letícia (Colombia) and Santa Rosa (Peru) generate a distinct dynamic of a land border like the one between Ponta Porã (Brazil) and Pedro Juan Caballero (Paraguay) (MRE, 2011[2] apud SINDIFISCO, 2011). b. Militarism Border regions of South America and especially the border strips in the Amazon region are areas of high vulnerability. One of the common concerns refers to ecological interference in the Amazon, through a kind of ecological intervention that leads to the loss of the full right to exploit the region's natural resources. As with human rights, the doctrinal framework that supports environmental law clings to the internationalization of environmental concerns, such as global warming, the melting of polar ice caps, etc., to justify possible interference in the Amazon. The existence of natural resources and the presence of indigenous reserves in strategic areas in this region raise the complexity of the security issue on the northern border of the country. On the other hand, the decision of Colombia to host new US military bases in the country promoted debates about the militarization and securitization of international relations in South America. In this way, the vision of the porosity and vulnerability that stimulates military cooperation persists. In this case, conditions were created not only for General Staff meetings, but also for bilateral cooperation plans to strengthen interoperability of forces at the common border of French Guiana, to strengthen the exchange of doctrine (RPEB, 2012-2). The dimension of animal and plant protection (sanitary and phytosanitary issues) and issues of food safety comes to political agenda in localities. Among the initiatives, it is worth mentioning the technical cooperation on the fight against the carambola fly on the border between French Guiana and Brazil (RPEB, 2013, p. 282). c. Infrastructure (fractured)

Some South American shared territorialities are marked by the lack of infrastructure that connects countries and people on both sides of the border, making cross-border cooperation between states rare and perpetuating the low human presence in those localities. The disconnection scenario can be generated by natural obstacles (such as the Oiapoque river that divides Brazil and French Guiana or the mountain chain that separates Brazil from Suriname) as well as institutional failures. For example, the low state presence may lead to parallel practices and norms, such as an informal economy or dependence on

the way to the survival of the local inhabitant, with the potential to also harbor the illegal economy, precisely because of the lack of State support for populations of these localities. One of the ways of overcoming susceptibilities created by relational disconnection is precisely in strengthening the spaces of affinities between countries that emerge from shared perceptions, values and goals about the potential benefits of (political, social and economic) integration between countries. This was developed gradually following the solution of border problems with our neighbors, with geographic contiguity as a decisive element to boost international cooperation in infrastructural integration (GEHRE, 2009). Affinities gain ground with institutions such as presidential meetings at the border and the formation of Binational Commissions. For example, Venezuela and Guyana: High- Level Binational Commission (Coban), the Gas Pipeline Project, reaching Suriname. Cooperation plans, at the social, agri-food and infrastructure levels. The technical and engineering commissions are working, with the purpose of achieving the unification of our countries in energy matters. Binational Commission to Combat Drug Trafficking, a battle against the exchange of various technologies. d. Local interventions In a sense, states can intervene in territorialities as a means of overcoming certain challenges or trying to preserve the place of human action over the environment. In this way, the formation of indigenous reserves and environmental protection areas in border regions tends to affect local territorial dynamics. One of the discursive justifications is the creation of buffer zones responsible for limiting access to these regions to guarantee the sovereignty and security of these territories. Indigenous and environmental reserves in border regions are often vulnerable locations for groups that may want to exploit existing resources or cross these regions without state interference; However, it is incumbent upon the state to respect indigenous rights and preserve their environmental reserves. It can be noticed that in the northern region of the country, the strategy of the Calha Norte (presence of the State) ended up losing breath for the strategy of creating buffer zones because they are cheaper (INTEGRAÇÃO, 2005). e. Transboundary Illicit Activities The capillaries and porosities typical of shared territorialities, which stimulate exchanges, interactions and exchanges at the local level, also lead to permissiveness and openings alongside. For example, the main external source of illegal weapons is the land border with countries of South America, especially Bolivia, Paraguay, and Uruguay. The

15 initial origin may be different, but countries in South America are intermediaries for entry into Brazil (COSSUL, 2015). To the North, as Colombia is a large demander for weapons, it is said that the flow direction is the output of arms from the Brazilian territory. One of the other routes identified is Holland - Suriname – Brazil. Another characterization is the lack of interlocution between the different police forces in the country. One of the consequences is the fragility of any work of police intelligence, especially that carried out in border regions or that depends on the coordination of the police with each other or with the Army (TCU, 2015). Acting against the external source of supplies depends on cooperation among police (Civilian, Military and Federal) and other supervisory bodies in border control. Nevertheless, the main difficulties in repressing arms trafficking are: i) lack of harmonization of legislation throughout South America; ii) extensive Brazilian terrestrial border, especially in the South; iii) dispersal of information on seized weapons; iv) lack of integration between Federal Police and Army systems (SINARM-SIGMA); v) deficient control and insufficient equipment, especially in borders and points of migratory control. In the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) World Drug Report of 2016, Brazil remains as a route to the European markets for cocaine, mainly as well as other drugs, and a route to methamphetamines from the European market for the region and Asian markets (UNODC, 2016). This dual status of corridor and cocaine-consuming market is combined with the problem of other drugs, such as marijuana, in which Brazil also appears as a producer, and the marijuana polygon in the Northeast of Brazil accounts for 40% of the country's internal consumption (PELLEGRINI, 2015). It should also be noted that the UNODC report highlights the important negative role that Brazil has in trafficking in women, and is one of the main outlets for Europe (UNODC, 2010). This attractive situation, from the point of view of those who profit from illicit products, has attracted international groups and has encouraged the formation of local groups that compete for retail markets in large metropolises, as well as the wholesale market, mainly for export. A more recent fact is the advance of these organized groups towards the border, previously restricted to a local logic. This advance intends to project the activities of such groups in neighboring countries and thus obtain greater control over the networks of transnational illicit ones that they integrate. Brazilian ports and airports are extremely sensitive areas to the entry and exit of illegal activities, but they differ from the borders that are much more unguarded, with low investments and unprotected throughout its large dimension. (SALLA; ALVAREZ; OI; ROCHA, 2014).

16 f. Human Insecurity Everyday life on South America borders deals with a multiplicity of common concerns that affect the lives of those living in those regions. In this sense, issues such as housing, work, leisure, shopping, health, public security and education assume transnational characteristics that in institutional realm face the limits of sovereign states and in theoretical plane of IR face the limits of the traditional approaches most used to think the relationship with the other. In cases involving Bolivia and Paraguay, the Brazilian government has decided to expand bilateral coordination and synergy to restore the dignity and citizenship rights of migrant communities. These cases are examples of another alternative, since the large number of Paraguayans and Bolivians in Brazil and the Brazilians in Paraguay and Bolivia approaches these societies in a profound normative way. In July 2009, Lula signed the Amnesty Law (Law nº 11.961, 2009), which allows the settlement of hundreds of thousands of undocumented foreigners, so far in Brazil. On the contrary, the governments of Bolivia and Paraguay worked on the regulation of the migration of Brazilians living in those countries. In the end, the Brazilian government aims to ensure decent working conditions for these immigrants from South America, but also to ensure the full integration of Brazilian companies. In addition, the closing episodes of the borders between Colombia and Venezuela, as well as the migration of Venezuelans to settle in the cities of Pacaraima and Boa Vista, point to the fragility of the populations living in the shared territories. In 2016, the Venezuelan and Cuban peoples were the ones who must asked for refuge in Brazil (PRAZERES, 2016). The power gap is filled in shared territories by illegal mining, traffic of women, sexual exploitation and other transnational crimes on the borders between Brazil, Venezuela, Guyana, French Guiana and Suriname, what demand the management of these common concerns at two levels: a) diplomacy of inclusion, supported by the principle of non- indifference; B) shared responsibility, supported by the idea that no one can be left behind. Thus, there are perceptible actions by Brazil to share responsibilities and of integrating and approaching its neighbors with less relative power. The emblematic case is the turn of Brazil towards the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, the inclusion of this country in a new geo-economic concept of international relations. This was prompted by the construction of the bridge over the Tacutu River and several other bilateral measures that facilitate the connection between the state of Roraima in Brazil and the Guyana Georgetown capital in the Atlantic. Strategically, Brazil is opening a passage from the Atlantic to the Amazon and would continue to the Pacific.

B. Emancipations a. Crossing-borders There are many issues of common interest affecting the cross-border dimension of Brazil in South America (illegal mining, illegal fishing, illegal immigration) that affect the development of the border region of all countries. Security perceptions of South American borders have repeating patterns, but also peculiarities that differentiate them. This difference tends to increase when the national perceptions of each state are projected on the borders, suffocating the local reality and its demands. These projections can neglect cross-border dimension and their common interest. A state perception that values the elements of cross-border integration like new cross-border energy distribution networks and other energy trading and cooperation networks. Building bridges as an instrument of economic and social development for the region. Cooperating in cross-border emergency relief, on conditions conducive to movement of persons, in exploiting the potential of the common border, in improving health and education conditions and in developing the movement of goods, the infrastructure, the economy and the regional and local trade. Creating a special cross-border subsistence product regime that will allow a basic quality of life. The negotiation of a regime of cross-border movement, both in the South and North regions of South America, included the international road transport of passengers and goods based on an institutional and juridical model that contemplated (i) territorial framework of application and definition of the beneficiaries; (ii) border document; (iii) designated waypoints; (iv) rights and obligations of beneficiaries; (v) cases of non- admission; (vi) bilateral local management mechanism (RPEB, 2-2011, p. 298). b. Vivifications Among the main common concerns of the South American countries is the vivification of border sites. Some shared territorialities remain on the margins of development processes, with a low presence of the State and the outbreak of socially and economically vulnerable localities, without due access to public services, with a weak public security, surveillance and defense structure. Some measures have reflected Brazilian strategic culture for this theme, such as the search for road connections, the electric interconnection and the establishment of binational consortia. The focus of vivification is to reestablish inactive connections and intensify the existing synapses between the different local agents, fueling the contacts between border populations. This exchange can be activated by the presence of border states, which build

infrastructures to promote exchange and mark the presence of the state in these regions (INTEGRAÇÃO, 2005). On the one hand, the vivification of border was perceived through the establishment of bridges between several countries that expanded the movement of people and goods. Brazil and French Guiana (Bridge under the Rio Oiapoque), Brazil and Cooperative Republic of Guyana (Bridge over the Tacutu River); Bridge over the Mamoré River, linking Guajará-Mirim (in Rondônia) and Guayaramerín (in Bolivia). For Bolivia, the construction of the bridge means withdrawing the country from its isolation position, opening a new route towards the sea. From Guajará-Mirim, Bolivian production may cross Rondônia and Acre and be transported to the Pacific via the Bioceanic highway. The projects for a second bridge between Foz do Iguaçu (Brazilian city) and Paraguay, with a length of 745 meters, will be contracted to link the BR-277 to the Paraguayan municipality of Presidente Franco. On the other hand, energy interconnection between Brazil and its neighbors, whether in Southern Cone or in the Amazon region, creates susceptibilities in terms not only environmental as unpredictable in the localities. For example, Roraima's dependence on energy from the Guri line in Venezuela and its disconnection from the National System Operator produces a feeling of constant insecurity for population who lives alongside the limits, at border strip to the capital Boa Vista. In this way, there remains a doubt about the Venezuelan ability to preserve the means of energy supply and to protect the entire energy supply chain and energy infrastructure (GEHRE, 2009, p.186). c. Governance of resources Other common concern that arise in border territories are the governance of resources such as energy, water and minerals, whether through subnational or business governmental partnerships, or through the establishment of bilateral and multilateral coordination instruments. The first type of resource governance refers to creation of legal frameworks for the joint exploration of minerals and oil, such as the one between the Brazilian and French governments, for the Guyana region (RPEB, 2-2011, pp. 298-299). The second type would be the shared management of water resources, in places like the Amazon river or Platina basin. The third governance type would be one of solving problems associated with the other two, which include issues related to agriculture, forest management, disputes over land tenure, indigenous issues, and hydroelectric projects. For example, the socio- environmental impacts of the portfolio of integration projects touched by COSIPLAN (South American Infrastructure and Planning Council) of UNASUR have raised doubts about the future of integration. On the one hand, there are frequent clashes and problems in Amazon

jungle between indigenous people, entrepreneurs, traditional communities, construction companies, social movements, NGOs and local inhabitants concerned with road and energy integration projects or the construction of dams and hydroelectric power plants. On the other hand, the capitalist logic of ties involving companies and governments drew attention after the serious denunciations of Brazilian companies' involvement in infrastructure projects in South America. d. Social Inclusion Social inclusion appears as another common concern in shared territorialities of Amazon. Assuming Brazil's advances in terms of social policy, one can imagine that the country could genuinely contribute to the governance effort of shared territorialities and some common concerns. For example, the creation of Amazon Social Inclusion Agenda, within the scope of ACTO (Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization) - "Manaus Commitment" (November 2011) - signaled a special concern with the issue of regional development. Nevertheless, Brazilian government needs to engage in the exchange of information and knowledge on Amazonian reality in its multiple dimensions, as well as in the eventual provision of cooperation to neighboring countries. Cooperation with bordering countries is essential for contributing to regional integration and reducing asymmetries. Hence the importance of accompanying the actions of national actors and Amazonian neighbors in relation to border issue. Likewise, the creation of a border policy in the gestation of Brazilian government should have an impact on the development of neighboring countries and, for that reason, needs to be properly articulated to be successful.

CONCLUSIONS Historical context of Brazil's international relations, especially its regional insertion in South America, needs to be rescued and evaluated critically to understand how human dimension on the border impacts on the constitution of Brazilian perceptions about international security and regional security. Brazil's historical and traditional concerns have oscillated between issues such as territorial disputes, contentious disputes over the navigation of Amazon rivers or Prata Basin, invasion and intervention aimed at border adjustment or debt collection, a war involving the main countries in the region, the fight against ideological penetration, the balance of power in the subregions of South America, the fight against drug trafficking and illicit activities, as well as concerns about global terrorism, especially after the attacks of September 11, 2001.

The resurgence of a more intensive military and strategic agenda has placed Islamist fundamentalism, associated with terrorism, as the focus of security policies of the great powers, but it has completely ignored regional singularities and local particularities as generating (in)security dynamics. It is understood, therefore, that ideas about threats and conceptions about international security have usually been grafted outward into South America, ignoring the evolution of regional security issues and regional experiences of countries in dealing with some historical problems. The constitution of Brazilian perceptions about international security considers three aspects: a) evolution carried out in the Brazilian strategy of security and defense; b) reassessments of border’s place in Brazilian Strategic Culture; c) changes in security and defense integration strategy for the South American integrated space. The proliferation of Brazilian policies about public security, defense and inspection in borders since the 1990s, as well as the increasing relevance of this agenda in Amazonian and “Platinos” neighbors are re-signified in the context of integration, which requires the redirection of the Public action. The entry of border issues into the national and regional political agenda of countries still faces serious regional integration constraints due to institutional, legal and operational distinctions of country's bureaucracies, both in terms of their perceptions and real possibilities of benefits on strategic issues that directly affect the life of border population and the very viability of cities in those localities. One of the objectives of this work is to understand dynamics and forces of historical continuum that are constituted between shared territorialities and common concerns, such as the function of Brazilian cooperation, initiatives and policies for its borders, as well as the implications of the absence of a strategic culture that highlights the importance of the local in the security and defense policy, as well as the proper (mis)alignment between foreign policy and border policies. This discussion from the point of view of security, defense and foreign policy politics demands to perceive borderlands as the will and reality of peoples and social policies. This demand makes us combine the reality of border zone with national imperatives, demonstrating the parameters of sovereignty limits, but overlapping over it the life of border zone. This implies friction between forces of aggregation and policies that go towards national unity against disintegrating forces of national logic, but which are related to a logic of local integration policies. In fact, integrating locally is the natural tendency that sometimes proves problematic because of national imperatives. In a context of regional integration, the balance between national forces and local ones must be pursued pragmatically in order not to create or reinforce asymmetries that can empower actors who act illegally, undermining states themselves, as well as the integration process itself.

In this way, the understanding of border dynamics that animate the shared spaces passes through the existence of daily international relations in its local level with the inflections that can come from the policy of global power, a relation between levels not always or necessarily intermediated by border states. In case of northern arc, there would be a duality in relation to policies in Amazon: on the one hand, great opportunities for those who live there and for other countries that want to invest or be present in some way in that region. On the other hand, the social liabilities of isolated and abandoned communities, without full service of basic services, of economic fragility and that this problem must be attacked by the States (better if it is carried out jointly in a scheme of cooperation and political coordination). The idea-force in the Brazilian government is to transform Amazon into an asset, such as the Pré-sal, and that biodiversity and local wealth can be transformed into means for development of people living in Amazon. Amazon, often seen as the lung of the world, is primarily the heart of regional integration of countries of that region. The awakening to socio-environmental impacts by great enterprises in Amazon brings to the surface a feeling of resistance and emancipation from the process of regional integration engendered by the offices of foreign and presidential relations, as well as of UNASUR itself. Borders are presented as privileged spaces of multiple identities, where there is the encounter of one with the "other". This meeting is seized by official documents as long as a critical reading and dialogue is established with the emancipatory perspective of decolonial thinking. For example, if differences in potentialities between Brazil and its neighbors caused a negative perception of Brazilian power by militaries, fueling distrust on the other side of the borders, it would be plausible to imagine that common concerns in shared territorialities generated places of cooperation and coordination between Brazil and its neighbors. If power asymmetry can generate separation, common preoccupations would generate integration. Dilemma between integration and protection of borders is evident, demonstrating that territory is still a privileged place for power relations and various interests, important not only for the geopolitics of nations, but also for political and social relations, whether within the territorial space delimited by borders, or crossing them by transnational means. Local challenges, therefore, should be relevant as global ones, especially because they generate common concerns in a variety of areas such as educational, health, environmental, cultural, among others, including problems of public security, national defense and relationship with nation neighbors.

FONTES E BIBLIOGRAFIAS

BADIE, Bertrand et alli. Qui a peur du XXIe siècle? lê nouveau système international. Paris: La Découverte, 2005. p. 12. BECKER, Bertha. Amazônia, Geopolítica na virada do III milênio. Rio de Janeiro: Garamond, 2004 CONSTITUIÇÃO (1988). Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil. Brasília, DF: Senado Federal: Centro Gráfico, 1988. DEFESA (2012). MINISTÉRIO DA DEFESA. Política Nacional de Defesa e Estratégia Nacional de Defesa. Brasília, 2012. DEFESA (2016). MINISTÉRIO DA DEFESA. Minuta da Política Nacional de Defesa e Estratégia Nacional de Defesa. Brasília, 2016. INTEGRAÇÃO (2014). MINISTÉRIO DA INTEGRAÇÃO NACIONAL. Integração Nacional oficializa conceito para definição das “cidades-gêmeas” no País. Brasil: Ministério da Integração Nacional, 2014. INTEGRAÇÃO (2016). MINISTÉRIO DA INTEGRAÇÃO NACIONAL. Ministério da Integração Nacional reconhece duas novas cidades-gêmeas. Brasil: Ministério da Integração Nacional, 2016. CERVO, Amado Luiz; CLODOALDO, Bueno. História da política exterior do Brasil. 3ªed. Brasília: Editora Universidade de Brasília, 2010. COSSUL, Naiane Inez. Tráfico Internacional de Armas na Fronteira Brasil/Bolívia: Dinâmicas de Insegurança Regional e o Posicionamento Brasileiro. Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Centro Socioeconômico. Programa de Pós- Graduação em Relações Internacionais, 2015. COSTA, Maurício Kenyatta Barros da. Políticas de Segurança e Defesa da Fronteira Brasileira no Contexto de Integração Regional: os casos das fronteiras Brasil-Paraguai e Brasil-Uruguai. Universidade de Brasília (Dissertação de Mestrado). Brasília: Instituto de Relações Internacionais, 2017. DIENER, Alexander C.; HAGEN, Joshua. Borders: a very short introduction. Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 2012. FERRARI, Maristela. As Noções de Fronteira em Geografia. Revista Perspectiva Geográfica. UNIOESTE, v.9, n.10, 2014.FOUCHER, 2009. FOUCHER, M. Fronts et frontières. Un tour du monde géopolitique, Paris, Fayard, 1991. FURQUIM JUNIOR, Laercio. Fronteiras Terrestres e Marítimas do Brasil: um contorno dinâmico. São Paulo: Dissertação de mestrado do departamento de geografia da USP, 2007.

GEHRE, Thiago. América do Sul: uma ideia brasileira em marcha. Curitiba: Juruá, 2009. GROVOGUI, Siba. The state of the African state and politics: ghosts and phantoms in the heart of darkness. In: ARLENE, A. B; BLANEY, D. L. (ed). Thinking International Relations Differently. Routledge, 2012. HOUTUM, Henk Van. The Geopolitics of Borders and Boundaries. Geopolitics, v. 10, 2005. ______. The Mask of the Border. In: DORIS WASTL-WALTER (ed.). The Ashgate Research Companion to Border Studies. London-New York: Routledge, 2011. KISSINGER, Henry. Ordem Mundial. Rio de Janeiro: Objetiva, 2014. KNAUSS, Paulo (Org.). O Oeste americano: Quatro ensaios de história dos Estados Unidos da América de Frederick Jackson Turner. Niterói: Ed.UFF, 2004. LÓPES-ALVES, Fernando. The Latin American nation-state and the international. In: ARLENE, A. B; BLANEY, D. L. (ed). Thinking International Relations Differently. Routledge, 2012. MACHADO, Lia Osório. Estado, territorialidade, redes: cidades gêmeas na zona de fronteira sul-americana. In: SILVEIRA, M. L. (Org.). Continente em chamas: globalização e territórios na América Latina. Rio de janeiro: civilização brasileira, 2005. ______. Proposta de Reestruturação do Programa de Desenvolvimento da Faixa de Fronteira. Brasília: Ministério da Integração Nacional, 2005. ______. Limites, Fronteiras, Redes. In: STROHAECKER, Tânia Marques. et al. (Org.). Fronteiras e Espaço global. Porto Alegre: AGB-Seção Porto Alegre, 1998. MAGNOLI, Demetrio. O corpo da pátria: imaginação histórica e política externo no Brasil (1808-1912). São Paulo: Editora Unesp: Moderna, 1997. p. 17. MALLAVARAPU, Siddharth. Contextualizing rule in South Asia. In: ARLENE, A. B; BLANEY, D. L. (ed). Thinking International Relations Differently. Routledge, 2012. MARTIN, André Roberto. Fronteiras e Nações. São Paulo: Contexto, 1997. MARTINS, Estevão. Cultura e poder. Brasília: IBRI, 2007. MORACZEWSKA, Anna. The changing interpretation of border functions in international relations. Revista Română de Geografie Politică, Year XII, no. 2, November, 2010. NAVARRETE, Margarita. Región Fronteriza Uruguayo – Brasilera: Laboratorio social para la integración regional: cooperación e integración transfronteriza. Tutor: Lincoln Bizzozero. Universidad de la República: Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Montevideo, 2006. NEWMAN, David. On borders and power: A theoretical framework. In: Journal of Borderlands Studies, vol. 18:1, pp. 13-25, 2003.

PAASI, A. A Border Theory: Na Unattainable Dream or a Realistic Aim for Border Scholars? In: DORIS WASTL-WALTER (ed.). The Ashgate Research Companion to Border Studies. London-New York: Routledge, 2011. ______. Boundaries as Social Practice and Discourse: The Finnish-Russian Border. In: Regional Studies, vol. 33:7, pp. 669-680, 1999. ______. Territories, Boundaries and Consciousness: The Changing Geographies of the Finnish-Russian Border. Chichester: John Wiley, 1996. PELLEGRINI, Marcelo. Maconha brasileira abastece 40% do mercado nacional. Carta Capital. Brasil, 21/07/2015. Disponível em: http://www.cartacapital.com.br/sociedade/brasilproduz-40-da-maconha-que-consome- 3589.html. Acesso em: 26 dez. 2016. PRAZERES, Leandro. Venezuela e Cuba lideram pedidos de refúgio para o Brasil em 2016. In: UOL Notícias. Brasília, 2016. Disponível em: https://noticias.uol.com.br/internacional/ultimas-noticias/2017/03/16/venezuela-e-cuba- lideram-pedidos-de-refugio-para-o-brasil-em-2016.htm, acesso em 18/06/2017. PROCOPIO, Argemiro. Drogas ilícitas em espaços transfronteiriços. Cena Internacional, v. 2, n. 1, p. 54-78, 2000. p. 107. RAFFESTIN, Claude. Por uma Geografia do Poder. São Paulo: Ática, 1993. RHI-SAUSI, José Luís; CONATO, Dario (coord). Cooperación transfronteriza e Integración en América Latina: la experiencia del Proyecto Fronteras Abiertas. Roma, pp. 11-32, 2009. RODRIGUES, Alexandre Reis. O conceito de segurança. Jornal de Defesa e Relações Internacionais (JDRI). Brasil, 2013. Disponível em: http://database.jornaldefesa.pt/politicas_de_defesa/portugal/JDRI%20047%20090413%2 0conceito%20seguran%C3%A7a.pdf. Acesso em: 20 dez. 2016. RÓTULO, Daniel; DAMIANI, Octavio. El caso de la integración fronteriza Uruguay Brasil: dimensiones analíticas e hipótesis de trabajo preliminares. In: Documento de Investigación. Universidad ORT Uruguay: Facultad de Administración y Ciencias Sociales, nº.61, 2010. RPEB (2013). Resenha de Política Exterior do Brasil. Número 113, 2º semestre de 2013. RPEB (2012). Resenha de Política Exterior do Brasil. Número 111, 2º semestre de 2012. SALLA, Fernando et all. Violência e a gestão das fronteiras brasileiras. Segurança, Justiça e Cidadania. Brasília: Ministério da Justiça, Secretária Nacional de Segurança Pública (SENASP), ano 4, n.8, 2014. SANTOS, Milton. O retorno do território. In: SANTOS, M. et al. (Org.) Território: globalização e fragmentação. São Paulo: HUCITEC/ANPUR, p.15-20, 1994.

SCHERMA, Márcio Augusto. As políticas brasileiras para a faixa de fronteira: um olhar a partir das relações internacionais. Campinas, SP, 2015. SILVA, Gutemberg de Vilhena. A Fronteira Política: Alguns apontamentos sobre este tema clássico da Geografia Política. In: Revista Acta Geográfica. Ano II, n.4, jul/dez, 2008, pp.07-15. SINDIFISCO (2011). (Sindicato Nacional dos Auditores-Fiscais da Receita Federal do Brasil). Projeto Fronteira em Foco. SINDIFISCO NACIONAL. Brasília, 2011. TCU (2015). TRIBUNAL DE CONTAS DA UNIÃO (TCU). Acórdão nº 2252/2015-TCU Plenário. Relator: NARDES, Ministro Augusto. TC nº 014.387/2014-0. Publicado pela Secom do TCU, 2015. UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME (UNODC). World Drug Report 2016. United Nations Publication, Sales n.E.16.XI.7, 2016. WATSON, Adam. A evolução da sociedade internacional: uma análise histórica comparativa. Brasília: UnB, 2004. p. 430.