Advertisement

A Tragedy of Middle Power Politics: Traps in Brazil’s Quest for Institutional Revisionism

  • Dawisson Belém Lopes
  • Guilherme Casarões
  • Carlos Frederico Gama
Chapter

Abstract

Middle powers such as Brazil have become relevant players in the world stage. In the wake of the 2008 global economic crisis, they displayed particularly impressive credentials—countries with large territories and huge populations, responsible for the major part of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP) growth. As their relevance in international politics increases by leaps and bounds, so does their institutional investment. Not only by building coalitions and organizations of their own, middle powers also show considerable interest in those already available international institutional arrangements which conform the backbone of a post-World War II international system, such as the United Nations (UN) and the Bretton Woods institutions (the International Monetary Fund [IMF] and the World Bank [WB], not to mention a latecomer, World Trade Organization [WTO], and a novel grouping, the Group of Twenty (G-20), brought to life as a multilateral response to the world’s financial crisis).

References

  1. Almeida, P.R. 2004. Uma política externa engajada: a diplomacia do governo Lula. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 47 (1): 162–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amorim, C. 2010. Speech of the Brazilian Minister of External Relations at the Special Session of Human Rights Committee Regarding Haiti. New York City: OAS.Google Scholar
  3. ———. 2011a. Discurso por ocasião da transmissão do cargo de ministro de Estado das Relações Exteriores. In Discursos, Palestras e Artigos do Chanceler Celso Amorim: 2003–2010, ed. C. Amorim. Brasília: Ministério das Relações Exteriores.Google Scholar
  4. ———. 2011b. Brazil and the Middle East. Cairo Review.Google Scholar
  5. Barbosa, R. 2002. Os Estados Unidos pós-11 de setembro de 2001: implicações para a ordem mundial e para o Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 45 (1): 72–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burges, S. 2008. Consensual Hegemony: Theorizing Brazilian Foreign Policy After the Cold War. International Relations 22 (1): 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carranza, M.E. 2003. Can Mercosur Survive? Domestic and International Constraints on Mercosur. Latin American Politics and Society 45 (2): 67–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooper, A., et al. 1993. Relocating Middle Powers: Australia and Canada in a Changing World Order. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
  9. Couto, C., and F. Abrucio. 2003. O Segundo Governo FHC: Coalizões, agendas e instituições. Tempo Social 15 (2): 269–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cox, R. 1996. Middlepowermanship: Japan and the Future of the World Order. In Approaches to World Order, ed. R. Cox and T. Sinclair. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dantas, S.T. 2011. Política Externa Independente. Brasília: Funag.Google Scholar
  12. Drezner, D. 2010. The Tragedy of the Global Institutional Commons. Retrieved from http://www.danieldrezner.com/research/InstitutionalProliferation.pdf. Accessed 17 Mar 2013.
  13. Flemes, D. 2007. Emerging Middle Powers’ Soft Balancing Strategy: State and Perspectives of the IBSA Dialogue Forum. GIGA Working Papers, No. 57.Google Scholar
  14. ———. 2010. O Brasil na iniciativa BRIC: soft balancing numa ordem global em mudança? Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 53 (1): 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gama, C.F.P.S. 2009. Bridge Over Troubled Waters: United Nations, Peace Operations and Human Security. Journal of Human Security 5: 9–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gonçalves, W. 2011. Panorama da Política Externa Brasileira no governo Lula da Silva. In A política externa brasileira na era Lula: um balanço, Freixo A., et al. (orgs). Rio de Janeiro: Apicuri.Google Scholar
  17. Hardin, G. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, New Series 162 (3859): 1243–1248.Google Scholar
  18. Hurrell, A. 2008. Lula’s Brazil: A Rising Power, But Going Where? Current History 107 (706): 51–57.Google Scholar
  19. Lima, M.R., and M. Hirst. 2006. Brazil as an Intermediate State and Regional Power: Action, Choice and Responsibilities. International Affairs 82 (1): 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. MDIC. 2011. Comércio Exterior. Available at http://www.mdic.gov.br/index.php/comercio-exterior
  21. Ministry of External Relations. 2010. Viagens do Presidente da República. Available at http://www.itamaraty.gov.br/pt-BR/component/tags/tag/viagens-dopresidente-da-republica
  22. Oliveira, M.F. 2005. Alianças e coalizões internacionais do governo Lula: o Ibas e o G-20. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 48 (2): 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Oliveira, A., J. Onuki, and E. Oliveira. 2006. Coalizões Sul-Sul e Multilateralismo: Índia, Brasil e África do Sul. Contexto Internacional 28 (2): 465–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Olson, M. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Pecequilo, C.S. 2010. A New Strategic Dialogue: Brazil-US Relations in Lula’s Presidency (2003–2010). Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 53 (Special Edition).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pereira, L.B. 2011. Turkey, Brazil and New Geopolitics of the World. Bilgesam: Wise Men Center for Strategic Studies. Available at http://www.bilgesam.org/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=437:turkey-brazil-and-new-geopolitics-of-the-world-&catid=89:analizler-latinamerika&Itemid=139
  27. Ramamurti, R., and J.V. Singh. 2009. Emerging Multinationals in Emerging Markets. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Saraiva, J.F.S. 2010. The New Africa and Brazil in the Lula Era: The Rebirth of Brazilian Atlantic Policy. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 53 (Special Edition).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vieira, M.A., and C. Alden. 2011. India, Brazil, and South Africa (IBSA): South-South Cooperation and the Paradox of Regional Leadership. Global Governance 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vieira de Jesus, D. 2011. Building Trust and Flexibility: A Brazilian View of the Fuel Swap with Iran. The Washington Quarterly 34 (2): 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vigevani, T., and G. Cepaluni. 2007. Lula’s Foreign Policy and the Quest for Autonomy Through Diversification. Third World Quarterly 28 (1): 1309–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vigevani, T., M.F. Oliveira, and R. Cintra. 2003. Política Externa no Governo FHC: a busca da autonomia pela integração. Tempo Social 15 (2): 31–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Visentini, P.F. 2011. Brazil’s Contemporary Foreign Policy: An Affirmative Agenda. In G20: Perceptions and Perspectives for Global Governance, ed. W. Hofmeister. Konrad Adenauer Stiftung: Singapore.Google Scholar
  34. Walt, S. 2005. Taming American Power. New York: W.W. Norton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dawisson Belém Lopes
    • 1
  • Guilherme Casarões
    • 2
  • Carlos Frederico Gama
    • 3
  1. 1.Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG)Belo HorizonteBrazil
  2. 2.São Paulo Business School of Fundação Getulio Vargas (EAESP-FGV)São PauloBrazil
  3. 3.Universidade Federal do TocantinsPalmasBrazil

Personalised recommendations