I Guess It's Not Easy Being A Rising Power

In the Economist this past week there was an interesting article about some of the recent foreign policy woes of rising power Brazil. Apparently being one of the up and coming class of new powers is not all that it may be cracked up to be. There seems to be some difference of opinion concerning whether or not the direction the Lula has been guiding Brazil on its current rise in power is in the best interests of the country.

Brazillian president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's "predecessor, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, sought to boost trade and other ties with the United States and Europe. On taking office in 2003, Lula placed new stress on south-south ties. Brazil has doubled the number of its embassies in Africa, to 30, and joined or set up a clutch of new clubs. These include IBSA, with India and South Africa, of which Itamaraty, the foreign ministry, is especially proud."

This seems, to me, to be a typical dilemma for any power that is determined to rise up global hierarchy. A potential power can either choose to align itself with the old world powers of the industrial northern hemisphere or with the relatively uncertain but potentially prosperous states of the southern hemisphere.

For now though, Lula (and therefore Brazil's) decision to focus on its fellow economies of the South has appeared to have been a wise decision. "As evidence that this policy has borne fruit, Celso Amorim, the foreign minister, points out that most of Brazil’s trade is now with developing countries, thus anticipating Mr Obama’s advice that the world should not rely on the United States as consumer of last resort."

Brazil's foreign policies however have run into problems with its neighbours in South America. In his attempts to bolster the prosperity of the South American continent by increasing cooperation and collaboration amongst its neighbours. However, when

"Brazil embraced Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela, inviting it to join the Mercosur trade block. The naivety of this approach became apparent when Bolivia, at Mr Chávez’s urging, nationalised the local operations of Petrobras, Brazil’s state-controlled oil company. In what has been called the 'diplomacy of generosity' towards left-wing governments in its smaller neighbours, Brazil agreed to pay more for Bolivian gas. Last month it similarly agreed to pay Paraguay more for electricity from Itaipu, the hydroelectric dam they share."

and then more recently at the meeting of Union of South American Nations (which Brazil initiated) in the Ecuadorean capital Quito,

"Hugo Chávez, Venezuela’s president, backed by his allies, Bolivia and Ecuador, wanted to condemn Colombia for granting facilities at seven military bases to the United States, which is helping it battle guerrillas and drug-traffickers. 'Winds of war are blowing,' he thundered. Four countries, including Chile and Peru, backed Colombia."

It just seems tragic that Brazil has been pursuing a path that has largely shielded it from the problems of the economic downturn but then faces bumps on that path because of its squabbling neighbours.

- blenCOWe

Brazil Beginning to Act Like a Great Power

The BBC reports, today that Brazil will offer the International Monetary Fund $10 billion in order to improve the accessibility of credit to developing nations. This move represents what could be the beginning of Brazil's true emergence as a great power. Brazil has both a strong military and economy but cannot really be called an "active" power. Until now, it was probably fairer to say that Brazil was at best a regional power. A move like this, part of a greater commitment by BRIC nations, helps Brazil to push past that label and earn the attention it has been receiving lately as a growing power.

Beyond that, by committing such a large amount of money to the IMF, Brazil may be helping to restore legitimacy to an institution that has had a poor track record in South America. With a contribution like this, Brazil will have a lot more influence in the decisions of the IMF because of the institution's structure where the number of votes a state has is dependent on the amount of money it contributes - this contribution would place Brazil as a top 5 contributions and, consequently, influence. What this means for South America is that it can finally have one of its own fighting in its best interests and hopefully work to change the mistrust (and/or hatred) that is the result of detrimental IMF involvement in the past. Also, this must make developing nations worldwide optimistic now that one of their former colleagues is now an influential player in international politics and institutions.

This seems like a good first step for Brazil and may create a little more anticipation for the upcoming BRIC summit.

- blenCOWe

A Look to the Past for a Solution for the Future

So the National Intelligence Council has released a report predicting what the global society will look like by 2025. Predictably, the report forsees that the United States' dominance will decline in response to the growth of competitors like Brazil, China, India and Russia.

Personally, I find it surprising that the report downplays the importance of the European Union in the next 20 years. The EU if referred to as a "hobbled giant, unable to turn its economic power into diplomatic or military muscle." Recent events including this summer's conflict in Georgia, the search for support amongst EU members of NATO for the mission in Afghanistan and EU efforts to combat Somali piracy would lead to me to believe that the EU may continue to play a powerful role in international relations during the decline of American hegemony.

However I digress, the real purpose for today's post is to address the report's supposition that "a world with more power centres will be less stable than one with one or two powers ... offering more potential for conflict." A system of multipolarity as this report predicts would be very similar to the Congress of Vienna system that existed in Europe in the latter stages of the 19th century. This balance of power system was maintained by the Great Powers of the time, Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, Austria-Hungary and France, through a preponderance of power. If any state, great power or lesser, were to threaten the order of things, the remaining powers would bring down their might on this rogue state. This system was highly effective and stabilized the continent for about 3 decades. Informal in nature and underwritten by the military might of Great Britain, the Congress of Vienna saw a sharp decline in warfare and kept "the long peace".

This type of system would be ideal in response to the proposed decline of American power and the growth of new power centres. Underwritten by the military might of the United States, that is unlikely to decline, and possibly Russia; the new centres of power could join the United States in creating a balance of power to ensure order and prosperity in uncertain times. This system would informally replace the UN Security Council by providing a body that reflects current realities and flexible to emerging factors.

Such a system would require the innovative and rational thinking of world leaders, especially of those who lead the world powers. This would be political risky and require a great commitment to international cooperation which, unfortunately, lately has been fleeting. And then there is also the great risk that, like the Congress of Vienna, its downfall could result in a devastating war. On the other hand, it could be successful and stability and order could be restored to international affairs.

- blenCOWe