In addition to investments, the document signed by the heads of state mentions cooperation for technological transfer and human resources training
MARIANNA HOLANDA AND GUILHERME BOTACINI – The government of President Lula (PT) signed, this Wednesday (20), with China a cooperation plan in infrastructure and industrial projects, such as the New PAC, but without joining the so-called New Route of Silk.
In total, 37 acts were signed during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Lula. The official visit began this morning, at Palácio da Alvorada, where meetings took place, documents were signed and the leaders made a joint statement. In the evening, the government offers a dinner for the Chinese delegation at Itamaraty.
In addition to investments, the document signed by the heads of state mentions cooperation for technological transfer and human resources training.
The text talks about establishing “synergies” between, on the Brazilian side, the New PAC, the Nova Indústria Brasil plan, the Ecological Transformation Plan and the South American Integration Routes Program; and, on the Chinese side, the Belt and Road Initiative (alternative name for New Silk Road).
The initiative is a Chinese agenda for investments in the areas of infrastructure and energy in other countries. The plan, which has already generated US$2 trillion in contracts, aims to expand China’s trade relations through the construction of ports, railway lines, airports and industrial parks.
The term “synergy” has been used by both Brazil and China to signal proximity and cooperation between the countries, even though there is no formal adherence to the Chinese initiative.
Lula’s special advisor Celso Amorim returned from an official mission to China saying that the government was interested in formally joining the initiative and talking about deepening synergies between Chinese and Brazilian priority projects, such as the PAC.
In an article published in Folha de S.Paulo, Xi used a similar expression – “strengthening synergies between the Belt and Road Initiative and Brazil’s development strategies” – in the only paragraph that mentioned the project.
“The projects to be developed will be defined based on the principles of joint contributions and shared benefits, cooperation for technological transfer and human resources training, and will be guided by respect for the law, transparency, promotion of equality, social inclusion and sustainability” , says an excerpt from the document.
Interlocutors who followed the negotiations said that, overall, it would not be positive for Brazil to join the initiative, which currently has few major countries. Furthermore, in the most recent rounds of talks between the two countries, the Chinese would have demonstrated that adherence to the proposal would no longer be so vital, but rather partnerships in investments on different fronts.
There was also an assessment in Brazilian diplomacy that Brazil does not need to join the project to access Chinese investments, given its position as the largest Latin American country and a major exporter of food mainly to China – which is pushing for Brasília to declare entry into the project.
The pressure, but in the opposite direction from Beijing, also comes from the other side of the geopolitical dispute. At the end of October, Katherine Tai, US Trade Representative, stated at an event in São Paulo that Brazil should weigh the risks of joining the Chinese initiative, mentioning issues of national sovereignty.
“If Brazil is considering the Belt and Road Initiative, it will need to take into account not only its own risk appetite and risk management strategies, but also the risk profiles and considerations of other countries, especially key partners,” he said. she told Folha de S.Paulo at the beginning of the month.
The Chinese Embassy in Brazil called the US Commerce chief’s comment irresponsible.
There were concerns from the economic wing of the government, for example, which was more cautious about membership and sought to add conditions and mechanisms, such as technology transfer, in the midst of the debates. According to a government interlocutor, the decision not to join the initiative was prior to the election of Donald Trump in the United States.
