The ability to spread destruction within and beyond U.S. borders cannot be overstated. Nor should it be underestimated the willingness and resources he has to invest against democracy in his country and against the rules that try to contain the use of brute force in international relations.
Where all this will lead, no one knows for sure and past experience doesn’t help with these things. Today’s world is more connected by trade, investment, finance, communications and the movement of people.
Between the very powerful nations and those for which sovereignty is little more than fiction, there are intermediate countries with international aspirations of their own and some assets to pursue them. In short, today’s world has little to do with the one that saw imperialist expansion between the 19th and 20th centuries or, even, with the division of areas of influence of great powers, defined by the clashes of .
Recently, the New York Times asked five international affairs experts where they believed the world was headed. The responses were published in a special opinion section under the title “The world is in chaos. What’s next?”
With different arguments, the five interviewees predicted a period of great volatility in relations between countries; lack of a minimum of predictability; and, consequently, the risk of conflicts that are beyond the control of the nations that initiate them.
Here I highlight three authors and ideas that are especially relevant to Brazil’s foreign policy decisions. Adam Tooze, a historian at Columbia University, emphasizes that competition between countries will be guided by how they are able to build power through mastery of technology and varied forms of energy production.
Matias Spektor, from Fundação Getúlio Vargas, does not believe a stable agreement between nations or a clear division of spheres of influence is possible. Rather, it prophesies a harsh and constant clash in which hierarchies and limits that the great powers will try to impose will always be subject to challenge.
Finally, veteran historian Margaret MacMillan, from the University of Oxford, draws attention to the discrepancy between the complexity of the challenges and the —very low— quality of the current batch of world leaders.
If these authors are right, more than ever the solidity of Brazilian foreign policy will depend on domestic policy decisions on the exploration of mineral resources; about our already diverse energy matrix and about what technological policy is possible, given the available resources. Furthermore, it will require fine tuning and diplomatic intelligence to, at each moment, decide which side our best interests are on; with whom to negotiate; who to ally with; and around which objectives.
To this end, political leaders cannot lack a minimum understanding of what Brazil wants in this troubled world; of pragmatism to escape the traps of internal political polarization; and willingness to learn from our professional diplomacy. None of these qualities seem available among the leaders of the Bolsonarist right.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
