Presidentialization, Pluralization, and the Rollback of Itamaraty: Explaining Change in Brazilian Foreign Policy Making in the Cardoso-Lula Era

Abstract

Since the 1990s Brazilian foreign policy has become increasingly central to Latin American integration, to South—South relations, and to global governance, especially under the leadership of presidents Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1995—2002) and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (2003 to the present). This article argues that the making of Brazilian foreign policy since the mid-1990s has been marked by two major trends: pluralization of actors and the rise of presidentially led diplomacy. These two trends have promoted a gradual erosion of the influence of the highly professionalized and traditionally autonomous Foreign Ministry (Itamaraty). The article analyzes the role of global, regional, and domestic political factors in promoting this transformation, and examines the consequences for Brazil's foreign policy outputs.

Foreign policy of the New Left: explaining Brazil's Southern partnerships

“…In the 1990s, the MRE played an increasingly prominent role as changes such as regional integration and increasingly complex multilateral negotiations demanded skilled diplomacy (Vigevani and Cepaluni 2007). Itamaraty has historically exercised a significant degree of autonomy, maintaining its separation from other ministries and agencies (Cason and Power 2009 (Daudelin 2010). Celso Amorim, who served as minister of foreign relations during Lula da Silva's entire presidency (2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011), promoted a specific version of this intensification by endorsing and enhancing the president's vision of focusing on other developing countries rather than on the US and Europe (Cardoso 2013: 43).…”

“…Historically, foreign policy design has been seen as detached from public opinion (Daudelin 2010 In general, the discourse around correcting global asymmetries resonates with PT ideology about anti-imperialism (Cason and Power 2009) and the realisation of human rights, including via poverty reduction. In this way, 'the government's fight against poverty and unequal income distribution at home and its assertive and activist foreign policy can be viewed as two sides of the same coin' (Soares de Lima and Hirst 2006: 21).…”

“…The importance of foreign policy for the PT on an ideological level thus cannot obscure the pragmatic aspects of active regional and global engagement. Rather than business elites being marginalised under PT administrations, their influence -especially agricultural and export interests -has been extended (Cason and Power 2009 The PT government's activities abroad have also marginalised its domestic social base. Domestically, the PT has largely been supported by urban social movements and labour unions, which has allowed the PT administration to neglect rural demands (de Castro and Motta 2015).…”

O papel das coalizões de defesa da agricultura nas agendas da política comercial externa brasileira

“…Essa pluralização de atores, nos termos empregados por Cason e Power (2009), conferiu uma reconfiguração à PEB no marco de um novo padrão de abertura e diálogo com variados segmentos sociais e uma maior descentralização das decisões em matéria de política externa: "assim como o Itamaraty começou a olhar verticalmente dentro da sociedade (e vice-versa), o ministro também foi obrigado a dividir poder horizontalmente com outras unidades do Estado brasileiro" 19 (Cason;Power, 2009, p. 121). Nesse sentido, a ação internacional organizada de diversos ministérios e também de entidades subnacionais traz à tona uma multiplicidade de agendas que caminha pari passu ao interesse crescente pelos temas de política externa que não mais passam necessariamente pelo crivo do Ministério de Relações Exteriores (MRE).…”

Poder legislativo e política externa no Brasil: jogando com as regras

“…O processo decisório relacionado à política externa brasileira, segundo a sabedoria convencional, 3 não apenas reitera, mas aprofunda esse padrão, reservando ao Poder Legislativo um papel meramente homologatório, e ex post, das decisões tomadas pelo Poder Executivo, seja via insula-mento burocrático do Itamaraty, seja via diplomacia presidencial (DANESE, 1999;CASON;POWER, 2009). …”