Severity, salience, and selectivity: understanding the varying responses to regional crises by Brazil and South Africa

Abstract

Political, military and humanitarian crises endanger regional order. But even though regional powers are expected to act as stabilizers in these cases, their responses to dire demands vary in intensity and loci. Reactions go from zealous engagement to prolonged indifference and reluctance, often leaning on global multilateral institutions as well as regional or ad hoc mechanisms. This study explores the variation in the provision of stability by regional powers via a mixed-methods approach. By contrasting the intensity of regional crises with issue salience at the UN General Assembly, we select crises that drew varying attention from regional powers, despite similar severity. Focusing on Brazil and South Africa as potential regional stabilizers, we compare responses to regional crises that displayed high (Haiti and Somalia) and low (Colombia and Congo-Brazzaville) salience. We find that domestic support, concerns with status and potential competition with other stabilizers tend to play a large part in calibrating regional power responses.

Public opinion and emerging powers: perceptions of the assertive diplomacies of South Africa, Brazil, and Turkey in national and regional surveys

“…The growth in the capabilities and ambitions of Brazil, Turkey, and South Africa led to an expectation that these countries would also pay their fair share in maintaining regional and international order. Thus, their external activism also grew more robust in the period, for example in the form of participation in peacekeeping missions and crisis mediation Seabra, 2022), development cooperation and humanitarianism (Schanzer;Tahiroglu, 2016;Westhuizen;Milani, 2019), and other high-profile endeavors.…”

“…The trajectory of these powers has often been framed as a status pursuit. We find in the literature attempts to measure growth in political status, for example through appointments to governing positions in international organizations (Schirm, 2010;Malamud, 2011a;Lopes;Oliveira, 2017;Paiva;Mesquita, 2022), diplomatic networks (Duque, 2018), and other composite indices (Volgy et al, 2014). Yet, this research agenda has left public opinion largely underexplored.…”