Позиционирование Бразилии и России в рамках стран БРИКС: глобальные и национальные перспективы

BRICS (the group composed by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) just recently completed 10 years of existence. However, despite representing a symbolic anniversary for this multi-continental political association whose inception was prompted by 2008’s Financial Crisis, observers in the West affirm that «the differences between […] [BRICS members] remain considerably greater than their similarities»1, thus questioning the group’s cohesion as an important factor in world politics and even its survival in the foreseeable future. The present research then sets out to investigate not only BRICS’s view on international relations (IR), but also its compatibility with the national interests and political positions of two of its members, Brazil and Russia, when considered individually.
As far as analyses of BRICS documents are concerned, it is possible to highlight the following points concerning the group’s view about IR:
• The world should be Multipolar, without any form of Superpower dominance within the system and global politics defined by different centers of economic, political and civilizational influence.
• The world order should be based on the rule of international law and traditional mechanisms of global governance become more representative of current day’s realities, considering the increasing role of emerging economies.
• The architecture of financial governance should be reformed in order to empower developing economies, thus responsibilities and voting power at institutions such as the World Bank and especially the IMF should be rearranged.
With the aforementioned points in mind, our Research Question is then constituted as follows: “Does BRICS views on the current state of global governance and the emergence of multipolarity in world affairs coincide with Brazil’s and Russia’s national interests and aspirations in the system”? At first glance, Brazil and Russia do share some interesting similarities. During the early 2000s, both countries witnessed changes in their international status reflecting their economic growth, followed by – or concomitantly with – new leaders and political parties coming to power in those States, as in the cases of Vladimir Putin in Russia and the Labor Party’s government in Brazil.
1 Lieber, R.J. Retreat and its Consequences: American Foreign Policy and the problem of World Order. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016, p.80
3
Both also occupy a similar space in international trade as importers of manufactured goods (23% of Brazil’s imports in 2017 were composed by machines2, while the latter accounted for 30% of Russia’s imports in the same year3), and providers of commodities to global markets (58% of Russia’s exports in 2017 were composed by mineral products, especially oil4, while mineral products accounted for 20% of all Brazilian exports, particularly oil and iron ore5). Beyond their international trade profile, Brazil and Russia are also identified as ‘continent-countries’, due to their territory-size, alongside other States such as China, Australia, US, Canada and India. Moreover, the size of their populations and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) are relatively comparable, and both States have abundance of natural resources6.
Nevertheless, although sharing a number of similarities, the proposed Research also tackles Brazil’s and Russia’s differences in terms of political status and aspirations in the international system, once their views on the current state of Global Governance and their understanding about concepts such as multipolarity derive from their self-perception within the system. Brazil, on the one hand, is overall not recognized as a ‘Great Power’, in the sense of being a State whose economic, political and military might enables it «to exert power over world diplomacy»7 while bearing ‘special responsibilities’ in the management of systemic affairs8. Moreover, the country «has never been able to match its territorial assets with military or economic might»9, which can be illustrated by the fact that although being the 5th biggest country in terms of territory (with roughly 5.6 % of the world’s landmass)10, Brazil is only the 9th largest economy by GDP (with 2.09 % of the world’s total), and devoid of nuclear weapons11. Brazil, nevertheless,
2
Observatory of Economic Complexity. What does Brazil import? (2017). URL:
3
Observatory of Economic Complexity. What does Russia import? (2017). URL:
4
Observatory of Economic Complexity. What does Brazil export? (2017). URL:
5
a “Democratic” Foreign Policy. Cairo Review, 2014, Vol 12,
Observatory of Economic Complexity. What does Russia export? (2017). URL:
6 Leite, A.C.C; Lucena, A.M.M; Nobre, F.R.F. Russia’s Geopolitics in the Anglo-American region: foreign policy and strategic alliance with Brazil (2005 and 2017). Rev. Bras. Est. Def. v. 6, no 1, jan./jun. 2019
7 Flemes, D. O Brasil na iniciativa BRIC: soft balancing numa ordem global em mudança? Revista Brasileira de Políica Internacional, 2010, Vol. 53 (1), p.2
8 Waltz, K. N. Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979
9 Casarões, G. Itamaraty’s Mission: Brazil’s Ministry of External Relations, a Pillar of the Nation, Struggles Toward
pp. 88-89. URL:
(by area). URL:
11 Brazil became signatory of the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean
(a.k.a The Treaty of Tlatelolco) of 1967 and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1998, thus excluding the possibility of becoming a nuclear power. South America then became the largest nuclear-weapon-free zone in the world.
10
WORLDOMETER. Largest Countries in the World
4

alongside other Regional Powers (such as India) believe «that the size of their territory and population, economic and military potentials […] [indeed] qualify them for a higher status in the international system»12, thus explaining the country’s claim for a bigger voice in world affairs.
Russia, on the other hand, has been considered a Great Power since at least the end of the Napoleonic Wars in the 19th century, to the point of being labelled by other continental powers of the time as the “gendarme of Europe”13. Later in the 20th century, within the frameworks of the Soviet Union (USSR), the country managed to develop an impressive nuclear arsenal, thus achieving strategic parity with the United States during the Cold War, a condition that, among other things, elevated Moscow’s status to that of a Superpower.