Brazilian Panel Explores Consequences of US Election
Brazilian academics convened at São Paulo State University on November 25 for a day-long lecture series examining the recent U.S. election and its ramifications for the United States, Brazil, and Latin America as a whole. While President-elect Trump never explicitly mentioned Brazil on the campaign trail, in contrast to his frequent mention of other emerging countries like China and Mexico, his election will no doubt have an effect on one of the country’s most important bilateral relationships.
Professor Cristina Soreanu Pecequilo from the Federal University of São Paulo specifically addressed the election’s effect on Brazil, highlighting the high chance for continuity, the similarities between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton, and Brazil’s need for an independent strategy.
A point of contention throughout the election, trade policy significantly affects Brazil, an emerging economy. Trade with the United States is vital to Brazil’s export economy, but Professor Pecequilo fears this economic exchange is at risk. Given the strong protectionist language used by not only Trump, but Clinton as well, the election’s negative effect on trade was seen as almost inevitable: “If it were Trump, if it were Hillary, we’d still be here discussing practically the same things.” Pecequilo did, however, note the fact that since 2009, China has continued to surpass the United States as Brazil’s largest trading partner. This may present Brazil with an opportunity to look elsewhere, should the U.S. tighten its borders or heighten commercial barriers.
The indifferent tone extended beyond trade, reflecting the lack of significant change that either candidate was likely to bring to the U.S.-Brazil relationship. Brazil’s absence on the campaign trail is a symptom of the recent U.S. treatment of the country as just another nation in Latin America, instead of as a regional or global power, and of Latin America’s place as a secondary priority for U.S. foreign policy. Pecequilo argued that it’s unrealistic to think that an election would change much, citing for example that the visa required for Brazilians to enter the United States, an example of complicated, bureaucratic red tape, is likely to remain. Brazil’s President Temer made the same argument in recent weeks, explaining that Trump’s election “does not change anything in the U.S.-Brazil relationship.”
For Brazil to be recognized as a rising power and thus achieve the kinds of concessions many in the nation would like to see, Pecequilo argues that it must pursue a more pragmatic, autonomous foreign policy. Since the early twentieth century, Brazil’s position relative to the United States has defined its foreign policy. Many governments have pursued “Americanism,” aligning with the hemisphere’s superpower in order to win favorability, while others pursue some form of autonomy, advocating for issues that benefit the countries of the developing world in an attempt to act independently. Many saw the efforts by the Lula government to strengthen ties with South America and the BRICS countries of Russia, India, China, and South Africa as a push toward increased autonomy, which Pecequilo argues led the U.S. to view Brazil more seriously. Now, after Dilma Rousseff and, to a greater degree, Michel Temer have weakened these South-South ties, she says it is time to pursue pragmatic autonomy once again.
President-elect Trump’s characteristic lack of specificity during his campaign, particularly with regard to Brazil, means that policymakers in Brazil will be forced to wait and see exactly which direction the new president will decide to take. Until then, the unprecedented shifts and uncertainty in the international order—the results of many events in 2016—suggest that Brazil might be better served by taking its national interests and foreign policy into its own hands.