Brazil in regional cooperation over the fight against violence and organised crime

Until the 1980s, organised crime and urban violence were not considered a major political challenge in Brazil. This belief was encouraged by a great reluctance to introduce coercive police measures that might act as reminders of the repression experienced under the dictatorial government of the 1960s and 70s. At present, however, the collective strategy for the fight against transnational crime represents a fundamental challenge. Brazil’s domestic successes and its growing influence as a global actor could be tarnished if the country does not succeed in containing the presence of drug trafficking and related crime. The costs of insecurity, furthermore, are calling into question Brazil’s ability to constitute itself as a platform for South American development. The creation of Unasur and its South American Council on the World Drug Problem reflect South America’s commitment to support a forum for dialogue on the subject, and point to the way ahead: consolidating regional multilateralism. More than four years later, effective instruments are still being sought, but the successful experience of collaboration with Bolivia is being presented as a model for future actions. Strengthening coordination in Unasur will bring the added benefit of the ability to make progress in a more mature and balanced dialogue with the United States with respect to a joint hemispheric agenda

¿Qué está haciendo Brasil por la gobernabilidad global?: desafíos del multilateralismo afirmativo

Historically, Brazil, like the rest of Latin America, understood multilateralism in a defensive way, as a means for avoiding the interference of the developed countries and preserving a degree of autonomy. But this has changed. The new paradigm of Brazil¿s foreign policy includes initiatives designed to improve global governance, from the coalitions with countries such as South Africa, China and India, to the efforts to reform the United Nations¿ Security Council or to convince the industrialized countries to abandon their subsidies for agriculture. This is reflected in a change in the national development paradigm and in a renewed emphasis on South American regional integration.Históricamente, Brasil, como el resto de América Latina, entendió el multilateralismo en un sentido defensivo, como una forma de evitar la injerencia de los países desarrollados y conservar cierta autonomía. Pero esto ha cambiado. El nuevo paradigma de actuación externa de Brasil incluye iniciativas activas orientadas a mejorar la gobernabilidad global, desde las coaliciones con países como África del Sur, China e India, hasta los esfuerzos por reformar el Consejo de Seguridad de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU) o lograr que las naciones industriales eliminen los subsidios agrícolas. Esto se refleja en un cambio en el paradigma de desarrollo nacional y en un énfasis renovado en la integración regional sudamericana

Políticas nucleares y regímenes de no proliferación

A partir de un breve recordatorio del rol de las armas nucleares en la estrategia de seguridad colectiva de postguerra, se desarrolla un análisis comparativo de las posturas de EEUU, la Unión Europea y América Latina (con énfasis en la posición de Brasil) con ocasión de la reciente Conferencia de Examen del TNP (mayo de 2010). Se contrastan las respectivas motivaciones y perspectivas con respeto a la cuestión que dominó esas negociaciones: ¿cúal debe ser la prioridad con miras a eliminar la amenaza de una hecatombe nuclear: el desarme o la no proliferación? Tomando como trasfondo los cambios estructurales en curso en el orden global, el artículo argumenta que la superación de la lógica de la �destrucción mutuamente asegurada� al fin de la Guerra Fría, la búsqueda de fuentes sostenibles de energía frente al efecto invernadero y los impactos presupuestarios resultantes de la crisis financiera de 2008 están redefiniendo los términos de ese debate. Se defiende la tesis de que la reciente multiplicación de casos de proliferación (Corea del Norte e Irán) no es producto de las insuficiencias del mecanismo de fiscalización y monitoreo del TNP. La clave está en que EEUU, la Unión Europea y las demás potencias nucleares acepten cumplir con su compromiso histórico, bajo el TNP, de avanzar hacia el desarme nuclear total. Para tanto, se requiere la creación, conforme al modelo latinoamericano, de Zonas Libres de Armas Nucleares (ZLAN). Tomando como ejemplo la actual controversia en torno al régimen de sanciones contra Irán, así como el Acuerdo de Teherán de mayo de 2010, se argumenta que el establecimiento de una ZLAN en Oriente Medio ayudaría a superar el falso dilema entre desarme y no proliferación. Lograr el desarme en la zona estratégicamente más convulsa del planeta ofrecería un modelo e inspiración para llevar un proceso a escala global.Following a historical review of the role of nuclear arms in the post-war collective security framework, a comparative analysis will be made of the positions adopted by the US, the European Union and Latin America (with particular emphasis on Brazil) during the May 2010 Review Conference of the NTP. Their differing perspectives and priorities will be examined as concerns the central issue of these negotiations. Nuclear non-proliferation or disarmament �which is the critical factor in avoiding a nuclear catastrophe? Having as a backdrop the profound structural changes that the international order is undergoing, the article argues that the end of the Cold War and of the logic of �mutually assured destruction� that it gave rise to, the search for sustainable energy sources in the wake of climate change and the budgetary constraints resulting from the 2008 financial crisis, are redefining the terms of this debate. The article puts forward the thesis that the recent cases of nuclear proliferation (North Korea and Iran most notably) are not the outcome of the imagined inadequacies of the NTP monitoring and oversight mechanisms. The true answer lies in convincing the US, the European Union and the other nuclear powers to take responsibility for their commitments under the NTP and begin moving towards nuclear disarmament. To this end, the best way forward is for more Nuclear Arms Free Zones to be enacted, on the Latin American model. Given the present controversy surrounding the Iran sanctions regime and the May 2010 Teheran Accord, the setting up of a NAFZ in the Middle East would help to overcome the false dilemma between non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. Success in stabilizing what is undoubtedly the most strategically volatile region in the world would most certainly offer a model and inspiration for similar developments on a global scale.A partir de uma breve lembrança sobre o papel das armas nucleares na estratégia de segurança coletiva do período de pós-guerra, se desenvolve uma análise comparativa das posturas dos Estados Unidos, da União Europeia e da América Latina (com ênfase na posição do Brasil) na ocasião da recente Conferência de Exame do Tratado de Não-Proliferação (TNP), de maio de 2010. São contrastadas as respectivas motivações e as perspectivas com respeito à questão que dominou essas negociações: qual deve ser a prioridade olhando para a eliminação da ameaça de uma hecatombe nuclear: o desarme ou a não-proliferação? Tomando como pano de fundo as mudanças estruturais em curso na ordem global, o artigo argumenta que a superação da lógica da �destruição mutuamente assegurada� ao final da Guerra Fria, a procura por fontes sustentáveis de energia frente ao efeito estufa e os impactos orçamentários resultantes da crise financeira de 2008 estão redefinindo os termos desse debate. Defende-se a tese de que a recente multiplicação de casos de proliferação (Coréia do Norte e Irã) não é produto das insuficiências dos mecanismos de fiscalização e monitoramento do TNP. A chave se encontra no fato dos Estados Unidos, a União Europeia e as demais potências nucleares aceitarem cumprir com seu compromisso histórico, sob o TNP, de avançar até o desarme nuclear total. Para tanto, se requer a criação, conforme ao modelo latino-americano, de Zonas Livres de Armas Nucleares (ZLAN). Tomando como exemplo a atual controvérsia em torno ao regime de sanções contra o Irã, assim como o acordo de Teerã de maio de 2010, se argumenta que o estabelecimento de uma ZLAN no Oriente Médio ajudaria a superar o falso dilema entre desarme e não-proliferação. Conseguir o desarme na zona estrategicamente mais convulsionada do planeta ofereceria um modelo e inspiração para levar um processo à escala global

The Ecuador-Peru Peace Process

Abstract The 1998 Brasilia Peace Agreement ended a territorial dispute between Ecuador and Peru that, due to the size and location of the contested area, had remained a source of regional instability and continental tensions for decades. This paper examines the circumstances that finally allowed negotiations, beginning in 1995, to overcome an almost two-centuries-old conflict, long after almost all territorial disputes in South America had been laid to rest. It will focus in particular on the diplomatic endeavours by the guarantor countries of the 1942 Rio de Janeiro Protocol, which involved a unique set of negotiations, and the setting up of the first effective multilateral peace operation in South America. It also suggests that the peace agreement benefited from the dynamics of economic integration underway since the 1980s. Finally, it considers the implications for regional security arrangements, as well as Brazil’s leadership credentials in South America