The world stage often seems sepia-toned, dominated by the dusty international structures of the post-World War II era, favoring the world’s richest countries.
However, it is increasingly clear that this setup is not sufficient to respond to the interests of the global south, including combating climate breakdown and expanding economic development.
Recognizing this mismatch, Brazil under President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has positioned itself as an international leader, focused on the agenda of emerging economic powers which prize stability, and in fact have much to lose from conflict and power struggles between rich countries.
In a world that is increasingly focused on competition between major powers like China and the US, Lula’s “active nonalignment,” which seeks to balance engagement between powers without picking one side, is often interpreted with suspicion.
The BRICS alliance that Brazil has championed as a forum for global south priorities — such as the reform of global financial institutions like the IMF, where developing states hold only a fraction of voting power — is consistently interpreted as “anti-west” by US and European analysts.
This year would be a test for Lula’s global strategy.
Brazil holds the rotating presidency of the G20, and Brazil’s agenda for it is firmly grounded in the priorities of the global south. Lula promised to focus work on “the reduction of inequalities,” including social inclusion and hunger reduction, energy transition and sustainable development, and global governance reform.
Next year, Brazil is to host the UN COP30 climate conference in the Amazonian city of Belem.
Lula’s foreign policy has also long sought to reshape global institutions like the UN Security Council to create permanent seats for developing nations, in addition to the existing Cold War era veto power balance.
He has elevated Brazil’s negotiating power along with other emerging markets in the BRICS alliance: Russia, India, China and South Africa. He has also sought a global role for Brazil in mediating international conflict, from Ukraine to tensions between Venezuela and Guyana.
However, nonalignment is more difficult these days, as competing superpowers have hyper polarized perspectives.
“What I see is a more complicated world, with more closed spaces. As if it were a game, a jigsaw puzzle in which the pieces are very close, not fitted together, but very close, and where the space to act is less,” Celso Amorim, a special adviser to Brazil’s president and a former minister of foreign affairs, told me.
BRICS — which this year expanded to include Saudi Arabia, Iran, Ethiopia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates — would be difficult to sell as a nonaligned group, or one that does not threaten western interests, when the leaders’ summit takes place in Russia later this year.
It does not help that Lula is a peacemaker with a penchant for (perhaps inadvertent) offense. His efforts at diplomacy have been overshadowed in some cases by headline-grabbing positions, such as that Ukraine has a portion of blame in Russia’s invasion of its territory and that Israel’s actions in Gaza are comparable to Hitler’s genocide of the Jews.
The uproar ignores discussion of the central thrust of his mediation: that balance and pragmatism would obtain better results than posturing and polarization.
That in apparently insoluble situations, the all or nothing of good versus evil undermines attainable solutions. And, crucially, that it is fair for the global south to suggest new and disruptive innovations that might improve its position in the international system, such as his call to use alternative currencies for international trade, challenging US dollar dominance.
Far from western headlines, the diplomacy led by Lula has a strong impact. He often voices the opinions of emerging countries that do not align with the disputes of the great powers. Lula’s call for a ceasefire in Gaza reflects the opinion of a growing number of countries from the global south, including South Africa, which took the case to the International Court of Justice.
Lost in the uproar is the fact that Lula spoke those words in Ethiopia, at the close of the African Union summit — an example of how Brazil’s foreign policy has lateral connections to the developing world, outside the western-dominated international institutions.
Ultimately, Brazil’s foreign policy focus on peace is pragmatic as well as idealistic, Amorim said. “For Brazil to grow, it is important that the world is at peace. It is an illusion to think that we can win, because the price of a commodity rises.”
In a world of polarization, Lula is betting on balance and attainable — rather than perfect — peace.
Lula must convince the skeptical major players that the global south’s interests can legitimately diverge from those of the developed world, and that effective global governance must reflect the geopolitical clout of emerging powers. That even though “the west and the rest” might disagree at times, they can still coexist amicably in a reformed international system.
Last week’s images of French President Emmanuel Macron frolicking in the Amazon rainforest with Lula could be an indicator of Brazil’s successful international diplomacy.
During the French president’s three-day visit to Brazil, the two countries signed nearly two dozen cooperation agreements and a 1 billion euro (US$1.07 billion) investment plan for the Amazon. Macron also endorsed Lula’s G20 agenda, including a proposal to create a global tax for the world’s wealthiest people.
France and Brazil “represent a bridge between the global south and the developed world,” Lula told the press, while Macron quipped that the “bromance” photoshoots represent a symbolic wedding and mutual love between France and Brazil.
It is a long shot. However, if anybody can leverage the importance of the global south on the international stage, it is the one-name international superstar Lula.
Jordana Timerman is a journalist based in Buenos Aires; she edits the Latin America Daily Briefing.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
RSS