Text: The United States Federal Government should propose through binding consultation to Brazil that it should



Download 109.23 Kb.
Page3/4
Date conversion29.04.2016
Size109.23 Kb.
1   2   3   4

Relations Net-Benefit

Relations on the Brink

Brazil and US relations are declining in the status quo.


Hakim, 2012

(Peter Hakim October 22, 2012 Inter-American Discord: Brazil and the United States, http://www.thedialogue.org/page.cfm?pageID=32&pubID=3115)



The US and Brazil have not had an easy time with each other in recent years. Although relations between the two countries are by no means adversarial or even unfriendly, they have featured more discord than cooperation—both regionally and globally.  And there is little reason to expect dramatic change any time soon. At the 2005 summit meeting of hemispheric leaders, disagreements between the US and Brazil brought a halt to the faltering negotiations for the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). In 2009, it was largely US-Brazilian differences that delayed resolution of the Honduran political impasse for almost a year. Later in 2009, Brazil galvanized opposition across South America to block a US-Colombian military accord. Today, the two countries remain at loggerheads over Cuba’s participation in hemispheric affairs, disagree on how to manage relations with Paraguay in the aftermath of the impeachment and ouster of President Lugo, and continue to have sharply diverging views on the appropriate roles of the Organization of American States and its Inter-American Human Rights Commission.  Even more unsettling for US-Brazilian relations have been the clashes over global issues. Washington has been especially troubled, and the bilateral relationship most bruised, by Brazil’s defense of Iran’s nuclear program and its opposition to UN sanctions on Iran. The two countries have also taken conflicting positions on nonproliferation questions, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and international responses to the uprisings in Syria and Libya. World trade negotiations have long been a matter of contention for both nations.

Recent spy scandal puts US-Brazil relations on the brink.


BBC 7/11/13 ( July 11 2013 US allies Mexico, Chile and Brazil seek spying answers http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23267440
Brazil apparently remains the main target of US snooping in Latin America, with major firms and foreign visitors routinely targeted. The surveillance was allegedly conducted through partnerships between Brazilian telecoms firms and US agencies, although the reports did not name any companies. On Monday Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff urged the US to explain, and has ordered an investigation into the claims. During angry exchanges in parliament on Wednesday, senators suggested Brazil should give Mr Snowden asylum, while others said Brazil should cancel lucrative defence contracts with the US. The allegations on O Globo detailed claims of US spying across Latin America, sparking an angry reaction from traditional American foes in the region like Venezuela and Ecuador. But analysts say the US will be much more concerned with the irritation the revelations have caused in Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and Chile.

Consultation Key

Consultation on Latin American engagement ensures a healthy US-Brazil relationship.


Frechette & Samolis ’12 (Myles and Frank, “A TENTATIVE EMBRACE: BRAZIL’S FOREIGN AND TRADE RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES,” March / April / May 2012, Política Externa, .pdf)
For the U.S., strategic engagement with Brazil is crucial, especially concerning trade, global governance, the environment, biofuels, renewable energy, and its interest in reducing U.S. dependence on Middle East oil. The Western Hemisphere already supplies one-fourth of the world’s crude oil, one-third of the world’s natural gas, nearly one-fourth of its coal, over a third of global electricity, and is a leader in renewable energy. Last year, the U.S. imported nearly half of the oil and petroleum products it used, 49 percent of those imports came from the Western Hemisphere and only 18 percent from the Persian Gulf. Canada and Mexico are already the top two foreign sources of oil to the U.S. and big deposits in Brazil are becoming accessible. Energy expert Daniel Yergin wrote recently that the world’s new oil map is no longer centered on the Middle East, but on the Western Hemisphere. He predicts that by 2020, the Western Hemisphere will import only half as much oil from outside the region as it does today. Some analysts suggest that China will soon supplant the U.S. in trade with the region. But China’s share of Latin American trade went from 2 percent in 2000 to 10 percent in 2011. Eight percent of Latin America’s exports went to China, but 41 percent went to the U.S. Further, Latin American trade with China is largely limited to commodities. This prevents countries from diversifying and moving up the production ladder. In reality, 60 percent of Latin America’s exports to the U.S. are manufactured goods, 87 percent of Latin America’s exports to China are raw materials. The numbers are even starker when it comes to China’s trade with Brazil. It is clear Latin American economies want to modernize, diversify, and move up the value chain, and the U.S. is likely to be their partner of choice for many years to come. The U.S. and Latin America have broader, healthier, and more balanced relationships. Their economies are more complementary and their ties are stronger. Turning from trade to investment, the U.S. is still the largest investor in Latin America and the Caribbean. In Brazil, the Central Bank recently published data on foreign direct investment (FDI) as of December 31, 2010. The U.S., with $105 billion, was first. This is 13 times greater than the $8 billion of Chinese investment. In fact, China ranked 16th, after Canada and Mexico. There are many topics that require dialogue between the U.S. and Brazil. The U.S. is engaged in twenty different dialogues with Brazil. Three are at the Presidential level, eight are at the Cabinet or Undersecretary level, and another eight are at the Assistant Secretary level. Most of these dialogues are chaired by the State Department, but the Departments of Commerce, Treasury, Defense, Agriculture, and Energy also chair at least one. Another dialogue involves race relations, which also includes non-government experts. Several dialogues also involve economic financial and business issues, while others concern the environment, nuclear energy, and consular issues. This degree of intensity and interest by the U.S. signal that the U.S. welcomes Brazil’s economic growth and leadership in the region. But, more fundamentally, it demonstrates that the U.S. seeks collaboration with Brazil whenever possible. Brazil alone defines its own national interest and hence, its foreign policy. There will be differences on many issues between the two governments, but strategic engagement is crucial.

Consultation over the plan repairs our declining relationship with Brazil.


Meyer ‘13 (Brazil-U.S. Relations Peter J. Meyer Analyst in Latin American Affairs February 27, 2013 http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33456.pdf)
Relations between Brazil and the United States are generally friendly. “As two of the world’s largest economies and democracies, with shared values and increasingly converging goals, Brazil and the United States are natural partners in a rapidly changing world,” according to U.S. officials.84 The Obama Administration’s National Security Strategy states that the United States “welcome[s] Brazil’s leadership and seek[s] to move beyond dated North-South divisions to pursue progress on bilateral, hemispheric, and global issues.”85 The United States and Brazil have established over 25 dialogues to enhance coordination and cooperation on a wide variety of issues. Among other topics, the United States and Brazil engage on security, energy, trade, human rights, and the environment. Although Brazil and the United States share a number of common goals, the countries’ occasionally divergent national interests and independent foreign policies have led to disagreements on trade and political matters. Some long-running disputes include the stalled Doha trade negotiations and Brazilian opposition to U.S. cotton subsidies. Additional differences have emerged in recent years, many of which have centered on the countries’ approaches to foreign policy. In 2010 and 2011, for example, Brazil used its temporary seat on the U.N. Security Council to advocate engagement with internationally isolated regimes like Iran, Libya, and Syria, rather than sanctions, which it views as a prelude to armed conflict. Some analysts and policymakers assert that Brazil’s increasing global prominence and involvement on an array of issues will inevitably lead to disputes with the United States and that managing those disputes in a transparent and respectful manner will be crucial to maintaining friendly relations moving forward.8

Consultation brings Brazil closer to the US.


Brown 2013 (Lawrence T. Restoring the “Unwritten Alliance” Brazil-U.s. Relations http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/pdf/jfq-69/JFQ-69_42-48_Brown.pdf )

The primary challenge the United States faces in the 21st century, according to historian and diplomat Joseph Nye, “is not one of decline but what to do in light of the realization that even the largest country cannot achieve the outcomes it wants without the help of others.”1 Acknowledging Brazil as a genuine partner is problematic for American leaders since the United States exercised tremendous unilateral influence in South American affairs throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Today, U.S. hubris lingers in relations with Brazil. This residual attitude prompts some U.S. leaders to consider any Brazilian disregard for U.S. interests as an affront. Instead of regarding Brazil’s economic growth as a challenge to U.S. hegemony, U.S. leaders should commend it as a regional achievement. Additionally, some current perceptions of the two countries’ strategic interests as continuing to diverge are historically shortsighted. Such a view affirms a U.S. failure to adapt long-range diplomatic strategies to match the global rise of many countries. Undeniably, the United States needs Brazil—now and in the future.



Brazil’s growing influence in the south makes consultation necessary to maintain relations


Meyer 2013 (Brazil-U.S. Relations Peter J. Meyer Analyst in Latin American Affairs February 27, 2013 http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33456.pdf)

As its economy has grown to be the seventh largest in the world, Brazil has utilized its newfound economic power to consolidate its influence in South America and play a larger role in international affairs. The Obama Administration’s National Security Strategy recognizes Brazil as an emerging center of influence, and welcomes the country’s leadership on bilateral, hemispheric, and global issues. U.S.-Brazil relations generally have been positive in recent years, though Brazil has prioritized strengthening relations with neighboring countries and expanding ties with nontraditional partners in the “developing South.” While some foreign policy disagreements have emerged, the United States and Brazil continue to engage on issues such as security, energy, trade, human rights, and the environment.

Consultation key to relations


Ralph H. Espach and Joseph S. Tulchin, June 2010 - Ralph H. Espach, Ph.D. is a senior research scientist and director of the Latin American Affairs program at CNA’s Center for Strategic Studies
Can the U.S. do anything about Brazil’s ambivalence toward this bilateral relationship? Certainly, But it will require prolonged patience. Essentially the United States faces the task of replacing the old narrative regarding U.S.-Brazilian relations, which was ingrained in the heads of most Brazilian elites, politicians, and military leaders during the 1970s and 1980s, with a new narrative. Brazilians appreciate language that implies respect and partnership, but there is a need for actions that demonstrate respect, confidence, and the acceptance of disagreement on some issues. The building of confidence is a long-term goal. It will require U.S. acquiescence to Brazil on some South American policy matters, even in moments when Brazilian rhetoric or actions make U.S. leaders uncomfortable. If the United States would prefer a Brazil-led South American region, it must be comfortable allowing Brazil to lead.


Consultation Key – Energy

Consultation with Brazil over energy is key to strong relations


Langevin, 2012 (Energy and Brazil – United States Relations, August 20, 2012 ,Mark, Langevin - Ph.D., Director of Brazil Works and Mark is also Associate Adjunct Professor of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland-University College, http://www.brazil-works.com/energy-and-brazil-united-states-relations/)

Energy has often played a central role in Brazil-United States bilateral relations. In the first half of the twentieth century the United States based Good Roads Movement, fueled by the American Road Builders Association and the American Automobile Association, paved the way for U.S. oil companies and auto manufacturers to bring fossil fueled cars to Brazil (Downes 1992). In the decades following World War II, the U.S. strategic petroleum reserve and the “Atoms for Peace” program pulled the largest nations of the Western hemisphere toward a close strategic orbit, including Brazil. It was not until the first OPEC oil embargo in 1973 and the nuclear deal between Brazil and West Germany that bilateral relations slumped as Brazil placed its national energy security ahead of its special relationship with the U.S. (Gall 1976:155). Since this critical juncture, Brazil has sworn off nuclear weapons, become a world leader in biofuels, discovered massive offshore “pre-salt” hydrocarbon reserves, and become a major international leader in climate change policy negotiations. Throughout the engagement and turbulence of Brazil-U.S. relations, particular private sector interests and national foreign policies have swirled to elevate energy affairs toward the top of the bilateral agenda. Both Brazil and the U.S. have called for greater cooperation on energy matters in the past several years and under different administrations. In 2007 then Presidents Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil and George W. Bush of the U.S. celebrated the biofuel boom by signing the Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Brazil to Advance Cooperation on Biofuels to foment bilateral cooperation. During the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign then candidate Barack Obama promised an “Energy Partnership of the Americas” to deliver up regional energy security in close cooperation with Brazil (Spencer 2009). In April of 2009, the U.S. Export-Import Bank extended a $2 billion facility to enable Brazil’s nationally controlled energy company, Petrobras, to obtain favorable financing for the purchase of U.S. manufactured drilling equipment (United States Export-Import Bank 2011). In May of 2011 the facility became operative and the Ex-Im Bank approved a request from JP Morgan Chase, acting as lender, to finance over $300 million in Petrobras’ purchases of U.S. manufactured products (Ibid.) In March of 2011 Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff hosted U.S. President Obama to herald the establishment of a “strategy energy dialogue.” Clearly, both Presidents Rousseff and Obama are keen on energy as a leading issue in bilateral affairs. This should come as no surprise since Dilma is the former Secretary of Energy for the state of Rio Grande do Sul, former Minister of Mines and Energy, and former Chair of Petrobras’ Board of Directors. Obama has also emphasized the vital role of renewable energy and energy security in domestic and foreign affairs, both as candidate and as president. Today, both nations’ foreign policymakers recognize the key role of energy as a bilateral and global issue of strategic importance; and the establishment of the bilateral Strategy Energy Dialogue makes energy a pivotal matter for some time to come. This discussion paper examines this fundamental bilateral issue and evaluates the challenges and opportunities for deepening bilateral and bi-national cooperation through the current set consultative mechanisms, including the Strategic Energy Dialogue, across the subsectors of petroleum, ethanol, and electricity generation-transmission-distribution (GTD).

Terrorism Impact

US-Brazil Relations are necessary to fight terrorism


Meyer 2013 (Brazil-U.S. Relations Peter J. Meyer Analyst in Latin American Affairs February 27, 2013 http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33456.pdf)
The U.S. government has worked with Brazil to address concerns about the TBA and strengthen the country’s counterterrorism capabilities. The countries of the TBA and the United States created the “3+1 Group on Tri-Border Area Security” in 2002, and the group built a Joint Intelligence Center to combat trans-border criminal organizations in 2007. Within Brazil, the United States has supported efforts to implement the Container Security Initiative (CSI) at the port of Santos, and U.S. authorities are currently training Brazilian airline employees to identify fraudulent documents. The State Department’s Country Reports on Terrorism for 2011 commends the Brazilian government for its continued support of counterterrorism-related activities, including investigating potential terrorism financing, document forgery networks, and other illicit activity.96 Brazil has yet to adopt legislation, however, to make terrorism and terrorism financing autonomous offenses. Like many other Latin American nations, Brazil has been reluctant to adopt specific antiterrorism legislation as a result of the difficulty of defining terrorism in a way that does not include the actions of social movements and other groups whose actions of political dissent were condemned as terrorism by repressive military regimes in the past.97 Nevertheless, some Brazilian officials have pushed for antiterrorism legislation, asserting that the country will face new threats as a result of hosting the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Olympics.

Terrorism causes global nuclear escalation – national retaliation goes global


Morgan 2009 (Dennis Ray, Professor of Foreign Studies at Hankuk University, December, “World on fire: two scenarios of the destruction of human civilization and possible extinction of the human race” Futures, Vol 41 Issue 10, p 683-693, ScienceDirect) MG
In a remarkable website on nuclear war, Carol Moore asks the question "Is Nuclear War Inevitable??" [10].4 In Section 1, Moore points out what most terrorists obviously already know about the nuclear tensions between powerful countries. No doubt, they've figured out that the best way to escalate these tensions into nuclear war is to set off a nuclear exchange. As Moore points out, all that militant terrorists would have to do is get their hands on one small nuclear bomb and explode it on either Moscow or Israel. Because of the Russian "dead hand" system, "where regional nuclear commanders would be given full powers should Moscow be destroyed," it is likely that any attack would be blamed on the United States" [10]. Israeli leaders and Zionist supporters have, likewise, stated for years that if Israel were to suffer a nuclear attack, whether from terrorists or a nation state, it would retaliate with the suicidal "Samson option" against all major Muslim cities in the Middle East. Furthermore, the Israeli Samson option would also include attacks on Russia and even "anti-Semitic" European cities [10]. In that case, of course, Russia would retaliate, and the U.S. would then retaliate against Russia. China would probably be involved as well, as thousands, if not tens of thousands, of nuclear warheads, many of them much more powerful than those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would rain upon most of the major cities in the Northern Hemisphere. Afterwards, for years to come, massive radioactive clouds would drift throughout the Earth in the nuclear fallout, bringing death or else radiation disease that would be genetically transmitted to future generations in a nuclear winter that could last as long as a 100 years, taking a savage toll upon the environment and fragile ecosphere as well.

Disease Impact

US-Brazil Relations are key to preventing spread of disease


Bodman and Wolfensohn 2011 Samuel W. Bodman and James D. Wolfensohn, ChairsJulia E. Sweig, Project Director, The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, “Global Brazil and U.S.-Brazil Relations July 2011 Independent Task Force Report No. 66 Page 28”, http://www.cfr.org/brazil/global-brazil-us-brazil-relations/p25407?cid=emc-BrazilTF_pressrelease-taskforce-07_13_11,

The Task Force urges action within the U.S. Congress to allow technology transfer to accompany Brazilian purchases of U.S. military equipment. These transfers would boost bilateral trade, U.S. industry, and defense cooperation and simultaneously support Brazil’s technology and innovation agenda. Brazil’s investment in health research is providing tangible benefits and important successes in developing interventions for disease, including HIV/AIDS and the so-called neglected diseases that disproportionally affect low- and middle-income countries (such as malaria, tuberculosis, and leprosy). The Task Force encourages the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health to foster partnerships with their Brazilian counterparts to help build global health capacity and collaborate in scientific research projects that could help generate novel diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines.

Diseases cause extinction


Yu, 2009

(Victoria, Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science May 22, DUJS aims to increase scientific awareness within the Dartmouth community by providing an interdisciplinary forum, “Human Extinction: The Uncertainty of Our Fate,” http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/spring-2009/human-extinction-the-uncertainty-of-our-fate)

A pandemic will kill off all humans. In the past, humans have indeed fallen victim to viruses. Perhaps the best-known case was the bubonic plague that killed up to one third of the European population in the mid-14th century (7). While vaccines have been developed for the plague and some other infectious diseases, new viral strains are constantly emerging — a process that maintains the possibility of a pandemic-facilitated human extinction. Some surveyed students mentioned AIDS as a potential pandemic-causing virus. It is true that scientists have been unable thus far to find a sustainable cure for AIDS, mainly due to HIV’s rapid and constant evolution. Specifically, two factors account for the virus’s abnormally high mutation rate: 1. HIV’s use of reverse transcriptase, which does not have a proof-reading mechanism, and 2. the lack of an error-correction mechanism in HIV DNA polymerase (8). Luckily, though, there are certain characteristics of HIV that make it a poor candidate for a large-scale global infection: HIV can lie dormant in the human body for years without manifesting itself, and AIDS itself does not kill directly, but rather through the weakening of the immune system. However, for more easily transmitted viruses such as influenza, the evolution of new strains could prove far more consequential. The simultaneous occurrence of antigenic drift (point mutations that lead to new strains) and antigenic shift (the inter-species transfer of disease) in the influenza virus could produce a new version of influenza for which scientists may not immediately find a cure. Since influenza can spread quickly, this lag time could potentially lead to a “global influenza pandemic,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (9). The most recent scare of this variety came in 1918 when bird flu managed to kill over 50 million people around the world in what is sometimes referred to as the Spanish flu pandemic. Perhaps even more frightening is the fact that only 25 mutations were required to convert the original viral strain — which could only infect birds — into a human-viable strain (10).

Warming Impact

Relations solve global warming


Bodman and Wolfensohn 2011 Samuel W. Bodman and James D. Wolfensohn, ChairsJulia E. Sweig, Project Director, The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, “Global Brazil and U.S.-Brazil Relations July 2011 Independent Task Force Report No. 66 Page 28”, http://www.cfr.org/brazil/global-brazil-us-brazil-relations/p25407?cid=emc-BrazilTF_pressrelease-taskforce-07_13_11,

The Task Force finds that energy is and will remain a critical component of Brazil’s economic and political agenda, driven by rising per capita energy consumption, development of substantial domestic energy resources, and the need to expand existing energy infrastructure. Brazil’s investment in this industry is a primary example of its domestic and international agendas reinforcing each other. The United States and Brazil have common interests in improving energy efficiency, reducing carbon intensity, promoting the development of biofuels, expanding the use of natural gas, and managing offshore oil exploration and development. The Task Force applauds the formation of a bilateral Strategic Energy Dialogue, announced by Obama and Rousseff, to address a broad range of energy issues, including the safe and sustainable development of Brazil’s deepwater oil and gas resources, as well as coop- eration on biofuels and other renewals, energy efficiency, and civilian nuclear energy. The dialogue aims to encourage energy partnerships, create jobs in both countries, make energy supplies more secure, and help address the challenge of climate change.17 The Task Force urges both countries to ensure that this initiative becomes a self-sustaining endeavor that brings together government officials, regulators, and the private sector to engage in conversation, cooperation, and collaboration where appropriate.


Global warming causes famine and extinction


Harvey 11 6/21/2011 ((Reporter for yahoo news on the environment) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110621/sc_nm/us_oceans) ja
OSLO (Reuters) – Life in the oceans is at imminent risk of the worst spate of extinctions in millions of years due to threats such as climate change and over-fishing, a study showed on Tuesday. Time was running short to counter hazards such as a collapse of coral reefs or a spread of low-oxygen "dead zones," according to the study led by the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO). "We now face losing marine species and entire marine ecosystems, such as coral reefs, within a single generation," according to the study by 27 experts to be presented to the United Nations. "Unless action is taken now, the consequences of our activities are at a high risk of causing, through the combined effects of climate change, over-exploitation, pollution and habitat loss, the next globally significant extinction event in the ocean," it said. Scientists list five mass extinctions over 600 million years -- most recently when the dinosaurs vanished 65 million years ago, apparently after an asteroid struck. Among others, the Permian period abruptly ended 250 million years ago. "The findings are shocking," Alex Rogers, scientific director of IPSO, wrote of the conclusions from a 2011 workshop of ocean experts staged by IPSO and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) at Oxford University. Fish are the main source of protein for a fifth of the world's population and the seas cycle oxygen and help absorb carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas from human activities. OXYGEN Jelle Bijma, of the Alfred Wegener Institute, said the seas faced a "deadly trio" of threats of higher temperatures, acidification and lack of oxygen, known as anoxia, that had featured in several past mass extinctions. A build-up of carbon dioxide, blamed by the U.N. panel of climate scientists on human use of fossil fuels, is heating the planet. Absorbed into the oceans, it causes acidification, while run-off of fertilizers and pollution stokes anoxia. "From a geological point of view, mass extinctions happen overnight, but on human timescales we may not realize that we are in the middle of such an event," Bijma wrote. The study said that over-fishing is the easiest for governments to reverse -- countering global warming means a shift from fossil fuels, for instance, toward cleaner energies such as wind and solar power. "Unlike climate change, it can be directly, immediately and effectively tackled by policy change,"

Economy Impact

Relations are key to solving the economy


Bonoma, 2012

Diego Bonoma , September 9, 2012 U.S.-Brazil Energy Partnership Offers Great Potential, http://www.freeenterprise.com/us-brazil-energy-partnership-offers-great-potential



The U.S.-Brazil energy partnership has the potential to foster energy security, economic growth, and job creation—priorities for both countries. Reflecting this shared vision, President Barack Obama and Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff last year launched the U.S.-Brazil Strategic Energy Dialogue (SED), a presidential-level mechanism to strengthen bilateral cooperation in this area. We at the Brazil-U.S. Business Council applaud this effort towards a bold bilateral partnership in energy. We have been vigorously engaged in energy cooperation to deepen the commercial pillar of the U.S.-Brazil partnership, with an emphasis on trade and investment promotion. In this context, we worked closely with the White House, the U.S. Department of Energy and other federal government agencies to launch the SED in August 2011. On that occasion, deputy secretary of energy Daniel Poneman met with private sector representatives in both São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, and officially launched the dialogue in Brasília. Further recognizing the importance of our energy partnership, this week, I moderated a panel featuring key U.S. and Brazilian government officials at the 13th edition of the Federation of Industries of the State of São Paulo’s Annual Energy Conference— Brazil’s largest energy-related event. During the panel, the Brazilian Ministry of Mines and Energy, along with the U.S. Department of Energy, announced the next meeting of the SED in Washington, D.C. this coming October. The Ministry also announced that the private sector will be, for the first time, officially incorporated in the dialogue’s program of work – a longstanding request of the Brazil-U.S. Business Council and our partners in the U.S. and Brazil. The Brazil-U.S. Business Council also launched this week its latest report: “The U.S.-Brazil Energy Partnership: Bolstering Security, Growth, and Job Creation.” In this report, we talk about the state of the partnership and offer recommendations for both countries to take advantage of the benefits it could bring. The potential is there for this energy partnership to develop into one of the world’s greatest and bring real benefits for the citizens and economies of both countries. It’s great to see the governments and private sectors of both countries’ taking steps toward it.


Economic decline causes extinction


Royal ‘10

(director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense (Jedediah, Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal, and Political Perspectives, pg 213-215)


Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent stales. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level. Pollins (20081 advances Modclski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 19SJ) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fcaron. 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately. Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level. Copeland's (1996. 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Mom berg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write. The linkage, between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict lends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other (Hlomhen? & Hess. 2(102. p. X9> Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blombcrg. Hess. & Wee ra pan a, 2004). which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. "Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DcRoucn (1995), and Blombcrg. Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force arc at least indirecti) correlated. Gelpi (1997). Miller (1999). and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that Ihe tendency towards diversionary tactics arc greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked lo an increase in the use of force. In summary, rcccni economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict al systemic, dyadic and national levels.' This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.


1   2   3   4


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page