Jay Barron
4-2-12
If there are countries in the Latin America region that has close ties to the U.S, it is Chile and Brazil. Of particular matter of interest, U.S-Brazil relations can be seen as complex and dynamic because of issues from security, trade subsidies and economics, and leadership capabilities. As much as the two have a strong democracy and economy in common, it is still significant to point out the tidbits that make these relations worth mentioning. Since the advents of 9-11, U.S-Brazil relations took a turn where both countries went their own route in handling the onset of George W. Bush’s war on terrorism. U.S went unilaterally into the Middle East, while Brazil did not support U.S policy actions being taken. Brazil attempted to establish balanced positioning in dealing with conflicts in the Middle East their own way such as the initiative of the 2005 Summit of South American-Arab countries. This was to increase Brazil’s visibility with Arab Countries. As Brazil is relatively distinctive from the rest of Latin America because of its less shared ideology, the U.S was banned from this meeting. U.S at times has acted unilaterally while Brazil wants to pursue bilateral connections. If relations ought to improve, it should once again the U.S leading the role by recognizing Brazil as part of United Nations Security reform. Granting privileges of putting thought at the international stage for a voice in transnational issues. Brazil’s security is defense instead of offense. By protecting the country within such as state and local providences, rather than exhibiting military around the world, as around 100 U.S bases are around the world. While possessing absence nukes, despite efforts in the past of building, Brazil ought to have a say in transnational issues instead of be on the sidelines for assisting a developing country in Haiti. Plus, it could show the leftist leaders in the region, that Brazil is capable of possessing nuclear weapons, but instead promoting a civil society and further the spread of democracy in the region. Economic relations between the countries can be categorized as independent and filled with U.S tactics. Policies of the FTAA- MERCOSUR trade agreement through the WTO were modest success at first but U.S placed an agricultural policy and rules leaving Brazil to further become independent from U.S agenda. Allowing Brazil into the FTAA accessed the country to trade with big economy markets such as China and Russia. U.S imports from Brazil in 2002 were at 25%, in 2007 it was at 17%, from 2005-07’ Brazil had went from top ten to the 18th in rank for U.S foreign investments. As markets of China, Russia took their part as well. It took years and significant trading negotiations to establish this between U.S-Brazil relations. Problems that slowed the trade policy agreement were criticized by the leftist leaders of Chavez, Morales, Correa, and Nestor Kirchner. If these leaders whom are inclined to be anti-America, then Brazil (if they want to be considered a serious country) should engage with these leaders and create dialogue of working together in promoting democracy, security and economy, and perhaps putting a good word in for the U.S. For starters in obtaining potential world power status, Brazil launched Proalcool. This was to stimulate production of sugar cane. This policy paved way for further legitimacy in U.S-Brazil relations for research and development on the universal stage. Under the program, Brazil has become the 2nd largest producer of ethanol, representing 37% of world economy. Brazil has a private sector, and this will benefit the economy in jobs and growth between 2008 and 2013 at an est. 14.6 billion dollars. Policies on bio-fuel are a positive as the world economy becomes increasingly competitive. Brazil is reaching out bio-fuels to the Caribbean, Africa, and Asia. One note worth mentioning is Brazil is putting bio-fuel investments in Cuba along with calling U.S to lift