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.
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
Birth, aging, illness and death are inevitable parts of the human experience. Yet, living well does not necessarily mean dying well. For those who have a chronic illness or cancer, or are bedridden due to significant injuries or disabilities, the remainder of life can be a torment for themselves and a hardship for their caregivers. Even if they wish to end their life with dignity, they are not allowed to do so. Bih Liu-ing (畢柳鶯), former superintendent of Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, introduced the practice of Voluntary Stopping of Eating and Drinking as an alternative to assisted dying, which remains
President William Lai (賴清德) has rightly identified the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as a hostile force; and yet, Taiwan’s response to domestic figures amplifying CCP propaganda remains largely insufficient. The Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) recently confirmed that more than 20 Taiwanese entertainers, including high-profile figures such as Ouyang Nana (歐陽娜娜), are under investigation for reposting comments and images supporting People’s Liberation Army (PLA) drills and parroting Beijing’s unification messaging. If found in contravention of the law, they may be fined between NT$100,000 and NT$500,000. That is not a deterrent. It is a symbolic tax on betrayal — perhaps even a way for
RSS