Brazil-Turkey relations in the 2000s: deconstructing partnership between emerging powers.

• Author: Lazarou, Elena
• Position: Report

Introduction

"If 'Darwin prizes' were to be given to the countries that have best responded to challenging times, Brazil would be the runaway first-prize winner, with possibly Turkey in second place" (2) This statement from The Globalist expressed a widespread perception of the two countries in the period following their joint initiative to broker a nuclear deal with Iran in 2010. While the deal was rebuffed by the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, and thus never came to be implemented, the initiative of the two "emerging powers" received global attention by political leaders and the media. The joint activism of two countries with traditionally weak economic and political ties, on a global security issue, suggested that the rapid economic growth and social development of middle powers in the early 20th century had implications beyond the economic and trade sphere. The so-called "emerging" powers were seen to be developing shared agendas on global issues, and to be claiming a greater share and a greater voice in issues of global relevance and global governance. More interestingly, the partnership between Brazil and Turkey posed the question whether these "emerging powers" were developing common identities and interests, which could bring former "strangers" on the international scene closer in pursuit of joint goals.

The questions raised by the cooperation between these two emerging powers are inextricably linked to the realization of a rapid transformation of the global order in the 21st century. From multipolar to interpolar and apolar, from post-hegemonic to post-American and to no one's post-western world, uncertainty about the state of the new global order and the dynamics that govern it permeate academic literature and policy inquiries. (3) In this new world order "picking allies, making friends and containing adversaries [...] promises to be an unclear, ambiguous and delicate process." (4) With this in mind, and having observed the growing and deepening relations between Turkey and Brazil, whose position in the transforming global order has earned them the titles of "emerging" or "regional" powers, this article will attempt to discern the idea-driven and interest-driven motivations behind the construction of their ties. In doing so, it will aim to produce wider hypotheses about the nature of partnerships and alliances in a system characterized by multipolarity.

The article begins by examining basic assumptions about the "era of multipolarity." It then offers an overview the fundamental explanations for ally and partner choice according to interest-based realist theory and idea-based constructivist approaches. Following these two theoretical sections, the article provides a historical account of Turkey-Brazil relations in the past decade (2002-2012) with a focus on the years of intense approximation (2010-2012). The final section uses these empirical observations in order to draw conclusions regarding the motivations behind the Brazil-Turkey partnership, on the basis of idea- and interest-based approaches.

Shifting Power: On the Emergence of the Multipolar World

This article will take in consideration two different paradigms: (a) the shift in the configuration of state power in the international system and (b) the --arguably--waning American influence, or post-Americanism. In the majority of the literature, these two processes are often viewed as interrelated and similar. (5) Reflection on the future state of the global order began with the end of the Cold War, but gained renewed force with the commodities boom of the 21st century, particularly after the 2008 economic crisis. The crisis, which hit established powers, severely damaging part of their economies, opened space for resource-rich economies with rapid growth to claim more power, more representation and more weight in international affairs. This led emerging powers with economic, political and normative aspirations, such as Brazil and Turkey, to engage in more proactive behavior within the structures of the international system, and to advocate for reforms in the management of global governance.

There is a general consensus that, up until World War I, the dominant model in the international system was that of a multipolar world dominated by tensions amongst the European nations. This period was followed by the rise of the U.S., soon to be counterbalanced by the USSR. This led to the bipolar order that characterized the Cold War and largely dominated the second half of the 20th century. With the end of the Cold War, the literature by and large acknowledged the advent of a "unipolar moment." (6)

The end of unipolarity is still an ongoing debate among scholars. While most literature points to increasing globalization in the late 1990s and 2000s as an indication of a diffusion of power, this diffusion is discussed and viewed in diverging ways. Giovanni Grevi of the European Council on Foreign Relations advocates a new form of multipolarity that is infused with the increasing interdependence of the cyber-age. States must rely on each other more than ever in order to attain economic growth, a fundamental form of power in what is coined as an era of "geoeconomics." This interdependence is perceived as an incentive for continuous--and continuously evolving--relations: for these reasons, Grevi argues that this is the era of "interpolarity." (7) Richard Haass on the other hand, argues that the new multipolarity stems from a move beyond exclusively state-based power politics. (8) According to this view, in the contemporary international system, the "G-zero" world, multiple actors possess power and, consequently, there is no space for effective or consistent leadership. (9) This over-diffusion of power has led to a system where no single entity has enough influence to control the system--nonpolarity. Indeed, something both Haas and Grevi seem to agree upon is that power (economic or military) and influence are no longer directly correlated.

For emerging countries, both scenarios lead to a world with a greater diffusion of power and a greater level of interdependence, where alliances are created to benefit strategic interests. This has translated into non-traditional partnerships with states and actors besides the U.S., to create checks on waning U.S. power. Uncertainty in an interpolar system has led to an increase in strategic alliances amongst states. In a nonpolar system, alliances are made up of coalitions of state and non-state actors.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

In his own approach to this debate, Fareed Zakaria also acknowledges the aforementioned shift, but defines American unipolarism much more broadly, beginning at the end of World War I; he thus brands the future system as post-American. Zakaria argues that a number of the here-to-fore relative advantages of the U.S., for example technology, have diffused across the international system due to globalization, while the U.S. becomes increasingly less able to adapt. (10) This has led to the "rise of the rest," a shift in the global order from a hegemonic American system to a post-American system where other countries begin to catch up with the U.S. and new global powers (such as the BRICS) emerge. These powers, in turn, in the manner of rising hegemons before them, witness a continuous increase of their influence and of their capability to exert their interests on the international stage.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Scholarly work and popular media alike have tended to refer to the new rising players as "emerging powers." However, a consensus has yet to be reached regarding the exact definition of the term. One aspect of these powers is that they are often more influential in their region, thus often attracting the characterization "regional powers," a term indicating a country's ability to play a stabilizing role in its own region; willingness to assume such a role; and acceptance by its neighbors as a leader responsible for regional security. (11) The ability to exercise power resources regionally differentiates emerging regional powers from "middle" powers. Elsewhere in the literature, the definition of emerging (or rising) powers is less linked to leadership as a security provider and is used more generally as recognition of the rising influence of several countries that have increased their presence in global affairs. One additional aspect attributed to emerging powers is the articulation of a desire for leadership in global governance. (12) The term is commonly used to refer to the G20 member countries, thus drawing a direct correlation between GDP and power. It follows, then, that the dividing lines between the terms "emerging," "middle," and "regional" powers are often unclear and that the terms are often used interchangeably or in a complimentary manner to indicate a more nuanced understanding of the nature of the country in question, the degree of its regional or global aspirations, its economic affluence and its power resources.

Explaining Alliances and Partnerships in a Multipolar World

The new global order and the end of unipolarity have been discussed at length since the end of the Cold War with varying conclusions during the 1990s. Increasingly after the mid-2000s, the literature concedes to a substantial reduction of the so-called "U.S. hegemony," with substantial uncertainty about the future of a world without a dominant power. Uncertainty has a negative influence on relationships because it inhibits the creation of trust over iterated interactions. With uncertainty dominant in the system, and the subsequently emerging lack of trust, the need for contractual relations and established institutions becomes necessary in order to create checks or reaffirm commitments as traditional trust-building mechanisms cannot be used. At the same time, the diffusion of power and the lack of established leadership in the nonpolar system pushes states towards the adoption...