Name: Luiz Alberto de Vianna Moniz Bandeira Nationality: Brazil Eduation: Professor Emeritus from the University of Brasília Institution: University of Brasília
Bibliography:
- * O 24 de agosto de Janio Quadros (1961)
- * O Caminho da Revolução Brasileira (1962)
- * O Ano Vermelho – A Revolução Russa e seus Reflexos no Brasil (1967)
- * Presença dos Estados Unidos no Brasil (dois séculos de história) (1973, translated into Russian and published in the Soviet Union in 1982)
- * Cartéis e Desnacionalização – A experiência Brasileira: 1964/1974 (1975)
- * O Governo João Goulart – As lutas sociais no Brasil (1961-1964) (1977)
- * O Expansionismo Brasileiro e a Formação dos Estados da Bacia do Prata (1985); translated into Spanish and published in Argentina under the title La Formación de los Estados en la Cuenca del Plata (2006)
- * Brasil-Estados Unidos: a Rivalidade Emergente - 1950-1988 (1989)
- * O Eixo Argentina-Brasil - O Processo de Integração na América Latina (1987)
- * De Marti a Fidel – A Revolução Cubana e a América Latina (1998)
- * A reunificação da Alemanha - Do Ideal Socialista ao Socialismo Real (1992)
- * Estado nacional e Política Internacional na América Latina - 0 continente nas relações Argentina-Brasil - 1930 - 1992 (1993)
- * 0 Milagre Alemão e o desenvolvimento do Brasil: as relações da Alemanha com o Brasil e a América Latina 1949 -1994 (1994), translated and published in Germany by Verwuert Verlag (1995)
- * O Feudo – A Casa da Torre de Garcia d’Ávila (Da conquista dos sertões à independência do Brasil (2000)
- * Brasil, Argentina e Estados Unidos - Conflito e integração na América do Sul (Da Tríplice Aliança ao Mercosul) (1993) (translated into Spanish and published in Argentina under the title Argentina, Brasil y Estados Unidos (De la Triple Alianza al Mercosur) (2004)
- * As Relações Perigosas: Brasil-Estados Unidos (De Collor a Lula) (2004)
- * Formação do Império Americano (Da Guerra contra a Espanha à Guerra no Iraque) (2005)
In Wikipédia.org
1. In Europe, especially in the academic and media channels of communication, we have been regularly hearing about a revival of the leftist ideology in South America. Is this a domestic reality, or rather a phenomena happening in all South American societies?Latin America is the region of the globe where the leftist ideas, under its many forms, are more deeply rooted. There is not a revival by itself. The election of leftist governments reflects mainly the weakening of the United States’ influence and a reaction to the neoliberal policies applied throughout the 1990s that only but fostered the problems in the region. 2. In your opinion, was the Brazilian military dictatorship a necessary evil to combat the profound structural maladjustments that the national society was facing in the Cold War era, with the broadening of world’s attention from the South American subcontinent?Dictatorship is never a necessary evil. What the dictatorship, be it from the right or left wing, civilian or military, is always bad. And the Brazilian military dictatorship, although it was not as repressive was that of Argentina or Chile, did not fight the strutuctural maladjustments. It highlighted them, stimulating an otherwise salvage capitalism, without any social control. 3. In the last interview, with your colleague and friend Raquel Patrício, I had the opportunity to refer to Brazil’s history and insertion in the South American context. Stressing its status or a minor power, the Professor in the meanwhile highlighted a different approach for that view on Brazil’s history. What to say about its regional emergence?Brazil was never “a minor power of the South American subcontinent”. A country with the territorial dimensions of Brazil, 8.5M km2, a great demographic and economic landscape, it cannot be spoken of as “a minor power of the South American subcontinent”. According to Roberto Simonsen, until the mid XVIII century, the Brazilian economy, whose territory consisted of one of the four biggest and continuous geographical areas of the planet, was much larger than that of England, even from and industrial standpoint (an industry almost considered superior to its agricultural phase), and substantially larger than the economy of the thirteen colonies that would later on become the United States of America. Only in terms of sugar industrial production and exports, Brazil surpassed a total of £3 millions per-year, for regular periods in time, na amount never reached by England. It would be important for you to read the chapter I wrote about “King João VII and the build-up of the Brazilian State”, in the book compiled by Professor Kenneth Light, intitled “A Transferência da Capital e Corte para o Brasil, 1807-1808. Lisboa: Tribuna da História, 2007, pp. 291-299.
After breaking apart from Portugal, and although it was not a world power, Brazil was in the mid XIX century a great regional power, as you can read in my book whose 4th edition will be out in June, called “A expansão do Brasil e a formação dos Estados na Bacia do Prata”, also with an edition translated into Castellan, in Argentina, dated beginning of 2006. Argentina was only consolidated as a national State after the War of the Triple Alliance (1964-1970), what it built a regular Army and ocurred, in 1980, the federalization of Buenos Aires and Aduana. 4. What are the main obstacles that Brazil will have to face in an international society constantly changing, if it wants to support its aspirations to become a great world power in the médium-long term?The answer for that question is very complex. There are certainly obstacles, not only domestic but also international ones. The industrial powers of Europe and the United States do not want to lose their supremacy in the political and economic world orders. Brazil already is a regional power, whose weight they cannot fail to consider. Its aspiration, however, consists in the building of a great economic and political bloc in South America from the integration with Argentina. The future outcome is a multipolar world, made of of great economic and political regional blocs. 5. Nowadays, there are many critics that claim under various arguments the fact that Brazil’s growth has a sustainable background at its side. From the BRIC thesis of Sachs until the Theory of Transitional Power of Organski, the multidimensional international conjuncture is favorable to many of Brazil’s possible outcomes. Also in the first interview we talked about a growing influence of Brasília in the entire subcontinent, one looking for an acknowledgement of that intention. What is your opinion about this topic of its foreign policy?Brazil does not look up for that acknowledgement. Brazil has always been recognized as a regional power by all of the US Presidents and Richard Nixon publicly declared, in 1971, that “wherever Brazil goes, it’ll take all of Latin America with it”, a statement that had major repercussions and offended many neighbors. The US, in 1976, signed an advisory deal with Brazil that led Henry Kissinger himself to declare in Congress: “(...) This agreement does not make Brazil a world power. Brazil has a population of 100 million, vast economic resources, a very rapid rate of economic development, and it does not need our approval to become one, and its our obligation in the conduct of foreign policy to deal with realities that exist”. (Kissinger, Henry. Does America Need a Foreign Policy? New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001. 6. The relationship between South America and the US is one that, looked at from the other side of the Atlantic, is full of misunderstandings. Is the north-american power in decline all of the Américas, as foreseen in the resto of the world, or will it once again resume its determination with the upcoming and eventually elected democratic Administration?There have been always been contradictions between South America and the US, contradictions that tried as much as possible to contain or even stop the industrial development of Brazil and its integration with Argentina. Brazil is a serious competitor with the US in the South America market. All indicates that the decline of the US will continue whatever the administration, democrat or republican. It is irreversible, although with its ups and downs. 7. Particularly in the case of Brazil, that dichotomy between cooperation-rivalty with the US is highlighted in numerous fields of action and negotiation.What future can we expect for that relation?Brazil cannot help but to have a good relation with the US, as the US cannot help but to have a good relation with Brazil. They are the two greatest geographical, demographical and economic masses, although in this case, the dichotomy between cooperation-rivalry is natural and inevitable. 8. The axis Brasília-Buenos Aires is one of the utmost importance for the management of the international relations of all South America. How would you classify the importance of this áxis in terms of stabilization and development in the area, and the improved inter-connection with the remaining international society? Brazil and Argentina are the two most developed and important countries in South America, despite the assymetry. And without a clear understanding between Brazil and Argentina, as the Baron of Rio Branco highlighted in the begining of the XX century, it is fundamental for the stabilization of South America and its relation with the remaining regional blocs in world politics.
There was a rivarly between Brazil and Argentine, interrupted by periods of cooperation. But the rivarly was definately put aside by President Raul Alfonsin (Argentina) and José Sarney (Brazil), with the Declaration of Uruguay in 1986, thus starting the integration process that led to Mercosul. There can be sometimes divergences between Brasília and Buenos Aires and this is only but common, as it also happens with the European Union. But we cannot speak of rivalry anymore. 9. And what about their dissension on the nuclear issue, that is sporadically appearing in the media? Are there any facts that support fears of a possible arms race in South America and its development into nuclear arsenal?There are other various aspects that I could comment, but I want to focus on the nuclear issue, that in Brazil began precisely in 1952-53, when the government of Getúlio Vargas hired physicians Wilhelm Groth, from the Institute of Physics and Chemistry of the University of Bonn, Konrad Beyerle, from the Max Planck Society for the Progress of Science, and Otto Hahn, responsible for nuclear fission, all from Western Germany. The process involved the building of three ultracentrifuges through a perfected method they worked on, that had the purpose of installing in Brazil a factory to seperate isotopes, that is, to enrich uranium, a decisive phase to master the technology, which would allow the production of an atomic bomb.
There was for some time competition between Brazil and Argentina as far as the nuclear issue was concerned, but this was eventually overcomed with the deals between João Figueiredo (Brazil) and Rafael Videla (Argentina) in 1979, and it was definately solved with the negotiations between Presidents Alfonsin and Sarney, in 1976-77, when both countries stroke a deal concerning some safeguards and cooperation. A great sign of such diplomatic success, Sarney visited in 1987 the factory of Pilcaneyou and, in 1988, President Raul Alfonsin participated in the inauguration of the project factory Almirante Álvaro Alberto, at the Experimental Center of Aramar, Municipality of Iperó (São Paulo), the first module for the production of enriched uranium.
The Nuclear Agreement between Brazil and Germany of 1975, looked for the implementation of a whole cycle of nuclear technology in Brazil, from research and treatment of uranium, until its enrichment, production of fuel elements and reprocessing, besides the construction of reactores enriched uranium-based. The whole process would be progressively nationalized, with a total transfer of technology to Brazil. Its program, whose running was under the responsibility of a Brazilian state enterprise – Nuclebrás, formally linked to the Ministry of Mines and Energy, and a German private company, a Kraftwek Union (KWU), subsidiary of Siemens, that also intended the construction of another factory to produce enriched uranium. The latter would use a process of centrifuge jet, still under development in Germany, and eight other termonuclear factories, each with a 1.2 million kW capacity. But the Armed Forces did not comply with the safeguards imposed by IAEA, under the pressure of the US, to sign the Nuclear Deal with the Federal Republic of Germany. Thus, they opted for a Parallel Nuclear Program, 1979 onward, that did not suffer any interruption with the end of the authoriatian regime, in 1985. That being said, President Sarney officially announced in September, 1987, the complete mastership of enriched uranium technology, through the ultracentrifugation process, highlighting that that event would have positive reflexes on its foreign policy.
Accordingly, Brazil showed that it had the capacity to fabricate, within few years, its own nuclear powered submarines, as well as its nuclear bombs.
Brazil hence progressed considerably more than Argentina, that used a system of heavy water that until today, for many reasons, they cannot master the whole process of enriching uranium. I analyse the whole issue more carefully in many of my books, like: Presença dos Estados Unidos no Brasil, Brasil-Estados Unidos: A Rivalidade Emergente and O Milagre Alemão e o Desenvolvimento do Brasil (1949-1994).
P.S. The final question was related to the Grammatical Accord signed and ratified by three lusophone states, thus imposing new ortographic rules on the Portuguese written form. It was not published due to the Professor's wish not to do so.
 Entrevistas anteriormente publicadas:
EM PORTUGUÊS:
- Doutora Raquel Patrício - A Emergência Brasileira nos contextos América Latina, EUA e Lusofonia [VER]
- Professor Emeritus Luiz Moniz Bandeira - As RI Brasileiras Históricas e Contemporâneas [VER]
- Vice-Almirante Alexandre Reis Rodrigues - Portugal e a Marinha Portuguesa no Século XXI [VER]
- Professor Catedrático José Adelino Maltez - Assuntos Vários [VER]
- Mestre Isabel David - A Importância da Europa Oriental nos Contextos Regional e Mundial [VER]
- Doutor Estevao de Rezende Martins - A História e a Filosofia do Mundo Contemporâneo [VER]
- Doutor Marcos Farias Ferreira - Os Fundamentos da actual Teoria das Relações Internacionais [VER]
- Doutor Amado Luiz Cervo - A História da Inserção Internacional do Brasil [VER]
- Doutor James Robert Russell - As Civilizações Arménia e Irania pré-Islâmica [VER]
IN ENGLISH:
- PhD. James R. Russell - The Armenian and Pre-Islamic Iranian Civilizations [READ]
- PhD. Raquel Patrício - The Brazilian Emergence in respect to Latin America, the USA and Lusofonia [READ]
- Professor Emeritus Luiz Moniz Bandeira - The Historic and Modern Brazilian International Relations [READ]
- Vice-Admiral Alexandre Reis Rodrigues - Portugal and its Navy in the XXI Century [READ]
Labels: Spatium10 |