By Manaíra Athayde
The international webinar, “The Impact of the 2024 US Elections on Brazil: Political, Economic, and Social Implications,” organized by UCSB Orfalea Center for Global & International Studies on October 30, 2024, just days before the US election, tackled key questions: how might a Trump or Harris administration approach US-Brazil relations differently, and what impact could these approaches have on Brazil’s foreign policy goals? How might Brazil adapt its foreign policy to align or navigate shifts in Washington’s priorities on issues like climate change, human rights, and regional security? The event featured three Brazilian experts, based in the US and Brazil, who analyzed the potential consequences of the US election on Latin America’s largest economy.
Lucas de Souza Martins (Temple University) opened the discussion by examining the historically pragmatic and often detached approach that has shaped US-Brazil relations, highlighting its implications for future collaboration. Clarissa Forner (São Judas Tadeu University) highlighted that a Trump re-election might strain Brazil’s autonomous foreign policy, while a Harris presidency could bring renewed collaboration, particularly on human rights and climate issues, aligning closely with President Lula’s policy goals. Abner Sótenos (San Diego State University / UC San Diego) discusses the potential impact of a Kamala Harris victory on the Afro-Brazilian community, social justice, and reparations for Afro-descendants. The panelists also addressed US immigration policies and their impact on Latin American migration, noting the complexities and challenges in US-Latin America relations. João Sodré (Georgetown University) served as the webinar’s moderator.
A Legacy of Pragmatism and Independent Diplomacy
In his presentation, Lucas de Souza Martins explored two key themes that illuminate the historical relationship between Brazil and the United States: pragmatism and detachment. For Brazil, pragmatism has long shaped its approach to international alliances, allowing it to pursue a balanced, autonomous foreign policy rather than aligning automatically with Washington, a concept frequently discussed by both Brazilian and American historians. Since 1824, when the US recognized Brazil’s sovereignty under the Monroe Doctrine, Brazil has navigated between asserting its independence and managing US influence in the region. While the Monroe Doctrine promoted a vision of hemispheric unity, it also revealed the US’s ambitions to lead the Americas, setting a complex foundation for Brazil’s desire to avoid European entanglements while engaging in selective partnerships with the US
Despite this pragmatism, Martins noted that moments of alignment between the two countries have emerged, particularly during global conflicts such as the World Wars. Brazil’s support for the Allies helped establish military and political ties, though these alignments were never permanent. During the Cold War, Brazil, supported by the Johnson administration, established a military dictatorship in line with US anti-communist policies. However, Brazil quickly asserted its independence, as seen when it recognized Angola’s independence in the 1970s, a move that diverged from US foreign policy. This pattern illustrates that, although Brazil has often been an ally, it has remained independent from the ideological constraints that typically define US alliances, opting instead to build a diverse set of international relationships, including with socialist nations, to protect its own interests.
In his conclusion, Martins argued that although Brazil’s foreign policy has at times aligned with the US, it has often emphasized its own agency, reflecting a desire to assert a unique position in global affairs. This approach has continued through Brazil’s return to democracy and into the modern era. For example, during the Gulf War, President Fernando Collor resisted US pressure to join the coalition, highlighting Brazil’s preference for non-alignment when its priorities diverged from those of Washington. Today, Brazil continues to balance its role in global affairs through a lens of pragmatic detachment, engaging cooperatively with the US while maintaining the freedom to pursue diverse partnerships. This historical narrative reveals a relationship not defined by automatic alignment but by a careful and deliberate pragmatism that honors Brazil’s autonomy and global vision.
Future Scenarios in US-Brazil Relations Amid Geopolitical Shifts
Clarissa Forner examined the implications of current geopolitics and domestic policies in both the US and Brazil, highlighting potential areas of alignment or divergence in the coming years. She focused on three main themes.
First, she explored US-Latin America relations from a historical and regional perspective, emphasizing how the US influence in Central America, the Caribbean, and South America has been shaped by various strategic priorities. While issues like immigration, border security, and drug trafficking dominate US policy toward Central America, the broader narrative of US-Latin American relations is also influenced by evolving security interests, particularly the role of militarization, as seen in the Southern Command’s presence in the region. In recent years, countering China’s growing influence has become a significant factor, a trend likely to continue regardless of the US election outcome. Even though Trump and Harris have starkly different approaches to international relations, core security issues and military presence in the region may remain consistent.
Turning to Brazil, Forner highlighted Lula da Silva’s foreign policy, which seeks to strengthen Brazil’s autonomy, regional leadership, and focus on human rights, climate change, and multilateralism. A Trump reelection could create tensions, as his administration’s priorities—particularly on climate and human rights—contrast with Lula’s globalist approach. Moreover, Trump’s alignment with right-wing leaders in Latin America, such as those emerging in Argentina, could complicate Brazil’s efforts to lead and influence the region. By contrast, a Harris administration would likely find more common ground with Lula’s agenda, particularly on social and environmental issues, yet key divergences would persist. Lula has been openly critical of the US stance in international conflicts, such as in Ukraine and Gaza, highlighting points of contention that could impact bilateral cooperation.
Finally, the ongoing Brazil-China relationship introduces a significant variable for US-Brazil relations. As China remains Brazil’s top trade partner, this partnership adds complexity to US-Brazil ties, regardless of the electoral outcome. A shift toward a Harris-led US may bring continuity in areas like labor rights and diversity initiatives, similar to the Biden administration’s approach. However, the strategic importance of Brazil’s trade and diplomatic relations with China will continue to underscore Brazil’s independent foreign policy. Lula’s engagement with China, along with efforts to strengthen South-South partnerships and the BRICS alliance, reinforces Brazil’s pragmatism and non-alignment strategy. Forner concluded then by arguing that US-Brazil relations are likely to be shaped by a mix of ideological common ground and pragmatic detachment, highlighting the nuanced nature of this bilateral relationship.
The Potential Impact of a Kamala Harris Presidency on Social Justice and Policy Reform in Brazil
In his presentation, Abner Sótenos argued that the potential impact of the 2024 US presidential election on Brazil extends beyond immediate political considerations, touching upon areas of social justice, racial equality, and policy reform that are crucial for both nations. A Kamala Harris presidency, with her long-standing commitment to social justice and her background as a former Attorney General, could catalyze progress in key areas of Brazil-US cooperation, especially within the Afro-Brazilian community. This includes the revival of significant bilateral frameworks, such as the Joint Action Plan to Eliminate Racial and Ethnic Discrimination and Promote Equality (JAPER) and the Congressional Brazil Caucus, both aimed at fostering collaboration on issues of racial equality and inclusion. Given Harris’s support for such initiatives, her leadership could rejuvenate these channels, promoting an environment of policy exchange that would bolster Afro-descendant communities both within Brazil and across Latin America.
One area where a Harris administration could influence Brazil is in the conversation around reparations for Afro-descendants. Harris has been a strong advocate for reparative justice, particularly in California, where discussions about reparations for African Americans have gained legislative traction. This could serve as a model for Brazil, where the conversation about reparations remains limited despite the lasting impacts of enslavement and systemic racism on Afro-Brazilian communities. Groups like the Black Coalition for Rights in Brazil have long advocated for reparations, but a lack of governmental support has slowed progress. Harris’s leadership could lend moral weight to these efforts, potentially sparking public discourse and fostering greater acknowledgment of the need for reparative policies.
Sótenos also highlighted Harris’s progressive stance on cannabis legalization, as both a drug policy reform and a social justice issue. Her approach could inspire similar discussions in Brazil, where drug laws disproportionately affect marginalized communities, particularly Black Brazilians. With Brazil’s prison population growing rapidly since 2006, largely due to minor drug offenses, Harris’s policies could encourage Brazil to reassess its drug laws and potentially enact reforms to reduce social inequities. Additionally, Harris’s support for women’s rights, including access to safe abortion, could influence feminist movements in Brazil, where abortion laws remain restrictive. In sum, a Harris presidency could play a role in advancing social justice movements in Brazil and other Latin American nations, encouraging structural reforms across the region.
