democracy. >> now a discussion on u.s. reserve relations between washington's former ambassador to the united nations, thomas shannon. he highlights the largest economy te states as well as brazil's foreign policy and role of china, who has been the nation's top trading partner for nearly 15 years.

show to brookings it research. since the inauguration, and he returned to power in january, a rapid turn of events has taken place and is reshaping the future of relations between the united states and brazil. both countries are contending with internal political and economic challenges of their own, but they are also finding new opportunities for cooperation. a month after the attack on brazil's capital, the federal branches of government that mirror the emerges of january 6, 2021 at the u.s. capitol, president lulu visited president biden here in washington, d.c. to reaffirm the commitment to democracy, climate change, and bilateral cooperation on trade and administration.

strengthening the relationship with brazil, including the bicentennial of the formal medic relations between the two countries next year, all of this is happening in a rapidly changing geopolitical environment. in recent months, the war in ukraine has become a point of friction for u.s.-brazilian relations, with the u.s. continue its aid and commitment to support ukraine against russia's aggression as brazil has called for negotiations. last month, president lula went so far as to accuse the united states of encouraging the war in ukraine. both have deep economic ties with china but are different. global governance reform especially in the economic financial arena remain a point of the virgins in the relationship. we are honored to be joined today by former u.s. ambassador to brazil thomas shannon. ambassador shannon served in

this capacity under president obama from 2010 to 2013 here he was appointed as counselor of the state department in 2016 and most recently served as the undersecretary of state for political affairs from 2016 to 2018. ambassador shannon's impressive career in the foreign service spans more than three decades, having served six presidents and 11 secretaries of state. in 2012, he received the prestigious of appointment of career ambassador. following ambassador shannon's keynote address, we will be joined by a distinguished panel of experts to discuss key issues, allowing brief introductions of our colleagues here today. moderating the panel is my colleague, bruce jones, a senior fellow here at brookings, and whose work has long focused on emerging powers and multilateral demands as well as on wider questions on international security.

rhonda brown is also a senior fellow at the calvert center and directs the initiative on non-stained -- nonstate armed actors. organized crime, illicit economies, and nontraditional scaredy threats in latin america and south africa. joining us is material, the founder of the school of international relations, the vargas foundation in brazil, where he also served as a professor. he is a visiting fellow at the prison institution, and his expertise focuses on international security, climate politics in latin america. ambassador shannon will also join the panel in discussions before we begin, this is a reminder that we are currently live-streaming and on the record. for those of us who are joining us virtually, please submit your

questions or use the #u.s. brazil. microphones will be passed along to the audience here during the question and answer period. ambassador shannon, the podium is now yours. [applause] good afternoon. what a tremendous pleasure to be here today, and let me congratulate brookings institution and the talbot center for hosting this conference. it is so important at this point in time for the united states and brazil, but i also believe for our hemisphere and for the world. and i thought i would start with something quintessentially brazilian -- music. for those of you familiar with the brazilian composer tom jill being an his song, this is a

song he wrote about the reins of march, during the rainy season, and which he captured the lyrics all the different impressions he has received during the reins. he sings the song with one of the great modern singers of bossa nova, he says something that comes to his mind, she says something that comes to her mind, it is kind of a bossa nova rap. to me, it is beautiful, and it captures the nature of our perceptions, but the thing about brazil, i think jobim captures

it well, is that the passing transitory nature of life does not lead him to a sense of tragedy or loss, it actually leads into joy, and as he sings his song, there is a chorus that comes through after each listing of different central expenses, whether it be taste, smell, or sight, he keeps returning to the promise of life, the joy of life, the end of strain or activity. in other words, there's this joy breaks out, and the story behind the song, and the reason i'm telling you, is that jobim had gone to his farm to build a wall -- not a wall on the mexican-u.s. border. and he could not do it because it was raining so much and there was so much mud that they could

not even unload the bricks from the truck that had been brought into build the wall, so he began to focus on everything else that was happening, and, for me at least, what is important about this is that i think we need to understand the brazilian relationship, the u.s.-brazilian relationship, because we have come to build a wall. we have come to construct a certain kind of relationship with united states and brazil. but the nature of the world is like the rain in rio de janeiro. it is complicating the wall we want to build, because the world has changed, the world has become more complicated and more difficult. and so what we need to do, at least for a moment, is to look around us and begin to perceive the relationship in a different way, perceive it in terms of what our senses tell us about that relationship and how we as masons engage.

i would argue that the europe -brazil relationship is one of the foundational pieces of 21st century diplomacy. you all know this well. brazil and the united states are the two largest democracies in our hemisphere. they are the two largest economies. with two large areas that dominate, both are energy self-sufficient, produce and import more food than any other group of countries in the world, and have the world's greatest reserves of arable land and water. both are home to divers, dynamic operations that have attracted people from all around the world, seeking opportunity to build new lives for themselves. and both countries have global ambitions that extend far beyond their geography. while the geographic address of brazil might be south america,

and the geographic address of the united states might be north america, but the address of both countries extends far beyond our hemisphere. but what is important for me is that the relationships between these two countries goes far beyond the governments of those countries. it includes the societies of our two countries. both countries have globalized. what drives the relationships are increasingly between our private sectors, civil societies, and our faith communities. this adds depth and richness to the relationship that reflects our shared historical experience. it also gives, i believe, a human face to our relationship and to our demo policy -- our diplomacy and allows us to

understand partnership not only in terms of national power and interest but also in terms of individual opportunity and well-being. this unusual aspect of our relationship has several consequences that are not easily perceived or understood. the first is that our relationship and purpose is larger than our governance, and larger than the strategic interests defined by the government. a relationship defined only in strategic terms or only in terms of leadership is narrow, and i believe, mistaken. it misses the larger sweep of relationship and its possibilities of cooperation and collaboration. our relationship -- the unusual

aspect of our relationship has several consequences. the first is what i just mentioned, that our relationship and purpose is larger than the governance. the second is that our relationship is increasingly social. this means it touches all aspects of our society, from education to health care to justice and security. in other words, it is focused on promoting prosperity, advancing liberty, and enhancing the open societies that define our democracies. third, our similarities have created a political synchronicity. what happens in one country happens in the other.

this is an important point and one that i think we are going to need to be focusing on over the next several days in this conference. both the united states and brazil are deeply polarized countries, polarized politically, geographically, polarized, to a certain extent, socially. both have become deeply partisan. in the united states, the partisanship is more sharply defined because of our two-party system. the 26-party system of brazil provides a little more space to operate in when it comes to doing deals, but the political divisions are still significant. and the partisanship that defines our country has a negative component to it, which is anti-partisan. we are not anti-opposing party

component to it, which affects the nature of political discourse. and in both countries, because of the polarization and because of this partisanship, elections have become high-stakes affairs in which people understand power to be in play and power to fundamentally reshape aspects of the economy and society. so elections are not events that bring people together. they are events that drive people apart and generate fear and loathing, to quote hunter s thompson. this last point about the similarity and the synchronicity is something worth taking a closer look at, because i would argue that brazil and the united states are mimicking each other. and, as noted, we had our january 6. brazil had is january 8. there are differences between

the two. january 6 was an effort to interfere on the vote count of the electoral college and stop electoral process. january it happened after the elections were over with, after a winter had been determined, and after that winter had been sworn in, but it was a clear message from a large segment of brazilian society that they were not buying the message of unity, and they had no intention of working with the government. now, in this instance, it is important to note that the polarization and the political dynamics that we see in both countries are really the product of the dramatically rapid pace of change, in brazil and in the united states, in the inability of political institutions and parties to keep up. in other words, a belief that political parties and their leadership were not responding

or representing the people that they were elected to represent and respond to. but in thinking about this and then thinking about the political dynamic that we face in the united states and brazil, we often times talk about a crisis of democracy. we often times talk about a crisis of institutions. i believe that what we are really facing in both countries is a crisis of public governance, and in particular, state capacity. as we look at the future of u.s.-brazil relationship, i have no doubt that it will be defined by our global partnership, and i have no doubt that many of the issues that we will discuss on this panel today, and in the rest of the conference, will reflect the challenges that we face globally.

suzanne mentioned ukraine, but there are others -- venezuela, nicaragua, and beyond. but in many ways, i think that before we can really fashion a global partnership that works, we both must find a way to show that democracy can deliver the goods. that we are capable of using democratic governance to create democratic societies. and in some ways for me, this is the importance of president lula's visit to washington, d.c. unbeknownst to many people, the united states had, months before the election, begun to work quietly but purposely to ensure that brazil had the electronic voting equipment is needed to in order to conduct its elections.

the company that was producing the electronic voting equipment had these semiconductors it needed, that the world understood what electronic voting meant in brazil and how secure it was and how important it was to ensure a quick count, a sure count, and one that the brazilian people could rely on, and we worked very quietly, through the expertise of people in the u.s. government, to deliver very precise and well targeted messages to groups inside of brazil about the importance of respecting the democratic process, elections, and ensuring the results of that election were respected and allowed to present themselves as the leadership of brazil. this commitment by the united states and this level of

involvement was, if not unique, at least unusual, in the u.s.-brazil relationship, but one which the biden administration that was absolutely critical and essential to the well-being of a partner that it missed but wanted back into the international environment. and the meeting that took place in the white house focused on the nature of democracy, the importance of democratic government, and the need to ensure that the united states and brazil could find a way to advance, as democratic nations. but this is something that requires not just governance, as i noted earlier, but societies, and it hires ways to facilitate between our facility -- and it requires ways to facilitate between our societies ways of moving toward a democratic

society, enhancing the capability of people that live within an open society, and ensuring that individuals have the resources and the opportunity very not only to have a voice and determine a national destiny but a voice in determining individual destiny, because what i think we see throughout, at least our hemisphere, the americas, is a belief that governance is about creating this larger idea of an open society, full of opportunity and potentiality, and that, in order for our societies to regain this sense of adventure and purpose, that that opportunity has to be presented to the society. and i believe that the united states and brazil need to start focusing not only on the larger geopolitical challenges that we face around the globe, but especially about how you make

government and democracy work in each of our countries, and how we can show that our shared experience and similar heritages can be used and fashioned in a way that advances the well-being of the american people and their brazilian people. another brazilian composer, carlos, wrote a song called "the wave," and it has a line in it which means it is impossible to be happy alone, and i would argue that for brazil and the united states, it is impossible to be happy alone. we have to work together around the central problem of democracy. you know, our old founding fathers and the declaration of independence express to the purpose of politics in terms of

life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. i would argue that if there's any country in the world that understands the pursuit of happiness, it is brazil. with that, i thank you for your presence today, i thank you for your patience, and i look forward to [applause] >> well, thank you very much, tom, and think all of you for being here. i have to say has been a long time since i have heard a talk that has had so much sobriety,

but also just a dose of joy in a terrific way. joy is not a word we often associate with grand strategy and foreign policy. it was delightful to have you as part of the agenda and i thought your remarks were extremely effective in communicating the subtlety of the relationship and challenges. i want to push you on one thing before i bring in the others. you talked about a relationship that spanned the private sector of a range of issues. obviously, the state to state relationship matters as well. one of the we have talked about backstage in the entire modern history of american foreign policy, you are the only person who has risen to the level of undersecretary general for political affairs and counselor that comes up through a western hemisphere experience. is there not a disjuncture between the importance of the relationship and the breadth of

the relationship on one hand and the way it is seen and managed with the u.s. government? amb. shannon: i would like to think with me, the state department finally got it right. [laughter] they finally understood the western hemisphere is what counts, not just our near neighborhood but our extensive neighborhood counts, and that what we have done over decades in the western hemisphere is build a kind of strategic refuge of common political understandings and practices, common economic understandings, common understanding of the individual and his or her relationship with the state. and also a region that has shown it can keep the peace, that has shown really since the? war, you can count ecuador and peru but that was a quick one. really since the? war nearly 100 years that it can solve problems diplomatically. i am not saying that the other

challenges we face around the world are not significant or real. they are, but what i would argue is that we have in the western hemisphere, this reserve of friendly countries with a few exceptions. that can work together and have built the original and a entities that can foster political dialogue, that can generate trade, and address these larger social issues that we are facing. and this is a wonderful thing to have as we try to wrestle with security issues around the world that we are not going to solve any soon. so, i would like to think that this is our base of operations, that the western hemisphere is our island. and that we can sail the seven seas and protect ourselves from the rest of the world, but we can have a very good life here. mr. jones: great.

you have been an acute observer of foreign policy. you must have been very busy the last two months. it has been very turbulent. quite a lot of turns of the wheel in terms of results own policy and the ups and downs in the relationship already in the first short period. your perspective on this? mr. spektor: less -- let me begin by saying this is the first speech on u.s. present relations in five years in which the word china does not come up so thank you for that because it shows -- mr. jones: that was my next question. mr. spektor: first of all, there is under appreciation both in washington and crucially in brazil as well as to the importance of this relationship. most people don't really get the importance not only for hemispheric relations

historically but is important for international law going all the way back to the hague conferences at the beginning of the 20th century or the interwar period in the u.s. hemisphere with the fight against the nazis and the south atlantic or the building of the liberal international order starting in 1945. you can pick the united nations or the world bank or the inter-american development bank, or you can pick the international monetary fund in all these instances, the relationship between the united states was crucial. oftentimes, not -- singing the same tune like the singer you mentioned, often times going at one another, but normally, trying to build a wall together or a door in the wall rather want to say. so, those things are important. the second thing that i think is worth highlighting and this is

remarkable because for brazilians of my generation, it is the first time the united states came out at a time of enormous difficulty for brazil in the last four years when democracy was under very serious threat. in the united states came out in support for brazil in ways that were overt, they were very clearly communicated. the entire political class could tell crucially the brazilian military when they decided correctly not to align with bolsonaro, one of the main reasons they gave publicly was that if they were to going to bed with bolsonaro, they would not get recognition from the united states and that would be unsustainable for them as they have grown ever more dependent on cooperation from the u.s. military. so, these things are really

quite important. now, the way i see this relationship go is this, there are way too many instances in which we don't sing the same tune, but that is not the ones i worry about with ukraine or sometimes china. that is not my main concerns. my main concern is lois instances in which interest align but coordinated policy becomes impossible. even when interests are aligned. take the case of venezuela today. this is the first time in a generation in which both brazil and the united states have a shared interest in engaging the venezuelan regime. finally, both speak the same language for the first time. yet they don't get to coordinate policy and because they don't coordinate policy, the outcome is that even if they are on the same page, this is not putting pressure on the venezuelan regime to begin to liberalize. let me give you another example.

for the first time in a generation as well, the two countries are on the same page on industrial policy. you listen to jake sullivan speak and you can hear that banderas give you their spiel. yes he comes to washington when they sit down to talk claim a change, this is not what we are talking about. brazil is not launching a new industrial policy for the car industry, and it's complete we divorce from the debate over what is going on here in this country moving forward of that crucial element of the politics of climate change moving forward. my concern is that there is something about this relationship that does not quite gel. the best paper on the bilateral relationship in the 1980's by peter hagan who is here today, and it is called the missing relationship. that's the best book on the bilateral relationship in the 1990's by monica hearst a

professor called the road of unmet expectations. there is something about this relationship that gets us a song that is to superimposed voices that sometimes go all over the place. mr. jones: very interesting. he spoke on a number of issues that you spoke about. let me bring you in for your perspective on the issues we are talking about today. ms. felbab-brown: it's interesting you bring up unmet expectations. we are starting to see it in two ways, both in the u.s. and brazil relationship that is emerging where the biden administration has clearly hope that the support it provided for democratic institutions and processes will be recognized by president lula and would have indications for purcell's policy in the international arena. this is all the more significant

and we haven't seen it. the expectations have yet to come to fruition on a whole range of issues from china and ukraine that have been mentioned, but also with some of the regional issues within latin america such as venezuela, nicaragua, and it will set of others. -- a whole set of others. this is significant because president lula has really defined his initial policy focus in terms of the international arena. his team has been brazil is back on the international stage. yet it is an international domain where we see this junction between what the united states would want, brazils policies and choices to be and what results policies and choices are. in the theme of unmet or challenging expectations, also connects very intimately with ambassador shannon's important

breast of democracy or political processes delivering the outcomes for a wide segment of local populations, a wide segment of the nation. this is where president lula's third term his time in office is very different from his first two terms. at the time, purcell was benefiting greatly from the commodity boom and was growing very robustly. so was able to undertake a whole set of policies in the social domain, but beyond the social domain, they benefited many people that listed many people -- lifted many people out of poverty and brought them into upper-middle-class, and that underpinned president lula's focus and trust in the international domain. the integration with a focus on a whole set of american regional

economic institutions that underpin his foreign policy. that domestic economic growth, domestic eminent -- economic stability and sense of joy and optimism that ambassador shannon spoke about his missing in brazil. it is not missing just in the short term. the bolsonaro years gutted institutions, weakened government capacities, strengthened antidemocratic authoritarian processes. but the morass is proceeded and both the narrow in many ways was an expression of the on delivery of expectations, on the un delivery of goods that had taken place after the previous government and subsequent government. the international arena for lula is very different but crucially, his domestic ability to generate the grounding, the base for his foreign policy is very

different. the set of unmet expectations in what he can achieve is obviously playing out in the international arena, but it will be also dramatically playing out in the domestic space. that is the first 100 days of the administration and is premature to -- at this point there is a ways to go, but it is a very challenging environment for him but the process on unmet expectations and failing to deliver is very real. mr. jones: tom, anything you want to respond or add to those two perspectives? amb. shannon: they were both excellent sets of comments. we ha mr. jones: we had several hundred people online and many had questions. they had three overwhelming themes. china, climate change, and trade. i will turn to questions from the room in a few minutes but before i do, let me draw from

that online audience questions to ask our panel about those topics. if you could touch very brief on climate and i will come back to it but let touch on the large c in the room. china has been very present in the u.s.-brazil relationship in the last four months. mr. spektor: i had two messages in my whatsapp. one firm brazil saying i hope the administration does not confuse this meaning that we are aligned on the geopolitical agenda. subsequently messages for my american friends saying -- after the ukraine comments in china. what is driving the focus on china and how significant does the china piece play in terms of complicating american ability to get this right? mr. spektor: if you look at u.s.

policy towards the western hemisphere, china is not a problem at all until 15 years ago and then around 15 years ago it pops up and really begins to dominate the tenor of the conversation and all the strategic writings of the u.s. in the trump administration. the story is in the early 2000's, at the height of unit polarity, when the united states is, concentrated in other parts of the world isn't it great that china wants to expand trade in latin america because then it helps us not worry so much about this part of the world which needs clearly more trade and investment. if you remember, it is the united states that invites china to participate and help capitalize inter-american development bank. this is 20 years ago. then things change really very dramatically, and now every piece is about u.s.-china

competition in the region. i can understand it. this is new to the united states. it is the first time really in 70 years that the united states has to cope with a rival competitor for real in latin america. if you remember back in cold war days, the soviet union was of course heavily invested in cuba, but demands from leftist across the americas from the kremlin to provide support never got anywhere. certainly not in south america, although the global cold war provided the framework for u.s. policy in every single country in the region. u.s. authorities are not used to having to deal with other major powers, meddling in the western hemisphere, and it has been the case in many decades. but now, you look at china, china is the main trade partner and major source of investment of many countries in latin america.

china plays hardball with latin american countries, often times the countries feel they cannot scream and shout at china as they can against the united states. one thing is to charge the united states with hypocrisy. try doing that with the chinese, a different story. many countries feel they cannot say anything about illegal fishing from china in the south pacific because they know they will be punished if they do. it is a new setting for countries in latin america and yet china provides a law of goods from vaccines to investment to international institutions of the day. china is there. it is no wonder that many of these countries feel new dependence on china and feel that they cannot antagonize china because that will come at a price. going back to the first point by the ambassador, of all the countries in the region, the one

that can go in a different direction is purcell. although there is chinese investment everywhere in brazil, i mean china has a very sophisticated operation in brasilia. the embassy is remarkably good at working in azalea, and china has been largely good for brazil thus far. look at lula's script to washington and loses script to beijing. brazil has limited interest and not letting u.s.-china competition take over the entire narrative of the western comes because we know how that and. the way that and is you end up having the chinese and americans pushing and pulling countries that are too weak to resist, and that leads to trouble. i think it would be a tragedy for the western hemisphere if it's the next 5-10 years, we were to replay the cold war because the cold war came at a lamb cost for latin americans across the board. mr. jones: tom? amb. shannon: i guess i would

say a couple of things. for u.s. and brazil, china is like a shared lover. we don't want to admit we are in this relationship but we don't want to give it up. there is a reason for that. it's because it's an important relationship to both countries. but the other point i want to make and finishing the first point, part of the globalization of south america was a relationship with asia and was actually a relationship with china. it is not brazil. his artesian, paraguay, chile, colombia. it is because of the resources agricultural mineral, fish, proteins, all of which get drawn up in that hoover vacuum cleaner which is chinese plumas and trade policy.

-- chinese diplomacy and trade policy. the money that china has been putting into the region was tremendously important for stability in the region and for economic growth and the ability to build out the kinds of middle classes that we have seen emerge throughout south america. we have to understand there is a positive aspect to this kind of engagement and a certain inevitability to it. but the advantage we have at this point is that this is a region that is engaging with china as democracies, as market economies, and as societies that have very special interests in environmental stewardship and fighting corruption. and this is where brazil could play i think a much more important and positive role, which is in helping to build a regional understanding of what china is and what it wants in a regional response to it. right now, the chinese have been very good at kind of dividing the region and not only country by country but sector by sector

and business class by business-class. and brazil needs to find a way to start a different kind of engagement with china, and i would argue that one place it could do that is in climate change environmental policy as it looks at the larger amazon and tries to shape a south american approach to the amazon because just about every country in south america is attached to the amazon with just a few exceptions. and in so doing, would be able to take advantage not only of american and european investment and technological expertise, but also find a way to manage how china relates in a larger area of environment stewardship. so that is points number one. point number two is that i would argue in an era of great power competition, which is a phrase i hate, because i believe that great power collaboration is more important than great power competition. great power competition is kind of a tduh.

we have to be careful not to define ourselves through our adversaries but through our partnerships, allies and to our alliances. this is where i think brazil and the united states need to be very careful not making china essential piece and how we relate to each other because if we do, we are giving the chinese way too much influence. mr. jones: very good. ms. felbab-brown: the inclination and focus on china is long-standing and not just a focus on china but the global south. lula was one of the architects of the brakes and that mortar along the bricks crumbled, but he is now focusing again on the bricks, including on china despite the fact that the picture of china and russia certainly is very different than

it was at the time. in the polarization that is taking place internally in the country, it's also taking place in the international arena both these men spoke about not falling on cold war dynamics because they are very robustly taking place. for lula, trying to have it both ways and not fall into them and maintain policy and productive relationships in china and the u.s. at the same time will be a challenge. there will be a whole set of issues where this will come to a head. when the ac immediately as technology. all right -- already a decade ago brazil had its own views for governing ecologically and the internet. this is all the more significant as for the united states

competition with china and has become a core policy line where there are very substantial concerns about using chinese technology, chinese spine, the incorporation of law enforcement with chinese technology and many others across the region and deep concern for the united states. how brazil navigates those u.s. concerns and yet tries to be an independent player will be limited issue. -- will be an issue. i take your point ambassador shannon about climate being them the opportunity where brazil could perhaps forge new relationships with china because china is the great who bring vacuum not just in terms of diplomacy but natural resources. the relationship with brazil and other latin american countries is principally about the export of raw commodities.

in terms of brazil, it is beef and soy both of which are messed -- immense drivers for deforestation. the is very committed to halting deforestation which is praiseworthy. bolsonaro labeled as catastrophic not just for result for the world. the challenges for him to counter the illegal logging and mining that are taking place. there is the will and political commitment and he brought in mr. sobel who had tremendous credentials in efforts during lula's first two terms. but it is a very tall task. china is the vacuum and one of the big demand markets. chinese companies like indian companies, we don't talk a india but india is also a big source of demand for timber as well as products like soy. they are in different as to the

force, the legality, the sustainability and now predominantly focused on pricing. this is one that is very important for brasilia and has a very important agenda and provides opportunities for the regional corporations they spoke about, but it also provides opportunities frankly juice blend -- stand up to china. in raise issues such as illegal logging in the threats they pose. i would also adhere that this is taking context in the place were not just chinese business presence in latin america has grown enormously, but also chinese corruption and illicit networks. the presence of chinese criminality in the sector is a new phenomenon. domestic crime in brazil is a major issue for the country in terms of lives, impact on governance and institutions,

basic quality of life. but now it is intersecting also with chinese criminal networks and their connections to the state. in other opportunity in the law enforcement space perhaps you think newly of corporations in the united states and newly of how to deal with china. mr. jones: we have many people online and people in the room who know a great deal about u.s. and brazil relationships and human rights and democracy. i would like to bring in the in room audience. raise your hand and somebody with a make will find you. target one of your questions and i will take two or three questions and then offer the panel a chance to cherry pick what they want. this getting. they can answer what they want -- just kidding. they can answer what they feel most comfortable asking. >> my name is roger and i am an author and editorial contributor

on technology policies at the hill newspaper. my question really has to do with the bricks and lula having been so important in creating it. i wonder if any of the panelists could tell us what his attitude today or the brazilian government's attitude is today towards the possible expansion of the bricks. it is rumored that argentina, algeria,iran and a list of countries that may be floating around, is this something that brazil supports or lula is engineering or what is his perspective on expanding the bricks? thank you mr. jones: mr. jones:. i will get a couple of questions before i come back to the audience. appear. >> thank you. ted from brookings. he talked a bit about rousseau's role in the region and venezuela being a place where i think

you're right, we haven't quite figured out how to work together. nicaragua would be another case. haiti, of course. i am thinking times in the past when brazil really stepped up to play an important role in peace building and peacekeeping, but i am wondering if that is anywhere on the agenda these days. they have been reluctant to get pulled back into haiti. canada doesn't want to be involved either. do you see opportunities that had to deal with these very tough cases in the region for lula and biden? mr. jones: gentlemen in the back. >> hello, cedric, executive director or -- foundation. i could not agree more with ambassador thomas shannon when he said that brazil and the u.s. should not overemphasize the importance of china. my question is to all of you,

maybe to matias, let me provoke my friend here, if that is all -- at all possible not to overemphasize china objectively speaking? one thing that is a matter of concern from my point of view is that the sales society is -- brazil society is polarized. you have the center which is not holding anymore. you have the left is well-organized politically speaking around lula, and there is a clear anti-american sentiment prevailing there. in the right camp, there is no such sentiment, but on the other hand, there is strong economic incentives to align with china because china is the vacuum

cleaner. in that aggregate business sector whose influence is growing to brazil and is one of the pillars of the right camp in brazil, china is essential. how concerned are you, matias, if you agree with the picture that i have just drawn? mr. jones: let's do the following. i will give each of you an opportunity to answer any of them you want to. please don't feel the need to answer all of them. starting with you and coming across to tom. just to give you fair warning, how this will end as we will ask you to identify what is the most important topic in your view were the two countries could work together to make progress either on their internal agenda or on the global agenda. but for these questions, matias? mr. spektor: the briggs

expansion, when international organizations expand it is because things are not working well. the briggs is now a problem for all members because of the war in the ukraine. it is hard to produce a meeting when vladimir putin is present. the briggs has been incredibly useful for brazil. it is the one instance in which the president of brazil whoever that might be gets to sit with big major players. rather than asking for the you and to be reformed forever and doesn't get a seat. this is prime time for brazil at the briggs. it has worked well for brazil. the relationship, trade and financial with china has been good for the brazilian middle classes as was mentioned before. i don't know what the story is behind the story is behind expansion because i have no access to the knowledge of what is going on in the administration. on the issue of democracy promotion and peacekeeping, so

sent troops to haiti and it commanded the operation in haiti for about a decade. this came at enormous financial cost for brazil but also it brought an awful lot of good stuff because it allowed brazil to show that it could provide global public services and it make the case for u.s. security council reform. it equipped resilient armed forces and provided training for brazilian armed forces dared then of course they had an underside which was violence developed during that operation that fed into violence in law and order operations inside brazil. this is one of the chief criticisms of the brazilian participation in the u.n. mission in haiti. but i don't see any appetite now or resources relationship between the president and the armed forces now for a big operation involving the transfer

of billions of dollars to the brazilian armed forces just now for haiti. on the issue of nicaragua and venezuela, brazil and the united states can never do democracy together. the only one instance historically in which they agreed, but it was not policy coordination, it was more the clinton administration telling brazil you deal with it. it was paraguay in 1996. that is the one instance even when both cardoza and clinton were not -- it was clinton or bush. clinton, both of them were aligned on who -- on the issue and they could not coordinate policy. they actually went at each other and nothing came out of that. so i am skeptical. on the issue of china, one of the things that i think dismissed when people in d.c. talk about china in the western hemisphere is as sergio correctly points out, domestic

politics of chinese and the chinese presence in latin america, i would just give you an example. when both the narrow was running for president, he was adamant that his foreign-policy was going to be about moving away from china, embracing the trump administration, and getting lots of concessions in return. he was so convinced about this that he took time out the trail during the campaign to fly to taipei with his three sons who had elected office to show that he was going to be anti-china. as he took office, he announced a series of packages to reduce results relationship -- brazil's relationship with china. he was caught in his tracks by his own political base because now in brazil as an everywhere it's in latin america there is a very powerful domestic pro china constituency and it is very hard to dislodge the power and influence for that constituency.

in some countries, parts of the political system will be very anti-american, and they will try to feel that. but in many parts of latin america, there is anti-chinese sentiment on the ground. ms. felbab-brown: i don't know that i have much to add, just a snippet to the china relationship. even during the bolsonaro era which was very strong anti-china rhetoric, brazil significantly increased the share of its oil -- soy sales to china also as a result of the trade war between the united states and china and the decline of soil -- soy export from the united states china. now, supplies more than two thirds of soy consumption in china which is very large. it also makes the brazil agenda very difficult because of this political interest groups having

in terms continue interest in deforestation. although nominally there are efforts to certify that products are not coming out of deforested land, a tremendous amount of whitewashing in the process, and as i mentioned before, chinese and indian consumers are not particularly weekly -- focused on that agenda. i go back to the point that i made that it will not be easy for brazil to try to have an evenhanded relationship between china and the united states. the pressure is on polarizing and depolarization is there. the pressure is on taking sides, pulling one way or another and a whole set of issues with tech being the immediate prominent one. cybersecurity issues being another. there is not going to be any easy way for brazil to try to

have it both ways. matias, i think you're are right that the briggs case brought in lots of international playtime and visibility, but at the same time, the briggs at the time very much been constructed as a mechanism to have anti-american, anti-europe all system. we are in the post-unipolar system. but the briggs were not really at the time developed actual meaningful international policy outcomes. i believe that today especially that the ability to do anything other than showtime is going to be even much more dramatic and certainly if the briggs were to extend their policy out of capability would my view go

significantly down. mr. jones: tom? amb. shannon: a couple of comments. sergio, thank you for being here. i would argue that china needs to be fit, and that is not going to stop. that's probably a good thing for brazil. the united states has played a very important role in the brazilian economy in the value added sphere.

matching brazilian companies to global supply chains and to working with resilient companies to build the technological capacity to create the agricultural revolution to build out the automobile industry and there's a lot more that can and should be done there. as the u.s. considers its industrial policy he needs to look beyond our immediate borders and frontiers in look for partners who have the universities and laboratories and industrial capacity and workforce necessary to begin to ensure that our supply chains are in a secure zone, a secure region. i think brazil complete a very important role there. argentina and chile and a number of other countries. in a perfect world i would like to imagine an office light

without the submarines. if you look at all costs -- aucus the submarines get the attention. the australian industry and and if it is done well it will refashion australia's industrial base and make it a world-class technological leader in everything from self technologies to material science to nuclear propulsion. we should be thinking similarly about how we do that in our own hemisphere. then in regard to what we do on priest keeping -- peacekeeping. this is not a great time for peacekeeping. because of the competition you are seeing globally but especially because of the drain on resources.

they knew that if they did not step up at some other country in the region would, chileans, peruvians, somebody else and will leave or sell to one side. the brazilian's hand it almost forced but did it so gracefully that nobody noticed. they did a really good job. they are not going in now but they know if they do they have to kill people. it's all going to be about taking territory back from gains and the brazilians will do that and their favelas but they will not do it in haiti. i think venezuela is a better case because of the three mentioned. that has immediate impact on brazil. the problem is how to separate the u.s. from the problem. because venezuela has such a domestic issue that really limits what the u.s. can do.

the conference that the president held in columbia was to be getting up process to try to form larger consensus in the region about what to do with venezuela. the u.s. president was important but also meant the engagement by the partners was muted because nobody wanted to get in a fight with the u.s. at that point over venezuela. as we get deeper into the problem that is venezuela, i think brazil is going to have to find a way to begin to shape a south american approach similar to what mexico did and costa rica in central america where you really tried to pull the issue away from the u.s. and see how the u.s. could create stability and order by you solve

the political process. mr. jones: i used to spend a lot of time on you and peacekeeping in one way or another, and one of the most effective actors during that period was the brazilian force commanders in haiti who happens to be in the audience. thank you for joining us, general. we are just about out of time. brief answers to my previewed question which is the what is the most important topic with the two countries could work together to advance their relationship for the global agenda. i will go this way so tom gets a last word. mr. spektor: transition to a low carbon economy beyond force deforestation. ms. felbab-brown: biodiversity conservation including strong deforestation by going beyond that. mr. jones: i agree with both comments, but i would add what i mentioned earlier, this idea of building a value added component or building off it with our

trade with brazil and ensuring that result becomes a base of industrial and technological advancement in support of our supply chains. mr. jones: i wish i had your sophistication and could conclude with a reference to a brazilian song. i don't quite. but please join me in thinking these perfect panelist for the comments. [applause]