The path seems right in this case and much less controversial than in the past, when we proposed the creation of the “Peace Club” in Eastern Europe or when the Brazilian president gave sensitive speeches about the Holocaust. It makes sense for Brazil, for example, to defend debt relief for vulnerable countries, advocate for more financing for the transition to a green economy in developing countries, or seek greater representation in multilateral bodies.
However, the problem on the horizon is of a different nature. It has nothing to do with controversial positions or improvised speeches, as is currently the case. It refers to the famous sentence of the Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset: “Man is man and his circumstances.” This is about the idea that the behavior of an individual cannot be understood in isolation, but deep in the social, historical , cultural and ecological context in which the individual lives, is rooted and is influenced by it.
Applying the same logic to foreign policy would mean that even if Brazil directs its energy towards exercising its international vocation in a constructive manner, opting for a path of issues considered legitimate by the global community, and all of this is addressed within the framework of the G20 or the COP 30 will continue to depend to a large extent on circumstances that we have little control over.
The current context is characterized by a rapid return to classical geopolitics, and with the intensification of wars and the threat of new conflicts, the need for hard power resources is usually at the forefront of countries' priority hierarchy. Brazil, which does not have these resources in abundance, is forced to direct the international dialogue through other channels.
It could be difficult to address global poverty, climate emergency and institutional reform while most countries concentrate their core vital interests in Ukraine, Gaza, Iran or Taiwan. Not to mention the geopolitical shift that could occur if Donald Trump is elected President of the United States weeks before the G20 summit.
Therefore, and without wanting to spoil the party, we must be prepared because in this global environment we may have to deal with two types of frustrations: 1) when we decide to get involved in the hottest issues on the international scene in which our immediate interests are not so obvious, we are treated like “children in the room”; but 2) if we set an agenda and work to have conversations that we can actually contribute to via legitimacy and experience, there is a chance that we will be pushed to the background due to the timing of “circumstances” as everyone is a priority other agendas. So we stand before the most powerful actors, between the criticism of superactivism and the indifference of realpolitik.