Expanding Alliances in the 21st Century: The U.S. and Brazil Unite to Address Matters of National Security
The recent signing of a new defense agreement between the Western hemisphere’s two dominant powers, Brazil and the United States, has brought about an important change to Latin America’s relations with the U.S. On April 12, 2010, Brazil took another step to enhance its geopolitical influence by signing the U.S.-Brazil Defense Cooperation Agreement (DCA).
The treaty will allow U.S. military cooperation on a Brazilian base with the aim of defending the hemisphere from illicit drug trafficking and to protect both countries’ national interests. As Brazil continues to be a linchpin of economic stability in Latin America and is increasingly viewed as being on its way to becoming a global superpower, the Brazilian government is realizing that its power comes with a price. The cost of such a position carries a price tag in terms of its security costs. Brazil has achieved a sufficiently high profile that it must significantly increase its defense so as to protect its population.
An Uneasy Past
Military relations between the two nations date back to World War II when Brazil participated in the Allied effort by providing troops to fight in the 1942 Italian Campaign. The first defense treaty between the two nations was created in 1952, with the signing of the Brazilian Military Assistance Agreement. The accord enabled the provisional exchange of major weapons and training by the United States to its Brazilian counterpart, as the countries proceeded to form a tenuous alliance that governed their bilateral ties during the Cold War1. However, this alliance was short-lived and suffered multiple blowouts. After Brazil’s 1964 military coup, the U.S. continued to provide military aid in the form of training and supplies in order to support the pro-U.S. governments that were in power. Nonetheless, the U.S. began to limit its assistance during this time.
As defense ties to the U.S. gradually diminished, Brazil began to pursue a nuclear program with the aid of West Germany beginning in 1975. The Carter Administration stipulated that Brazil must improve its poor human rights record and cease its nuclear development efforts in order to continue to receive military assistance from Washington. When Brazil refused to comply with these demands, the U.S. formally terminated its military agreement with Brasilia in 1977.
As the twentieth century came to an end, Brazil maintained its position as a regional power and also began to ascend as an increasingly important actor in world affairs. In the time leading up to the signing of the DCA, the two nations discovered overlapping national security interests, which resulted in the signing of the new and promising DCA on April 12, 2010. In fact, the State Department guaranteed that the DCA would enable “U.S.-Brazil defense cooperation to deepen and expand into new areas of mutual interest.”2
Lula da Silva’s Wariness of Uncle Sam
After the October 2009 U.S.-Colombia Defense Agreement, many Latin American nations were more than a little skeptical of the expanded U.S. presence. The U.S.-Colombia agreement established seven U.S. bases across Colombia, each with its own personnel and equipment. Nonetheless, Ecuador and Venezuela claimed that the bases arrangement was nothing less than a preparation for an U.S. invasion of South America, while Brazilian President Lula da Sliva expressed a concern that the Colombian bases would only increase regional tensions. Shortly after the agreement was signed, Lula da Silva invited President Obama to the South American Summit to seek reassurance that the base was solely for the war against “drugs and terrorists within Colombia only.” Lula da Silva’s concern about the U.S. military presence in Colombia seems to be hypocritical due to the fact that six months later Brazil signed a military agreement of its own with Washington.
However, there is little to worry about. The U.S. sent letters to the concerned nations explaining the role and purpose of the bases, according to Kevin Whitaker, Acting Deputy Secretary of State for Western Hemispheric Affairs. Furthermore, the Colombia agreement states that “the cooperation is based upon full respect for the sovereignty of each party,” and stating that Colombia will contractually own the military base and work cooperatively and collegially together with the U.S. The DCA with Brazil follows a similar format. Secretary Whitaker stated at a conference that, “the treaty with Brazil is narrow in its nature in comparison to the agreement with Colombia,” and thus provides a more detailed description as to the role of the U.S. military presence. These explanations are aimed to quell concerns about an intruding military force or an “imperialist” base. Under the Obama administration, the U.S.’ foreign policy has been orientated towards establishing cooperation-based initiatives in which the U.S. provides both military and social aid to other nations in order to address specific issues of national security which threaten the overall prospects for global stability.
The New Global Stage and its Perils
As Brazil steps into the international arena, it will continue to face some of the many issues that plague Latin America, including the major threats of the drug trade and terrorism. To add to its international importance, Brazil will be the host of the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Olympic games, two events which place Brazil prominently in the world spotlight.
In order to address issues of defense, one must begin by understanding the geographical enormity of Brazil. The Brazilian territory expands across most of the Amazon bordering every South American nation except for Ecuador and Chile. On the coast lies the Atlantic Ocean, the maritime door to Europe and the United States. These borders have already witnessed a terrorist presence and have become a major artery for the illegal drug trade. In past years, Brazil has experienced terrorist threats, as illustrated by the arrest of individuals linked to terrorist cells in 2002. These threats have led the country’s security forces to look for more security safeguards in the hemisphere.
Terrorism recently has undergone a redefinition by the U.S. State Department. A terrorist is now any insurgent who “employs subversion, sabotage, [or] open warfare.”3 Additionally, these violent acts are targeted to inflict “massive damage to the United States, [their] allies, [their] interests and the broader international system.”4 This shift in definition has had important implications for Brazil. First, the country’s rise in global stature and as a partner-in-arms of the United States places it at risk of falling victim to al-Qaeda’s infamous “globalized insurgency.”5 The fact that Brazil is preparing for its advent as a world superpower and in the near future will host several major international events makes it a prime target for terrorist acts. Judging from other historical events, such as the 1972 Munich Olympics bombings, Brazil must protect itself from such threats.
Furthermore, the definition of terrorism now has swollen into encompassing groups, such as the Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), that previously were considered local revolutionary guerrilla forces. However, there is evidence of FARC presence, not only in the Andean region, but also in the Southern Cone. Recently, Paraguayan authorities, in combination with Colombian intelligence, captured a FARC leader who undoubtedly was in Paraguay to train members of the rebel Paraguayan People’s Army (EPP). Thus, Brazil may be facing terrorist threats from well-established regional terrorist groups as well as homegrown groups.
With regards to narco-trafficking, the largely un-policed border between Brazil and Paraguay has allowed the flow of 40 tons of cocaine and 15% of the world’s supply of marijuana to access the rest of the world, thus Brazil-Paraguay border has become yet another victim of the drug trading lanes. Recently, the Paraguayan drug enforcement squad declared that the amount of cocaine confiscated so far in 2010 already tops the total amount confiscated in all of 2009 which further emphasize how the drug trade will continue to prosper along the Brazil-Paraguay border; problem that in turn will continue to demand increased security. The illicit trade on Brazil’s border will ultimately threaten its stability, especially at a time when global attention is focused on the country. These threats will call for a tighter grip on the nation’s defense establishment.
The DCA Helping Brasilia
Many Brazilian foreign policy strategists expect the DCA to fulfill the country’s main goal of preparing for the global threats of the 21st Century. First off, the U.S. military base would be “under Brazilian command” and “resemble the US facility in Key West, Florida where representatives of several Latin American countries and several US military agencies monitor the skies and waters of that region.”6 Therefore, Brazil will retain its sovereignty while still hosting a joint task force where the national interests of the U.S. and Brazil would be mutually fostered.
Furthermore, the DCA includes:
• Cooperation in the fields of research and development, logistics support, technology security, and the acquisition of defense products and services;
• Information exchanges on topics such as operational experiences, defense technology, and international peacekeeping operations;
• Combined military training and education, and joint military exercises;
• Exchanges of instructors and students from defense institutions;
• Commercial initiatives related to defense matters.7
These objectives invariably serve to promote Brazil’s self-defined foreign policy objectives. Brazil’s 1988 Constitution serves as the nation’s guiding source for protecting its foreign policy and outlines its goals in Article IV. The Constitution emphasizes “national independence… defense of peace… [and] repudiation of terrorism.”8 According to the nation’s leading newspaper, O Estado de São Paulo, the goal of the DCA base is to strengthen security against drug trafficking in the region by triangulating efforts with bases in Key West, Florida; Lisbon, Portugal and Rio de Janeiro. Another provision, one which outlines the U.S.’ agreement to send weapons to Brazil, will drastically improve the Brazilian military’s ability to combat future threats.
The agreement also fulfills Brazil’s long-term goals of establishing a viable defense system against terrorism and other regional threats: the sharing of US intelligence, modern equipment and training will appreciably improve Brazil’s military capabilities as well as the U.S.’ ability to uphold its national security goals.
The DCA Helping D.C.
The United States has also undertaken new foreign policy initiatives in order to satisfy global requirements. The new approach aims to create a successful military alliance in the Western hemisphere similar to NATO with Europe. According to strategic analyst and Princeton professor, John G. Ikenberry, “NATO and the US-Japan alliance are at the core of [an] alliance system [which] will be expanded and strengthened.”9 The U.S. uses the structure of traditional Cold War alliances and expands upon these alliances by having them expand to other regional powers such as Brazil. Therefore, the DCA with Brazil will entail a “cooperation of security or security cobinding.”10 The unfettered rise of Brazil is inevitable and, via the DCA, it will be incorporated into an alliance system “rather than operating as a dissatisfied revisionist state on the outside,” like Venezuela.11
Another driving force behind the DCA is Washington’s uncanny feeling with regard to Venezuela’s transformed foreign policy and increased defense spending. Chávez recently reallocated approximately $4 billion in defense spending for Russian AK-47 rifles, Mi-24 attack helicopters, S300 surface-to-air missiles, and SU-27 fighter jets. This colossal investment in modern warfare has many nations on the continent worried about their intended end use. Although it does not create an arms race within Latin America per se, it does, according to some U.S. strategists, increase tensions among regional governments. Chávez’s outcries against the U.S., such as claiming that the U.S. has spy planes in the region, are now backed with a dangerous arsenal.
However, conventional military forces are not the only worry in the region. The Chávez government has an alleged relationship with Colombian FARC rebels, and the rebels have purportedly used the Venezuelan jungles as a safe haven. These rebel forces have also been reported to have AT-4 light anti-tank rockets, rifles and other arms, some of which formerly belonged to the Venezuelan military.
Venezuela is vying for political potency in the region as it aims to influence other governments to replicate policies of its own leftist-style government. Chávez’s objective has achieved relative success in Ecuador and Bolivia. The role of the regional military in the area is a major factor in determining whether Brazil or Venezuela will have stronger influence in the region. This factor contributes to Chávez’s decision to upgrade its military and why, in recent years, Brazil’s defense spending has also increased by 58%. Venezuela’s questionable political stance and alliances, enforced by a modern and dangerous military arsenal, could allow it to become a radical power in the region, threatening not only regional stability, but also competing against Brazil’s own ascension to power.
The U.S. base in Brazil will provide the U.S. with a foundation from which it can work hand in hand with Brasilia in thwarting the efforts to develop new routes for drug shipping northward. Additionally, the U.S. base in Brazil would serve as a Forward Operation Location (FOL), such as the ones already established in Curaçao and Aruba, which are military facilities targeted at curtailing drug activity in the region. These bases have proven to be quite successful in the war against drugs by acting as centers of intelligence operations. Furthermore, since Brazil has long been a powerful nation in Latin America, Brazil enthusiasts close to the White House would advocate that the U.S. should ally with Brazil in the “interest of regional security.”12 Therefore, the base in Brazil would not only serve to aid in combating drug trafficking, but also would help establish a more stable balance of power in what has been at times a politically unstable region.
Brazil’s Defense Future
The Defense Cooperation Agreement is just the first step in changing the topography of U.S.–Brazilian relations. The rising power of Brazil has driven it to modify its national priorities. In doing so, it must prepare to fend off the vertigo of its rapid rise and engage in discreet policy shifts that will protect its dignity and at the same time uphold its basic interests, such as the wars on drugs and terrorism. With its cooperation with Brazil, the U.S. has created a new regional ally that will pursue similar interests. Moreover, this evolving alliance proves that Latin America may have reached the point that it no longer needs to feel that its fundamental sovereignty is being threatened as it was in the previous century. Those who maintain that the U.S. will continue with its hegemonic activity in Latin America, such as Ecuador’s President Correa and Venezuela’s Chávez, may be mistaken. These leaders are still being propelled by historical bona fide resentments to come to these conclusions, but a new age may now be dawning.
For too many years, Latin America and the United States have shared an unsteady and often bitter relationship. Brazil has increasingly become a major player in dealing with global affairs in a pacific and non-judgmental manner. One example of this is Brazil’s efforts to resolve Iran’s nuclear talks in search of a way out from the present stalemate. In a subtle way, Brazil has declared that Latin America is no longer Washington’s backyard. As Latin America strives for security along with democracy, the U.S. and Brazil are destined to continue to play a key role in how both of these elements unfold as dynamic factors in the region’s future. Exactly what role the DCA will play is by no means certain. However, if limited to only anti-drug matters and not as a facility to carry out the type of misguided and ill conceived adventures which have sullied the U.S.’ good name in the past, the DCA has the potential to aid in security improvement and social development, benefiting both regional superpowers.
This analysis was prepared by COHA (*) Research Associate Juan Pablo Pitarque
(*) Council on Hemispheric Affairs
Suggested Stories
-
Feb 10th 2012
Debate on Cuba’s attendance to the coming Americas summit in Colombia
-
Feb 10th 2012
Antigua and Barbuda deny supporting bar on Falklands flagged vessels
-
Feb 09th 2012
Chilean community in Falklands march in support of the air link with Santiago
-
Feb 09th 2012
Mujica says Mercosur is “a chewing gum”; promises trade deals with third countries
15 comments Feed
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
I wrote at COHA.org - the website where the paper was originally published - some criticism of it. I posted under the name of Rafael. Here: tiny.cc/qg6au
There are inumerable mistakes in the article. It gets the US-Brazilian dictatorship relationship wrong, and in a way that rather diminishes U.S. support for the Brazilian military regime. It says the US reduced collaboration with the Brazilian government during the dictatorship. Incorrect. The US reduced cooperation with the two presidents that preceded the coup, Quadros and Goulart: the first because he supported Cuba during a US 1961 invasion of its territory; and Goulart, because he was a leftist. The US, as a matter of fact, supported the coup plotters who overthrew Goulart.
Also, the paper says that in 1977 the US cut military relations with the Brazilian government due to its human rights abuses and nuclear program. But who broke the deal was Brazil because it didn't tolerate US meddling of its internal affairs. Even the opposition to the Brazilian dictatorship at the Congress - the MDB party - didn't want international meddling in the issue.
As for the US military bases issue, who first asserted that there would be ones in Brazil was the “Estado de São Paulo”, a daily that is strongly opposed to the Lula gov and sometimes ignores truth to attack the it. Days after Estado de São Paulo spread that gossip, they were contradicted by U.S. ambassador in Brazil Thomas Shannon and by the Brazilian Minister of Strategic Issues Samuel Pinheiro. Both said: the agreements predicts exchange of information, mutual visits by civil and military delegations, etc. But unlike the U.S.-Colombia agreement this one doesn’t say anything about permitting U.S. presence in Brazil. Trust me, Lula wouldn't permit such a thing. The content of the accord is in here (in Portuguese): tiny.cc/ael12
the brazilians must keep control,
The US-Colombia relationship for instance, is of an asymmetric nature in military, economic and geopolitical terms between the two nations and cannot be compared to the US-Brazil relationship, which in itself draws a very different line on the sand with a degree of symmetry between both geopolitical forces with common interests in the region.
What about the US-Japan relatioship? Japan is a populous, economically powerful country. Until last year it was the world's second greatest economy. But that doesn't preclude the U.S. from treating Japan as a US aircraft carrier in East Asia. (“Aircraft carrier”, by the way, is how some U.S. military called Taiwan years ago.) Former Japan premier, Yukio Hatoyama, tried to move the US bases installed in Okinawa. The Okinawa population has been complaining about U.S. presence for years. But the U.S. refused to take its bases away from the country. The U.S. doesn't respect other countries sovereignty, whether they are friends or enemies - this is well known. If they treat Japan like that - and as I told before Japan is a powerful country even if a passive one - it wouldn't treat Brazil, a Third World nation, with any more respect.
As I told before, Lula knows that. A former Chief of Staff of his, José Dirceu, said Brazil should have done what was within its reach to prevent US presence in South America - for once the US gets to install a military base in a country, it NEVER leaves it.
In 2001 the US tried to get the a satellite launcher base in Northeast Brazil under its control (and for a ridiculously low price). Our former president, the entreguista Fernando Henrique Cardoso, signed the accord that granted the US exclusive access to the base. But the accord was canceled after an overwhelming defeat in both Congress and popular referendum. But still it shows that the US is anxious to have bases in wherever they can install one - and once they do so, they want total control of the area. That's why US presence is bothersome to me. Guarantees that the host country's sovereignty is going to be respected are empty. “The United States is not a trustworthy country”, said Brazilian historian Moniz Bandeira. I hope all of the Brazilian political class be aware of that.
I don't think you can define a relationship between two great nations in a single sentence. The US-Japan relationship was established at the end of the second world war, it was a complex relationship marked by the winner and the loser of the same war, by the country that launched a surprised attack on Pearl Harbor while the US and Japan were still negotiating terms, and by the country that dropped two atomic boms on Japan, it was marked by the second war in asia that was literally fought by those two nations, island per island, and it was later marked by the cold war, by the USSR and China, and by the threat of communist expansion in Asia and the fact that the US did not want Japan to rise again as a military power. However Japan became an economic power, also thanks to the US.
But Japan still needs the US protection in Asia. The US remains the most powerful military force in Asia and serves as deterrence force protecting its allies from local powers in Asia. China for example has invaded almost every nation on its borders: Tibet, Mongolia, Vietnam, Korea, India, etc. The whole Asia region is fearful of China's rise and many countries there welcome the Americans to counterbalance China's threat. I am not saying the americans are angels there, they are definitely pursuing their own interests, but some of their interests are also the interests of Japan, South Korea, Singapur, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, Filippines, Vietnam, India, and many other countries in the region that are now friends to the US.
I think the US-Brazil relationship has got to be different and will be different because there is an entirely different context here in latin america.
On Japan's situation, there's something else that is of interest to the discussion: Yukio, that former Japan premier, tried to implement a policy of rapproachment with East Asia. He wanted to create a trade area that would unify Japan, China, and South Korea in a single bloc. Imagine if this been established: the relationship between these countries would have been improved (just as that between France, the UK and Germany has improved after) and in a long term way - for it's in a country's interests to have good relations with its trade partners, whoever they are. I believe this - the integration of East Asia - would have done more for defending Japan's security needs than having another country's army installed in the country (and that is in itself dangerous). The US wouldn't like East Asia to create an unified bloc. Imagine what a geopolitical force a China-Japan union would be! The US is suspicious of political integration projects. That, one can see in how it opposes EU's project to create an unified army.
As for Brazil, I already told of the 2001 failed agreement the US tried to firm with it. The agreement was so abusive to Brazil, that after Cardoso left power some tried to sue him for high treason. The agreement would in practice concede control of the base for the US for an indefinite amount of time. I can pass you some links discussing the failed accord. So whatever is the Latin America context vis-à-vis that of East Asia, the fact is that the US wants to have presence in the area for as long as it can.
The US is an hegemonic power. It is beyond being good or bad, that's not the case. By nature the US exercises power and leadership, either through diplomacy, military, political or economical coercion, or by persuasion in almost every corner in the world because it is the world's superpower with the capability of extending its military reach anywhere in the world in matter of days.
But so does Russia, and China, and it is my conviction that Brazil is evolving into another hegemonic power in South America, but whose influence will also project into Central America and Sub-Saharan Africa. But I think Brazil has to learn to negotiate its terms first with the US and from what I have read and seen I believe President Lula understands that.
In my opinion, that's the world order today.
Now I have to disagree with you on a possible China-Japan union in the region. These two countries may be sleeping in the same bed but they share very different dreams. China is hegemonic but it is also in an expansionist stage and their huge population numbers will demand living space, which will have to come from its neighbors only and it already has. In trying to find its way out to the straits, it invaded Vietnam some decades ago but were defeated. China's military rise puts that country against virtually all its neighbors. Perhaps trade relations will eventually unite those countries, but I sincerely doubt it.
Mexico and Canada were swallowed by the US economically, culturally, socially and politically, but not without resistance and in the same degree that Argentina and other countries in Brazil's playground do not want to be swallowed by Brazil now but they eventually will be. Japan does not want to be eventually swallowed by China, and South Korea, Japan, Singapur and others feel the same way. That's why the US presence in Asia is actually growing and with support from those states because the US is the only power capable of standing on the way of China in the region.
I can sense that you are a fanatical anticomunist but please try to keep in this planet!!!
You write:
(China) invaded Vietnam some decades ago but were defeated!!!!!!
Are you on Peyote or what?
China invaded Vietnam in 1979, the highly trained Vietnam soldiers kicked their ass, the Chinese demonstrated how backward and unprepared their army was, they lost many battles and the war in the end, they suffered thousands of casualties, did not achieve any of their territorial demands, got bankrupted after all the expenses of the war and had to withdraw in a painful sorry way out of Vietnam.
You can read about it here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War
Am I a fanatical anti-communist? No. I just don't believe in utopias.
LatAm can draw some conclusions - cautionary tales - about the East Asia situation. For LatAm has been the area par excellence where the US has claimed leadership upon. But its leadership has been waning rapidly. It's still thought about as a hegemon, but increasingly only in a nominal way. Its economic presence is shrinking, and - consequently - so is its political presence. The US won't let it go easily, I know. It now wants to secure long-term presence through military expansion. That's a threatening move that most countries in SA will know how to avoid.
I repeat: a Brazil-US pact wouldn't be more respectful than a Colombia-US one. You perhaps don't know about this, but Rumsfeld did try to export “Plan Colombia”-type agreements to all of LatAm. Our leaders have ignored him, though.
But I studied and lived in the US and I know the people and country and I take them as they really are, nothing but people. I don't follow the anti-imperialism rhetoric, I read history from many a source and I am not a Pollyanna to think of US influence as all beneficial to any country out there, even Japan, I know the US has invaded many countries, heck! they invaded mine one hundred years ago, I know their failures are legion, but in point of fact I just think any other country will exert its power in exactly the same way if given the opportunity.
But is the US power fading away? I don't know, the State of California alone is the eight largest economy in the world, with less than 40 million people and it is famous not for its natural resources, but rather for its value added products and technologies. It exports computer chips and high tech products, agricultural products, manufacturing of all kinds. needless to say its film industry is the largest in the world, the Silicon Valley generates new technologies like no other city in the world. Many nobel prize winners have come out from its fine universities.
China, India, Russia and other countries are now trying to catch up with the US but they lag behind in technology, science, education, infrastructure, and particularly in political stability. Some of them will grow old or fall in chaos before they get rich. Russia is a case in point.
The US army is present in more than a 150 countries in the world and its naval and air forces have access to hundreds of bases all over the world. And their President Obama is one of the most admired leaders in the world.
Ahhhhhh.... That little border incident... You will have to excuse me but I had almost forgot it....
Anyhow, a little exagerated to say that the Vietnamese “defeated” the Chinese :-)
And about your more than incipient anticomunism........
I remember reading one of your comments about all those “Cuban Spies” roaming uncontrolled the whole of South America disguised as doctors......
Sounds very “Glen Beck” - “Fox News” - “Cold Warish” to me......
But one thing you say is absolutely correct:
“You cannot even fathom the new realities of South America.”
I don't either,..... but what I can see with my own eyes impresses me. Would have never beileved it possible 30 years ago...... But it is happening.....
Anyway, there's something that I do agree with you: that, if a superpower replaces the US, it'll behave just as recklessly. The one with greater power always wounds up abusing the one with smaller power. And the larger the power imbalance is, the greater will be the degree of the abuse. That's part of human nature and is reflected in the organizations we form (countries, for instance). In that, the US is no different, I know. But there's one thing that does distinguish it from past world empires: the degree of its hypocrisy. How it keeps masking its abuses and thirst for power under the guise of “universal” values and human rights concerns; how it exploits, whether legally or illegally, other peoples in the world, but still gets to pose as the world police.
No glen beck here, no fox news either, they are offensively biased and toxically radical.
No communism, no radicalism of any kind here.
Edmund Burke, Ayn Rand, Russell Kirk, true conservatism and libertarian ideals, yes.
I am for the freedom and the potential of the individual, not the coercive power of collectivism and authoritarian states.
Forgetit87,
The US is not capable to exert the same authority is used to have in the past. I concede that and thank you for expanding on the topic.
I believe we have seen the growth of China, India, Brazil and other countries is not linear but exponential, every few decades their gdp's increases two, three-fold or even more. Exponential growth is always explosive and eventually destroys previous paradigms.
Will large populations define the economic and political power of nations in the next century? they didn't in the past and there's no guarantee they will in the future.
I learned that the success of the US resided in that its no-centralized federative structure and their checks and balances managed to bring prosperity and freedom to its large populations.
My fear is that if China, India or other nations mismanage and fail to bring prosperity but rather bring hungry and poverty to their large populations, like they did in the past with terrible consequences, their future will be compromised.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!