In a compelling interview with UM BRASIL – an initiative of the Sao Paulo State Federation of Trade in Goods, Services, and Tourism (FecomercioSP), Professor Feliciano de Sá Guimarães, a distinguished scholar from the University of São Paulo’s Institute of International Relations, offers a sweeping analysis of Brazil’s foreign policy challenges in an increasingly fragmented world order. His remarks outline not only Brazil's strategic positioning vis-à-vis the United States and the BRICS, but also the domestic and electoral implications of global realignments.
It is important to note that this interview was recorded during one of the most strained moments in the recent history of Brazil-US relations. Since then, the two countries have cautiously resumed diplomatic engagement in a tone that, at least initially, appears less confrontational.
Guimarães begins by addressing the rationale behind President Donald Trump’s decision to impose steep tariffs on Brazilian exports. While domestic politics in the US clearly played a role, he emphasizes that geopolitical irritants were also at play. Brazil's alignment with BRICS, he argues, places the country under greater scrutiny from Washington. The group’s expansion, with new members from Africa and the Middle East, further deepens its economic and strategic significance, making Brazil a more visible actor in a world moving toward multipolarity.
Rather than retreating, Brazil's proximity to the BRICS is expected to grow as American coercion intensifies. The logic is existential: the more pressure Brazil faces from the US, the more it will pivot toward alternative coalitions. Guimarães notes the economic opportunities within BRICS, highlighting expanded trade with countries like India and Vietnam, and framing the alliance as a crucial gateway to the most dynamic regions of the global economy.
Yet, as the BRICS expands, internal contradictions emerge. The bloc’s heterogeneity is its strength – unlike the ideologically aligned G7, BRICS includes democracies and authoritarian regimes alike. This diversity, however, complicates Brazil's foreign policy, particularly considering its domestic commitment to democracy. Guimarães points out that while India, Brazil, and South Africa may form a democratic sub-coalition within BRICS, their influence is counterbalanced by states like Iran and Egypt.
In this context, Guimarães stresses the growing relevance of a third axis in Brazil’s foreign policy: democracy versus authoritarianism. Traditionally analyzed through the lenses of alignment/autonomy and openness/protectionism, Brazilian foreign policy must now contend with its normative dimension. Public opinion, he argues, is increasingly attuned to these values. Surveys conducted by the Brazilian Center of Analysis and Planning (CEBRAP) and the University of São Paulo (USP) reveal a nation evenly divided on BRICS: roughly a third view the alliance positively, a third negatively, and a third remain indifferent.
The implications are electoral. Guimarães predicts that the 2026 Brazilian presidential election will be the first in which foreign policy plays a decisive role at the ballot box. With Trump reasserting a hardline approach to Latin America, he argues that Washington's aggressive posture is designed, in part, to shift Brazil's alignment. The goal: weaken the current administration’s ties to the Global South and reorient Brazil toward Western interests. In this evolving terrain, diplomats may find themselves increasingly sidelined as foreign policy becomes a partisan battleground.
Guimarães also reflects on Brazil's elusive quest for regional leadership. Despite its demographic and economic clout, Brazil struggles to exert normative and material influence across Latin America. Past initiatives like UNASUR have faltered, often undermined by poor institutional design and regional rivalries. While Argentina once bandwagoned with Brazil within Mercosur, recent signs suggest Buenos Aires may pivot toward a balancing strategy aligned with the United States.
A similarly ambivalent story unfolds on the global stage. Brazil has long aspired to a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, a bid formally endorsed by France, Russia, and the UK, but stalled by US resistance. Without American support, meaningful reform remains remote. And yet, as Guimarães notes, the growing mismatch between global power dynamics and institutional representation only deepens the case for reform.
Ultimately, he offers a nuanced, if sobering, view of Brazilian foreign policy. It is a story of aspirations constrained by structural realities, of diplomatic ambition tested by domestic divisions, and of a country seeking voice and relevance in a world that is both multipolar and uncertain. For Brazil to realize its potential, it must learn to navigate these contradictions with strategic clarity and institutional resilience.
To watch the full interview in Portuguese, click here.
