Leilão de petróleo arrecada R$ 90 mi; Petrobras leva metade dos blocos

18 de dezembro de 2008

http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/dinheiro/ult91u480999.shtml
18/12/2008

Leilão de petróleo arrecada R$ 90 mi; Petrobras leva metade dos blocos

CIRILO JUNIOR

da Folha Online, no Rio

A 10ª Rodada de Licitações da ANP (Agência Nacional do Petróleo, Gás Natural e Biocombustíveis) terminou com 54 blocos arrematados dos 130 que foram ofertados. A arrecadação chegou a R$ 89,4 milhões. A Petrobras dominou amplamente o leilão, levando 27 blocos, sozinha ou em parceria, ao custo de R$ 39,9 milhões.

Foram leiloados 14 blocos na bacia Potiguar, quatro na do Amazonas, seis na bacia do Parecis, três em Sergipe-Alagoas, um na bacia do Paraná, nove na do São Francisco e 11 no Recôncavo

O consórcio que conta com a distribuidora de energia mineira Cemig obteve a concessão para explorar seis blocos, dos quais quatro na bacia do São Francisco, um na do Recôncavo e outro na Potiguar.

A Shell levou cinco blocos, todos na bacia do São Francisco. Fora a Petrobras, a Shell foi a única grande empresa do setor que apresentou propostas no leilão.

Segundo Francisco Nepomuceno, gerente de Exploração e Produção da Petrobras, a empresa tem o compromisso de investir ao menos R$ 200 milhões nos blocos que arrematou. A estatal levou 27 dos 28 blocos que disputou, sendo oito em parceria com outras empresas (Petrogal e Partex).

http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/dinheiro/ult91u480999.shtml

Ato contra os leilões do petróleo e em defesa da Petrobrás 100% estatal

5 de dezembro de 2008

http://sindipetro-rs.com.br/site/images/boletins/bi241.pdf

Sindipetro-RS

Porto Alegre, 05 de dezembro de 2008.

Ato contra os leilões do petróleo e em defesa da Petrobrás 100% estatal

Boletim INFORMATIVO

Convocamos toda a classe petroleira, juntamente com outros movimentos políticos e sociais, a se mobilizarem e participarem do ato de protesto contra a privatização das nossas reservas de petróleo, contidas especialmente na camada Pré-Sal.

No dia 15 de dezembro está prevista manifestação no Centro de Porto Alegre, com concentração na Esquina Democrática, às 11 horas da manhã, e caminhada até a Praça da Alfândega, ao meio-dia.

Em defesa da soberania e de nossos empregos!

Boletim Informativo do Sindipetro-RS. Sindipetro-RS. Porto Alegre, 05 de dezembro de 2008. Ano I – n. 241, pg. 1. Disponível em:  http://sindipetro-rs.com.br/site/images/boletins/bi241.pdf


Seminário da FUP enfatiza urgência de uma nova lei do petróleo

2 de dezembro de 2008

http://www.presal.org.br/mobilizacao_lista_presal2.php?id=38

PreSal.org

02/12/2008

Seminário da FUP enfatiza urgência de uma nova lei do petróleo

Imprensa da FUP

A FUP e seus sindicatos realizaram na segunda-feira, 01/12, o seminário Regulação do setor petrolífero brasileiro, um desafio para os trabalhadores, que reuniu mais de 200 pessoas no Hotel Braston, em São Paulo. O evento contou com a participação do presidente da Petrobrás, José Sérgio Gabrielli, do senador Aloizio Mercadante (PT/SP), do economista Henrique Jäger, do professor da USP, Ildo Sauer, do jornalista Washington Novaes, do jurista Fábio Konder Comparato e do assistente da Presidência da Petrobrás Biocombustível, Vanderlei Cardoso Ferreira, que debateram a importância estratégica do pré-sal para o povo brasileiro e a necessidade de uma nova legislação para garantir a soberania energética do país e o controle estatal e social do petróleo e gás natural.

O coordenador da FUP, João Antônio de Moraes, saudou os convidados e o público presente, destacando que o objetivo do seminário é contribuir para a luta em defesa do controle estatal e da destinação social do pré-sal, enfocando no debate as questões políticas e não aspectos meramente econômicos. “O movimento sindical petroleiro sempre se pautou pela defesa da energia como um bem social, que deve ser democratizado e, acima de tudo, fomentador de um projeto de desenvolvimento com justiça social”, ressaltou. “Consideramos corajosa a posição do governo de ter retirado as áreas do pré-sal dos processos de licitação da ANP, mas este debate precisa ir além das reservas recentemente descobertas. Queremos a suspensão da 10ª Rodada e estamos discutindo uma greve da categoria petroleira se o leilão for mantido. A atual crise financeira deixou claro para o mundo a importância de um Estado forte e regulador o que, portanto, torna ainda mais urgentes mudanças na lei do petróleo”, declarou o coordenador da FUP.

O seminário teve início pela manhã, com o painel O atual cenário petrolífero brasileiro, cuja palestra inicial foi feita pelo presidente da Petrobrás, que explicou a complexidade do pré-sal e seu imenso potencial. José Sérgio Gabrielli enfatizou a importância de um planejamento de longo prazo para o êxito da empresa na exploração e produção dos blocos já adquiridos na área do pré-sal. Dos 112.000 quilômetros quadrados da costa brasileira onde estão situadas as reservas de petróleo já mapeadas abaixo da camada de sal, 41.000 quilômetros quadrados foram concedidos através de licitações realizadas pela Agência Nacional de Petróleo (ANP).

A Petrobrás tem participação em blocos que representam 35.000 quilômetros quadrados desta região. Somente nos blocos de Tupi, Yara e Parque das Baleias, a empresa estima ter reservas entre 9,5 bilhões a 14 bilhões de barris de petróleo leve.

Gabrielli ressaltou os desafios para colocar os poços em produção. “Os campos estão a 330 Km de distância. Temos de pensar em novas formas de organização da produção, temos uma série de desafios de engenharia e de logística que estão sendo estudados”, destacou. O presidente da Petrobrás também enfatizou a necessidade de contratação de trabalhadores próprios, assim como a preparação e treinamento de profissionais envolvidos diretamente na cadeia produtiva do setor. “Através do Prominp (Programa de Mobilização da Indústria Nacional de Petróleo e Gás Natural), esperamos preparar 112 mil trabalhadores até 2010 para atuarem nanacional de petróleo”.

O economista Henrique Jäger, técnico do Dieese na subseção da FUP, enfatizou em sua palestra a urgência de uma nova regulamentação para o setor. Ele condenou o modelo de concessão que é a base da atual Lei 9.478/97, destacando que esse sistema está em desuso no mundo desde a década de 60. O economista enfatizou que o fortalecimento da Petrobrás no governo Lula, os investimentos que levaram à descoberta do pré-sal, assim como a retomada da indústria naval brasileira e a criação do Prominp foram decisões, acima de tudo, políticas. “Alterar a regulamentação do setor será agora um passo fundamental na consolidação de todas estas mudanças. Se trata de decidirmos quem irá controlar uma das maiores reservas de petróleo do mundo: a nação brasileira ou as empresas multinacionais?”

O jornalista Washington Novaes frisou a importância de contextualizar a discussão das matrizes energéticas com os impactos ambientais. Ele ressaltou que o Brasil já é considerado o quarto maior emissor de carbono do mundo e, portanto, precisa repensar sua matriz energética e padrões de consumo. “Temos que ampliar este debate. Precisamos discutir se os impactos ambientais em toda a cadeia de consumo gerada pelo petróleo são ou não admissíveis e a quem cabe pagar os custos”, destacou.

O senador Aloizio Mercadante (PT/SP), o último palestrante do painel da manhã, foi enfático ao afirmar que as decisões em relação ao pré-sal garantirão ou não um novo país para as futuras gerações. “Este é o momento de possibilitarmos a democratização das riquezas do petróleo e gás, tendo em vista um novo projeto de país para o Brasil. Por isso, temos que rediscutir também os critérios de tributação das riquezas geradas pelo pré-sal”, declarou.

O senador citou o exemplo de Guiné Bissau, país da África que, desde que passou a explorar petróleo, passou a ser uma das dez nações com maior PIB per capita do planeta, mas ainda continua tendo um dos menores índices de desenvolvimento humano. Aloizio Mercadante ressaltou a importância estratégica do pré-sal, lembrando que as descobertas destas reservas é um dos fatos mais importantes no atual cenário geopolítico. “Não podemos esquecer que os Estados Unidos, que é o maior consumidor de energia do mundo e um dos maiores importadores de petróleo, estão com suas reservas próprias de óleo praticamente esgotadas. As reservas atuais do país duram, no máximo, mais seis anos”, ressaltou. O senador foi taxativo em relação à urgência de uma nova legislação para o setor petróleo no Brasil e defendeu o regime de partilha e a unitização das reservas do pré-sal para capitalização da Petrobrás, aumentando, assim, a participação do governo em sua composição acionária.

O seminário prosseguiu na parte da tarde, com o painel Soberania e aplicabilidade: os royalties e a Lei do Petróleo, mediado pelo diretor da FUP, Paulo César Martin, e que teve como palestrantes o professor da USP, Ildo Sauer, o jurista e conselheiro da Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil, Fábio Konder Comparato, e o assistente da Presidência da Petrobrás Biocombustível, Vanderlei Cardoso Ferreira. O primeiro palestrante do painel foi o jurista Fábio Comparato, que destacou que a luta por uma nova lei do petróleo não é um desafio somente dos trabalhadores, mas de todo o povo brasileiro. “A Constituição garante o monopólio da União sobre as jazidas brasileiras e não faz qualquer referência à concessão. A lei 9.478/97 é que permite que a empresa concessionária da exploração do petróleo e gás brasileiro seja privilegiada também com a propriedade deste serviço. Isto é um absurdo, pois o sistema de concessão, como o próprio nome diz, é uma concessão dada pelo Estado e não um patrimônio repassado às empresas concessionárias. A lei 9.478/97, portanto, é inconstitucional, mas o Supremo Tribunal Federal não reconhece esta arbitrariedade”, explicou.

O jurista frisou que é fundamental unificar a luta por uma nova regulamentação para o setor, buscando apoio em toda a sociedade brasileira. “Esta é uma campanha de interesse nacional, que deve estar acima de qualquer diferença partidária ou interesses pessoais. Temos que envolver a OAB e a CNBB nesta luta, além de muitas outras entidades”, declarou.

O professor Ildo Sauer, que já foi diretor da Petrobrás, ressaltou que a atual legislação do setor petróleo, cuja base é o modelo de concessão, não tem razão der ser, pois não há riscos exploratórios na área do pré-sal. “Esse modelo prevê um prêmio para quem corre o risco de encontrar petróleo. No pré-sal, não existe risco algum. As tecnologias para explorar em águas profundas já são conhecidas e a empresa que detém a capacidade mais avançada para realizar essa tarefa é a Petrobrás. Aliás, o pré-sal só foi descoberto por causa da competência e eficiência dos trabalhadores da Petrobrás”, declarou. “O petróleo continua sendo o centro da disputa econômica em todo o mundo, independentemente de crises financeiras, como a atual”, emendou Ildo Sauer, destacando a importância de uma grande mobilização nacional para garantir uma nova regulamentação para o pré-sal que, em sua opinião, deve ser explorado e desenvolvido integralmente pela Petrobrás. “Minha proposta é que o governo recompre as ações da empresa, acabe com os processos licitatórios e crie um fundo constitucional”, afirmou.

Vanderlei Ferreira, da Petrobrás Biocombustível, explicou o objetivo da nova subsidiária da Petrobrás, criada para desenvolver e implementar programas tecnológicos de energia renovável, buscando, através de seus projetos, contribuir para a inclusão social. Ele destacou a importância do marco regulatório do biodiesel, ressaltando as metas do governo brasileiro para ampliar a produção e consumo de biocombustíveis, gerando trabalho e renda no campo, através da agricultura familiar. “Segurança energética tem a ver com soberania nacional e também com desenvolvimento social e sustentabilidade ambiental. É essa a nossa principal contribuição neste debate”, declarou.

O coordenador da FUP, João Antônio de Moraes, encerrou o seminário, convocando a militância e o público que assistiu às palestras a transformarem o que foi discutido no seminário em ações sociais e mobilizações que ampliem a luta em defesa da soberania nacional e pelo controle estatal e social das reservas de petróleo e gás. Os vídeos com a íntegra de todas as palestras do seminário estão disponíveis nas páginas da FUP http://www.fup.org.br e da campanha em defesa do pré-sal para o povo brasileiro http://www.presal.org.br

http://www.presal.org.br/mobilizacao_lista_presal2.php?id=38

Brazil Rising

1 de dezembro de 2008

http://www.ip-global.org/archiv/volumes/2008/autumn2008/download/1dd8a61d6ed70b48a6111ddb16b6d3f947ede34de34/original_3_lima.pdf

IP–Global

Autumn 2008

Brazil Rising

Maria Regina Soares de Lima

Brazil’s very recent emergence on the global stage has fueled debate in the country between those advocating adaptation to international norms and those who view Brazil’s real interests conflicting with the current world order. The latter position urges the Brasilia leadership to strive to create new norms that serve Brazil’s interests.

The key aim of Brazilian foreign policy has long been to achieve international recognition as a major player in international affairs. This aim stemmed from its belief that it should assume its “natural” role as a “big country” in the world arena.1 Now, as a result of the concurrence of a changing international environment and an altered domestic polity, Brazil seems closer than ever before to achieving this aim. It is gaining increasing international recognition and is poised to emerge as a “big power.” However, there remain several challenges that need to be addressed in order for Brazil to meaningfully participate in global governance. This article outlines the factors that have led to Brazil’s rise, the conceptual basis of Brazilian foreign policy, and the challenges ahead.

It is clearly visible that Brazil is increasingly recognized as a major player in the international arena. It is included among the “outreach five countries” along with China, India, Mexico, and South Africa, which participate in “constructive engagement” with the G-8. Engagement also seems to be the goal of the European Union, which has established strategic partnerships with countries such as South Africa, Brazil, and India. It is interesting that the increased attention given to Brazil is not necessarily linked to military capacity, but rather to Brazil’s ever greater importance in the global economy.

This rising importance has been triggered by two major changes in the international environment. The first is economic globalization and the spread of capitalism. Many developing countries abandoned their previous economic models and took to capitalism after the end of the Cold War. As a result, many of these peripheral countries, such as Brazil, became strongly integrated into the international economy through their participation in global chains of production. This has led to a new intermediate layer of emerging economies such as the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) and the Large Peripheral Countries (LPC). Some of these developing countries evolved their own forms of state-coordinated capitalism through which governments perform not only the regulatory role of the state, but also foster policies for social inclusion, and more assertive foreign policies. A consequence of this has been the questioning of the traditional models of economic growth and development. The space available for countries such as Brazil to showcase their own paths of development in the international arena has increased.

The second major change in the international environment that had a positive impact on Brazil was the demise of authoritarian governments and the successful transitions to democracy in Latin America and Eastern Europe in the 1990s. Latin America’s position under US influence during the Cold War had been detrimental for democracy in the region. Today, Cold War-style military interventions are no longer possible. In this new context progressive governments have not only been elected but have also been able to carry out their terms.

It was in this new international context that Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s government was elected to power in 2002. As Brazil has become more integrated into the global economy, its negotiating positions have gradually become more assertive—both in the domain of trade and in the political forums of the United Nations. In the future, Brazil might benefit further from the rising importance of energy and food production in global geopolitics. It is already a large producer of bio-fuels. If the expected discovery of oil off the Brazilian coast is confirmed, Brazil will also play a major role in the production of conventional fuels. In food production, Brazil stands out not only as a competitive agricultural and mineral commodities exporter but also as an important agricultural producer. Naturally, the potential benefits of these strengths will also depend on the policies followed by the Brazilian government.

Brazilian Foreign Policy

It is possible to identify two main strands of thought in Brazilian foreign policy. The first could be called “cosmopolitanism” or a “search for credibility,” which places emphasis on the need to view the country from the outside. According to this view, Brazil does not have a surplus of power, and therefore needs to assert itself through international cooperation on the basis of international rules and institutions. In concrete terms, this implies that Brazil should adjust to the world by adapting itself to the constraints of global governance, and it should complete the cycle of structural economic reforms initiated in the 1990s in response to the demands of global capitalism. This concept also advocates that Brazil should play a constructive role in the international order, which could lead to the forsaking of traditional Brazilian foreign policy principles such as nonintervention, in order to promote democracy or on the grounds of humanitarian intervention.2

The second strand of thought places much more direct emphasis on an “autonomous foreign policy.” However, the Brazilian perception of autonomy should not be confused with autonomy as defined by realist theorists of international relations. It does not mean attempting to avoid any dependence on other countries and seeking complete self-sufficiency. Rather, it means conceiving Brazil’s position in the world “from the inside,” i.e. based on its specific interests. It implies pursuing Brazil’s interests within a global structure that is perceived to be restrictive and does not favor these interests. The pursuit of autonomy should lead to Brazil’s active participation in the creation and application of international norms that are closer to Brazilian interests and values.3

This second strand of thought has been the guiding principle for the Lula government’s foreign policy. In brief, the government has attempted to: (1) affirm Brazil’s national interests; (2) undertake collective action with other countries from the South to transform the world order; and (3) work toward a global balance of power through the formation of regional power poles.

The government’s actions and the two dominant strands of thought must be viewed within the historical context of Brazilian foreign policy. The two strands of thought can be linked back to two positions that emerged after World War II. The first championed the establishment of privileged relationships with the developed world and the United States in particular as a means to achieve international recognition. A second route placed emphasis on Brazil’s identity as a developing country and advised closer links with what was then called the Third World.4 Each one of these visions was more or less dominant in different governments. Among Brazilian diplomats, the prevailing belief was that Brazil could act as a bridge between the North and the South by serving as a mediator, especially in negotiations involving the international development agenda.

This period produced two important legacies in Brazilian foreign policy. One was the primacy of development over political and military goals in the shaping of foreign policy. The second was a strong attachment to multilateralism. Multilateral arenas were prioritized because of the country’s limited capacity, but also because of Brazil’s support for a series of normative principles closely associated with multilateralism, namely self-determination, nonintervention, and respect for international law.5

In this context the specific contribution of the Lula government’s foreign policy consists in putting into practice through diplomacy the autonomy that for many years was envisioned by much of the foreign policy community. However, even though this concept of autonomy acts as a guiding principle, this does not imply that it will be fully implemented. There are restrictions imposed by the coalition government that supports Lula, which includes centrist parties. The other chief restriction in the pursuit of autonomy is that the government has continued to follow its predecessor’s current-account surplus goals in order to maintain macroeconomic stability.

Despite these constraints, there has been significant foreign policy innovation in Brazil that highlights the assertiveness of the current administration. Brazil is now participating in global politics through many different channels. There is increasing emphasis on regional collaboration within South America through the creation of a South American political community known as the Union of South American Nations (Unasul). Brazil took command of the UN peacekeeping mission in Haiti (Minustah) in 2004, and has assumed a high-profile role in regional politics. Most recently, it floated a proposal to create a South American Defense Council as a mechanism to prevent conflict in the region.

Brazil’s active campaign for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council demonstrates its new assertiveness. It has also taken a leading role in the coordination of collective action among developing countries through the creation of the G-20, which focuses on agriculture-related issues in the WTO. It has formed South-South coalitions such as the IBSA (India, Brazil and South Africa) initiative. The formalization of relations between the BRICs, the group made up by Brazil, Russia, India, and China, has created a significant coalition that may become a further mechanism for coordinated action. According to the current Brazilian foreign minister, Celso Amorim, these four countries “are trying to consolidate themselves politically as a bloc that will help to balance and democratize the international order in the beginning of this century.”6

Challenges Ahead

Although Brazil is participating much more actively in international affairs with hopes of democratizing the international order, many challenges remain. Naturally, a foreign policy conception that emphasizes the pursuit of autonomy makes it more difficult to construct convergent positions with dominant powers on a range of issues such as technological innovation, intellectual property, non-tariff barriers, protectionism in agricultural trade, and climate change. This difficulty would be diminished if Brazilian positions shifted toward a more “cosmopolitan” view of participation in international relations. However, if such a shift occurred, then it would be more difficult to establish common positions with countries in the South. This would undermine Brazil’s importance in global governance as a potential leader and coordinator for collective action and consensus in the South.

On the other hand, the harmonization of positions tends to be more costly with countries in the South: either because the North-South agenda is cross-cut by a variety of issues that the current pattern of alignments does not neatly mirror, or because the former Third World coalition today unites an uneven set of countries displaying considerable structural heterogeneity and differentiated interests. For a country like Brazil, the coordination of collective action with countries in the South often implies having to put aside its optimal demands for the sake of the coalition’s cohesion as, for example, in the case of the G-20.

Another significant challenge that must be overcome is the global-regional dilemma common to all regional powers that aspire to become global protagonists. In order to achieve global recognition, these candidates must first be legitimated at the regional level since they do not possess enough material capacity or soft power to act autonomously in international politics. On the other hand, their status also depends on their capacity to coordinate and establish consensus within the South. This delicate equation is not easy to resolve and Brazil has already clashed with Argentina over the possibility of a -permanent seat in the UN Security Council. For Brazil, which has only recently put into practice active regional cooperation, the alliance with Argentina is crucial in order to coordinate collective action in South America, particularly on issues related to security and regional stability. Past experience has shown that positive results are achieved when this happens as, for example, in the recent crises involving Bolivia, Colombia, and Ecuador.

A second challenge relates specifically to South American politics in which Brazil simultaneously faces fear from other countries in the region and high expectations. Some of its neighbors fear “Brazilian expansionism.” Yet they also expect Brazil to have the capacity and will to provide regional and bilateral collective goods. Brazil’s willingness to fulfil this role will depend not only on its foreign policy aims, but also on the extent to which Brazilian policy makers and society at large acknowledge that substantial investments today will pay off in the long run. This acknowledgement will be strengthened by increasing the volume of Brazilian trade and investment in South America. As borders become increasingly permeable, there will be growing realization in Brazil that a considerable power differential between neighbors presents an enormous challenge, even for the strongest among them. It is still uncertain whether Brazil will be able to advance adequate responses to the challenges and opportunities in its relationship with other South American countries. In doing so, Brazil must avoid giving in to the temptations of hegemony while at the same time maintaining positive relations with its neighbors.

Besides the foreign policy challenges mentioned above, there are also domestic challenges that need to be overcome before Brazil can meaningfully participate in global governance. The Brazilian government needs to develop policies that convert potential wealth into well-being for its population. There is anxiety that the country’s successful participation in the global production of energy and food might further the classical division of labor in which Brazil’s role as a commodities exporter would become inescapable. If this were to happen, Brazil would lose the incentive to invest in technological development and its labor force might not acquire the skills it needs to face global competition, which today is based on the production and trade of goods with high scientific and technological value.

The last but most urgent challenge is the extreme inequalities of wealth that continue to characterize Brazilian society. Although the Lula government, by means of its current income transfer policies, has taken fundamental steps in the reduction of inequality, Brazilian indicators are still far from those of a democratic country that aspires to become a protagonist in global governance.

In order to assume a role as an active participant in global governance, Brazil needs to resolve domestic challenges such as social inequality and technological development. It will also need to resolve complex challenges at the international level, including the need to reconcile diverging interests in its relations with the North, with the South, and with its neighbors. While this international balancing act may never be resolved entirely, its successful management will require a careful synthesis of the “autonomous” and the “cosmopolitan” strands in Brazilian foreign policy.

1) Maria Regina Soares de Lima and Monica Hirst, “Brazil as an Intermediate State and Regional Power: Challenges and Opportunities,” International Affairs, Vol. 82, No. 1 (January 2006) p. 21.
2) For a discussion of the cosmopolitan view in the present, see Maria Regina Soares de Lima, “Aspiração Internacional e Política Externa,” Revista Brasileira de Comércio Exterior, Vol. 19, No. 82 (January/March, 2005).
3) For such elaboration, see Samuel Pinheiro Guimarães, Desafios Brasileiros na Era dos Gigantes, (Contraponto Editora Ltda., 2006).
4)For an analysis of these two positions in the 1950s, see Helio Jaguaribe, O Nacionalismo na Atualidade Brasileira, (Editora Universitária Candido Mendes, 2005). For a similar argument with respect to Latin America, see Rubens Ricupero, “O Brasil, a América Latina e os EUA desde 1930: 60 Anos de uma Relação Triangular,” in J. A. G. Albuquerque (ed.), Sessenta anos de política externa brasileira (1930-1990), (Cultura Editores Associados, 1996).
5) See Maria Regina Soares de Lima and Monica Hirst, “Brazil as an Intermediate State & Regional Power: Challenges and Opportunities,” International Affairs, Vol. 82, No. 1 (January 2006).
6) See Celso Amorim, “Os Brics e a reorganização do mundo,” Tendências/Debates, 08/06/2008.

IP–Global Edition are published by the German Council on Foreign Relations, Berlin (DGAP), Germany.

LIMA, Maria R. S. (2008) “Brazil Rising”, IP–Global. Outono de 2008: “Perspectives on a Multipolar World”, pg. 62-67. Disponível em <http://www.ip-global.org/archiv/volumes/2008/autumn2008/download/1dd8a61d6ed70b48a6111ddb16b6d3f947ede34de34/original_3_lima.pdf&gt;

http://www.ip-global.org/archiv/volumes/2008/autumn2008/download/1dd8a61d6ed70b48a6111ddb16b6d3f947ede34de34/original_3_lima.pdf

%d blogueiros gostam disto: