1
Buildinganewstrategy:theuseofCulturalDiplomacybyBrazilianGovernment
Abstract
Thepaperwillexploretheco-relationbetweendiplomacyandculturewhenStatesseekfor
powerintheinternationalarena.Wepostulatethatcountrieswithaninteresttopushthe
currentpowerstructure–andchangetoday’sestablishedorder–cantrytouseculturalassets
toenforcetheirowninterestsandvaluesattheinternationalarena.Consideringthatculture
becomesanapparatustoachievepowerandtransforminternationalsociety,wehypothesize
that emerging powers - introduced lately at International Society - could articulate their
positions by associating culture and diplomacy – an essential institution of international
society. The instrumentalization of culture by Cultural Diplomacy contributes to these
countries becoming more reputable in the international environment and tends to restructure the balance of power. We propose to use the Brazilian case to illustrate our
proposition. In this way, the paper will especially work with literature about International
CulturalRelationsanditsintersectionwithCulturalHistory.TheworksofRobertFrank,Pascal
OryandAnaïsFléchétwillofferthemaincontributionforthisargument.
Introduction
TheresearchpresentedhereintendstobeacontributiontoInternationalRelations
researchfield,especiallybyincorporatingelementsofCulturalHistoryandbyreflectionon
identityissuesandonBrazilianinternationalprojectioninthetwenty-firstcentury.Thus,from
thestudyoftheBrazilianculturaldiplomacystrategiesinthebeginningofthiscentury–period
of major changes in the organization of international relations of Brazil –, we aim to
demonstratehowcountriesconsidered‘emergingpoles’(LIMA,2010)canandmakeuseof
mechanismscreatedbyStatesestablishedinInternationalSociety.
Wepostulatethatoneofthewaysinwhichstatesseekpower–andthismostlyfrom
the1990swiththefalloftheBerlinWallandthestrengtheningofbodiessuchastheUnited
Nations–isfromanactiveparticipationintheinternationalarenainwhichcontributesthe
articulationofnationalculturalfactorswiththoseproceedingfrominternational“culture”.
Weconsiderherethatpoliticalparticipationofacountry,ininternationalrelations
scope,leadstotheformationofseveralimagesoftheState,presentedand/orrepresented
2
intheinternationalarena.Thereisaneedforprojectionthat,whennotachievedbyweapons
means,tendstobesuppliedinotherways.Oneofthemwouldbefrominternationalcultural
relationsorthewaythemovementofrepresentations,practices,waysoflifeandsymbolic
objectsthatcrossborders(FRANK,2012,p.373)andhelpState’simageinternationally.
Identity,ImaginariesandInternationalCulturalRelations
TounderstandtheforeignpolicyofaStateanditsintegrationstrategyadoptedover
time,wemust,first,understandwhatvaluesaregoverningdomesticpoliticsandarelinked
totheforeignpolicyofthiscountry.Thisbringsustothequestionofnationalidentityand
alsoofculturalidentity:giventheworld'sculturaldiversity,itispossibletopostulatealso
thatnationalidentityandnationalimaginariescirculatingintheinternationalarenaareof
greatimportancefortheestablishmentofdialoguebetweentheStates.
Thetransmissionofcustoms,valuesandideasispossibleasthecountrydefineswhat
itconsidersmostimportantorstrategicallyefficienttorepresentitselfabroad.Theattempt
wouldbenotonlytounderstandother’saction,basedoncognitivevariablesthataffectthis
action,asalsotorealizetowhatextentacountryseekstoinstrumentalizeitscultureand
transmitittotheircounterpartsintheinternationalsociety.Thus,language,music,dance,
theater, cinema, science and technology, become extremely important axes for national
identitytransmissiononasupranationallevel.AswellconsideredMilza(1980),theculture
isafactororanagentofInternationalRelationsinsofarasitisabletoshapementalitiesand
toguidepublicsentimentinrelationtotheOther.
IninscribingourworkinthefieldofInternationalCulturalRelations,itisnecessarya
briefdescriptionofit,withintheInternationalRelationsdomain.InInternationalRelations
field,theanalysisofStates’manipulationofculturalfactorsaspowerprojectionmechanism
hasheld,untilthepresenttime,aperipheralplaceaspointedoutbysomeauthors(RIBEIRO,
1989,NYE,2002,2004,MONTIEL,2009).StrictlyinHistoryfield,itisclearthatnotonlythe
culturalhistoryanalysishasbeenpresentedasanextremelyfruitfulresearchfield,aswellas
itsparametershavebeenimportanttounderstandthepoliticalusethatismadeofcultural
historyitself.ThisisanissuehighlightedbyrecentauthorssuchasDennisRolland(1999,p.
12). It is precisely the combination of these two fields, foreign policy and reworking of
3
culturalhistory,thatemergesfromthepoliticalgovernmentsphereofaction,identifiedin
theinternationalrelationscontext,andwhichweareveryinterestedinresearch:theHistory
ofInternationalCulturalRelations(CHAUBET;MARTION,2011;DULPHYetal,2010).
InternationalCulturalRelationsare,then,therelationshipsthatareforgedaslongas
two or more States are in contact. The first objective of such relations is not to produce
unilateraladvantage,buttocreateafruitfulenvironmentformultilateralbenefits,marked
by understanding and cooperation between national societies for their mutual benefit
(MITCHELL,1986,p.34).Thisbecause,whencreatingaculturalexchangeenvironment,the
countryestablisheswithotherStatesastandarddialoguewithsharedsymbols,presenting,
thus,importantresults,notonlyintheculturalaswellaseconomic,commercialandpolitical
scopes(RIBEIRO,1989),somuchdomesticallyandabroad.
Thus, the transmission of culture from one country to another, carried out
intentionallythroughspecificpolicies,throughtheso-called"CulturalDiplomacy",islinked
to values and national meanings - elaborated in every State, often with State apparatus
support-thatseektoshapetherelationshipbetweennationalsandforeigners.Thisinternal
collective framework, based on shared values, rites and myths; or simply symbolic goods
that,sharedworldwide,ultimatelyrepresentaNation-Statefortherestoftheworld.The
success of cultural diplomacy depends on the ability to generate an atmosphere of
confidence by developing the ability to listen to others, recognizing the value of other
cultures,showingasinceredesiretolearnandimplementingprogramsthatactuallyfacilitate
equitablecommunicationinboththedirections.
So,weconceivethatquestionsofculturalidentityandrepresentationsareessential
to the formation of circulating imaginaries not only nationally. Used as mechanism of
achievingpowerintheinternationalarena,theculturebecomesvaluedandpromotedby
Statestotheextentthatitcanservetoitsinterests.AsstressedbyRibeiro(1989),thisisnot,
however,astrategythatseeksimmediateresults:byrelyingonthedevelopmentofshared
knowledgeabouteachotherandtheformationofaninterculturaldialogue,anymechanism
basedoncultureshouldseeklastingobjectives,possibletoachieveinlongterm.Itseems
importanttonote,then,howistheapplicationofthisconcepttoBrazilianculturaldiplomacy
scenario.
TheentryofemergingregionsinaprominentspaceintheInternationalSocietyis
quitedifficult.OneofthereasonswouldbepreciselythedifficultytosuitastronglyChristian
4
Western European context that ignores types of collectivity beyond the established
standards(JACKSON,2006).TobepartofcontemporaryInternationalSociety,non-European
States-andevenEuropean-peripherals,suchasRussiaandTurkey-shoulddemonstratethe
abilitytofollowthepre-existingrulesandshowthatsharethevaluesofthatSociety.Letus,
then,toanoverviewoftheBraziliancase.
BrazilandInternationalSocietydynamics:Theimagesthatiswantedtodiffuse
In considering the history of Brazil, we realize insistent attempt to join the
International Society since Empire’s time - as the name itself, in the period of colonial
independence,in1822,indicates.ItwasnotlivedabreakwithEuropeanpoliticalandsocial
organization patterns. On the contrary, what we see is a gradual attempt to copy such
standards and achieve excellence in them. That would be the keynote of the whole
nineteenth century and much of the twentieth century. Therefore, when participating of
internationalevents,theBrazilianattemptwouldbasetheirstancebytheEuropeanmodel:
first, with the Empire and, then, with the Republic. By doing so, as noted by Monique
Goldfeld (2012), Brazil would be considered a sort of 'Neo Europe'. Hence, throughout
Brazilianhistory,therulersattempted,inonewayoranother,tocreateafavorableimageof
thecountryinternationally.
Thisattempthas,asbasicprinciple,theconstructionofamoralimpressionofthe
country(State-ownedethos)infavorofitsperformancewiththeotherStates.Anexample
would be the historic attempt of Brazilian representatives to participate, at international
level,inmostofthedecision-makingbodiesthathaveapeacefulnegotiationasmainaxis.
That is, to create a good reputation, the Brazilian representatives stake in speeches that
highlight the existence of a peaceful character and the search for consensus of Brazilian
foreignpolicythatwouldbebasedonsocialjusticeandequitabledevelopment.
Tothatextent,thereisacoordinationofnationalandinternationalvalues,exaltedin
multilateralforums.AsobservedbyRobertFrank(1994),thesystemofrepresentationsis
importantforcross-sectionalimagesthathaveestablished:themselves,abroad;andfrom
theother,internally.Thereis,accordingtotheauthor,somethingofcollectivepsychology,
myths’formation,andinternationalcharacterstereotypesthatmustbeobserved.So,what
5
weseeisthat,insearchforaninternationalleadingrole,Brazilmakesuseofstrategiesthat
combinetherepresentationsthatotheractorsmakeaboutthecountryandpatemization
effects.ThiscanbeseenintheperformanceofBrazilianrepresentativesinforumssuchas
theUN,whotakeaconciliatorystance,fromanethosinternallybuiltandthatisbasedalso
ontherepresentationsthatothernationsmakeaboutBrazil.Thus,understandingBrazilian
internationalstrategydevelopmentnecessarilyinvolvestheperceptionofhowdecisionsare
madewithinthecountry’sinternalpolicy.
Itisunderstood,incontemporarytimes,anattempttoreorganizeBrazil’simaginary
externally,relyingoninternalidentityrestructuringthatwouldfacilitate,evenfurther,the
country'sprojectioninternationally;withoutdenyingtheissueofmiscegenationandnational
identity(SCHWARCZ,1994),whatisperceivedisthatitiscurrentlyaccompaniedbyamultiidentitydiscoursethatwasestablishedinthecountryinthelasttwodecades.Ithastobe
emphasized the affirmation of a government discourse marked by cultural and ethnic
pluralism,whichledtodebateaboutgovernmentactionsandhasbecomequiteiconicinLula
government. In this context, diversity is no longer confined to racial democracy, and the
Brazilianofficialrhetoricgoes,then,tobeprojectedinternationally,asifthecountrywasa
stepforwardinglobaldebatesondiversityandmulticulturalism.AnexampleistheBrazilian
demonstration of respect about cultural exception in a Brazilian way inside international
organizations such as UNESCO. Brazil passes, therefore, to an international proactivity in
defenseofmulticulturalismandmultiplerepresentationforitself.
Inthisway,inourthesis,toassertthepluralityof““Brazils””indiplomaticdiscourse
ofthefirstdecadeofthiscentury,weseektounderstandhowtheissueofmiscegenation,
withoutbeingdestroyed,itisreworkedinordertoallowexactlyagreaterreverberationof
amulticulturaldiscourse.AsnotedbySchwarcz(1994),thereisnorecreationoftheBrazilian
imaginary, but an extension of identitary discourse, being the identity fluid, relative,
contrasted,andsituational(CUNHA,1985asSCHWARCZ,1994).Thus,consideringtheissue
ofmiscegenationasaninherentpartofthecountry'sidentity,Brazil'simagepromotersin
therecentperiodcan,then,expandit,sayingtheexternalculturaltraitsthatwouldhave
formedsuchidentityinadiscourseofdiversitycomprehension.We,therefore,considerthat
miscegenationwaspoliticallyusedinthemostrecentperiodbyBraziliangovernment,not
with the aim of hiding racial markings, but to make room for statements about Brazilian
"culturalexception",givingvoicetoothers““Brazils””.
6
Inthissense,whatevertheweightdeemedtohaveaprioricollectiveidentity,the
roleofgovernmentsmustnotbeoverlookedinthedevelopmentofidentitarytraitssinceit
ispreciselythroughState’smachineryanditsdeterminationtocirculateanationalidentity
that bases its power, that myths and rites will be produced and disseminated, forging a
solidaritythattranscendsthebarriersofclassandreligion,amongothers.
In the late twentieth century, the country would be better placed in international
dynamics,evenoccupyingstillperipheralplaceduetotheunequaldistributionofpowerin
international arena (HURRELL, 2007). The search for a more effective participation and a
leadingpositioninthisscenarioasastrategyofLuladaSilva’sgovernment(2003-2010).Thus,
from the beginning of the first term, the president in question set that Brazil should not
assumesubservientstancetowardsmoredevelopedcountries,powerholdersandcreators
ofInternationalSociety’srules.Itwouldrequireapositionmarkedlyofacountryinpolitical
andeconomicrise,pillarofanyorderthatcouldbeestablished,bytheirdialogueswithall
membersofsuchSociety.Inviewofthisgoal,thecountrywouldrearticulateidentitiesand
imagesinviewoftheimageitwaswantedtoproducetoachievepoliticalempathy.Inthis
sense, one of the strategies to do so, it would be the articulation of cultural diversity at
internationallevelasfromCulturalDiplomacy.LetusturntoabriefanalysisoftheBrazilian
cultural projection policy abroad conducted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to detain,
later, in the case study of the Year of Brazil in France, flagship of the Brazilian Cultural
DiplomacyinLuladaSilva’speriod.
ThedevelopmentofBrazilianCulturalDiplomacy
InBraziliancase,culturaldiplomacyoccupied,historically,averyrestrictedspace:it
isperceivedtherealizationofspecificeventsintheearlytwentiethcenturyandanattempt
tosystematizetheculturalprojectionviacultureinthe1930s.Inthatmoment,therearealso
changesindomesticpoliticscontext,withthereorganizationoftheStateduringthecalled
Vargas Era, a State-owned effort in the creation and sedimentation of a national feeling
where none exists. It is also, in this period, that the country miscegenation is seen less
negatively.
Internationally,ElyséeMontarroyossupportedtheneedforthecountrytoprovidea
7
positiveimageofthecountryandseekthedevelopmentofculturalactivitiestoputBrazilin
evidence.FollowingtheFrenchmodel,thecountryprecedesUnitedStatesandGreatBritain
in their internal debates about international projection through culture. Montarroyos
believedinintellectualcooperationtoofferthepropagandaBrazilneeded,withexchange
programsandinternationalinstitutesofhighculturethatwouldensurethedesiredcontact.
ThisconcernwiththeculturaldimensionasawayofBrazil'simageprojectionwasimportant
forthehistoricalmomentbetweentheWorldWars,inwhichBrazilsoughttotakeactive
stancetowardstheEuropeanpowersandtheUnitedStates,calledbyGersonMoura(1980)
thepragmaticequidistanceperiodofBrazilianforeignpolicy.
Duringthedecadesfrom1960to1980,someimportantchangeshavebeenmadein
viewofthedevelopmentofCulturalDiplomacy.Onceagain,domesticpolicyinfluencedthe
actionexternally:dictatorialperiod,theculturalprojectionofthecountrywasperceivedas
anecessitytocountertheimageofviolencethatwasattributedtothecountry.Inthisway,
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would use Brazilian embassies abroad to promote some
artists,mostlyexiledabroad,insearchofaBrazilianculturalimage.
Thepoliticalopeningperiod,from1985,wasofreorganizationofStatefunctionswith
thecreation,atnationallevel,oftheMinistryofCultureandofrethinkingthestrategiesof
theMinistryofForeignAffairs.Wepostulatethatwasaperiodofinactivityinrelationto
internationalculturalrelationsofthecountry,whichexplains,forexample,Frenchdifficulty
toputintoactionthepilotprojectofaBrazilianseasonin1986.
Thus,whatweseeisthat,despitetheBrazilianattempttobuildaprofitablescenario
forthedevelopmentofitsculturaldiplomacyduringtheperiodextendingfromthebeginning
oftherepublicuntilthelate1990s,thereweredifficultiesintheestablishment,management
and financing of such strategies. This phenomenon was related to concerns about other
issuesforpurviewoftheMinistryofForeignAffairs,especiallyrelatedtotradeandeconomic
stabilityfromexternalfinancing.Therefore,evenpossibilitiesofferedbyothercountries,as
theFrenchinvitationtoHomagetoBrazilintheBookFair1998,weretreatedassecondary,
without a real engagement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The cultural issue would
continue to occupy a peripheral place. At the end of Fernando Henrique Cardoso
government, in 2001, the possibility of a Brazilian season in France is designed, being a
Braziliangovernment’sidea,asacontinuityofthe"500YearsofDiscovery"festivities.This
proposal did not meet French pretensions, in view of the interest to carry out a cultural
8
season that exposes the cultural diversity of the country. Thus, even if approved, the
realization of a cultural season project raised no passion in Brazilian representatives
responsible for it. It is with the beginning of Lula government that we will see significant
changesintheroutingoftheYearofBrazilinFrance.
This is because it is realized that Brazilian cultural projection, longed for since the
beginningoftheRepublic,underwentchangesfromthedirectactionofagroupofthinkers
andpoliticalarticulatorsinfirstdecadeofthiscentury,meetingthecommondemandsofthe
government and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This occurred in favorable domestic and
externalenvironmentsforthistypeofpolicycoordination.Internally,wepostulatethat,from
LuladaSilva’sgovernment,wasareworkingoftheBrazilianidentitytowardthe"defenseof
culturalandethnicdiversity"basedonproposalsapprovedintheResolutionsofMeetings
and Party Congress (1999). This re-articulation of multiple identities for the country's
representationcanbeseeninculturalactivitiespromotedbyBrazilabroad,inawaythat
Statepolicyandgovernmentpolicyareinpreparationofevents,suchastheculturalseason
ofBrazilinFrance.
In this way, there was increasing international projection of Brazil, for a widest
exposure of Lula government’s propositions and high visibility of Brazilian politics in
international arena, especially in the initial period of the government. Domestically, the
periodwasmarkedbytherecognitionofethnicdiversityandconflictsresultingfromit,as
well as the expansion of social policies in order to overcome structural inequalities that
affected groups considered minorities (blacks, Indians and women). Brazilian politics of
restructuringStateapparatusarousedgreatinterestinFrenchgovernment,sinceitfacedfor
years,problemsrelatedtoitsintegrationmodel.Thus,LuladaSilvagovernmentseemedalso
presentpossiblesolutionsforinternationalpolicyissues,reopeningthedebateofquestions
abouttherelationshipbetweenrace,gender,justice,andsocialequality,treatedinthe1988
Constitution(GUIMARAES,2006).
ThenewmulticulturalisminaBrazilianwayandtheaffirmativeactionpolicies-which
wereoriginatedinFernandoHenriqueCardosogovernmentofandweresettledinbothLula
governments-appear,toFrance,aspossiblepointsofdiscussioninthedebateoncitizenship
andsocialintegrationamongtheFrenchthemselves.TherealizationoftheYearofBrazilin
Francewasinscribedlikethis:atinternationallevel,inadeepeningofjointactions,putinto
practice in arenas such as the United Nations and in actions such as the Alliance Against
9
Hunger and Malnutrition (2003); at bilateral level, by strengthening trade, scientific and
technological exchanges and mutual understanding between Brazil and France; and at
nationallevel,inthelogicofdiscussionoverFrenchsocietyfutureintheearlytwenty-first
century.
In the new project, presented by President Lula da Silva, from joint actions of the
Ministry of Culture (with direct participation of Minister Gilberto Gil) and the Ministry of
ForeignAffairs(withthefigureofChancellorCelsoAmorim),anewBrazilianCommissariat
was composed for the event, with participation of personalities from the cultural and
diplomaticcirclesthathadshownpreviousinterestincountry'sCulturalDiplomacyorheld
expertise on the promotion of cultural events. The affirmation of cultural diversity of the
country,asevidencedinthetitle"Brésil,Brésils"cametobe,aswell,somethingthattook
international proportions. From Lula da Silva’s presidential speech on the multiplicity of
countries living in Brazil, considering all economic and cultural differences, and the
proclamationoftheneedforacquaintanceship,learningandsharingofnationalwealthand
cultures.Fromdomesticlevel,theproposalwouldfollowtointernationallevelbymeansof
authorities’ speeches, which affirmed the vocation of Lula government for dialogue in
internationalenvironment(AMORIM,2004).
Thus,theYearofBrazilinFranceorganizationopened,also,forsomethingimportant
to Brazil: French recognition of the Brazil’s active participation in the consolidation of
international contemporary society, in which despite internal adjustment actions to solve
problems like the withdrawal of Brazil from "hunger map" and the search for an
internationally effective participation – to be considered on a possible reform of the UN
SecurityCouncil,inwhichitwasthoughtthatFrancewouldsupporttheBrazilianclaim.Let
usturn,briefly,toadescriptionoftheBrazilianseasoninFrance.
The“Saisonsculturelles”inFranceandthepropagandaofBrazil
StartinginMarch2005,andhavingitsofficialendinNovemberofsameyear,theYear
ofBrazilinFrancehadmorethan700eventsheldinalmostallFrenchlocations.Itisestimated
that at least one quarter of French population actively attended to season’s events,
considered, by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of France, an exceptional season of cultural
10
mobilization.
In addition to cultural objectives, it is necessary to highlight the great interest of
Brazilian government to create a projection platform for trading Brazilian products
internationallyandpromotecountry’seconomicdevelopment.Thisproposalwouldsuitthe
goalsproposedbyEdgardTellesRibeiro(1989),whoparticipatedintheBrazilianCommissariat
created for the season and for whom cultural diplomacy has a political, economic and
commercialcharacterthatmustbenoted.
Astheauthorobserves,tosellanideaofacountryabletoactivelyparticipateinworld
sinceitsculture,thisisalsoaccompaniedbyculturalartifactssubjecttocapitalization.Thus,
according to Ribeiro, Brazil would be acting according French logic created more than a
centuryago.AddedtotheseclaimsthediscursivityofPresidentLula,markedbytheneedto
show Brazil’s industrial value of and use French market as a gateway to a wider market,
whereintheideaofamoremodern,plural,Brazilshouldbethetonic,preciselybecauseofits
abilitytodialoguewithotherculturesandrecognizediversityasrichness.Suchdiscursivity
would have, therefore, political, economic and commercial purposes of projection
internationally the country. Lula stressed that Brazil would be able to deal with equality
parameterswiththegreatnationsoftheworldduetoitspotentialinculturalandindustrial
fields,aswellasitsadvancesinsocialfield.Thus,industrialentrepreneursandBrazilianbrands
wereurgedtoparticipateintheconquestoftheinternationalmarket1.
WewouldliketohighlightheretheroleofthefigureofPresidentLuladaSilvainParis.
KnownandadmiredbythepeopleinFrancesincethe1980s–aspointedoutbyInathèque
research of the range of media information published by French media –, the President
activelyparticipateineventsoftheYearofBrazilinFrance,especiallyduringthefestivitiesof
14July–theBastilleDay.HispassagethroughPariswouldbewidelypublicizedsothatmore
than70%ofthismonth'snews,disclosedbyFrenchmedia,wererelatedtohisvisittothe
hexagon.
Twomomentsofthevisitareworthmentioning.First,hisspeechtoFrenchacademics
andindustrialentrepreneurs,whicharousedgreatadmirationoftheparticipants.Second,in
concertheldintheBastilleSquareinthemorningbetween13and14July.Withrepertoire
thatsoughttoemphasizeBrazilianculturalpluralityandrupturetheconcernwithcivilityto
1
Seeattachments.
11
theexistingEuropeanwayinBraziliandiplomacy(FLECHÉT,2013),theconcertwaspeculiar.
Asaculturaldiplomacystrategy,withthepresentationofartistsfromRio/Bahiacircuitand
thepoliticalengagementthatwasplaced,withastrongpresenceofFrench-Brazilianleftat
thestage,reaffirmingtheirpartnership.
Theeventwasnoteworthyalsobecauseitsproportions:theestimatedpublicwas60
thousand people, and the media make account over 100,000 participants. Thus, the event
deservesalsotobehighlightedbybecomingoneofthepossibleeffectivenessmeasurerof
culturaleventspromotedbyBraziliangovernmentabroadandofsedimentationofcultural
exchange,fromtheestablishmentofBraziliannessoverseasterritories.Thegreatinterestof
FrenchmediaintheeventwasalsodecisivetoprojecttheimageofBrazilthatwaswantedto
produce.Thisbecause,ifFrenchcase,theseasonwasextolledasanepisodeofsuccesseven
withallpoliticalandeconomicobstaclesfaced,whatwasperceivedwascertainneglectfrom
Brazilianpress,heavilycriticizedbyFrenchmedia.
FinalConsiderations
Considered the positive balance of the season of Brazil in France, it is clear that,
duringLuladaSilvagovernment,thegovernmenthasincorporatedCulturalDiplomacyasa
mechanismofinternationalprojectionofthecountry.Inthissense,itwouldbeopenedother
seasonsofthecountryinEurope-suchasEuropalia/BrésilinBelgiumandtheYearofBrazil
inItaly,intheNetherlands,inPortugalandinGermany–andinAsia-IndiaandChina,as
well as a strong cultural promotion of the country within the Community of Portuguese
Language Countries - CPLP. In addition to the Brazilian seasons, in attempt to maintain
reciprocity,Braziliangovernmentwouldestablishin2009thatitwouldbeorganizedtheYear
ofFranceinBrazil.Theevent,althoughsmaller,wasconsideredbytheMinistriesofForeign
Affairsofbothcountriessomethingquitesignificantinsettlingbilateralrelations.
What is perceived, in a further analysis of the available data to this date, is that
Brazilian Cultural Diplomacy during Lula da Silva government should be considered a
laboratoryforactionofsubsequentgovernment.Inthisway,morethantheestablishment
ofaStatepolicy,guidedbytheMinistryofForeignAffairs,theeventshouldbeconsidered
asgovernmentpolicyinaviewofmaintainingandstrengtheningBrazil'srelationswithother
12
StatesofInternationalSocietyinsearchofapossibleinternationalprotagonism.
Basedonthemultipleexistingidentitiesdomestically,Braziliangovernmenttookfor
itselfthedebateoverdiversityininternationalenvironment,anareawherethegreatpowers
met interlocution’s difficulty. Thus, we can conclude that, for a short period of country’s
immediatehistory,theattempttointernationalprojectionwasanchored,also,inacultural
visibilitystrategyofthecountryarticulatedwithinthegovernment.
Bibliography
AMORIM, C. Conceitos e estratégias da diplomacia do Governo Lula. In: Diplomacia,
Estratégia,Política,Brasília,v.1,n.1,out./dez.2004.p.41-48.
CHAUBET,F.;MARTIN,L.Histoiredesrelationsculturellesdanslemondecontemporain.
Paris:ArmandColin,2011.
DULPHY,A.et.al.LesrelationsculturellesinternationalesauXXesiecle:deladiplomatie
culturelleàl’acculturation.Bruxelas:P.I.E.PeterLang,2010.
FLÉCHÉT,A.SaudadedoBrasil.Lemystèredelasambaoul’artdudévoilement.In:Sigila,
Paris/Lisbonne,n.21,2008.p.127-137.
FLÉCHÉT,A.Aspartiturasdaidentidade:OItamaratyeamúsicapopularbrasileiranoséculo
XX.RevistaEscritos,RiodeJaneiro,Ano5,n.5,2011.p.227-256.
FRANK,R.DiplomatiesettransfertsculturelsauXXesiècle.In:Relationsinternationales,n.
115,Paris,2003.p.319-323.
FRANK, R. Images et imaginaires dans les relations internationales depuis
1938:problématiquesetmethods,Paris:LesCahiersdel'IHTP,n.28,1994.
GODFELD, M. S. O Brasil, o Império Otomano e a Sociedade Internacional: contrastes e
conexões(1850-1919).TesedeDoutorado-CentrodePesquisaeDocumentaçãodeHistória
Contemporânea do Brasil. Programa de Pós-Graduação em História, Política e Bens
Culturais.RiodeJaneiro,2012.
GUIMARÃES,A.S.A.Depoisdademocraciaracial.In:TempoSocial:Revistadesociologiada
USP,SãoPaulo,v.18,n.2,nov.2006.p.269-287.
13
HURREL, A. “Hegemonia, liberalismo e ordem global: qual é o espaço para potências
emergentes?” In: SPEKTOR, M (org). Os BRICS e a Ordem Global. Rio de Janeiro: Ed.
FGV.2009.
HURRELL, A. Sociedade Internacional e Governança Global. In: Lua Nova, n.46, 1999.
LARAIA,RoquedeBarros.Cultura.RiodeJaneiro:JorgeZahar,2006
LIMA,M.R.S..BrasilePolosEmergentesdoPoderMundial:Rússia,Índia,ChinaeÁfricado
Sul.In:RenatoBaumann.(Org.).OBrasileosdemaisBRICsComércioePolítica.1ed.Brasília:
CEPAL/IPEA,2010,v.,p.155-179.
MILZA,Pierre.CultureetRelationsInternacionales.In:RelationsInternationales,Genebra:
IUHEI;Paris:IHRIC,1980.
MITCHELL, J. International Cultural Relations. Londres: Allen and Unwin/British Council,
1986.
MONTIEL,E.Pouvoirversatileetdiplomatieculturelle:Pourunepolitiqueinternationalede
l’èreinterculturelle.Disponívelem:<http://goo.gl/QBEP42>.Acessoem:25maio2015.
MOURA,G.Autonomianadependência:Apolíticaexternabrasileirade1935a1942.Riode
Janeiro:NovaFronteira,1980.
NYE,J.ParadoxodoPoderAmericano.SãoPaulo:EditoraUNESP,2002.
NYE,J.SoftPower:themeanstosuccessinworldpolitics.NewYork:PublicAffairs,2004.
RIBEIRO,E.T.DiplomaciaCultura:seupapelnapolíticaexternabrasileira.Brasília:FUNAG,
1989.
SCHWARCZ,L.ComplexoZéCarioca:Notassobreumaidentidademestiçaemalandra.In:
RevistaBrasileiradeCiênciasSociais.ANPOCS,SãoPaulo,v.10,n.29,1994.