Anna Mendenhall

Anna Paige Mendenhall “A. Paige” Cell:-, Skype: apmendenhall639-1467 Matthews Mill Pond Rd. Angier, NC, US 27501 Bio: A. Paige is the typical millennial vagabond you expect to see camping across deserts, in dense mountain forests, and across icy lakes. “Teach, Research, Travel,” has been the motto in these extreme environs for the past four years, and A. Paige uses these experiences now to transport readers. As a burgeoning American ghost writer with talents ranging from the academic to the narrative, A. Paige loves to show parallels between the real, and the imagined, by explaining and demonstrating the complexities and symbolic pieces of reality. A Brief Purview of the Past, Present and Future of EURO-BRAZIL AGRI-TECH TRADE THROUGH NORMATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL FOREIGN POLICY Europe, Brazil and the Agricultural Technology Industry Trade in undoubtedly an increasing topic of conversation in diplomacy as well as its use for normative power approaches. It is arguably that the contemporary era is more focused on people and their livelihoods than the success of the state, which is why trade has become a predominant topic of conversation. Trade begets and earns money which brings opportunities to various sectors of industry within each state, which is important to the people of the state. The European Union (EU) is most notable for their success as a trading bloc and their normative tactics towards foreign policy. It would be of interest to compare their trade relations to another, such as Brazil, to understand how trade relations have an effect on such diplomatic relations. Brazil is notable for being one of the BRICS, or a successful emerging economy from a long period of development. To look at an emerging economy is to understand how the present can affect the future in relations and with BRICS offering more open markets and new ideas; it is not unusual to focus attention on what they have to offer to this growing new multi-polar world. One area of curiosity in the practice of a normative agenda would be environmental concerns and effects it has on various areas of trade like agriculture or more specifically agricultural technology. What is similarly unique between the EU and Brazil is their focus on the environment albeit in different methods, but both are mitigating this focus into technology, or more specifically into agricultural technology considering its direct involvement with the environment which is simultaneously affecting trade relations. Agriculture’s direct relation to the environment is a predominant concern for many individuals due to its necessity not only as a job, but a source of nutrition and luxury. Focusing on agricultural technology is necessary, because it is a growing field within the industry and offers nuances to trade and diplomatic relations. These nuances are the interconnectedness of two industries that benefits trade and subsequently can be a tool towards foreign environmental policy recommendations. The focus on these normative tactics to achieve an agenda can affect relations which are determinable on the framework present relations operate in. Utilizing proactive and amenable conversation in diplomatic trade relations will only increase the benefits this potential future could produce for both the EU and Brazil. With these considerations, the following research piece will briefly peruse the standard variables of the agricultural technology trade, the historical context of EU-Brazil relations and the effects that permeate to today and potentially the future. Agricultural technology is more recognizable by the advancements machinery has brought to the agriculture industry during the Industrial Revolution and since then. Before the Industrial Revolution, agricultural technology was brought by concepts of crop rotation, aqueducts and crossbreeding plants, but today that goes further (Schmidt, et al 2014). It is more than machinery and new concepts. It is utilizing robotics, GPS, nanotechnology and providing more development in education and genetic engineering. It is the sharing of ideas and competing markets that has brought these new advancements to the agriculture industry which has played a part on the environment. It is putting a demand on nature and what it can provide for the human race, but this has also encourage the above mentioned advancements to combat against these demands (Schmidt, et al 2014). In Europe there are AFOS, Farmeron and Kerbl that promotes such research as there are Bug Agentes Biologicos, Cepea and Embrapa in Brazil. These are a few companies that specialize specifically in agricultural technology, but there are many other corporations with research and development departments working on similar structures of interests to farming communities and markets. Distinctively, however, is a question of standardization between research and methods to shift these new valuable technologies between various parts of the industry. With fragmentation between social understanding, methodology and technology transfers, it is quite understandable how the agricultural technology industry can become problematic for trade relations. Many important factors to some of this research are the logistics of the respective regions of interest for agribusiness. Gaulier, et al points out that geography matters for major trading partners, but with a multi-polar world it is debatable if this is necessary to encourage positive trade relations between states or trading blocs. Both the EU and Brazil make an emphasis on multilateral relations, but have lukewarm relations at best due to differing points on the value of those relations between each other predominantly due to the EU focusing on other emerging economies and Brazil focusing on fellow Southern states (Afionis and Stringer 2014). It is only in realizing that Brazil as an emerging market offers the potential for developing exponentially economically with the needed market diversity Brazil offers for the EU and vice versa, that the context of relations is important to understand the current and potential successes for trade. Geography may play a tiny minor role due to previous relations, but with the technology of the contemporary information era, it may be necessary to look further into diplomatic tones to understand current liabilities. Trade and Relations Europe is the crux of Western civilization from the philosophers of ancient Greece through the conquest of the Roman Empire to the stark lack of innovation through the Middle Ages before the rebirth that study and art brought within the Renaissance (Persson 2015). It was during this era that a new form of imperialism began with the exploration of the ‘New World’ (Sadlier 2008). Brazil, a part of these explorative missions was a colony to Portugal and Spain separately with brief moments of Dutch occupation. Trade between Brazil and Europe could not be necessarily called trade, but more of an extension of the various empires and trade between the empires were typically contrary. From various natural dangers in Brazil and on the sea to pirate attacks crossing the sea, a ship would then arrive subjected to the fluidity of human history by tariffs, conflict and adverse perceptions (Persson 2015). Brazil brought much in gold, textiles and agriculture to Europe whereas Europe supplied little in technology throughout colonial history. When Brazil gained independence, it soon adopted an isolationist policy (Sadlier 2008). Trade between Brazil and Europe would come at a standstill with a total of a few decades of stable international relations before opening it borders after World War I. There is undeniably an underlying bitterness, but acceptance to Brazil’s colonial history that has turned Brazilian foreign policy to be a bit more reserved with Europe at the adoption of the League of Nations. During-, Brazil would make strides in industry and agriculture through participating in the League of Nations and the Battle of the Atlantic throughout World War II (Sadlier 2008). From- there were stable relations between Europe and Brazil, effectively causing an economic boom in the 1950s when Brazil continued support from the League of Nations to the United Nations, adopting an anti-communist mentality and supporting various peacekeeping missions within the region of the Americas (Sadlier 2008). Curiously following the trend of socio-economic rising and falling with the success of the government structure, Brazil entered into a reign of a military dictatorship from- that stunted trade relations with Europe and caused the agricultural industry to fall back on innovation. Although after 1985, Brazil has made amazing feats in developing a democracy unique to it, trade with Europe did not pick up until the 1990s. Europe had to endure most of the conflict at the turn of the 20​th century and face facts to adopt a more proactive cooperative unit, which a few states decided would be through a trading bloc, now known as the EU, developed between- (Persson 2015). This subsequently influenced relations on the continent and their subsequent internal state politics throughout the decades. However, what proved problematic with relations with Brazil were continued support of Israel and its aggressive tactics to bring Holocaust war criminals to trial, the fall of the Western empires maintaining control on their colonial territories after World War II and trying to maintain control through anti-communist or pro-democracy measures, to the politicized and opposing support of the Marinas/Falklands War (Persson 2015). What finally stabilized relations came with deconstruction of the Soviet Union, issuing a standard monetary unit and by creating a larger trading bloc by accepting former territories of the Soviet Union throughout the 1990s. The 1990s is when emerging economies started rising, first trading with Japan and US before moving onto the EU due to the expansiveness and the changing nature of the member states (Gaulier, et al 2012). However, the EU had come to be perceived as a political-economic union of sustainability, because all members had to agree to an outcome. This was considered a sustainable system moving from the traditional framework of trade to a more beneficial framework focusing on quality and variety. With this framework, it sufficiently propelled Brazil towards innovation in technology advancements for the textile and agriculture industries and helped the EU maintain production with the addition of more member states to its trading bloc (Gaulier, et al 2012). EU exports to Brazil make it the top trading partner for the state, whereas Brazil exports a majority of the agriculture EU imports which contributes to the EU becoming the biggest investor of the region and recently producing a surplus of goods between the usual trade deficits in relations (Saraiva 2012). This general overview of success is dedicated to various agreements, deals and courtesies made between the two trading partners. This has become predominantly dominated by conversation in diplomatic policies that are overwhelmed with normative actors to encourage environmental actions in these notable agreements for the sake to continue trade between these big partners. As subtly mentioned above, the EU has become more than a trading bloc within the past twenty years at the behest of various member states who find using the EU’s normative power beneficial to promoting an ethical agenda and security stratagem that all member states agree with in their relations, more specifically trade relations (Afionis and Stringer 2014). This ethical agenda and security stratagem does not only promote a value image, but encourages international cooperation and multilateral relations for the member states of the EU. This is hypothetically ideal for Brazil that promotes a similar interest of multilateral relations with an emphasis in international law, yet there have been a few roadblocks between the two entities in trade relations, because of environmental concerns. Most notable of encouraging trade relations between the EU and Brazil have been through conversations around the UN Conference of Environmental Development in 1992, the Doha Rounds, the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 and the Strategic Partnership Agreement in 2007 that has dominated foreign policy in the EU amidst trade relations. The beginning of the EU focusing on the advantage of normative power began when promoting environmental policies especially regards to Brazil’s deforestation and the effects on climate change at the UNCED 1992, then later at the 2002 WSSD (Afionis and Stringer 2014). Although beneficial to EU security by forcing international cooperation, the means have rarely been effective and more of an aspiration that has compromised trade values with Brazil in the face of losing the tradition of realpolitik (Afionis and Stringer 2014). This was seen in the Doha Rounds when Brazil continuously requested fair liberalization of markets for those of developing nations instead of the more industrialized countries greedily take opportunities from the weaker nations. Brazil is noted for their activism within the World Trade Organization or in less formal areas and their development as an emerging economy. As a developing nation and strong emerging economy, Brazil was the perfect voice for the issue on agricultural protection in industrialized nations (da Conceição-Heldt 2013). The growing realization of how internal structures can affect foreign policy and decisions provided the roundabout to negotiating the eradication of industry protection. Therefore, aims to achieve development goals with trade began with lining up certain trade barriers to eradicating poverty in rural areas and maintaining a level of environmental consciousness (da Conceição-Heldt 2013). The Doha Rounds strengthened the use of normative power to the effect of bringing values to trade and diplomatic relations for a short time. Following these agreements, the austere tone of the EU was lessened due to the financial crisis of 2008, but the values remain the same in the midst of trade relations between Brazil and the EU. This brings a level of aggravation for Brazilian actors, due to the increasing and amiable relations with Asia. The emerging economies gained a reputation of stability for various markets due to the effects of the financial crisis and a desire to find more leg room to bolster their economies around the world, which is when Brazil entered the stage as a strategic partner for EU (Gaulier, et al 2012). The EU has been noted to favouring interregional relations that makes them a predominate partner and it was until within the past few decades that Brazil became a notable regional hegemonic power worth the EU’s attention (Saraiva 2012). Relations within the EU are also complex and sometimes contrary to the major role of the EU and the individualistic nature unique to Brazil were cautionary with their old colonial trading partner. With the tentative grasp of history and a legacy of periods of opening and closing doors, there is little wonder as to the differing methods and values that are faced in the diplomatic conversations on trade relations. The two may share principles, but they are not a dominate actor of concern within their foreign relations, but they could be and be of mutual benefit to either party. A Contemporary Situation Trade is maintaining an important cornerstone to society, especially in the contemporary era with the focus it has on the sustainable livelihoods of the people of a state. To encourage that sustainability and the importance of trade, one aspect is through normative measures in lieu of environmental policy in diplomatic and trade discussions. The EU and Brazil have a long history together, practically over 500 years, and it would not be unusual to suggest that there are a few common principles in spite of dissimilar routes of ideology and methodology. These principles have shaped diplomatic and subsequently trade relations today, more specifically in the effect of the agricultural technology industry. By facing and mitigating environmental concerns with new technologies and concepts in agriculture, trade has boomed and fostered between the EU and Brazil. Agriculture is a dominant industry of Brazil and of great importance for the EU for sustainable growth in both markets. However, there have been moments of austere relations due to diplomatic tensions, internal relations in both trading partners and developmental goals. The EU and Brazil could find a mutually beneficial arrangement that is more amiable and less restrictive to current values and goals, especially in regards to the agricultural technology industry. Policy and international cooperation may break down geopolitical barriers, but there will remain the issue of methodology and geographic logistics and internal relations as well as foreign relations. The agricultural technology industry has developed with relations that were forged from colonialism towards developmental success by access of the recent financial crisis. If either partner were to embrace the growing research into technology and the vast multitude of markets of a multi-polar world, then their environmental incentives could be achieved with international cooperation. Instead of forcing superficial regulations, the EU could find that Brazil is more receptive than China to environmental concerns and when relations have reached a more amiable atmosphere, the EU and Brazil could use a cohesive normative approach to normalizing environmental concerns through trade relations especially in the development of the agricultural technology industry. Afionis and Stringer happen to offer a standard give and take method that is mutually beneficial for the EU and Brazil by stating that the EU could offer technological and financial expertise to various industries and projects that curb deforestation in Brazil, while Brazilian biofuels could help alleviate dependence on fossil fuels. This is a stable and amenable solution. However, current majority of interests and funding are streamed towards Asian ventures and Brazil acknowledges this scenario by counteracting with focusing on other developing nations that unfortunately do not have the funds to further research investment into areas of concerns. Other solutions that could offer a potential for an increase in trading relations between the EU and Brazil are by acknowledging that focusing too much of trade with China is not beneficial to either partner and that there are concerns that could deconstruct relations if those concerns are not stabilized in a formal manner. What could derail relations between the EU and Brazil are generally as mentioned before the development of trading avenues elsewhere around the world, another financial or internal governance crisis and a strong state opinion on various oppositions to conflicts in the global community. If the reduction of tariffs are not acknowledged in negotiation in further conversations and a solution is not offered, this may increase a desire to focus more on Asia as a new market which could destabilize the sustainability of markets within the EU and Brazil. Mercosur, the regional trade union of Latin America, must also gain more teeth to its agreements and potential capabilities in constructing its own normative power structure to become an accessible trading bloc to the rest of the world. This could only benefit Brazil, who cannot work alone against a trading bloc and help the EU maintain a stable relationship within the region. By embracing that there are other emerging economies and markets within the world, it acknowledges that there are other partners as well as finding stable regional hegemonies to work with and not try to gain control over as in previous eras of imperial rule. The EU has made several transitions from the past that this is only another concession for the livelihoods of the people of Europe. Afionis and Stringer were not unwise to use a simple give and take method, because it works and is a fair system to all parties involved. Like with any relationship, communication and concessions are necessary to maintain a flexible and harmonious association that could lead towards a mutually beneficial future. REFERENCES Afionis, S, & Stringer, L 2014, 'The environment as a strategic priority in the European Union-Brazil partnership: is the EU behaving as a normative power or soft imperialist?', International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law & Economics,​ 14, 1, pp. 47-64. da Conceição-Heldt, E 2013, 'The Domestic Sources of Multilateral Trade Negotiations: Explaining Brazil's Negotiating Position in the Doha Round', ​International Trade Journal​, 27, 2, pp. 173-194. Gaulier, G, Lemoine, F, & Ünal, D 2012, 'The rise of emerging economies in the EU15 trade', European Journal Of Comparative Economics​, 9, 2, pp. 133-175. Persson 2015, ​Economic History Of Europe,​ n.p.: Cambridge University Press. Sadlier, DJ 2008, ​Brazil Imagined : 1500 To The Present​, n.p.: Austin : University of Texas Press. Saraiva, MG 2012, 'Brazil's Strategies and Partnerships: The Place of the European Union', Perspectives: Central European Review Of International Affairs,​ 20, 2, pp. 45-62. Schmidt Bassi, N, da Silva, C, Hinça Schneider, A, & Gomes de Carvalho, H 2014, 'Controversies about the Process of Technology Transfer from Public Research Institutions in Brazil: The Case of the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation Embrapa', ​Journal Of Technology Management & Innovation,​ 9, 3, pp. 182-195.