Trajetória institucional e autonomia decisória: um estudo comparado das organizações diplomáticas e militares e da articulação entre política externa e de defesa no Brasil e na Colômbia

Abstract

This thesis aims to analyze comparatively the process of articulation of foreign and defense policies in Brazil and Colombia, with emphasis on the governments of Lula da Silva (2003-2010) and Dilma Rousseff (2011-2016) and Álvaro Uribe (2002 -2010) and Juan Manuel Santos (2010-2018). Specifically, it seeks to understand how defense issues were part of the foreign policy agenda of these governments, investigating the institutional trajectories of diplomatic and military organizations and the inter-bureaucratic dynamics established within the Executive Power, defining the priorities and directions of foreign and defense policies in these countries. To this end, it analyzes the roles of Brazilian and Colombian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MRE) and Ministry of Defense (MD) and the interaction that has been established between these institutions. The study is based on a central hypothesis: the process of articulation of foreign and defense policies depends, in Brazil and in Colombia, on the relevance of defense issues in the government's foreign policy agenda, on the institutional position that diplomatic (MREs) and military (MD) corporations occupy in the state apparatus and on the type of interaction that is established between these institutions and the president, which may result in different types of articulation between policies. The hypothesis is derived from assumptions related to the theoretical contributions that guide this thesis, from the area of Political Science and International Relations, in particular from the field of Foreign Policy Analysis. The literature used refers to the study of organizations and bureaucratic politics. It is concluded that while in Brazil inter-bureaucratic interaction results in mutual compromise, resulting in a regular articulation of policies, in Colombia inter-bureaucratic interaction results in one party´s position prevalence and in lopsided compromise, resulting in a poor articulation between foreign and defense policies.