I was delighted to accept the invitation to participate in this Second National Conference on Foreign Policy and International Politics.

I was here last year, the first time this conference was held, and I can say that I feel quite comfortable when I am among professors and intellectuals who are members of the Brazilian academic community in the field of foreign policy.

We at Itamaraty (the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Relations)—and especially I, speaking for myself—consider dialogue with members of the Academic world to be most valuable. These contacts expose us to views that we find enriching and it goes beyond the day-to-day tasks of our duties as diplomats.

This year we are commemorating the centennial of Brazil 's participation in the 1907 “Second Peace Conference” of The Hague . By a happy coincidence, November 5 is also Rui Barbosa's birthday.

In the early 1980s, I had the opportunity to serve at the Brazilian Embassy in The Hague. Throughout my career, I have always been drawn to Rui Barbosa's fascinating contribution to the international relations of our country.

As I said in my remarks to the 48 th United Nations General Assembly, in 1993, when serving as Foreign Minister in President Itamar Franco's administration, Rui Barbosa was a pioneer of multilateral diplomacy in Brazil . A contemporary of the Baron of Rio Branco, the founding father of our diplomacy, Rui Barbosa launched a tradition of engagement that has continued through this day: advocating sovereign equality among States and the democratization of international relations.

In 1907, Rui Barbosa was chosen as head of the Brazilian delegation to the Second Peace Conference, in The Hague . The purpose of the conference was to discuss mechanisms for maintaining the peace and for the peaceful resolution of international conflicts. The focus was primarily on international law, but the discussions were not limited to legal issues, strictly speaking. Politically sensitive topics also emerged during the discussions.

Brazil's participation in the Hague Conference symbolically represented Brazil's entry onto the international stage. It was the first truly universal meeting in which Brazil was present. Prior to that, Brazil's multilateral experience had been limited to pan-American conferences.

During The Hague Conference, Rui Barbosa dealt with several important issues, among which the laws applicable during war and maritime law. Also significant was the debate over the “Drago Doctrine”, which rejected the use of force in cases of recovery of contractual debts.

However, the proposal to reorganize the Permanent Court of Arbitration was the most noteworthy aspect of his achievements at The Hague . The idea that was then proposed was that of transforming the Permanent Court into a tribunal with much broader powers, in effect a supranational agency of sorts, for justice and dispute resolution among States.

The plan of the major powers envisaged a “selective” representation within the new Court, which would differentiate among countries according to their degree of importance, without clear or agreed-upon criteria. Naturally, that proposal displeased the Brazilian government.

Supported by Brazilian Foreign Minister Rio Branco, who closely followed the debates and sent instructions to the Brazilian delegation from Rio de Janeiro, Rui Barbosa vigorously defended the principle of equality among States. He insisted that the smaller powers had a right to be represented in the proposed tribunal.

In the end, the contradictions inherent in the proposal were responsible for preventing the creation, during the Conference, of a new international Court with the exclusionary structure that had been envisaged. But the Brazilian message had been delivered, incidentally, with unquestionable brilliance and long-lasting consequences. This leads us to reflect on Brazilian multilateral policy in this day and age.

We are fully aware that affirming Brazilian values and interests in the world is—and will always be—an act of global reach. Regardless of whether it is an advantage or a disadvantage, Brazil is not a small country. It does not, and cannot, have the foreign policy of a small country.

We recognize that Brazil's destiny is tied to its neighbors in South America . The regional dimension is vital to us. South American integration is, and will continue to be, a Brazilian government priority. Enhancing Mercosul and consolidating the Union of South American Nations are part of this process. A pro-integration policy is consistent with our long-term national interest.

While we see ourselves as Latin Americans and, more specifically, South Americans, we also recognize Brazil's unique role on the world stage. There is no incompatibility here. Brazil's position as a global actor is fully consistent with the emphasis that we put on regional integration, and vice versa. In fact, our capacity to peacefully coexist with our neighbors, while contributing to the development of the region, is a significant factor that underlies our international role.

Brazil is an unrelenting advocate of the peaceful resolution of disputes and has demonstrated its preference for multilateral mechanisms for resolving conflicts. There is no more effective means of bringing States closer together, maintaining peace, protecting human rights, promoting sustainable development, and shaping negotiated solutions to common problems, as was so well stated by President Lula at the opening session of the 61 st U.N. General Assembly, in 2006.

It is at the United Nations that multilateralism finds its most legitimate expression. The United Nations has a special calling to be universal, to include peoples, and to respect the sovereignty of its member States. Its legitimacy arises from its dedication to being universal and the fact that its composition is representative.

The moral authority of the United Nations validates its ability to be transformational and strengthens its role as an exceptional forum for disseminating ideas and values that will benefit all of humanity. Even when the actions of the United Nations do not seem to produce immediate results, as at the major conferences on the environment, social development, and women's rights, among others, the United Nations contributes to shaping the world's conscience.

Our tradition of collaborating with the United Nations dates back to the era of the Second World War. Brazil played a leading role in Latin America and actively participated—on the side of the Allies—in the military campaign against Fascism in Europe . It was in this context that Brazil became one of the 51 founding members of the United Nations.

Many of you who are here today know that at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, which prepared the first draft of the San Francisco U.N. Charter, in August 1944, the United States delegation, acting on instructions from President Franklin Roosevelt, proposed adding a sixth permanent seat to the Security Council. As former U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull told us in his memoirs, that permanent seat would have been given to Brazil , due to its size, population, resources and active participation in the war.

The postwar geopolitical configuration prevented the U.S. proposal from being approved. However, the very fact that Brazil was considered at that time is significant, in and of itself.

First elected as a non-permanent member of the U.N. Security Council in 1946, Brazil was to become the country that has most frequently been elected to serve terms as a non-permanent UNSC member, on a total of nine occasions, a number equaled only by Japan .

Brazil has traditionally participated in peacekeeping operations, one of the most visible and important U.N. activities. In the first major U.N. peacekeeping operation, the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF-I), which separated the Israelis and Egyptians east of the Suez Canal , in the Sinai, from 1957 to 1967, we contributed an infantry battalion of 600 soldiers. Overall, Brazil has already participated in more than 30 U.N. missions and assigned about 17,000 men.

Currently, we are participating in 10 of the 18 U.N. peacekeeping operations. We are in Haiti , making our contribution to the success of the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), together with other Latin American countries. Brazil has held the military command of the mission since it was created, in June 2004. It has 1,200 soldiers on the ground in Haiti , as well as officers of the Joint General Staff.

The Mission is multidimensional in nature and involves, among other aspects, the security of the country, reconciliation and/or cooperation among the various political forces, and support for economic and social development of Haiti . What is most important for us is to provide the conditions in which the people of Haiti can find their own way and overcome the challenges of poverty and inequality that they still face.

The results have been quite positive. I have visited Port-au-Prince several times. On every occasion, there has been a notable and growing improvement in the security conditions. Life in the impoverished neighborhood of Cité Soleil, at one time dominated by gangs and bandits, is slowly returning to normal. I was able to witness this personally during my most recent visit to Haiti , at the end of September 2007.

It's still not the ideal landscape, but there has unquestionably been an evolution. We are strengthening the Haitian national police and other institutions of the Haitian government. We remain engaged in cooperation projects, both bilaterally and in partnership with third countries and organizations.

The success of the U.N. peacekeeping operation in Haiti—and in Angola, Mozambique and East Timor, in which we are also participating—does not mean that the United Nations should remain unchanged. The prevailing sentiment among the member States is that the United Nations is urgently in need of reform.

Since the very beginning, we have supported the creation of the Human Rights Council. Brazil played a prominent role in the negotiations to establish it. We trust that the Council will contribute to effectively promoting and protecting human rights throughout the world, and that it will put to an end to the selective attention and politicization that was so characteristic of the former Commission on Human Rights. An idea that we have advocated is that the human rights situation in the world should be the subject of a “Global Report.” After all, in this field, perhaps more than in any other, one can apply the biblical saying that it is easier to notice the splinter in someone else's eye than a wooden beam in one's own.

We also support the establishment of the U.N. Peacebuilding Commission. Most of the world's conflicts today occur in countries that are economically and socially fragile. It would be an error to disregard the connection between socioeconomic factors and situations of insecurity.

For Brazil , significantly enhancing stability and security is directly related to creating conditions for development. We favor a system of collective security that is truly multilateral. Military force should only be used as a last resort, under the conditions that are clearly established in the U.N. Charter, after all diplomatic efforts have been exhausted.

In the process of U.N. reform, the advances achieved to date are laudable, but insufficient. The U.N. General Assembly, which represents the collective will of the member States, should be revitalized.

Also, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) should regain its role as a forum for deliberation and inspiration for other agencies and entities of the international system, including the so-called Bretton Woods institutions (i.e. the IMF and the World Bank).

Nor will U.N. reform be complete without expanding and updating its Security Council, the permanent members of which are still the same as they were six decades ago. Since 1945, the number of U.N. member States has almost quadrupled, with a sharp rise in the number of developing countries.

Naturally, it is difficult to reconcile the democratic ideal in its purest form, which inspired the thinking of Rui Barbosa, with the need for a body that is capable of making decisions expeditiously and effectively on topics that often require urgent solutions, such as issues of peace and international security. There is no absolute response to this dilemma.

What we can strive for at the current stage of development in the relationships among States is a system that seeks the best possible balance between the criteria of “representativeness” and effectiveness. The change that we seek for the Security Council would, in our view, achieve such a balance. Nor should we presume that we are deciding the question for all of eternity. It's necessary for the envisaged Security Council reform to be subject to a review without preconceptions, within a reasonable period of time. Obviously, new permanent members should not have the right of veto, a mechanism the gradual elimination or mitigation of which we will continue to advocate, within the limits of what is realistic.

The United Nations needs to adapt to today's realities. The inoperative nature of the Security Council became evident in the cases of the Iraq war and the conflict in Lebanon in 2006. In its current form, the Security Council is incapable of enunciating a balanced and inclusive vision of the international order that reflects in a satisfactory manner the perceptions of the developing world.

Together with its G-4 partners, Brazil supports a reform that would make the Security Council more representative, and its decisions more legitimate and effective.

In September 2007, Brazil joined with India, South Africa, Nigeria and other countries in co-sponsoring a proposed resolution to immediately launch such negotiations. Now is not a time to continue mere discussions. Now is the time to make decisions.

* * *

Brazil was one of the 23 contracting parties that signed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), created to regulate the multilateral trading system, based at least theoretically on the principles of reciprocity, non-discrimination, transparency, free access to markets, and the rights of States to apply trade remedies.

In 1948, Brazil participated in the Havana Conference, where it defended special measures on behalf of the development of countries with “young economies,” as they were then called.

Beginning in the 1950s, we participated in the creation of the specialized U.N. economic agencies, funds and programs. We have actively contributed to the work of ECOSOC.

Historically, Brazilian diplomacy has made the issue of development a central focus of our multilateral policies. In 1964, Brazil participated in the creation of United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the G-77, which coordinates the positions of developing countries at the U.N.

It was a time of great clashes, but also high expectations regarding our capacity to reform the intern ational economic order. I recall, for instance, the inclusion in the GATT—thanks to the actions of the G-77—of Section IV of the General Agreement Text, regarding trade and development.

We promoted intern ational trading practices that would be fairer and more equitable, which would better serve the interests of the countries of what was then called the Third World. This fight is still being fought today.

As Brazilian Ambassador in Geneva and Minister of Foreign Relations, I followed the final negotiations of the Uruguay Round and the establishment of the WTO, through the Marrakech Agreement of 1994.

Despite the imbalances carried over from the GATT, which were—to a certain extent—worsened by the prevailing ideas at the time of the so-called Washington Consensus, the WTO constituted an institutional advance toward a trading system governed by rules that were clearer and universal.

The Marrakech Agreements also allowed agriculture, which was basically left out of the former GATT, to be included, even if marginally, in the set of multilateral rules governing trade.

This has allowed us to successfully resort to the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, under President Lula's government. We have achieved important victories, to cite a few examples, in the dispute with the United States , regarding cotton, and with the European Union, regarding sugar. It must be underscored that, in both these cases, requests for consultation had already been made under the previous Brazilian government, but the politically most difficult decision of pushing for the WTO panels was made by the current administration.

We continue to be engaged in seeking to achieve a successful conclusion to the Doha Round of negotiations, so that it may be rightly called a “Development Agenda.”

Without any wish to sound triumphant, I can affirm with conviction that Brazil has been at the center of the negotiating process. In 2003, we created the G-20 in Cancún, when the United States and the European Union tried to impose an unfair agreement, which would have left agricultural subsidies virtually untouched and offered little or no liberalization on products that are of interest to developing countries, while requiring disproportionate concessions from them.

The G-20 has changed the negotiation dynamics under the GATT/WTO system. Thanks to an ongoing effort of coordination and political mobilization, as well as constantly seeking understandings with other groups of developing countries, i.e. countries that are relatively less developed, countries that depend on trade preferences, small and vulnerable economies, etc., it was possible to change the course of the negotiations.

The primary expression this new dynamic was the decision made at the 6 th WTO Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong , in 2005, after strong resistance from the developed countries, to establish a timeline for eliminating export subsidies and other trade-distorting domestic support measures affecting agricultural products.

If successful, the WTO negotiations will help free millions of people from poverty. Farmers who cannot compete with the billionaire funds from the treasuries of the wealthy countries will finally be given a chance. Countries that today do not export agricultural products will be able to begin doing so.

We are at a crucial moment. The negotiations have gone on for almost six years. World leaders continue to express their support for completing the Round. It is essential that developing countries maintain their cohesion. At the same time, we must demonstrate a positive outlook and a willingness to negotiate.

We will continue to work to achieve results that are ambitious and advance our interests. Agricultural trade-distorting subsidies export hunger and destitution. Developed countries must recognize that these issues cannot be postponed indefinitely.

At the U.N., the WTO, and in other forums, Brazil has sought to increase the awareness of the intern ational community concerning the grave problems faced by poorer countries. Of high importance was the launching, in 2004, of the Action against Hunger and Poverty. That initiative headed by President Lula, in partnership with his counterparts from France and Chile , enjoyed support from the U.N. Secretary General. Other countries later lent their support. Overall, the initiative has been supported by 110 countries.

The Brazilian proposals against hunger have been discussed in all important forums. They rely on broad intern ational recognition of the social programs of the Brazilian government, such as the Family-Scholarship (“Bolsa-Família”). The creation of UNITAID—an intern ational center for purchasing drugs to treat AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis—was a direct result of an initiative by President Lula.

The UN and the WTO are the two fundamental columns that support the world order.

A world without the United Nations would be unthinkable. Seeking solutions to problems would be much more difficult, slow and complicated and, in some cases, even impossible.

Likewise, the intern ational trading system without the WTO would be vulnerable to unilateralism and detrimental policies that do not comply with any rules and tend to favor the strongest and most privileged. It is not an overstatement to say that without the WTO the intern ational trading system would truly be subject to the law of the jungle.

Brazil has every interest in maintaining an intern ational legal framework that is more equitable, whith due account to the different levels of development among countries.

This is reflected in the South-South cooperation initiatives we have carried out. We have created the IBSA Forum along with India and South Africa . We are three large multiethnic and multicultural democracies, each of which is located on a different continent of the developing world, facing similar challenges.

In order to implement trilateral intern ational cooperation initiatives, we have created the IBSA Fund. The projects developed and carried out with the help of the Fund, in Haiti and Guinea Bissau, have won prizes from the U.N. and are considered examples in peacebuilding processes. The IBSA Fund bears witness to the fact that it is not necessary to be wealthy to demonstrate solidarity and help those who are underprivileged.

Without losing sight of the interests and affinities that are inherent to a multiracial developing nation, Brazil has always sought to contribute whenever possible to consensus solutions at multilateral forums. Credibility, consistency and coordination capacity are attributes that are indispensable for being able to engage in meaningful dialogue with the international community.

But intern ational organizations are much more than mere spaces for cooperation and dialogue. They may have their limitations, but they are the most appropriate institutional fora to achieve the aspirations for justice and the common good in the relationships among States.

There are also informal mechanisms that deal with topics related to world governance. One of them is the G-8.

Since the 2003 G-8 Summit in Evian , France , leaders from the developing world have been invited to participate in segments of the G-8 meetings. At the 2005 Summit , held in Gleneagles , Scotland , the expanded dialogue with the G-5 countries— Brazil , South Africa , China , India and Mexico —began to take shape.

The perception is growing among the wealthy countries that major global challenges cannot be duly dealt with without the participation of developing countries. And here I mean real and concrete participation, not just symbolic participation, used to legitimate decisions made by others. As President Lula said in a recent IBSA Summit in Pretoria: “What is the use of being invited for dessert at the banquet of the powerful?”

Since the most recent G-8 Summit, in Heiligendamm, there have been signs of progress in this context. A consultation mechanism between the Foreign Ministers of the G-8 and the G-5 began to take shape. The President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, has recently spoken of the need to expand both the G-8 and the U.N. Security Council, in order to include new countries, Brazil among them.

It is difficult to foresee whether there will be a G-11, G-12, G-13 or another “G” group. But we know two things. One is that these mechanisms, although useful, do not replace formal multilateral fora. The other is that there will be no order or governance in the intern ational arena without those who represent the overwhelming majority of humankind participating in its management.

Once again, the need for democratization of intern ational decision-taking bodies is evident, which also takes us back to Rui Barbosa. In 1907, Rui Barbosa, himself, made the following assessment of the results of the Hague Conference:

“If, however, the visible results of the Second Conference fell short of the hopes of the peace enthusiasts, its invisible results, by which I mean its work of insinuation, penetration and moral action went much farther. (...) It has demonstrated to the strong the necessary role of the weak in drafting the rights of peoples.”

Mutatis mutandis, something similar could be said about the WTO Conference in Cancún, in 2003.

This analysis by Rui Barbosa reveals his thoughts about intern ational relations. Rui Barbosa dreamt of a less asymmetrical world, based on equality and justice. He was opposed to conservative views of a world order that sought to impede access and silence the voices of countries that lay outside the inner circles of power.

Rui Barbosa was a visionary. With only the power of words, he helped to establish the foundations of a doctrine that would lead to the universal acceptance of the principle of the legal equality of States, one of the core principles of contemporary multilateralism.

In 1949, former Foreign Minister San Tiago Dantas, who was an admirer of Rui Barbosa, recorded his impressions about a remarkable feature of this illustrious son of Bahia , which was that he believed the moment of redemption for Brazilian society would arrive one day. During a speech he gave at Casa de Rui Barbosa, San Tiago Dantas said:

“When we reflect upon his eternal presence among us, we see that the lesson Rui Barbosa taught does not lie solely in the ideas he publicized in his books and speeches, nor just in the attitudes he adopted in being faithful to the values that he used to build his belief system. It also lies in the trust he demonstrated in the vigorous strengths of our people, in the capacity we had to create a new society, overcoming the stagnation and privileges of the former society, which was doomed to disappear.”

As I pointed out at the beginning, Rui Barbosa launched a tradition that still inspires Brazil 's commitment to multilateralism.

My participation here today, in the Itamaraty Palace that conjures up so many memories, is a small gesture to express the esteem that we, diplomats and government officials in the area of foreign policy, continue to have for that statesman of great legal wisdom; for that man whose self-esteem and sense of nationality were never shaken by the pressures exerted by those who were more powerful.

In multilateral fora, we are constantly called upon to defend causes that require of us a great deal of perseverance. We cannot allow ourselves to falter when facing the first obstacle. A more fair and peaceful world is certainly not built in a day.