The document discusses Brazil's lack of sovereignty due to its economic dependence on foreign capital and technology as well as its lack of military and nuclear power. It argues that Brazil is not a sovereign nation because over half of its large companies are foreign-owned and it has little control over its economy. Additionally, without nuclear weapons, Brazil could become a victim of invasion by larger powers seeking to exploit its natural resources like water and oil. The document concludes that Brazil currently lacks both economic sovereignty and the ability to ensure popular sovereignty for its population.

1. 1
THE FRAGILITY OF BRAZIL AS A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY
Fernando Alcoforado *
It was from the Modern State, after the French Revolution, that the concept of national
sovereignty began to be conceived. The French constitutional theory of the eighteenth
century presents a distinction between national and popular sovereignty. There was in
this distinction the conception, in the concept of national sovereignty, that
representative power, with absolute legal autonomy, not only represented the general
will, but was representative of the Nation. Popular sovereignty was based on the fact
that its representative expressed in the government what the represented wants, in a
democratic way. The sovereignty is one, since it is inadmissible within the same State,
the coexistence of two sovereignties. It is inalienable, since if there is no sovereignty,
the one who holds it disappears, be it the people, the nation or the State.
The maintenance of the sovereignty of the present State is directly linked to the state
power in imposing its supremacy within the national territory. Sovereignty in the State
concentrates on the supreme authority of the power representative of the people, not
allowing within society to have a power superior to its own. The institute of sovereignty
has undergone a constant evolution from the birth of the modern state to the present
moment. Today, sovereignty is understood as the will of the people, represented by the
supremacy of state power, guaranteed by the Constitution. The principle of sovereignty
is one of the foundations of international law, whereby, for example, a State cannot be
subject to jurisdiction other than its own. At the external level, national sovereignty is
translated into equality between States, and there is no need to speak of subordination or
subservience on the international level, and it should ensure equitable conditions in the
legal subjects entered into, whether in the economic, social or political field..
However, recent neoliberal globalization represents the end of the classic concept of
national sovereignty due to growing interdependence between countries, materialized in
the flow of trade, capital, people and technology among them. The main features of
recent globalization are the decline of the nation state and the restructuring of the
interstate system to cope with the crisis of the capitalist world-economy in the
contemporary era. The decline of the nation-state is shaped by the loss of its capacity to
constitute a national economy confined territorially and to have it under its control.
Since the Second World War, but especially since the 1960s, the role of national
economies has been eroded or even called into question by major transformations in the
international division of labor, whose basic units are organizations of all sizes,
multinational and transnational, And by the corresponding development of international
centers and networks of economic transactions that are, for practical purposes, beyond
the control of the government of the national states.
In addition to the fact that national sovereignty has come to an end in most countries
with recent neoliberal globalization, the exercise of national sovereignty by most
countries is also undermined by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) signed in
1968, which legitimized the possession of nuclear weapons by the United States, the
Soviet Union, Britain, France and China and tried to prevent other nations from
developing them by restricting their access to technology. As the Soviet Union no
longer exists, Russia has taken its place. Fifty years ago, restrictions were imposed by
the major powers that developed nuclear weapons to other non-nuclear countries,
limiting the use of nuclear energy to peaceful purposes, preventing it from being used
for military purposes. The NPT was adopted in the sense that non-nuclear countries

2. 2
would give up access to nuclear weapons in exchange for the progressive disarmament
of the great powers, which, over the years, would lead to the banning of nuclear
weapons, a fact that did not happen. In addition, non-nuclear countries would benefit
from the transfer of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. The NPT is, in fact, a
treaty that divided the world into two groups: the "who have" and "the ones who do not"
have nuclear weapons.
In practice, the NPT was a solution adopted to prevent the armament of unarmed
countries, while those who are armed arm without limitations. The NPT did not fully
achieve its objectives because North Korea, which was a signatory to the treaty, as well
as India, Israel and Pakistan, which were not signatories, developed nuclear weapons.
The NPT restrictions, however, have been voluntarily accepted by some countries,
including Brazil, which has been mistakenly convinced since 1992 that possession of
nuclear weapons would not benefit the country. To date, 187 countries have ratified the
NPT, including Brazil, and none of them withdrew from the pact, except North Korea,
which did so in 2003 and manages to secure its sovereignty thanks to its nuclear arsenal
and intercontinental missiles. Several countries have criticized the perpetual nuclear
monopoly that the treaty imposes for the fact of legitimizing existing weapons and does
not allow other countries to possess them. In practice, countries holding nuclear
weapons are those who, in fact, have the power to exercise their sovereignty, unlike
those who do not.
The weakening of national states by recent neoliberal globalization and the exercise of
the monopoly of nuclear weapons by the great military powers (the United States,
Russia, England, France and China) call into question the exercise of the sovereignty of
the great majority of the countries of the world, with rare exceptions such as the
countries holders of nuclear weapons such as Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea.
As the wars of the 21st Century will have as a fulcrum the battle for natural resources,
countries that have these resources may be threatened with invasions as occurred
recently with the invasion by the United States of Iraq and Libya for dominating their
oil reserves. With the lack of natural resources necessary for their survival and the
absence of a world government capable of mediating conflicts, humanity tends to
regress to barbarism and cruel behavior.
Water is becoming a source of war because of the international competition for water
resources. If the rate of extraction of mineral resources continues as it stands, mankind
will certainly see some ores disappear. Competition for resources such as oil is currently
the largest potential source of global conflict. The continuing oil dispute will lead to a
state of permanent war characterized by the presence of great powers in its producing
regions. Countries that have natural resources without military power, especially
without nuclear weapons, could be the victims of invasions by the great powers at the
service of the great international monopolies, as is the case of Brazil.
This situation reveals the vulnerability of Brazil, which, in addition to having a fragile
economy at the mercy of global market forces due to its economic and technological
dependence, does not have the military and nuclear power to prevent its natural wealth,
including water and oil, being plundered by the great military powers of the planet and
large multinational corporations. Brazil is not a sovereign country because it does not
have the economic, military and nuclear power to ensure the exercise of its sovereignty.
Brazil is not a sovereign country because foreign affiliates control 82% of the science-
based industry sector; 73% of differentiated, and 68% of continuous production. The

3. 3
dependence of Brazilian industry is not only capital, but also foreign technology. Brazil
occupies the 43rd place in the world ranking of UN technology, which directly affects
the industrial performance of the country.
Brazil is not a sovereign country because the denationalization of the Brazilian economy
is evidenced when it is observed that of the 50 largest Brazilian companies, 26 are
foreign. More than half of Brazilian companies in high-end sectors such as automotive,
aeronautics, electronics, information technology, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications,
agribusiness and minerals are in the hands of foreign capital. Foreign capital is present
in 17,605 Brazilian companies that account for 63% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP),
and controls 36% of the banking sector and owns 25% of Bradesco shares and 20% of
Banco do Brasil shares. Foreign capital owns more than 30% of land in the country to
produce sugar cane, livestock and soybeans. Only in the sugar and alcohol sector,
multinationals own 33% of all lands and mills [Falcão. Lula. Crescimento capitalista
aumenta submissão do Brasil ao capital estrangeiro (Capitalist growth increases
Brazil's submission to foreign capital). Posted on the website
<http://averdade.org.br/2012/02/crescimento-capitalista-aumenta-submissao-do-brasil-
ao-capital-estrangeiro/>, 2012].
Finally, in addition to not exercising the status of sovereign country, Brazil currently
has rulers who attempt against popular sovereignty by adopting policies contrary to the
interests of its population.
* Fernando Alcoforado, 77, member of the Bahian Academy of Education and the Brazilian Academy of
Letters - Bahia Section, engineer and doctor in Territorial Planning and Regional Development by the
University of Barcelona, university professor and consultant in the areas of strategic planning, business
planning, regional planning and planning of energy systems, is the author of the books Globalização
(Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 1997), De Collor a FHC (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 1998), Um Projeto para
o Brasil (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 2000), Os Condicionantes de Desenvolvimento do Estado da Bahia
(PhD Thesis, University of Barcelona, http: //www.tesisenred.net/handle/10803/1944, 2003),
Globalização e Desenvolvimento (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 2006), Bahia- Desenvolvimento da Bahia do
Século XVI ao Século XX e Objetivos Estratégicos na Era Contemporânea (EGBA, Salvador, 2008), The
Necessary Conditions of the Economic and Social Development- The Case of the State of Bahia (VDM
Verlag Dr. Müller Aktiengesellschaft & Co. KG, Saarbrücken, Germany, 2010), Aquecimento Global e
Catástrofe Planetária (Viena- Editora e Gráfica, Santa Cruz do Rio Pardo, São Paulo, 2010), Amazônia
Sustentável- Para o progresso do Brasil e combate ao aquecimento global (Viena- Editora e Gráfica,
Santa Cruz do Rio Pardo, São Paulo, 2011), Os Fatores Condicionantes do Desenvolvimento Econômico
e Social (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2012), Energia no Mundo e no Brasil- Energia e Mudança Climática
Catastrófica no Século XXI (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2015), As Grandes Revoluções Científicas,
Econômicas e Sociais que Mudaram o Mundo (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2016) e A Invenção de um novo
Brasil (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2017). Possui blog na Internet (http://fernando.alcoforado.zip.net). E-
mail: falcoforado@uol.com.br.