The document discusses trust in international relations and agreements. It focuses on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and relationships between signatories and non-signatories. It also discusses a Brazil-Iran-Turkey agreement on Iran's nuclear program, the reactions from the international community, and Brazil's role in negotiating the agreement.

1. Trust in International Relations International agreements are strongly based on the concept of trust. Trust relationships includes acceptance of vulnerability and uncertainty. Trust relationships can be made stronger by acceptance of interdependency between the parts and the exchange of reliable information.

2. Nuclear Issues The issue about nuclear proliferation involves a lot of dependency on trust relationships, for instance, the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Relationships between signatories and non-signatories are not based on trust but on coercion, threats and sanctions. This characteristics undermine the universality of NPT and the consequence is the erosion of trust in the Treaty. Exceptions to non-signatories states open both possibilities to increase trust relationships with them and promote the approximation of interests or to reinforce the vulnerability of NPT.

3. Brazil-Iran-Turkey agreement In Brazil-Iran-Turkey agreement, trust is not only necessary, but is the key of the process. USA and UN, through the Security Council, tried to firm the same agreement with Iran, but were incapable of building trust relationships. The conversations were based on the use of force and humiliation, and Iran did not submitted. Brazil conduced the conversations based on negotiation, arguments, diplomatic pressure and dialog. The agreement marks one step on the movement to multipolarity in the international system USA and Europe do not have anymore the monopoly of the power of convincement and its military forces do not enhance this convincement anymore.

4. Reactions of International Community to the agreement Favorable The agreement open possibilities to dialogue and to improve trust between states. Other non-signatories states have nuclear programs and are ‘accepted’ by international community because they have some degree of dialogue and common interests. Unfavorable The majority of international community do not agree with the agreement because they do not trust Iran enough. They do not accept the uncertainty of the relationships with Iran. Iran is seen as a threat and so it is treated with sanctions and in terms of force.

5. Brazil’s attitude Brazil adopted a very responsible and mature position by not accepting USA and UN opinions, by using arguments. Being victor in the agreement assignment, Brazil have waken up the envy of other states and contested the supremacy of USA. Brazil is responsible for opening possibilities of dialogue with Iran – a very problematic state. The exclusion of Iran of the international system only open more precedents to it become an enemy. The support UN is giving to USA speech is contradictory to its own main purpose: the world peace. Brazil adopted a more humanitarian position (which should have been followed by UN too) by not agreeing with the sanctions that have strong consequences to Iran’s population and would increase the instability and aggressiveness.