international trade and the need for new trading patterns

International trade has always been present in the development of Brazil, However, only in recent decades has it become a concern for a larger portion of Brazilian society.. From soy to airplanes, the country started to mobilize more and more in the search for new international markets.

This intense exposure we face today means that we have to position ourselves more and more decisively in international negotiations. Competitiveness and protectionism become central concerns for those who find the axis of their strategies in the international market.

To guarantee markets and privileged access, there are several possible actions. It is in this scenario that protectionism stands out, direct or not, as was the case for the protection of the american steel industry, chickens in the European Union or soybeans in China. In addition to the impacts of distorting the free market logic, such protectionism leads to distorted interpretations of international trade reality.

It is common to hear from Brazilian negotiators that “international trade is a war”. And from this corollary, there are several buzzwords that hardly help us to seek the international market. Not even as a metaphor should this idea be sustained., under penalty of deviating from some important parameters of international negotiation.

A first impact of this vision is that we now see other international actors as enemy armies, which must be fought with the weapons we have. The central issue here is that, thereby, we minimize the search for cooperation. Both in the domestic and international markets there will always be actors who complement our work and those who are in direct confrontation with him.

Trade disagreements do not occur between the USA and Brazil, but between sectors of the American economy and sectors of the Brazilian economy. Reducing conflict to the logic between States is exempting oneself from the responsibility of seeking partners in the international market, leaving the need for solutions to the government.

This brings us to a second problem., what is the difference between the behaviors of the government and the private sector. While the private sector is fragmented and has several representative entities, the government must present itself on the international stage with a unique and coherent positioning. In Brazil, Entrepreneurs tend to perceive the government, especially the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Mre / Itmrty), as a hindrance to international negotiations insofar as it would not represent the interests that the national productive sectors present.

Both the government and the private sector must plan for the long term, however, while the former should focus on decisions that seek long-term impacts, the productive sectors must present a long-term strategic plan, but without neglecting the everyday, since they are much more susceptible to short-term movements. This creates virtually endless tension between government and the private sector..

It is certainly not possible to ignore the existence of government as well as the role it should play in the economic logic of countries., however, more intense participation by entrepreneurs is necessary, creating international forums of entrepreneurs and coalitions that allow them to behave similarly to that developed by governments. That is, the various business sectors will be better able to execute cross-cutting policies and strategies, which allow negotiation permeated by gains and losses, whose final result should be positive for all sides.

Following examples of countries with high international negotiating power, we must seek better interaction between the government and the private sector; however, this does not mean that it is up to the private sector to provide the government, which should carry out international negotiations. Convergence must occur towards the determination of macro-objectives, being that each side must assume its respective responsibilities in the pursuit of these objectives.

Thus, whether the government should create automatic and legitimate mechanisms for the effective participation of the private sector in the decision-making process; fits, on the other hand, for the private sector to bear the costs of projecting its sectors on the world market. The creation of representative offices in other countries can and should count on government support, however, it should not be an initiative of this, however, from the representative entities of the national productive sectors.

This type of behavior is fundamental for access and sustainability in the international market, since international trade is not war, but convincing, commitment and competence. Ultimately it is the final consumer who determines the products consumed, so we must offer them a product that has the requested quality. On the other hand, we cannot forget the distributors and all other intermediaries, that are critical to business success. We must offer them commitment and sustainability in business.

In an international insertion strategy, governments and their concerns with the protection of certain productive sectors must also be considered, as well as the protection of the consumer market as a whole. To these we must present the necessary competence, reaching the minimum levels required. In & uacute; last & inst acirc; INSTANCE, should not be seen as the high command of war – as those who see trade as a war usually do – however as an actor who must be convinced of the need to buy foreign products.

magazine Author (www.revistaautor.com.br)

special CNPq

Yes IV – nº 37 / especially by the media and elites committed to democracy 2004