• Research
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie India logoCarnegie lettermark logo
{
  "authors": [
    "Togzhan Kassenova"
  ],
  "type": "other",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "NPP",
  "programs": [
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Nuclear Policy",
    "Nuclear Energy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Other

External Perceptions of Brazil’s Nuclear Policy: Views From Argentina and the United States

Despite recent setbacks to its nuclear program, Brazil remains a significant player in global nuclear matters. Argentina and the United States are the two countries that most closely follow Brazil’s nuclear policy and whose opinions matter most to Brazil.

Link Copied
By Togzhan Kassenova
Published on Aug 9, 2017

Source: Nonproliferation Review

Abstract

Brazil, a developing country with an advanced nuclear program, presents an interesting case for observers of nuclear politics. Brazil is one of a handful of countries that possess uranium-enrichment technology, one of three countries in Latin America that produce nuclear power, and the only country without nuclear weapons to pursue an ambitious nuclear-powered submarine program. Among external views on Brazil's nuclear politics, the perceptions of Argentina and the United States matter most. With Argentina, Brazil shares responsibility for regional security. The two countries’ commitment to a bilateral nuclear safeguards arrangement contributes to a peaceful environment in the region. The United States will continue to set the tone in global nuclear matters and thus its views of Brazil's role in the nuclear field will continue to matter to Brasília, even as Brazil's political and economic crises have thrown the country’s nuclear future into uncertain territory.

Among the external perceptions of Brazil's nuclear policy, the views of Argentina—Brazil's most important neighbor in South America—and the United States—the most consequential player in the global nuclear politics—deserve consideration. This article explores how these two states have engaged with Brazil on nuclear matters over the past few decades. Brazil, Argentina, and the United States form a triangle, in which the nuclear balance between Brasília and Buenos Aires determines how Washington views these countries' nuclear policies.

Argentina is Brazil's closest partner in the region and its most attentive observer. Views on Brazil's nuclear policy within Argentina vary. Some groups, especially the technical and scientific communities, align with the positions of their neighbor—they seek cooperation with Brazil and empathize with its quest for self-sufficiency in the nuclear field. Yet there is also a minority among observers in Argentina who are anxious about Brazil's nuclear program, including its nuclear-submarine project. With a new administration in Buenos Aires as of late 2015, voices in Argentina calling for the government to sign the Additional Protocol of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are growing.

Brazil's relationship with the United States on nuclear matters has never been smooth. The United States was the first to offer Brazil nuclear technology under the 1953 Atoms for Peace program, but it limited access later on. Today, Washington is concerned about Brazil's refusal to sign the Additional Protocol, and its nuclear-submarine program also raises some questions in the United States.1 American officials do not see Brazil as a proliferation threat per se; rather, they hope to bring Brazil fully into the nonproliferation fold.

Brazil may have reasons to doubt the sincerity of Argentina's concerns and question whether some of these stem from the naturally competitive relationship between the two neighbors. Brazil can also resist US nonproliferation pressure, noting Washington's own inconsistent nuclear policy. But Brasília cannot afford to completely ignore the perceptions, assumptions, and views of its nuclear policy held by these two actors. Argentina, together with Brazil, provides the backbone of regional security, and the United States remains the most influential actor on the global nuclear scene.

This article was originally published in Nonproliferation Review

Read Full text

About the Author

Togzhan Kassenova
Togzhan Kassenova

Nonresident Fellow, Nuclear Policy Program

Kassenova is a nonresident fellow in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    How Kazakhstan Fought Back Against Soviet Nuclear Tests
      • Togzhan Kassenova

      Togzhan Kassenova

  • Report
    Perspectives on the Evolving Nuclear Order
      • Togzhan Kassenova

      Toby Dalton, Togzhan Kassenova, Lauryn Williams

Togzhan Kassenova
Nonresident Fellow, Nuclear Policy Program
Togzhan Kassenova
Nuclear PolicyNuclear EnergyNorth America

Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie India

  • Source: iStock
    Commentary
    What’s Next for U.S. AI Policy?

    This commentary explores the likely actions of the Trump administration and driving forces on issues of deregulation, the United States’ leadership in AI, national security, and global engagements on AI safety.

      Shatakratu Sahu, Amlan Mohanty

  • Article
    One Year of the INDUS-X: Defense Innovation Between India and the U.S.

    Since its launch nearly a year ago, the INDUS-X has marked many milestones in the India-U.S. relationship. Much has been achieved, but there is room to further enhance defense cooperation between the two countries in the coming years.

      Ajay Kumar, Tejas Bharadwaj

  • Article
    What is the United States-India Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technology (iCET)?

    This article explicates what iCET is and what it should not be mistaken for. The initiative is not designed to deliver a single deal. Instead, it involves multiple streams for cooperation and collaboration between the United States and India on critical and emerging technologies.

      Rudra Chaudhuri

  • Article
    Biotechnology Collaboration Through the iCET: A New Beginning

    Based on preliminary research and stakeholder discussions, this article features four areas of biosafety and biosecurity that could potentially become concrete agenda items for collaboration between the United States and India under the iCET.

      Shruti Sharma

  • Article
    The U.S.-India Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technology (iCET): The Way Forward

    The article highlights critical takeaways from the unofficial discussions led by Carnegie India on the iCET with officials from both the countries, industry leaders, technologists, fund managers, entrepreneurs, and academics.

      Rudra Chaudhuri, Konark Bhandari, Ashima Singh

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
Carnegie India logo, white
Unit C-4, 5, 6, EdenparkShaheed Jeet Singh MargNew Delhi – 110016, IndiaPhone: 011-40078687
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.