The insertion of Brazil in the "new order" world is inexorably subject to the ability of national institutions to the demands of the global market. So, several monographs and essays, or monografias, had been written, so, it is natural that AD Monografia and National Research to TCC would realize an article about this subject.

Affirmative above can and should be distributed as widely as possible, relativised in all directions and widely problematizada: firstly, enter Brazil in the "new order" (and so far only keep quotes) does not mean in any way present a nationality (ours!) to others, or abandon all or, in my opinion, even less, prioritize any particular nationality at the expense of any international or supranational collective benefit, in terms of total VELLOSO, et al FRITSCH, among others, can understand the new situation so that the dynamic changes that the world is now present in its structure and geopolitical megaeconômica in the periods immediately before and after the collapse of socialist regimes in Eastern Europe and in this sense, the new command is very most "new" than "order", leaving the word with the most relevant part semantics of the term, so it can be seen from the discussion around the theme, packaging the insertion an order that is more "new" and "order" because it means that this integration May May or not, it can happen to a more or lesser degree, it can occur in different ways and with different power relations, the next stage of my so, citing the adequacy States to the whole transformation that is required, within a project in which he has a certain type of integration as a collective goal identified, the institutions to which I refer are all, government, political parties, trade unions, professional associations, NGOs of all kinds.

And the market here that, in turn, is also understood in the broadest sense, this is all offers and demands economic, political and social interagintes combined and, in general regarded as being in this declaration all models will be adopted, the macrodimencional component international relations in all areas of the market, are a factor that may be regarded as a point person. I will return to these issues a little more depth in the front.

In an article in depth as Introduction to several volumes of your organization in the publications of the National Forum, the former Minister Reis Velloso provides a necessary link between governance and scope of a desirable degree of modern economic, political and social.

I believe that adjustments to the institutional market, I mentioned above, are the same that lead to these modernities, even able to generate long-term governance. That point of view that the adequacy of reference constitutes an ideal or national project underway and the insertion mentioned a collective goal identified, which, from this point, I places.

Governance in the long term, time in the history of long duration, in a completely interdependent world, paradoxically subject (even if temporary) to the hegemony of the USA, would give rise to universal peace which is desirable for a utopia, certainly not entrevê At least in the short term, from another angle.

This governance in the long term is very close to what has been called the "end of history" Fukuyama and measures that followed. The long-term governance, or lack of perspective for it to achieve is that Hobsbawn seems to have been disappointed to see nowadays, many local problems, some groups linked to ultranationalist and other global problems such as increasing xenofobismo and Keynésienne own fallibility of liberalism, even in its neo-liberal dictates, in which the East redemocratizados have plunged, a little hastily (still the second Hobsbawn).

That is, all these comments: adapt institutions to the demands of global market and the realization of governance would be a step towards the end of history, which is as far as always, since the collapse of socialism, opposed to simply eliminate problems of the cold war has reduced old problems that have been "frozen" by socialism and bipolarization.

The last paragraph deliberately mix the ideas of authors construction of a paradox that, if this logic seems so fragile, and not just an artifice of my argument.

My thesis, however, and I am optimistic say is that we are approaching a time when conditions are considerably better than those of any other historical period to reduce any geographical, in which players act on global cooperation lot clearer and with a continued positive development in this cooperatividade.

I think you've reached a stage in the modern world in which we realize that cooperation is the best state of competition, and vice versa. I will come back to this point.

For now want to emphasize certain aspects of the international order as factors to be considered as an integral part of the nature of institutional changes that are now underway and the dynamics and trends must be understood for the development of any project over the long term.

PANORAMA INTERNATIONAL

The first point I want to emphasize is the question of liberalism and neoliberalism. Taken one by another, the race in its current form, as practised unanimously world market, there are still a number of different realities in which it is intended that the practice is the same doctrine (or exercise, the same practice) economic, differences between the hemispheres From North and South, rather than diminishing, have been recrudescendo, Brazil, the gap between the poorest and the richest is more important during the recent years, and the proportion between the two is even more unequal, in most of these reality is not much better than here. Even in the first world, despite the enormous efforts and management of the richest countries, there is still a huge gap between the West (mainly the countries of stable democracy since the second war) and East (just recently socialism).

In this regard, to consider article Helmut Koln (VELLOSO 1993a), on the other hand, there is a plurality of liberalismos (as a movement of ideas, unlike origin, while the concepts of State) if the extract overcome a common market economy and the state minimum, we have so many strands in authors who are involved in the question. But neither aspect of the genesis or the characterization of liberalism that important centre here. The crux of the question is whether liberalism is possible, if it is compatible with democracy Procedure (Bobbio, yet) or any other, and if the alternative is to integrate the plots always broader political and economic on the market.

The problem for liberalism in this historic moment is not the same thing with which he has already met before, because the reality of megamercados and dynamics of capital flows around the planet are a novelty. And we are no longer the question of whether the liberalism will be viable here or there, or if two or for how long, but the question that arises is whether liberalism is the alternative which will report to regulate the whole world market and all world markets, political, economic and social satisfying the requirements of increasingly complex that continually grow in each of these sectors.

The question on the hegemony of liberalism and its viability follows another no less important to understand the current order, and suggests ways that certainly does not (or at least not know who d ' else wants to) move: the end of "real socialism", ie their capitulation in the face of a market economy in the late 80 recoloca some questions about the conception of the world stage, they were in the nineteenth century, at the same time, he launched the world in the twenty-first century before letre, even in 90 years. In the mind of Hobsbawn (op.cit.) The twentieth century was around the time of the October Revolution. That time is over. Suffice it all, or at least Hobsbawn - despite their disagreement with Fukuyama - gave his goodbye to everything, even manufacturing in a direction completely opposed to it. So, a apresentacao da monografia e do TCC is very important.

With the collapse of socialism comes from the ideology (and practice) that in its genesis and rationale stressed the necessity of extending its coverage to the whole world, by actions of the State planned, the "export of revolution" and so forth. But always the rationalization of actions specifically for this purpose, and remains the ideology that even in some of its aspects could have attracted hegemony in one of their schools after this absolute necessity, and in no way hindered rational in this sense, with the exception, and here's the point, to oppose passively (and not always peacefully) to socialist interventionism. My vision is that socialism is against all precepts of liberalism and attacked each, while liberalism is no objection to a provision of socialism, but that is all for it: its interventionism.

Socialism is not viable for its bureaucracy, poor leadership in the different target market rigidity, and by so many known causes, which led the GDP of the USSR Involute absolute and mid 70, but whose explanations are not yet be defined by historical knowledge. Do not ignore the role of the arms race in the list of causes, but this process, like a sword of two gumes, it is undoubtedly a variable to take into consideration, injured two adversaries around the same level, Only the ability to resist the coup have been different.

What remains at the end of socialism? The end of history? In other words, the absence of antagonism or, in other words, the absence of antithesis, is to stop the process (dialectic?) On the story? The world has been too accustomed to transpose in all areas (political psychological, throughout history) the reality of the Cold War, ideological dichotomy of the world of the twentieth century. In fautores understanding of the end of history, man (as the "last man") is vai discourage competition, the dominant character of the cooperation at all levels, from the States until the microspheres social relationship, and if a isothymia (which is the same as athymia, in my opinion) that if descaracterizará be political.

But encouraging more to this line of thought Fukuyama, for the most clever and well-founded, and for another, he defends his point of view historical claims an understanding processualista as opposed to other events that we must take account if a pair of issues including the great instability that the end of socialism launched in Eastern Europe and the question of the relative decline of the USA, which undoubtedly the international situation today, much less than in an ocean full calm, a series of sea currents with revoltos still unknown.

The fact of not knowing the track process, the fact that the current situation does not allow speculative nature valid exercise (to whom the historian is not given by vocation, incidentally) absolutely does not mean the end of history, quite the contrary, the absence of an international order (which, when called new order) is necessarily that players act which continues with the phenomena that are characteristic of the history, living history , In the process of history, aspects of social, economic and political factors that are characteristic of humanity, where competition and cooperation are mainly.

And even if they can predict what will happen, because this issue is irrelevant to science, certainly it can be assumed without great risk of error than the speed of change will be even faster than its predecessors, that the procedures will be accelerated as the acceleration of the historical process, once the macro-history is perhaps the only law to which there was unanimity, is that unlike an "end of history", which will be even more ' history. And man, rather than if desumanizar if humanizará furthermore, to seek the magalothymia competition and cooperation in dialectical interaction, or in one of them, searching for her optimization.