A Quick Look at the Brazilian Press

Link: http://porquevotonoserra.blogspot.com/2009/12/politica-externa-de-lula-ideologismo.html

It is not false, but the predominant thesis sheds a dim light on the Lula government's foreign policy real motivations. This thesis assures us that the foreign policy inaugurated in Lula's first term in government was conceived as "left-wing indemnity" to the classical economic politics spoused by Antonio Palocci and Henrique Meirelles [Lula’s Minister of Finance and Governor of the Brazilian Central Bank, respectively].
Things are more complicated than this. On one side, Palocci's substitution by Guido Mantega introduced ambivalence in the economic politics, which now combines a classical core with initiatives guided by the State capitalism program. On the other, [Brazil's] foreign policy suffered a subtle deviation that accentuates its anti-American inclinations. The crisis in Honduras, the visit of Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the parliamentary approval of Venezuela to become a member of Mercosul, all drew the outlines of a new scenario.

In the assembling of his first government, Lula delivered nine tenths of the economic politics to the classic liberals, leaving only the BDNDES' [Brazilian Development Bank] to the nationalistic group of Carlos Lessa, who had a short life [as president of that institution]. Foreign policy, in contrast, was distributed in equal parts among ultra-nationalists, represented by the Itamaraty’s general secretary, Samuel Pinheiro Guimarães, and the PT's [Lula's Labor Party] majority, inspired by the cult to Fidel Castro and personified in the presidential adviser Marco Aurélio Garcia. Minister [of Foreign Relations] Celso Amorim, a master of political malleability, of dissimulation and fallacy, remained in charge of managing the coalition’s interests, which appears strange only on the surface.

The bridge between the two groups' world vision is constituted by the anti-Americanism. The left, guided by the cult to Castro is guided by a caricature of an imperialism theory that replaces the relations of the world economy system by the "American empire". Ultra-nationalists, whose historical references form a landscape that connects Getúlio Vargas to Ernesto Geisel on the same "national project", see the USA as the main source of the hateful values of political democracy and economic freedom. A consistent foreign policy, even if abominable, can emanate of such a coalition.

Lula, as we all know, is not a queen of England. He projected his government as a kaleidoscope of interest groups, but he never renounced from exercising the effective command of it. Amorim qualified him as "Our Guide", seizing upon a ridiculous panegyric to produce a true assertion. The president, an incorrigible clodhopper, never nurtured true interest for international politics, interpreting foreign politics essentially as an instrument for the construction of his political leader’s image. In the first mandate with this purpose, "the Guide" defined as his priority Brazil's ascension to the status of having a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

Lula cultivated a personal relation with George W. Bush and Brazil attended to a White House's request for Brazil to lead the UN's Mission in Haiti, offering a solution to the crisis brought about by an adventurous gesture of American neo-conservatives. Itamaraty took care in sugar coating the Brazilian criticism to Bush's geopolitics in the Middle East and in not doing any significant mention to the human rights abuse in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. The president and minister Amorim hoped for Washington's support to the country’s claim of a definitive seat at the Security Council. However, as one would expect, the USA decided not to immolate its politics towards the UN in the altar of Brazil's obsession.
In the second term of his government, in view of the failure, Lula slackened the reins that curtailed the anti-American’s foreign policy coalition pulse. The virulence of this pulse did not decrease, rather the contrary, with the change in command at the White House. The apparent paradox comes from a well-founded suspicion: while Bush's guidelines served as an ideal counter-balance for Brazil’s valuation manifestations by the most divers shades of tyrants, Obama's guidelines tend to restore the credibility of the political values defended by the USA.

The boasted "personal chemistry" between Lula and Bush was replaced by an increasing rhetorical hostility against the USA, expressed in the arrogant tone of criticism to the use of Colombian military bases [by the USA], and for heretofore unthinkable gestures: the Honduran embassy conversion in a political base by Manuel Zelaya, the explicit support to Ahmadinejad's doubtful re-election and the proclamation [of Brazil's] trust in the supposed peaceful character of the Iranian nuclear program. In this course, a little before Mr. Arturo Valenzuela's, new secretary-assistant for the Americas visit to Brazil, Marco Aurélio Garcia manifested openly the "Brazilian deception with Obama's policy for Latin America" - an initiative that defies the diplomatic conventions among friendly countries.

The most recent act in the triumphant escalade of anti-Americanism was the approval by the Brazilian Senate of Venezuela admission in the Mercosul, a decision with ample repercussions, a result of intense government pressure on his parliamentary base. The presence of Hugo Chávez will bring the original Mercosul's death, as announced some time ago by the Venezuelan president and its conversion into “a constant empire accusation platform". This is not, obviously, an ideal scenario for the partnership between USA and Brazil intended by Obama, when he announced the main lines of his Latin American policies.

Foreign policy is the international expression of the values and interests of the society. It is not the adequate stage for propagating doctrines supported by a minority through ideological chains. It is the field of unity, not of internal confrontation. In the first Lula's mandate, the Brazilian foreign policy oscillated within the limits of a tradition. In the second term, it violates this tradition, transforming itself little by little in a play staged by irresponsible ideologists.