A Quick Look at the Brazilian Press

Sergio Leo is a special reporter in Brasília and writes on Mondays
Valor Economico - Jan/04/2010
Note: This report, written by this Journalist appears in this official link of the Brazilian Government, and could indicate that it reflects the government's point of view and endorsement: https://conteudoclippingmp.planejamento.gov.br/cadastros/noticias/2010/1/4/so-para-contrariar-ii

In one of the private meetings between Brazilian and American authorities last year, the special adviser of the Presidency, Marco Aurélio Garcia, tried to explain to the Deputy U.S. Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere, Arturo Valenzuela, the reason for the country's abstention in the United Nations' voting, which condemned Iran for their elusive actions in the nuclear area, and by the human rights violation. "Brazil did not support Iran; it just abstained to vote, to avoid hampering the approach with that country, and to reinforce the pressures in favor of human rights and against the warfare use of nuclear energy", said the Brazilian.

Valenzuela, according to a report delivered to president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, commented that he had not thought about this justification for Brazil's behavior in the United Nations, which intrigued Brazil's international partners. A few weeks before, the USA president explained in a letter to Lula the reasons why the USA does not consider convenient the approach with Iran, among other divergences with the Brazilian government. Garcia talked about "frustration" with Obama, but, soon after, the Brazilian government changed its tone, and Garcia from there on adopted an optimistic tone [with the USA].

Also in a recent meeting, President Lula gave similar explanations to the French president, Nicholas Sarkozy, saying that he was making an effort to bring Iran to the international community's good practices. Sarkozy thanked him for the explanations and commented that France already had this illusion once, turned down by the Iranians themselves.

The episodes with Valenzuela and Sarkozy can serve as examples of the Brazilian foreign policy naiveté and megalomania, when dreaming with success, where other big powerful nations, with much more influence collected only frustrations. However, both conversations can serve to further clarification. The one is that of Lula's and his adviser's in the diplomatic area (Marco Aurélio Garcia and the ambassador Celso Amorim), carry much more complex and worthy reasons to debate than the classification of "anti-Americanism", brought up by some ideological critics of Brazil’s foreign policy in Brasília. Anyway, it also serves to show the uselessness, for practical reasons, of the "ideological" label usually applied to the foreign policy.

There is no doubt about "ideology" in foreign politics, as it always was and will be. As the term goes, this is politics, not a technique, as some critics want us to believe. However, the label of "anti-American" seems to stick with difficulty in a diplomatic practice that exhibits with pride the agreements signed with the United States agents, that appreciates the constant exchange of impressions with the White House and the State Department, and which maintains an increasingly intense relationship in areas such as diplomacy, commerce and defense.

Whoever wants to know if in fact the foreign policy is conditioned to an anti-American tone and an aggressive ideological stance should compare the dialogs between the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, and the USA authorities with those of Brasília and Washington. Clearly, Brazil and USA have divergent points of view - and Mr. Valenzuela, during his trip to Brazil exerted a tremendous effort to minimize them, also reminding us that the USA occasionally crosses swords with Canada.

Admittedly, talks to authorities in charge of the USA foreign policies have considerable chances to include critical references to the USA actions in the [Latin American] continent. However, the aggressive American actions in support to antidemocratic regimes in the region in the recent past are not a Brazilian invention. In addition, it was the very Mr. Obama, and not some ideologist from the Planalto Palace (the Brazilian White House), who, during his campaign speech for the Cuban community in Miami in 2008 questioned the United States about the years of "failed politics", and pressures "for reforms from top to bottom" in Latin America.

The high point of impression of anti-Americanism was stamped to the Brazilian foreign policy by the Itamaraty's [Brazilian Foreign Affairs Ministry] performance in the negotiations of the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas. In reality in this FTAA discussions, government Lula's strategic vision resembled that of the past Fernando Henrique Cardoso government, [which was] contrary to the American demands regarding patents, investments and services, and skeptic regarding substantial earnings in important commercial barriers reduction to Brazilian steel, ethanol and to orange juice.

Both governments displayed different tactics. Under FHC's administration, the idea was to follow with the negotiations and to refuse the agreement if did not favored Brazil. With Lula, minister Celso Amorim (who ended up being considered for the position of chancellor by the defeated presidential candidate, José Serra), who had ample experience as the Uruguay Round negotiator in the World Trade Organization, imposed from the beginning a request for immediate definition on sensitive topics [of the FTAA] - and the negotiation failed. It is true that the negotiators appointed by Amorim already foresaw this outcome.

There is currently in Brasilia a genuine effort to [better] approach with the USA. Besides the political dialog, as a result of the high businessmen forum (created in the Bush government, and its meager results so far), the Brazilian government wants to advance in the negotiation of an agreement on the double-taxation problem, an old aspiration of the entrepreneurial community. The retaliatory threat against the USA’s illegal subsidies to cotton has been handled with moderation, without rhetorical bravadoes. Important distributions centers of the Agency for Exports Promotion for Brazilian products showcasing in the [American] market were opened - since, different from free trade agreements, what is lacking for Brazilians to enter the American market are export promotion practical actions.

There are mistakes and fiascos in the Brazilian foreign policy. However, the general balance is clearly positive, although this evaluation can be had in serious debates, without the mystifications sustained by simple arguments such as that of the "Itamaraty's anti-Americanism", and the "institutionalization of an ideology of the foreign policy". I hope this electoral year will allow for serious debates, is the wishes of this site for 2010.

Note from the translator:
Ideologism, according to Marx, is the illusion that Idealism can be carried into the revolutionary camp since it is ideas that make history. From "Hegelianism" Encyclopedia Britannica. From Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Hegelianism [Accessed November 12, 2004].

The above summary reflects the reporting and opinions expressed by the cited news media. Candex does not independently verify information, nor do the reports necessarily reflect the opinion or reporting of the board of Candex.