Temas de relações internacionais, de política externa e de diplomacia brasileira, com ênfase em políticas econômicas, em viagens, livros e cultura em geral. Um quilombo de resistência intelectual em defesa da racionalidade, da inteligência e das liberdades democráticas.
O que é este blog?
Este blog trata basicamente de ideias, se possível inteligentes, para pessoas inteligentes. Ele também se ocupa de ideias aplicadas à política, em especial à política econômica. Ele constitui uma tentativa de manter um pensamento crítico e independente sobre livros, sobre questões culturais em geral, focando numa discussão bem informada sobre temas de relações internacionais e de política externa do Brasil. Para meus livros e ensaios ver o website: www.pralmeida.org. Para a maior parte de meus textos, ver minha página na plataforma Academia.edu, link: https://itamaraty.academia.edu/PauloRobertodeAlmeida.
segunda-feira, 4 de abril de 2011
Brazilian Foreign Policy: away from some folies...
Roque Planas
Americas Society, March 29, 2011
Brazil hopes to gain a permanent UN Security Council seat.
Two recent UN votes indicate President Dilma Rousseff’s foreign policy may differ from that of her predecessor, Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva. Lula generally opposed sanctions, avoided criticizing authoritarian governments’ human rights violations, and famously attempted to broker a deal (along with Turkey) to allow Iran to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. The Rousseff administration, on the other hand, voted Thursday for a resolution to send a special human rights investigator to Iran. Last month, Brazil voted to sanction Libyan head of state Moamar Gadaffi. But while those votes mark a departure from Lula’s foreign policy at the UN, Rousseff’s abstention from the Libya no-fly zone resolution indicate that she will not entirely abandon Lula’s policy of nonintervention.
Rousseff anticipated last week’s Iran vote in an interview with The Washington Post before her inauguration. After criticizing what she referred to as the failure of a “war policy” toward the Middle East led by the United States, Rousseff broached the theme of human rights in Iran that Lula avoided. “I would feel uncomfortable as a woman president-elect not to say anything against the stoning,” Rousseff said, referring to the pending sentence for Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, who was convicted of adultery and murder in May 2006. “My position will not change when I take office. I do not agree with the way Brazil voted. It’s not my position.” Brazil’s envoy to the UN, Maria Nazareth Farani Azevedo, expressed her country’s support of the resolution in similar terms. “This is not a vote against Iran. It’s a vote in favor of the strengthening of the system of human rights,” she said.
Rousseff's departure from Lula’s position on Iran sparked some criticism. When asked if he would support the resolution to send a special human rights investigator to Iran, former foreign minister Celso Amorim told A Folha de São Paulo that he probably would not, explaining that for such a policy to be coherent “we would have to send a special investigator to Iran, another to Guantanamo, another to look at the situation of immigrants in Europe.” Amorim, who served in the Lula administration and helped negotiate the failed nuclear agreement with Tehran, added, “If you get involved in the politics of condemnation, you can forget dialogue.”
But Rousseff’s position on Iran does not constitute a 180-degree turnaround from the Lula days. Israeli officials cited by The Jerusalem Post viewed the Iran vote as a small sign of change that would not affect Brazil’s relationship with the Ahmadinejad administration. Instead, Israeli officials viewed Brazil’s vote against Iran as a gesture to Obama, who visited the country this month. And while Brazil supported sanctioning Libya, the Rousseff administration’s abstention from the no-fly zone vote in the Security Council—along with China, Russia, India, and Germany—marked continuity with her predecessor’s opposition to sanctions and foreign military intervention. The Brazilian Mission to the UN released a statement saying it was not convinced the use of force would “lead to the realization of our common objective—the immediate end to violence and the protection of civilians.” The statement criticized foreign military action while also condemning the Gadaffi regime’s violence. Lula lauded the Rousseff administration’s position on Libya in comments to the press and criticized foreign intervention in harsher terms than Brazil’s diplomats. “These invasions only happen because the United Nations is weak,” Lula said. “If we had twenty-first-century representation [in the Security Council], instead of sending a plane to drop bombs, the UN would send its secretary-general to negotiate.”
Lula’s comments hinted at another issue weighing on Rousseff’s mind: some analysts speculate that Brazil is tweaking its votes at the UN to garner support for a permanent seat at the Security Council (UNSC). Brazil has served as an elected, nonpermanent member of the UN Security Council ten times and holds its current seat until December. As the largest country in Latin America and a participant in 33 peacekeeping missions, Brazil hopes to gain a permanent seat if the Council is expanded and is courting the current permanent members, including the United States, for support.
Brazilian daily O Globo reported that President Barack Obama asked Rousseff to support the Iran human rights investigator resolution during his visit from March 19 to March 21, citing an unnamed government official. According to the report, Rousseff did not commit to supporting the resolution until the time of the vote. If Obama succeeded in convincing Rousseff to join the United States on the Iran resolution, Rousseff had less luck getting Obama to support Brazil in its bid for permanent Security Council membership. Instead of an endorsement, Rousseff came away with a lukewarm statement acknowledging that “Brazil aspires to a seat on the Security Council” and saying the United States would “keep working with Brazil and other nations on reforms that make the Security Council more effective, more efficient, more representative.” The statement fell short of Obama’s wholehearted support of India’s bid for permanent membership last year, but it still amounted to support. “It is weaker in comparison with what he said last November in New Delhi about India’s aspirations, but it is the first public demonstration of sympathy by the U.S. to Brazil’s quest to a permanent seat in the Security Council,” said Paulo Sotero, of the Wilson Center in Washington. If it was any consolation, on Saturday former President Bill Clinton said he supported a permanent seat on the Security Council for Brazil, during a talk at the World Forum on Sustainability in the Amazonian city of Manaus.
Learn More:
Read the transcript of Obama and Rousseff’s comments following their March 19 meeting.
Read an AS/COA Online analysis of the Obama-Rousseff meeting on March 19 in Brasilia.
Read an interview with former Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim.
The Washington Post interviews President-elect Dilma Rousseff.
The Brazilian Mission to the United Nations explains its opposition to sanctions on Iran in June 2010 and its abstention from the Libya no-fly zone resolution this month.
Send questions and comments for the editor to: ascoa.online@as-coa.org.