Movimento antivacinal: tendências perigosas em todos os países

Mais de dez anos atrás, eu escrevi um artigo no qual perguntava se o número de idiotas estava aumentando no mundo. Mas a preocupação central era com o criacionismo nas escolas e outros fenômenos similares. 
Eis meu artigo: “Estaria a imbecilidade humana aumentando? (uma pergunta que espero não constrangedora...)”, Miami-São Paulo (em vôo), 23 abril 2007, 5 p. Considerações sobre o aumento da idiotice no mundo, com base no fundamentalismo religioso e nas explicações simplistas sobre a vida e o mundo. Publicado, sob o título de “Está aumentando o número de idiotas no mundo?”, na revista Espaço Acadêmico (ano 6, n. 72, maio de 2007; ISSN: 1519-6186). Publicado na Revista Acadêmica Espaço da Sophia (Tomazina, PR: ISSN: 1981-318X, ano I, n. 3, p.1-6, junho 2007; edição eletrônica). Divulgado na plataforma Academia.edu (link: https://www.academia.edu/5908342/1746_Estaria_a_imbecilidade_humana_aumentando_uma_pergunta_que_espero_não_constrangedora..._2007_). 
A preocupação atual é com os idiotas das campanhas antivacinais, que estão fazendo o mundo retroceder de uma maneira espantosa...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

How Anti-Vaccine Sentiment Took Hold in the United States

As families face back-to-school medical requirements this month, the country feels the impact of a vaccine resistance movement decades in the making.

Jan Hoffman

The New York Times, 24/09/2019

The question is often whispered, the questioners sheepish. But increasingly, parents at the Central Park playground where Dr. Elizabeth A. Comen takes her young children have been asking her: “Do you vaccinate your kids?”

Dr. Comen, an oncologist who has treated patients for cancers related to the human papillomavirus that a vaccine can now prevent, replies emphatically: Absolutely.

She never imagined she would be getting such queries. Yet these playground exchanges are reflective of the national conversation at the end of the second decade of the 21st century — a time of stunning scientific and medical advances but also a time when the United States may, next month, lose its World Health Organization designation as a country that has eliminated measles, because of outbreaks this year. The W.H.O. has listed vaccine hesitancy as one of the top threats to global health.

As millions of families face back-to-school medical requirements and forms this month, the contentiousness surrounding vaccines is heating up again, with possibly even more fervor.

Though the situation may seem improbable to some, anti-vaccine sentiment has been building for decades, a byproduct of an internet humming with rumor and misinformation; the backlash against Big Pharma; an infatuation with celebrities that gives special credence to the anti-immunization statements from actors like Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carrey and Alicia Silverstone, the rapper Kevin Gates and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. And now, the Trump administration’s anti-science rhetoric.

“Science has become just another voice in the room,” said Dr. Paul A. Offit, an infectious disease expert at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “It has lost its platform. Now, you simply declare your own truth.”

The constituents who make up the so-called vaccine resistant come from disparate groups, and include anti-government libertarians, apostles of the all-natural and parents who believe that doctors should not dictate medical decisions about children. Labeling resisters with one dismissive stereotype would be wrongheaded.

“To just say that these parents are ignorant or selfish is an easy trope,” said Jennifer Reich, a sociologist at the University of Colorado Denver, who studies vaccine-resistant families.

It remains true that the overwhelming majority of American parents have their children vaccinated. Parent-driven groups like Voices for Vaccines, formed to counter anti-vaccination sentiment, have proliferated. Five states have eliminated exemptions for religious and philosophical reasons, permitting only medical opt-outs.

But there are ominous trends. For highly contagious diseases like measles, the vaccine rate to achieve herd immunity — the term that describes the optimum rate for protecting an entire population — is typically thought to be 95 percent. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that the vaccination rate for the measles, mumps and rubella (M.M.R.) injection in kindergartners in the 2017-2018 school year had slipped nationally to 94.3 percent, the third year in a row it dropped.

Seven states reported rates for the M.M.R. vaccine that were far lower for kindergartners, including Kansas at 89.1 percent; New Hampshire, 92.4 percent; the District of Columbia, 81.3 percent. (The highest is West Virginia at 98.4 percent.)

Almost all states have at least one anti-vaccine group. At least four have registered political action committees, supporting candidates who favor less restrictive vaccine exemption policies.

Public health experts say that patients and many doctors may not appreciate the severity of diseases that immunizations have thwarted, like polio, which can affect the spinal cord and brain — because they probably have not seen cases.

“Vaccines are a victim of their own success,” said Dr. Offit, a co-inventor of a vaccine for rotavirus, which can cause severe diarrhea in young children. “We have largely eliminated the memory of many diseases.”

The growth of vaccine doubt in America coincides with several competing forces and attitudes.

Since the early 2000s, as the number of required childhood vaccines was increasing, a generation of parents was becoming hypervigilant about their children and, through social media, patting each other on the backs for doing so. In their view, parents who permitted vaccination were gullible toadies of status quo medicine.

Para acesso à íntegra:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/23/health/anti-vaccination-movement-us.html?fallback=0&recId=1RrvvtUipI4NRJG168s2udXCwaH&locked=0&geoContinent=SA&geoRegion=DF&recAlloc=control&geoCountry=BR&blockId=home-discovery-vi-prg&imp_id=818123691&action=click&module=Discovery&pgtype=Homepage

Os 70 anos da China comunista - editorial da Economist

Xi’s embrace of false history and fearsome weapons is worrying

China’s leader is stoking hair-trigger nationalism with his idea that the Communist Party never makes mistakes

The Economist – 8/10/2019

The most revealing moment of the national day parade through Tiananmen Square on October 1st lasted just a few seconds. It came as China’s fearsome new df-41 nuclear missiles, capable of striking any city in America, neared Chaguan’s press seat on the Avenue of Eternal Peace. Loudspeakers came to life as their camouflaged, many-wheeled carriers growled towards the grand gateway of the Forbidden City where President Xi Jinping and other Chinese leaders waited on a rostrum. Unseen voices explained how the weapons would ensure that China always retains a deterrent capability, thus safeguarding peace. Turning lyrical, the voices compared the missiles to large dragons that can hide in massive mountains or boundless seas before delivering earth-shaking blows. The hand-picked crowd erupted in spontaneous cheers.

Those cheers reflect two messages conveyed by the parade, which marked 70 years of Communist rule. The first is that China wields such firepower that no country may safely defy it. The second is that China is great again thanks to the Communist Party which is, and has always been, a force for good.

That second message was pressed home by the civilian half of the parade, which began with open-topped, gold-painted buses carrying red princelings and other descendants of Communist China’s founders and martyrs. One was a grandson of Mao Zedong, squeezed into a general’s uniform. The point was reinforced by marchers dressed as Mao-era farmers, soldiers and workers, dancing and singing in celebration of party-ordained campaigns of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s to tame nature, mobilise the masses and turn China into an industrial power. Such sanitising of the Mao years is indecent. On balance those were lost decades that left millions of Chinese dead, whether from man-made famines, class warfare or ideological purges. Yet under Mr Xi, the twists, turns and dead-ends of party rule have been tidily woven into a glorious story of national progress. China’s boss has not hidden his motives. He links the Soviet Union’s collapse to the moment that Russian leaders disavowed crimes by Stalin and other Communist leaders. Mr Xi has chosen another course, curtailing the party’s previous, limited tolerance for historical candour.

Previous parades have nodded to live debates. On national day in 1984 Deng Xiaoping, then China’s leader, said the country’s primary task was to reform the economy to remove obstacles to growth. That parade included busts of leaders purged or sidelined under Mao, and a float from Shekou, a pioneering special economic zone that Deng’s leftist critics called capitalist.

In elite settings, largely for the benefit of insiders, Mr Xi has repudiated past crimes by ultra-leftists who were deemed by Deng to have deviated from the party line. Honouring revolutionary heroes on the eve of this year’s national day, Mr Xi remembered Zhang Zhixin, a party member executed in 1975 for speaking out against Mao-era excesses, though not before her larynx was cut to stop her calling to fellow inmates as she died.

No such candour is offered to the masses. The true story of China’s recovery from Maoist ruin was written by hundreds of millions of individual Chinese. They were enabled to raise themselves from poverty through hard work and risk-taking, after Deng pragmatically embraced market forces. Yet in this year’s parade, a vast painting of Deng in a Mao suit was escorted by identically dressed dancers waving fronds of grain, as if he were the skilled boss of a collective farm rather than the man who let peasants grow their own crops, transforming rural lives. Later floats, lauding the Xi era, showed such centrally planned glories as high-speed trains and space rockets. Some of the few visible representatives of private enterprise were delivery drivers on scooters, a low-paid group once praised by Mr Xi for being like diligent bees. In apparent homage to this simile, the parade’s delivery drivers wore yellow and black hats topped with bee antennae, like heroes in a children’s book. As if vanquishing the ghosts of the Tiananmen protests of 1989, students from the city’s universities marched beneath their college flags, hopping with excitement as they saw Mr Xi, through air still heavy with the fumes from parading tanks.

China’s nationalism is the world’s problem

It is understandable, indeed inevitable, that a wealthier China would seek to become a great military power. What was not inevitable was that Mr Xi would embrace populist, nostalgic, red-flag waving nationalism, while glossing over the party’s terrible mistakes. Traditionally, those urging China to reckon honestly with the past have appealed to rational self-interest. Brave, embattled liberals have called for more open debate about the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, to prevent such mistakes from being repeated. That argument feels weak today. Mr Xi is not a revolutionary like Mao, bent on dismantling the party. Rather, he is an authoritarian obsessed with stability, determined to assert the party’s absolute authority. To that end his team is happy to harness Maoist rhetoric, nostalgia for a simpler, less materialist China and the public’s justifiable pride in the endurance of past hardships. Judged cynically, such propaganda is astute domestic politics. Mao-style strongman rule is still a danger, but there is little risk of a return to the mayhem of the Cultural Revolution.

Other countries may have more to fear from Mr Xi’s embrace of false history. By telling his people that Communist China has never taken a wrong turn, he is stoking an impatient, hair-trigger nationalism in which criticism from abroad equates to hostility.

China is not the first rising power to seek fearsome weapons. Its people’s patriotism cannot be dismissed as brainwashing. Many are clear-eyed and rational in their love for their country and support for Mr Xi. But heavily armed, self-righteous nationalism can start wars. Both China and the rest of the world would be somewhat safer if party chiefs were to acknowledge their fallibility. That Mr Xi is heading in the other direction should alarm everybody. ?

O PIOR chanceler em todas as épocas (não, não é quem vocês pensam...)

Dois analistas americanos, um ex-diplomata, o outro um cientista político, classificam Pompeo como PIOR Secretário de Estado dos EUA, em todos os tempos. 
Fica a critério de cada um saber se temos um dos PIORES, se não o PIOR chanceler de todos os tempos, pior até do que trabalhou para o presidente Epitácio Pessoa, que aparentemente queria um medíocre no Itamaraty, para ele continuar mandando.

Transcrevo aqui um trecho das memórias de Heitor Lyra, Minha Vida Diplomática  (Brasília: UnB, 1981) sobre esse ministro desastroso. 
Num capítulo simplesmente chamado "O ministro do Senhor Epitácio", Lyra escreve que o ministro Azevedo Marques tinha "uma incrível ignorância em diplomacia, para não dizer uma ignorância completa em qualquer coisa" (p. 82). Ele continua: 
"De fato, Azevedo Marques era a personalização da mediocridade. Eu acho [Lyra] que a mediocridade de Azevedo Marques como ministro do Exterior foi além das expectativas de Epitácio, que teve remorsos por tê-lo indicado para o governo. Essa foi a impressão que ele me deu num encontro... no verão de 1921, quando ele lamentou a desordem existente no Itamaraty, e confessou que, de fato, ele não tinha ministro do Exterior...
No Itamaraty, tínhamos de depender da falta de capacidade e da passividade do ministro de Estado, assim como da sua carência de atributos para a tarefa.
Ele tinha um espírito confuso e perturbado." (pp. 103-105)
A mesma opinião foi mantida pelos diplomatas estrangeiros no Rio de Janeiro. Como registrado pelo historiador Eugênio Garcia, o embaixador britânico John Tilley escreveu para o Foreign Office, em abril de 1921, que a "incompetência do ministro das Relações Exteriores" era tão evidente a ponto de ser um "escândalo público"...

Como se vê, existem precedentes...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Pompeo might go down as the worst secretary of state in modern times

Aaron David Miller and Richard Sokolsky

CNN – 7/10/2019

On December 19, 1985, Secretary of State George Shultz rocked the Reagan administration by publicly threatening to resign. The matter was not over policy, but principle. Shultz was taking a stand against Reagan's plan to expand the use of polygraph tests to as many as 180,000 government employees — including 4,500 from the State Department — in an effort to crack down on leaks. Just one day after Shultz took a stand, Reagan backed down.

Shultz represents the gold standard for a secretary of state defending his department. It's hard to see current Secretary of State Mike Pompeo taking a page from Shultz's playbook. It appears that if there's anything Pompeo learned from his predecessor Rex Tillerson, it's not to oppose President Donald Trump or make him unhappy.

We have worked for a half dozen secretaries of state in both Republican and Democratic administrations and rarely if ever have we encountered one more ill-suited for the job. Pompeo, who seems to be motivated by his own political ambitions and his desire to keep his job, has produced little of real consequence to advance the nation's interest. If he continues on his current trajectory, Pompeo may end up being remembered as the worst secretary of state in modern times.

To be fair, Pompeo works for a mercurial and undisciplined President who trusts and empowers no one, interferes in foreign policy when his vanity and mood swings move him, and sees everything through the lens of his own personal and political needs. It may well be that no secretary of state can navigate these turbulent waters.

After John Bolton was ousted as national security adviser, Pompeo became the most influential foreign policy voice in Washington after Trump. And yet it appears Pompeo is either unwilling or incapable of using that influence to advise the President. There is no speaking truth to power here. Pompeo seems unwilling to apply any brakes on Trump's impulses and in fact seems willing to keep one foot on the accelerator — particularly when it comes to defending Trump's trade war with China and defending Saudi Arabia.

Pompeo did not seem interested in getting in Trump's way as the President and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani went digging for dirt on political opponents in Ukraine. In fact, Pompeo sat in on the Trump-Zelensky phone call on July 25 and was a first-hand witness to the President asking the Ukrainian leader to initiate an investigation into Trump's leading 2020 political rival — and yet for days he made misleading statements to gloss over his participation. Pompeo failed to meet a subpoena deadline from the House and pushed back against the House Foreign Affairs Committee's request to interview five State Department officials.

In his role as secretary of state, Pompeo has compiled a dismal record in areas like the Middle East, where he has carved out a prominent role for himself. His uncompromising and confrontational style of diplomacy has brought the US and Iran closer to the brink of war and all but extinguished any hope of a new dialogue between the two countries on the nuclear issue.

He has denied the CIA's own assessment that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman reportedly ordered the killing of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi and claimed instead that "there's no direct evidence linking him to the murder." His kowtowing to Salman has enabled the crown prince to pursue reckless policies elsewhere in the region. Exhibit A: Saudi Arabia's ruinous military campaign in Yemen has inflicted untold misery as a result of its ongoing conflict with the Iranian-backed Houthis. Pompeo has been the point man in defending US military assistance to Saudi Arabia in its Yemen fiasco. His refusal to acknowledge the Saudi role in Yemen's humanitarian disaster and willingness to place the blame solely on Iran strains the bounds of credulity to the breaking point.

Elsewhere around the world, Pompeo has been the President's junior partner in undermining US alliances and multilateralism. He's been a cheerleader for the inhumane and ineffectual sanctions campaign to topple the Maduro government in Venezuela. He's championed of the disastrous all-or-nothing approach to denuclearization diplomacy with North Korea, which so far has yielded zero progress (although there are hopeful signs of a change in the US approach to the negotiations).

When the beleaguered and hapless Rex Tillerson was unceremoniously dumped by Trump, morale at the State Department had hit rock bottom and most observers assumed it had nowhere to go but up. This proved to be wrong — morale, by all accounts, has sunk to an even lower level. Trump's disdain for the State Department, diplomacy, and America's diplomatic corps bears much of the blame. But Pompeo is not blameless, and he should be held accountable.

He was not only complicit in Trump's scheme to dig up dirt on Joe Biden, but also in the removal of the US ambassador to Ukraine. Rather than stand up to Trump, he failed to use his close relationship with the President to prevent Giuliani from conducting his own foreign policy in Ukraine. He did not defend State Department personnel against scurrilous attacks by Trump and his right wing, conspiratorial-crazed sycophants.

Finally, Pompeo failed to oppose the investigation into current and former State Department officials who sent emails to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email — a blatant attempt to tarnish the careers of these officials. Whatever Pompeo has been whispering into Trump's ear, it has not been a message to lay off the State Department.

t's hard to see the next year or so improving Pompeo's prospects. His reputation has taken a hit on Ukraine and it may get further blackened as the impeachment inquiry intensifies. It would be smart politics and good policy for the administration to try to engage in serious diplomacy in the next year.

But Iran and North Korea will be tough nuts to crack and success will require the kind of diplomatic skill so far missing in the repertoire of a secretary of state who seems better suited to haranguing and lecturing America's adversaries than negotiating with them.

It often takes time and perspective to judge the performance of a secretary of state. In Pompeo's case, the verdict may already be in.

Aaron David Miller is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He is the author of "The End of Greatness: Why America Can't Have (and Doesn't Want) Another Great President." He served as a Middle East negotiator in Democratic and Republican administrations. Richard Sokolsky is a nonresident senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and former member of the US State Department's Office of Policy Planning. The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the authors; view more opinion articles on CNN.

Trump dá uma banana ao Brasil na questão da OCDE - O Globo e Bloomberg

EUA não endossam proposta do Brasil na OCDE após apoiá-la publicamente

Secretário de Estado declara apoio só a candidaturas da Argentina e da Romênia e ignora uma das principais apostas da política externa do governo Bolsonaro; Trump e Pompeo garantem que apoio americano ao Brasil segue válido

O Globo e Bloomberg

10/10/2019 - 12:00 / Atualizado em 10/10/2019 - 23:07

O presidente Jair Bolsonaro aperta a mão do presidente dos Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, após sessão da Assembleia Geral da ONU Foto: Alan Santos / Presidência da República 24-9-19

WASHINGTON —  O governo dos EUA não endossou a proposta do Brasil de ingressar na Organização de Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Econômico(OCDE), após as principais autoridades americanas a apoiarem publicamente , revelou a Bloomberg nesta quinta-feira.

O secretário de Estado americano, Mike Pompeo , rejeitou um pedido para discutir mais ampliações do clube dos países mais ricos, de acordo com uma cópia de uma carta enviada ao secretário-geral da OCDE, Ángel Gurría, em 28 de agosto à qual a Bloomberg teve acesso. Ele acrescentou que Washington apoia apenas as candidaturas de adesão de Argentina e Romênia.

Leia mais: Entenda por que o Brasil quer entrar na OCDE, o 'clube dos países ricos'

“Os EUA continuam a preferir a ampliação a um ritmo contido que leve em conta a necessidade de pressionar por planos de governança e sucessão”, afirmou o secretário de Estado na carta.

Segundo o Valor, Pompeo rejeitou um plano de Gurría que previa a ampliação da OCDE com seis países, com um cronograma definido para início de negociações: Argentina imediatamente; Romênia em dezembro; Brasil em maio de 2020; Peru em dezembro de 2020; e Bulgária em maio de 2021, com Croácia ficando para o futuro. Pompeo, sem dar explicações, aceitou apenas Argentina e Romênia, e o parágrafo que mencionava os prazos de Brasil, Peru e Bulgária foi cortado.

A mensagem se afasta da posição pública dos EUA sobre o assunto. Em março, o presidente Donald Trump disse em entrevista coletiva conjunta com o presidente Jair Bolsonaro na Casa Branca que apoiava à adesão do Brasil ao grupo de 36 membros, conhecido como “o clube dos países ricos”, um apoio que foi reiterado em maio . Em julho, o secretário de Comércio dos EUA, Wilbur Ross, reiterou o apoio de Washington ao Brasil durante uma visita a São Paulo.

Horas depois da divulgação da carta, porém, o presidente Donald Trump chamou de "f alsa " a informação publicada pela Bloomberg, falando sobre as intenções americanas. Segundo eles, o memorando assinado em março pelos dois presidentes "deixa absolutamente claro" que ele apoia o "início do processo do Brasill para uma admissão plena na OCDE". Mas também não deu prazos.

Mais cedo, o secretário de Estado, Mike Pompeo foi na mesma linha .

Os EUA apoiam a ampliação comedida da OCDE e um eventual convite ao Brasil, mas dedicam-se primeiro ao ingresso de Argentina e Romênia, tendo em vista os esforços de reforma econômica e o compromisso com o livre mercado desses países, disse uma autoridade sênior dos EUA, que pediu para não ser identificada por não ter autorização para discutir deliberações políticas internas em público.

Análise: Ao preterir Brasil na OCDE, Estados Unidos mostram que país não é uma prioridade

Na tarde desta quinta, a embaixada americana informou, em nota, que os EUA continuam a apoiar a entrada do Brasil na OCDE . De acordo com o texto publicado em seu site, a expansão do organismo deve ocorrer de forma "gradual", e juntamente com um projeto de mudança na governança da organização. A nota, contudo, não fala em prazos e não comenta a decisão americana de priorizar a Argentina e a Romênia em detrimento da candidatura brasileira. 

O endosso dos EUA à entrada brasileira na OCDE no início deste ano foi um dos primeiros claros benefícios obtidos pelo estreito alinhamento de Bolsonaro com o governo Trump.  A entrada no grupo é considerada uma das principais apostas da política externa do Brasil. Ao GLOBO, o Ministério da Economia informou que não vai comentar o assunto.

Veja também: 'Os EUA eram nosso maior padrinho', diz presidente da Comissão de Relações Exteriores do Senado

Durante a viagem de Bolsonaro a Washington em março, o Brasil ofereceu acesso dos EUA à plataforma de lançamento de foguetes de Alcântara, no Nordeste do país, viagens sem visto para turistas dos EUA e cooperação na questão da Venezuela. O Brasil também  se comprometeu a abrir mão do status de nação em desenvolvimento na Organização Mundial do Comércio ( OMC ), o que lhe dava benefícios como prazos maiores para a adequação a acordos comerciais e regras mais flexíveis na concessão de subsídios industriais.

Trump, em troca, cumpriu a promessa de designar o Brasil como um aliado importante extra-Otan, status que permite a obtenção de material bélico a custos menores. Críticos do acordo questionaram se o apoio dos EUA se materializaria.

O governo brasileiro não respondeu a vários pedidos de comentários. Um funcionário da imprensa da OCDE em Paris também não comentou imediatamente.

O ministro da Economia, Paulo Guedes, afirmou que o Brasil já tinha sido avisado que  não seria imediatamente apoiado pelos Estados Unidos, informou a jornalista Cristiana Lôbo, da Globonews. Segundo Guedes, o Brasil poderá ainda ser apoiado no futuro.

— Desde o encontro do presidente Bolsonaro com Trump, lá em Washington, isso já havia ficado claro — disse Guedes, tentando minimizar o impacto negativo interno da decisão dos Estados Unidos.

Ao site O Antagonista, Guedes explicou que Washington "por questão estratégica, não poderia indicar o Brasil neste momento, mas não é uma rejeição no mérito", e sim de "timing, porque há outros países na frente, como a Argentina". O ministro completou a justificativa dos EUA dizendo que "abrir para o Brasil agora significaria ceder à pressão dos europeus, que também querem indicar mais países para o grupo".

Em maio, no entanto, na reunião anual da OCDE em Paris em que os EUA e os países europeus retomaram as negociações para ampliação da organização, Washington voltou a expresar oficialmente apoio à candidatura brasileira, no que o chanceler Ernesto Araújo, presente a encontro,  já considerou "como o início do processo de adesão do Brasil". 

Miriam Leitão: Uma ampla derrota da diplomacia do governo Bolsonaro

Como o processo de adesão, uma vez admitido, leva pelo menos três anos, dificilmente o Brasil se tornará membro da organização durante este mandato de Bolsonaro.

Frustração em Washington

Segundo o professor de Relações Internacionais da FGP-SP Oliver Stuenkel, a decisão de Washington de priorizar as candidaturas de Argentina e Romênia é um sinal da frustração de Washington com Brasília. No começo do governo Bolsonaro, afirmou Stuenkel, Trump esperava duas coisas do Brasil: ajuda de Brasília para retirar Nicolás Maduro do poder na Venezuela e também para reduzir a influência chinesa na América Latina.

Veja também : À frente do Itamaraty, Ernesto Araújo tem 24 reuniões com americanos e duas com chineses

À esta altura, está claro que Brasília não conseguiu tirar Maduro do poder e o que país é dependente da China, com viagem presidencial marcada para outubro. Com a frustração dos dois planos, encerra-se o interesse americano no Brasil — e, em consequência, os motivos da Casa Branca para apoiar pleitos brasileiros, disse Stuenkel.

— A aproximação de Brasília com Washington só funciona quando o Brasil consegue entregar algo aos EUA — afirmou Stuenkel. —  O que se fala em Washington é que o Brasil não conseguiu entregar nada na Venezuela, e a cada dia fica mais evidente que Brasil dificilmente conseguirá ajudar a conter a presença chinesa  na América Latina. Era óbvio, mas o que [o deputado federal] Eduardo Bolsonaro, [o chanceler] Ernesto Araújo e [o assessor internacional da Presidência] Filipe Martins diziam era que o Brasil teria como fazer algo, o que não aconteceu. Com isso, a aproximação de Bolsonaro com Washington se encerra, porque não há mais nada que Washington possa querer de Brasília.

A OCDE, fundada em 1961, diz em seu site que visa "moldar políticas que promovam prosperidade, igualdade, oportunidade e bem-estar para todos". A adesão ao grupo tem sido ultimamente considerada um selo de qualidade para países que buscam mostrar à comunidade internacional que suas nações estão abertas ao mercado internacional.

Leia mais : Quatro momentos em que os EUA manifestaram apoio à entrada do Brasil na OCDE

A adesão ao grupo também é utilizada por governos de países em desenvolvimento para promover reformas internas.

O Brasil apresentou seu pedido de adesão à OCDE em maio de 2017, durante o governo de Michel Temer.

Colaborou André Duchiade