Desafios do governo Dilma: política externa
Thiago Guimarães
Do G1, em São Paulo, 30/12/2010
Sem Lula, diplomacia brasileira oscila entre inflexão e continuidade.
Série do G1 analisa os principais desafios do próximo governo federal.
As primeiras entrevistas da presidente eleita, Dilma Rousseff (PT), chamaram a atenção por sugerir mudanças de rumo na política externa brasileira no próximo governo.
Dilma classificou como “bárbara” a possibilidade de execução por apedrejamento da iraniana Sakineh Ashtiani, condenada por adultério naquele país. Também disse discordar da abstenção do governo brasileiro em votação na ONU sobre violações de direitos humanos no Irã.
"Não sou presidente do Brasil, mas me sentiria desconfortável, como uma mulher eleita presidente, em não dizer nada contra o apedrejamento. Minha posição não vai mudar quando eu assumir. Não concordo com a maneira como o Brasil votou. Não é a minha posição”, afirmou Dilma ao jornal "The Washington Post".
Presidente Lula observa a então ministra Dilma Rousseff ser cumprimentada pelo presidente Barack Obama, em Washington, em março de 2009 (Foto: Ricardo Stuckert/PR)
Embora a declaração tenha marcado uma divergência pública com o presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, que em sua gestão aproximou-se do mandatário iraniano, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as grandes linhas da política externa brasileira devem manter-se sob Dilma, avaliam analistas.
Os sinais estão dados por decisões recentes da presidente eleita, como a indicação, para o Ministério das Relações Exteriores, de Antônio Patriota, secretário-geral do Itamaraty e segundo na hierarquia da pasta.
Auxiliar próximo e amigo do ministro Celso Amorim, Patriota é “afinadíssimo” com o atual titular da pasta, avaliou Igor Fuser, professor de Política e Relações Internacionais da Escola de Sociologia e Política de São Paulo, em debate recente sobre o tema.
Patriota deve manter, por exemplo, a política de expansão das representações diplomáticas no mundo. Foram 64 novas unidades abertas desde o início do governo Lula, em 2003, quase a metade do que havia até então: 150 postos.
Em discurso de posse na Secretaria-Geral do Itamaraty, em outubro de 2009, o futuro ministro também endossou o trabalho de ampliação do quadro diplomático. Falou em “deixar claro desde já” seu “empenho em continuar a trabalhar por uma ampliação do quadro de diplomatas que nos aparelhe para os desafios do século 21”. Sob Lula, uma lei de 2006 permitiu a abertura de 400 vagas de diplomata.
Perfil mais discreto de Dilma deve minimizar “diplomacia presidencial”
A política externa brasileira no governo Lula foi marcada pela busca de maior protagonismo político em foros internacionais.
Exemplos dessa estratégia foram a criação do G20, coalizão liderada pelo Brasil para defender interesses de países emergentes em negociações comerciais, e as tentativas de mediação no conflito entre Israel e Palestina e na crise nuclear do Irã.
Lula tem um ‘bônus de confiança’ que permite lances ousados. É difícil isso ser reproduzido por outra pessoa"
Paulo Roberto Almeida
professor e diplomata
Como Dilma não conta com o prestígio internacional de Lula, pode haver um recuo em iniciativas mais ousadas de política externa, avalia o professor e diplomata Paulo Roberto Almeida.
“O presidente tem crédito internacional e um ‘bônus de confiança’ que permite lançar lances ousados. É difícil isso ser reproduzido por outra pessoa, já que para ser aceito como mediar é preciso ter empatia com os envolvidos, e isso se constrói ao longo do tempo”, diz Almeida.
Agenda internacional de Dilma será agitada em 2011
A performance de Dilma em foros internacionais será posta à prova já nos primeiros meses de seu governo. A agenda diplomática de 2011 prevê a realização no Peru, em fevereiro, da 3ª reunião de dirigentes da Cúpula América do Sul-Países Árabes (Aspa), mecanismo de cooperação inter-regional e fórum de coordenação política.
Há ainda a previsão de reunião de cúpula do Bric, grupo dos principais países emergentes do mundo (Brasil, Rússia, Índia e China). O encontro está marcado para abril, na China, e deve preceder a primeira visita oficial da presidente eleita ao país asiático.
Um dos encontros mais importantes do ano será a reunião de cúpula do G20, prevista para novembro em Cannes, na França. O G20 reúne os países mais ricos do mundo e 11 nações emergentes. Na pauta da reunião estarão temas que ficaram sem solução no último encontro, na Coreia do Sul, como as tensões cambiais que ameaçam a recuperação econômica mundial.
O segundo semestre de 2011 prevê ainda reuniões periódicas da União de Nações Sul-Americanas (Unasul) e do Mercosul. O prestígio externo do Brasil também será testado na eleição, em junho, para a diretoria-geral da FAO, braço da ONU para alimentação e agricultura. Em 2010, o Brasil lançou a candidatura de José Graziano da Silva, ex-ministro de Segurança Alimentar e Combate a Fome do governo Lula e atual representante regional da FAO para a América Latina e o Caribe.
O secretário-geral do Itamaraty, Antônio
Patriota, futuro ministro das Relações Exteriores no
governo Dilma (Foto: Renato Araújo/ABr)
Desafios econômicos marcam front externo
Uma particularidade da política externa brasileira no governo Dilma será um cenário econômico internacional menos favorável, avalia Sandra Rios, diretora do Centro de Estudos de Integração e Desenvolvimento (Cindes).
Para a especialista em política de comércio exterior, a perspectiva de demora no reaquecimento da economia mundial e de manutenção do real valorizado dificultarão a obtenção dos saldos expressivos na balança comercial que marcaram a era Lula.
“Para lidar com esse cenário externo e com a concorrência chinesa no mercado doméstico a única solução é adotar uma política de aumento de competitividade”, afirma Rios, em referência a ações para reduzir o chamado “custo Brasil”: impostos altos, entraves burocráticos, infraestrutura insuficiente.
saiba mais
Dilma critica abstenção do Brasil em condenar Irã sobre direitos humanos
A diretora do Cindes avalia que no plano político o Brasil deverá manter a postura de maior presença e ativismo, pois corresponde ao papel que o país passou a ter no mundo. Prevê, contudo, que as mudanças no contexto externo levarão a uma estratégia econômica internacional mais “pragmática”.
“O governo vai ter que olhar para o cenário externo menos como busca de ocupação de espaço, que foi a tônica do governo Lula, e mais para reavaliar onde vale a pena investir, se concentrando no que é mais relevante para o país”, afirma Rios, citando a tentativa “frustrada” do governo Lula de solucionar a crise nuclear entre o Irã e potências ocidentais.
Desafios do governo Dilma
27/12 Segurança
28/12 Educação
29/12 Inclusão digital
30/12 Política externa
31/12 Saúde
01/01 Trabalho
02/01 Infraestrutura
quinta-feira, 30 de dezembro de 2010
Ufa!: so mais dois dias de "nunca antes"...
Nunca antes neste país, ou em qualquer outro país do mundo, que não esteja em guerra e não precisa "zombar" dos seus "inimigos", um presidente da República, um rei, ou um dirigente qualquer, até um papa (mais um pouco chegamos a Jesus Cristo), declarou que se sentia contente com a crise em outro país, que achava "gostoso" contemplar a miséria alheia, que se regojizava com as dificuldades de outras pessoas.
Nunca antes...
Bem, só faltam dois dias...
Depois poderemos respirar, acho, espero... (mas não tenho certeza). Retenham a respiração até lá e depois digam comigo: Ufa!
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Lula diz que 'foi gostoso' terminar mandato vendo EUA em crise
Do G1, em Brasília
29/12/2010 19h39
Medidas adotadas pelo Brasil reduziram impacto na economia do país, afirmou.
Presidente discursou durante evento na Bahia nesta quarta-feira.
O presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva destacou em discurso nesta quarta-feira (29), na Bahia, as conquistas econômicas durante seu governo e criticou os países desenvolvidos pela crise financeira mundial.
“Foi gostoso passar pela Presidência da República e terminar o mandato vendo os Estados Unidos em crise, vendo a Europa em crise, vendo o Japão em crise, quando eles sabiam tudo para resolver o problema da crise brasileira, da crise da Bolívia, da crise da Rússia, da crise do México”, disse.
Segundo Lula, as ações adotadas pelo Brasil fizeram que a crise tivesse um impacto menor no país. “Foi importante para falar para eles [os países ricos] que na crise não foi nenhum doutor, nenhum americano, nenhum inglês, foi um torneiro mecânico, pernambucano, presidente do Brasil que soube como lidar com a crise com sua equipe econômica. Foi por isso que a crise demorou mais para chegar aqui e foi embora depressa.”
Em seu discurso, Lula destacou o crescimento da economia e a inclusão social como marcas de seu governo. “É muito confortante, [Jaques] Wagner, saber que nós criamos 15 milhões de empregos em oito anos com carteira assinada. É muito gratificante a gente saber que mais de 36 milhões de brasileiros ascenderam à classe média. É importante saber que mais de 20 milhões de brasileiros saíram da miséria”, afirmou, dirigindo-se ao governador da Bahia.
O presidente afirmou que sua passagem pela Presidência "criou uma coisa nova" para os mais humildes. “Nós não queremos que pensem mais que pobre não gosta de coisa boa. Não sei quem foi o malandro que inventou que pobre não gosta de coisa boa. Que pobre gosta é de miséria. Não. Pobre gosta é de luxo. Inventaram até que peão não gosta de uísque, que peão só gosta de cachaça. Peão gosta de uísque também.”
Nunca antes...
Bem, só faltam dois dias...
Depois poderemos respirar, acho, espero... (mas não tenho certeza). Retenham a respiração até lá e depois digam comigo: Ufa!
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Lula diz que 'foi gostoso' terminar mandato vendo EUA em crise
Do G1, em Brasília
29/12/2010 19h39
Medidas adotadas pelo Brasil reduziram impacto na economia do país, afirmou.
Presidente discursou durante evento na Bahia nesta quarta-feira.
O presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva destacou em discurso nesta quarta-feira (29), na Bahia, as conquistas econômicas durante seu governo e criticou os países desenvolvidos pela crise financeira mundial.
“Foi gostoso passar pela Presidência da República e terminar o mandato vendo os Estados Unidos em crise, vendo a Europa em crise, vendo o Japão em crise, quando eles sabiam tudo para resolver o problema da crise brasileira, da crise da Bolívia, da crise da Rússia, da crise do México”, disse.
Segundo Lula, as ações adotadas pelo Brasil fizeram que a crise tivesse um impacto menor no país. “Foi importante para falar para eles [os países ricos] que na crise não foi nenhum doutor, nenhum americano, nenhum inglês, foi um torneiro mecânico, pernambucano, presidente do Brasil que soube como lidar com a crise com sua equipe econômica. Foi por isso que a crise demorou mais para chegar aqui e foi embora depressa.”
Em seu discurso, Lula destacou o crescimento da economia e a inclusão social como marcas de seu governo. “É muito confortante, [Jaques] Wagner, saber que nós criamos 15 milhões de empregos em oito anos com carteira assinada. É muito gratificante a gente saber que mais de 36 milhões de brasileiros ascenderam à classe média. É importante saber que mais de 20 milhões de brasileiros saíram da miséria”, afirmou, dirigindo-se ao governador da Bahia.
O presidente afirmou que sua passagem pela Presidência "criou uma coisa nova" para os mais humildes. “Nós não queremos que pensem mais que pobre não gosta de coisa boa. Não sei quem foi o malandro que inventou que pobre não gosta de coisa boa. Que pobre gosta é de miséria. Não. Pobre gosta é de luxo. Inventaram até que peão não gosta de uísque, que peão só gosta de cachaça. Peão gosta de uísque também.”
Avaliacao das ciencias sociais: um debate (indireto) com um representante da categoria
Uma avaliação da avaliação acadêmica em ciências sociais: notas a texto de Renato Dagnino
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Recebi, pela internet, que é o canal universal de comunicações em nossa era, um texto do cientista social Renato Dagnino, intitulado “Os cientistas sociais e a avaliação da sua produção acadêmica”, elaborado em novembro de 2010, a partir de apresentação feita pelo autor no 34º Encontro Anual da ANPOCS, onde o autor participou de simpósio sobre “Política Científica e Pós-Graduação nas Ciências Sociais”. Como me sinto parte da comunidade e portanto interessado no tema, e em suas conexões com o trabalho acadêmico do qual sou parte interessada (ainda que apenas parcialmente), vou me permitir comentar topicamente esse texto, simplesmente pelo método da transcrição (com os trechos marcados assim: RD: ) e acréscimo de notas pessoais, marcadas em itálico e iniciadas por minhas próprias iniciais (PRA: ).
O texto de Dagnino tem a seguinte estrutura: “1. Introdução; 2. Fatos estilizados consensuais; 3. Fatos estilizados menos consensualmente percebidos; 4. Fatos estilizados ainda menos consensualmente percebidos; 5. Particularidades do contexto nacional; 6. Indícios de mudança; 7. Para não concluir”. Procedo de modo linear e não sistemático, apenas retendo trechos e questões que chamaram minha atenção por alguma peculiaridade de redação, problemas detectados no plano formal ou lacunas no texto, do ponto de vista lógico ou substantivo.
Vamos ao exercício:
RN: Os critérios de avaliação da produção acadêmica são formulados de maneira a medir “qualidade” do trabalho dos professores e pesquisadores das ciências "duras" e, por isto não são adequados para as ciências sociais.
PRA: Não creio que as ciências sociais devam se subtrair a avaliação de sua “produtividade”, ainda que se possa conceber alguma peculiaridade pelo fato de não poderem ser conduzidas experiências da mesma forma como nas hard sciences.
RN: Nos países capitalistas, as ciências "duras" sempre foram imprescindíveis para o processo de acumulação de capital; o que legitima ainda mais o seu apoio diferenciado a ponto de naturalizá-lo como uma hegemonia.
PRA: Por que essa “intromissão” de uma característica socioeconômica numa discussão sobre os procedimentos científicos? Por que as ciências “duras” seriam menos imprescindíveis se o sistema fosse, não capitalista, e sim “socialista”, ou feudal? O que tem a ver o capitalismo com a imprescindibilidade das ciências duras? Ciência é algo que transcende os sistemas socioeconômicos e serve a qualquer sociedade, em qualquer época e lugar, sem discriminação de qualquer espécie. Ela funciona e funcionou da mesma forma na Grécia antiga, no socialismo soviético e no capitalismo liberal. Essa constatação simplesmente não faz sentido.
RN: Os mitos da neutralidade, universalidade e linearidade da ciência difundidos pelos cientistas "duros" (aceitos pela sociedade e não contestados pelos cientistas sociais) levaram a que o caráter enviesado no sentido do capital não fosse percebido sequer pelos de extração marxista;
PRA: Se existe algum mito aqui é o de acreditar que o caráter “enviesado” do capital possa ter algo a ver com peculiaridades do trabalho científico, e que pelo fato de algum cientista trabalhar numa sociedade capitalista ele não pode ser neutro, universal ou “linear”; por que marxistas seriam tão obtusos a ponto de não o perceber essa perversidade do capital?
RN: A dinâmica tecnocientífica mundial, há décadas fortemente influenciada por objetivos militares, está também, cada vez mais, presidida pelo objetivo de lucro das grandes empresas multinacionais, que são hoje responsáveis por metade do gasto mundial de pesquisa;
PRA: “Cada vez mais”? Por que só agora? Sempre foi assim: empresas capitalistas, há vários séculos, atuam com base no lucro, assim como já faziam ou fizeram mercadores fenícios, artesãos medievais, manufatureiros renascentistas e toda e qualquer categoria de atividade produtiva: homens ativos são sempre motivados por algum desejo de retorno, de ganho, de riqueza; da mesma forma, o desejo de segurança, a motivação da conquista, a cobiça por riqueza alheia ou a necessidade de defender a sua própria sempre influenciaram as tecnologias militares e guerreiras, e nisso existe espaço para todos os modos de produção possíveis; RN deveria ser mais universal e neutro, e algo linear; seria melhor assim.
RN: A escassa percepção dessa dinâmica e uma reação automática pouco refletida se materializam no discurso de alguns cientistas sociais que, impregnado de universalismo e neutralidade, defende que devemos melhorar a qualidade do seu trabalho abordando temas de interesse internacional e usando referencias internacionais, para publicar em inglês em periódicos internacionais;
PRA: Antigamente se escrevia em grego, ou latim, ou francês, que foram as línguas mais utilizadas em cada época para produzir e divulgar ciência, literatura, ou qualquer outra coisa, como contabilidade capitalista ou pré-capitalista. Não se percebe porque o preconceito contra o inglês! Não existe nenhuma razão para isso, apenas desejo de não ser universal, apenas tacanhamente latino-americano.
RN: O afastamento da perspectiva latino-americanista fundacional das ciências sociais brasileiras é justificada, neste caso, em função da perda de importância da região no contexto globalizado internacional, da conveniência de que o Brasil se insira no mundo científico dos países líderes e da heterogeneidade existente ao interior da América Latina.
PRA: Nunca houve nada de especificamente latino-americano na construção das ciências sociais brasileiras, que foram muito mais formadas com base em aportes europeus e norte-americanos, do que da própria região. O Brasil não se insere nas correntes mais relevantes da ciência mundial apenas porque a América Latina é perdedora e não produz ciência de qualidade, mas porque é isso que deve ser feito e isso é que beneficia o Brasil, independente de qualquer perspectiva regionalista. A ciência, como deveria saber RN, é universal e universalista.
RN: A expressão Ciências Sociais é um “invento” latino-americano, fruto de sua orientação “militante” decorrente do contexto em que se iniciou sua implantação, caracterizado pela condição periférica e suas características de concentração de poder econômico e político no nível interno e dependência cultural e econômica no externo.
PRA: Nunca antes neste país se escreveu absurdo tão grande com respeito às ciências sociais. Não existe qualquer fundamento histórico, material para uma afirmação desse tipo, que é simplesmente incompreensível para quem conhece a evolução do pensamento social ao longo dos séculos, desde os filósofos gregos, os tomistas medievais, os historiadores renascentistas, os ideólogos do iluminismo, os racionalistas do século 19 e os funcionalistas do século 20. “Invento latino-americano”?; “orientação militante”? Acho que Marx contestaria imediatamente essa interpretação grotesca.
RN: Em que pese a projeção no circuito internacional alcançada pelo “alto clero” das ciências "duras", a contribuição das ciências sociais brasileira (Paulo Freire, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Celso Furtado, etc.), mesmo quando avaliada segundo os critérios usuais de citação é seguramente maior;
PRA: Nacionalismo e chauvinismo acadêmico certamente não fazem bem a qualquer texto que pretenda fazer uma avaliação das ciências sociais brasileiras. “Seguramente maior”? Com base em que? Uma afirmação que vale tanto quanto o seu exato contrário, ou seja, de uma contribuição pobre, sem significado universal (que é o que distingue a ciência), pelo menos no que concerne Paulo Freire, dono de uma contribuição politicamente motivada, sectária, estreitamente ideológica.
RN: O segmento dos integrantes das ciências duras que podem “enquadrados” na categoria de “progressistas” é menor, no Brasil, do que o das ciências sociais;
PRA: Progressistas? Isso não faz o menor sentido para as ciências duras, e deveria não fazer, tampouco, para as ciências sociais. Não se pede que uma ou outra seja progressista ou reacionária, apenas que sejam boas ciências, a primeiras fundadas nos velhos princípios baconianos bem conhecidos, as segundas tentando construir a objetividade de que falava Weber. Esse “progressismo” do autor do texto só pode conduzir a uma má ciência, dura ou mole...
RN: Aqueles cientistas "duros" vêem seus colegas das ciências sociais como mais capazes de “fazer acontecer” as mudanças sociais que almejam;
PRA: Inacreditável! Como é que o autor foi descobrir as mudanças sociais almejadas pelos cientistas “duros”? Fez uma enquete, uma pesquisa, um questionário? Tabulou os resultados, publicou isso em algum lugar? Não se pode fiar numa afirmação desse tipo, destituída de qualquer validade empírica ou conceitual. Isso é simplesmente subjetivismo da pior espécie, indigno de qualquer ciência que se preze.
RN: Não é percebido que os cientistas "duros" progressistas tendem a pensar que seus colegas das ciências sociais seriam responsáveis, mais que eles, pela alteração do quadro social precário do País.
PRA: Isso tampouco é ciência, e sim profetismo, ou artes divinatórias. O que a ciiencia, dura, mole, técnica ou literária tem a ver com a percepção do “quadro social precário” no Brasil? O autor faz confusão entre o trabalho científico e a elaboração de propostas de políticas públicas que visam, sim, redimir a situação social, mas que dependem de escolhas políticas e valores sociais, não da natureza da investigação científica, ou seu caráter mais ou menos progressista. Isto é instrumentalização dos procedimentos científicos da pior espécie que possa existir, sinal de uma mentalidade autoritária que pretende dizer o que é progressista e o que não é.
RN: Criar consciência de que a mudança dos critérios supõe, mais do que um projeto de consolidação da área, uma discussão franca com esses cientistas "duros" de esquerda acerca do papel da comunidade de pesquisa no processo de democratização política e econômica do País.
PRA: Existem cientistas “duros” de esquerda? Certamente. Existem os de direita? Possivelmente. O que isso tem a ver com a qualidade de seu trabalho científico. Absolutamente nada. Existem cientistas “moles” das duas categorias? Provavelmente mais da primeira espécie do que da segunda. Mas podem também existir os de “centro” ou também aqueles que pretendem fazer apenas ciência, dura ou mole, não proselitismo e evangelização política como as propostas neste texto simplório e canhestro.
Em face dessas demandas de alteração dos critérios que devem prevalecer na avaliação das ciências sociais brasileiras, e em vista do que se leu nesse trabalho, uma única conclusão é possível: devem ser reforçados os controles e aumentados as garantias de que as verbas e recursos de todo o tipo que vão para essas ciências, de maneira a evitar que bobagens desse tamanha sejam escritas sob coberta de proposta “científica”.
Talvez seja melhor continuar a conversa numa “mesa de bar”...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Brasília, 30.12.2010
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Recebi, pela internet, que é o canal universal de comunicações em nossa era, um texto do cientista social Renato Dagnino, intitulado “Os cientistas sociais e a avaliação da sua produção acadêmica”, elaborado em novembro de 2010, a partir de apresentação feita pelo autor no 34º Encontro Anual da ANPOCS, onde o autor participou de simpósio sobre “Política Científica e Pós-Graduação nas Ciências Sociais”. Como me sinto parte da comunidade e portanto interessado no tema, e em suas conexões com o trabalho acadêmico do qual sou parte interessada (ainda que apenas parcialmente), vou me permitir comentar topicamente esse texto, simplesmente pelo método da transcrição (com os trechos marcados assim: RD: ) e acréscimo de notas pessoais, marcadas em itálico e iniciadas por minhas próprias iniciais (PRA: ).
O texto de Dagnino tem a seguinte estrutura: “1. Introdução; 2. Fatos estilizados consensuais; 3. Fatos estilizados menos consensualmente percebidos; 4. Fatos estilizados ainda menos consensualmente percebidos; 5. Particularidades do contexto nacional; 6. Indícios de mudança; 7. Para não concluir”. Procedo de modo linear e não sistemático, apenas retendo trechos e questões que chamaram minha atenção por alguma peculiaridade de redação, problemas detectados no plano formal ou lacunas no texto, do ponto de vista lógico ou substantivo.
Vamos ao exercício:
RN: Os critérios de avaliação da produção acadêmica são formulados de maneira a medir “qualidade” do trabalho dos professores e pesquisadores das ciências "duras" e, por isto não são adequados para as ciências sociais.
PRA: Não creio que as ciências sociais devam se subtrair a avaliação de sua “produtividade”, ainda que se possa conceber alguma peculiaridade pelo fato de não poderem ser conduzidas experiências da mesma forma como nas hard sciences.
RN: Nos países capitalistas, as ciências "duras" sempre foram imprescindíveis para o processo de acumulação de capital; o que legitima ainda mais o seu apoio diferenciado a ponto de naturalizá-lo como uma hegemonia.
PRA: Por que essa “intromissão” de uma característica socioeconômica numa discussão sobre os procedimentos científicos? Por que as ciências “duras” seriam menos imprescindíveis se o sistema fosse, não capitalista, e sim “socialista”, ou feudal? O que tem a ver o capitalismo com a imprescindibilidade das ciências duras? Ciência é algo que transcende os sistemas socioeconômicos e serve a qualquer sociedade, em qualquer época e lugar, sem discriminação de qualquer espécie. Ela funciona e funcionou da mesma forma na Grécia antiga, no socialismo soviético e no capitalismo liberal. Essa constatação simplesmente não faz sentido.
RN: Os mitos da neutralidade, universalidade e linearidade da ciência difundidos pelos cientistas "duros" (aceitos pela sociedade e não contestados pelos cientistas sociais) levaram a que o caráter enviesado no sentido do capital não fosse percebido sequer pelos de extração marxista;
PRA: Se existe algum mito aqui é o de acreditar que o caráter “enviesado” do capital possa ter algo a ver com peculiaridades do trabalho científico, e que pelo fato de algum cientista trabalhar numa sociedade capitalista ele não pode ser neutro, universal ou “linear”; por que marxistas seriam tão obtusos a ponto de não o perceber essa perversidade do capital?
RN: A dinâmica tecnocientífica mundial, há décadas fortemente influenciada por objetivos militares, está também, cada vez mais, presidida pelo objetivo de lucro das grandes empresas multinacionais, que são hoje responsáveis por metade do gasto mundial de pesquisa;
PRA: “Cada vez mais”? Por que só agora? Sempre foi assim: empresas capitalistas, há vários séculos, atuam com base no lucro, assim como já faziam ou fizeram mercadores fenícios, artesãos medievais, manufatureiros renascentistas e toda e qualquer categoria de atividade produtiva: homens ativos são sempre motivados por algum desejo de retorno, de ganho, de riqueza; da mesma forma, o desejo de segurança, a motivação da conquista, a cobiça por riqueza alheia ou a necessidade de defender a sua própria sempre influenciaram as tecnologias militares e guerreiras, e nisso existe espaço para todos os modos de produção possíveis; RN deveria ser mais universal e neutro, e algo linear; seria melhor assim.
RN: A escassa percepção dessa dinâmica e uma reação automática pouco refletida se materializam no discurso de alguns cientistas sociais que, impregnado de universalismo e neutralidade, defende que devemos melhorar a qualidade do seu trabalho abordando temas de interesse internacional e usando referencias internacionais, para publicar em inglês em periódicos internacionais;
PRA: Antigamente se escrevia em grego, ou latim, ou francês, que foram as línguas mais utilizadas em cada época para produzir e divulgar ciência, literatura, ou qualquer outra coisa, como contabilidade capitalista ou pré-capitalista. Não se percebe porque o preconceito contra o inglês! Não existe nenhuma razão para isso, apenas desejo de não ser universal, apenas tacanhamente latino-americano.
RN: O afastamento da perspectiva latino-americanista fundacional das ciências sociais brasileiras é justificada, neste caso, em função da perda de importância da região no contexto globalizado internacional, da conveniência de que o Brasil se insira no mundo científico dos países líderes e da heterogeneidade existente ao interior da América Latina.
PRA: Nunca houve nada de especificamente latino-americano na construção das ciências sociais brasileiras, que foram muito mais formadas com base em aportes europeus e norte-americanos, do que da própria região. O Brasil não se insere nas correntes mais relevantes da ciência mundial apenas porque a América Latina é perdedora e não produz ciência de qualidade, mas porque é isso que deve ser feito e isso é que beneficia o Brasil, independente de qualquer perspectiva regionalista. A ciência, como deveria saber RN, é universal e universalista.
RN: A expressão Ciências Sociais é um “invento” latino-americano, fruto de sua orientação “militante” decorrente do contexto em que se iniciou sua implantação, caracterizado pela condição periférica e suas características de concentração de poder econômico e político no nível interno e dependência cultural e econômica no externo.
PRA: Nunca antes neste país se escreveu absurdo tão grande com respeito às ciências sociais. Não existe qualquer fundamento histórico, material para uma afirmação desse tipo, que é simplesmente incompreensível para quem conhece a evolução do pensamento social ao longo dos séculos, desde os filósofos gregos, os tomistas medievais, os historiadores renascentistas, os ideólogos do iluminismo, os racionalistas do século 19 e os funcionalistas do século 20. “Invento latino-americano”?; “orientação militante”? Acho que Marx contestaria imediatamente essa interpretação grotesca.
RN: Em que pese a projeção no circuito internacional alcançada pelo “alto clero” das ciências "duras", a contribuição das ciências sociais brasileira (Paulo Freire, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Celso Furtado, etc.), mesmo quando avaliada segundo os critérios usuais de citação é seguramente maior;
PRA: Nacionalismo e chauvinismo acadêmico certamente não fazem bem a qualquer texto que pretenda fazer uma avaliação das ciências sociais brasileiras. “Seguramente maior”? Com base em que? Uma afirmação que vale tanto quanto o seu exato contrário, ou seja, de uma contribuição pobre, sem significado universal (que é o que distingue a ciência), pelo menos no que concerne Paulo Freire, dono de uma contribuição politicamente motivada, sectária, estreitamente ideológica.
RN: O segmento dos integrantes das ciências duras que podem “enquadrados” na categoria de “progressistas” é menor, no Brasil, do que o das ciências sociais;
PRA: Progressistas? Isso não faz o menor sentido para as ciências duras, e deveria não fazer, tampouco, para as ciências sociais. Não se pede que uma ou outra seja progressista ou reacionária, apenas que sejam boas ciências, a primeiras fundadas nos velhos princípios baconianos bem conhecidos, as segundas tentando construir a objetividade de que falava Weber. Esse “progressismo” do autor do texto só pode conduzir a uma má ciência, dura ou mole...
RN: Aqueles cientistas "duros" vêem seus colegas das ciências sociais como mais capazes de “fazer acontecer” as mudanças sociais que almejam;
PRA: Inacreditável! Como é que o autor foi descobrir as mudanças sociais almejadas pelos cientistas “duros”? Fez uma enquete, uma pesquisa, um questionário? Tabulou os resultados, publicou isso em algum lugar? Não se pode fiar numa afirmação desse tipo, destituída de qualquer validade empírica ou conceitual. Isso é simplesmente subjetivismo da pior espécie, indigno de qualquer ciência que se preze.
RN: Não é percebido que os cientistas "duros" progressistas tendem a pensar que seus colegas das ciências sociais seriam responsáveis, mais que eles, pela alteração do quadro social precário do País.
PRA: Isso tampouco é ciência, e sim profetismo, ou artes divinatórias. O que a ciiencia, dura, mole, técnica ou literária tem a ver com a percepção do “quadro social precário” no Brasil? O autor faz confusão entre o trabalho científico e a elaboração de propostas de políticas públicas que visam, sim, redimir a situação social, mas que dependem de escolhas políticas e valores sociais, não da natureza da investigação científica, ou seu caráter mais ou menos progressista. Isto é instrumentalização dos procedimentos científicos da pior espécie que possa existir, sinal de uma mentalidade autoritária que pretende dizer o que é progressista e o que não é.
RN: Criar consciência de que a mudança dos critérios supõe, mais do que um projeto de consolidação da área, uma discussão franca com esses cientistas "duros" de esquerda acerca do papel da comunidade de pesquisa no processo de democratização política e econômica do País.
PRA: Existem cientistas “duros” de esquerda? Certamente. Existem os de direita? Possivelmente. O que isso tem a ver com a qualidade de seu trabalho científico. Absolutamente nada. Existem cientistas “moles” das duas categorias? Provavelmente mais da primeira espécie do que da segunda. Mas podem também existir os de “centro” ou também aqueles que pretendem fazer apenas ciência, dura ou mole, não proselitismo e evangelização política como as propostas neste texto simplório e canhestro.
Em face dessas demandas de alteração dos critérios que devem prevalecer na avaliação das ciências sociais brasileiras, e em vista do que se leu nesse trabalho, uma única conclusão é possível: devem ser reforçados os controles e aumentados as garantias de que as verbas e recursos de todo o tipo que vão para essas ciências, de maneira a evitar que bobagens desse tamanha sejam escritas sob coberta de proposta “científica”.
Talvez seja melhor continuar a conversa numa “mesa de bar”...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Brasília, 30.12.2010
quarta-feira, 29 de dezembro de 2010
Retorno a Idade Media? - Parag Khanna
No lo creo, pero siempre hay el gusto por las analogias historicas, muy de pronto erroneas, pero hay quienes las creen...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Future shock? Welcome to the new Middle Ages
Parag Khanna
Financial Times, December 28 2010
Imagine a world with a strong China reshaping Asia; India confidently extending its reach from Africa to Indonesia; Islam spreading its influence; a Europe replete with crises of legitimacy; sovereign city-states holding wealth and driving innovation; and private mercenary armies, religious radicals and humanitarian bodies playing by their own rules as they compete for hearts, minds and wallets.
It sounds familiar today. But it was just as true slightly less than a millennium ago at the height of the Middle Ages.
In recent years it has become conventional wisdom that the post-cold-war world will see rising powers such as China and Brazil create what international relations experts call a "multi-polar" order. Yet for the next 10 or 20 years, it is not at all clear that the future many imagine will
come to pass - namely that the relative US decline will continue, Europe will muddle along, China and India will grow ever stronger, and other straight-line projections.
In fact, the world we are moving into in 2011 is one not just with many more prominent nations, but one with numerous centres of power in other ways. It is, in short, a neo-medieval world. The 21st century will resemble nothing more than the 12th century.
You have to go back a thousand years to find a time when the world was genuinely western and eastern at the same time. Then, China's Song dynasty presided over the world's largest cities, mastered gunpowder and printed paper money.
At around the same time India's Chola empire ruled the seas to Indonesia, and the Abbasid caliphate dominated from Africa to Persia. Byzantium swayed and lulled in weakness both due to and despite its vastness. Only in Europe is this medieval landscape viewed negatively.
This was a truly multi-polar world. Both ends of Eurasia and the powers in between called their own shots, just as in our own time China, India and the Arab/Islamic community increasingly do as well.
There is another reason why the metaphor is apt. In medieval times, the Crusades, and the Silk Road, linked Eurasia in the first global trading system - just as the globalised routes of trade are doing today.
The merchant houses of Bruges and Venice financed transcontinental ventures to discover sources of spices and other riches. Marco Polo reached the court of Kublai Khan in China, but only after admiring the vineyards of Kashgar and being awestruck by the material abundance of Xi'an. Arab pilgrim Ibn Battuta made an even greater parallel voyage from Morocco to the Far East,
visiting the thriving civilisations of southern India and Sumatra along the way.
Now, globalisation is again doing much the same, diffusing power away from the west in particular, but also from states and towards cities, companies, religious groups, humanitarian non-governmental organisations and super-empowered individuals, from terrorists to philanthropists. This force of entropy will not be reversed for decades - if not for centuries. As was the case a millennium ago, diplomacy now takes place among anyone who is someone; its prerequisite is not sovereignty but authority.
Some see contrary trends in the light of the financial crisis. But given the power of the forces pushing a new medievalism, it is too simple to speak of a "return of the state" evident in the bail-out of Wall Street and the stimulus packages of governments. Far more revealing about the future is the crumbling of most of the post-colonial world from Africa to the Middle East to South Asia, where over-population, corrupt governance, ethnic grievances and collapsing infrastructure are pushing many states towards failure.
From Congo and Sudan to Pakistan, many "states" are likely to see a move towards a hybrid public-private system of governance. Take Afghanistan, where a postmodern arrangement between international extractive companies, the Kabul government, local warlords and foreign peacekeepers seems as likely an outcome as any - a neo-medieval model also being used in Africa
and elsewhere too.
In the economic sphere, most states, rich or poor, western or eastern, have become filters, trying to manage inflows and outflows of goods, money and people that globalisation has imposed on them. In medieval times, one's welfare depended on family status, guild membership and property holdings.
Cities were stratified according to socio-economic caste. Loyalty was not to the "state" as such, but to whoever delivered the goods.
Today, the world's population turns ever more to companies to provide essential services, whether security or healthcare. Even in rising India, much "public" welfare is provided by industrialists such as the Tatas and Ambanis, whose family businesses also run entire factory cities. They are increasingly the equivalent of the House of Medici, the family that came to
dominate Florence from the 14th century. The Islamic world today is replete with such political philanthropy, with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Hizbollah in Lebanon functioning as political parties but also as social institutions supplying healthcare and schools.
Of course, no analogy is perfect. But the medieval parallel is at least a warning against over-simplified references to the neat 19th century "Concert of Europe", the balance of power between European states that followed the Napoleonic wars. This system saw a modus vivendi between a handful of nation states. But our new world is far more complex.
The only missing piece, of course, is America. The Middle Ages was pre-Atlantic. Yet today we have the legacy superpower of the US, located in the new world. If the European Union today plays the part of the Holy Roman Empire, then the US is the new Byzantium, facing both east and west while in a state of relative decline. The Byzantines lasted for many centuries beyond their material capability, through shrewd diplomacy and deception rather than by force.
This new world will mean huge challenges, for the west in particular. But if the US applies a genuinely Byzantine strategy, it has a good chance of stopping a slide into conflict. And remember that, despite its bleak reputation, the Middle Ages was actually an era of great invention and discovery - and one which eventually gave way to a great Renaissance too. As we witness today's great power grievances mount and fear another world of war, we must remember the same is possible today.
The writer is a senior research fellow at the New America Foundation and author of the forthcoming How to Run the World: Charting a Course to the Next Renaissance (Random House, 2011)
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Future shock? Welcome to the new Middle Ages
Parag Khanna
Financial Times, December 28 2010
Imagine a world with a strong China reshaping Asia; India confidently extending its reach from Africa to Indonesia; Islam spreading its influence; a Europe replete with crises of legitimacy; sovereign city-states holding wealth and driving innovation; and private mercenary armies, religious radicals and humanitarian bodies playing by their own rules as they compete for hearts, minds and wallets.
It sounds familiar today. But it was just as true slightly less than a millennium ago at the height of the Middle Ages.
In recent years it has become conventional wisdom that the post-cold-war world will see rising powers such as China and Brazil create what international relations experts call a "multi-polar" order. Yet for the next 10 or 20 years, it is not at all clear that the future many imagine will
come to pass - namely that the relative US decline will continue, Europe will muddle along, China and India will grow ever stronger, and other straight-line projections.
In fact, the world we are moving into in 2011 is one not just with many more prominent nations, but one with numerous centres of power in other ways. It is, in short, a neo-medieval world. The 21st century will resemble nothing more than the 12th century.
You have to go back a thousand years to find a time when the world was genuinely western and eastern at the same time. Then, China's Song dynasty presided over the world's largest cities, mastered gunpowder and printed paper money.
At around the same time India's Chola empire ruled the seas to Indonesia, and the Abbasid caliphate dominated from Africa to Persia. Byzantium swayed and lulled in weakness both due to and despite its vastness. Only in Europe is this medieval landscape viewed negatively.
This was a truly multi-polar world. Both ends of Eurasia and the powers in between called their own shots, just as in our own time China, India and the Arab/Islamic community increasingly do as well.
There is another reason why the metaphor is apt. In medieval times, the Crusades, and the Silk Road, linked Eurasia in the first global trading system - just as the globalised routes of trade are doing today.
The merchant houses of Bruges and Venice financed transcontinental ventures to discover sources of spices and other riches. Marco Polo reached the court of Kublai Khan in China, but only after admiring the vineyards of Kashgar and being awestruck by the material abundance of Xi'an. Arab pilgrim Ibn Battuta made an even greater parallel voyage from Morocco to the Far East,
visiting the thriving civilisations of southern India and Sumatra along the way.
Now, globalisation is again doing much the same, diffusing power away from the west in particular, but also from states and towards cities, companies, religious groups, humanitarian non-governmental organisations and super-empowered individuals, from terrorists to philanthropists. This force of entropy will not be reversed for decades - if not for centuries. As was the case a millennium ago, diplomacy now takes place among anyone who is someone; its prerequisite is not sovereignty but authority.
Some see contrary trends in the light of the financial crisis. But given the power of the forces pushing a new medievalism, it is too simple to speak of a "return of the state" evident in the bail-out of Wall Street and the stimulus packages of governments. Far more revealing about the future is the crumbling of most of the post-colonial world from Africa to the Middle East to South Asia, where over-population, corrupt governance, ethnic grievances and collapsing infrastructure are pushing many states towards failure.
From Congo and Sudan to Pakistan, many "states" are likely to see a move towards a hybrid public-private system of governance. Take Afghanistan, where a postmodern arrangement between international extractive companies, the Kabul government, local warlords and foreign peacekeepers seems as likely an outcome as any - a neo-medieval model also being used in Africa
and elsewhere too.
In the economic sphere, most states, rich or poor, western or eastern, have become filters, trying to manage inflows and outflows of goods, money and people that globalisation has imposed on them. In medieval times, one's welfare depended on family status, guild membership and property holdings.
Cities were stratified according to socio-economic caste. Loyalty was not to the "state" as such, but to whoever delivered the goods.
Today, the world's population turns ever more to companies to provide essential services, whether security or healthcare. Even in rising India, much "public" welfare is provided by industrialists such as the Tatas and Ambanis, whose family businesses also run entire factory cities. They are increasingly the equivalent of the House of Medici, the family that came to
dominate Florence from the 14th century. The Islamic world today is replete with such political philanthropy, with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Hizbollah in Lebanon functioning as political parties but also as social institutions supplying healthcare and schools.
Of course, no analogy is perfect. But the medieval parallel is at least a warning against over-simplified references to the neat 19th century "Concert of Europe", the balance of power between European states that followed the Napoleonic wars. This system saw a modus vivendi between a handful of nation states. But our new world is far more complex.
The only missing piece, of course, is America. The Middle Ages was pre-Atlantic. Yet today we have the legacy superpower of the US, located in the new world. If the European Union today plays the part of the Holy Roman Empire, then the US is the new Byzantium, facing both east and west while in a state of relative decline. The Byzantines lasted for many centuries beyond their material capability, through shrewd diplomacy and deception rather than by force.
This new world will mean huge challenges, for the west in particular. But if the US applies a genuinely Byzantine strategy, it has a good chance of stopping a slide into conflict. And remember that, despite its bleak reputation, the Middle Ages was actually an era of great invention and discovery - and one which eventually gave way to a great Renaissance too. As we witness today's great power grievances mount and fear another world of war, we must remember the same is possible today.
The writer is a senior research fellow at the New America Foundation and author of the forthcoming How to Run the World: Charting a Course to the Next Renaissance (Random House, 2011)
Diplomacia viajeira: resultados em milhagens, talvez...
O que dizem os acadêmicos tem muito menos importância -- ou não tem nenhuma importância -- em relação ao que dizem aqueles que fazem as coisas acontecer: os empresários, os homens de negócios, que são os que produzem, vendem, trazem riqueza para o país.
Acadêmicos costumam dar despesas e induzir a posições erradas. Seria o caso de perguntar ao que acha que interesses econômicos não podem ser separados dos objetivos políticos, quem paga o seu salário de acadêmico. Ele pode responder: "É o Estado!". Errado! É a sociedade, através de seus empresários e trabalhadores.
Aparentemente, com todo o nacionalismo, a "nova geografia comercial" não teve os resultados esperados. Mas sempre tem gente que gosta de se iludir, e enganar os outros.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Em oito anos, Lula visitou 85 países em busca de parceiros comerciais e políticos
BBC Brasil, 29 de dezembro de 2010
Presidente saiu em busca de novos mercados, mas também foi criticado por relação com governos polêmicos
Relação com o Irã de Mahmoud Ahmadinejad é considerada a mais polêmica do governo Lula
Com visitas a 85 países em um período de oito anos, o presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva colocou em prática uma política de diversificação das relações do Brasil com o mundo que ajudou a projetar o país do ponto de vista econômico, mas que ao mesmo tempo colecionou polêmicas na arena política.
Com um discurso contrário à concentração das exportações brasileiras para um número "restrito" de países, Lula passou a usar as visitas internacionais como forma de "vender" o produto brasileiro em novos mercados.
A diversificação das relações, no entanto, também teve um forte cunho político, refletindo sobretudo a busca de apoio ao Brasil por um assento permanente no Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas.
O fortalecimento da relação com a África é apontada por especialistas como "principal símbolo" dessa estratégia. Em oito anos, Lula visitou 27 países do continente, enquanto Fernando Henrique Cardoso esteve em apenas três deles.
Garoto-propaganda
"Lula assumiu como ninguém o papel de garoto-propaganda do produto brasileiro no mercado internacional. Sem dúvida o empenho foi bem-vindo, mas o resultado prático deixou a desejar", diz o vice-presidente da Associação de Comércio Exterior (AEB), Fábio Martins.
Ele cita a permanência de barreiras sanitárias impostas por Estados Unidos, Rússia e Japão à carne brasileira, apesar das insistentes "reclamações" do presidente Lula junto a esses países.
Ainda segundo Martins, a busca por mercados consumidores menos tradicionais, como na África e no Oriente Médio, acabam tendo "pouco impacto" no total exportado.
"O problema é que diversificamos para esses países, que têm menos peso comercial, e perdemos espaço em mercados altamente consumidores, como o dos Estados Unidos", diz Martins.
Em 2002, as exportações brasileiras para os Estados Unidos representavam 28% do total exportado, caindo para 11% em 2010.
O governo, no entanto, argumenta que o processo de diversificação está "começando" e que as vantagens puderam ser constatadas durante a crise financeira, quando países dependentes da economia americana, como o México, sofreram um impacto muito maior do que o Brasil.
Relação política
O professor de Relações Internacionais da Universidade Federal Fluminense Williams Gonçalves diz que a política externa do presidente Lula seguiu a tradição "nacionalista" e que, nesse contexto, é "impossível" separar os interesses econômicos dos objetivos políticos.
"A busca pela ampliação dos parceiros comerciais obedeceu a uma orientação política, que não chega a ser nova na história das relações internacionais do Brasil", diz o professor.
Sob a gestão do presidente Lula, o Brasil ampliou ou intensificou suas relações com países de fora do eixo ocidental - alguns deles com governos polêmicos, despertando uma série de críticas na opinião pública.
O caso mais emblemático passou a ser o do Irã, acusado de abusos em direitos humanos, mas há também exemplos como Venezuela, Sudão, Líbia, Cuba e Guiné Equatorial, todos visitados pelo presidente Lula.
Na avaliação de Gonçalves, a diplomacia dos anos Lula foi "coerente", na medida em que privilegiou os "interesses nacionais".
Como resultado concreto o professor cita a reforma do Fundo Monetário Internacional (FMI), que segundo ele foi resultado, dentre outros fatores, de uma ação conjunta de Brasil, China e Índia.
"É claro que não vamos defender causas absurdas, mas precisamos fazer nossos cálculos. Uma parte da nossa sociedade quer que sejamos uma potência ética, mas isso não existe", diz o professor da UFF, lembrando que, assim como o Brasil, diversas outras democracias também têm relações próximas com governos polêmicos.
Já na avaliação do ex-secretário geral da Conferência das Nações Unidas para o Comércio e o Desenvolvimento (Unctad), Rubens Ricupero, o presidente Lula fez alguns "julgamentos equivocados" em sua busca por novos parceiros.
"No caso do Irã, por exemplo, tentamos impor nossa agenda e tivemos um resultado negativo, que não deu certo", diz Ricupero, referindo-se à tentativa de acordo nuclear intermediada por Brasil e Turquia.
BBC Brasil - Todos os direitos reservados. É proibido todo tipo de reprodução sem autorização por escrito da BBC.
Acadêmicos costumam dar despesas e induzir a posições erradas. Seria o caso de perguntar ao que acha que interesses econômicos não podem ser separados dos objetivos políticos, quem paga o seu salário de acadêmico. Ele pode responder: "É o Estado!". Errado! É a sociedade, através de seus empresários e trabalhadores.
Aparentemente, com todo o nacionalismo, a "nova geografia comercial" não teve os resultados esperados. Mas sempre tem gente que gosta de se iludir, e enganar os outros.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Em oito anos, Lula visitou 85 países em busca de parceiros comerciais e políticos
BBC Brasil, 29 de dezembro de 2010
Presidente saiu em busca de novos mercados, mas também foi criticado por relação com governos polêmicos
Relação com o Irã de Mahmoud Ahmadinejad é considerada a mais polêmica do governo Lula
Com visitas a 85 países em um período de oito anos, o presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva colocou em prática uma política de diversificação das relações do Brasil com o mundo que ajudou a projetar o país do ponto de vista econômico, mas que ao mesmo tempo colecionou polêmicas na arena política.
Com um discurso contrário à concentração das exportações brasileiras para um número "restrito" de países, Lula passou a usar as visitas internacionais como forma de "vender" o produto brasileiro em novos mercados.
A diversificação das relações, no entanto, também teve um forte cunho político, refletindo sobretudo a busca de apoio ao Brasil por um assento permanente no Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas.
O fortalecimento da relação com a África é apontada por especialistas como "principal símbolo" dessa estratégia. Em oito anos, Lula visitou 27 países do continente, enquanto Fernando Henrique Cardoso esteve em apenas três deles.
Garoto-propaganda
"Lula assumiu como ninguém o papel de garoto-propaganda do produto brasileiro no mercado internacional. Sem dúvida o empenho foi bem-vindo, mas o resultado prático deixou a desejar", diz o vice-presidente da Associação de Comércio Exterior (AEB), Fábio Martins.
Ele cita a permanência de barreiras sanitárias impostas por Estados Unidos, Rússia e Japão à carne brasileira, apesar das insistentes "reclamações" do presidente Lula junto a esses países.
Ainda segundo Martins, a busca por mercados consumidores menos tradicionais, como na África e no Oriente Médio, acabam tendo "pouco impacto" no total exportado.
"O problema é que diversificamos para esses países, que têm menos peso comercial, e perdemos espaço em mercados altamente consumidores, como o dos Estados Unidos", diz Martins.
Em 2002, as exportações brasileiras para os Estados Unidos representavam 28% do total exportado, caindo para 11% em 2010.
O governo, no entanto, argumenta que o processo de diversificação está "começando" e que as vantagens puderam ser constatadas durante a crise financeira, quando países dependentes da economia americana, como o México, sofreram um impacto muito maior do que o Brasil.
Relação política
O professor de Relações Internacionais da Universidade Federal Fluminense Williams Gonçalves diz que a política externa do presidente Lula seguiu a tradição "nacionalista" e que, nesse contexto, é "impossível" separar os interesses econômicos dos objetivos políticos.
"A busca pela ampliação dos parceiros comerciais obedeceu a uma orientação política, que não chega a ser nova na história das relações internacionais do Brasil", diz o professor.
Sob a gestão do presidente Lula, o Brasil ampliou ou intensificou suas relações com países de fora do eixo ocidental - alguns deles com governos polêmicos, despertando uma série de críticas na opinião pública.
O caso mais emblemático passou a ser o do Irã, acusado de abusos em direitos humanos, mas há também exemplos como Venezuela, Sudão, Líbia, Cuba e Guiné Equatorial, todos visitados pelo presidente Lula.
Na avaliação de Gonçalves, a diplomacia dos anos Lula foi "coerente", na medida em que privilegiou os "interesses nacionais".
Como resultado concreto o professor cita a reforma do Fundo Monetário Internacional (FMI), que segundo ele foi resultado, dentre outros fatores, de uma ação conjunta de Brasil, China e Índia.
"É claro que não vamos defender causas absurdas, mas precisamos fazer nossos cálculos. Uma parte da nossa sociedade quer que sejamos uma potência ética, mas isso não existe", diz o professor da UFF, lembrando que, assim como o Brasil, diversas outras democracias também têm relações próximas com governos polêmicos.
Já na avaliação do ex-secretário geral da Conferência das Nações Unidas para o Comércio e o Desenvolvimento (Unctad), Rubens Ricupero, o presidente Lula fez alguns "julgamentos equivocados" em sua busca por novos parceiros.
"No caso do Irã, por exemplo, tentamos impor nossa agenda e tivemos um resultado negativo, que não deu certo", diz Ricupero, referindo-se à tentativa de acordo nuclear intermediada por Brasil e Turquia.
BBC Brasil - Todos os direitos reservados. É proibido todo tipo de reprodução sem autorização por escrito da BBC.
O Partido Comunista Frances: 90 anos e desaparecendo...
Uma história que se aproxima do fim, sem glória e sem honra...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Le Parti communiste, nonagénaire sans avenir
Editorial - Le Monde, 27.12.2010
Dans la nuit du 29 au 30 décembre 1920 naissait le Parti communiste français. Au terme de débats fiévreux, le vote décisif du congrès de Tours était sans appel : 3 208 délégués approuvaient l'adhésion à l'Internationale communiste, créée par Lénine, à Moscou, un an auparavant ; 1 022 délégués seulement préféraient, avec Léon Blum, garder la "vieille maison" socialiste.
S'il mérite le respect dû aux nonagénaires, il faut bien dire que le PCF a connu des anniversaires plus glorieux. Et pour cause. Après avoir dominé la gauche française pendant près d'un demi-siècle, entre les années 1930 et 1970, après avoir constitué un pôle majeur de la vie politique nationale, le PCF décline inexorablement depuis. Comme le notait sans fard L'Humanité, en annonçant les deux journées discrètes de commémoration organisées les 11 et 12 décembre, "le Parti communiste français ne prétend plus depuis longtemps incarner une avant-garde autoproclamée du mouvement ouvrier".
Le contraire serait surprenant. Premier parti de France au lendemain de la guerre (28,6 % des voix aux élections de novembre 1946), encore soutenu par un électeur sur cinq jusque dans les années 1970, le PCF n'a connu, depuis, qu'une longue dégringolade électorale. Il a touché le fond lors de l'élection présidentielle de 2007 : Marie-George Buffet, alors secrétaire générale, n'a recueilli que 700 000 voix, soit 1,9 % des suffrages, loin derrière le candidat trotskiste, Olivier Besancenot.
En trente ans, le parti a également perdu les trois quarts de ses adhérents (officiellement 100 000 cartes, dont 60 000 à jour de cotisation) et la plupart de ses parlementaires (17 députés élus en 2007).
Incapable de prendre la mesure des transformations profondes de la société française, le PCF est également en panne de base sociale et il a perdu l'essentiel des relais qui ont longtemps fait sa force. Le "parti de la classe ouvrière" ne l'est plus : 4 % seulement des ouvriers ont soutenu Mme Buffet en 2007. La CGT, ancienne "courroie de transmission" syndicale, a pris ses distances depuis dix ans. Quant aux villes et aux "banlieues rouges" du communisme municipal, elles ne sont guère qu'une survivance : le Parti communiste ne dirige plus que 28 villes de plus de 30 000 habitants (contre 72 il y a trente ans).
Enfin, privé de modèle de référence depuis la disparition de l'Union soviétique au début des années 1990, le PCF est, à l'évidence, en panne de stratégie. Ses hésitations à l'approche de l'élection présidentielle de 2012 en témoignent : ou bien il se contente d'être une force d'appoint du Parti socialiste, en espérant sauver ainsi ses derniers bastions ; ou bien il accepte l'OPA que Jean-Luc Mélenchon entend faire sur ses dernières troupes, ce qui revient à remettre son sort entre les mains d'un tribun venu du PS.
Dans les deux hypothèses, on voit mal le PCF capable de "relever le défi d'un nouveau siècle d'émancipation", comme l'y invitait récemment son nouveau secrétaire général, Pierre Laurent. Sombre alternative. Pour ne pas dire impasse totale.
Article paru dans l'édition du 28.12.10
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Le Parti communiste, nonagénaire sans avenir
Editorial - Le Monde, 27.12.2010
Dans la nuit du 29 au 30 décembre 1920 naissait le Parti communiste français. Au terme de débats fiévreux, le vote décisif du congrès de Tours était sans appel : 3 208 délégués approuvaient l'adhésion à l'Internationale communiste, créée par Lénine, à Moscou, un an auparavant ; 1 022 délégués seulement préféraient, avec Léon Blum, garder la "vieille maison" socialiste.
S'il mérite le respect dû aux nonagénaires, il faut bien dire que le PCF a connu des anniversaires plus glorieux. Et pour cause. Après avoir dominé la gauche française pendant près d'un demi-siècle, entre les années 1930 et 1970, après avoir constitué un pôle majeur de la vie politique nationale, le PCF décline inexorablement depuis. Comme le notait sans fard L'Humanité, en annonçant les deux journées discrètes de commémoration organisées les 11 et 12 décembre, "le Parti communiste français ne prétend plus depuis longtemps incarner une avant-garde autoproclamée du mouvement ouvrier".
Le contraire serait surprenant. Premier parti de France au lendemain de la guerre (28,6 % des voix aux élections de novembre 1946), encore soutenu par un électeur sur cinq jusque dans les années 1970, le PCF n'a connu, depuis, qu'une longue dégringolade électorale. Il a touché le fond lors de l'élection présidentielle de 2007 : Marie-George Buffet, alors secrétaire générale, n'a recueilli que 700 000 voix, soit 1,9 % des suffrages, loin derrière le candidat trotskiste, Olivier Besancenot.
En trente ans, le parti a également perdu les trois quarts de ses adhérents (officiellement 100 000 cartes, dont 60 000 à jour de cotisation) et la plupart de ses parlementaires (17 députés élus en 2007).
Incapable de prendre la mesure des transformations profondes de la société française, le PCF est également en panne de base sociale et il a perdu l'essentiel des relais qui ont longtemps fait sa force. Le "parti de la classe ouvrière" ne l'est plus : 4 % seulement des ouvriers ont soutenu Mme Buffet en 2007. La CGT, ancienne "courroie de transmission" syndicale, a pris ses distances depuis dix ans. Quant aux villes et aux "banlieues rouges" du communisme municipal, elles ne sont guère qu'une survivance : le Parti communiste ne dirige plus que 28 villes de plus de 30 000 habitants (contre 72 il y a trente ans).
Enfin, privé de modèle de référence depuis la disparition de l'Union soviétique au début des années 1990, le PCF est, à l'évidence, en panne de stratégie. Ses hésitations à l'approche de l'élection présidentielle de 2012 en témoignent : ou bien il se contente d'être une force d'appoint du Parti socialiste, en espérant sauver ainsi ses derniers bastions ; ou bien il accepte l'OPA que Jean-Luc Mélenchon entend faire sur ses dernières troupes, ce qui revient à remettre son sort entre les mains d'un tribun venu du PS.
Dans les deux hypothèses, on voit mal le PCF capable de "relever le défi d'un nouveau siècle d'émancipation", comme l'y invitait récemment son nouveau secrétaire général, Pierre Laurent. Sombre alternative. Pour ne pas dire impasse totale.
Article paru dans l'édition du 28.12.10
Do mito a beatificacao: nunca antes na historia das religioes...
Estamos próximos da beatificação política...
A desculpa é que "Lula" (com l maiúsculo) é um animal marinho, portanto está justificado o novo nome. Mais precisamente, se refere a um molusco marinho da classe dos cefalópodes.
QED...
Petrobras batiza Tupi de Lula e anuncia reservas de 8,3 bi no bloco BM-S-11
CIRILO JUNIOR, PEDRO SOARES - DO RIO
Atualizado às 12h36.
A área de Tupi teve sua comercialidade declarada nesta quarta-feira pela Petrobras e os sócios Galp e BG. O novo campo será denominado Lula, e tem reservas estimadas em 6,5 bilhões de barris de petróleo e gás recuperáveis. Tupi era o nome provisório da área descoberta. Após a declaração de comercialidade, os campos recebem nomes de formas marinhas.
A área vizinha de Iracema também foi certificada. Batizada de Cernambi, tem 1,8 bilhão de barris de óleo e gás. Os campos de Lula e Cernambi fazem parte do bloco BM-S-11, e juntos, somam reservas de 8,3 bilhões de barris de óleo equivalente (petróleo e gás)
A desculpa é que "Lula" (com l maiúsculo) é um animal marinho, portanto está justificado o novo nome. Mais precisamente, se refere a um molusco marinho da classe dos cefalópodes.
QED...
Petrobras batiza Tupi de Lula e anuncia reservas de 8,3 bi no bloco BM-S-11
CIRILO JUNIOR, PEDRO SOARES - DO RIO
Atualizado às 12h36.
A área de Tupi teve sua comercialidade declarada nesta quarta-feira pela Petrobras e os sócios Galp e BG. O novo campo será denominado Lula, e tem reservas estimadas em 6,5 bilhões de barris de petróleo e gás recuperáveis. Tupi era o nome provisório da área descoberta. Após a declaração de comercialidade, os campos recebem nomes de formas marinhas.
A área vizinha de Iracema também foi certificada. Batizada de Cernambi, tem 1,8 bilhão de barris de óleo e gás. Os campos de Lula e Cernambi fazem parte do bloco BM-S-11, e juntos, somam reservas de 8,3 bilhões de barris de óleo equivalente (petróleo e gás)
O "nunca antes", do Brasil para o mundo... - Paulo R. Almeida
Agora sim, o último artigo publicado no ano de 2010. Depois disso, o silêncio...
É o que esperam muitos...
Never Before Seen in Brazil: Luis Inácio Lula da Silva’s grand diplomacy
Nunca antes visto no Brasil: a grande diplomacia de Lula
Paulo Roberto de Almeida *
Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional (v. 53, n. 2 2010)
1. South America was not enough: Luis Inácio Lula da Silva goes out into the world
Has Brazil already attained the status of a global power, as sought by Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's diplomacy? Or, despite all his efforts, does it remain a mere regional power? Those two questions were, almost obsessively, at the center of Lula’s entrepreneurial diplomacy, for the whole duration of his administration (2003-2010). The questions are still open.(1)
Global power status, as is well known, is not a matter of national choice, or an issue subjected only to the political will of the actors involved in what is a complex and interrelated equation. It depends on a complete set of objective factors – connected with economic strength, technological endowments and military capabilities – as well as on a clear recognition of that status by other actors, first of all by the general consensus of the international community, but especially by the great powers. This recognition is usually linked to primary sources of power – Russia and China clearly fit the pattern – but it can also be associated with other attributions and types of participation in world affairs – cooperation, defense of human rights and democracy, etc.
According to those criteria, Brazil cannot be recognized, yet, as a global power, as it lacks some of the capabilities linked to those pre-conditions, with an emphasis on financial and military capabilities. Neither is it acknowledged as such by the world community. Much of the talk about Brazil’s new role is due to its active diplomacy under Luis Inácio Lula da Silva, together with the deployment of external cooperation towards poor countries in Africa and Latin America (efforts labeled, by the President himself, as the ‘diplomacy of generosity’). But, Brazil’s association with some less commendable actors – such as Iran or Cuba – as well as its poor record on human rights questions, an issue which clearly diminished in importance in Lula’s time, has weakened its credentials in terms of the expectations of public opinion.
But even on a more limited regional basis, it is also probably an exaggeration to count Brazil as a South American ‘natural leader’, for reasons other than a desire for ‘grandeur’. Notwithstanding the fact that it fills almost completely the objective criteria to be recognized as such – territorial, economic and demographic dimensions; size of internal markets; presence in external markets; concentration and diversification of investments; level of industrial development; the most advanced technological basis on the continent; its already large direct investment flows in neighboring countries; and, of course, military capabilities – Brazil does not yet enjoy some of the ‘subjective’ criteria linked to that status, the most important of those being the willing acceptance by the neighboring countries of such a role. Not only Argentina and Colombia, the two other middle-level powers in South America, but also the smaller countries, are not yet ready to accept Brazil as their regional representative or want it to act as a kind of an unelected speaker on their behalf. Unfortunately, big countries are seldom appreciated in their regions.
This lack of natural leadership derives not only from historical reasons – the fact that Brazil is the sole Portuguese-speaking country within a Spanish environment, and that it emerged as a monarchy in the 19th century, in a republican continent – but also from negative contemporary factors, such as the traditional links it has maintained with developed countries in Europe and North America at the expense of its interactions with South American neighbors. Huge Brazilian direct investments and many diplomatic initiatives have been undertaken in recent years in practically all South American countries, but this has not been enough to change the lack of enthusiasm for Brazil’s role as a leader.
Notwithstanding its importance in the regional context and its growing role and presence in some questions on the international agenda – especially in multilateral trade policies and WTO negotiations, and environmental affairs, among others – it would be a little premature to count Brazil among the major powers in the world. An objective evaluation of Brazil’s current limited capabilities also has to recognize brilliant prospects for the medium term: Brazil is already an ‘emerged’ country, but still an ‘emerging’ economy and a power broker. The fact of the general discussion about its greater role on the world diplomatic agenda should be acknowledged as a real accomplishment for President Luis Inácio Lula da Silva.
Any assessment of his diplomacy has to start from the fact – and this is its distinctive character – that it does not follow the traditional patterns of professional diplomatic practices, but rather its own Workers’ Party, the PT’s, ideological choices and political inputs. Those party preferences have left their marks heavily in the foreign policy of Brazil in a manner never seen before 2003. Accordingly, we shall first review the said ‘innovation’ in Brazilian foreign policy, both in terms of doctrine and of political orientation, and then move to the main issues of the diplomatic agenda. Lula’s diplomacy was not only conceived and applied more in line with party politics than with State considerations, but it has also served much more his own motivations for personal aggrandizement in world scenarios than Brazil’s national interests.
2. Shoes and sovereignty: the rhetoric of a sectarian Party diplomacy
For the first time in decades, or ever, Brazilian foreign policy was conceived and conducted under the overriding influence of non-professional diplomats. The PT’s ‘foreign policy’ was the dominant element in Brazilian foreign policy since the beginning of the da Silva government, but not in a structured manner, as the PT never ‘produced’ a structured or a complete set of conceptions and solutions for Brazil’s international relations. The party always had a poor theoretical structure, simply relying on ‘Gramscian’ figures from academia for the preparation of more sophisticated papers and proposals relating to economics and political life. But the core of its ‘thinking’ – if one can indulge it with such a description – is a confused mixture of typical (and stereotypical) Latin-American leftism with old-style nationalism and anti-imperialism, with brushes of Castroism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, and Liberation Theology beliefs.
From the standpoint of its organizational structures, the PT is a quasi-Bolshevik party, albeit without the old apparatchik apparatus of a Soviet-style Communist party. In the beginning, its core staff was formed mainly by: (a) ‘alternative’ trade-unionists, who started by rejecting the traditional trade-unions linked to the Ministry of Labor, but who have quickly adapted to the flow of easy money provided by the compulsory labor tax (the act of creating new trade unions is a prosperous ‘industry’, and the practice has enormously prospered under Lula); (b) old guerrilla-fighters, or semi-professional revolutionaries, ‘recycled’ into party politics (albeit keeping some old habits from their previous clandestine life, and liaisons with Cuba in particular); and, (c) religious movements, such as the leftist Liberation Theology and ‘ecclesial communities’.
The PT’s ‘ideology’ is a mixture of old style socialist credo, prior to the fall of Berlin wall, and of social-democratic economic beliefs (mostly of a purely redistributive character). In fact, many of the sects that make up PT are still true believers in socialism, and are die-hard statists who still trust in the merits of a planned economy. For all purposes, they are anti-capitalists, anti-imperialists, and naturally, anti-Americans, as almost all of the leftist Latin-American parties are. Some of the PT apparatchiks were trained and instructed by Cuban intelligence officers, which can explain their loyalty to Cuba's goals in Latin America, such as the organization of the São Paulo Forum (the FSP), a Cuban-sponsored coordinating mechanism for all leftist parties in the region which until 2005 included members of the Colombian FARC.(2)
The PT’s main guidelines in foreign policy were established by those involved in its ‘international relations’, starting with the who had apparatchiks that lived in exile during the military regime (1964-1985). Some of them happened to enjoy the confidence of their Cuban mentors, a fact that exerted some influence in the definition and implementation of ‘their’ foreign policy, when the time arrived. The future President himself – who, as a trade unionist and leader of metalworkers, developed links with counterparts in Cuba, in the USA, and in Europe – came to understand better the intricacies of international politics; his qualitative leap, the one that was decisive for his own personal life and for the political itinerary of Brazil, was to create in 1980, with the help of former guerrilla fighters, a political party that was to represent a departure from traditional politics and trade-unionism in Brazil.
Nevertheless, the PT always was, and continues to be, a consortium of leftists, engaged actively in the party’s cause, which is not exactly a national cause according to the normal lines of a parliamentary or even a presidential democracy. The PT has always relied on mass politics or popular organizations, like students' associations, labor unions or peasant movements, which it controlled. Its concept of democracy is merely instrumental: everything that serves the major objective of holding power for the party fits its “philosophy” and practices. Adhering to a ‘Cuban’ agenda, it is not surprising if human rights or democracy do not occupy higher levels in this kind of diplomacy. This feature has to be considered as the major political component of Brazilian foreign policy during Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's government.
3. Bizarre friendships and ‘new trade geography’: Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's international policy
Two main objectives have marked, in a somewhat contradictory manner, Brazilian foreign policy under Luis Inácio Lula da Silva: the preservation of national sovereignty and the strengthening of regional integration in South America, the latter being a continuation of policies already implemented by previous governments. The former, that is, the sovereign presence of Brazil in the world, would have to be decreased if the latter is to be reinforced, as exclusively national policies – in sectors such as industry, agriculture, or even trade policy – have to accommodate the choices being made in favor of regional integration. Its priorities were established in three main areas: the reform of the United Nations Charter and Brazil’s accession to a permanent seat on its Security Council; the finalization of multilateral trade negotiations, with a preferential option for the relationship with the European Union, instead of the conclusion of the American project of a hemispheric free trade area (FTAA), strongly opposed by the PT and other leftist movements; the reinforcement of Mercosur and its extension to other countries in South America, starting with Chile and other Southern Cone countries, such as Bolivia. Other priorities comprised the establishment of a strong relationship with selected ‘strategic allies’, designated as being ‘non-hegemonic countries’, namely China, Russia, India, and South Africa, the last two forming part of the IBSA forum, the first three organized along the lines proposed in the Goldman Sachs study on the BRIC countries.
All these moves followed the so-called ‘South-South’ diplomacy and the desire to create a ‘new geography of world trade’ and strengthen the ‘democratization of international relations’, without ‘imperial arrogance’ and ‘hegemonic unilateralism’. In terms of ‘tools’ to accomplish those objectives, it is not difficult to recognize the high quality of Brazilian professional diplomacy. Brazil’s ‘diplomatic GDP’ is greater than its economic GDP, and the latter is certainly greater than its ‘military GDP’, in other words, its capacity for projecting power abroad. Indeed, Brazil’s influence in diplomatic negotiations is more important than its actual presence in the world, as compared, for instance, to its participation in trade and financial flows (as a recipient of foreign capital and know-how, and a modest investor abroad). Brazil’s professional diplomatic skills make it a relevant actor and sometimes a broker in important multilateral trade negotiations (despite its minor role in financial or trade areas).
Nevertheless, Brazil’s influence in the new global interdependence is being handicapped by its mixed feelings toward globalization, and this is reinforced by the PT’s leading role in its diplomacy, as the party combines an old-style nationalism with defensive policies in the industrial and investment sectors, including trade protectionism and the promotion of substitutive industrialization. For many of its political leaders – and obviously for all the leftists in the da Silva government – globalization is just another name for Americanization, which they reject and even despise because of their superficial nationalism and instinctive protectionism. It is true that Brazil, in promoting Mercosur, has abandoned the worst aspects of its hard-core protectionism from the 1950s up to the 1980s, but entrepreneurs and the political elite maintain the same old feelings of the ‘dependency school’, a mixture of developmental Keynesianism and a vague Third World ideology demanding a ‘new international economic order’.
Policy reforms, in line with the Washington Consensus of the 1990s, and the Cardoso administration’s more receptive attitude toward globalization, brought Brazil more in line with mainstream economics, promoting economic opening and trade liberalization. But, starting with Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's government, those policies were somewhat reversed, if not taken back to the old days of Latin American ‘Structuralism’, identified with Raul Prebisch and Celso Furtado, former guardians of this ‘heterodox’ school. This reversal in diplomatic guidelines was presented as a renewal with the ‘Independent Foreign Policy’ of the early 1960s, when it was in fact only the result of nostalgia for old times.
Many of the new manifestations of this ‘sovereign diplomacy’ have been focused in consolidating alliances with a few selected partners in the Third World, mainly large emerging countries, notably India, South Africa and China, with the addition of Russia to the process, as it is considered to be an ‘anti-hegemonic’ counter-power. Great efforts have been made to achieve the goal of inserting Brazil into the inner sanctum of the UN Security Council, an initiative that served to arouse the opposition of Argentina and other competitors. Another goal, that of strengthening and expanding Mercosur, with the inclusion of new partners in South America has, in fact, resulted in the dilution of its trade rules and in an overextension of ‘social pacts’, which have little meaning for real integration.
In parallel with the so-called ‘diplomacy of generosity’ in Latin America – to consolidate a self-ascribed ‘Brazilian leadership’ in the region, a role always rejected by professional diplomacy, mindful of its negative tones – the PT government took initiatives to isolate United States in the region and enlarge the sphere of self-coordination among Latin American or South American countries. It started by refusing – in fact sabotaging – the FTAA initiative, proposed by President Clinton in 1994, an act undertaken by a joint action by Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela. This policy was also pursued through a series of proposals for the establishment of new bodies uniting exclusively South or Latin American countries. One of them was aimed at submitting the Colombian-US agreement for cooperation against the narco-guerrillas to a detailed scrutiny by a new consultation mechanism proposed by Brazil: the South American Defense Council, itself part of a larger structure, the Union of South American Nations (Unasur).
In February 2010, for instance, with total support from Brazil, a Latin American ‘unity’ Summit decided the double establishment of the new Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, which replaced the former Rio Group (1986), and of a Latin American Summit on Integration and Development, also created by a Brazilian initiative in December 2008. “For the first time in 200 years”, it was said, Latin American countries were meeting “without any kind of guardianship”, that is, exempt from any influence from the ‘empire’ and fully integrating Cuba into the coordinating and consultation mechanisms. The exclusion of the ‘empire’ was presented as a “success”, a ‘first’ in Latin American history, as Brazilian diplomacy acquired the capacity to “say no”.
The anti-American orientation of those actions was very clear, not only for ideological reasons, a feature which might be normally expected from a typical leftist Latin American party, such as PT, still proud of its Cuban links and its solidarity with ‘liberation movements’. It was also welcomed as a misguided feeling that integration under the aegis of “imperialism of free-trade” (as the American initiatives were labeled) would rather correspond to a project of ‘annexation’, instead of a symmetrical integration. It was on behalf of that creed that many other initiatives were taken, including the deliberate sinking of the regional negotiations for a hemispheric free trade area and the frustrated proposal for a South American free trade area (which did not prevent some countries from signing bilateral trade agreements with the US).
Paradoxically, Brazil was accused of being ‘imperialist’, and has been asked, in consequence, to pay the costs of the ‘asymmetrical situation’ created by its very huge presence. Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, other countries – even Argentina – forced Brazil to accept new and very generous terms for the reinforcement of their relationship: Bolivia nationalized oil and gas resources exploited by the Brazilian state company Petrobras; Paraguay required additional payments for its share of electricity generated by the bi-national hydro-electric plant at Itaipu; Argentina unilaterally imposed safeguards and other defensive trade restrictions on a number of Brazilian manufactured goods that would be normally exported through the free-trade area of Mercosur; Uruguay and other countries, including Venezuela wanted investments or financing from Brazil.
During previous administrations, professional diplomacy conducted bilateral relations with the United States under normal assumptions of cooperation and consultation without any ideological misconceptions about what is usually called ‘American hegemonic pretensions’. The PT’s diplomacy reverted to the ‘normal’ anti-imperialism (together with some anti-Americanism) of the old Latin American left. Dealing cautiously with American interests in the world and in the region during its first mandate, the da Silva government exhibited a more assertive ‘anti-hegemonic’ stance in its second mandate, developing (at least rhetorically) some confrontational positions in relation to American interests in the global scenario; political conflicts over specific issues were always avoided and direct opposition never allowed to arise, but a more assertive behavior, connecting Brazil with other ‘non-hegemonic’ emerging powers, was allowed to develop (in fact, was explicitly promoted).
4. Too much transpiration, less inspiration: Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's diplomacy in action
Intentions and proclamations aside, diplomacy under Luis Inácio Lula da Silva has to be evaluated according to its concrete results – or lack thereof – in the many subjects that mobilized the attention of the professional staff of the Foreign Service, under the triple guidance of the Presidential Assistant, the Minister and his Secretary-General, with the clear approval and the appreciation of the President himself. Among those issues, the following protracted the most attention from all these actors during the period under consideration: the UN Security Council; alliances with strategic partners; Mercosur and related issues of regional integration; the relationship with Argentina; Brazil’s leadership in South America and regional blocs; the WTO and multilateral trade negotiations; relations with other emerging powers and the international role of Brazil. For some of these issues, the PT already had its own ‘policies’; for others, it followed the official diplomatic line, distorting it for its own purposes.
The United Nations Security Council: a long-standing obsession
Despite a vague mention related to the “reform of international organizations”, the issue was never a priority in the PT’s guidelines on Foreign Policy but it was a pet subject for the Foreign Minister, who had a long career in multilateral forums and a personal attraction for international security matters; he transmitted this interest to the President, who promptly excepted the idea that Brazil was ready to enter the inner sanctum of the United Nations. This issue is notoriously difficult, and Brazil engaged vast resources – human, diplomatic, financial – in lobbying other countries for the purpose of reforming the UN Charter and enlarging its Security Council. The remarkable degree of acceptance of Luis Inácio Lula da Silva by the international media and other world leaders – all of whom, with the exception of George Bush, invited him to the annual G8 meetings – convinced the President that the idea was not only feasible but attainable, despite some opposition from regional partners (most vociferously, Argentina and Mexico).
Brazilian initiatives took various forms. With other developing countries, bilateral debt write-offs were offered to the poorest countries, but sometimes even to oil exporters like Gabon. With the other candidates (Japan, Germany, and India), a G4 was created to support one of the proposals put forward by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Brazil never reached an agreement with two key actors in this process, USA and China, who continuously opposed any substantial reform of the international body. For the sake of its great objective, Brazil assumed a commanding role in the pacification process of Haiti, engaging considerable resources in the task of nation-building that went clearly beyond the country's traditional participation in peacekeeping missions. Also, to enhance Brazil's international presence, the President ordered the opening of permanent embassies in almost all African countries and in all the Latin American states, even in the smallest islands of the Caribbean, all with very limited results in practice. Despite rhetorical support for his pretention, expressed in many bilateral communiqués along his mandate, the President was continuously frustrated.
Alliances with strategic partners (Argentina, China, India, South Africa)
Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's diplomacy believed that countries such as Brazil, Argentina, China, South Africa and India not only share common values and the same objectives in the world system, but also have relatively similar social and economic characteristics, making them ready to sustain joint projects and efforts at cooperation. IBSA, or the G-3, for instance, was presented as one example of creativity and shared vision between three great multiracial democracies, Brazil, India and South Africa. Having decided to form the group, the three countries struggled hard to find common problems and to establish a list of ‘shared solutions’, installing as many working groups as possible without regard for the actual differences among. Official rhetoric refers to IBSA as a ‘success story’, although concrete results, objectively assessed, remain below expectations, providing more promises than real accomplishments.
Argentina is another kind of ‘strategic partnership’: it was the co-founder of the Southern Cone integration process, with Mercosur at its core, the consolidation of which would require that the co-ordination of macroeconomic policies between the two big associates, as well as a set of joint measures to strengthen the regional bloc, be placed at the center of that endeavor. Instead, Argentina’s behavior in Mercosur became a hindrance for Brazilian industrialists, as their exports were subjected to many protectionist restrictions adopted by the Buenos Aires Government, which was still committed to old national practices in trade and industrial policies. The da Silva Government not only tolerated such abuses – contrary to the spirit and to the letter of Mercosur agreements, as well as to WTO-GATT dispositions on safeguards – but also managed to contain the dissatisfaction of Brazilian exporters.
China, for its part, was previously (and uncritically) selected by the President and the PT as a strategic ally, and began to benefit from this position by the declaration, by Brazil, that it filled the requirements of a “market economy”, as defined by WTO rules (and thus able to enjoy the bonuses of this recognition in its bilateral trade with Brazil). Brazilian diplomacy misread completely the real will of China in terms of accepting the reform of the UN Charter and the elevation of Brazil to its long sought ambition to become a permanent member of the Security Council. Neither were the Chinese ready to make the huge investments in Brazilian infra-structure that were expected by Luis Inácio Lula da Silva, as they actually regarded Brazil as one more commodity provider among many others.
The dismantling of Mercosur as an unintended consequence
The ‘restructuring’, institutional consolidation and enlargement of Mercosur were on Lula’s diplomatic menu, as had been explicitly announced since the beginning. According to this priority, total dedication was devoted to the attraction of new partners – Bolivia, Chile, Venezuela, and Ecuador – and facilitating their integration into the bloc (including a waiver on the application of the Common External Tariff, a clear circumvention of the normal discipline inside a customs union, which is what Mercosur pretends to be). Besides the creation of a Mercosur Parliament – without real functions, to be precise – there was no real progresses in the fields of trade liberalization and economic opening among member countries. From the designated group of ‘candidates’, only Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela decided to join the bloc, to the consternation of the real democrats and the concerns of the business world. Despite a strong lobby exerted by the da Silva Government in favor of Chávez, the documentation has not yet been concluded, as Paraguay has still to endorse it.
Irrespective of the real setbacks in the commercial areas of Mercosur, it is a fact that Brazil has invested heavily in the project of a stronger Mercosur and its expansion throughout the region. For instance, Brazil proposed, created and financed, at 70% of its cost, a fund to “correct the imbalances” in the region, a financial scheme equivalent to only a small part, 1%, approximately, of the combined Mercosur member countries’ GDPs and that, in fact, duplicates the work of the multilateral banks already operating in the region – the World Bank, the Inter-American Bank and other bodies. Instead of reducing imbalances in the region by market-friendly mechanisms, in line with each country's comparative advantages, governments allocate money to a vast array of projects poorly managed by bureaucrats and incapable of correcting any imbalance between them.
As well as an emphasis on its social and political agenda, Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's big push towards Mercosur’s enlargement was to offer it to whichever countries in South America would be willing to join, even at the price of overlooking some of its requirements, simply to accommodate specific countries with strong political motivations. Bolivia, for instance, was offered the chance to enter Mercosur without being liable to the Common External Tariff (which was considered an exaggerated concession by Argentina). Ecuador, along with Bolivia, a member of the Andean Community of Nations (CAN), was also approached, but preferred not to be entangled in any new commercial compromise. Chile, bound to a single tariff, as consolidated in the GATT system, declined from the start to become a full member of Mercosur, taking into account that it benefits from free-trade agreements concluded with each of its hemispheric partners. Colombia and Peru, too, setting aside their CAN membership, opted for free-trade agreements with the United States, a move that pushed Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez to denounce the country’s membership of CAN and to make a pledge to join Mercosur.
There are two problems with Chávez’s political decision to become a full member of Mercosur: on the one hand, since 2006, when that option was chosen, he signed, at the same time, a trilateral pact, with Cuba and Bolivia, creating ALBA, the Bolivarian Alliance of the Americas, a bizarre integration scheme built around state trading, managed cooperation and no free trade at all. On the other hand, Venezuela has never complied with the requirements of Mercosur’s customs union – that is, the Common External Tariff and all other regulations to that effect – declaring instead that it's intention was to transform Mercosur from its ‘neoliberal’ rules to a new political bloc, animated by its own proposals concerning ‘21st-century socialism’. Even accounting for the political empathy demonstrated by the two biggest associates towards Venezuela – in the case of Argentina compounded by the fact that Hugo Chávez was its sole financier after the 2002 moratorium – that was a little too far from the modest capitalist, albeit dirigiste, integration scheme devised by Brazil and Argentina.
Sleeping with a restive neighbor: relations with Argentina
The most sensible, and relevant, of all bilateral Brazilian relationships, the diplomatic interaction with Argentina, remains in a delicate situation, despite the benign propensity of the da Silva Government to accept almost all restrictions and limitations unilaterally imposed by Buenos Aires on the trade exchanges and reciprocal economic flows. At the beginning the da Silva and Kirchner mandates, in 2003, the excuse for many defensive measures was the profound crisis created by the end of the convertibility exchange regime and the external debt moratorium, followed by a complete standstill in foreign financing for Argentina. In a second stage, bruised by the excessive number of initiatives the Brazilian President was taking to assert Brazil’s leadership in the region, Nestor Kirchner hardened Argentinean positions in many negotiating situations, either in Mercosur or in regional matters, and even in multilateral situations, such as Brazilian candidacies in some international organizations (IADB, WTO, and others).
Ego disputes aside, the most important problem was a special safeguards regime that Argentina sought to impose on bilateral trade with Brazil, invoking “structural imbalances” arising from the Brazilian exchange flotation or hidden subsidies on Brazilian exports; “involuntary” export restrictions and other market arrangements were put in place, even against Mercosur rules and WTO dispositions, which the Brazilian President accepted as part of his “diplomacy of generosity” (to the great displeasure of Brazilian industrialists). In other contexts, Brazil was unable (or was not accepted) to mediate the conflict between Argentina and Uruguay over the cellulose plants next to the border. Favorable diplomatic rhetoric apart, Argentina was never very enthusiastic about Brazilian initiatives in the region: the South American Community of Nations, the two inter-regional summits – with Arab and African Countries – the South American Defense Council within Unasur, the Latin American and Caribbean meetings, and some other initiatives. Above all, though, the most contentious issue was Brazil's candidacy to the UNSC seat, followed by its implicit posture as regional leader – two endeavors that affected Argentina self-esteem and moved her to an openly active opposition.
Tropical Man’s Burden: Brazil’s regional leadership
One of the most important of Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's diplomatic initiatives, along with the Brazilian candidacy to a permanent seat in the UNSC, is the union of South America as a political entity, free from any interference from the “American empire”, and this has always corresponded to a permanent project for his party, obviously supported by its Cuban and other Latin American leftist allies. The core of Brazilian regional diplomacy, under the direct inspiration of Itamaraty’s Secretary-General, was strongly directed towards this ambitious objective, with partial successes in various aspects.
The economic aspect of the project – the political implosion of the American proposal of a FTAA, followed by the creation of a South American Free Trade Area – was only half-achieved: the abandonment of a hemispheric trade liberalization scheme. Brazilian initiatives towards creating its own economic space in the region were downsized to a mosaic of bilateral agreements within the framework of a Latin American Integration Association that failed to promote expanded exchanges or to effectively integrate the economies of the countries. The modest opening of the Brazilian economy in favor of its neighbors curtailed the Brazilian's grand vision for the continent.
The political components of the project remained too vague to really unite ten South American States that harbor different conceptions, sometimes opposed to each other, about political and economic integration. Unhappily for the Brazilian project, the fact is that South America became less, not more, integrated during Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's tenure, and the reason has little to do with external crises or military dictatorship. Indeed, democracy has progressed in the region, but political instability remains a crucial factor that explains the differing concepts of integration, and some of the regional crises. By most accounts, Bolivarianism and indigenism, arising in Andean countries, have rendered those polities more instable, socially and politically, and prone to old conceptions of integration, marked by State-led economic policies, nationalization and a less relevant role for trade and finance, compared to social and political issues, all of which was completely at odds with a market-led integration, such as that practiced in Mercosur.
In addition, the exercise in ‘regional leadership’, as tentatively tried by Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's diplomacy, was not well received; in fact, it had never been welcomed in the past, one more reason for professional diplomacy making a taboo of this difficult concept. Tempted by his warm reception in the world press and among many political leaders, Lula believed that the time was ripe for Brazil to assume a more assertive posture based on political dialogue, Brazilian financing of development projects and a tentative measure to coordinate positions in regional or multilateral negotiations.
Being the largest economy in the region, Brazil exerts a natural attraction on neighboring countries, but that has not been enough to overcome old suspicions about its quasi-imperialistic behavior in South America, or its supposed desire to impose its own domination over other countries, replicating, albeit in a less arrogant manner, American imperial tutelage. In fact, Brazil has never exerted any guardianship over the region, but the multiplication of initiatives could be seen as devoid of vested interests. That could be one of the reasons for Andean countries not accepting the offer by Brazilian diplomacy to set up a secretariat for the newly-created South American Community of Nations, an entity that was replaced, one year later by the Hugo Chávez-sponsored Union of the Nations of South America (Unasur), with its headquarters in Quito.
The da Silva Government also failed to provide an adequate substitute to a scheme devised by Cardoso’s administration for the infrastructure projects in South America. The Initiative for the Integration of South America (IIRSA), created in 2000, never advanced from its stage of portfolio projects – prepared by the INTAL-IADB – to transform them into concrete undertakings capable of mobilizing private and official financial resources to deal with the multiple needs in the region in terms of energy, communications, and major engineering projects (notably in transport). As regards investments and other market opportunities, the successful implosion of the FTAA by Brazilian diplomacy (with a little help from Argentina and Venezuela) may have thrown some countries into the arms of the USA, as Brazil is not really a powerful replacement solution for economies looking for big flows of direct investment and access to larger markets, at least not those of the size of the United States; in the same move, Brazil ended up with less market access and reduced preferences in its neighbors’ markets.
A bridge too far: multilateral and regional trade negotiations
Access to new markets through multilateral trade negotiations, with small concessions in new areas – like investments, intellectual property and services – but also in industrial tariffs, have always been a chasse gardée for Itamaraty, preserved from intrusions by other government agencies. This domestic hegemony was somewhat contested during Lula’s government – especially by Brazilian agricultural producers competing in world markets, but also other sectors – because of the extreme politicization of those economic issues practiced since the beginning. Under the slogan of creating a ‘new geography for world trade’, Itamaraty aligned Brazil with other developing countries – always with the aim of presenting a united front against rich countries – disregarding the fact that some of those countries (including China and India, two of its strongest ‘allies’) possessed in reality interests directly opposed to Brazil’s aim in dismantling agriculture protectionism and high subsidies in the area.
The Commercial G20, created at the Cancun ministerial meeting of the WTO (2003), was presented as a strong expression of Brazilian leadership in trade negotiations, and as an ‘alternative’ to old negotiating schemes, but its internal contradictions quickly became apparent in subsequent phases and the group was not capable of overcoming different interests among its members to present a united front in some crucial issues related to it. For all practical purposes, the offensive stance of Brazil in those matters was rendered as defensive as the Chinese or Indian positions, including in non-agricultural market access (NAMA) and in services, in a time when Brazilian farmers, and even many industrialists, were disposed to advance further.
In the same areas, and in other negotiating instances – such as in the framework of trade talks between Mercosur and the EU – less ambitious positions or a limited disposition to make concessions in industrial tariffs from partners like Argentina (but the same applies to India and some other developing countries) curtailed the possibility for Brazil to reach an acceptable agreement with other developing countries, thus opening new markets for Brazilian products. The preferential alliances devised by Itamaraty with other developing countries – which included ‘social concerns’ and ‘interests of less competitive agriculture’, or ‘family farms’ – added to the hindrances that had been self-inflicted for political reasons, in addition to the fact that the great expansion for Brazilian exports in the farming sector is essentially concentrated in the emerging markets, not in rich countries. In this sense, the ‘South-South’ policy and the ‘new geography of trade’, with all their political bias, were in contradiction to Brazilian national interests and the country's natural competitive advantages. Asian countries, for instance, have for a long time been practicing the ‘new geography’ in expanding their exports to rich countries in the West.
Dragons, elephants and other fauna: Brazil’s presence in the world
China was designated an ‘ally’, or ‘strategic partner’ even before Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's coming to power, as he made a political visit to that country in 2001, and was received with the honors due to an important political leader. At that time, many of the PT leaders still held the erroneous belief that China was a socialist economy and a country interested in constituting a ‘common front’ against the arrogant rich countries and Western ‘imperialism’. When he came to power, Luis Inácio Lula da Silva started to put in practice his unilaterally conceived ‘Chinese policy’, which consisted of great expectations concerning major investments in Brazil and, especially, a strong political relationship by which both countries were to influence a big change in world power, reducing the spaces for ‘hegemony’ in international politics – a concept used by the Chinese, by the way.
The Brazilian's diplomacy imagined that, by conceding to China the status of a ‘market economy’, as requested by the Chinese leadership, it would be possible to capture large-scale investments and technological cooperation, as well as the most prized reward sought by the president: China’s support for the Brazilian aspiration to a seat in the UNSC. In other occasions – during reciprocal state visits –the President even considered the idea of a free-trade agreement between China and Mercosur, and offered the possibility of replace the payment system in bilateral trade, starting to use local currencies instead of dollars. Both measures were clearly in favor of Chinese interests and, thanks to the opposition from entrepreneurs – alarmed by the destructive potential of low-cost Chinese competition – and from some more vigilant bureaucrats in the Central Bank, they were not implemented at all, despite being proposed by the President himself (probably out of naïveté or simple ignorance of economic matters).
China never committed itself to supporting Brazil in its quest for the UNSC seat and has always acted in its own self-interest, even on strictly bilateral matters; it did not hesitate, for instance, to impose a trade embargo on the arrival of a Brazilian cargo of soy beans invoking sanitary measures, when it was simply pushing down the prices, and this on the eve of one of Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's official visits to China. In other contexts China makes very clear that it wants to keep for itself the decision on the desirable pattern for bilateral relations, including matters pertaining to private investment and a common multilateral agenda (either in BRIC meetings, or elsewhere).
The creation of the informal group called BRIC, comprising Brazil, China, India and Russia, has the latter country as the main partner with Brazil in the endeavor that looks more at political aims than economic objectives, despite the fact that the proposal by an investment economist takes its legitimacy from their economic importance for the future world economy. The new acronym has attracted a lot of publicity but it remains to be seen if the group has, effectively, coherent, sound and feasible proposals for global governance, justifying its claim to be an alternative to the traditional G7-G8 group. In the same way, the decision to strengthen links with new and old partners, in other continents, fits Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's intention to diversify the options available for Brazilian exports, other sources for sophisticated technology – with France, for instance – and to achieve a balance of commercial objectives and attain a leading political role for the country in the world (as in the summits organized with Arab and African countries together with South American neighbors of Brazil).
A resident diplomatic representation was established in Ramallah and Luis Inácio Lula da Silva tried to insert himself in the complicated chessboard of Middle East conflicts, offering to mediate a ‘peace’ between Israelis and Palestinians on the basis of ‘sincere dialogue’, which, of course, arrived at nothing. New attempts at bona fide diplomacy were made in connection with the troubled negotiations between the great powers and Iran, over that country's covert activities regarding its nuclear program, only to characterize Brazil's President as a friend of the controversial figure of Ahmadinejad. Brazil’s too lenient posture regarding human rights violations around the world, together with Luis Inácio Lula da Silva’s indulgence towards dictators like Fidel Castro, have tarnished the good record previously held by Brazil.
There is no doubt that Brazil has become an important broker in many instances on the international agenda, even if some ambiguities remain over specific points of the political aspect of the PT’s external policy (human rights and democracy being the most visible, but also non-proliferation and environment). Luis Inácio Lula da Silva had the opportunity to engage in dialogue at the same time with capitalists in Davos and the dreamers of the World Social Forum, but many in his immediate surroundings exhibited a clear anti-American stance, as was revealed, for instance, in the cases of Honduras and Venezuela. The President's negative appraisals of ‘neoliberalism’ and ‘Wall Street speculators’ have more to do with old-fashioned leftist postures than with the diplomatic seriousness required from an aspiring emerging power. At the beginning of his mandate, Luis Inácio Lula da Silva attempted to ‘sell’ to other Latin American countries a replacement of the ‘Washington Consensus’, by means of a so-called ‘Buenos Aires Consensus’, a fragile set of fragile rules about welfare policies. At the end of his mandate, had become a strong critic of the current international system, probably frustrated by the unwillingness of great powers to reform the UNO Charter and accept Brazil as one of the ‘more equals’.
5. Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's heritage: Brazilian diplomacy's new clothes
The October 2010 presidential elections in Brazil provide the opportunity to change many things in foreign policy, if there is a social-democratic victory – probably more in the region, and specifically in connection with Mercosur, than in Brazil’s world role – or, otherwise, a new government can maintain, roughly speaking, the same lines in diplomacy as followed during the last eight years of the da Silva administration. Indeed, the PT’s foreign policy, though not consensual, is widely accepted by many sectors of public opinion, mainly in academia and left-wing parties and movements. It would be more of the same, except for the lack of a colorful president, who has represented Brazil abroad in a lively manner in times of great changes in world scenarios.
Some positions will probably not change, of course: the self-characterization of Brazil as a developing country, its pretension to be a speaker on behalf of other poor countries seeking a new economic order, with more justice and fairness being shown towards those countries, the reduction of the inequalities and imbalances that still divide the world, the democratization of international politics – with Brazil standing yet again as a candidate for a permanent seat on the UNSC – and many other requests of this nature. Strong action against hunger, poverty and injustices will continue to be high in the agenda, as well as the defense of sovereignty and states' policies directed to social development.
South America – and with the PT, Latin America – will be maintained as the most relevant priority of Brazilian foreign policy, but in the case of a social-democratic win, exclusive ‘South-South’ policies will probably be scaled down within the ranks of Itamaraty, in favor of a more balanced view of cooperation and a more pragmatic position regarding commercial policies and human rights issues. Multilateralism in economic and political careers will keep the same importance as always and Itamaraty will regain some of the spaces it lost to a very activist presidential palace in the last eight years. There will probably be less presidential diplomacy, and more ‘normal’, professional diplomacy, with less travel and visits both abroad and to Brazil.
Changes in or of style and different emphases apart, Brazil will undoubtedly retain the growing economic and political importance it attained during Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's administration. The new view of Brazil held by foreign countries has objective grounds: the preservation of economic stability and the steady, albeit modest, growth rates exhibited by Brazilian economy that its diplomacy has been able to capitalize upon. China, the current engine of the world economy became the main Brazil’s trading partner in the last year of Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's mandate, but it was China that that has contributed most to Brazilian growth, a growth much more based on the value given to its commodities than on the diversification and expansion of exported manufactures. In fact, economic growth in Brazil is perhaps becoming too dependent on China, as was the case in the past with the Brazilian-American relationship. However, in the context of the BRIC countries, Brazil has shown the worst growth rate of the four nations, and has not lost its relative share of the world GDP or the intensity of its participation in international trade.
Thus, despite Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's satisfaction with the greater presence of Brazil in the world, which allows him to enhance his own leading role in building that position, it would not be wrong to say that this new role derives much more from a hyperactive diplomacy, based on the strong promotion of the President himself, than from a real transformation in the objective position of Brazil in the economic and political scenarios. Growth in nominal GDP as compared to other countries is, at least in some measure, the result of the currency's appreciation against the dollar; in the same way, growth in exports reflects the growing demand from dynamic countries for Brazilian commodities; there is also the expansion of domestic credit for consumption, even at the risk of a bubble arising from excessive debt contracted by individuals and families. On a similar topic, the economic stability granted since Cardoso’s administration, and rightfully preserved by da Silva, together with the size of the domestic market and Brazilian connections within the framework of Mercosur, are responsible for the huge amounts of foreign direct investments that have been attracted since then. This relatively benign scenario will probably be maintained for the next few years, depending on the main markets for Brazilian products (today tending towards China) and on external credits from financial markets.
An overall evaluation of Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's diplomacy should be able to recognize its ability to project a dynamic image of Brazil worldwide, helping to make the country a fully-fledged actor in the forefront of international diplomacy. Brazil is certainly present in many of the most important discussion bodies dealing with economic and political issues in the world agenda. Not surprisingly, the personal figure of da Silva is even more present than the country, which confirms the real success of his diplomacy in projecting his own image as the personification of Brazil.
In terms of its own development though, Brazil is still an emerging country, with many social deficiencies, economic imbalances, uneven regional progress, and an extremely problematic public education system; its state institutions and corruption levels are much more akin to the standard patterns already familiar in developing countries than with the advanced economies that Brazil is struggling to imitate. Incidentally, it is worth noting that Brazil could be a full member of the OECD, as it has received 10 open invitation in recent years to consider becoming associated with that organization; it was only for ideological and political reasons that Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's diplomacy choose to stand aside. Even taking into account some economic challenges arising from such a decision, OECD patterns in economic policy and governance would help Brazil to modernize its structures and improve the overall performance of its public policies.
Indeed, the main challenges for Brazil in the years ahead are entirely internal, with few, or none, deriving from external factors. Domestic problems are mainly to blame for the modest role still characterizing Brazil’s world presence; an ambitious set of governance reforms – the taxation system, labor legislation, political and administrative reforms, and an educational revolution – most of them in line with OECD patterns, should contribute to the international aggrandizement of Brazil. Those tasks will presumably depend on a less ideological type of governance and on a new kind of diplomacy, open-minded and market-friendly. This task is for a post-da Silva government.
Received August 14, 2010
Accepted November 18, 2010
Abstract: Critical assessment of Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's diplomacy, which departed from the previous patterns of the Brazilian Foreign Service, to align itself with the political conceptions of the Workers’ Party. This diplomacy has neither consolidated the position of Brazil as a regional leader, nor attained its declared goal of inserting Brazil into the United Nations Security Council, although it has reinforced Brazil’s image in the international scenarios; but this was achieved much more through the personal activism of the President himself, than through normal diplomatic work.
Resumo: Avaliação crítica da diplomacia do governo Lula, que abandonou os padrões tradicionais do Itamaraty para alinhar-se com as concepções políticas do Partido dos Trabalhadores. Essa diplomacia não conseguiu consolidar a posição do Brasil como líder regional, nem logrou o objetivo declarado de colocar o país no Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas, muito embora tenha reforçado a imagem do Brasil no cenário internacional; mas isso foi alcançado mais por meio do ativismo do próprio presidente, do que pelo trabalho diplomático normal.
Key-words: Brazil, diplomacy, Lula government, regional leadership, global presence.
Palavras-chave: Brasil, diplomacia, governo Lula, liderança regional, presença global.
Notes
* PhD in Social Sciences and Brazilian career diplomat.
(1) Some of the questions debated in this essay have been already dealt with in other articles by the author, namely: “Brazil in the world context, at the first decade of the 21st century: regional leadership and strategies for its integration into the world economy”, In: Joam Evans (org.), Brazilian Defense Policies: Current Trends and Regional Implications (London: Dunkling Books, 2009), p. 11-26; “Lula’s Foreign Policy: Regional and Global Strategies”, In: Werner Baer and Joseph Love (eds.), Brazil under Lula (New York: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2009), p. 167-183; “Política exterior: potencia regional o actor global”, In: “Brasil Emerge”, Vanguardia Dossier (Barcelona: La Vanguardia, n. 36, Jul-Sept., 2010), p. 68-72.
(2) Minutes of the regular meetings of the FSP, since its foundation, in 1990, up to 2007, with evidence of the participation of the Colombian narco-terrorist group FARC, can be found at this website: http://www.midiasemmascara.org/arquivo/atas-do-foro-de-sao-paulo/7.html, accessed on 20th October 2010.
É o que esperam muitos...
Never Before Seen in Brazil: Luis Inácio Lula da Silva’s grand diplomacy
Nunca antes visto no Brasil: a grande diplomacia de Lula
Paulo Roberto de Almeida *
Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional (v. 53, n. 2 2010)
1. South America was not enough: Luis Inácio Lula da Silva goes out into the world
Has Brazil already attained the status of a global power, as sought by Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's diplomacy? Or, despite all his efforts, does it remain a mere regional power? Those two questions were, almost obsessively, at the center of Lula’s entrepreneurial diplomacy, for the whole duration of his administration (2003-2010). The questions are still open.(1)
Global power status, as is well known, is not a matter of national choice, or an issue subjected only to the political will of the actors involved in what is a complex and interrelated equation. It depends on a complete set of objective factors – connected with economic strength, technological endowments and military capabilities – as well as on a clear recognition of that status by other actors, first of all by the general consensus of the international community, but especially by the great powers. This recognition is usually linked to primary sources of power – Russia and China clearly fit the pattern – but it can also be associated with other attributions and types of participation in world affairs – cooperation, defense of human rights and democracy, etc.
According to those criteria, Brazil cannot be recognized, yet, as a global power, as it lacks some of the capabilities linked to those pre-conditions, with an emphasis on financial and military capabilities. Neither is it acknowledged as such by the world community. Much of the talk about Brazil’s new role is due to its active diplomacy under Luis Inácio Lula da Silva, together with the deployment of external cooperation towards poor countries in Africa and Latin America (efforts labeled, by the President himself, as the ‘diplomacy of generosity’). But, Brazil’s association with some less commendable actors – such as Iran or Cuba – as well as its poor record on human rights questions, an issue which clearly diminished in importance in Lula’s time, has weakened its credentials in terms of the expectations of public opinion.
But even on a more limited regional basis, it is also probably an exaggeration to count Brazil as a South American ‘natural leader’, for reasons other than a desire for ‘grandeur’. Notwithstanding the fact that it fills almost completely the objective criteria to be recognized as such – territorial, economic and demographic dimensions; size of internal markets; presence in external markets; concentration and diversification of investments; level of industrial development; the most advanced technological basis on the continent; its already large direct investment flows in neighboring countries; and, of course, military capabilities – Brazil does not yet enjoy some of the ‘subjective’ criteria linked to that status, the most important of those being the willing acceptance by the neighboring countries of such a role. Not only Argentina and Colombia, the two other middle-level powers in South America, but also the smaller countries, are not yet ready to accept Brazil as their regional representative or want it to act as a kind of an unelected speaker on their behalf. Unfortunately, big countries are seldom appreciated in their regions.
This lack of natural leadership derives not only from historical reasons – the fact that Brazil is the sole Portuguese-speaking country within a Spanish environment, and that it emerged as a monarchy in the 19th century, in a republican continent – but also from negative contemporary factors, such as the traditional links it has maintained with developed countries in Europe and North America at the expense of its interactions with South American neighbors. Huge Brazilian direct investments and many diplomatic initiatives have been undertaken in recent years in practically all South American countries, but this has not been enough to change the lack of enthusiasm for Brazil’s role as a leader.
Notwithstanding its importance in the regional context and its growing role and presence in some questions on the international agenda – especially in multilateral trade policies and WTO negotiations, and environmental affairs, among others – it would be a little premature to count Brazil among the major powers in the world. An objective evaluation of Brazil’s current limited capabilities also has to recognize brilliant prospects for the medium term: Brazil is already an ‘emerged’ country, but still an ‘emerging’ economy and a power broker. The fact of the general discussion about its greater role on the world diplomatic agenda should be acknowledged as a real accomplishment for President Luis Inácio Lula da Silva.
Any assessment of his diplomacy has to start from the fact – and this is its distinctive character – that it does not follow the traditional patterns of professional diplomatic practices, but rather its own Workers’ Party, the PT’s, ideological choices and political inputs. Those party preferences have left their marks heavily in the foreign policy of Brazil in a manner never seen before 2003. Accordingly, we shall first review the said ‘innovation’ in Brazilian foreign policy, both in terms of doctrine and of political orientation, and then move to the main issues of the diplomatic agenda. Lula’s diplomacy was not only conceived and applied more in line with party politics than with State considerations, but it has also served much more his own motivations for personal aggrandizement in world scenarios than Brazil’s national interests.
2. Shoes and sovereignty: the rhetoric of a sectarian Party diplomacy
For the first time in decades, or ever, Brazilian foreign policy was conceived and conducted under the overriding influence of non-professional diplomats. The PT’s ‘foreign policy’ was the dominant element in Brazilian foreign policy since the beginning of the da Silva government, but not in a structured manner, as the PT never ‘produced’ a structured or a complete set of conceptions and solutions for Brazil’s international relations. The party always had a poor theoretical structure, simply relying on ‘Gramscian’ figures from academia for the preparation of more sophisticated papers and proposals relating to economics and political life. But the core of its ‘thinking’ – if one can indulge it with such a description – is a confused mixture of typical (and stereotypical) Latin-American leftism with old-style nationalism and anti-imperialism, with brushes of Castroism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, and Liberation Theology beliefs.
From the standpoint of its organizational structures, the PT is a quasi-Bolshevik party, albeit without the old apparatchik apparatus of a Soviet-style Communist party. In the beginning, its core staff was formed mainly by: (a) ‘alternative’ trade-unionists, who started by rejecting the traditional trade-unions linked to the Ministry of Labor, but who have quickly adapted to the flow of easy money provided by the compulsory labor tax (the act of creating new trade unions is a prosperous ‘industry’, and the practice has enormously prospered under Lula); (b) old guerrilla-fighters, or semi-professional revolutionaries, ‘recycled’ into party politics (albeit keeping some old habits from their previous clandestine life, and liaisons with Cuba in particular); and, (c) religious movements, such as the leftist Liberation Theology and ‘ecclesial communities’.
The PT’s ‘ideology’ is a mixture of old style socialist credo, prior to the fall of Berlin wall, and of social-democratic economic beliefs (mostly of a purely redistributive character). In fact, many of the sects that make up PT are still true believers in socialism, and are die-hard statists who still trust in the merits of a planned economy. For all purposes, they are anti-capitalists, anti-imperialists, and naturally, anti-Americans, as almost all of the leftist Latin-American parties are. Some of the PT apparatchiks were trained and instructed by Cuban intelligence officers, which can explain their loyalty to Cuba's goals in Latin America, such as the organization of the São Paulo Forum (the FSP), a Cuban-sponsored coordinating mechanism for all leftist parties in the region which until 2005 included members of the Colombian FARC.(2)
The PT’s main guidelines in foreign policy were established by those involved in its ‘international relations’, starting with the who had apparatchiks that lived in exile during the military regime (1964-1985). Some of them happened to enjoy the confidence of their Cuban mentors, a fact that exerted some influence in the definition and implementation of ‘their’ foreign policy, when the time arrived. The future President himself – who, as a trade unionist and leader of metalworkers, developed links with counterparts in Cuba, in the USA, and in Europe – came to understand better the intricacies of international politics; his qualitative leap, the one that was decisive for his own personal life and for the political itinerary of Brazil, was to create in 1980, with the help of former guerrilla fighters, a political party that was to represent a departure from traditional politics and trade-unionism in Brazil.
Nevertheless, the PT always was, and continues to be, a consortium of leftists, engaged actively in the party’s cause, which is not exactly a national cause according to the normal lines of a parliamentary or even a presidential democracy. The PT has always relied on mass politics or popular organizations, like students' associations, labor unions or peasant movements, which it controlled. Its concept of democracy is merely instrumental: everything that serves the major objective of holding power for the party fits its “philosophy” and practices. Adhering to a ‘Cuban’ agenda, it is not surprising if human rights or democracy do not occupy higher levels in this kind of diplomacy. This feature has to be considered as the major political component of Brazilian foreign policy during Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's government.
3. Bizarre friendships and ‘new trade geography’: Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's international policy
Two main objectives have marked, in a somewhat contradictory manner, Brazilian foreign policy under Luis Inácio Lula da Silva: the preservation of national sovereignty and the strengthening of regional integration in South America, the latter being a continuation of policies already implemented by previous governments. The former, that is, the sovereign presence of Brazil in the world, would have to be decreased if the latter is to be reinforced, as exclusively national policies – in sectors such as industry, agriculture, or even trade policy – have to accommodate the choices being made in favor of regional integration. Its priorities were established in three main areas: the reform of the United Nations Charter and Brazil’s accession to a permanent seat on its Security Council; the finalization of multilateral trade negotiations, with a preferential option for the relationship with the European Union, instead of the conclusion of the American project of a hemispheric free trade area (FTAA), strongly opposed by the PT and other leftist movements; the reinforcement of Mercosur and its extension to other countries in South America, starting with Chile and other Southern Cone countries, such as Bolivia. Other priorities comprised the establishment of a strong relationship with selected ‘strategic allies’, designated as being ‘non-hegemonic countries’, namely China, Russia, India, and South Africa, the last two forming part of the IBSA forum, the first three organized along the lines proposed in the Goldman Sachs study on the BRIC countries.
All these moves followed the so-called ‘South-South’ diplomacy and the desire to create a ‘new geography of world trade’ and strengthen the ‘democratization of international relations’, without ‘imperial arrogance’ and ‘hegemonic unilateralism’. In terms of ‘tools’ to accomplish those objectives, it is not difficult to recognize the high quality of Brazilian professional diplomacy. Brazil’s ‘diplomatic GDP’ is greater than its economic GDP, and the latter is certainly greater than its ‘military GDP’, in other words, its capacity for projecting power abroad. Indeed, Brazil’s influence in diplomatic negotiations is more important than its actual presence in the world, as compared, for instance, to its participation in trade and financial flows (as a recipient of foreign capital and know-how, and a modest investor abroad). Brazil’s professional diplomatic skills make it a relevant actor and sometimes a broker in important multilateral trade negotiations (despite its minor role in financial or trade areas).
Nevertheless, Brazil’s influence in the new global interdependence is being handicapped by its mixed feelings toward globalization, and this is reinforced by the PT’s leading role in its diplomacy, as the party combines an old-style nationalism with defensive policies in the industrial and investment sectors, including trade protectionism and the promotion of substitutive industrialization. For many of its political leaders – and obviously for all the leftists in the da Silva government – globalization is just another name for Americanization, which they reject and even despise because of their superficial nationalism and instinctive protectionism. It is true that Brazil, in promoting Mercosur, has abandoned the worst aspects of its hard-core protectionism from the 1950s up to the 1980s, but entrepreneurs and the political elite maintain the same old feelings of the ‘dependency school’, a mixture of developmental Keynesianism and a vague Third World ideology demanding a ‘new international economic order’.
Policy reforms, in line with the Washington Consensus of the 1990s, and the Cardoso administration’s more receptive attitude toward globalization, brought Brazil more in line with mainstream economics, promoting economic opening and trade liberalization. But, starting with Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's government, those policies were somewhat reversed, if not taken back to the old days of Latin American ‘Structuralism’, identified with Raul Prebisch and Celso Furtado, former guardians of this ‘heterodox’ school. This reversal in diplomatic guidelines was presented as a renewal with the ‘Independent Foreign Policy’ of the early 1960s, when it was in fact only the result of nostalgia for old times.
Many of the new manifestations of this ‘sovereign diplomacy’ have been focused in consolidating alliances with a few selected partners in the Third World, mainly large emerging countries, notably India, South Africa and China, with the addition of Russia to the process, as it is considered to be an ‘anti-hegemonic’ counter-power. Great efforts have been made to achieve the goal of inserting Brazil into the inner sanctum of the UN Security Council, an initiative that served to arouse the opposition of Argentina and other competitors. Another goal, that of strengthening and expanding Mercosur, with the inclusion of new partners in South America has, in fact, resulted in the dilution of its trade rules and in an overextension of ‘social pacts’, which have little meaning for real integration.
In parallel with the so-called ‘diplomacy of generosity’ in Latin America – to consolidate a self-ascribed ‘Brazilian leadership’ in the region, a role always rejected by professional diplomacy, mindful of its negative tones – the PT government took initiatives to isolate United States in the region and enlarge the sphere of self-coordination among Latin American or South American countries. It started by refusing – in fact sabotaging – the FTAA initiative, proposed by President Clinton in 1994, an act undertaken by a joint action by Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela. This policy was also pursued through a series of proposals for the establishment of new bodies uniting exclusively South or Latin American countries. One of them was aimed at submitting the Colombian-US agreement for cooperation against the narco-guerrillas to a detailed scrutiny by a new consultation mechanism proposed by Brazil: the South American Defense Council, itself part of a larger structure, the Union of South American Nations (Unasur).
In February 2010, for instance, with total support from Brazil, a Latin American ‘unity’ Summit decided the double establishment of the new Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, which replaced the former Rio Group (1986), and of a Latin American Summit on Integration and Development, also created by a Brazilian initiative in December 2008. “For the first time in 200 years”, it was said, Latin American countries were meeting “without any kind of guardianship”, that is, exempt from any influence from the ‘empire’ and fully integrating Cuba into the coordinating and consultation mechanisms. The exclusion of the ‘empire’ was presented as a “success”, a ‘first’ in Latin American history, as Brazilian diplomacy acquired the capacity to “say no”.
The anti-American orientation of those actions was very clear, not only for ideological reasons, a feature which might be normally expected from a typical leftist Latin American party, such as PT, still proud of its Cuban links and its solidarity with ‘liberation movements’. It was also welcomed as a misguided feeling that integration under the aegis of “imperialism of free-trade” (as the American initiatives were labeled) would rather correspond to a project of ‘annexation’, instead of a symmetrical integration. It was on behalf of that creed that many other initiatives were taken, including the deliberate sinking of the regional negotiations for a hemispheric free trade area and the frustrated proposal for a South American free trade area (which did not prevent some countries from signing bilateral trade agreements with the US).
Paradoxically, Brazil was accused of being ‘imperialist’, and has been asked, in consequence, to pay the costs of the ‘asymmetrical situation’ created by its very huge presence. Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, other countries – even Argentina – forced Brazil to accept new and very generous terms for the reinforcement of their relationship: Bolivia nationalized oil and gas resources exploited by the Brazilian state company Petrobras; Paraguay required additional payments for its share of electricity generated by the bi-national hydro-electric plant at Itaipu; Argentina unilaterally imposed safeguards and other defensive trade restrictions on a number of Brazilian manufactured goods that would be normally exported through the free-trade area of Mercosur; Uruguay and other countries, including Venezuela wanted investments or financing from Brazil.
During previous administrations, professional diplomacy conducted bilateral relations with the United States under normal assumptions of cooperation and consultation without any ideological misconceptions about what is usually called ‘American hegemonic pretensions’. The PT’s diplomacy reverted to the ‘normal’ anti-imperialism (together with some anti-Americanism) of the old Latin American left. Dealing cautiously with American interests in the world and in the region during its first mandate, the da Silva government exhibited a more assertive ‘anti-hegemonic’ stance in its second mandate, developing (at least rhetorically) some confrontational positions in relation to American interests in the global scenario; political conflicts over specific issues were always avoided and direct opposition never allowed to arise, but a more assertive behavior, connecting Brazil with other ‘non-hegemonic’ emerging powers, was allowed to develop (in fact, was explicitly promoted).
4. Too much transpiration, less inspiration: Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's diplomacy in action
Intentions and proclamations aside, diplomacy under Luis Inácio Lula da Silva has to be evaluated according to its concrete results – or lack thereof – in the many subjects that mobilized the attention of the professional staff of the Foreign Service, under the triple guidance of the Presidential Assistant, the Minister and his Secretary-General, with the clear approval and the appreciation of the President himself. Among those issues, the following protracted the most attention from all these actors during the period under consideration: the UN Security Council; alliances with strategic partners; Mercosur and related issues of regional integration; the relationship with Argentina; Brazil’s leadership in South America and regional blocs; the WTO and multilateral trade negotiations; relations with other emerging powers and the international role of Brazil. For some of these issues, the PT already had its own ‘policies’; for others, it followed the official diplomatic line, distorting it for its own purposes.
The United Nations Security Council: a long-standing obsession
Despite a vague mention related to the “reform of international organizations”, the issue was never a priority in the PT’s guidelines on Foreign Policy but it was a pet subject for the Foreign Minister, who had a long career in multilateral forums and a personal attraction for international security matters; he transmitted this interest to the President, who promptly excepted the idea that Brazil was ready to enter the inner sanctum of the United Nations. This issue is notoriously difficult, and Brazil engaged vast resources – human, diplomatic, financial – in lobbying other countries for the purpose of reforming the UN Charter and enlarging its Security Council. The remarkable degree of acceptance of Luis Inácio Lula da Silva by the international media and other world leaders – all of whom, with the exception of George Bush, invited him to the annual G8 meetings – convinced the President that the idea was not only feasible but attainable, despite some opposition from regional partners (most vociferously, Argentina and Mexico).
Brazilian initiatives took various forms. With other developing countries, bilateral debt write-offs were offered to the poorest countries, but sometimes even to oil exporters like Gabon. With the other candidates (Japan, Germany, and India), a G4 was created to support one of the proposals put forward by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Brazil never reached an agreement with two key actors in this process, USA and China, who continuously opposed any substantial reform of the international body. For the sake of its great objective, Brazil assumed a commanding role in the pacification process of Haiti, engaging considerable resources in the task of nation-building that went clearly beyond the country's traditional participation in peacekeeping missions. Also, to enhance Brazil's international presence, the President ordered the opening of permanent embassies in almost all African countries and in all the Latin American states, even in the smallest islands of the Caribbean, all with very limited results in practice. Despite rhetorical support for his pretention, expressed in many bilateral communiqués along his mandate, the President was continuously frustrated.
Alliances with strategic partners (Argentina, China, India, South Africa)
Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's diplomacy believed that countries such as Brazil, Argentina, China, South Africa and India not only share common values and the same objectives in the world system, but also have relatively similar social and economic characteristics, making them ready to sustain joint projects and efforts at cooperation. IBSA, or the G-3, for instance, was presented as one example of creativity and shared vision between three great multiracial democracies, Brazil, India and South Africa. Having decided to form the group, the three countries struggled hard to find common problems and to establish a list of ‘shared solutions’, installing as many working groups as possible without regard for the actual differences among. Official rhetoric refers to IBSA as a ‘success story’, although concrete results, objectively assessed, remain below expectations, providing more promises than real accomplishments.
Argentina is another kind of ‘strategic partnership’: it was the co-founder of the Southern Cone integration process, with Mercosur at its core, the consolidation of which would require that the co-ordination of macroeconomic policies between the two big associates, as well as a set of joint measures to strengthen the regional bloc, be placed at the center of that endeavor. Instead, Argentina’s behavior in Mercosur became a hindrance for Brazilian industrialists, as their exports were subjected to many protectionist restrictions adopted by the Buenos Aires Government, which was still committed to old national practices in trade and industrial policies. The da Silva Government not only tolerated such abuses – contrary to the spirit and to the letter of Mercosur agreements, as well as to WTO-GATT dispositions on safeguards – but also managed to contain the dissatisfaction of Brazilian exporters.
China, for its part, was previously (and uncritically) selected by the President and the PT as a strategic ally, and began to benefit from this position by the declaration, by Brazil, that it filled the requirements of a “market economy”, as defined by WTO rules (and thus able to enjoy the bonuses of this recognition in its bilateral trade with Brazil). Brazilian diplomacy misread completely the real will of China in terms of accepting the reform of the UN Charter and the elevation of Brazil to its long sought ambition to become a permanent member of the Security Council. Neither were the Chinese ready to make the huge investments in Brazilian infra-structure that were expected by Luis Inácio Lula da Silva, as they actually regarded Brazil as one more commodity provider among many others.
The dismantling of Mercosur as an unintended consequence
The ‘restructuring’, institutional consolidation and enlargement of Mercosur were on Lula’s diplomatic menu, as had been explicitly announced since the beginning. According to this priority, total dedication was devoted to the attraction of new partners – Bolivia, Chile, Venezuela, and Ecuador – and facilitating their integration into the bloc (including a waiver on the application of the Common External Tariff, a clear circumvention of the normal discipline inside a customs union, which is what Mercosur pretends to be). Besides the creation of a Mercosur Parliament – without real functions, to be precise – there was no real progresses in the fields of trade liberalization and economic opening among member countries. From the designated group of ‘candidates’, only Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela decided to join the bloc, to the consternation of the real democrats and the concerns of the business world. Despite a strong lobby exerted by the da Silva Government in favor of Chávez, the documentation has not yet been concluded, as Paraguay has still to endorse it.
Irrespective of the real setbacks in the commercial areas of Mercosur, it is a fact that Brazil has invested heavily in the project of a stronger Mercosur and its expansion throughout the region. For instance, Brazil proposed, created and financed, at 70% of its cost, a fund to “correct the imbalances” in the region, a financial scheme equivalent to only a small part, 1%, approximately, of the combined Mercosur member countries’ GDPs and that, in fact, duplicates the work of the multilateral banks already operating in the region – the World Bank, the Inter-American Bank and other bodies. Instead of reducing imbalances in the region by market-friendly mechanisms, in line with each country's comparative advantages, governments allocate money to a vast array of projects poorly managed by bureaucrats and incapable of correcting any imbalance between them.
As well as an emphasis on its social and political agenda, Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's big push towards Mercosur’s enlargement was to offer it to whichever countries in South America would be willing to join, even at the price of overlooking some of its requirements, simply to accommodate specific countries with strong political motivations. Bolivia, for instance, was offered the chance to enter Mercosur without being liable to the Common External Tariff (which was considered an exaggerated concession by Argentina). Ecuador, along with Bolivia, a member of the Andean Community of Nations (CAN), was also approached, but preferred not to be entangled in any new commercial compromise. Chile, bound to a single tariff, as consolidated in the GATT system, declined from the start to become a full member of Mercosur, taking into account that it benefits from free-trade agreements concluded with each of its hemispheric partners. Colombia and Peru, too, setting aside their CAN membership, opted for free-trade agreements with the United States, a move that pushed Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez to denounce the country’s membership of CAN and to make a pledge to join Mercosur.
There are two problems with Chávez’s political decision to become a full member of Mercosur: on the one hand, since 2006, when that option was chosen, he signed, at the same time, a trilateral pact, with Cuba and Bolivia, creating ALBA, the Bolivarian Alliance of the Americas, a bizarre integration scheme built around state trading, managed cooperation and no free trade at all. On the other hand, Venezuela has never complied with the requirements of Mercosur’s customs union – that is, the Common External Tariff and all other regulations to that effect – declaring instead that it's intention was to transform Mercosur from its ‘neoliberal’ rules to a new political bloc, animated by its own proposals concerning ‘21st-century socialism’. Even accounting for the political empathy demonstrated by the two biggest associates towards Venezuela – in the case of Argentina compounded by the fact that Hugo Chávez was its sole financier after the 2002 moratorium – that was a little too far from the modest capitalist, albeit dirigiste, integration scheme devised by Brazil and Argentina.
Sleeping with a restive neighbor: relations with Argentina
The most sensible, and relevant, of all bilateral Brazilian relationships, the diplomatic interaction with Argentina, remains in a delicate situation, despite the benign propensity of the da Silva Government to accept almost all restrictions and limitations unilaterally imposed by Buenos Aires on the trade exchanges and reciprocal economic flows. At the beginning the da Silva and Kirchner mandates, in 2003, the excuse for many defensive measures was the profound crisis created by the end of the convertibility exchange regime and the external debt moratorium, followed by a complete standstill in foreign financing for Argentina. In a second stage, bruised by the excessive number of initiatives the Brazilian President was taking to assert Brazil’s leadership in the region, Nestor Kirchner hardened Argentinean positions in many negotiating situations, either in Mercosur or in regional matters, and even in multilateral situations, such as Brazilian candidacies in some international organizations (IADB, WTO, and others).
Ego disputes aside, the most important problem was a special safeguards regime that Argentina sought to impose on bilateral trade with Brazil, invoking “structural imbalances” arising from the Brazilian exchange flotation or hidden subsidies on Brazilian exports; “involuntary” export restrictions and other market arrangements were put in place, even against Mercosur rules and WTO dispositions, which the Brazilian President accepted as part of his “diplomacy of generosity” (to the great displeasure of Brazilian industrialists). In other contexts, Brazil was unable (or was not accepted) to mediate the conflict between Argentina and Uruguay over the cellulose plants next to the border. Favorable diplomatic rhetoric apart, Argentina was never very enthusiastic about Brazilian initiatives in the region: the South American Community of Nations, the two inter-regional summits – with Arab and African Countries – the South American Defense Council within Unasur, the Latin American and Caribbean meetings, and some other initiatives. Above all, though, the most contentious issue was Brazil's candidacy to the UNSC seat, followed by its implicit posture as regional leader – two endeavors that affected Argentina self-esteem and moved her to an openly active opposition.
Tropical Man’s Burden: Brazil’s regional leadership
One of the most important of Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's diplomatic initiatives, along with the Brazilian candidacy to a permanent seat in the UNSC, is the union of South America as a political entity, free from any interference from the “American empire”, and this has always corresponded to a permanent project for his party, obviously supported by its Cuban and other Latin American leftist allies. The core of Brazilian regional diplomacy, under the direct inspiration of Itamaraty’s Secretary-General, was strongly directed towards this ambitious objective, with partial successes in various aspects.
The economic aspect of the project – the political implosion of the American proposal of a FTAA, followed by the creation of a South American Free Trade Area – was only half-achieved: the abandonment of a hemispheric trade liberalization scheme. Brazilian initiatives towards creating its own economic space in the region were downsized to a mosaic of bilateral agreements within the framework of a Latin American Integration Association that failed to promote expanded exchanges or to effectively integrate the economies of the countries. The modest opening of the Brazilian economy in favor of its neighbors curtailed the Brazilian's grand vision for the continent.
The political components of the project remained too vague to really unite ten South American States that harbor different conceptions, sometimes opposed to each other, about political and economic integration. Unhappily for the Brazilian project, the fact is that South America became less, not more, integrated during Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's tenure, and the reason has little to do with external crises or military dictatorship. Indeed, democracy has progressed in the region, but political instability remains a crucial factor that explains the differing concepts of integration, and some of the regional crises. By most accounts, Bolivarianism and indigenism, arising in Andean countries, have rendered those polities more instable, socially and politically, and prone to old conceptions of integration, marked by State-led economic policies, nationalization and a less relevant role for trade and finance, compared to social and political issues, all of which was completely at odds with a market-led integration, such as that practiced in Mercosur.
In addition, the exercise in ‘regional leadership’, as tentatively tried by Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's diplomacy, was not well received; in fact, it had never been welcomed in the past, one more reason for professional diplomacy making a taboo of this difficult concept. Tempted by his warm reception in the world press and among many political leaders, Lula believed that the time was ripe for Brazil to assume a more assertive posture based on political dialogue, Brazilian financing of development projects and a tentative measure to coordinate positions in regional or multilateral negotiations.
Being the largest economy in the region, Brazil exerts a natural attraction on neighboring countries, but that has not been enough to overcome old suspicions about its quasi-imperialistic behavior in South America, or its supposed desire to impose its own domination over other countries, replicating, albeit in a less arrogant manner, American imperial tutelage. In fact, Brazil has never exerted any guardianship over the region, but the multiplication of initiatives could be seen as devoid of vested interests. That could be one of the reasons for Andean countries not accepting the offer by Brazilian diplomacy to set up a secretariat for the newly-created South American Community of Nations, an entity that was replaced, one year later by the Hugo Chávez-sponsored Union of the Nations of South America (Unasur), with its headquarters in Quito.
The da Silva Government also failed to provide an adequate substitute to a scheme devised by Cardoso’s administration for the infrastructure projects in South America. The Initiative for the Integration of South America (IIRSA), created in 2000, never advanced from its stage of portfolio projects – prepared by the INTAL-IADB – to transform them into concrete undertakings capable of mobilizing private and official financial resources to deal with the multiple needs in the region in terms of energy, communications, and major engineering projects (notably in transport). As regards investments and other market opportunities, the successful implosion of the FTAA by Brazilian diplomacy (with a little help from Argentina and Venezuela) may have thrown some countries into the arms of the USA, as Brazil is not really a powerful replacement solution for economies looking for big flows of direct investment and access to larger markets, at least not those of the size of the United States; in the same move, Brazil ended up with less market access and reduced preferences in its neighbors’ markets.
A bridge too far: multilateral and regional trade negotiations
Access to new markets through multilateral trade negotiations, with small concessions in new areas – like investments, intellectual property and services – but also in industrial tariffs, have always been a chasse gardée for Itamaraty, preserved from intrusions by other government agencies. This domestic hegemony was somewhat contested during Lula’s government – especially by Brazilian agricultural producers competing in world markets, but also other sectors – because of the extreme politicization of those economic issues practiced since the beginning. Under the slogan of creating a ‘new geography for world trade’, Itamaraty aligned Brazil with other developing countries – always with the aim of presenting a united front against rich countries – disregarding the fact that some of those countries (including China and India, two of its strongest ‘allies’) possessed in reality interests directly opposed to Brazil’s aim in dismantling agriculture protectionism and high subsidies in the area.
The Commercial G20, created at the Cancun ministerial meeting of the WTO (2003), was presented as a strong expression of Brazilian leadership in trade negotiations, and as an ‘alternative’ to old negotiating schemes, but its internal contradictions quickly became apparent in subsequent phases and the group was not capable of overcoming different interests among its members to present a united front in some crucial issues related to it. For all practical purposes, the offensive stance of Brazil in those matters was rendered as defensive as the Chinese or Indian positions, including in non-agricultural market access (NAMA) and in services, in a time when Brazilian farmers, and even many industrialists, were disposed to advance further.
In the same areas, and in other negotiating instances – such as in the framework of trade talks between Mercosur and the EU – less ambitious positions or a limited disposition to make concessions in industrial tariffs from partners like Argentina (but the same applies to India and some other developing countries) curtailed the possibility for Brazil to reach an acceptable agreement with other developing countries, thus opening new markets for Brazilian products. The preferential alliances devised by Itamaraty with other developing countries – which included ‘social concerns’ and ‘interests of less competitive agriculture’, or ‘family farms’ – added to the hindrances that had been self-inflicted for political reasons, in addition to the fact that the great expansion for Brazilian exports in the farming sector is essentially concentrated in the emerging markets, not in rich countries. In this sense, the ‘South-South’ policy and the ‘new geography of trade’, with all their political bias, were in contradiction to Brazilian national interests and the country's natural competitive advantages. Asian countries, for instance, have for a long time been practicing the ‘new geography’ in expanding their exports to rich countries in the West.
Dragons, elephants and other fauna: Brazil’s presence in the world
China was designated an ‘ally’, or ‘strategic partner’ even before Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's coming to power, as he made a political visit to that country in 2001, and was received with the honors due to an important political leader. At that time, many of the PT leaders still held the erroneous belief that China was a socialist economy and a country interested in constituting a ‘common front’ against the arrogant rich countries and Western ‘imperialism’. When he came to power, Luis Inácio Lula da Silva started to put in practice his unilaterally conceived ‘Chinese policy’, which consisted of great expectations concerning major investments in Brazil and, especially, a strong political relationship by which both countries were to influence a big change in world power, reducing the spaces for ‘hegemony’ in international politics – a concept used by the Chinese, by the way.
The Brazilian's diplomacy imagined that, by conceding to China the status of a ‘market economy’, as requested by the Chinese leadership, it would be possible to capture large-scale investments and technological cooperation, as well as the most prized reward sought by the president: China’s support for the Brazilian aspiration to a seat in the UNSC. In other occasions – during reciprocal state visits –the President even considered the idea of a free-trade agreement between China and Mercosur, and offered the possibility of replace the payment system in bilateral trade, starting to use local currencies instead of dollars. Both measures were clearly in favor of Chinese interests and, thanks to the opposition from entrepreneurs – alarmed by the destructive potential of low-cost Chinese competition – and from some more vigilant bureaucrats in the Central Bank, they were not implemented at all, despite being proposed by the President himself (probably out of naïveté or simple ignorance of economic matters).
China never committed itself to supporting Brazil in its quest for the UNSC seat and has always acted in its own self-interest, even on strictly bilateral matters; it did not hesitate, for instance, to impose a trade embargo on the arrival of a Brazilian cargo of soy beans invoking sanitary measures, when it was simply pushing down the prices, and this on the eve of one of Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's official visits to China. In other contexts China makes very clear that it wants to keep for itself the decision on the desirable pattern for bilateral relations, including matters pertaining to private investment and a common multilateral agenda (either in BRIC meetings, or elsewhere).
The creation of the informal group called BRIC, comprising Brazil, China, India and Russia, has the latter country as the main partner with Brazil in the endeavor that looks more at political aims than economic objectives, despite the fact that the proposal by an investment economist takes its legitimacy from their economic importance for the future world economy. The new acronym has attracted a lot of publicity but it remains to be seen if the group has, effectively, coherent, sound and feasible proposals for global governance, justifying its claim to be an alternative to the traditional G7-G8 group. In the same way, the decision to strengthen links with new and old partners, in other continents, fits Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's intention to diversify the options available for Brazilian exports, other sources for sophisticated technology – with France, for instance – and to achieve a balance of commercial objectives and attain a leading political role for the country in the world (as in the summits organized with Arab and African countries together with South American neighbors of Brazil).
A resident diplomatic representation was established in Ramallah and Luis Inácio Lula da Silva tried to insert himself in the complicated chessboard of Middle East conflicts, offering to mediate a ‘peace’ between Israelis and Palestinians on the basis of ‘sincere dialogue’, which, of course, arrived at nothing. New attempts at bona fide diplomacy were made in connection with the troubled negotiations between the great powers and Iran, over that country's covert activities regarding its nuclear program, only to characterize Brazil's President as a friend of the controversial figure of Ahmadinejad. Brazil’s too lenient posture regarding human rights violations around the world, together with Luis Inácio Lula da Silva’s indulgence towards dictators like Fidel Castro, have tarnished the good record previously held by Brazil.
There is no doubt that Brazil has become an important broker in many instances on the international agenda, even if some ambiguities remain over specific points of the political aspect of the PT’s external policy (human rights and democracy being the most visible, but also non-proliferation and environment). Luis Inácio Lula da Silva had the opportunity to engage in dialogue at the same time with capitalists in Davos and the dreamers of the World Social Forum, but many in his immediate surroundings exhibited a clear anti-American stance, as was revealed, for instance, in the cases of Honduras and Venezuela. The President's negative appraisals of ‘neoliberalism’ and ‘Wall Street speculators’ have more to do with old-fashioned leftist postures than with the diplomatic seriousness required from an aspiring emerging power. At the beginning of his mandate, Luis Inácio Lula da Silva attempted to ‘sell’ to other Latin American countries a replacement of the ‘Washington Consensus’, by means of a so-called ‘Buenos Aires Consensus’, a fragile set of fragile rules about welfare policies. At the end of his mandate, had become a strong critic of the current international system, probably frustrated by the unwillingness of great powers to reform the UNO Charter and accept Brazil as one of the ‘more equals’.
5. Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's heritage: Brazilian diplomacy's new clothes
The October 2010 presidential elections in Brazil provide the opportunity to change many things in foreign policy, if there is a social-democratic victory – probably more in the region, and specifically in connection with Mercosur, than in Brazil’s world role – or, otherwise, a new government can maintain, roughly speaking, the same lines in diplomacy as followed during the last eight years of the da Silva administration. Indeed, the PT’s foreign policy, though not consensual, is widely accepted by many sectors of public opinion, mainly in academia and left-wing parties and movements. It would be more of the same, except for the lack of a colorful president, who has represented Brazil abroad in a lively manner in times of great changes in world scenarios.
Some positions will probably not change, of course: the self-characterization of Brazil as a developing country, its pretension to be a speaker on behalf of other poor countries seeking a new economic order, with more justice and fairness being shown towards those countries, the reduction of the inequalities and imbalances that still divide the world, the democratization of international politics – with Brazil standing yet again as a candidate for a permanent seat on the UNSC – and many other requests of this nature. Strong action against hunger, poverty and injustices will continue to be high in the agenda, as well as the defense of sovereignty and states' policies directed to social development.
South America – and with the PT, Latin America – will be maintained as the most relevant priority of Brazilian foreign policy, but in the case of a social-democratic win, exclusive ‘South-South’ policies will probably be scaled down within the ranks of Itamaraty, in favor of a more balanced view of cooperation and a more pragmatic position regarding commercial policies and human rights issues. Multilateralism in economic and political careers will keep the same importance as always and Itamaraty will regain some of the spaces it lost to a very activist presidential palace in the last eight years. There will probably be less presidential diplomacy, and more ‘normal’, professional diplomacy, with less travel and visits both abroad and to Brazil.
Changes in or of style and different emphases apart, Brazil will undoubtedly retain the growing economic and political importance it attained during Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's administration. The new view of Brazil held by foreign countries has objective grounds: the preservation of economic stability and the steady, albeit modest, growth rates exhibited by Brazilian economy that its diplomacy has been able to capitalize upon. China, the current engine of the world economy became the main Brazil’s trading partner in the last year of Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's mandate, but it was China that that has contributed most to Brazilian growth, a growth much more based on the value given to its commodities than on the diversification and expansion of exported manufactures. In fact, economic growth in Brazil is perhaps becoming too dependent on China, as was the case in the past with the Brazilian-American relationship. However, in the context of the BRIC countries, Brazil has shown the worst growth rate of the four nations, and has not lost its relative share of the world GDP or the intensity of its participation in international trade.
Thus, despite Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's satisfaction with the greater presence of Brazil in the world, which allows him to enhance his own leading role in building that position, it would not be wrong to say that this new role derives much more from a hyperactive diplomacy, based on the strong promotion of the President himself, than from a real transformation in the objective position of Brazil in the economic and political scenarios. Growth in nominal GDP as compared to other countries is, at least in some measure, the result of the currency's appreciation against the dollar; in the same way, growth in exports reflects the growing demand from dynamic countries for Brazilian commodities; there is also the expansion of domestic credit for consumption, even at the risk of a bubble arising from excessive debt contracted by individuals and families. On a similar topic, the economic stability granted since Cardoso’s administration, and rightfully preserved by da Silva, together with the size of the domestic market and Brazilian connections within the framework of Mercosur, are responsible for the huge amounts of foreign direct investments that have been attracted since then. This relatively benign scenario will probably be maintained for the next few years, depending on the main markets for Brazilian products (today tending towards China) and on external credits from financial markets.
An overall evaluation of Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's diplomacy should be able to recognize its ability to project a dynamic image of Brazil worldwide, helping to make the country a fully-fledged actor in the forefront of international diplomacy. Brazil is certainly present in many of the most important discussion bodies dealing with economic and political issues in the world agenda. Not surprisingly, the personal figure of da Silva is even more present than the country, which confirms the real success of his diplomacy in projecting his own image as the personification of Brazil.
In terms of its own development though, Brazil is still an emerging country, with many social deficiencies, economic imbalances, uneven regional progress, and an extremely problematic public education system; its state institutions and corruption levels are much more akin to the standard patterns already familiar in developing countries than with the advanced economies that Brazil is struggling to imitate. Incidentally, it is worth noting that Brazil could be a full member of the OECD, as it has received 10 open invitation in recent years to consider becoming associated with that organization; it was only for ideological and political reasons that Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's diplomacy choose to stand aside. Even taking into account some economic challenges arising from such a decision, OECD patterns in economic policy and governance would help Brazil to modernize its structures and improve the overall performance of its public policies.
Indeed, the main challenges for Brazil in the years ahead are entirely internal, with few, or none, deriving from external factors. Domestic problems are mainly to blame for the modest role still characterizing Brazil’s world presence; an ambitious set of governance reforms – the taxation system, labor legislation, political and administrative reforms, and an educational revolution – most of them in line with OECD patterns, should contribute to the international aggrandizement of Brazil. Those tasks will presumably depend on a less ideological type of governance and on a new kind of diplomacy, open-minded and market-friendly. This task is for a post-da Silva government.
Received August 14, 2010
Accepted November 18, 2010
Abstract: Critical assessment of Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's diplomacy, which departed from the previous patterns of the Brazilian Foreign Service, to align itself with the political conceptions of the Workers’ Party. This diplomacy has neither consolidated the position of Brazil as a regional leader, nor attained its declared goal of inserting Brazil into the United Nations Security Council, although it has reinforced Brazil’s image in the international scenarios; but this was achieved much more through the personal activism of the President himself, than through normal diplomatic work.
Resumo: Avaliação crítica da diplomacia do governo Lula, que abandonou os padrões tradicionais do Itamaraty para alinhar-se com as concepções políticas do Partido dos Trabalhadores. Essa diplomacia não conseguiu consolidar a posição do Brasil como líder regional, nem logrou o objetivo declarado de colocar o país no Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas, muito embora tenha reforçado a imagem do Brasil no cenário internacional; mas isso foi alcançado mais por meio do ativismo do próprio presidente, do que pelo trabalho diplomático normal.
Key-words: Brazil, diplomacy, Lula government, regional leadership, global presence.
Palavras-chave: Brasil, diplomacia, governo Lula, liderança regional, presença global.
Notes
* PhD in Social Sciences and Brazilian career diplomat.
(1) Some of the questions debated in this essay have been already dealt with in other articles by the author, namely: “Brazil in the world context, at the first decade of the 21st century: regional leadership and strategies for its integration into the world economy”, In: Joam Evans (org.), Brazilian Defense Policies: Current Trends and Regional Implications (London: Dunkling Books, 2009), p. 11-26; “Lula’s Foreign Policy: Regional and Global Strategies”, In: Werner Baer and Joseph Love (eds.), Brazil under Lula (New York: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2009), p. 167-183; “Política exterior: potencia regional o actor global”, In: “Brasil Emerge”, Vanguardia Dossier (Barcelona: La Vanguardia, n. 36, Jul-Sept., 2010), p. 68-72.
(2) Minutes of the regular meetings of the FSP, since its foundation, in 1990, up to 2007, with evidence of the participation of the Colombian narco-terrorist group FARC, can be found at this website: http://www.midiasemmascara.org/arquivo/atas-do-foro-de-sao-paulo/7.html, accessed on 20th October 2010.
Haiti: uma tragedia de erros, omissoes e conveniencias
Já publiquei, neste blog (aqui), os principais materias relativos ao chamado "affair Seitenfus".
Poderia comentar mais, substantivamente, sobre suas declarações anteriores e estas novas, mas vou fazê-lo em outra oportunidade.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
TERREMOTO NO HAITI
Fabrícia Peixoto
Da BBC Brasil em São Paulo, 29.12.2010
Afastado, representante da OEA critica ONGs e missão de paz no Haiti
Representante da Organização dos Estados Americanos (OEA) no Haiti há dois anos, o brasileiro Ricardo Seitenfus deverá ser oficialmente destituído do cargo em breve – decisão que ele mesmo interpreta como resposta a sua “postura crítica” em relação ao papel da comunidade internacional na recuperação do país caribenho.
Seitenfus questiona o papel das tropas da ONU no Haiti e o dos principais países doadores.
O estopim teria sido uma entrevista ao jornal suíço Le Temps, na qual o brasileiro questiona não apenas o papel das tropas da ONU no Haiti, como também dos principais países doadores.
“A Minustah (Missão de Paz da ONU) não pode ser tratada como se fosse uma verdade divina, como se não pudesse ser objeto de reservas”, disse Seitenfus em entrevista à BBC Brasil.
Devastado por um terremoto em janeiro, que deixou mais de 200 mil mortos, o Haiti enfrenta agora uma crise eleitoral: ainda não se sabe como e quando se dará o segundo turno da eleição presidencial, inicialmente marcada para meados de janeiro.
Para o brasileiro, a comunidade internacional está “decidindo” pelo governo do Haiti no processo de reconstrução e as acusações de corrupção no governo local fazem parte de um “discurso ideológico”.
Criou-se uma comissão internacional para a recuperação do Haiti que até hoje está procurando suas verdadeiras funções.
Ricardo Seitenfus
“Se a gente imagina que pode fazer isso (reconstruir o país) por meio da Minustah e por meio das ONGs, nós estaremos enganando os haitianos e enganando a opinião pública mundial”, diz.
BBC Brasil – O senhor já foi comunicado oficialmente sobre sua destituição do cargo?
Ricardo Seitenfus – Não, ainda não. Eu tinha decidido não tirar férias agora em dezembro, para estar no Haiti nessa fase delicada da eleição. Mas o secretário-geral (José Miguel Insulza) pediu para que eu tirasse as férias. Concluo que nos dois meses, de fevereiro e de março, previstos para que eu ficasse no Haiti, não ficarei mais.
Mas esse não é o problema. O mais grave é o que está acontecendo agora: o representante da OEA não está no Haiti durante uma crise eleitoral. E eu tenho uma capacidade de diálogo com o governo haitiano que ninguém na OEA tem e que poucas pessoas da comunidade internacional têm.
BBC Brasil – O senhor está no Haiti há dois anos. Houve algum fato mais recente que o tenha levado a adotar essa postura mais crítica?
Seitenfus – Logo após o terremoto, foi feito um trabalho excepcional. Na medida do possível, os haitianos receberam ajuda, socorros... Foi feito um mutirão internacional que foi positivo. No entanto, terminada a urgência, as coisas começaram a não funcionar como deveriam. Em março, houve uma reunião com os doadores, em Nova York, na qual foram recolhidos US$ 11 bilhões para o Haiti. Acontece que esses recursos não chegaram ao país.
Criou-se uma comissão internacional para a recuperação do Haiti que até hoje está procurando suas verdadeiras funções. Enfim, as promessas da comunidade internacional não foram cumpridas. E enquanto isso, a situação dos desabrigados continua a mesma.
A acusação de corrupção faz parte de um discurso ideológico. Não existe corrupção, existe percepção de corrupção.
Ricardo Seitnefus
BBC Brasil – Isso tudo mudou sua visão dos fatos?
Seitenfus – Eu diria que houve uma tomada de consciência progressiva quanto às nossas limitações e, por que não dizer, de nossos fracassos no Haiti... digo, nós da comunidade internacional.
Além disso, no dia 28 de novembro, dia da eleição, foi discutido na reunião do Core Group (países doadores, OEA e Nações Unidas), algo que me pareceu simplesmente assustador. Alguns representantes sugeriram que o presidente René Preval deveria sair do país e que deveríamos pensar em um avião para isso. Eu ouvi isso e fiquei estarrecido.
O primeiro-ministro do Haiti, Jean-Max Bellerive, chegou e logo disse que não contassem com ele para qualquer solução à margem da Constituição e perguntou se o mandato do presidente Preval estava sendo negociado. E foi um silêncio na sala.
Ao meu lado estava o Albert Randim, secretário-adjunto da OEA, ou seja, eu não poderia falar, já que a OEA estava sendo representada por ele. Mas frente ao silêncio dele e dos demais, eu pedi a palavra e lembrei da existência da carta democrática interamericana e que qualquer discussão sobre o mandato do presidente Preval, para mim, seria um golpe. Me surpreendi muito com o fato de o secretário-adjunto da OEA ficar em silêncio diante da possibilidade de encurtamento do mandato de um presidente legitimamente eleito.
BBC Brasil – Mas muitos defendem um governo provisório como solução ao impasse eleitoral no país...
Seitenfus – Eu sempre fui contrário. Um governo provisório não teria legitimidade das urnas e seria o reconhecimento do nosso fracasso. Se depois de quase sete anos (da Missão de Paz no Haiti) nós não conseguimos organizar uma transferência de poder de forma democrática, eu me pergunto como podemos fazer uma avaliação positiva da presença da comunidade internacional, que veio trazer a democracia ao país.
BBC Brasil – Então suas críticas também se estendem à missão de paz?
Seitenfus - Depois do terremoto, a natureza dos desafios haitianos mudou completamente. Estamos diante de um dos maiores desafios... É uma aventura humana reconstruir um país com 10 milhões de habitantes e destruído por uma catástrofe natural. Temos 1,5 milhão de pessoas nas ruas, com 80% de desemprego, a epidemia de cólera.
Não podemos nos restringir aos desafios imaginados em 2004 (início da missão), mesmo erradamente, como uma questão de segurança. A situação é muito mais complicada e exige mais do que uma operação de paz.
BBC Brasil – Mas o governo brasileiro, por exemplo, tem sido contrário a mudanças no mandato da missão... A que se deve essa posição, na sua opinião?
Seitenfus - O sistema internacional não tem instrumentos para enfrentar uma situação como a do Haiti. Temos que trocar de Conselho. Temos que tirar o assunto do Conselho de Segurança e mudá-lo para o Conselho de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social.
E sobretudo, temos que pensar que o desenvolvimento do Haiti tem que ser feito pelos haitianos. Se a gente imagina que pode fazer isso por meio da Minustah e por meio das ONGs, nós estaremos enganando os haitianos e enganando a opinião pública mundial.
BBC Brasil – Não está se dando o espaço devido ao governo haitiano nesse processo?
Seitenfus - Nem ao governo, nem à sociedade haitiana. O fato de ser solidário não é ser substituto de alguém, é acompanhar alguém. E nós estamos decidindo por eles. Agora estamos nos metendo no processo eleitoral. Deixem as instituições haitianas resolverem seus próprios problemas.
Nenhum país aceitaria o que os haitianos são obrigados a aceitar.
Ricardo Seitenfus
BBC Brasil – Mas existem acusações de corrupção envolvendo a transferência de recursos para o governo haitiano, em episódios anteriores, não? O país não tem certas limitações institucionais?
Seitenfus - Eles têm limitações por nossa culpa. Transferimos todos os recursos via ONGs e não por meio das instituições haitianas. Sem dúvida o Estado haitiano é muito debilitado e ficou pior ainda depois do terremoto, perdendo 30% de seus quadros.
O que temos de fazer? Ter políticas de acompanhamento do Haiti que permitam que esses quadros permaneçam no país. A acusação de corrupção faz parte de um discurso ideológico. Não existe corrupção, existe percepção de corrupção. O Haiti não tem como ser corrupto porque o Estado não possui recursos.
O que se pode questionar é como se administram os recursos que as ONGs recolhem sem prestar contas a ninguém. Esta sim é a grande questão. Faço uma distinção do trabalho que foi feito na emergência, mas essa não pode ser uma política permanente de substituição do Estado pelas ONGs. O Haiti é o Haiti, não é Haitong. Nenhum país aceitaria o que os haitianos são obrigados a aceitar.
BBC Brasil – E qual o papel do Brasil nesse processo?
Seitenfus - O Brasil tem uma responsabilidade muito grande, porque é a primeira vez que temos uma missão de paz tão longa e tão cara para nós, onde pretendemos mostrar uma forma diferenciada de atuar.
O Brasil deveria aproveitar que haverá um novo governo no Haiti e um novo governo no Brasil e fazer um balanço de seis anos e meio de Minustah. Não estou apregoando que o Brasil deva amanhã recolher suas tropas. Isso se faz depois de uma longa discussão, inclusive com o governo haitiano e com as Nações Unidas.
A não discussão é que é o grande erro. Como se a Minustah fosse uma verdade divina, uma iluminação do céu, como se não pudesse ser objeto de reservas. Tenho uma percepção de que a qualidade de uma operação de paz é inversamente proporcional ao tempo de sua duração. Quanto mais uma missão de paz se estende no tempo, menor qualidade ela tem. As boas missões de paz são as curtas missões de paz.
Poderia comentar mais, substantivamente, sobre suas declarações anteriores e estas novas, mas vou fazê-lo em outra oportunidade.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
TERREMOTO NO HAITI
Fabrícia Peixoto
Da BBC Brasil em São Paulo, 29.12.2010
Afastado, representante da OEA critica ONGs e missão de paz no Haiti
Representante da Organização dos Estados Americanos (OEA) no Haiti há dois anos, o brasileiro Ricardo Seitenfus deverá ser oficialmente destituído do cargo em breve – decisão que ele mesmo interpreta como resposta a sua “postura crítica” em relação ao papel da comunidade internacional na recuperação do país caribenho.
Seitenfus questiona o papel das tropas da ONU no Haiti e o dos principais países doadores.
O estopim teria sido uma entrevista ao jornal suíço Le Temps, na qual o brasileiro questiona não apenas o papel das tropas da ONU no Haiti, como também dos principais países doadores.
“A Minustah (Missão de Paz da ONU) não pode ser tratada como se fosse uma verdade divina, como se não pudesse ser objeto de reservas”, disse Seitenfus em entrevista à BBC Brasil.
Devastado por um terremoto em janeiro, que deixou mais de 200 mil mortos, o Haiti enfrenta agora uma crise eleitoral: ainda não se sabe como e quando se dará o segundo turno da eleição presidencial, inicialmente marcada para meados de janeiro.
Para o brasileiro, a comunidade internacional está “decidindo” pelo governo do Haiti no processo de reconstrução e as acusações de corrupção no governo local fazem parte de um “discurso ideológico”.
Criou-se uma comissão internacional para a recuperação do Haiti que até hoje está procurando suas verdadeiras funções.
Ricardo Seitenfus
“Se a gente imagina que pode fazer isso (reconstruir o país) por meio da Minustah e por meio das ONGs, nós estaremos enganando os haitianos e enganando a opinião pública mundial”, diz.
BBC Brasil – O senhor já foi comunicado oficialmente sobre sua destituição do cargo?
Ricardo Seitenfus – Não, ainda não. Eu tinha decidido não tirar férias agora em dezembro, para estar no Haiti nessa fase delicada da eleição. Mas o secretário-geral (José Miguel Insulza) pediu para que eu tirasse as férias. Concluo que nos dois meses, de fevereiro e de março, previstos para que eu ficasse no Haiti, não ficarei mais.
Mas esse não é o problema. O mais grave é o que está acontecendo agora: o representante da OEA não está no Haiti durante uma crise eleitoral. E eu tenho uma capacidade de diálogo com o governo haitiano que ninguém na OEA tem e que poucas pessoas da comunidade internacional têm.
BBC Brasil – O senhor está no Haiti há dois anos. Houve algum fato mais recente que o tenha levado a adotar essa postura mais crítica?
Seitenfus – Logo após o terremoto, foi feito um trabalho excepcional. Na medida do possível, os haitianos receberam ajuda, socorros... Foi feito um mutirão internacional que foi positivo. No entanto, terminada a urgência, as coisas começaram a não funcionar como deveriam. Em março, houve uma reunião com os doadores, em Nova York, na qual foram recolhidos US$ 11 bilhões para o Haiti. Acontece que esses recursos não chegaram ao país.
Criou-se uma comissão internacional para a recuperação do Haiti que até hoje está procurando suas verdadeiras funções. Enfim, as promessas da comunidade internacional não foram cumpridas. E enquanto isso, a situação dos desabrigados continua a mesma.
A acusação de corrupção faz parte de um discurso ideológico. Não existe corrupção, existe percepção de corrupção.
Ricardo Seitnefus
BBC Brasil – Isso tudo mudou sua visão dos fatos?
Seitenfus – Eu diria que houve uma tomada de consciência progressiva quanto às nossas limitações e, por que não dizer, de nossos fracassos no Haiti... digo, nós da comunidade internacional.
Além disso, no dia 28 de novembro, dia da eleição, foi discutido na reunião do Core Group (países doadores, OEA e Nações Unidas), algo que me pareceu simplesmente assustador. Alguns representantes sugeriram que o presidente René Preval deveria sair do país e que deveríamos pensar em um avião para isso. Eu ouvi isso e fiquei estarrecido.
O primeiro-ministro do Haiti, Jean-Max Bellerive, chegou e logo disse que não contassem com ele para qualquer solução à margem da Constituição e perguntou se o mandato do presidente Preval estava sendo negociado. E foi um silêncio na sala.
Ao meu lado estava o Albert Randim, secretário-adjunto da OEA, ou seja, eu não poderia falar, já que a OEA estava sendo representada por ele. Mas frente ao silêncio dele e dos demais, eu pedi a palavra e lembrei da existência da carta democrática interamericana e que qualquer discussão sobre o mandato do presidente Preval, para mim, seria um golpe. Me surpreendi muito com o fato de o secretário-adjunto da OEA ficar em silêncio diante da possibilidade de encurtamento do mandato de um presidente legitimamente eleito.
BBC Brasil – Mas muitos defendem um governo provisório como solução ao impasse eleitoral no país...
Seitenfus – Eu sempre fui contrário. Um governo provisório não teria legitimidade das urnas e seria o reconhecimento do nosso fracasso. Se depois de quase sete anos (da Missão de Paz no Haiti) nós não conseguimos organizar uma transferência de poder de forma democrática, eu me pergunto como podemos fazer uma avaliação positiva da presença da comunidade internacional, que veio trazer a democracia ao país.
BBC Brasil – Então suas críticas também se estendem à missão de paz?
Seitenfus - Depois do terremoto, a natureza dos desafios haitianos mudou completamente. Estamos diante de um dos maiores desafios... É uma aventura humana reconstruir um país com 10 milhões de habitantes e destruído por uma catástrofe natural. Temos 1,5 milhão de pessoas nas ruas, com 80% de desemprego, a epidemia de cólera.
Não podemos nos restringir aos desafios imaginados em 2004 (início da missão), mesmo erradamente, como uma questão de segurança. A situação é muito mais complicada e exige mais do que uma operação de paz.
BBC Brasil – Mas o governo brasileiro, por exemplo, tem sido contrário a mudanças no mandato da missão... A que se deve essa posição, na sua opinião?
Seitenfus - O sistema internacional não tem instrumentos para enfrentar uma situação como a do Haiti. Temos que trocar de Conselho. Temos que tirar o assunto do Conselho de Segurança e mudá-lo para o Conselho de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social.
E sobretudo, temos que pensar que o desenvolvimento do Haiti tem que ser feito pelos haitianos. Se a gente imagina que pode fazer isso por meio da Minustah e por meio das ONGs, nós estaremos enganando os haitianos e enganando a opinião pública mundial.
BBC Brasil – Não está se dando o espaço devido ao governo haitiano nesse processo?
Seitenfus - Nem ao governo, nem à sociedade haitiana. O fato de ser solidário não é ser substituto de alguém, é acompanhar alguém. E nós estamos decidindo por eles. Agora estamos nos metendo no processo eleitoral. Deixem as instituições haitianas resolverem seus próprios problemas.
Nenhum país aceitaria o que os haitianos são obrigados a aceitar.
Ricardo Seitenfus
BBC Brasil – Mas existem acusações de corrupção envolvendo a transferência de recursos para o governo haitiano, em episódios anteriores, não? O país não tem certas limitações institucionais?
Seitenfus - Eles têm limitações por nossa culpa. Transferimos todos os recursos via ONGs e não por meio das instituições haitianas. Sem dúvida o Estado haitiano é muito debilitado e ficou pior ainda depois do terremoto, perdendo 30% de seus quadros.
O que temos de fazer? Ter políticas de acompanhamento do Haiti que permitam que esses quadros permaneçam no país. A acusação de corrupção faz parte de um discurso ideológico. Não existe corrupção, existe percepção de corrupção. O Haiti não tem como ser corrupto porque o Estado não possui recursos.
O que se pode questionar é como se administram os recursos que as ONGs recolhem sem prestar contas a ninguém. Esta sim é a grande questão. Faço uma distinção do trabalho que foi feito na emergência, mas essa não pode ser uma política permanente de substituição do Estado pelas ONGs. O Haiti é o Haiti, não é Haitong. Nenhum país aceitaria o que os haitianos são obrigados a aceitar.
BBC Brasil – E qual o papel do Brasil nesse processo?
Seitenfus - O Brasil tem uma responsabilidade muito grande, porque é a primeira vez que temos uma missão de paz tão longa e tão cara para nós, onde pretendemos mostrar uma forma diferenciada de atuar.
O Brasil deveria aproveitar que haverá um novo governo no Haiti e um novo governo no Brasil e fazer um balanço de seis anos e meio de Minustah. Não estou apregoando que o Brasil deva amanhã recolher suas tropas. Isso se faz depois de uma longa discussão, inclusive com o governo haitiano e com as Nações Unidas.
A não discussão é que é o grande erro. Como se a Minustah fosse uma verdade divina, uma iluminação do céu, como se não pudesse ser objeto de reservas. Tenho uma percepção de que a qualidade de uma operação de paz é inversamente proporcional ao tempo de sua duração. Quanto mais uma missão de paz se estende no tempo, menor qualidade ela tem. As boas missões de paz são as curtas missões de paz.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)