Globaphobic Vote in Brazil could alter political map of region

Miami Herald ^ | April 4, 2002 | Andres Oppenheimer: The Oppenheimer Report

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Vote in Brazil could alter political map of region

If you think that the Bush administration has problems in Latin America with the latest crises in Argentina, Colombia and Venezuela, think about what it may face if Brazil's leftist candidate Luiz Inacio ''Lula'' da Silva wins this year's presidential elections in the region's biggest country.

For starters, a Brazilian move to the left could pave the way for a South American nationalist-populist bloc -- that could also include Venezuela and Argentina -- that would strongly oppose the U.S.-backed plan to create a Free Trade Area of the Americas by 2005. Conceivably, the new ''globaphobic'' bloc could strengthen ties with Cuba, and with Colombia's Marxist guerrillas.

U.S. CONSENSUS

While the consensus in U.S. diplomatic circles has been that Lula would not win against a more conservative candidate if there is a runoff election, the latest polls from Brazil have raised eyebrows. The standard answer from U.S. officials has shifted from ''Lula is unlikely to win'' to ``it can't be ruled out.''

''It's becoming increasingly evident that the election is up in the air,'' says William Perry, a former member of President Bush's transition team's Latin American advisory group who is writing a report on Brazil's elections for the conservative-leaning Center of Strategic and International Studies in Washington. ``I happen to think that Lula has as many chances, if not more, than any other of the three major candidates.''

The latest poll, released this week by Brazil's Vox Populi firm, shows that Lula has 30 percent of the vote, up from the 26 percent he had on March 21. Lula, the candidate of the Workers Party, is followed by government-backed former Health Minister José Serra, with 19 percent, Maranhao state governor Roseana Sarney with 14 percent, and Rio de Janeiro province Gov. Anthony Garotinho with 14 percent.

Granted, we have seen that movie many times. Lula was ahead in the polls in three previous presidential elections, and lost them. Like Mexico's perennial leftist candidate Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas, Lula has been unable to win the moderate vote and widen his support.

But now, a growing minority of influential Brazil watchers in Washington says things may change. There are several reasons why he has a good chance of winning the Oct. 6 primary election and has an even chance to win a possible second-round election scheduled for Oct. 27, they say.

First, Lula's disapproval rates have fallen from about 50 percent in the last elections to about 40 percent. In the event of a second-round election, where the winner of more than half the votes becomes the president, the drop in Lula's disapproval rate to below fifty percent could be a good omen for the leftist candidate.

Second, in a runoff election Lula would probably win the leftist votes that in the latest polls have gone to Garotinho, and center-leftist candidate Ciro Gomes.

Third, a corruption scandal involving Sarney, whose husband's offices were raided by police in a move widely believed designed to discredit the governor and help her government-backed rival Serra, has brought about a major rift in the center-left coalition that helped current president Fernando Henrique Cardoso win the past two elections. There is so much bad blood between the two sides that the government coalition may be beyond repair.

Fourth, while Lula continues to make pilgrimages to Cuba and to claim that the U.S.-backed hemispheric free trade deal is a U.S. attempt to ''annex'' Latin America, some influential observers feel he may be moving toward the center.

Two former top State Department officials told me in separate interviews this week that a Lula victory would not necessarily lead to radical changes in Brazil, or in South America.

POTENTIAL SETBACK

''I don't think anybody in Washington hopes Lula will win, [because] it would be a potential setback for the process of integration,'' says Bernard Aronson, former head of the State Department's Latin American affairs office. ''But there have been lots of populist-sounding candidates who once in office, faced with the realities of global finances, have pursued different options.'' Likewise, Peter Romero, who led the State Department's Latin American affairs office until his retirement last year, told me that ``I don't think the Brazilians can afford not to be part of the Free Trade Area of the Americas, even with Lula. There would be concern, and a period of uncertainty -- but the reality of office makes a big difference.''

Maybe so. But because of Brazil's weight in the region, a Lula victory would change Latin America's political map, and the Bush administration's headaches will multiply.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Thank you for the insight. It sounds like Lula and Venezuela's Chavez, are like two peas in a communist pod.

[rightwing2]

If you think that the Bush administration has problems in Latin America with the latest crises in Argentina, Colombia and Venezuela, think about what it may face if Brazil's leftist candidate Luiz Inacio ''Lula'' da Silva wins this year's presidential elections in the region's biggest country.

Having lived in Brazil for two years, I know that Lula is running once again as the candidate of a popular front which includes not only his own Workers' Party, but the two Brazilian Communist parties as well. He is the Communist front candidate and he is the leading contender favored to win the Presidency of Brazil in October.

For starters, a Brazilian move to the left could pave the way for a South American nationalist-populist bloc -- that could also include Venezuela and Argentina...Conceivably, the new ''globaphobic'' bloc could strengthen ties with Cuba, and with Colombia's Marxist guerrillas.

This is the real danger, an alliance of Communist nations in the Western Hemisphere which includes not only Cuba andVenezeula, but also Brazil and Columbia. From there, the rest of Latin America, beginning with Panama and Nicaragua could fall like a series of dominoes to the Castro's Communist revolutions. Losing Brazil to the Communists would be a loss that the US could not recover from anytime soon. It would force us to retool our entire foreign policy and change our main focus from the Eurasian subcontinent to Latin America with a concomittant redeployment of forces to the South American theater of operations (SOCOM).

But now, a growing minority of influential Brazil watchers in Washington says things may change. There are several reasons why he has a good chance of winning the Oct. 6 primary election and has an even chance to win a possible second-round election scheduled for Oct. 27, they say... Second, in a runoff election Lula would probably win the leftist votes that in the latest polls have gone to Garotinho, and center-leftist candidate Ciro Gomes... Third...There is so much bad blood between the two sides that the government coalition may be beyond repair...

These are the two factors in this race which make a Lula Communist front presidential victory much more likely than during the last 3 elections, which he nearly one. The non-Communist government led opposition is heavily divided and the supporters of two other leftist presidential candidate could put him over the top in the presidential runoff.

Fourth, while Lula continues to make pilgrimages to Cuba...Two former top State Department officials told me in separate interviews this week that a Lula victory would not necessarily lead to radical changes in Brazil, or in South America...

Sure, I guess strengthening ties with Communist Cuba and the Communist FARC guerillas fighting to conquer Columbia do not constitute radical foreign policy changes for Brazil in the eyes of Foggy Bottom's "expert" braniacs and the DIA briefers who briefed me on my OSD trip to Brazilia last month.

But because of Brazil's weight in the region, a Lula victory would change Latin America's political map, and the Bush administration's headaches will multiply.

[DoughtyOne]

I don't think it would be a good idea for this guy to win. As for FreeTrade of the Americas, that's an idea that will facilitate the desolution of our borders a completely caotic development. Self determination will deminish as a result of this plan. If this guy wins in Brazil, we better damned well pray that a FTOTA does not come to fruition! Because if it does, Brazil will be helping to develop the laws that govern our nation, as part of the American Union that is destined to follow.

[rightwing2]

I don't think it would be a good idea for this guy to win. As for FreeTrade of the Americas, that's an idea that will facilitate the desolution of our borders a completely caotic development. Self determination will deminish as a result of this plan. If this guy wins in Brazil, we better damned well pray that a FTOTA does not come to fruition! Because if it does, Brazil will be helping to develop the laws that govern our nation, as part of the American Union that is destined to follow.

Absolutely correct, except the irony here is a Lula victory would prevent an American Union arrangement from including Brazil and would help defeat Bush's Free Trade of the America's initiatives. The reason is what I stated before. Today, we have two competing power-blocs trying to forge their own visions of the New World Order. One a socialist one-world government championed by the US and its allies and the other a socialist one-world government ruled by the Sino-Russian axis of nations. If Lula wins, Brazil would join the Sino-Russian alliance for global government, not the US-led one. Bush will be the downfall of this nation yet. He is doing a lot of long-term damage to our national security which will be difficult to undue which is very ironic considering he is still widely perceived as strong on national security issues.

[rightwing2]

The man is a complete communist nut. His party is called the PT, the "Worker's Party". Their symbol is a red star with a yellow PT in it. During the first election Lula caught flak for appearing on TV with a red band by his name instead of green and yellow, the national colors.

Absolutely correct. Please see my Post #4 for more. I was also in Brazil when the first presidential elections were held in 1989 after President Sarney retired. Lula lost that vote by ONLY FOUR PERCENTAGE POINTS and this was at the height of the Cold War! This election is also going to prove a squeaker. Unfortunately, given the present electoral trends in Brazil, it looks like it might be Lula pulling off the squeaker victory this time. I am supporting the government's center-right candidate, Jose Serra and I think Bush should endorse his candidacy as well and talk about the great importance he places on forging a new relationship with Brazil based on full equality and the improvement of bilateral relations across the board.

[DoughtyOne]

Yep. You're right on all counts.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Today, we have two competing power-blocs trying to forge their own visions of the New World Order. One a socialist one-world government championed by the US and its allies and the other a socialist one-world government ruled by the Sino-Russian axis of nations. If Lula wins, Brazil would join the Sino-Russian alliance for global government, not the US-led one.

Since Bush isn't a socialist, I'll opt for the Bush plan.

[rightwing2]

You have to be very careful about giving the impression of foreign meddling in an election. Would Tony Blair's endorsement of Al Gore have helped him? Or would people resent the intrusion? In particular given the hostility to the US in certain quarters an open endorsement could seriously hurt a candidate.

Well, that is true and I guess the US can't buy the Brazilian election as it did in Yugoslavia either. Interestingly, Al Gore was endorsed by Russia and China and he got more votes than Bush did. What is your policy prescription for helping Jose Serra defeat the threat of a Lula victory resulting in a de-facto Communization of our great Brazilian ally?

[rightwing2]

Since Bush isn't a socialist, I'll opt for the Bush plan.

No, Bush is not a socialist, but he is an avowed globalist and he is pushing for first a regional and later a global government with his attempt to get every country in the Western Hemisphere to join together in his Free Trade of the Americas arrangement which will further sacrifice US economic independence and sovereignity to control of Latin America. Bush's plan of course is intended to eventually lead to a North American Union and later an American Union similar to compliment the European Union established in 1992. This would first be an economic union with a common currency and later would become a political union in which the very independence and sovereignity of the United States of America was permanently sacrificed to a socialistic regional and/or global government. Bad news for the US anyone you try to spin it.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Let me guess, you're a "go pat go" disciple.

[DoughtyOne]

Globalist = Socialist

Don't kid yourself for one minute.  The EU model gives supreme control to the state.  It does not even allow criticism of the state.  The EU has made it a crime to criticize the EU.  An AU would act the same way.  Neither would allow the leaders to answer directly to the people.

This is Socialism.  It's about as close as you can get to Facism without a dictator.  In effect it would be Facism by committee.

Facism is described by Websters as:

A governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, focibly supressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an agressive nationalism and often racism.

If this doesn't describe the EU I don't know what does.  It's leadership is not elected.  It's leadership has absolute power.  It outlaws discent.  It regiments all industry and commerce.  It is fast becoming an agressive entity that verges on racism.  Note that Israel is blamed for defending itself.  It has come under attack, hundreds of it's citizens killed without provocation.  Now Jewish concerns in Europe are under attack.  The EU's only reaction is to trash Israel, not the terrorists.  What is this if not racsim?

People need to wake up and smell the stench.

The dictionary goes on to describe a facist.  A facist is a person that supports Facism.  Give that some thougt folks.

[DoughtyOne]

Rather than directly address your comment on someone being a Go Pat Go person, I'll ask you a question. What would posess you to support polices that will lead to an AU? The AU will be modeled after the EU. Neither provide for a representative form of government. Both neuter individual state sovereignty. The EU even forbids citizens to make a critical statement about it in public. Do you find this to be a plan our forefathers would support?

[Caipirabob]

Oi TGP! Boa vinda a FreeRepublic!

Tenho muito prazer ver um Brasileiro aqui!

Nao, sou um caipira Americano, mas aprende como falar Portuguese muito anos atras desde algumas mulheres (Carioca, Paulista e outros sabores.)

Mulheres Brasileiras...quem pode comer so uma, neh?

OK, better stop that. I would be sad to see Brasil sway to the left again, they have been doing so well since I first went there in '92. I think the comparable inflation rate was something like 300%. Cruzeiros, Cruzados and Real now, but they've been relatively stable since 1994.

More socialist/leftist economic scheme would really be a blow to the people there. I hope for the sake of my friends that they won't believe all the free handouts this guys is going to promise during the next election.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

DO I don't equate free trade with countries in our hemisphere akin to belonging to the EU. Would you object if we had a trading partnership, say with Britain?

[DoughtyOne]

Do I object to traditional trade with ANYONE? No. Do I object to a Free Trade of the Americas concept? Yes. These new trade agreements come with tens of thousands of pages of regulations that address issues far afield from trade.

NAFTA is an agreement that is in excess of 30,000 pages. Some of those pages cover issues of police activity giving Mexican and US police the right to co-police each other's territory for a certain distance on both sides of the border. What has that to do with trade? This isn't the only negative issue related to NAFTA.

These are sold as a free trade pacts. Tell me, what sounds like freedom that requires 30,000 pages to define what freedom is? Rather than freedom, these are the most restrictive forms of agreements every devised. And those restrictions go far afield of trade.

I also feel that these agreements are but a step on the road toward an AU. Open borders and other issues are certain to be a part of these agreements.

[rightwing2]

Let me guess, you're a "go pat go" disciple.

Actually, I used to be. Let me guess, you are a blind Bush supporting liberal who thinks that his signing of the Democrat Incumbent Protection Bill which will destroy the Republican Congressional majority for all time by criminalizing political speech by pro-life and pro-gun groups while empowering unions and the liberal media was some sort of ground of brilliant grand strategy which is too complex for Bush's increasingly alienated conservative Republican base to understand? Am I right?

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Indeed, the devil can be found in the fine details. The lawyers and the accountants will be the death of us yet.
However, perhaps we'll fare better than the doom and gloom being forecast and reported by isolationists.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

My, did something I said offend you? No longer a pat supporter, dare I ask who then?

Yes, I support President George W. Bush.

[rightwing2]

My, did something I said offend you? No longer a pat supporter, dare I ask who then? Yes, I support President George W. Bush.

Unconditionally, I gather. I thought so. I have gone from being a longtime Buchanan supporter to a Keyes supporter. Keyes seems to be the conservatives' best hope to defeat the Liberal Republican Establishment's candidate in the 2004 GOP Presidential primary and punish him for signing legislation which will have the effect of permanently destroying the hard-won Republican majority.

[DoughtyOne]

I think one has to be careful what they consider an isolationist to be. Were we isolationists prior to 1990? Because prior to 1990 we did not pursue the trade policies we have adopted since then. We had never signed an agreement like NAFTA before that. We did not allow about one million illegal immigrants to cross our borders either.

Our founding fathers would never have signed trade agreements which saw 40% tariffs placed on our exports, but zero tariffs placed on items we purchase from other nations.

[Maringa]

I grew up in Brazil (13 years) but left as soon as my parents retired. It is a wonderful country, even though living conditions are difficult. Some of the friendliest people in the world. I left before the first democratic elections were held...

I often go back to visit, and was there back in November. The hotbed of the PT movement is in the southern regions, although you can find it throughout Brazil. In the region where I used to live (the state of Parana), most of the regional elected officials belong to the PT party. They went in with much fanfare and optimism, announcing that they would become the utopia for the masses. However after 2 years in office, most of them have migrated towards the center after the realism of government life, and real world problems hit them. At least from what I saw, (and I met many of them in the churches, deacons, businesses, etc.) they aren't as bad as they seem. Yes it is a Socialist environment, however it is not an oppressive environment. I think that after a few years, the general public will become disenchanted with the party, and things will migrate towards the center again. I don't like Lula, but his rhetoric has definitely toned down since he first ran for office. One thing to keep in mind is that Brazil, I think, no longer will tolerate dictatorships or opressive governments. Real communism doesn't thrive under a free democracy or open society. Brazil is a free democracy and a very open society. If Lula wins, there will be an initial skepticism from the US, but I think you will find that they will remain a partner in US trade and relationships.

Oi, para os brasileiros que frequentam este site...Tenho muita vontade de comer um churrasco e tomar um guarana agora!!!

[Free the USA]

Check the Bump List folders for articles related to and descriptions of the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.

[FreedomFriend]

The same old argument of isolationist is ridiculous.

Under this logic, the founders of America could be viewed as isolationists, as well as most U.S. presidents prior to World War I.

"Free Trade" is not free. It is death to America, and to its sovereignty. Trade areas, such as the EU, and a proposed Americas Union, are nothing but death to individual nations. However, so many Conservatives claim that "free trade" is a Conservative issue, because they don't want the government telling them what to do with their money. Hey, the government is telling you how to spend your money anyway with these "free trade" scenerios, of which third world countries are given the benefit over the AMerican worker.

Protectionist trade policies need to be in place for America. This is what we used to uphold to. That is, before all this "free trade" jargon started to float around. In the meantime, our industries have packed their bags and shipped their manufacturing centers overseas, or they have moved across the border. Now, we have slaves in China making our garments, products, etc., while our American industrialized sector has shriveled up. Yeah, that's true Conservatism, one in which America's industrial sector is not Conserved, and one in which we allow ourselves to be succombed to higher taxation as a result of paying for the massive debts due to the trade imbalance.

I'm all for across the board tarrifs. If other countries don't like it, oh well. The U.S. needs to be more self sufficient, and if we aren't self sufficient, does America really have any sovereignty?

Furthermore, I don't believe the gloom and doom scenerio that the free-traders claim. That is, that everyone would stop exporting to us, etc. America is so powerful, that we'll still have plenty of willing countries to export to. In the meantime, it will give U.S. companies what they need to stay here in the United States. Furthermore, it will allow for more job creation, more U.S. startup companies, as well as many corporations bringing the jobs home. Will it be smooth? Of course not. However, it is what is needed for us to survive. All this interventionist garbage is nothing but a slow death to America. George Washington warned us about entangling with foreign alliances.

Call me an Isolationist, a Nationalist if you will. But I'm proud to be an American, and a Constitutionalist at that.

[DoughtyOne]

I hear you. Unfortunately the ears and minds that need to hear this are closed.

[FreedomFriend]

It appears that way. I can't understand how roughly 3/4 of Free Republic supports this "free trade" garbage, and anything that is protectionist is viewed as Communism, Naziism, etc. They're essentially saying that the founding fathers were Communists.

[Dane]

The Brazilian left, Lula included, are pro-nationalization of businesses, anti-American, anti-trade and anti-wealth.

He sounds like a 21st century Peron.

I guess South America will never look at the example of a propserous and peaceful country in their own midst, Chile.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Real communism doesn't thrive under a free democracy or open society. Brazil is a free democracy and a very open society. If Lula wins, there will be an initial skepticism from the US, but I think you will find that they will remain a partner in US trade and relationships.

If enough of these communists stand together, they will be buoyed by each other and create a strength that alone they do not possess. A real communism, the kind that they claim to dream about, has never been achieved but they keep saying it will be wonderful. I see it as no more than taking power and subjugating people as the cogs in their wheel. In that kind of set up, they don't ask permission and they will deal with China and other anti-American countries. Bush wants to weed out corruption and begin to elevate the poor in this hemisphere. I believe he sees the way to bringing these countries out of their flirtation with communist oppression. I think the communist oppressors see it too and are determined to counter his actions. I hope there's enough of a spark of freedom in that region to fan the fires of reform.

[FreedomFriend]

Hey, America shouldn't be embeddled in other countries' business. Washington warned about this. All it does is bring America down.

[FreedomFriend]

Bush wants to weed out corruption and begin to elevate the poor in this hemisphere.

At America's economic, cultural, Constitutional, and social expense?

[FreedomFriend]

Globaphobic: Is that another nonsense, PC word?

[Caipirabob]

See post #16.

Eu nao se nos tivimos Brasileiros aqui. De novo, tenho muito prazer ver esso.

Y'all sure can throw a party...

[Cincinatus' Wife]

That's how bad it is there because of "globalist" efforts.

That's how bad it is because of graft and corruption. All business is not bad any more than all politicians are bad. The bad politicians blame their graft on the evils of capitalism while pocketing their cut. Time to clean out the bad politicians and punish bad company practices and shine the light on who these culprits are. This mentality has to be tackled on all levels of society. The bribe they take now will come back to bite them in the form of a bigger bribe taken further up the ladder and so on and so on. They have to want something more.

[DoughtyOne]

Yes I believe you're right.

[FreedomFriend]

I heard Bush on C-Span last night talking about the "values of Free Trade". He was talking about how some European countries had entered into 30 Free Trade compacts. He then went onto say that they're all into competition, and he, I believe, hinted at the idea that we're losing out in the free trade battle, and that we need to adopt more policies to catch up.

I couldn't believe the garbage. "Free Trade" only helps to bring first world countries down, and that includes the U.S.

It appears that he's playing the American people for idiots. Quite a sad time when a President places other countries' welfare over the U.S.. Furthermore, it's quite sad that he's doing it in such a way that will bring about a world government. Where else do you think that this is headed? Loss of American Sovereignty, hence World Government after "free trade" becomes wide-spread. Yet, so many Freepers don't get it, and they are supporting these trade policies that will destroy America.

Oh, DoughtyOne, do you have a show on the OtherRadioNetwork? Furthermore, were you the one who interviewed PatBuchanan with Diotoma?

[DoughtyOne]

Yes I was the one that interviewed Pat. No I don't have my own show. And no, I don't buy into Bush's explanations. The largest single bit of proof we have that Globalist Free Trade is unnecessary, is that we didn't pursue this loonacy until after 1990. Was this a third rate nation until then?

[FreedomFriend]

I thought it was you who had interviewed Buchanan. I was pretty positive but that, but not completely sure.

However, I believe that it was on the Other Radio Network that I heard a talkshow host interview Glenn Spencer. The host sounded like you. Are you from Massachusetts? I'm sure that it's not you, for you say that it is not. However, there was a very close resemblance.

Regarding free trade, do you think that there's any chance that the supporters of this policy will ever wake up to the realities of such? Freepers, in particular?

Let me introduce myself. I'm FreedomFriend, and I live in Georgia.

[DoughtyOne]

Hi Freedom Friend: Glad to meet you. Now I didn't interview Glenn Spencer. I know Glenn, although he may not remember me. I live in California. As for FreeTrade, I think it's the in-vogue policy that would have made Neville Chamberlan and Adolf very proud. Especially the trade with China. Short of WWIII I don't think there's a darned thing we can do about it. But that shouldn't be too hard to facilitate. Don't lose hope. I just don't see this as leading to anything positive. Take care. Sorry so brief, I have to go out. D1