Posted on 05/10/2002 3:45:22 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
What is beginning to look like an escalating diplomatic skirmish between Brazil and the Bush administration went up another notch this week, when a Brazilian diplomat claimed in an academic paper that the U.S. government's ''irrationality and arrogance'' could expose the world to a Nazi-style imperial power.
For the past few weeks, the government of President Fernando Henrique Cardoso and left-of-center candidates for the Oct. 6 presidential elections have been sharpening their attacks on the Bush administration, which they see as setting back the clock on most international issues.
Among the reasons for Brazil's growing anger: Washington's moves to substantially raise subsidies to U.S. farmers while continuing to preach free trade to the rest of the world; the Bush administration's successful campaign to fire the Brazilian head of the United Nations chemical-weapons control agency; and a growing perception that Bush is running world affairs without consulting other major players.
Brazil, South America's biggest and most powerful country, is among the many agricultural exporters likely to suffer from a Bush-administration-backed farm bill that would substantially raise subsidies to U.S. farmers.
EXPECTED EFFECT
The new subsidies are expected to depress world commodity prices and badly hurt Latin American exports.
The U.S. bill, coming shortly after a Bush administration decision to further protect the U.S. steel industry, has increased Brazil's skepticism about a U.S.-backed hemispheric plan to create a Free Trade Area of the Americas by 2005.
''Let's talk frankly,'' Cardoso said recently, referring to Bush's plans to create the regional free trade area and increase U.S. exports of technology goods to Latin America. 'We can't imagine agreement that would allow some countries to seek the opening of other countries' markets, while at the same time further shutting down their own markets.''
`TURNING HIS BACK'
Jose Serra, the likely government-backed presidential candidate for the upcoming elections, was quoted by the Argentine daily Clarín last week as saying Bush is ``turning his back on Latin America.''
Luiz Inacio ''Lula'' da Silva, the hard-line leftist candidate leading in the polls for the October elections, stated earlier this week that Bush's plan to create a hemispheric free trade area amounts to a U.S. ''policy of annexation.'' He added, ``We don't want to go back in time and become a colony.''
But while it's not unusual for Brazilian politicians to make anti-American statements at election time (Brazil has one of the region's biggest blocs of leftist voters), an academic paper by a Brazilian diplomat that was published by the Folha de Sao Paulo newspaper's website this week may have crossed the line of fair criticism.
Luciano Martins, Brazil's ambassador to Cuba, wrote about what he called ''Bush's imperial unilateralism,'' which he said has unleashed ''intolerable and politically indefensible'' U.S. reactions to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, such as the invasion of Afghanistan.
COLLECTIVE ATTITUDE
''The [U.S.] irrationality and arrogance may not be just personal attributes of temporary rulers, but may also turn into a collective attitude. As it happened in Nazi Germany and now seems to be happening in Israel,'' Martins wrote. ``The current silence of the Democratic Party and most American intellectuals . . . seems to suggest that Bush somehow expresses a collective sentiment.''
Was Martins speaking for the Brazilian government? I asked the Brazilian foreign ministry this week. Or was it a personal blunder, product of the ambassador's intellectual isolation in a dictatorship that censors news from the outside world?
A somewhat embarrassed Brazilian foreign ministry spokesman responded that it was ``an academic paper that does not reflect the position of the Brazilian government.''
U.S. officials say, considering that the Brazilian government is disavowing Martins' statements, there will not be an official U.S. response.
ELECTORAL TARGET
It's almost inevitable that the United States will become a punching bag during Brazil's electoral season, they say. Therefore, the best thing Washington can do is sit tight until after the elections, the U.S. officials say.
In a telephone interview, Gerard Gallucci, head of the U.S. State Department's office in charge of Brazilian and Southern Cone affairs, suggested that he does not see the latest tensions as a diplomatic crisis.
''There are naturally areas of disagreement in our relationship, as in any relationship among friends -- and we understand that during a presidential campaign, various things may be said for political purposes,'' Gallucci said. ``But we have a good relationship with Brazil, and we look forward to continuing this relationship with Cardoso, and with whoever his successor will be.''
Perhaps so. But Brazil's electoral season is just starting. If Brazil's rhetorical shots at the Bush administration are at this level at this point in the campaign, one can safely assume they will become even stronger -- and put new strains on U.S.-Brazilian relations -- as we get closer to the October elections.
U.S. Brazil watchers doubt leftist candidate will win*** Despite the latest polls showing that Brazil's leftist candidate Luiz Inacio ''Lula'' da Silva is widening his lead for the October presidential elections, the majority view in U.S. business and diplomatic circles is that he will not win and that predictions of a dramatic shift to the left in Latin America's biggest country are premature. Is it wishful thinking on the part of Wall Street economists who fear a massive economic downturn for Brazil if da Silva's Workers Party wins the election? Or is da Silva, who has already failed in three previous runs for the presidency, incapable of surpassing the threshold of the estimated 35 percent of Brazilians who traditionally vote for the left?***
Luiz Inacio ''Lula'' da Silva, the hard-line leftist candidate leading in the polls for the October elections, stated earlier this week that Bush's plan to create a hemispheric free trade area amounts to a U.S. ''policy of annexation.'' He added, ``We don't want to go back in time and become a colony.''
Consider the source. The entire world is acting like America is their parent and that they don't get enough attention and love. If America is strong these countries will benefit. Besides, until there are more and stronger democracies in Central and South America, we will be asked for assistance. When they demonstrate they're approaching equity and combating corruption (another reason these politicians are complaining) then trade will be more reciprocal. Bush's first concern and obligation is to the United States.
Farm subsidies and tariffs on imports of food are intended to sustain farmers in their trade, regardless of whether they're competitively viable. We don't think of them as corporate welfare, because we mostly have a romantic view of the "family farm." However, for political purposes, the family farm has disappeared. Big Agribusiness is the benefactor of these moves from Washington, which is why there's a strong move in Congress to make information about who's receiving farm subsidies a classified matter, not subject to the terms of the Freedom Of Information Act.
Parallel to this, note the matter of American foreign aid, which largely flows to Third World countries whose only potential export commodities are agricultural. Governmental corruption in Third World countries often involves funneling foreign aid money into the personal accounts of people in power -- and the more foreign aid there is, the stronger the incentives to try to steal it will be.
Paradoxically, we could probably step down farm subsidies, imported food tariffs, and foreign aid to Third World nations in tandem. The extra revenue available to Third World economies from being able to sell some of their produce into our market would make it less necessary to bribe their governments, reducing Third World corruption. (I'm not saying the demands would cease, only that we could ignore them in better conscience.) As American agribusiness adjusted to the new order of things, the reduction in federal expenditures would make for a lovely round of new tax cuts. And our State Department could stop trying to explain to puzzled Third Worlders why, despite our array of farm tariffs and subsidies, we really, really do believe in free trade.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.