The United States Misreads Brazil's World Policy

[Judi Lynn]

The United States Misreads Brazil's World Policy
February, 02 2010
By Wallerstein, Immanuel


When the United States first realized circa 1970 that its hegemonic dominance was being threatened by the growing economic (and hence geopolitical) strength of western Europe and Japan, it changed its posture, seeking to prevent western Europe and Japan from taking too independent a position in world affairs.

The United States said in effect, although not in words: Up to now, we have been treating you as satellites, required to follow our lead without question on the world scene. But you are stronger now. So we invite you to be partners, junior partners, who will share in the collective decision-making, provided only you don't stray too far on your own. This new U.S. policy was institutionalized in multiple ways - notably the creation of the G-7, the establishment of the Trilateral Commission, and the invention of the World Economic Forum of Davos as a meeting-ground of the "friendly" world elite.

The main U.S. objective was to slow down the decline of its geopolitical power. The new policy worked for perhaps twenty years. It was finally undone by two successive events. The first was the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1989-1991, which removed the major argument the United States had used with its "partners" that they should not be too "independent" on the world scene. And the second was the self-defeating unilateral macho militarism of the Bush regime. Instead of restoring U.S. hegemony, it resulted in the devastating failure of the United States in 2003 to get U.N. Security Council endorsement of its invasion of Iraq. Bush's neocon policies had backfired entirely, turning a slow decline in U.S. geopolitical power into a precipitate decline. Today, almost everyone recognizes that the United States no longer has the clout it once had.

One would have thought the United States might have learned some lessons from the errors of the Bush regime. But it seems it is trying to repeat the same scenario with Brazil today. It will not take twenty years for this attempt to unravel.

The major geopolitical move that Obama has undertaken was to turn the G-8 meeting into a G-20 meeting. The crucial group that was added to the meeting were the so-called BRIC countries, otherwise called the "emerging" countries. BRIC stands for Brazil, Russia (already included in the G-8), India, and China.

What the United States is offering Brazil is "partnership." This comes out very clearly in the recent report of a Task Force of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) entitled U.S.-Latin America Relations: A New Direction for a New Reality. The CFR is the voice of the centrist Establishment, and this report probably reflects White House thinking.

There are two crucial sentences in this report concerning Brazil. The first reads: "The Task Force believes that deepening strategic relationships with Brazil and Mexico, and reformulating diplomatic efforts with Venezuela and Cuba, will not only establish more fruitful interaction with these countries but will also positively transform U.S.-Latin American relations."

And the second sentence deals specifically with Brazil: "The Task Force recommends that the United States build on its existing collaboration with Brazil on ethanol to develop a more consistent, coordinated, and broader partnership that incorporates a wide range of bilateral, regional, and global issues."

The report was issued in 2009. In December, the CFR organized with the Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) a seminar on "rising Brazil." By coincidence, the seminar occurred just at the moment of both the Honduran political crisis and the visit of Iran's President Ahmadinejad to Brazil. The U.S. participants in the seminar did not speak the same language as the Brazilians. The Americans believed that Brazil should act as a regional power, that is, as a sub-imperial power. The U.S. participants couldn't understand Brazil's disapproval of Colombia's military and economic links with the United States. They thought also that Brazil should assume some responsibility for maintaining "world order," which meant joining in the U.S. pressure on Iran's nuclear policies, whereas the Brazilians felt that the U.S. position on Iran was "hypocritical." Finally, whereas the U.S. participants saw Chavez's Venezuela as being "far from democratic," the Brazilians echoed President Lula's characterization that Venezuela suffered from an "excess of democracy."

More:
http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/4129

[bemildred]

1. Well, they are just not used to dealing with a weak hand.

The governing "elites" in Washington DC simply have no idea how to do it. They keep trying to bully people, and people keep telling them: "Fuck You, what are you going to do about it?" One-trick ponies, that's what we have to lead us.

[EFerrari]

2. What the Obama White House facilitated in Honduras

lost him most of the goodwill LatAm was so happy to extend to him. That one will come back and bite hard.

[Bacchus39]

3. no, maybe just the 3 or 4 days of good will you extended to him

after the inauguration.

[Peace Patriot]

4. DURING inauguration week, President Obama chose that moment--days before

he was to be sworn in, amidst the celebrations in Washington and all over the world--he chose that very moment--the keystone moment of his presidency, to go on a Spanish-language TV station and bash President Chavez as a "bad influence in the region."

Chavez recovered from that and extended a hand of friendship. And, really, I did not. Although I tried to write if off as bad advisors and an early blooper, and, for quite a long time, I gave President Obama the benefit of the doubt--through about half of the Honduran coup period (into fall '09)--it stuck with me, and I kept thinking back to it, when the next event occurred, and the next, which were consistent with a policy of hostility to democracy, social justice and peace, and with furthering a U.S. policy of domination, dictation, bullying and force. After that initial Chavez bashing, Obama began to talk differently--about "peace, respect and cooperation"--but actual policy was the opposite: war (the "war on drugs," the war in Colombia, the U.S. military buildup), disrespect, deafness and disregard toward most of the leaders of the region, and domination/dictation instead of cooperation.

In truth, my worries about Obama on Latin American policy began before that, during the campaign, in May 2008, when he spoke to an anti-Castro Cuban group in Miami. The speech was insulting to the leadership of Latin America and pure "Monroe Doctrine." He said that Latin America "needs U.S. leadership." Latin American leaders are not drifting and aimless. They are strong and well-focused--on issues like social justice, sovereignty, transparent elections and regional development. They don't need to U.S. to set their priorities or tell them what to do. He threw in some Chavez-bashing as well. But I gave Obama the benefit of the doubt on that, because he was taking the issue of liberalizing relations with Cuba to Miami. It was a dangerous venue. So, I just noted it. Bad omens in that speech, but maybe courageous in a limited way. I expected him to develop in a better direction, not a worse one. Another worrisome item was his appointment of Hillary Clinton as Sec of State, with all her heavy, heavy baggage on Colombia and "free trade for the rich." Still, it really was the Honduran coup--and, Obama, once again, saying one thing, and his administration doing another--that indicated to me that there is little or no hope for any positive change.

So, I would say that any observer of Obama statements and policy on Latin America had plenty to worry about, early on. I tend to be more of a 'pollyanna' than some--more hopeful. I held out for a long time on Honduras, thinking that Obama and his appointees were pursuing some clever strategy to foil the coup and its U.S. political instigators. Others saw what was really happening quicker than I did. And I can see now that they had plenty of reason to assume that this was an underhanded U.S./Obama administration coup.

I would like to ask you a question: What is it you are saying here? That knowledgeable people should not speak up and criticize their leaders when they see evidence of bad policy? That inauguration is a sort of "grace period" during which no one should criticize a new leader, even if he chose his inauguration week to publicly further an especially bad policy in an especially bad and undiplomatic way?

To me, there is nothing sacred about the presidency or inaugurations. I don't stop being a citizen because of Washington pomp and circumstance, and I don't think anyone else should. The president is not a king and is not entitled to any kingly deference during his "sacred' occasions. The president is just one us, elected to lead the country. I may feel good will toward him--and I do feel that toward Obama, even now. I want him to do better; I think he is capable of it. But that is never going to shut me up when I think he is wrong, no matter the circumstances or occasion. So I really don't understand why you would say this to EFerrari--that she evidenced lack of good will toward Obama early on--"3 or 4 days" after the inauguration. Is criticism ill will? On the contrary, criticism can be very well intended. Are people supposed to abandon their duties as citizens...why? Because you say so? I really don't get it. What is the intent of your remark? And what are you referring to?

------------------

Edit: I just realized your comment was directed to EFerrari not Judi Lynn. My question remains. What is your intent with this remark?

[Bacchus39]

5. yeah you gave him at least a week, the intent was just to note the obvious

while obstensibly "Democrats" many here are so hard core anti-US that our Democratic president is pretty much meaningless to them. Obama owes Chavez nothing, I don't know why your perceptions of Obama are solely based on his relations with Chavez. I agree with Obama, and definitely agree with just about everything McGovern said in that interview that Judi posted.

Chavez is the least popular leader regionwide and his support is dropping at home. On the other hand, Obama is the most popular leader in the hemisphere. The Honduras situation did little to effect that as EFerrarri falsely claims. Obama really doesn't need to make nice with Chavez. If he maintains good relations with Mexico, Brazil, Chile, and Colombia and all of Central America there really isn't much more to do other than keep ignoring Chavez, Castro, and Morales.


there is nothing sacred about Chavez. I support Obama's positions for the most part, not Chavez's. Hugo isn't going to do anything for me. they sell oil, we buy, what else is there?