"Brazil's tilt towards Chavez and Iran"
Mike
Brazil's tilt towards Chavez and Iran
The Americas Report | Oct 08, 2009
By Luis Fleischman
For those of us concerned with hemispheric security, the big question
has always been how do we contain Chavez‘s expansionist ambitions.
Under the Bush Administration, the answer, in the words of a
Republican Senator was, "containment of Hugo Chavez should be
undertaken by Latin American countries". This conception was
consistent with the idea of a non-interventionist policy in Latin
America. Indeed, even under the hawkish Bush Administration the policy
was one of good neighborhood plus trying to develop trade relations.
In terms of Hugo Chavez, the policy was basically to ignore his
hostile anti-Americanism and even his interventions in neighboring
countries. The hope was that Latin Americans would eventually realize
that Chavez was the bad guy and thus try to isolate him. This never
happened.
Apparently, the country the Bush Administration had in mind when
suggesting the policy of containment was Brazil. Led by President Luiz
Inacio Lula Da Silva (Lula), a pragmatist socialist, Brazil did not
depend on Chavez's largesse for their economic well-being. To the
contrary Brazil has the largest and most dynamic economy in Latin
America. Therefore, their economic and industrial power would prevail
over the ambitions of a mad man like Chavez whose power depends solely
on the production of oil.
The Workers' Party (PT)
Lula's party, the Workers' party (PT) was founded in 1980 by trade
unions that emerged in Brazil as a result of increasing urbanization.
The PT, contrary to many party elites in Latin America, included
grassroots organizations with permanent participation in decisions at
every level. The PT includes a whole scope of socialist and popular
movements such as unions, human rights groups, liberation theology
groups within the Catholic Church (a Christian group that tries to
reconcile between Christian theology and Marxism), environmentalists,
women's groups, indigenous, Afro-Brazilians groups and the powerful
landless movement (MST).
The radical component of the PT was clear. Lula was in sympathy with
the ideas of Fidel Castro and together they founded the "Foro of Sao
Paulo". The Foro" promised to provide an alternative against the
Washington consensus and its neo-liberal policies as well as to the
Third Way policies of the European left. The "Foro" was built as a
Latin American network of solidarity between socialist, communists,
and various groups, including some guerillas, to strengthen themselves
in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet empire. "Foro" leaders
include individuals such as Daniel Ortega from the Sandinistas as well
as leaders from guerilla movements such as the Fuerzas Armadas
Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), the Union Revolucionaria de
Guatemala (URNG), Frente Farabundo Marti de Liberación Nacional (FMLN)
of El Salvador and the Partido de La Revolución Democrática de Mexico
(PRD). Liberation theology is also part of the "Foro". Hugo Chavez
joined the Foro in 1995 when he was not yet president of Venezuela.
The "Foro" holds an ardent anti-globalization and anti-American
posture and also speaks for the rights of indigenous populations and
promotes Indian separatism from the Latin American national states.
Thus, it was no wonder that the Bush Administration looked with
skepticism at Lula's election to the presidency in 2002. Initially,
those suspicions were justified as Brazil moved to implement some of
its pro-third world ideology.
As an example, Brazil hosted a South American/Arab summit in May 2005
where the Brasília Resolution was adopted. The resolution commends the
Government of Sudan for its assistance in trying to solve the problem
in the Darfur region without mentioning their responsibility in
leading the genocide taking place there. The resolution also called
for combating terrorism by having an international conference to study
and define terrorism, but in such a way as to avoid a clear and
unequivocal condemnation of terrorism. Similarly, it condemned the
"Syria Accountability Act", a law passed by the U.S. Government to
impose sanctions on Syria amid its support for terrorism. In addition,
participants wanted an International Court of Justice to require
Israel to tear down the security fence, which Israel built to prevent
terrorist attacks.
Pragmatism vs. Ideology
Despite Lula's socialism and third world anti-imperialism, he quickly
transformed himself as a pragmatist in domestic and foreign policy.
Once in power the PT built a broad coalition with parties from the
center and from the right including the appointment of conservatives
in the cabinet. Cooperation with entrepreneurs and with supporters of
neo-liberal policies was pursued and implemented.
In foreign affairs, despite the traditional anti-imperialist approach
of the PT, the party has not sought confrontation with the United
States or with the International Monetary Fund. Likewise, he kept a
distance from his former "Foro" peers, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro,
by refusing to adopt their anti-American dogmatisms. Similarly, Lula
signed bi-lateral agreements of cooperation with the U.S. to develop
alternative energy for the region. Recently, he also distanced
himself from all those in Latin America that objected to the
establishment of more military bases in Colombia.
Lula's attitude led U.S. policy makers to believe that Lula had the
legitimacy and the pragmatism that would eclipse Chavez. However, a
huge and very dangerous disappointment is emerging from Brasília in
the last few months.
Lula's Reversal: Embracing Iran and Enabler of Chavez
Last summer, after Iran's June 12th presidential elections, President
Lula was the first western leader to recognize hard-line Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the legitimate winner in spite of
wide spread indications of fraud. The fact that those who protested
the theocratic regime were courageous individuals fighting for freedom
meant nothing to Lula. In fact, Lula ridiculously compared post-
election protests in Teheran with a fight between fans of two rival
soccer teams in Rio de Janeiro. No other country in the West except
Venezuela recognized the legitimacy of the result of the Iranian
elections.
Lula went further. During the last United Nations General Assembly, he
defended Brazil's relationship with Iran basically saying he cannot
judge Iran's nuclear ambitions or the way the June 12 elections were
handled. He also pointed out that he is "not ashamed of having
relations with Iran". Likewise, referring to Iran's anti-Semitism and
Holocaust denial Lula defended Ahmadinejad's right "to think
differently". Then, Lula announced that Brazil will send a trade
mission to Iran in the coming months to explore areas of joint
investment. Trade between the two countries quadrupled in the last
five years.
It now seems that Lula Da Silva after years of remarkable pragmatism
and centrism is returning to the days of radicalism. What is worse,
Lula has moved from mere rhetoric into dangerous policy. He has
provided Brazils' embassy in Tegucigalpa to Mel Zelaya, the ousted
president of Honduras, who was deposed late in June. Zelaya was
deposed because he called for a constitutional reform following
Chavez' model, disobeying the will of the Honduran Congress and the
Supreme Court. Zelaya did that after developing close relations with
Hugo Chavez. Zelaya's restoration to power has not only been on the
agenda of his patron, Hugo Chavez, but also on the agenda of the
Organization of American States and the U.S. Government. Negotiations
to restore Zelaya led nowhere and then Brazil stepped in offering its
embassy in Tegucigalpa to host Zelaya while he organizes to come back
to power. Though we do not know how the situation in Honduras will
evolve, it is clear that Zelaya's presence in the country exacerbates
violence and intensifies the possibility of a civil war. In other
words, Brazil has been actively promoting violence in Honduras to
serve the interests of no other than Hugo Chavez.
Interestingly enough, tensions between factions in the PT and Lula
have been registered for years. Most of these tensions emanate from
complaints from radical factions in the PT that claim that Lula has
not carried social reforms far enough. One such movement is the
Landless Movement or Movement of the Landless Workers (MST), which was
an integral part of the foundation of the PT. The MST is a social
movement whose goal to achieve agrarian reform was coupled with a
radical militant ideology and semi-violent action that included road
blockades and illegal take over of large pieces of land.
The MST, like the base of the PT, is part of the Congreso Bolivariano
de los Pueblos (CBP), an organization controlled by Hugo Chavez aimed
at reaching out to grassroots organizations throughout the continent.
These organizations help to deepen Chavez's Bolivarian revolution. In
addition, they usually receive funds from Chavez. The MST website
(www.mstbrazil.org) displays articles and materials in support of Hugo
Chavez and highlights the achievement of his revolution.
In other words, Lula's government seems to be leaving the pragmatic
road and embracing the demands of the most radical and most
ideological factions within his constituency. Likewise, his
astonishing policies towards Iran seem to revive the ghosts of Lula
from the "Foro of Sao Paulo". It looks like, contrary to
expectations, it is Chavez containing Lula and not the other way
around.
Does this behavior serve the interests of Brazil?
Chavez and Iran have had very close relations. As it has been
reported, both countries are partners in banking ventures whose only
purpose is to help Iran avoid sanctions imposed on it. The more
effectively Iran is able to circumvent sanctions, the more they can
focus on developing their dangerous nuclear program. Chavez will also
begin selling Iran 15% of the gasoline Iran needs with the same
purpose in mind. It has also been reported a long time ago and
confirmed recently by a Venezuelan high officer that both countries
are cooperating in matters related to the extraction of uranium with
which Iran could develop an atomic bomb and other aspects of nuclear
technology.
Venezuela has been the main supporter of Iran, worldwide. As a result,
Iran is deeply grateful to Chavez. Given this, what will Iran do to
pay back their South American friend? Most likely Chavez will ask that
Iran provide Venezuela with nuclear weapons once Iran obtains them.
Chavez is a man with imperial ambitions who craves power. Lately, he
has purchased large amounts of sophisticated weapons from Russia.
Following this logic, it is clear to me that having a nuclear weapon
will provide Chavez with the respect and the fear he needs to carry
out his agenda of exporting his revolution, as well as controlling and
deterring as many countries as possible. This is even more
frightening if we ask ourselves, why Iran would refuse to provide
weapons to Chavez when, in fact, those weapons could place the U.S.
under direct threat and provide Iran with a deterrence factor.
Most recently Jose Sarney, a former president and currently the
President of the Brazilian Senate, pointed out that Venezuela's
aspiration to become a regional military power is worrisome. More
troubling for Brazil and the region will be a nuclear Chavez-led
Venezuela. Lula is not just the leader of the Brazils' poorest. He was
supported by a large middle class component that most probably rejects
Brazil's behavior. Polls already indicate that the PT candidate ranks
third for the upcoming presidential elections.
Also, in its desire to become an influential country in the world,
Brazil is seeking a permanent seat on the United Nations Security
Council. Under the present circumstances Brazil does not deserve this
seat unless it behaves with responsibility. Historically, Brazil is a
western country and its rise to power should be welcomed but not under
the current circumstances. Nobody who has a moral and politically
relativistic view of ominous individuals like Chavez and Ahmadinejad
should be added to the community of world leaders.
To the contrary, Brazil must overcome its moral and political
schizophrenia and stand on the side of civilization and freedom
against the barbarism and oppression of the Teheran-Caracas axis.
Shadow
wrote:
>http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18195.xml?genre_id=5
>
>Brazil's tilt towards Chavez and Iran
>The Americas Report | Oct 08, 2009
>By Luis Fleischman
>
>For those of us concerned with hemispheric security, the big question
>has always been how do we contain Chavez�s expansionist ambitions.
OMG, you mean he has WMD and is going to invade the States
just like the Iraqis did ?
Can't write anymore, I'm running for my shelter.
[]'s
Altivez
Brazil's tilt towards Obama, Uribe, Ahmadinejad, Chavez , Mandela..to
all
Lula, the best
Bravo Lula, the best, imposing, lofty, strong and determined. Too,
nothing only to tilt towards to polluters Euro-American, the
nufacturers of crisis.
Pilot
estrebucha
Paulo Henrique Amorin
http://www.paulohenriqueamorim.com.br/?p=22938
24/novembro/2009 9:46
Israel pode. Eles não
O Irã tem um programa nuclear que provoca suspeitas nos Estados Unidos
e, por conseqüência, no PiG (*).
Israel tem bomba atômica, o que não provoca suspeitas nos Estados
Unidos e, por conseqüência, no PiG.
O Irã diz que o programa nuclear é para fins pacíficos.
O Irã desenvolveu uma tecnologia original dentro da cadeia da
indústria nuclear.
O Brasil, o maior produtor de urânio do mundo, tem um programa nuclear
e desenvolveu uma tecnologia original para processar urânio.
O Brasil defendeu essa tecnologia com unhas e dentes para evitar
cópias piratas.
O Irã diz que defende a sua tecnologia original também com unhas e
dentes e, por isso, dificulta o acesso dos Estados Unidos ao seu
programa.
O Brasil, aparentemente, não quer fazer a bomba. Essa seria uma das
heranças malditas do governo FHC, pior do que a indicação de Gilmar
Dantas (**) para o Supremo.
Fazer ou não a bomba é um problema que a sociedade brasileira breve
terá de discutir. E o Conversa Afiada desde já se manifesta a favor da
bomba.
Os Estados Unidos tem bomba; a Inglaterra tem bomba; França tem bomba;
a China tem bomba; a Índia tem bomba; o Paquistão tem bomba e Israel
tem bomba. Por que o Brasil não pode ter?
Se o Irã também quer, problema dele.
O Irã diz ao Brasil que o seu programa é pacífico. O Brasil e 99% dos
países do mundo acreditam.
O PiG, não.
Problema do PiG.
Se o Farol de Alexandria não tivesse renunciado à bomba como renunciou
à soberania nacional, o PiG diria que a bomba só não é melhor do que
os vinhos Bordeaux do Renato Machado.
O problema do PiG não é nem a bomba nem o Irã.
O problema do PiG e dos chanceleres do PiG é o sucesso da política
externa independente do Presidente Lula e seu chanceler, Celso Amorim.
O presidente Lula honrou uma tradição da política externa brasileira,
defendeu o Estado de Israel, a contenção dos assentamentos dos colonos
judeus e a criação de um Estado Palestino Autônomo.
E fez isso diante do ilustre convidado.
O Irã é hoje um dos maiores consumidores de carne bovina brasileira.
O Farol e seus chanceleres, hoje sublocados à Globo, são adeptos da
política externa da genuflexão.
A diplomacia brasileira desempenha com o Irã e outros países da região
do Oriente Médio uma política de potência.
O Conversa Afiada tira o chapéu à colonista (***) Eliane Cantanhêde
que, hoje na Folha (****), faz uma análise isenta da relação Brasil-
Irã.
O PiG, de resto, está acometido de um vírus que combina provincianismo
com golpismo. Nesse aspecto, a Fox News que, aqui no Brasil, se
sintoniza na Globo e na Globo News, continua a desempenhar um papel
partidário, do partido do Calabar.
(*) Em nenhuma democracia séria do mundo, jornais conservadores, de
baixa qualidade técnica e até sensacionalistas, e uma única rede de
televisão têm a importância que têm no Brasil. Eles se transformaram
num partido político – o PiG, Partido da Imprensa Golpista.
(**) Repare, amigo navegante, como notável jornalista do Globo (do
Globo !) se refere a Ele.
(***) Não tem nada a ver com cólon. São os colonistas do PiG (**) que
combatem na milícia para derrubar o presidente Lula. E assim se
comportarão sempre que um presidente no Brasil, no mundo e na Galáxia
tiver origem no trabalho e, não, no capital. O Mino Carta costuma
dizer que o Brasil é o único lugar do mundo em que jornalista chama
patrão de colega. É esse pessoal aí.
(****) Folha é um jornal que não se deve deixar a avó ler, porque
publica palavrões. Além disso, Folha é aquele jornal que entrevista
Daniel Dantas DEPOIS de condenado e pergunta o que ele acha da
investigação, da “ditabranda”, do câncer do Fidel, da ficha falsa da
Dilma, de Aécio vice de Serra, e que nos anos militares emprestava os
carros de reportagem aos torturadores.
Gafa
That's is true: Lula licks everybody's asses. However, Chavez is no
threat. The real threat in this case is USA. Just see what was done in
Iraq. The same must be said about Ahmenejadi: Iran has never attacked
its neighbors, like Israel did so many times. This is the reality:
Israel is the only country in middle east to possess WMD and nuclear
weapons. USA is the only country in the world in which has used WMD
and nuclear weapons.