LulaWatch - Focusing on Latin America’s new “axis of evil” - Brazil

Diminishing popularity and lessened expectations plaguing the administration of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (Lula) is no longer confined to political analysts and commentators. It is now surfacing in opinion polls.

“Positive opinion ratings for the government fell from 56.6% in January (the latest CNT/Sensus survey available) to 45% in March . . . The survey shows that 27.2% of respondents believe the president's campaign promises are not being or will not be fulfilled” (Riomar Trindade and Diego Recena, “Lula perde popularidade e confiança no futuro diminui, aponta Sensus,” Gazeta Mercantil, 3/14-16/2003).

After two and a half months on the job, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva had to alert his ministers in a recent cabinet meeting about “the beginning of the honeymoon's end.” The government faces growing criticism because of its ineffectiveness, lack of initiative, direction, administrative experience, and failure to fill many still vacant posts in the lower echelons.

“The government has not even finished its third month in office and the the picture so far is worrisome. On the economic front, there is more of the same. . . Elsewhere there is a growing perception of a confused, stalled administration with little executive prowess,” noted Otávio Frias Filho, director of the newspaper Folha de S. Paulo(3/13/2003).

At a recent meeting of Workers’ Party's National Directorate, the President himself recognized his government’s ineffectiveness: “We are weak precisely in our social policy, which is our forte,” he said (Vera Rosa and Mariana Barbosa, “Na área social, o nosso forte, estamos fracos,” O Estado de S. Paulo, 3/16/2003).

An editorial in the newspaper O Estado de S. Paulo commented: “Lula's mistake is to believe his social policy is the only one doing poorly. Except for the economic area . . . all other government agencies are showing weak performance, which explains Lula's drop in popularity” (“Para que o governo deslanche,” O Estado de S. Paulo, 3/19/2003).

The administration's sluggishness appears to have a more profound cause: a difficulty applying the clearly leftist program that always inspired a majority of Workers’ Party (PT) members and the left in general.

Philosopher Paulo Arantes, linked to Porto Alegre's World Social Forum, aptly defines this hope of the left: “Forum participants believed that on assuming power, the PT was going to change the world through the new Moscow or Mecca – Brasilia” (Rafael Cariello, “Herança pára governo, afirmam intelectuais,” Folha de S. Paulo, 3/15/2003).

However, since most Brazilian voters are centrist and averse to leftist methods and ideology, Lula and his team changed their approach and began to present themselves as moderates willing to preserve the present economic model.

After the election, Lula generally kept the same economic policy of the previous administration intact to gain credibility with investors and the public in Brazil and abroad (notably with the American government). Lula and the PT reaffirmed their commitment to free market policies, and respect for the country's obligations abroad. This has calmed down the Brazilian business community.

The government saw this policy as vital to economic stability, governability, and above all, avoiding public mistrust.

“The government's plight goes beyond the problems of poor performance here and there but this is something Lula or anyone else involved dare not utter. . .

“Lula and the PT leadership had very clearly defined and resolute proposals to implement. However, his election was only viable if Lula adopted as one of his main goals, or even his main goal, the idea that he persuade conservatives at home and abroad that they need not fear a PT presidency” (Jânio de Freitas, “O que falta,” Folha de S. Paulo, 3/18/2003).

Despite such efforts to “persuade conservatives,” the general public harbors lingering suspicions and wariness about the government's true intentions. It actually becomes increasingly clear that the changes by Lula da Silva and PT were purely cosmetic. Their plans and goals are faithful to the old theses and praxes of the left.

An extensive analysis of government policies in the magazine, Primeira Leitura, linked to important corporate and political circles, says the PT sought to “verticalize the political process from day one.”

“Translation: the party seeks to 'PT-ify' all society's representative groups and decision makers. This effort is based on political sociology: once securing the state apparatus, the PT wishes to reinvent the state and society itself” (Reinaldo Azevedo and Rui Nogueira “Democracia neles,” Primeira Leitura, March 2003).

Commenting on the demagogic aspects of some proposals by the Lula administration, Denis Lerrer Rosenfield, professor of philosophy at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, points out that the government intends to “stage a show of 'direct' or 'participatory' democracy by fostering an increase in the governing party's power to the detriment of democratic and republican institutions” (Denis Lerrer Rosenfield, “O perigo da demagogia,” O Estado de S. Paulo, 3/10/2003).

President Lula da Silva makes no secret of the fact that his present policies, including economic policy, are temporary. Facing criticism from PT radicals at a recent meeting of the Party’s National Directorate, Lula asked for “patience to wait for a change of direction in the economic area” (Vera Rosa and Mariana Barbosa, “Na área social, o nosso forte, estamos fracos,” O Estado de S. Paulo, 3/16/2003).

This uncertainty awakens deep suspicions about the true intentions of the Lula administration and its future policies.

“The fear is that the Lula administration will change its economic course as it loses popularity and faces problems with its grassroots political support.

“Despite the government's repeated assertions to the contrary, this fear still lingers among the corporate world and investors. It also remains among some political operatives” (Lu Aiko Otta, “Investidores temem mudança de rumos,” O Estado de S. Paulo, 3/17/2003).

The same news item quotes economist and consultant Roberto Padovani who believes that “the temptation to abruptly change economic course persists.” He says that, facing the Iraq conflict, “analysts fear extreme measures such as currency exchange controls.”

Noted jurist Ives Gandra da Silva Martins emphasizes: “The growing difficulties President Lula will face can rekindle the outdated theses of radical socialists or reenact the economic fiascos of the former Iron Curtain countries among frustrated party and government echelons” (Ives Gandra da Silva Martins, “Governo – avanços e retrocessos,” O Estado de S. Paulo, 3/17/2003).

The Lula administration has announced or set in motion several policies that in practice are clearly marked by leftist ideology. Even his economic policies clash with the much-trumpeted moderation of the government.

From the beginning, Lula’s new economic team announced plans to make the Central Bank autonomous.

Such a measure might be heraled as another example of the Lula administration's market “pragmatism” and “mature leftism.”

However, as soon as the measure was announced, the PT's radical wing started an uproar against the plan since it ran contrary to the leftist principles that always ruled the party.

This is how Congressman João Batista Oliveira de Araújo, known as Bábá and a leader of this left wing, expressed his opposition in an article for the paper Folha de S. Paulo:

“More than ever, we need to keep fighting against the neoconservative [economic] model. We need more control on the Central Bank rather than less. We must suspend interest payments on the foreign debt and start an immediate audit of internal and external debt. We must make it known that we will not join the FTAA [Free Trade Association of the Americas]” (“Mudar o rumo,” Folha de S. Paulo, 3/17/2003).

“Unfortunately, President Lula caved in to pressure from his party and postponed the planned autonomy for the Central Bank ... PT congressmen decided to postpone indefinitely sending the projected bill to Congress. This clearly shows that not only leftists but also other congressmen aligned with Lula prefer the route of political interference in the actions and decisions of the Central Bank. Such behavior reflects disinformation ... and a strong dose of ideological prejudice” (“O dragão da maldade,” O Estado de S. Paulo, 3/16/2003).

While the government gives up on the plan to make the Central Bank autonomous, they are preparing a Pluriannual Investment Plan (PPA) of a statist bent.

This was the official topic of a meeting of President Lula's cabinet and staff. The media say the meeting was centered around a document which the government intends to present as its alternative bill for the country. PPA will be sent to Congress at the end of August in the form of a projected bill.

“The Minister of Planning, Guido Mantega, told senators from the Economic Affairs Commission that the new PPA will entail 'a certain state intervention in the economy'” (Kennedy Alencar and Marta Salomon, “Lula alertará os ministros sobre fim da ‘lua-de-mel,” Folha de S. Paulo, 3/19/2003).

According to an editorial in Veja magazine, the ministerial meeting discussed PPA and “PT Senator Aloizio Mercadante and the Minister of Planning, Guido Mantega, expressed nostalgia for the state-run economy of the military regime. As an example of what he expects to see in Brazil, Mercadante cited the so-called PNDs, National Development Plans, masterpieces of state technocracy from the time of the generals.”

The magazine continues: “This shows that PT's highest leadership sees a role for the Brazilian State incompatible with modern democracies . . . The entrepreneuring, strategist and centralizing state is an experiment that has fallen into disuse after being tested and rejected not only in communist countries but even here in Brazil” (“De volta ao passado,” Veja, 3/26/2003).

Many public services such as fixed-line and cellular phones, electric utilities, and gas and oil companies were privatized over the last few years. This gave rise to so-called regulatory agencies to monitor them.

Agency heads are picked by the government and approved by the Senate. However, to prevent political pressure, they may not be removed from their posts after being appointed. Likewise, the agencies themselves, while belonging to the state, avoid pressure by working independently of the Executive branch.

These agencies monitor utility rates, authorize price adjustments and set parameters for the quality of services.

Inspired by its leftist and statist ideology, the PT has been talking, since coming to office, about “reviewing the agencies' role.” To this end, the party has promoted a media uproar around the agencies in an effort to force the resignation of present directors and replace them with PT members.

According to a highly placed source close to President Lula, “the solution is to continuously pressure the agencies' chiefs so they'll resign, since they cannot be dismissed. Thus, the PT would attain real power over the productive sector of the economy. According to this source, that is why we are seeing a general attack against all regulatory agencies. The word here is to say anything about them – so long as it is negative” (Alexandre Secco, “Dilma: com saudade do Brasil estatal?”, Veja, 3/19/2003).

According to former Minister Luiz Carlos Mendonça de Barros, the government is releasing reports to create the political conditions to reach this goal describing agencies with terms such as “extreme ignorance” or “political bad faith.”

President Lula himself joined the chorus and accused the agencies of “outsourcing” political power.

Finally, a recent assembly of the PT’s National Directorate approved an important resolution fraught with typically leftist jargon. The Party and both its congressional caucuses “will work with the Executive Branch and Congress to review the role [of the regulatory agencies] and subject them to public and social control.” It noted that “these agencies are proving to be anti-republican powers out of society's and government control” (Resolution of the Workers Party National Directorate).

Political and media analysts clearly pointed out the statist cravings that lurks behind this announced policy:

“By demonizing the agencies ... the Lula government is publicly professing belief in a statist kind of planning proven to be a complete fiasco” (Reinaldo Azevedo and Rui Nogueira, “Democracia neles,” Primeira Leitura, March 2003).

In an editorial, O Estado de S. Paulo warns of the regulatory agencies’ demise: “An option is about to be defined which will revert to a time when the state not only regulated and inspected public service, but the government took it over entirely, with the resulting high cost of inefficiency, nepotism, stagnation and obsolescence” (“O imbróglio que virou pretexto,” O Estado de S. Paulo, 3/14/2003).

There is growing controversy about the planting and marketing of genetically modified (GM) foods. Once again, the PT's leftist ideology is shaping an important policy debate with far-reaching economic ramifications.

Years ago, Brazil created the National Technological Commission for Biosafety (CTNBio), regulated by its Biosafety Law. With a high degree of technological competence, this Commission promotes (in partnership with private companies) advanced research on genetically modified agricultural products. Scientists qualified to assess medical and environmental risks allow CTNBio to determine which products can be cultivated and marketed in Brazil.

Just when GM soy beans were about to be harvested (Brazil produces 6 million tons), the Minister of the Environment decided to prevent the marketing of this soy bean on alleged legal grounds. Marina Silva, who heads the Ministry, is closely linked to leftist ecologist currents and a former activist of the Basic Christian Communities (BCCs) linked to Liberation Theology and promoters of class struggle.

The decision actually follows the clearly ideological dictates of several currents of the extreme left opposed to this kind of technological breakthrough.

Such currents, largely present in the PT (labeled “partisans of backwardness” by the media) are aptly represented by José Bové, the French “farmer” who, during the First World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, led the occupation of a farm to destroy GM crops. He was subsequently expelled from the country.

The leftist philosopher, José Arthur Giannotti, admits: “The technological and political issue of GM foods has turned into a mere ideological struggle” (“O duro aprendizado da esquerda,” Folha de S. Paulo, 3/18/2003).

Biochemist Luiz Fernando Lima Reis heads post-graduation studies at Sao Paulo's Cancer Hospital. He accuses certain NGOs of waging an ideology-based “terrorist campaign” against GM foods. “Minister Marina Silva is ideologically opposed to GM, period!” (“Para cientista, soja modificada ‘é segura,’” O Estado de S. Paulo, 3/16/2003).

Former CTNBio president, Fernando Reinach, a tenured professor of biochemistry at the University of Sao Paulo, states: “The debate centers on ideology and party politics and has been based on nearly anedoctal information spread over the Internet” (“Transgênicos: precaução ou obstrução?,” O Estado de S. Paulo, 3/12/2003).

The PT government is mounting pressure on CNTBio. They plan to take away the agency's decision-making power and make it a merely consultative body. Furthermore, in an act of political revenge, they have begun replacing CNTBio technicians favorable to GM foods with people linked with PT who are not technically competent.

Professor Reinach deplores “amateurs replacing members with proven scientific qualfications.” He adds: “There are few occasions in our history when the country prepared the legal and administrative framework in advance for the arrival of a new technology. It is deplorable to see this effort totally destroyed” (“Transgênicos: precaução ou obstrução?,” O Estado de S. Paulo, 3/12/2003).

The debate over GM soybeans has created a climate of insecurity for investors: “The industry of certified seeds with identified origin and guaranteed quality is being torn asunder together with the whole scientific organization set up over the last 20 years, which has brought us record crops” (João Baumer, “Transgênico: indefinição ameaça pesquisa científica,” O Estado de S. Paulo, 3/14/2003).

Yikes! Check out a left perspective on Lula. It seems like he cannot win.

A Google news search otherwise revealed surprisingly little information on Lula. The mainstream line seems to be that he's been pretty impressive in foreign policy terms (helping to expand free trade blocs) and economic policy (the Real hasn't been this healthy in years). But there's bound to be a backlash eventually - he was elected left, and so far has governed right. As you can see from the socialist web site, his natural constituency of left-wing intellectuals is pretty mad.

Curiously, the people of Brazil seem to be pretty un-socialist. If he does pursue socialist policies for real, I don't think he'll be re-elected. So he has to walk a narrow line with his supporters, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Thanks for the pings and posts.

The Gathering Storm: The Brazil-Venezuela-Cuba Axis***The United States is now at a crossroads.

First, the United States must buck what is becoming a trend in the Western Hemisphere; namely, that democratic means are being manipulated by leftist leaders to preclude the United States from affecting or supporting "regime change," lest it appear to subvert the democratic process. To this end, the removal of Fidel Castro from power could provide a benchmark against which all pro-Castro leaders can judge their future behavior.

Moreover, a congressionally approved regime change in Cuba could at this moment accomplish three other important tasks: One, Fidel Castro's absence would have a detumescent effect on those leftists who exhibit a penchant for Castro-ism. Two, a positive regime change would eliminate Fidel Castro's ideational inspiration, which serves as the greatest source of intellectual, ideological, and political anti-Americanism in the region. Three, the United States would destroy one of the most powerful logistical infrastructures for supporting terrorist movements. Cuba's military and intelligence advisors would no longer be able to assist anti-U.S. regimes or terrorist organizations.

Second, The United States must demand that Brazil abandon any material attempt to obtain weapons of mass destruction. Any evidence to the contrary should result in devastating consequences. On the terror front, the United States can test the veracity of Brazil's numerous pledges to fight terrorism by requesting an unequivocal denunciation of the FARC and an exhibition of the appropriate legal measures to support this rhetorical decision.

Third, without Fidel Castro's intellectual, ideological, and political influence, Hugo Chavez would assume the status of an unimpressive despot akin to Saddam Hussein's Yasser Arafat. At that point he might be more easily contained until a future date when the people of Venezuela can be encouraged to elect someone more competent to lead that great country.

Unless the United States government adopts a coherent Western Hemispheric strategy to counter the influence of the Castro- da Silva-Chavez tripartite, one can expect to witness the growth of this "axis" and a concomitant rise in terrorist related activity in the region. As an example of things to come the Washington Times reported on 7 April 2003 that Al Qaeda terrorists had plans to enter the United States illegally through Mexico to carry our attacks against various targets. It is wholly conceivable that these terrorists could one day commence operations from secure locations in the Western Hemisphere and given enough time they may even attain a nuclear weapons capability courtesy of an anti-U.S. regime.

To borrow a phrase from the Bush Doctrine: "…the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather."***

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.