Lula’s tour of dictatorships

The Brazilian president spent the end of 2003 in the Middle East on a journey that Veja magazine called “Lula’s tour of dictatorships.”

Presidential aides called his itinerary – which included several dictatorships and even regimes suspected of supporting terrorism – “historic.” Moreover, it represented an “audacious policy” that provided an “alternative” to the American agenda.

Consistent with the crafty attitudes that have characterized the Lula da Silva administration, Brazilian foreign policymakers said the primary purpose of the trip was to develop trade relations. However, after only a few days, several publications saw through this claim and said the trip’s real purpose was highly political.

Veja said the trip brought no commercial gain and had no positive effect on the economy.

“There were many promises of closer economic relations but few concrete deals. This was the economic result of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s 9-day trip to five Arab countries,” wrote Reuters’ correspondent Walter Brandimarte.

“Lula returns only with promises for [future] deals.” The article claimed ”great promises but few deals is the commercial end result of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s trip.”

In the Jornal do Brasil, Augusto Nunes said no visible deals were made: “How could he have excluded Saudi Arabia, Brazil’s biggest partner in the region? Why call Libyan tyrant, Muammar Kadaffi, a ‘friend?’ Kadaffi did not even allow meetings between executives of [Libya’s] state oil company and the president of Petrobrás.” (“Só o professor sabe de tudo,” 12/14/2003).

João Hermann, a congressman from the Popular Socialist Party (the former Brazilian Communist Party) and part of Lula’s retinue, emphasized the trip’s political nature: “We are setting foot here to throw the balance of forces in this region out of kilter” (Fernando Rodrigues, “Lula e ditador sírio pedem fim da ocupação do Iraque,” 12/5/2003).

Trip Criticized in Brazil and Abroad
Lula’s trip was criticized by the press as “a geo-political affront to Washington’s interests and a display of Third World mercantilism.” Analysts lambasted a “result-driven diplomacy” that tramples upon human rights.

Former Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Lafer did not mince words about the President’s trip. He said Lula’s diplomacy shows a desire to “play for the home crowd.” In an editorial on his statements, the newspaper O Estado de S. Paulo said: “It is not possible to revive the Third World movement ... What is possible, and even worse, as Celso Lafer warns, is to `transpose the labor union view of worker versus employer’ to foreign policy. In other words, seeking to foment ‘class struggle’ on an international scale” (“O que o Brasil quer e o que o Brasil pode,” 12/12/2003).

The Financial Times also criticized the president’s trip. Lula’s justification for meeting the region’s leaders, the paper said, was a “challenge” to the U.S. “Lula’s travels through the Middle East and his visit to Cuba have a political connotation” (“Risco para relação com os EUA,” Jornal do Brasil; “Financial Times vê risco para relações com EUA,” O Estado de S. Paulo; and “Visita de Lula traz ‘riscos políticos,’” Folha de S. Paulo, 12/4/2003).

Lula da Silva drags Mercosul into his diplomatic plans Former Argentine President Eduardo Duhalde is now president of Mercosul’s Commission of Permanent Representatives and participated in the official Brazilian Middle East caravan. The presence of President Nestor Kirchner’s political godfather on a trip to visit Arab dictatorships opposed to American policy in the region served to demonstrate a political willingness of Brazilian foreign policymakers to drag at least Argentina with it.

Lula’s trip also served to reiterate invitations for an unprecedented meeting in Brazil between Arab and South American heads of state. Yasser Arafat accepted one such invitation.

“If successful, the meeting between South Americans and Arabs will be one of the most audacious symbolic moves of Brazilian foreign policy under the PT leadership” (Fernando Rodrigues, “Lula planeja reunião de cúpula com árabes,” Folha de S. Paulo, 12/3/2003).

Syria’s hostility to the United States and Israel
President Lula da Silva started his trip with Syria. Bashar al-Assad’s strongly anti-American speech about Iraq and the Palestinian conflict made clear the political nature of the visit.

Presidents Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Bashar al-Assad issued a joint communiqué asking for the end of Iraq’s “occupation” and the return of the Golan Heights to Syria. Lula also vigorously defended the creation of a Palestinian state.

From the diplomatic standpoint, Lula da Silva’s visit to Syria took on a special symbolism. In an article in the Jerusalem Post, Nir Boms, a senior fellow at the Council for Democracy and Tolerance and Erick Stakelbeck, a head writer for the Investigative Project, a Washington-based counter terrorism research institute, stated:

Syria is known as a haven for Palestinian terrorists attacking Israel. By adopting Syria’s position in the dispute with Israel, Pres. Lula da Silva failed to condemn that brand of terrorism.

In its main editorial, the newspaper O Estado de S. Paulo emphasized this symbolic aspect of President Lula’s trip: “It started in Syria, which for many years has been on the list of states that sponsor terrorism and is accused of attempting to violate non-proliferation rules on chemical, biological and missile technology. It recently allowed Arab guerrillas to go into Iraq to attack American troops” (“Uma viagem inoportuna,” 12/5/2003).

Professor Denis Rosenfield of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, in an article titled “Principles and Products,” wrote: “The interesting datum is that the President made this kind of statement in Syria, a country governed by a hereditary dictatorship characterized by the systematic elimination of opponents. ... Furthermore, Syria militarily occupies Lebanon, which it has turned into a protectorate” (O Estado de S. Paulo, 12/15/2003).

Writing about the joint communiqué, journalist Eliane Cantanhêde emphasized the contradictions in Lula’s diplomacy: “Frankly, it looks like an unnecessary provocation. ... Or, if you will, pure ‘diplomatic machismo.’ A ‘machismo’ that was missing when Lula went in and out of Cuba in silence, disappointing those who expected him to condemn Fidel Castro’s political executions” (Eliane Cantanhêde, “O conteúdo certo no lugar errado,” Folha de S. Paulo, 12/5/2003).

Reactions to Lula’s visit
According to Paulo Sotero, Washington correspondent of O Estado de S. Paulo, Lula’s statement was not well received in the American capital: “An official source commented, ‘if he said something like asking for the end of Iraq’s occupation, that will be a big disappointment’ . . . He goes on to say Washington is beginning to look at Lula’s diplomacy with perplexity: “When you go to Cuba and talk about democracy and say nothing about the importance of respecting human rights, or when you go to Syria and call for a return of the Golan Heights but say nothing about the rights of Israel to have safe borders, you leave doubts as to what precisely you’re trying to accomplish,’ the source said” (“EUA acompanham viagem ao Oriente Médio com atenção,” 12/5/2003).

For his part, Israel’s ambassador to Brazil said: “Israel is in the Golan only because of the daily Syrian attacks coming from the area before 1967” (“Israel reage com cautela às posições de Lula,” O Estado de S. Paulo, 12/5/2003).

According to the Folha de S. Paulo, “there is a clear uneasiness among Jewish leaders regarding Lula’s statements in the Middle East. The president defended the creation of a Palestinian state and condemned settlements in the occupied territories without placing equal emphasis on terrorism against Israel” (“Sem outro lado,” 12/5/2003).

Changing “the world’s political and commercial geography”
In Beirut, Lula continued the Third World rhetoric of a North-South struggle by again criticizing the way rich countries protect their economies. He also said that “it is time for us to change the world’s commercial geography.” He said that change means “South America should look to the Arab world” (cf. Fernando Rodrigues, “No Líbano, Lula defende uma nova ‘geografia comercial,’” Folha de S. Paulo, 12/6/2003).

In the United Arab Emirates, Lula went even further and called for an ”aggressive” foreign policy to increase the influence of new regional blocs in the world market to counter the United States.

In Egypt, he held a private meeting with President Hosni Mubarak about the conflict in the Middle East. On his way out, he said he felt both he and Mubarak were in complete agreement.

Still in Cairo, Pres. Lula da Silva spoke to a plenary session of the Arab League (the first Latin American president to do so) and made a strong call for closer relations between South America and the Arab world: “We need to intensify our high level political contacts.” He also said a summit meeting between South America and the Arab world will be held in Brazil in the future and announced the reopening of the League’s diplomatic representation in Brasilia.

Lula da Silva also insisted on building a “new political and commercial geography for the world.” In the beginning of his international trip, the President spoke of “‘redesigning commercial geography.’ He has now broadened his scope for a ‘new political and commercial geography of the world,’” comments Fernando Rodrigues in Folha de S. Paulo. And he concludes: “It was kind of a more aggressive repetition of what Lula had already said in the Arab countries he first visited” (“Lula critica Bush e diz que a guerra do Iraque é um erro,” 12/10/2003).

During a luncheon for representatives of the Arab League’s 22 countries, Brazil’s President criticized Bush and the war in Iraq, surprising even Brazilian diplomats and members of his retinue, who sought to downplay his statements.

Meeting with “friends:” - Gadhafi, Ortega and Ben Bella
Lula’s visit to Libya was perhaps the most controversial part of his trip. The Libyan government gave him a warm reception. “In the ‘tent’ of the Libyan president, Lula took the initiative of giving Gadhafi a fraternal and warm handshake” (Denise Chrispim Marin, “Petróleo é o tema na polêmica visita a Kadafi,” O Estado de S. Paulo, 12/10/2003).

Veiling the ideological nature of his meeting with Gadhafi, Lula thus sought to justify his visit: “Today, as president of Brazil, I never forget those who were my friends before I became president” (“Lula tenta explicar visita a ditador,” 12/11/2003). According to the Jornal do Brasil, Lula met with two other leftist leaders during the dinner, Daniel Ortega and Ahmed Ben Bella.

The newspaper O Estado de S. Paulo added: “Lula also mentioned another meeting in Libya that took place back in 1982 when he already presided over PT. In that meeting, he recalled he had already received ‘good teachings’ from Gadhafi, Ortega, Ben Bella and Yasser Arafat” (Denise Chrispim Marin, “Kadafi não aprova plano de integração de Lula,” O Estado de S. Paulo, 12/11/2003). The press said Lula treated former guerrilla fighters Ortega and Ben Bella with special deference.

The trip’s ideological purpose
Professor Denis Lerrer Rosenfield noted: “Nothing happens by chance in a well-organized diplomatic trip. Symbols speak for themselves. Around the same dining table were gathered our president, dictator Gadhafi, Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega, and Algerian leader Ben Bella . . . Prompted to clarify the reason for his participation, Lula is reported to have answered that he does not abandon his ‘friends.’ Castro and Chavez are also his friends. So the question is: why are so many dictators and revolutionaries among his friends? Isn’t there something strange going on here?” (“Princípios e produtos,” O Estado de S. Paulo, 12/15/2003).

Demetrio Magnoli, a sociologist and doctor in human geography, said Libya’s inclusion in the presidential trip is not justified: “This visit has taken on a symbolic character of fraternizing with the dictator. It lends an image of legitimacy to that dictatorial regime.” And he added: “The interests of this trip do not correspond to the national interest, but to ideological interests of PT.”

José Augusto Guilhon, coordinator of the Center of International Relations at the University of Sao Paulo, said Lula profited from his visit to Gadhafi “from an ideological standpoint” (cf. “Encontro com Kadaffi causa polêmica,” Jornal do Brasil, 12/11/2003).

According to Arthur Ituassú, professor at the Institute of International Relations (IRI) of Rio de Janeiro’s Pontifical Catholic University, the visit to the Middle East, and particularly Libya, is “an explicit show of the Brazilian government’s anti-Americanism.”

Yasser Arafat uses Lula’s trip
As Brazil’s leftist government cozied up to dictatorial regimes and terrorist-sponsoring states, Yasser Arafat (who the U.S. and Israel often accuse of promoting Palestinian terrorism) saw Lula’s trip to the Middle East as an opportunity to end his international isolation. As part of this tactic, Arafat decided to invite Brazil to join a special task force.

According to the press, the invitation from the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) is a calculated political gamble to create a group of countries interested in the “Palestinian cause” to force some decisions on the Group of Four (the United States, the European Union, the U.N. and Russia) regarding the “road map,” and show Arafat’s displeasure at the way the United States leads the Group of Four.

In Egypt, PNA’s Nabil Shaath met with President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva for almost an hour. He gave him a letter signed by Yasser Arafat. In the letter Arafat asks the Brazilian government to continue supporting the Palestinian cause as Brazil fills a non-permanent slot at the U.N. Security Council. Arafat also reaffirmed his friendship for Lula. The two have been longtime friends and have met several times in the past.

Brasil is supposed to open a diplomatic office or embassy in Ramallah, another indication of Lula’s rapprochement with Arafat.

Lula did not visit Israel, yet contacted the PNA. Curiously enough, diplomats in the Lula da Silva government continued to claim that Brazil remains “impartial” vis-à-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Lula’s muted reaction to the arrest of Saddam Hussein
The reaction of the Brazilian government to the arrest of Saddam Hussein was also revealing.

Lula made no comment on the matter. Itamaraty merely said the arrest “represents a turning point in the Iraqi situation” that will “contribute to accelerate the Iraqi people’s transition to self-government.”

According to the Reuters news agency, Marco Aurélio Garcia, presidential aide for international affairs, had earlier called Saddam’s arrest the “end of the symbol of resistance.” He added: ”I believe the arrest will accelerate the peace process in Iraq; this is the end of the symbol of resistance. The head has been decapitated.”

The Brazilian reaction appears to show uneasiness with the dictator’s imprisonment. At no moment was there a censure of Saddam’s regime or an expression of congratulations for his arrest: only a cold reckoning of a change in direction. By calling Saddam the head of the “resistance,” the presidential aide ends up by legitimizing the terrorist attacks that kill coalition troops and a large number of Iraqis and hinder the pacification of the country.

Furthermore, official statements from Brazilian diplomacy always show a desire to make coalition forces leave Iraq.

The reaction of Brazil’s leftist government to Saddam’s arrest was very similar to that of the Syrian government.

It's not suprising that Brazil feels the need to have a neo-totalitarian law against "showing disrespect for authorities" when it gives such disrespectable forms of coup-bait authority.

Brazil has the potential to be a real economic power if it would ever embrace free enterprise. Ironically, its held back from doing so by socialists who hate America. As a result, we have one less competitor.

-Eric

Sounds like amatuer night in the Sountern Hemisphere. Lula is hooking up with a bunch of characters on the downside of the historical trend.

I can understand the intuitive attraction of one wannabe Castro to the thugocracies; lefties always support the dictator and tyrant against the people. But I can't understand how Lula and gang have arrived at the conclusion that they have the political muscle, diplomatic clout and economic power to form any competitive commercial alliance with the Middle East. Especially if the US and the EU say "Uh-uh".

In the end, it looks like Lula will just be another in a long line of failed South American leaders who promise the poor the world and only take them farther down into poverty.

The goal of the Brazilian president is actually to increase exports of Brazilian goods. Arab countries have always bought Brazilian agricultural products and Brazilian weapons. Brazil also wants a permanent seat in the security council. To obtain that Brazil needs to become a voice for other 3rd world countries and particularly needs to be respect accross the board. The dislike the Latin American left has for America is understandable. It goes back to the US policy of overthrowing democratically elect governments and replacing them with military non elected dictatorships. Lula however has developed good friendly relations with George w bush. The US president meets with friendly dictators all the time. Consider Uzbekistan for instance...a place much like Iraq used to be. A dictator that places statues and pictures of himself everywhere. He is ruthless...and imprisons people for handing out literature. He is an ally of America on the war on terror...ironic since he himself is a leader of a terrorist state. It is so hard to talk about morality in foreign relations when all countries ultimately act guided by selfish reasons...including us.

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.