Globaphobic Vote in Brazil could alter political map of region

Miami Herald ^ | April 4, 2002 | Andres Oppenheimer: The Oppenheimer Report

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Vote in Brazil could alter political map of region

If you think that the Bush administration has problems in Latin America with the latest crises in Argentina, Colombia and Venezuela, think about what it may face if Brazil's leftist candidate Luiz Inacio ''Lula'' da Silva wins this year's presidential elections in the region's biggest country.

For starters, a Brazilian move to the left could pave the way for a South American nationalist-populist bloc -- that could also include Venezuela and Argentina -- that would strongly oppose the U.S.-backed plan to create a Free Trade Area of the Americas by 2005. Conceivably, the new ''globaphobic'' bloc could strengthen ties with Cuba, and with Colombia's Marxist guerrillas.

U.S. CONSENSUS

While the consensus in U.S. diplomatic circles has been that Lula would not win against a more conservative candidate if there is a runoff election, the latest polls from Brazil have raised eyebrows. The standard answer from U.S. officials has shifted from ''Lula is unlikely to win'' to ``it can't be ruled out.''

''It's becoming increasingly evident that the election is up in the air,'' says William Perry, a former member of President Bush's transition team's Latin American advisory group who is writing a report on Brazil's elections for the conservative-leaning Center of Strategic and International Studies in Washington. ``I happen to think that Lula has as many chances, if not more, than any other of the three major candidates.''

The latest poll, released this week by Brazil's Vox Populi firm, shows that Lula has 30 percent of the vote, up from the 26 percent he had on March 21. Lula, the candidate of the Workers Party, is followed by government-backed former Health Minister José Serra, with 19 percent, Maranhao state governor Roseana Sarney with 14 percent, and Rio de Janeiro province Gov. Anthony Garotinho with 14 percent.

Granted, we have seen that movie many times. Lula was ahead in the polls in three previous presidential elections, and lost them. Like Mexico's perennial leftist candidate Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas, Lula has been unable to win the moderate vote and widen his support.

But now, a growing minority of influential Brazil watchers in Washington says things may change. There are several reasons why he has a good chance of winning the Oct. 6 primary election and has an even chance to win a possible second-round election scheduled for Oct. 27, they say.

First, Lula's disapproval rates have fallen from about 50 percent in the last elections to about 40 percent. In the event of a second-round election, where the winner of more than half the votes becomes the president, the drop in Lula's disapproval rate to below fifty percent could be a good omen for the leftist candidate.

Second, in a runoff election Lula would probably win the leftist votes that in the latest polls have gone to Garotinho, and center-leftist candidate Ciro Gomes.

Third, a corruption scandal involving Sarney, whose husband's offices were raided by police in a move widely believed designed to discredit the governor and help her government-backed rival Serra, has brought about a major rift in the center-left coalition that helped current president Fernando Henrique Cardoso win the past two elections. There is so much bad blood between the two sides that the government coalition may be beyond repair.

Fourth, while Lula continues to make pilgrimages to Cuba and to claim that the U.S.-backed hemispheric free trade deal is a U.S. attempt to ''annex'' Latin America, some influential observers feel he may be moving toward the center.

Two former top State Department officials told me in separate interviews this week that a Lula victory would not necessarily lead to radical changes in Brazil, or in South America.

POTENTIAL SETBACK

''I don't think anybody in Washington hopes Lula will win, [because] it would be a potential setback for the process of integration,'' says Bernard Aronson, former head of the State Department's Latin American affairs office. ''But there have been lots of populist-sounding candidates who once in office, faced with the realities of global finances, have pursued different options.'' Likewise, Peter Romero, who led the State Department's Latin American affairs office until his retirement last year, told me that ``I don't think the Brazilians can afford not to be part of the Free Trade Area of the Americas, even with Lula. There would be concern, and a period of uncertainty -- but the reality of office makes a big difference.''

Maybe so. But because of Brazil's weight in the region, a Lula victory would change Latin America's political map, and the Bush administration's headaches will multiply.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Thank you for the insight. It sounds like Lula and Venezuela's Chavez, are like two peas in a communist pod.

[rightwing2]

If you think that the Bush administration has problems in Latin America with the latest crises in Argentina, Colombia and Venezuela, think about what it may face if Brazil's leftist candidate Luiz Inacio ''Lula'' da Silva wins this year's presidential elections in the region's biggest country.

Having lived in Brazil for two years, I know that Lula is running once again as the candidate of a popular front which includes not only his own Workers' Party, but the two Brazilian Communist parties as well. He is the Communist front candidate and he is the leading contender favored to win the Presidency of Brazil in October.

For starters, a Brazilian move to the left could pave the way for a South American nationalist-populist bloc -- that could also include Venezuela and Argentina...Conceivably, the new ''globaphobic'' bloc could strengthen ties with Cuba, and with Colombia's Marxist guerrillas.

This is the real danger, an alliance of Communist nations in the Western Hemisphere which includes not only Cuba andVenezeula, but also Brazil and Columbia. From there, the rest of Latin America, beginning with Panama and Nicaragua could fall like a series of dominoes to the Castro's Communist revolutions. Losing Brazil to the Communists would be a loss that the US could not recover from anytime soon. It would force us to retool our entire foreign policy and change our main focus from the Eurasian subcontinent to Latin America with a concomittant redeployment of forces to the South American theater of operations (SOCOM).

But now, a growing minority of influential Brazil watchers in Washington says things may change. There are several reasons why he has a good chance of winning the Oct. 6 primary election and has an even chance to win a possible second-round election scheduled for Oct. 27, they say... Second, in a runoff election Lula would probably win the leftist votes that in the latest polls have gone to Garotinho, and center-leftist candidate Ciro Gomes... Third...There is so much bad blood between the two sides that the government coalition may be beyond repair...

These are the two factors in this race which make a Lula Communist front presidential victory much more likely than during the last 3 elections, which he nearly one. The non-Communist government led opposition is heavily divided and the supporters of two other leftist presidential candidate could put him over the top in the presidential runoff.

Fourth, while Lula continues to make pilgrimages to Cuba...Two former top State Department officials told me in separate interviews this week that a Lula victory would not necessarily lead to radical changes in Brazil, or in South America...

Sure, I guess strengthening ties with Communist Cuba and the Communist FARC guerillas fighting to conquer Columbia do not constitute radical foreign policy changes for Brazil in the eyes of Foggy Bottom's "expert" braniacs and the DIA briefers who briefed me on my OSD trip to Brazilia last month.

But because of Brazil's weight in the region, a Lula victory would change Latin America's political map, and the Bush administration's headaches will multiply.

[DoughtyOne]

I don't think it would be a good idea for this guy to win. As for FreeTrade of the Americas, that's an idea that will facilitate the desolution of our borders a completely caotic development. Self determination will deminish as a result of this plan. If this guy wins in Brazil, we better damned well pray that a FTOTA does not come to fruition! Because if it does, Brazil will be helping to develop the laws that govern our nation, as part of the American Union that is destined to follow.

[rightwing2]

I don't think it would be a good idea for this guy to win. As for FreeTrade of the Americas, that's an idea that will facilitate the desolution of our borders a completely caotic development. Self determination will deminish as a result of this plan. If this guy wins in Brazil, we better damned well pray that a FTOTA does not come to fruition! Because if it does, Brazil will be helping to develop the laws that govern our nation, as part of the American Union that is destined to follow.

Absolutely correct, except the irony here is a Lula victory would prevent an American Union arrangement from including Brazil and would help defeat Bush's Free Trade of the America's initiatives. The reason is what I stated before. Today, we have two competing power-blocs trying to forge their own visions of the New World Order. One a socialist one-world government championed by the US and its allies and the other a socialist one-world government ruled by the Sino-Russian axis of nations. If Lula wins, Brazil would join the Sino-Russian alliance for global government, not the US-led one. Bush will be the downfall of this nation yet. He is doing a lot of long-term damage to our national security which will be difficult to undue which is very ironic considering he is still widely perceived as strong on national security issues.

[rightwing2]

The man is a complete communist nut. His party is called the PT, the "Worker's Party". Their symbol is a red star with a yellow PT in it. During the first election Lula caught flak for appearing on TV with a red band by his name instead of green and yellow, the national colors.

Absolutely correct. Please see my Post #4 for more. I was also in Brazil when the first presidential elections were held in 1989 after President Sarney retired. Lula lost that vote by ONLY FOUR PERCENTAGE POINTS and this was at the height of the Cold War! This election is also going to prove a squeaker. Unfortunately, given the present electoral trends in Brazil, it looks like it might be Lula pulling off the squeaker victory this time. I am supporting the government's center-right candidate, Jose Serra and I think Bush should endorse his candidacy as well and talk about the great importance he places on forging a new relationship with Brazil based on full equality and the improvement of bilateral relations across the board.

[DoughtyOne]

Yep. You're right on all counts.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Today, we have two competing power-blocs trying to forge their own visions of the New World Order. One a socialist one-world government championed by the US and its allies and the other a socialist one-world government ruled by the Sino-Russian axis of nations. If Lula wins, Brazil would join the Sino-Russian alliance for global government, not the US-led one.

Since Bush isn't a socialist, I'll opt for the Bush plan.

[rightwing2]

You have to be very careful about giving the impression of foreign meddling in an election. Would Tony Blair's endorsement of Al Gore have helped him? Or would people resent the intrusion? In particular given the hostility to the US in certain quarters an open endorsement could seriously hurt a candidate.

Well, that is true and I guess the US can't buy the Brazilian election as it did in Yugoslavia either. Interestingly, Al Gore was endorsed by Russia and China and he got more votes than Bush did. What is your policy prescription for helping Jose Serra defeat the threat of a Lula victory resulting in a de-facto Communization of our great Brazilian ally?

[rightwing2]

Since Bush isn't a socialist, I'll opt for the Bush plan.

No, Bush is not a socialist, but he is an avowed globalist and he is pushing for first a regional and later a global government with his attempt to get every country in the Western Hemisphere to join together in his Free Trade of the Americas arrangement which will further sacrifice US economic independence and sovereignity to control of Latin America. Bush's plan of course is intended to eventually lead to a North American Union and later an American Union similar to compliment the European Union established in 1992. This would first be an economic union with a common currency and later would become a political union in which the very independence and sovereignity of the United States of America was permanently sacrificed to a socialistic regional and/or global government. Bad news for the US anyone you try to spin it.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Let me guess, you're a "go pat go" disciple.

[DoughtyOne]

Globalist = Socialist

Don't kid yourself for one minute.  The EU model gives supreme control to the state.  It does not even allow criticism of the state.  The EU has made it a crime to criticize the EU.  An AU would act the same way.  Neither would allow the leaders to answer directly to the people.

This is Socialism.  It's about as close as you can get to Facism without a dictator.  In effect it would be Facism by committee.

Facism is described by Websters as:

A governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, focibly supressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an agressive nationalism and often racism.

If this doesn't describe the EU I don't know what does.  It's leadership is not elected.  It's leadership has absolute power.  It outlaws discent.  It regiments all industry and commerce.  It is fast becoming an agressive entity that verges on racism.  Note that Israel is blamed for defending itself.  It has come under attack, hundreds of it's citizens killed without provocation.  Now Jewish concerns in Europe are under attack.  The EU's only reaction is to trash Israel, not the terrorists.  What is this if not racsim?

People need to wake up and smell the stench.

The dictionary goes on to describe a facist.  A facist is a person that supports Facism.  Give that some thougt folks.

[DoughtyOne]

Rather than directly address your comment on someone being a Go Pat Go person, I'll ask you a question. What would posess you to support polices that will lead to an AU? The AU will be modeled after the EU. Neither provide for a representative form of government. Both neuter individual state sovereignty. The EU even forbids citizens to make a critical statement about it in public. Do you find this to be a plan our forefathers would support?

[Caipirabob]

Oi TGP! Boa vinda a FreeRepublic!

Tenho muito prazer ver um Brasileiro aqui!

Nao, sou um caipira Americano, mas aprende como falar Portuguese muito anos atras desde algumas mulheres (Carioca, Paulista e outros sabores.)

Mulheres Brasileiras...quem pode comer so uma, neh?

OK, better stop that. I would be sad to see Brasil sway to the left again, they have been doing so well since I first went there in '92. I think the comparable inflation rate was something like 300%. Cruzeiros, Cruzados and Real now, but they've been relatively stable since 1994.

More socialist/leftist economic scheme would really be a blow to the people there. I hope for the sake of my friends that they won't believe all the free handouts this guys is going to promise during the next election.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

DO I don't equate free trade with countries in our hemisphere akin to belonging to the EU. Would you object if we had a trading partnership, say with Britain?

[DoughtyOne]

Do I object to traditional trade with ANYONE? No. Do I object to a Free Trade of the Americas concept? Yes. These new trade agreements come with tens of thousands of pages of regulations that address issues far afield from trade.

NAFTA is an agreement that is in excess of 30,000 pages. Some of those pages cover issues of police activity giving Mexican and US police the right to co-police each other's territory for a certain distance on both sides of the border. What has that to do with trade? This isn't the only negative issue related to NAFTA.

These are sold as a free trade pacts. Tell me, what sounds like freedom that requires 30,000 pages to define what freedom is? Rather than freedom, these are the most restrictive forms of agreements every devised. And those restrictions go far afield of trade.

I also feel that these agreements are but a step on the road toward an AU. Open borders and other issues are certain to be a part of these agreements.

[rightwing2]

Let me guess, you're a "go pat go" disciple.

Actually, I used to be. Let me guess, you are a blind Bush supporting liberal who thinks that his signing of the Democrat Incumbent Protection Bill which will destroy the Republican Congressional majority for all time by criminalizing political speech by pro-life and pro-gun groups while empowering unions and the liberal media was some sort of ground of brilliant grand strategy which is too complex for Bush's increasingly alienated conservative Republican base to understand? Am I right?

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Indeed, the devil can be found in the fine details. The lawyers and the accountants will be the death of us yet.
However, perhaps we'll fare better than the doom and gloom being forecast and reported by isolationists.