Untitled - the ultimate blog

international institutions and the world economy are run.
The critics see in some aspects of the government’s diplomacy an implicit anti-Americanism. Lula got on
well with George Bush even while disagreeing with many of his policies. Brazil’s relations with the United
States are correct, but oddly distant. Lula retains a soft spot for Cuba, perhaps because Fidel Castro
helped him and his party when they were struggling against a military regime which, at its outset at least,
had American backing.
But the anti-Americanism comes from some aides more than from the president himself. He has promoted
ultranationalists within Itamaraty. He gave responsibility for South America to Marco Aurélio Garcia, the
foreign-relations guru of his Workers’ Party. This was one of Lula’s many balancing acts, compensating his
left-wing base for its disappointment that he ignored them on economic policy.
Brazil has successfully led the UN mission to stabilise Haiti. But in Lula’s first term his advisers seemed to
think they could integrate South America, against the United States and from the left. Several South
American countries do not share their anti-Americanism. (One former Lula adviser derides them as “boy
scouts” and as the equivalent of the collaborationist Vichy regime in wartime France.)
Brazil embraced Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela, inviting it to join the Mercosur trade block. The naivety of this
approach became apparent when Bolivia, at Mr Chávez’s urging, nationalised the local operations of
Petrobras, Brazil’s state-controlled oil company. In what has been called the “diplomacy of generosity”
towards left-wing governments in its smaller neighbours, Brazil agreed to pay more for Bolivian gas. Last
month it similarly agreed to pay Paraguay more for electricity from Itaipu, the hydroelectric dam they
share.
By common consent, policy towards South America has become more pragmatic in Lula’s second term. In
particular, Brazil’s relations with Colombia have improved. Brazilian diplomats say privately that their aim
is to contain and moderate Mr Chávez. But Lula has often seemed to endorse him. Would Brazil ever
criticise Mr Chávez for endangering democracy? “It’s not the way we work,” says Mr Amorim. “It’s not by
being a loudspeaker that you change things.” Yet Brazilian officials were not shy about criticising
Colombia’s military agreement with the United States.
Their critics argue that Brazil should seek to integrate South America on the basis of rules, rather than
political sympathy, and that by proclaiming regional leadership it risks becoming the target of regional
grievance. They also question the utility of UNASUL and its first project, a South American Defence
Council. “To defend against what?” asks Mr Cardoso. Brazil’s armed forces did not propose the defence
council, nor do they see the American presence in Colombia as a threat. “The United States isn’t attacking
Latin America. Chávez threatens, he’s not being threatened,” says Mr Cardoso.
Copyright © 2009 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.
-37-