Between the lines: International Politics

This week, I will feature several analysis of current affairs in Brazil, trying to really get to the heart of the matter that the mainstream international media isn't necessarily reporting.

First and foremost, Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad is meeting with President Lula in Brasilia today, after delaying a trip several months ago. His visit has been met with protests across Brazil, including major ones in Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, as well as criticism from the international community. After all, Ahmadinejad came out the victor of a fraudulent election wrought with bloody protests, is a proud anti-Semite and Holocaust denier, and a virulent homophobe--not to mention his regime hardly respects human rights or democracy.

Jornal Nacional interviewed Ahmadinejad in Iran last week, and the reporter (who could really use some English lessons) asked about certain issues, including the Holocaust and homosexuality, but mostly softballed the rest of the questions. Despite a few loony answers (including one declaring that capitalism is evil but he'd just love to trade with Brazil, which is definitely not changing its capitalist system anytime soon), Ahmadinejad come off looking like an affable guy. He certainly made a conserted bunda-kissing effort towards Brazilians, complimenting their soccer players and sucking up to the viewing public.

It seems that Lula has decided that given Brazil's relatively new position as a world leader and his fame as a diplomat and one of the world's "most well-liked" politicians, he should take on one of the most difficult international challenges that exist: the Middle East crisis. The president of Israel recently visited to discuss commercial ties (and also to preempt the Iranian president's visit, though he claims he doesn't oppose the visit), and the Palestinian leader was also recently in Brazil. What came out of both visits was Lula taking the side of Palestine, criticizing new Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory and calling for the US to let the UN take over as the mediator of the conflict. This is in line with his politics and his belief that he is the leader of the so-called Third World, since throughout his administration he has made a point to speak on behalf of developing countries and to defend their interests.

But agreeing to meet with Ahmadinejad in Brazil to discuss commercial and nuclear agreements is an incredible gamble and a seemingly naive move. The Iranian leader, who has not been cooperative with the UN on nuclear issues, wants to work with Brazil on nuclear development, which is an obvious red flag for other world leaders who have relationships with Brazil. Ahmadinejad has made clear who his enemies are (the US, Israel, and anyone who is firmly allied with either one), and by taking an us versus them stance, becoming Brazil's ally will ultimately not be favorable to Brazil. Becoming friends with a pariah doesn't necessarily make you a diplomat; it makes you sympathetic to someone no one else is sympathetic to, and it legitimizes the person as a leader. [I'd like to imagine what would have happened if leaders had treated Bush like Ahmadinejad in 2000, since they share several qualities in that they came to power through election fraud and love bombing stuff. I wonder how things could have been different if the world refused to recognize his legitimacy.]

Two experts explained their views on the visit in two articles featured on Brazzil.com:

Ricardo Caldas, from the University of Brasilia's Political Science department:

"The Iranian president is turning into an international pariah. Iran is going in the same direction of North Korea: they are countries that either carry out genocide or are totalitarian or disregard human rights, persecute the opposition and rig the elections. Brazil doesn't have any reason to get closer to a country with these characteristics." 

Representative Eliot Engel, a New York Democrat Congressman:

"This is a gross mistake for a respected president of a respected country. To elevate Ahmadinejad, when he represses his own people, denies the Holocaust, says he'll wipe Israel off the map - it shows Brazil isn't ready to be taken seriously as a world player."

The Americas Society's Eric Farnsworth also weighed in:

Lula's defense is that his goal is to discuss peace and to prove Brazil's ability as a diplomat, able to meet with and negotiate with everyone. But he also made a vague mention of discussing "those who seek to profit" from war in the Middle East, which would seem like the US. This finger-pointing does not fit into another speculation, that Lula is hoping to expand his diplomatic ties to parlay a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. Nevertheless, Lula has been cautious with other "friendships" with rogue rulers like Chavez and the Castros, and an invitation to Brasilia for someone like Ahmadinejad is a big deal and from a political perspective, potentially disastrous.

The bottom line is that befriending a ruler no one is willing to even acknowledge is a very big gamble. Brazil has just managed to take its place in the international spotlight as a country with political and economic clout, and this particular event seems to be a power move more so than an intelligent diplomatic play. Lula is thumbing his nose at the US and other Western powers, trying to say that he is capable of something they are not (supposed diplomacy) but really picked the wrong person to try this move with. Brazil may be a world power now, but with power comes responsibility.

UPDATE: Excellent NYT article from today with a lot of the same information here, albeit a bit more optimistic. Another article on Brazil's defense here.

Comments

[ED]

Por Partes:

- Eleições fraudulentas? Isso só existe no Irã, não é mesmo? Nos Estados Unidos isso nunca ocorreu.

- Protestos por TODO o Brasil? Um aqui e outro ali. Talvez por ignorância ou por uma singela sensatêz de esperar o que possa acontecer. Mas isso, nem eu nem você saberemos responder.

- A voz de poucos simpatizantes estadonidenses, não compreedem a opinião popular. No popular inclusive, pode até existir algo contra o presidente iraniano, mas com toda certeza existe muito mais sobre o seu país.

- Israel e EUA vão ficar de mal com o Brasil porque o Brasil vai negociar com o Irã???? Não fale besteira! Uma coisa é ter um procedimento para com inimigos, e outra é perder dinheiro. Ficar de mal com o Brasil é perder dinheiro e dinheiro fala mais alto.

- Ricardo Caldas está ligado a partidos contrários aos do Presidente. falar mal de tudo que ele faz (Lula), quando logo irão se realizar eleições é de praxe.

[twitter.com/AndrewComings]

Once again you have provided an outstanding analysis. The only thing I can think of to add is that I believe the international community will ultimately see Lula's inability to stand up to Chavez (even when Brazilian interests are clearly at stake) and his kowtowing to Amadinejad as first and foremost signs of weakness...not strength.

[Neil]

Thanks for illustrating a key problem for most leftist leaders (including Obama). Unfortunately, appeasment is not a viable option. Entertaining the Iranian president is a serious mistake that can only be a setback for Brazil as it tries to assume a global leadership role.

[lua]

Thanks for writing about this. Very concerning, could seriously hurt Brazil's relations with other countries. Lula really needs to think about the long term consequences. I would equate Mahmud Ahmadinejad with Kim Jong-il. Hugo Chavez, as well...

[Tim]

I think you're dead-on with your analysis of the risks of what Lula is doing. However, I have to take exception to what you say about comparing Bush to Ahmadinejad. I'm no Bush fan, but he never rigged an election, never used military force against his own citizens and didn't perpetuate himself in power illegally. It diminishes how bad and dangerous people like Ahmadinejad are when you compare them to Bush like that, even with his obvious faults.

[Ricardo A.K.]

I really feel compel to defend Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran a little... sorry for the bad english.

First of all, he never stated that he was anti-semite. He actually aknowledged judaism and cristianism as two a great religions that need to be respected ( youtube watch?v=rE8VDwsuYms )

The elections are accused to be fraudulent, but the only proves that we have comes from international media, and more than one time it proved to be not a reliable source of information. Iran government also gave us a lot of pretty good excuses, and everyone is just ignoring them.

With the holocaust statement he actually meant to improve studies about holocaust, more specifically about how the jews of europe received a state at expense of palestinians that inhabitated the region.

Iran was cooperative with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and it did not found anything that "incriminates" that country. Germany, France, United Kingdom and United States are the ones who are not satisfied with this resolution (Iran could indeed give some more garantees that it will not develop nuclear weapons)(personally I think that it wants the same position of Israel in that matter).

And well, he is a fanatic, homophobic (just like most of the world population) that do not recognizes Israel sovereignity... yes, he is, and if he was not, he probally would be kicked out of his position by the supreme leader of Iran =D

It's undeniable that Iran's government is being too much violent in enforcing it's influence over the iranians, however with little research one could easily find a lot of contemporary regimes way more brutal than Iran's, and in even greater economies. With little research one could easily find a lot of ridiculous statements made by leaders of the world (I think that denying the holocaust is just as absurd as the "blue eyed"-thing that Lula said, for example). The only reason why Iran is being persecuted is because it's acting against the will of western powers, is big enough to cause trouble, but too small to be left without punishment.

Now about Brazil =D ( wiki/List_of_diplomatic_missions_of_Brazil ) Well, there's not a lot to say. The brazilian government will approach any country if there's any advantagens in doing so. Most if not all countries in the world do business that way, there's no need to give examples =/

[anonima]

lula é doido ao receber almadinejad.

[furetosan]

Well, if you're reading this comment, please make sure to include into your analysis that this reporter has strong links to Lula's opposition. He's trying to use Ahmadinejad to make Lula look bad. Don't be silly to think otherwise.

[Luciana Ribeiro]

Diplomacia é isso. Falar com quem quer que seja. Isolar qualquer líder, em especial este líder iraniano, é mais perigoso do que conversar com ele. A vinda dele ao Brasil não quer dizer que necessariamente irá acontecer qualquer maior aproximação. E se vier a acontecer, quem é os EUA pra dar opinião nisso? Um país que sempre se aliou ao que fosse do seu interesse e que desse mais dinheiro pode falar de quem? Qual o plano do governo dos EUA para o Irã? Ignorá-lo até que o problema atinja proporções irremediáveis e não exista outra opção senão a invasão? Acredito que suas opiniões estão muito enraizadas na maneira de os americanos verem o mundo. Essa maneira nunca foi nem será a mais realista e, principalmente, a mais sensata. É fácil culpar o governo brasileiro, em especial ao Lula que carrega toda culpa do mundo, por essa aproximação. Como pode uma pessoa que votou em presidentes americanos condenar um país por ter interesses econômicos? Temos ai todas as guerras pra mostrar que isso não é uma caracteristica apenas do Brasil. Eu acho que suas opiniões são algumas vezes levianas e eu tenho pena que talvez algum americano, que já mora no mundo da lua, acredite que essas análises são aprofundadas.

[Paula LP]

Ricardo A.K

A man who says that wants to wipe Israel of the Map is not an anti-Semite? Come on.

I really don’t believe that most of the world population has the same opinion about the gays as he does. Most of the people can not see gays with good eyes, but they don’t use to say that they are sick and that they’re dangerous for humanity. This is an absurd!!!

Ricardo A.K, do you really believe that the nuclear issue in Iran has just pacific goals? Do you?

You’re trying to minimize Iran’s violence problems comparing it with other counties, but the point here is Ahmadinejad and Iran, and the fact that other dictators act with violence doesn’t make it less absurd in Iran. Have you heard something about Neda Soltani ????? Sure you did.

Paula Pedrosa

[Paula LP]

Forgot to apologize about my bad English. As William Wack (from Jornal da Globo who did the interview) I need to take some English classes.

Para Luciana Ribeiro: Eu acredito que a vinda deste homem ao Brasil significa sim uma aproximação absolutamente desnecessária com. Um fascínora que não resolve seus problemas com diálogo e sim com violência brutal, assassina, que mata pessoas pelo simples fato de serem de outra religião, de serem gays, ou porque simplesmente não concordam com seu governo (veja vídeo de Neda Soltani no youtube), um homem que quer varrer uma nação do mapa e que diz isso claramente, que patrocina o Hamas e os Aiatolás (conhecidos terroristas) não merece receber honras de nenhum político democrático do mundo!!!!
Ele é boicotado por todos os governos democráticos de todos os grandes e mais importantes países do mundo, só foi convidado a vir para o Brasil com sua comitiva de 150 empresários para fazer negócios; puro interesse comercial, ou você acredita mesmo que Lula tem a pretensão de mudar a cabeça de Ahmadinejad? Se bem que nunca me atrevo a duvidar das pretensões de Lula... “nunca antes na história destepaiz...”
Lula é assim, é amigo De Hugo Chavez, de Evo Moralez, de Rafael Correa, Daniel Ortega e muito pior, de Kadhafi, da Líbia, e Omar al Bashir (ditador do Sudão que já matou mais de 300.000 pessoas).

Lamentável a política externa deste país, meu país.