There have been a few interesting articles about Brazil in the news this past week, and if you didn't have the chance to see them, take a look. The best, by far, is the Washington Post story.
"A penguin? On Ipanema Beach? The creature was just a few feet away from
me and moving in my direction. For a moment, I had the illusion it was
staring back at me. Yes, a penguin. I looked behind me in search of
witnesses, sensing that an event of this sort merited a wider audience." (NYT)
"Mr. Luz, the son of a hospital clerical worker and a hairdresser, is
charming, friendly, sincere and hard-working. As his star has rocketed
upward, he has shown one of the qualities of a great New York: the
ability to use the opportunities presented to their fullest." (NYT)
"Paulo Roberto Vieira stumbled into the Brazilian consulate on L Street NW, bedraggled, nearly broke and at the end of his rope.
Dressed in a battered black leather jacket and scuffed black jeans, he
told consular officials an almost unbelievable story: He had ridden his
motorcycle from his home town in southern Brazil to Washington, an
18,000-mile quest for official recognition of his life's proudest work,
an automobile accessory he said he invented." (Washington Post)
Brazil received a huge boost in its international image with its selection as the host of the 2016 Olympics, but it was really just the cherry on top of the overall recognition of the country's ascension to the ranks of one of the world's most important countries. Now, as it finally takes its place on the world scene, there has been a great deal of concern about what kind of image Brazil hopes to project, now that the world is really paying attention.
There are signs of positive change. The Economist featured Brazil in a special edition, lauding the country for its economic, political, and social progress and essentially deeming it a country to be taken seriously, the "country of the future" that has finally arrived. Though the set of articles did mention some of Brazil's challenges, it mostly focused on its successes, specifically in finance, investment, banking, and other macroeconomic areas. The international media has given its blessing to Brazil, advertising progress made in diplomacy, governance, and the economy.
But there's a lot more to the big picture. Even though Brazil has been very successful fighting poverty, it still has a long way to go; it moved up but is still only 75th on the Human Development Index ranking, falling behind Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Mexico, Cuba and even Venezuela. Despite the fact that international businesses are now salivating over Brazilian consumers, who are buying all sorts of products at unprecedented rates due to rising salaries and access to credit, they seem to be echoing American consumers before the crisis. Since they can buy expensive items like TVs and cars by paying in installments, consumer debt is high; a recent study showed that 64% of consumers plan to use year-end bonuses to pay off debt. And all you have to do is take a ride around any big city in Brazil to see how poverty still holds an iron grip on major metropolitan areas.
Still, these issues are clearly areas where Brazil is making great progress. One hurdle Brazil is having trouble with is its image abroad. While the US incredibly became to the world's most admired country after the 2008 elections, Brazil stayed at #20 and scored highest in the area of culture. The truth of the matter is that most non-Brazilians view the country as an eternal party and not necessarily as a "serious" country. Tourists flock to its seaside cities for the beach and expectations of experiencing Carnival, whether or not it's the actual holiday. Rio de Janeiro is largely what outsiders expect of the entire country (that, or a jungle) and have very ingrained stereotypes about Brazil's party reputation. That's the only reason I can imagine that Rio was elected the world's best gay destination, since my experience was that Buenos Aires catered much better to gays. In Rio, there are only a handful of gay clubs (at least, that the general public knows about), and a section of Ipanema known for its gay beachgoers. I can only imagine its reputation for constant partying could be the answer.
Brazil is hoping to change its image by the time the Olympics roll around, to prove that it is in fact a serious country. Image branding experts say Brazil has an enormous opportunity to change its image during the Games, rather than using tired cliches that outsiders will recognize. However, I think it will be pretty difficult for Brazil to use an event like an Olympics to do this, other than pulling the event off without major problems. The entire point of an event like this is to showcase the country's culture and people, not its banks or institutions. I can hardly imagine an opening ceremony with twirling dancers in miner or factory uniforms; you can bet there will be lots of samba and Carnival regalia.
To boot, Brazil also struggles with another stereotype: beautiful, easy women. This was abundantly clear when P. Diddy, recently vacationing in Rio, called Brazil "a tsunami of asses." A few nights ago, Robin Williams joked on David Letterman that Rio won the Olympics by sending "strippers and blow" to the Olympics committee. Too often, the whole country is branded as a place where you go for sex and to meet women, rather than, say, a place to invest or start a business.
The Olympics is not the wisest venue for Brazil to reshape its image, since it's much easier to showcase its vibrant culture and huge pool of talented athletes than its social progress or big businesses. Instead, it has seven years to keep doing what it's doing, to improve governance and fight corruption, continue with economic stability and successful businesses, and an even better mission of diplomacy. A truly sterling reputation is gained with time and success, not by a single event.
While I'd like to focus on the Italian extradition case, I thought this little tidbit from last week's Economist special on Brazil would help understand the circumstances a bit better.
In a piece entitled "The self-harming state," the author includes a short explanation about some of the challenges of the Brazilian judicial system. Because of endless appeals for many types of cases, the Brazilian Supreme Court received 100,000 cases in 2008. In Rio de Janeiro, the state cited as having "the most efficient" in the entire country, there are 800 cases in the appeals level of the courts, and 800,000 cases pending in the first level of the courts. The oldest case currently pending in the Rio courts is from 1911. (On a personal note, I recently found out that Eli's grandparents' court battle for their home lasted not ten, but twenty years.)
So with that, let's talk about Battisti.
For those of you unfamiliar with the case, here is a basic summary:
Cesare Battisti, an Italian, was part of a communist extremist group in the 1970s in Italy. In the early 80s, he was charged with four murders committed by said group, as well as robberies and other crimes. He fled the country and lived in France for a time, and then made his way to Brazil in 2004. He was arrested in 2007 and imprisoned in Brasilia, where he has remained until now. But early in 2009, President Lula granted him political amnesty. This did not sit well with Italy, which has an extradition agreement with Brazil (enshrined in Brazilian law). Finally, last week, the Supreme Court voted to extradite Battisti.
However, what was interesting to note was that despite the definitive decision--one of the judges claimed due to the nature of his crimes, Battisti could not be considered a political refugee, since crime is crime despite political motives--the judges ultimately left the decision to the President, making their decision more symbolic than anything. (Lula was a bit busy this week and has yet to announce his decision).
I found this odd because of another case making its way to the Supreme Court, the Goldman kidnapping case. In the United States, a similar case involving a Cuban boy was resolved in less than year due to intervention on behalf of the executive branch, and the boy was returned to his father. But when Brazil had the opportunity to take a similar approach, the executive branch repeatedly stated that Brazil is a sovereign nation with an independent judiciary, which would be the sole entity responsible for deciding the American boy's fate. They also stressed the judiciary would perform its duties in a timely fashion, which has not been the case. Meanwhile, a similar kidnapping case with a Canadian child in Brazil was resolved in the courts--they ordered the child to be sent back to his father in Montreal--but the order was never executed, and the child is still in Brazil, over two years later.
Italy has threatened the Brazilian government about the Battisti case, but since the threats mostly involved soccer and tourism, they weren't taken very seriously. But the country is closely watching the case, and the Italian government has made its stance clear. The US has not formally made any threats against Brazil with the Goldman case, though a bill was submitted in Congress to remove Brazil's trade preferences unless Brazil fulfills its commitment to the Hague Convention (the bill has not yet been passed).
In both instances, the competent jurisdiction to try the cases are in fact in Italy and the US, respectively, according to international law. But Lula, who as a leftist himself, is sympathetic to Battisti (he was jailed by the dictatorship back in the 70s), as well as to Sean's kidnappers (Sean's stepfather's family has political ties to Lula). I'm not sure why Lula chose to intervene in one case and not the other (or why the Supreme Court came to the decision to let him do so), but it would seem that moral relativism, political pressure and personal sympathies played a role. In both cases, the legal outcome seems clear: both foreigners should be sent back to their countries of origin, where trials will be held to decide their fates. But it seems unclear if this will happen, and justice has yet to be had. The outcome of these cases will be critical for Brazil to prove that it is not a haven for criminals, kidnappers, and accused terrorists--especially ones with political ties close to the president's heart.
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:
"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.
I've had quite a few people send me stuff over the past few weeks (thanks, everyone!) and since this week is very busy, posting may be light, so I wanted to get in another post before things get really hectic.
The funny thing about Brazilians is that they are incredibly suspicious of anything involving the U.S. government in their country, or foreigners who dare set foot in the Amazon, but they will kiss the ground of any major celebrity that goes to Brazil. Most of the time, they're there on vacation or to promote themselves, but not always.
That's why Madonna in Brazil is absolutely terrifying to me.
First off, I should point out that though Madonna is still undeniably a big celebrity in the US, it's gotten to the point where a lot of us are mostly just scared of her. We have also grown used to her diva whims, from deciding she's a Jew with her Kabbalah "conversion" to strong-arming Malawi into an essentially illegal adoption of her second African child. It's not that she doesn't do anything useful; she started a non-profit in 2006 called Raising Malawi to aid orphans there. But in Oprah-esque fashion, instead of building 1000 schools and 1000 hospitals, she decided to build a single school for $15 million (incidentally, local villagers are blocking its construction). This is why celebrities should not be in charge of development.
Anyway, along came Jesus Luz, the strapping 23 year-old Brazilian model, and Madonna forgot about Africa for awhile. Now, she's in Rio with him, where her agenda is extremely odd and frankly, is just highly suspicious to me. According to some, she's supposed to meet Jesus's parents for the first time, since he is serious about their relationship and wants to get married, which would be Madonna's third marriage. The other thing is that she was supposed to meet with AfroReggae, one of Rio's most successful non-profits, to discuss working with them on projects and to visit several favelas where they work. Mysteriously, she cancelled the meeting and the excursions, though she did meet with a group of kids from a different non-profit--but they had to meet her at her hotel (Fasano, claro). Methinks all those upper class Brazilians she's hanging out with scared her away from the favelas.
Despite cancelling the AfroReggae plans, she had plenty of time to hit several upscale restaurants around the city, including Sushi Leblon and Yume. She also hung out with her buddy, zillionaire Eike Batista; he lent her his private jet for her trip and let her work out at his house. She's due to go to a big dinner he's hosting tonight along with Rio's mayor and governor, who are quite nearly drooling about the meeting. She's allegedly in Sao Paulo this afternoon to visit a Kabbalah center and to meet with a rabbi, and later she is expected to meet with Lula's Chief of Staff and presidential candidate, Dilma Rousseff, as well as the first lady. Maybe I'm just skeptical, but I find it incredibly inappropriate for a celebrity of her caliber to meet with so many politicians, especially on the eve of an election year and what is on a supposedly leisurely visit. It's just fishy.
Additional note: the military police have been escorting Madonna everywhere, and even got into a tiff with paparazzi when she first arrived in Rio. Does anyone else think it's inappropriate for the government to provide free security to Madonna when it doesn't even provide it to far too many Cariocas?
While it's true Brazil is very popular right now (I cannot wait to pick up this week's Economist), Madonna is in a way just like almost every other gringa I met in Rio, the majority of whom were there because of a significant other. I loved Brazil from the second I got there for the first time, but if it hadn't been for Eli, it's very possible I would have wound up moving somewhere else in Latin America. I have to give Jesus credit, who seems like a vapid model but could likely be the one encouraging all of these different plans.
The point is, I suppose, is to beware of the wolf in sheep's clothing with terrifyingly muscular arms. Just ask Malawi.
I noticed that there are quite a few Brazilians, at least ones born there or with a Brazilian parent, who have made it to the big time in the U.S., but not many Americans know about their roots. Here is a little collection of some of them; if you can think of more, please leave a comment!
Morena Baccarin, the star of ABC's new sci-fi show V. She plays the "head alien" whose face has been plastered all over the U.S. in the past week or so. Interestingly, she is Carioca (!) and was raised in New York City, and studied at Juilliard. Her mom was an actress in Brazil and moved to the U.S. in the 1980s, and her dad still lives in Rio.
Camilla Belle, a TV and movie actress who has been in Hollywood since she was little, and starred in several movies, including "When a Stranger Calls" and "Push." She also recently starred in a Brazilian movie called "À Deriva." Though she was born in the US, her mother is Brazilian, and she speaks fluent Portuguese. She has family in Sao Paulo, and some of her favorite foods include brigadeiro, pao de queijo, and feijoada.
Rodrigo Santoro, Brazil's most famous actor export who has starred in dozens of American and Brazilian TV shows and movies. Though Brazilians are probably muttering "Duh!" under their breath, you'd be amazed how many Americans think he's Argentine or Italian. Rodrigo was born in Petropolis and grew up in Rio de Janeiro.
Alice Braga, Sonia Braga's niece, was born in Sao Paulo and started out doing Brazilian movies. She eventually got roles in Hollywood and was in "I am Legend," "Blindness" and "Crossing Over."
Alessandra Ambrosio, Victoria's Secret and top fashion model. She was born in Rio Grande do Sul and started her American career in New York.
Adriana Lima, Victoria's Secret model, fashion model, and actress. She was born in Salvador, Bahia and also began her American career in New York.
