Brazil Political Comment´s latest interview is with foreign affairs specialist, Sergio Fausto, scientific director of the Fernando Henrique Cardoso Institute of São Paulo. This institute was set up as a historical archive for material related to former President Cardoso´s long career in politics, including his two terms as head of state, and as a think tank to discuss issues affecting Brazilian politics and society. In this interview, Sergio Fausto claims that Venezuela´s President Hugo Chavez is seeking to centralize power and override the country´s Congress. He is critical of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva´s approach which he describes as “silent pragmatism” and calls on Brazil to stand up for democracy and condemn what is happening in Venezuela. Mr. Fausto also comments on the upcoming visit to Brazil by US President George W. Bush and claims that ideology and not professional competence is starting to appear in Brazil´s traditionally apolitical foreign service, the Itamaraty.

Sergio Fausto: There are a number of reasons to be concerned about what is happening in Venezuela. First of all, it is one of our neighbors. Chavez is destroying Venezuela´s democratic institutions, overriding Congress, and concentrating all power in his own hands. He has set up a personal bodyguard with Cuban advisers and established a popular militia. He is also strengthening the armed forces well beyond what is required for the country´s legitimate self-defense. Chavez sees himself as a visionary. He talks about establishing a “permanent revolution” and wants to export his ideas. 

Fausto: I would not underestimate Chavez´s destabilizing influence in the region. Sure, Brazil can act as a countervailing force by using its soft power more effectively. To do so, the Lula administration has to publicly adopt a more clear-cut stand over what is happening in Venezuela. Words matter in politics as well as in foreign relations. And, so far, the Brazilian authorities have been ambivalent in what they say about Venezuela. For example, why not remind Chavez of the democratic clause embedded in the Mercosul Treaty? Was not Brazil the principal advocate of Venezuela becoming a member of Mercosul, with  full member status? Is Venezuela not supposed to abide by the democratic clause?

Fausto: He should get off the fence and state clearly that Brazil´s stands on the side of democracy and sees Chavez´s actions with great concern. So far Lula has shown no concern whatsoever. In fact, he has even said that Venezuela has an “excess” of democracy and joined Chavez in attacking the Venezuelan opposition which he described as the ”elite”.  Lula´s ambivalent approach to Chavez has domestic implications. It is no secret that some sections of the left in Brazil, most of them with close ties to the PT and the government, are seduced by the “Bolivarian” revolution or at least by some of its ingredients, such as “direct democracy”. Is it a coincidence that some people inside the PT are advocating a legislative change allowing the president to call plebiscites and referenda without the authorization of the Legislature? That would be a direct attempt to form a link between the leader and the masses and by-pass Congress. It´s already happening in Bolivia and Ecuador. I am not saying that the chances are that Brazil will follow that direction; nor that Lula will embark on such a political adventure. But Lula should make himself clear on this matter. When it comes to basic democratic principles, silent pragmatism is not acceptable.

Fausto: Ambassador Abdenur has not said that Brazil´s foreign policy has become anti-American as a matter of course. On a bilateral level the relations between the two countries are good. Brazil has sent troops to Haiti and taken over command of the peace-keeping forces in the country. What I think Ambassador Abdenur has said is that there is a diffuse ideological bias in the current Brazilian foreign policy. This can be seen in an inclination to overdo the opportunities related to the so-called South-South relation at the expense of opportunities related to Brazil´s relations with more developed countries, including the US. In some pockets of Itamaraty, this ideological stance seems to be more intense. The worry is that this more ideological approach will gain roots, since some of its stronger proponents are in key positions and have a strong say in the nomination process and in the shaping of career rules (which have been changed to accelerate the renovation of the diplomatic service).  

Fausto: The US has altered its approach to Latin America recently for obvious reasons and the visit to Brazil has to be seen within this context. Washington has started to get worried about institutional instability in places like Venezuela and Bolivia. It fears this process of radicalization could be reflected in other countries in the region. Besides, the US has come to the conclusion, at last, that less dependency on oil is within its best long-term strategic interests. Brazil is both a trusty partner – given the alternatives in South America – and a regional power, a counterforce of considerable weight. And a key player in the energy game of the future, given its potential in generating energy from sugar-cane and other biomasses. Yet, I don´t think there will be any dramatic breakthrough in the meeting between Presidents Bush and Lula. With regard to energy, Brazil and the US have conflicting interests in the short term. With regard to its role in the region, Brazil has to strike a delicate balance between cooperation with the US and influence over neighboring countries. But the visit is still important.

Fausto: The situation is different since Clinton was the US President during most of Fernando Henrique Cardoso´s time in office and there was a more favorable prospect of integration at that period. The international climate changed as did the domestic US agenda after the terrorist attacks. The US lost interest in the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas and Lula was not interested either. What happened was that we started to see an “à la carte FTTA” in which bilateral deals were made between individual countries and the US. As a result, Brazil became somewhat isolated and marginalized compared with countries like Colombia and Peru. This was a strategic error.

Fausto: As far as one can see, the FTAA, as originally conceived, is dead. When the idea was first raised in 1994 at the Miami summit it was just too ambitious. It was not realistic to imagine that a free trade area stretching from Canada to Tierra del Fuego could be achieved within 10 years. The changes required to bring this ambitious project into being went against too many domestic interests in various countries and it would have been better to go more slowly. For the moment, we will continue to have an “à la carte” version of the FTAA. Brazil should, therefore, deepen its trade relations with the US, either on the format 4 + 1, with other Mercosul country-members, or, more realistically, on a bilateral basis. 

Fausto: I would not describe this wish as an “obsession”. Brazil should be – and for most of the time has been - realistic enough to know that any change of this nature would be part of a greater change at the UN to reflect the world today rather than the way it was just after the Second World War. Any change would obviously have to consider the position of economically important countries like Germany and Japan and the reactions of some of the current members to the prospect of having newcomers. This is a big game that goes well beyond Brazil´s limited power resources. Besides the benefits there would also be responsibilities. Have we, as a society, really given this aspect enough thought? Playing an active role in international conflicts can involve sending forces to war zones and facing casualties and retaliation. In sum, I think Brazil should continue to push its claim but in the knowledge that any final decision will have to be part of a wide-ranging reform of the UN, that this will take time and that having a permanent seat in the Security Council should not be a major priority for the Brazilian foreign policy, as sometime it appeared to be during Lula´s first term in office.    

© John Fitzpatrick 2007