Dear Mr. Bush,

I was disappointed but not surprised by the lack of any reference to Brazil in your speech at the recent Republican nomination conference in New York. Maybe some Brazilians felt the same but most probably did not care since they don´t think you know much about Brazil or are interested in learning. Your speech was obviously aimed at the domestic audience but you must have known that the whole world would be listening. Even so, you did not mention China, Russia, Canada, Mexico or any country in Central and South America or the Caribbean except miniscule El Salvador because it supported your Iraq policy. You also threw in a phrase in Spanish in relation to a Hispanic school in Georgia. For a former governor of Texas and someone with a brother who is governor of Florida, your lack of interest in Latin America appears almost perverse.

You have been President of the United States for almost four years. During that time you have not visited Brazil nor shown any interest in doing so. This period has been marked by differences in many areas, ranging from the war in Iraq to trade policies. At times these differences have led to farcical situations such as the Brazilian government allowing an obscure judge in Matto Gross state to order that all American visitors to Brazil be fingerprinted. The current administration of Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has been partly to blame for this uneasy relationship but so have you.

Is it too much to hope that you will start paying more attention to this part of the world should you win another mandate? Or will we have another term of office in which the two largest democracies in the Americas go their own ways? Is there any prospect of constructive dialogue and partnership? It is worth recalling that Brazil and the United States have much in common. The Brazilian system of government is based on that of the US, with a presidency, two houses of Congress and powerful state governors. Both are large countries with enormous natural resources and human potential. They have opened their arms to millions of immigrants who have repaid the welcome by developing their host countries. They have never been at war with each other and during WW2 Brazil made bases available to the Americans to help combat the menace of German U-boats. American companies are the biggest foreign investors here and the US is Brazil´s biggest export market. Brazil has taken American popular culture to its heart as you will see in any cinema or shopping center. Many Brazilians live in the US and there is a large American community here. Brazil and the US have a lot more in common than you might think.    

I accept that you have had other priorities since the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington in September 2001. Not since the days of Roosevelt and Churchill, has a democratically-elected leader had to assume the burden you did in the aftermath of those days. No-one can say you failed to show leadership then or now. By your actions in Afghanistan and Iraq you have shown that you are prepared to strike out wherever you feel America´s interests and security are concerned.

You have received a lot of criticism, particularly in this part of the world. Much of this criticism has been unjustified, in my opinion, and I have often supported your policies in print, even though I am not sure I would vote for you were I an American citizen. Still, I have backed you because I feel the democratic world owes the US a big debt for your country´s participation in the Second World War and helping to end the Cold War. Had the US not come to the rescue in 1941, the world would be worse off in political, economic and material terms. Your father, the former President who served as a young flier and was shot down in the Pacific, was one of the heroes who created the world we live in. 

However, many, if not most, Brazilians would not share my opinion. For them, the US is arrogant, insensitive, condescending, bullying and, under your leadership, is intent on running the world. This last claim may sound preposterous but, for many Latin Americans, the United States has always been an expansionist power. Their version of history is different from yours. For them, Texas and California were stolen from Mexico, Central America was a collection of banana republics run by American companies and Cuba has been unfairly singled out for over 40 years simply because Fidel Castro has defied the US. For these people, the drug trafficking and guerrilla insurgency in Colombia is America´s fault and an organization like the International Monetary Fund is just an agency of the US government.

To add to the long list of “grievances”, there are also some Brazilians who genuinely believe that the US intends taking over the Amazon region one day to seize its biological riches. One of the reasons why few people here support your war in Iraq is that they believe it was aimed at ensuring America control of Iraqi oil rather than ousting a tyrant and installing democracy. Even a level-headed figure like ex-President Fernando Henrique Cardoso has raised the possibility of the US invading Brazil one day.[1]      

Although the US fought for democracy in Europe, its record in supporting democracy in Latin America is not so impressive. There is still a widespread belief that the US knew in advance of the Brazilian military´s plans to seize power in 1964 when the leftist President, João Goulart, was overthrown. Many politicians and intellectuals, including Cardoso and presidential candidate Jose Serra, fled the country and did not return until an amnesty was granted in 1979. People like Cardoso and Serra are now social democrats, like your main ally, Tony Blair, yet they still understandably have reservations about American interests. If people like these have mixed feelings about the US, what then is going on in the minds of socialists like President Lula?

Lula was formed in the trade union movement and is a pragmatist rather than an ideologue. However, he would be happier sitting down with a Communist dictator like Cuba´s Fidel Castro or a populist demagogue like Venezuela´s Hugo Chavez than with you. This is regrettable but shows the big gap that has to be bridged. Lula´s government is run by the Workers Party (PT) which reflects the old-style socialist movement. His top lieutenants include Jose Dirceu who was freed in a swap after the American ambassador to Brazil was kidnapped by leftist guerrillas. Dirceu then spent four years in exile in Cuba. Another right-hand man is Jose Genoino who was arrested and tortured by the military for his involvement in guerrilla activities. The Mines and Energy minister, Dilma Roussef, was an arms quartermaster for guerrillas and another top aide, Aldo Rabello, is a  member of the Brazilian Communist Party. All these people are now involved in the democratic process but they have an innate distrust of the US which you have done nothing to disperse. If you want to make inroads here then you will have to deal with people like these. They are not implacable enemies or fanatics like Bin Laden and there is room for dialogue. It is up to you to make the first move. Just ignoring Brazil is not the way to proceed.

This hostility to the US is not a monopoly of the left. There has always been a nationalist element which has resented the United States and seen it as a threat to Brazil´s influence in South America. Parts of this element is right-wing politically, and supported the military, but was still hostile to the US. “Yankee go home” is still a popular rallying cry and the word “gringo”, which is flung about so carelessly here, still retains its bile.

This antipathy to the US came as a great shock to me in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. I was appalled by what I felt was a lack of sympathy from ordinary people and the government. Even though some Brazilians were killed, and an estimated two million Brazilians live in the US, the response was a mixture of indifference and, in some quarters, glee. I published an article on this[2] and received nearly 100 e-mails from readers, mainly Brazilians. About four-fifths disagreed with me and said the US had gotten its just desserts. The image of your country has become even worse since then, particularly following the invasion of Iraq. The appalling terrorism which has followed this invasion, inside and outside Iraq, has been put at your feet. For example, many Brazilians blamed you for the killing of Brazil´s Sergio Mello de Vieira in the attack on the UN headquarters in Iraq last year[3]. There have been a number of readers´ letters in newspapers following the recent school massacre in Russia, blaming not the terrorists but you for this outrage. How people can make such preposterous claims is beyond my comprehension but the fact is that you have no credibility here. Even serious newspapers will accuse you of all kinds of calumny without being contradicted.         

You have recently appointed a new ambassador to Brazil, John Danilovich, who is said to be a long-standing associate of yours.  Let us hope you listen more to him than you did to his predecessor Donna Hrinak, whose efforts to improve relations seem to have been ignored in Washington. Mr. Danilovich was your ambassador in Costa Rica so should be accustomed to how Latin Americans feel about the US. Giant Brazil is very different from tiny Costa Rica and one can only hope that he is up to the job.

Unfortunately your other representatives have tended to be people like trade secretary Robert Zoelleck whose indefensible protectionist policies have made him – and you – no friends here. Your country´s approach to trade issues and lack of enthusiasm for multilateralism is one of the reasons why Brazil is lukewarm about the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas. Even though Brazil is the co-chairman of these talks, the US has been making bilateral deals with other countries, which have raised doubts about its credibility. I feel the Brazilian government is wrong in its approach and should seize the opportunities offered by the FTAA. However, I can easily understand why it is taking this attitude. Although the FTAA is due to come into existence at the start of next year I see no urgency from your side and cannot even recall any recent statement by you about it. The current treasury secretary, John Snow, paid us a recent visit but is still virtually unknown here. He cannot be any worse than his loud-mouthed predecessor, Paul O´Neill, whose undiplomatic comments on corruption in Brazil should have been saved for behind the scenes. As for your other top aides such as secretary of state, Colin Powell, national security adviser, Condoleeza Rice, and even your vice president, Dick Cheney, they have all stayed away.

At the moment, it looks as though you will win the election. If so, I hope one of your priorities will be improve relations with Brazil. First of all, you need to announce that you will pay an official visit early in your second term. You should prepare the groundwork by granting an interview to Brazilian correspondents in the US. You should arrange a summit meeting to try and clear up the problems and get the talks on the FTAA going again. You should also read up a little on Brazilian history to avoid any embarrassing “Bushisms”. Most people assume you know very little about Brazil. For example, it was reported that when you met former President Cardoso in November 2001 you asked him whether there were many black people in Brazil and had to be informed by Condeleeza Rice that the percentage of black people in Brazil was higher than in the US. I am not sure how accurate this story is, since it was based in an item in the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel, but it has become accepted as fact. (Incidentally, I even contacted your embassy in Brasilia for an explanation but have never received any reply. Nor did I get a reply to several other questions about your attitude towards Brazil.) 

Brasilia may not be the most attractive city to visit. However, after the formal part of the agenda you can visit unforgettable places like Rio de Janeiro or Salvador. You could also imitate your predecessor, Bill Clinton, who went to Foz do Iguaçu. Clinton is now the star of a video shown to visitors at the Itaipu dam in which he enthuses about the natural beauty of the place. Clinton´s comments delight Brazilian tourists. It´s doubtful if they would be impressed by a similar comment by you. However, it´s not too late for you to try and win some hearts and minds here. Finally, Lula will be in New York shortly to address the United Nations. Why not meet him and arrange to come and visit us? 

Yours sincerely,

John Fitzpatrick,

São Paulo, Brazil