Brazil and the Middle East
In November I wrote about how Brazil saw ties with Iran as important for making Brazil a player in the Middle East peace process. Foreign Minister Celso Amorim made that goal even more explicit in a recent interview.
Now that Brazil is talking actively to Israel, Iran, and Egypt in particular, the Obama administration would be well-advised to bring Brazil into the equation. We certainly should not overstate the potential effects, but it could inject a fresh perspective into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and also strengthen U.S.-Brazilian relations. Both should be priorities for the administration.Is Brazil elaborating a strategy to participate in a more efficient way in the conflict of the Middle East, or at least to become a heavyweight player in this question?
We are not going to come up with an entirely new solution to the question of the Middle East. All possible solutions have already been discussed. What is necessary is political desire to implement them. In our case, we would like to contribute to the dialogue. I think that a country like Brazil could do that easily. Due to our history and to the history that Brazil has in this region. Due to the international respect granted to Brazil. We do not want to do this alone, but by joining forces with other developing nations, like South Africa and India, which could have a more positive influence. Confining these talks to the "Quartet" has not generated great results: that is the truth. I therefore believe that a little more representation is necessary in the international community.
25 comments:
What do you know about Israel's feelings about Brazil taking on a bigger role? I wonder if by coming into the picture from a Muslim-centric point of view, they are going to be sacrificing their position as an objective observer to a certain extent. Then again maybe they aren't, that's just kind of how it appears in the media, what with all the attention to Lula and Ahmadinejad's meetings.
All sides are courting Brazil (including Israel) so I don't see that as a problem. "Objectivity" is pretty much fiction for this conflict anyway.
Now that Brazil is talking actively to Israel, Iran, and Egypt in particular, the Obama administration would be well-advised to bring Brazil into the equation.
Indeed, that would be wise, but I don't think the State Department and Hillary Clinton are far-sighted enough to do anything like that. The Washington establishment will cling to antiquated positions on Israel/Palestine for as long as it possibly can. Moreover, the establishment won't think it's in its interest to augment Brazil's diplomatic clout.
Besides that, the Israeli lobby will balk. All diplomatic niceties aside, if the Israeli lobby can't even approach Jimmy Carter without launching into hysterics, it definitely won't have any tolerance for Lula.
(Not sure how a Catholic country is supposed to be "Muslim-centric," but the Israeli lobby will be sure to peddle such inanities.)
This is silly. The idea that Brazil has something to contribute to the process is a sure sign that they, as well as many of their admirers, misunderstand Middle East diplomacy. "Objectivity" or a "fresh" perspective is not what the peace process needs. The basic formula has been at hand for quite a while. The reason for the "quartet" is that each of the four entities has some chips in the game and provides one of the parties with some protective benefits. The Israelis and Palestinians themselves must eventually make the hard decisions. All the contributing parties can do is walk with them down the aisle when they are ready.
The quality of Brazil's diplomats is legendary. This can only be a good thing.
I'd say the quality of Brazil's diplomats is legendary..in the mind of Brazilian diplomats.
It's not clear what Brazil possibly brings to the table in the ME. Money, influence, leverage? Brazil has none of that.
And Lula's meeting with Iran's leader is unlikely to help much.
Brazil needs to accept that, recent headlines notwithstanding, it still remains a relatively poor and backward country.
Lula's greatest contribution was proving that the left could govern Brazil without making a mess. taking Brazil to the next level wil require much more than that. It needs to grow faster or it will become another Mexico.
I don't see what value Brazil brings to the table either. Even the minister himself said there are no new solutions to be invented. So why do they want to participate? The solution doesn't depend on the Brazilians. What is needed is to ignore and marginalize the extreme right Arabs and extreme right Israelis so the moderates on both sides can sit down and make a deal. Maybe the Brazilians can convince Al Qaeda and the militant West Bank settlers to resettle themselves in the Amazon and get them out of the Middle East.
The quality of Brazil's diplomats is legendary.
I completely agree with that point, and I think Lula himself is among the greatest of diplomats.
In fact, that's precisely why I think the Washington establishment will want none of Lula in the Middle East. Brazil's diplomatic prowess is too threatening to a very narrow-minded group that sees the world in mostly zero-sum terms. For the short-sighted, a win for Brazilian diplomacy in the Middle East would be a loss for American power. The notion that some sort of global power-sharing arrangement could actually improve America's image in the world is completely lost on the neocon-neolib cabal that seems to exercise permanent control over Washington.
The irony is that Washington will ultimately pay for such inflexibility because the world is changing and the sun is setting on the unipolar moment.
I'd say the quality of Brazil's diplomats is legendary..in the mind of Brazilian diplomats.
And anyone who has studied the training of diplomats in the world.
You might also want to get the perspective of those who faced the Brazilian diplomats in the WTO disputes between Brazil and the US on cotton subsidies and brazil and the EU on sugar subsidies.
I don't see what value Brazil brings to the table either.
To begin with a fresh voice with less baggage.
Randy, that's a completely unverifiable and unmeasurable claim you are making. What does 'legendary quality' even mean?
Fact is Brazil remains a relatively poor country that has practically nothing to offer in the ME. You think the problem in the ME is that they lack 'good diplomats'?
Yes it's the opinion of many. Brazil's diplomats all complete rigorous course work at teh Instituto Rio Branco, which is arguably the best diplomatic academy in Latin America. Applicants are required to possess fluency in Portuguese, Spanish, English and French as well as an undergrad degree before admission.
Yes, I believe that is one of the problems with the Middle East. Fresh perspectives should be welcomed.
Fact is Brazil remains a relatively poor country that has practically nothing to offer in the ME.
Ah, yes. By this brilliant standard, only rich countries (i.e. Europe and the United States) have anything to "offer" the Middle East (or any other region of the world, for that matter). According to this stellar logic, peace must be beckoning in the Middle East because the U.S. and Europe have so much to offer the region. Apparently the Arabs are just ingrates, I guess.
If that's really the attitude with which we are going to approach international relations, the United States' demise on the international stage will come much faster than you think.
By the standard of per capita income, China is even poorer than Brazil, but nobody in their right mind would dismiss China's rising power on account of that fact. Measured in terms of aggregrate economic power, countries like Brazil and China are much more powerful than you seem to understand because they are large, populous, and industrializing.
Brazil has little natural connection to the ME. It has no economic nor political capital to spend on helping the Palestinians and Israelis make a deal. The idea of a fresh face is stupid when the world has watched this tragedy unfold for the better part of 60 years. The best minds and creative diplomats have struggled to end the standoff on some formula for land for peace. The end of the Cold war took away a layer, now diplomatic processes are working on the two major parties. If even Sharon and Arafat can be brought around, a deal can be made. However, a large part of their respective constituencies must surrender their deepest fears and millennial aspirations for a practical solution. Brazil simply has nothing to offer in breaking the deadlock. And, sorry, what is required they do not teach in diplomacy school.
Brazil has little natural connection to the ME.
True in only one regard: they don't import oil from the Middle East. The rest of your comment is not supported by present facts as well as history.
Brazil has the single largest population of Arabic descendants outside of the Middle East; a figure that ranges from 10 to 12 million, roughly about four times that of the US. My wife's home town in Minas Gerais has a significant population of Lebanese ancestry.
Here's an informative article.
So unless you believe the Arab side has no relevance in the matter, your statement that "Brazil has little natural connection to the ME" is not borne out by the facts.
Of course, given the intellectual rigor you employed in this statement of yours:
The idea of a fresh face is stupid when the world has watched this tragedy unfold for the better part of 60 years.
It should be no surprise that your grasp of the facts regarding Brazil is, to be charitable, rather weak.
Randy--
I should have furthered my comment to say little natural connection to the ME peace process. Mea culpa. However, despite the tasty food and Shakira, while citing the Washington Times reporting on culture--maybe you should show how Brazil or Brazilian organizations are influencing ME diplomacy as part of the Arab American diaspora.
It is clear in contrast that American Jewish groups have a tremendous influence in Washington and in Tel Aviv. From the beginning of the state of Israel, Jewish Americans have supported Israel in a myriad of very important ways.
In contrast, Arab American immigration, whether in Brazil or the US, was originally Syrian or Lebanese (Christians, Jews and Muslims). Often leaving under dire circumstances from the decaying Ottoman empire. While many of the descendants have achieved great success in the Americas they have not had a strong influence on the political and economic history of Lebanon, Syria, or Egypt.
The two greatest sources of US foreign aid every year are Israel and Egypt. What in contrast is the amount the Brazilian govt. spends on foreign aid for Arab countries? Instead of insulting me, perhaps you could ask yourself a more basic question, "where is the meat?"
Instead of insulting me, perhaps you could ask yourself a more basic question, "where is the meat?"
Your lack of self-awareness is a thing of wonder. You called me idea "stupid."
I didn't insult you. All I did was point out a whoppingly large lacuna in your argument. If you consider that an insult, perhaps you should stay out of such discussions.
You again have made no compelling argument that Brazil has no role to play here. It has as much a role as any other nation outside of the region.
Warm regards.
Plenty of countries outside the region (Russia, certainly the US, the EU) have much more relevance in the ME than Brazil.
Brazil is simply not that important. It simply lacks political and diplomatic heft. It can't even influence Honduras, which is in the same time zone!
The only place where Brazil has influence is in Mercosur, and they can't even get that right. Legendary indeed.
Brazil is simply not that important. It simply lacks political and diplomatic heft.
Regarding Honduras, the US couldn't influence Honduras either.
What is interesting is that you present these statements without any supporting documentation and criticize me for the same. You ignored Brazil's ongoing WTO win on cotton subsidies and sugar subsidies. The cotton subsidies win was one it took on behalf of countries such as Mali and Burkina Faso, which otherwise would not have been able to sue in the WTO.
You can contradict me all you wish, but all you have offered is unsupported opinion. How about we agree to disagree?
Actually the US could influence Honduras and it did. It just did not have the same goals as Brazil or others. If it had wanted to it had plenty of other tools at its disposal, given that the US is Honduras' main trading partner and sends remittances worth around 20% of GDP. The US has even 'soft power' influence over Honduras, since its elites value having access to a US visa. No one cares about a Brazilian visa though.
The WTO win is not particularly relevant for the topic at hand, which is Brazil's ability to influence the ME. Several Caribbean nations, whose populations are less than one of Rio's many favelas, have also scored important (to them) wins in international trade. No one would think that means they have anything useful to add to the ME conflict.
The key point is that for a country to project influence over another country or region it must have something they want that they can give or take away. The US has that in spades. But Brazil doesn't.
The only countries that Brazil can offer something meaningful are neighbors like Paraguay (electricity purchases) and Bolivia (natural gas purchases) and, to a lesser extent, Argentina (access to its market).
The problem is that a lot of people, including many in Brazil, got caught up on the idea that Brazil was becoming a world power. Honduras clearly showed how wrong that was.
The WTO win is not particularly relevant for the topic at hand, which is Brazil's ability to influence the ME.
It is certainly if you're going to try to play down the skills of Brazil's diplomats.
As for Honduras, what was the goal of the US? Help Micheletti run out the clock until the election? Okay, that part was a success, but Brazil has also been leading the opposition to recognizing the validity of the elections and so far Brazil is winning that battle. As of last count, some 12 countries recognize the election’s validity and only five in this hemisphere including the US. That means that some twenty-eight countries are following in the Americas are following Brazil’s lead and not the lead of the US.
Clearly you've overstated the influence of one side and understated that of another.
I am not playing them down. I am not saying they are worse than others. I am simply saying that YOUR claim, that their skills are legendary, has no support. You suggest their 'wins' in the WTO support the idea that Brazilian diplomats have above-average skills. As I pointed out plenty of countries, much smaller than Brazil, have had similar 'wins'. Are they 'legendary' as well?
No, Brazil did not 'lead the opposition' to Honduras. That's just something you made up. Brazil was vocal in its opposition but so were many other countries. Until Zelaya managed to stumble into the Brazilian embassy Brazil wasn't even all that involved. Costa Rica, Venezuela, even Argentina were much more involved than Brazil.
Are you Brazilian, is that it? I'm sorry but Brazil simply doesn't have that much influence, even in Latin America. Honduras showed that. It has even less influence in the Middle East.
Randy--
With all due respect. The following statements present a logical fallacy on multiple levels.
"You again have made no compelling argument that Brazil has no role to play here."
The burden is not on me to show that Brazil has "no role to play here." I can't prove basic irrelevance or the non-existence of Brazilian diplomacy. The burden remains on you as all I have asked you to to do is announce to the board how members of the Arab American diaspora, their institutions, and the Brazilian government have shaped ME diplomacy in any way. I know Brazil is an observer at the Arab league. Please give me a citation or an academic source that there exists evidence for believing there is such a thing as meaningful ME diplomacy by Brazil.
Secondly, your follow-up notion "It has as much a role as any other nation outside of the region" is just plain wrong. If Israel got to choose its one main supportive ally to participate in the talks, we all know who they would choose. If the Palestinians chose their ten main allies to attend the talks, Brazil would still be left out. To say that Brazil has as much of a role as anyone else is just a stupid idea.
What is needed is the right combination of countries that can provide security--mental, physical, material and spiritual--and nudge the parties to take the risk of engaging in a deal based on "land for peace." Ideally these countries can also express meaningful displeasure when either party gets cold feet and whose displeasure they don't want to incur. What financial, military or moral leverage does Brazil have? According to you it is a "fresh face" with star diplomats. I can envision Ariel Sharon coming out of his coma for just such a reason.
If the Palestinians chose their ten main allies to attend the talks, Brazil would still be left out.
Proof? You know this how?
Why do you persist in calling the idea stupid? Can you not simply respectfully disagree and leave it at that?
As for the qualit of Brazil's diplomats, whose diplomats are better in the region?
What other nation in Latin America has produced a diplomat with the stature of the late Sergio Vieira de Mello? What other nation in Latin America has training as rigorous as Brazil's for its diplomats?
If the other nation's diplomats are so skilled, why, as Greg notes, are both sides courting Brazil?
The burden is not on me to show that Brazil has "no role to play here." I can't prove basic irrelevance or the non-existence of Brazilian diplomacy.
You have set up this standard based solely on your own perceptions as to Brazil's relevancy in the area. Who should I believe: an associate professor of political science UNC Charlotte,the foreign minister of Brazil who points out that the presidents of Israel, the Palestnian Authority and Iran all visited Brazil within the course of one month and who are eager to have Brazil involved, or some anonymous guy who calls the idea stupid?
I believe that's the very defiition of a no brainer.
Randy--The point about Palestinian friends was a hypothetical rhetorical gesture to show how stupid your statement was about equality. It doesn't need proof as it isn't meant literally but just to show how devoid of reality your claim is. I won't retract the word "stupid" because the claim is laughable. If you honestly believe Brazil has equal diplomatic heft, stature and influence in the region, good for you. I think the ongoing process in the ME will continue to show you are in profound error. Secondly, I never attacked the quality of Brazil's diplomats. They just don't bring to the table enough chips to influence world affairs as the EU, US, Japan etc..do. If you are going to measure the success of Brazil's diplomacy by the recent visit of the Iranian president, I think Chavez has you beat. He has been to Caracas numerous times. Bad logic. Thirdly, I think Javier Perez de Cuellar and Oscar Arias have achieved the stature of the martyred Brazilan diplomat. I would not, however, use that as the logic behind saying that Brazil or any other country is able to engage the ME parties and further the peace process. Maybe, if your citation is to Greg's post we can ask him a simple question as you have formulated it: Greg, do you believe Brazil has as much a role to play in the ME peace process as any other nation outside the region?
The fact that all parties are courting Brazil suggests that it has more reasons than most countries to participate.
Post a Comment