Monday, September 23, 2013

Assessing U.S.-Brazilian Relations

We all know by now that Dilma Rousseff is not coming for her planned state visit. We can characterize the responses more or less as follows, in no particular order:

1. It's a positive assertion of Brazilian sovereignty.

2. It's bad for the United States (just Google "Brazil snub"!).

3. It's bad for Brazil.

4. It's bad for both countries.

Curiously, at least from what I've seen no one seems to be saying that it won't really matter all that much. In part that could be because the Obama administration is trying to spin it that way--it's a "postponement" and not a "cancellation" and so maybe our instinct is to assume that the spin must be false.

What I'd like to see, though, is analysis of the concrete effects of state visits (or their cancellation/postponement). Do they matter as much as commonly assumed? They are, of course, highly symbolic, but technology makes communication easy without visits and there is a tremendous amount of lower level cooperation going on all the time no matter who visits whom.

For example, in 2009 the Japanese Prime Minister cancelled a state visit, yet as far as I can tell--being an informed observer rather than any kind of expert--U.S.-Japanese relations have not suffered long-term consequences. Are there other examples?

In short, we assume it matters because we all say it matters. We have lots of opinions, some very logical, about why it should matter but little empirical evidence to support it.

13 comments:

Justin Delacour 4:16 PM  

"For example, in 2009 the Japanese Prime Minister cancelled a state visit, yet as far as I can tell--being an informed observer rather than any kind of expert--U.S.-Japanese relations have not suffered long-term consequences."

Hmmm. The Japanese government's stated reason for that one was "scheduling demands" (although the real reason was that the Japanese Prime Minister was seeking to raise his profile in an election year). Fairly harmless, to be sure.

The stated reason for Rousseff's "postponement" is that the U.S. hasn't offered a public apology for spying on her and her government. It should be obvious to you that there's a rather enormous difference between the circumstances surrounding the two cases.

The proverbial elephant sitting in the room here is the question of why U.S. officials find it so difficult to publicly apologize for spying on a president that they've have never even publicly characterized as a rival.

Anonymous,  8:06 AM  

Why should we apologize for spying on Brazil? Does Brazil spy on other countries, including the US? Diplomacy is based on reciprocity. Hence the main charge against the US is that it uses means not available to other countries yet. Don't think for a moment that ethical principles will obstruct their eventual use of said technology.

Justin Delacour 10:15 AM  

They weren't just spying on "Brazil." They were spying on the communications of the Brazilian president. This has diddly squat to do with reciprocity. Everyone here knows that, if it were established that any country was directly spying on the communications of the U.S. president, the U.S. would respond to such an egregious breach of diplomatic protocol much more aggressively than Brazil has. The problem is that we here in the U.S. continue to hold fast to the rather antiquated notion that a U.S. president is never supposed to issue an apology to another country when the American state has clearly overstepped.

Anonymous,  10:36 PM  

If you believe that Brazil does not engage in espionage, albeit with less sophisticated means, I am sorry for you. They spy on neighbors, the US and other governments. In return European countries, China, neighbors and the US spy on Brazil. Allies spy on allies all the time. This notion that Brazil or European allies are shocked is just a bit silly. The Europeans, Brazilians and Mexico know full well we have a vast and advanced set of gathering tools that we use principally for national security reasons. We often share intelligence that we gather. Where is the supposed line we crossed? According to? Lastly, it appears convenient that this great affront to Brazilian sovereignty comes at a time when the Real is falling and citizens are taking to the streets. (Gee, I wonder if electronic surveillance of protestors is going on?) The Brazilian president demonstrates once again that domestic politics profoundly shape foreign policies.

Anonymous,  10:43 PM  

http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2013/07/latin-america-and-edward-snowden?zid=309&ah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0e

Justin Delacour 12:55 AM  

Of course the Brazilians do intelligence-gathering, but the simple fact of the matter is that we have no evidence that they intercept the communications of other countries' presidents (much less those of the U.S. president). Notice how you fail to answer the relevant question. You throw out the word "reciprocity" and then suddenly go all mum about how a U.S. president would react if the tables were turned. If you're really serious about the "reciprocity" argument, then logically you would have to argue that the U.S. would be a-okay with foreign spying on its own president's communications. Of course, you know that's not true, so I frankly consider your entire line of argument to be fundamentally disingenuous. Rousseff is quite right that there are real dangers to democracy implicit in the nature of the NSA's spy network. The only naivete I see here is your own baffling notion that, once this scandal hit, Brazil's government was not supposed to demand an apology. That's just not realistic.

Anonymous,  7:26 AM  

You still have not identified the when the spying becomes an egregious breach of diplomatic protocol. Please explain the "Justin principle" of international law. Friendly governments usually demand an apology. After an investigation, the US govt. has promised to address this issue with Brazil and the other countries (as the US was caught). As for reciprocity, Brazil gets no credit for the "danger to democracy," civil liberties violations, nor its own technical (in)ability to intercept communications of the US govt., including President Obama. As it is abundantly clear, a country's restraint in this area has much more to do with its technology than any moral superiority. I can't remember the last time the US dragged an ally through a lengthy denunciation at a UN General Assembly. Allies work through these problems with diplomacy not international grandstanding. However, due to domestic political calculations, the Brazilians think they will get more out of loud and public protestations. We shall see.

Justin Delacour 8:09 PM  

You still have not identified the when the spying becomes an egregious breach of diplomatic protocol.

Well, it seems to me that intercepting Rousseff's communications is crossing the line. So much for Henry Stimson's old adage that "Gentleman don't read each other's mails," I guess.

In any case, it is absurd to think that Brazil's president would or could avoid making an issue of this. Anybody with half an understanding of politics knows that that would be politically out of the question for her. When the U.S. foreign policy establishment takes pot shots at Rousseff for making an issue of this, all they're really showing the world is that they don't know how to exercise serious global leadership. The U.S. foreign policy establishment is now just making a bad situation worse. A serious foreign policy establishment would know when to just lie low for a while, as it's obviously not going to win any new allies in the world by adding insult to injury against Brazil.

"As for reciprocity, Brazil gets no credit for the 'danger to democracy,' civil liberties violations, nor its own technical (in)ability to intercept communications of the US govt., including President Obama."

So let me get this straight. Your position is that, IF Brazil COULD intercept Obama's communications, the U.S. should and would be a-okay about it? Is that what you mean by "reciprocity"?

Somehow, I doubt it.

"I can't remember the last time the US dragged an ally through a lengthy denunciation at a UN General Assembly."

The problem here is that the U.S. isn't treating Brazil as a genuine ally and hasn't done so for some time. If the Obama Administration had been serious about seeking a "strategic partnership" with Brazil, it would have cut a deal with Lula back in 2009 to pressure the Honduran coup government to let Mel Zelaya serve out the remaining months of his term. Instead, the Obama Administration just slapped Brazil in the face in a fairly transparent way.

Anonymous,  8:56 AM  

Rousseff can try to demand x, y and z, knowing full well the U.S. govt. is not going to give in to all her demands. They have been proclaimed so as not to be fulfilled. Nationalism remains good domestic politics particularly when the polls are showing declining popularity. However, the U.S. has tried through Kerry et al., as well as G-20 summit and state dinner preparations, to work through this issue in diplomatic ways. I have seen no evidence of U.S. diplomats taking "potshots" at her. After the UN speech that may very well change.

Reciprocity also means that the complaints of friendly countries and even adversaries are evaluated through the lense of what they would do if given the same opportunity. Nation-states are competitive. If you do not believe that countries spy on the U.S. administration, or would intercept emails of U.S. diplomats if they had the wherewithal, you are wrong. Yes, if catching another country spying in this form, the U.S. would complain, so what?

Perhaps one might look more closely at Rousseff's highminded rhetoric at the UN and weigh it against Brazil's behavior domestically and/or diplomatically with Latin American neighbors. How do Paraguay and Bolivia perceive Brazil in diplomatic negotiations? Do they recognize that Brazil simply respects their sovereignty? Is Brazil bound by a "gentlemen's" code when dealing with natural gas, hydroelectric contracts, transcontinental roads, Bolivian political dissenters, domestic protests and indigenous land rights? Rousseff even more than her predecessor puts great weight on economic results. Indeed her complaints about the Petrobras communications have been louder than the presidential ones.

As for strategic partnership, making Honduras and a lack of a deal on Zelaya the linchpin of stalled U.S.- Brazil strategic relations is absurd. The Brazilian government is quite content to have high profile disagreements with the U.S. over many international issues. Plainly the U.S. is as well.

Anonymous,  9:41 AM  

News Flash: States Spy on One Another

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/?page=5

Justin Delacour 10:22 AM  

"Rousseff can try to demand x, y and z, knowing full well the U.S. govt. is not going to give in to all her demands. They have been proclaimed so as not to be fulfilled."

How hard is it to simply issue a public apology? I think that's the question the Brazilians are asking. For them, it's a sign of great arrogance and disrespect that the United States will not swallow its pride here and simply issue a public apology.

"I have seen no evidence of U.S. diplomats taking 'potshots' at her."

No, they've left the potshots to their underlings in the press and blogosphere. People like Christopher Sabatini. The foreign policy establishment isn't just the state itself. It's the whole public relations apparatus that serves as something like a propaganda ministry for the state on questions of foreign affairs. It's the public relations apparatus that's not showing serious leadership, in this case.

"Yes, if catching another country spying in this form, the U.S. would complain, so what?"

The point is that you know it would expect a formal apology (at the very least), so it's completely incoherent to use the "reciprocity" argument to suggest that Brazil is somehow in the wrong to expect an apology from the United States.

Anonymous,  10:45 AM  

“The problem is that we here in the U.S. continue to hold fast to the rather antiquated notion that a U.S. president is never supposed to issue an apology to another country when the American state has clearly overstepped.”

“The foreign policy establishment isn't just the state itself. It's the whole public relations apparatus that serves as something like a propaganda ministry for the state on questions of foreign affairs. It's the public relations apparatus that's not showing serious leadership, in this case.”

News Flash: Unlike Venezuela and Cuba the U.S. media is not a propaganda ministry. The “underlings” in the press did not commit the act of spying and can’t lead on this story beyond covering it. The Brazilians have demanded a specific written apology from Obama. It must say x, y and z. This request is driven by wounded national pride as their request, as they full well know, is, at the very best, likely to be responded to with diplomatic euphemisms in written form. See China spying incident 2001 for an example. If Brazil chose to handle this in diplomatic channels other than the press, and showing up President Obama personally, the words of contrition might be more generous. Personally, I don’t see very much to apologize for and think you are just raking the same tired embers of anti-Americanism that constitute your stock and trade.

Justin Delacour 3:39 PM  

"Personally, I don’t see very much to apologize for and think you are just raking the same tired embers of anti-Americanism that constitute your stock and trade."

Alright, fella, have it your way. But when the U.S. and its foreign policy establishment are left with fewer and fewer allies because you folks have such limited capacity for self-reflection, you're not gonna be able to say that you weren't warned of the predictable consequences.

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP