Brazil Holds its Ground, Opposes New Sanctions on Iran

In Brazil Wednesday, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton attempted to make the case that the rising Latin American power ought to support a new round of UN sanctions against Iran in the Security Council—a body in which Brazil currently holds a non-permanent seat. But, reports the AP, Brazil “rebuffed” the appeal even before Sec. Clinton could present her case. “It is not prudent to push Iran against a wall,” Brazilian President Lula da Silva told reporters prior to his meeting with Clinton Wednesday. “The prudent thing is to establish negotiations.” During a later news conference, Clinton said she respects Brazil’s position on the matter but added that she believed negotiations would only be possible after new sanctions. “The door is open for negotiations. We never slammed it shut,” Clinton says. “But we don't see anybody, even in the far-off distance, walking toward it.” The Wall Street Journal picks up the story from there, quoting Brazilian foreign minister Celso Amorim who called the idea of new sanctions “counterproductive.” The paper also explains Lula’s own position on nuclear development. The Brazilian leader has long said he feels his own country’s “aggressive but peaceful” (the WSJ’s words) nuclear plans could be adopted by Iran. “I want for Iran the same thing that I want for Brazil, to use the development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes,” da Silva argued Wednesday. “If Iran is in agreement with this, then Iran will have the support of Brazil.” As many others have said in recent months, Brazil also sees its role on Iran as a chance to further assert its position as a global leader. According to Peter Hakim of the Inter-American Dialogue, “Brazil wants to make it clear to the U.S. that it is not a country that can be lectured to.”

Back on the road with Sec. Clinton, the State Dept. has attempted to publicly downplay the Iran talks in Brazil. At State’s blog, Dipnote, there’s no mention of the Iran matter. Instead, DOS says “the Secretary and Foreign Minister [Amorim] strengthened bilateral relations by signing cooperation agreements for the advancement of women, expansion of work to foster economic development, improve health care and increase social inclusion in countries that face the greatest poverty challenges, and ways to combat climate change.” This included a memo of understanding between the two countries “for the implementation of technical cooperation activities in third countries.” This apparently means that Brazil and the US will increase cooperative efforts in other developing countries through their respective development agencies. And Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, William Burns, himself a visitor to Brasilia last week, describes what he calls a “21^st century partnership” with the country. “It is clear to me that Brazil has much to teach its neighbors in Latin America and other nations facing similar challenges, around the world....” Burns writes. He mentions Brazil’s increasing role in Africa, as well as Haiti, specifically.

And finally, with an opinion on Ms. Clinton’s visit to Brazil, Julia Sweig of the Council on Foreign Relations, had a piece in the International Herald Tribune yesterday. She argues that while Clinton “understands that the United States must adapt to a multipolar world, working with powers such as China, Russia and India,” the US has in many ways fallen short thus far.

Sweig continues: “The United States still acts like an imperial power. When Hillary Clinton says ‘partnership,’ Brazilians may think she really means deference to U.S. interests. To tackle problems on the bilateral, regional and global agenda, Mrs. Clinton will have to overcome Brasilia’s skepticism about Washington’s commitment to a real give-and-take.”

She concludes: “Mrs. Clinton’s visit will not result in the intimacy of a ‘special relationship,’ or in the uncomfortable embrace Washington often bestows upon its best friends in the region. But if she leaves with an appreciation of Brazil’s exceptionalism — a quality that Brazilians fully understand in the United States — a healthy and clear-eyed mutual respect could begin to emerge.”

In other stories:

· The latest from Chile includes more reports about apparent “lawlessness” in the quake-struck regions of the country. The New York Times paints a scene from some sort of post-apocalyptic thriller, beginning its main report on the matter today by writing: “At night, residents huddle around bonfires and guard their streets with torches and sticks, ready to repel outsiders who might try to break into their darkened homes.” Curfews remain in effect and the military and federal police guard grocery stores and gas stations. And, the report continues, for many Chileans who lived through a long military dictatorship the presence of so many gun-wielding soldiers on city streets has been hard to swallow.” The Washington Post’s Juan Forero files a strikingly similar report. He begins this morning: “In a country considered safe, democratic and increasingly egalitarian, the stores were sacked.” He describes “looters” “ransacking clothing boutiques, trying to carry away ATMs and crashing into electronic stores, lugging out plasma televisions and stereos.” And in a sloppy fashion, Forero points his finger at deep inequalities which the quake has exposed in Chilean society. “Though there were middle-class looters -- some carried off their booty in expensive four-wheel-drive vehicles -- the pillaging was carried out largely by poorer Chileans, and it left some horrified onlookers wondering whether their country had really advanced as much as the economists and government officials had believed.” There’s a similar report on social inequalities in Chile—although done in a somewhat more appropriate style—at the LA Times. “The country has grown economically, but socially, in terms of education, culturally, it's just a skin,” says Sonia Diaz, a columnist for Chile’s La Tercera. “You can see it in the social explosions in the south, in the way wealthier people in this region went in and bought up everything in the supermarkets.”

· The NY Times also looks at the political implications of the quake, which some say are testing Chile’s “low tolerance for polarization.” The Wall Street Journal looks at how the quake will affect incoming President Sebastian Pinera’s agenda. In his Miami Herald column, Andres Oppenheimer says the disaster may delay Chile’s rise to “developed world” status. At The Nation Naomi Klein rebuts WSJ columnist Bret Stephens who attacked Klein and praised the Chicago Boys and their free market policies for “developing” Chile earlier in the week. According to Klein, there’s one major flaw in Stephens’ case: “the modern seismic building code, drafted to resist earthquakes, was adopted in 1972, under socialist President Salvador Allende, not Gen. Augusto Pinochet. And from Bolivia, President Evo Morales and his Vice President Alvaro García announced they’ll be donating half their monthly salary to earthquake relief efforts in both Haiti and Chile.

· From Honduras, Human Rights Watch said Wednesday that attacks on anti-coup activists have continued under the government of Pepe Lobo. The NYT reports: “In a letter to the Honduran attorney general, Luis Alberto Rubí, the human rights group said that three people had been killed and eight had been detained and attacked over the past month in what appeared to be politically motivated episodes.” Also, Reporters Without Borders denounced the murder of Honduran television journalist Joseph Ochoa, killed in Tegucigalpa earlier in the week. The likely target, however, was Ochoa’s fellow journalist Karol Cabrera of the state-owned Canal 8 TV station. Cabrera supported the coup in June and the journalist’s daughter was killed in a very similar incident in December. Also, reports indicate that the subject of Honduras’s re-integration into the OAS will be among the topics discussed when Hillary Clinton arrives in Guatemala Friday.

· In the Wall Street Journal an interesting report this morning on how Venezuela has sought important financing and loans from China, in exchange for oil, and instead of knocking on the IMF’s door. This as Venezuela’s central bank announced a 5.8% shrinking of its economy over the last quarter, compared with one year prior. BBC Mundo also reports on how electricity rationing is delaying the processing of court cases in the country.

· And with some opinions today, an editorial in the Washington Post attacks Argentine President Cristina Kirchner for the current Falkland/Malvinas dispute with Great Britain. “For Ms. Fernández de Kirchner, it's easier to make speeches about colonialism -- even if they don't bring much return,” the paper argues. And, via the Washington Post, Alvaro Vargas Llosa, attacks Venezuela after allegations by a Spanish judge say individuals in the government supported ETA and the FARC. Vargas Llosa contends: “The political significance of the Spanish National Court's indictments cannot be underestimated. Spain's left-wing government has been a friend of Cuba and Venezuela; it even sold Chavez weapons a few years ago. Madrid has resisted attempts by the European Union to denounce Venezuelan and Cuban human rights violations. Faced with such massive evidence coming out of its country's own courts, how can the government maintain its policy without paying a devastating price at the polls?”