The problem of Brazilian foreign policy is not ideology, but the absence of a project
07/07/2020
Brazilian foreign policy has always been a source of pride for the country, mainly due to the internationally recognized capacity of its diplomats. Brazilian diplomats have managed to play a calming role in countless moments. Be it for creativity in finding new balance between dissonant movements, either by the weighted position defended.
This profile of diplomats is not something of this or that government, it's not something on the left or the right, of a developmental or liberal worldview. It is the result of several factors, as a ministry that was able to form staff with diverse technical and intellectual skills, within what is known as “bureaucratic isolation”[i].
Interesting to note that foreign policy is not something fixed, but has changes in its implementation over time. Responds to changes in the international system and the domestic environment and, however much each government has the capacity to print a certain profile in its execution, deeper and longer-lasting movements are preserved. Whether in the Getulist pendulum movement, in the debate between alignment and autonomy of the New Republic, in the short period of “independent foreign policy”, in the developmental policy of military governments, or in Brazil's insertion policy as an important player on the global stage from the re-democratization, what you see is a solid policy, based on more fixed values and causes, as the principle of non-intervention and multilateralism.
But something seems to have changed, and in a negative way. It cannot be denied that there are attempts to ideologically equip the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Mre), as you can see during the Lula government, he had in the MRE's Secretary General for Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Samuel Pinheiro Guimarães, one of its most explicit facets of ideological control[ii]. Like this, the attempt of current ideological rigging by the current chancellor Ernesto Araújo is not new. Their positions clearly seek to influence the various foreign policy agendas[iii] and this has clear impacts on Brazil's international movement space, but it is not enough to explain what has happened with the country on the international stage. The current international isolation that the country has suffered is not seen since the worst moment of the military governments, when the country was severely criticized and isolated.
What explains this Brazilian foreign policy crisis? If the pictures are more or less the same, if the search for ideological equipment is something already experienced by the ministry, whether exaggerating to the left or to the right generate the same impact, what would be the explanatory element for this particular crisis, which is more intense than others experienced in the country's recent history?
To answer this question, we first need to understand the role of foreign policy. It's not such a trivial answer, since it depends a lot on the country's history, its relevance to the rest of the world and, about everything, of the guiding objectives of the performance. It is important to note that these objectives are not temporary, linked to specific government agendas, but to a country's most perennial interests (some theorists call this “national interest”). That is why it is often said that foreign policy is a state policy and not a government policy..
These interests remain valid, as the search for the improvement of the Brazilian insertion in the International board from a vision with the economic prevalence, the defense of the principle of non-intervention and the search for an international system with elements of balance by means of checks and balances. The point is that these interests are guiding (or advisors, as some asianists would say), but they are not automatically translatable in the daily action. Which agendas gain in relevance and which resources will be allocated in their construction depends on another lens that turns interests into goals: a project.
It is the project that makes us able to “translate” interests into concreteness, in shares. Rhetoric does not end in itself, it is just one of the necessary instruments for actions to be modified. Attendance at international forums does not end in itself, is one of the instruments to influence actions. Political alignments do not end in themselves, are instruments to gain strength in international agendas.
What we see today is a lot of political energy spent on rhetoric, in participation in international forums and in empty alignments. But little is seen about the project, about why each of these actions. It’s not about being for or against, but to understand what is gained and lost with each positioning.
At the present moment of Brazilian foreign policy, what is perceived is the defense of agendas that are not effectively linked to Brazil, but rather to fragmented perceptions about moral issues. It is precisely this attempt to bring these issues from the realm of morals to the realm of politics that removes the pragmatism necessary for good foreign policy, leaving it empty and forcing the removal of the other international actors.
Brazil is increasingly toxic on the international stage and this should continue until we have a foreign policy project capable of translating national interests into actions. Until then, we will live in a self-affirming urge that will add nothing to the country.
[i] http://repositorio.ipea.gov.br/bitstream/11058/8561/1/Do%20Insulamento.pdf
[ii] The Samuel School of Controversies, available in https://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/a-escola-samuel-de-polemicas-5348264 (also available below).
[iii] Ernesto Araújo attributes human rights themes to ‘harmful ideologies”, published in https://veja.abril.com.br/mundo/ernesto-araujo-atribui-temas-de-direitos-humanos-a-ideologias-nocivas/ (also available below).
The Samuel School of Controversies
Eliane Oliveira – 29/06/2012 – 07:00 / Updated 29/06/2012 – 10:25
BRASILIA – It is not the first time that Ambassador Samuel Pinheiro Guimarães has radicalized and taken controversial actions. Ten years ago, another of his outbursts drew the spotlight. He was exonerated from the position of director of the Itamaraty International Relations Research Institute because he spoke, in a lecture for military, against the creation of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (Alca), one of the government flags of the time, chaired by the toucan Fernando Henrique Cardoso.
Critics say the diplomat is anti-American, contrary to globalization and the free market and an admirer of Bolivarian leaders, like the presidents of Venezuela (Hugo Chavez), from Bolivia (Evo Morales) and Ecuador (Rafael Correa). Pinheiro Guimarães was cited several times by the Venezuelan. Generally, Chávez had in hand, in the speeches of the Mercosur summit, beyond your country's constitution, some ambassador book, whom I called a friend.
Statements against the FTAA pleased the then presidential candidate Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, what, when appointing Celso Amorim to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2003, invited Pinheiro Guimarães as secretary-general of the Itamaraty. He and Amorim are consogros and were colleagues at Embrafilme, in the late 1970. To get an idea of the prestige of Pinheiro Guimarães, as he was not a first class ambassador as the post of secretary general asked, Lula ended the demand.
To avoid becoming, again, “Hostage to his opinions” - as a graduated Brazilian ambassador says - the diplomat opted for silence when he assumed the second most important position in the Foreign Ministry. Stopped giving interviews, turned low profile, but continued acting behind the scenes.
Life was more difficult in Itamaraty, mainly for young diplomats, when Pinheiro Guimarães, today with 73 years, occupied the role of secretary general. He established as a precondition for the removal and promotion of employees the reading of a series of publications, including some of its almost 20 books, in what became known as “little school for professor Samuel”. Its influence on diplomacy was evident since the beginning of the career of more than 50 years. In 2005, managed to exclude the English test from the eliminatory exams for admission to Rio Branco.
To the United States, one of the leading defenders of the FTAA, things were not easy either. Lula buried the negotiations for the creation of the free trade zone in the hemisphere and approached countries considered as anti-American.
In 2010, the diplomat was appointed Minister of Strategic Affairs, in place of the also controversial Mangabeira Unger. With the end of the Lula government, Pinheiro Guimarães became, in January 2011, high representative of Mercosur, position you left yesterday.
Born in Rio, Master in Economics from Boston University and passionate about literature and themes related to Latin American integration, the ambassador is, despite the controversies, admired
decade of 1980 and beginning of 1990, Pinheiro Guimarães, in charge of the Itamaraty economic department, developed a manual to guide employees on how to talk on the phone. Used to use hourglass to measure time in hearings and carbon paper on subordinate tickets.
originally published in https://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/a-escola-samuel-de-polemicas-5348264
Ernesto Araújo attributes human rights themes to ‘harmful ideologies”
By Denise Chrispim Marin– Updated 7 Aug 2019, 20h45 – published in 7 Aug 2019, 20h40
Cornered by opposition deputies at the Social Security and Family Commission on Wednesday, 7, when asked about his guidelines to Brazilian diplomacy to address women's reproductive health issues, of gender and torture in international organizations, Chancellor Ernesto Araújo attributed the current topics under discussion in the area of human rights to “harmful ideologies”.
Araújo said he was "concerned" about men accused of rape, claimed that he will not approve texts in favor of gender diversity and that the expression “women's reproductive health” is contraband for the approval of abortion. He also claimed that the way Brazil deals with the Venezuela crisis is an example of its respect for human rights.
At the hearing, Araújo was confronted especially about the inconsistency of the positions of the Jair Bolsonaro government on these issues and the country's candidacy for a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council. The choice will be in October.
“I want to tell the minister that I was appalled by his guidelines for Brazilian diplomacy in the UN polls (United Nations Organization)”, said deputy Fernanda Melchionna(PSOL-RS), one of the authors of the request for the hearing of Araújo. She accused Itamaraty of having broken its approach to voting in line with ultra-conservative dictatorships, like the ones in the Middle East, on issues relating to women's health. "The guidance you gave and the Brazilian posture make us ashamed."
Melchionna specifically referred to Araújo's instruction for Brazilian diplomats not to approve, in international organizations, texts mentioning the recognition of “gender diversity” and “women's right to sexual and reproductive health”. The PSOL deputy also mentioned the positions of the Bolsonaro government itself in relation to torture and the dictatorial regime of 1964 - in particular, to the death of Fernando Santa Cruz, father of the current president of the Brazilian Bar Association, Felipe Santa Cruz - as endorsements to the logic of destruction of human rights principles.
“In the CDH candidacy document, the Brazil, country where most LGBT people are killed in the world, there is no comma written about LGBT people. Does not speak of torture in a country that lived 21 years of military dictatorship, that you insist on denying, and who still practices torture ”, said the deputy. “Do you want to be at the HRC to dismantle the concept of human rights, to defend barbarism ”, concluded.
Araújo's responses sparked more outrage among opposition MPs, who tried to interrupt you to discuss specific points. The chancellor defended part of the topics raised, but he shied away from those who directly referred to President Jair Bolsonaro. On his determination to veto recognition of gender diversity, explained that this is a “harmful ideology” because it contradicts “science, that says there are only men and women ”.
Flushed, he stated that the use of the expression “women's reproductive health” in proposals for international resolutions is a trick of the left to pass on a right not recognized in the Brazilian legal system, abortion.
“It’s what the left does a lot: takes a noble concept, kidnaps, perverts and distorts. This happens on this topic and in the environment ”, declared. “It's a trick that people of the abortionist ideology are using. They always tried (circumvent the abortion ban) by court decisions or through the UN. ”
Melchionna further questioned the chancellor if he was not ashamed of having declared that “today, looking at a woman is already an attempt at rape” and about there being a heavier moralism than in the Victorian era. "You are not ashamed to make such a statement in a country with 164 rapes a day?”, attacked the deputy, remembering that this number is much lower than the real one because of the blaming of the victims.
"I am concerned about the demonization of male sexuality. We see a lot in the United States situations in which women claim, without any proof, who was a rape victim, and man's life is destroyed", countered the chancellor.
Congresswoman Talíria Petrone(PSOL-RJ), co-author of the application, especially attacked the Itamaraty's orientation to veto women's right to reproductive and sexual health when, No brazil, there is the record of 65 deaths in each group of 100.000 women - one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the Americas. She also recalled the fact that Brazil is the fifth country in the world in femicide. “You defend the life of those who?”
Araújo noted the attacks and observations of the parliamentarians and left their answers only for the end of the session, in a way to avoid or debate. Congressman Eduardo Bolsonaro(PSL-SP), president of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Chamber, joined the audience in the first row. His presence was not omitted. Congresswoman Sâmia Bonfim(PSOL-SP) questioned the chancellor about President Jair Bolsonaro's declaration that he could send him to Washington as ambassador and put his son Eduardo in front of the Foreign Ministry if the Senate does not approve the nomination of the deputy for the post in the United States.
“You have no self-love. If I had dignity, he would have already retired from office ”, declared Bonfim.
originally published in: https://veja.abril.com.br/mundo/ernesto-araujo-atribui-temas-de-direitos-humanos-a-ideologias-nocivas/
originally published in World map (www.mapamundi.org.br)
