U.S.-Brazilian relations
The L.A. Times has an editorial about U.S.-Brazilian relations, which I found a bit curious. The argument is that we can't let differences over Iran damage the relationship. OK, good idea, but who really thought that would happen?
What it demonstrates is that over time we've simply become accustomed to foreign policy that punishes countries who do not agree with us 100% of the time (as a matter of fact, I just blogged about how that pervasive that is). So when we have a disagreement with Brazil, we assume it will blow up everything else.
Maybe one major goal for the Obama administration's policies toward Latin America is to get everyone accustomed to having allies with differences. From a strictly realist point of view, it will serve U.S. interests far better.
4 comments:
The argument is that we can't let differences over Iran damage the relationship.
But this is not some abstract declaration that the U.S. policy establishment now seeks to play nicy nice with all those who question it. The primary reason that the political establishment will reach the aforementioned conclusion is that Brazil is an emerging power. Brazil will be permitted the latitude to do some things that other countries won't be permitted to do because Brazil is the fifth most populous country in the world and Latin America's largest economy. In other words, what the LA Times writes is a simple recognition that the U.S. policy establishment doesn't have a viable way of punishing Brazil, meaning that the only viable road left to the U.S. policy establishment is to negotiate with Brazil.
The argument is that we can't let differences over Iran damage the relationship. OK, good idea, but who really thought that would happen?
Umm... it did happen. Brazil has definitely lost some goodwill among US power circles. The US sent Brazil (and Turkey) and a pretty strong message when we announced sanctions a day after the Iran nuclear agreement (which mirrored the original US proposal). This lack of obedience really PO'd a lot of US official - and the media. If you haven't noticed the anti-Brazil rhetoric in the US press, I don't know where you've been. US elites far preferred the first term Lula.
Justin makes a good point as well. But I'd argue Brazil is permitted more latitude than other LA countries more so because of more geo-political reasons. Though, of course, Brazil's pure economic power plays a large role as well.
US elites manufactured this "good" and "bad" Latin left myth. Brazil was always on the "good" side. Therefore it is much harder to explain why Brazil has gone "bad." Better to just ignore it.
But I'd argue Brazil is permitted more latitude than other LA countries more so because of more geo-political reasons. Though, of course, Brazil's pure economic power plays a large role as well.
Right, but geo-politics is intimately related to the distribution of material power in the world, so geo-politics and economic power aren't really alternative explanations. I don't think it's a simple coincidence that Latin America's largest country and economy was the one to broker the Iran deal alongside Turkey. Among Latin American countries, Brazil may be unique in commanding the power and stature necessary to be able to do that sort of thing.
US elites manufactured this "good" and "bad" Latin left myth. Brazil was always on the "good" side. Therefore it is much harder to explain why Brazil has gone "bad."
My guess is that, while the media and establishment will bash Lula for a little while over Iran, these outward expressions of tension won't last very long because, as Greg suggests, it's really not in the U.S. political establishment's interests to isolate itself by keeping up the antagonism with Brazil.
Post a Comment