Lula's Red Carpet Welcome for Ahmadinejad

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil, affectionately nicknamed Lula, comes as close to being a global rock star as a politician can get. But like any towering celebrity, there are some troubling developments behind all the glamour.

With less than a year to go before finishing his second term in office, Lula is riding a wave of popularity that is virtually unprecedented in Latin American history (75-80% approval ratings). The Brazilian economy, with the swagger of its BRIC status, has swelled over the past decade and survived the crisis, championed by many investors to be the top emerging market for growth over the short term (5% GDP growth speculated for this year). The President himself has been beatified to almost-sainthood in several films, including the latest high-budget biopic entitled "Lula, Son of Brazil," which has many guessing that he's aiming to become Secretary General of the United Nations. All that, plus he just got them the Olympics and the World Cup.

Why then, with so much going for him and his country, should he make such controversial choices in his friends? Lula's increasingly warm embrace of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, including an official state visit to Brazil Nov. 23-26, is causing many of his fawning admirers to rub their eyes in disbelief.

For those of us who enthusiastically support Brazil and its people, culture, and economy, the logic of the relationship with Iran is perplexing. There is no overlap in values, for example. This week Iran executed five people (including women), while another 135 juvenile offenders are on death row. Second only to China in capital punishment, Iran has also issued death sentences to five people now accused of fomenting unrest during the post-elections protests - a number which is likely to grow. Brazil, on the other hand, has proudly outlawed capital punishment since 1889, the second country of Latin America to adopt such a law.

The low level of trade between the two countries fails to provide an explanation either. Iran doesn't figure among the top 20 trade partners either for purchasing Brazilian exports or sending imports, and although Ahmadinejad has excitedly said that relations with Brazil have "no limits," even oil minister Azizollah Ramezani has stated that it is too far away to be a potential market for hydrocarbons (though oil and gas technical expertise is an area of interest).

The professed area of mutual interests is in the nuclear sphere. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki describes Brazil as holding a "common position" on rights to nuclear energy, while on Brazil's behalf Lula has repeatedly voiced his opposition to sanctions.

However, the true motivations behind the Brazil-Iranian relationship have very little to do with these statements. For Brazil, the elephant in the room is Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, whose own jovial relations with Iran and the purchase of $6 billion in Russian arms are prompting his neighbors to take action toward containment. What better way to procure information on what Iran is doing with its new "factories" in remote parts of Venezuela than strike up a competing relationship - which could also be the logic of Brazil hijacking the Honduran situation from Chávez's control by housing ousted President Mel Zelaya in their embassy.

During a visit this month to Brasilia, I was repeatedly told that the government believes that Chávez can be most influenced by keeping him close. Hence the hasty vote today to confirm Venezuelan ascension to Mercosur despite their failing to meet conditions set forth in the Treaty of Asunción. Many would call Brazil's decision to incorporate Chávez into Mercosur as naïve, but at the time of this writing President Lula was already boarding a plane for a coincidental visit to Caracas to celebrate Venezuela's entry at a presidential dinner.

Though there are other explanations for Lula to pursue his Iran policy (his South-South agenda, generalized anti-American goals, or bolstering Brazil's diplomatic clout in the UN), the balancing strategy with Venezuela is the most convincing. He feels that he has to create these alliances as measures of security to catch up with Chávez, which demonstrates once again that the Venezuela's activities cannot just be dismissed as harmless mischief-making by Washington. Testifying before Congress this week, Eric Farnsworth, vice president of the Council of the Americas, underscored this threat and commented that Brazil is "playing with fire" in bringing Iran into the region.

Venezuela is not only having an impact on foreign policies of neighboring states (Ecuador's Rafael Correa is in Moscow today), but also in the arms race Chávez has kicked off. Lula recently commented, "Everyone knows Brazil is a peaceful nation, but we need to be able to show our teeth if anyone wants to mess with us."

As for Iran's interest in Latin America, their thinking goes that the further they are able to penetrate into Washington's backyard, the safer they become. By increasing the costs of intervention, the Latin American strategy provides a staging ground for a real or imagined threat to the United States, which aims to have a dissuasive impact on the push for sanctions and diplomatic pressure. To boot, after a questioned election, it is always good to receive the congratulations of the global leader of the responsible left.

At the moment it is hard to say whether Lula, despite his celebrity and admirable achievements, is in over his head with Iran. Brazil is an impressive growing power, and one that has changed dramatically in the recent past, so it is understandable that its assertion of international leadership is fraught with challenges and inconsistencies. Soon the country's influence will be too big to simply shrug off issues of human rights and democracy without costs to its reputation.

This may already be happening. The most callous and frightening thing Lula has said with regard to Iran came shortly after the June elections, when demonstrations erupted and the police truncheons came down violently on the heads of protesting students. Quoted in the Brazilian media, Lula described these events as nothing more than the tears of poor "losers." That is not a hopeful message for those brave young men and women who now face show trials and execution for having attempted to change their country. Coinciding with the sports analogy, Fabio Barretto, the director of the latest glowing Lula biopic, was recently quoted saying, "In Brazil, there are no losers ... only people who keep trying until they succeed."

It would be nice if Lula's own story could mean something more outside of Brazil.

Follow Robert Amsterdam on Twitter: www.twitter.com/robertamsterdam

Comments

[isaidit]

Unless Lula hopes to get to talk some sense to that Madinejad. Nixon went to China, turned out to be the only feather in all his caps.

[BADRALDUJA]

love it when you tak about capital punishment in other countries,,while you still have it in america,,each country has its own punishmnet for different crimes dear amsterdam,,usually in the middle -east its rapists nd murderers and peadophiles and drug smugglers that get capital punishment,,
maybe if they did not ban it in brazil ,there would not be such a high rise in crime,,evenn the police are criminals there ,,lets not forget the favelas.

mr amsterdam face the facts dont look so shocked its not good for yiur health,,us policy and hypocrisy has made other not favour it anymore,whatever is up must come down and whatever is down must go up.

[wereeverywhere]

Lula, remind you of any of reactionary Generals who seized power in your region?http://english.mowjcamp.com/article/id/55365

Fear of protest drives school closure

In an extraordinary measure, the governor of the city of Kashan in the province of Isfahan has announced the closure of 235 schools from now until the 6th of November...

However the deputy to the provincial governor of Isfahan and the governor of Kashan City have both claimed that the purpose of the closures was to prevent the spread of the swine flu among students. However this does not explain why the schools will open again only 2 days after the nationwide demonstrations planned by the opposition on 4 November.

According to Fars News Agency which is one of the government’s propaganda machines, 150 primary schools and 85 middle schools will be closed ...30000 students will stay out of school when the demonstrations take place.

The governor of Kashan also asked parents to “prevent their children from getting out of the house” and “coming out onto the alleys and streets,” in order to prevent the spread of swine flu among citizens.

The Green opposition in Iran has been preparing for mass rallies across the country on the 4th of November ...

... The last such show of force by the opposition was on 18 September when Iranians across the country flooded the streets. Later a Revolutionary Guards commander stated that 2 million people took part in the marches.

[BiBiJan]

"But the Iranian threat has seeped into daily life as a constant, if barely conscious anxiety. It emerges at unexpected moments, as black humor or an incongruous aside in casual conversation. "I think we're going to attack soon," a friend said to me over Sabbath dinner, as we talked about our children going off to the army and to India."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/30/israelis-brace-themselves_n_339878.html

[wereeverywhere]

Is that a response? The Iranian opposition would be hamstrung by such an attack (along with numerous other awful consequences of such a hypothetical attack).

[lightningbolt]

Even countries with fundamentally opposite ideologies can have good relations. Another example is the U.S. with Saudi Arabia. The motive is usually commercial in nature.

[holeybuybull]

Perhaps Lula is a student of Latin American history and is aware of the damage done to that continent by the policies of the World Bank and the IMF, not to mention the CIA. Compared to that axis of evil, Iran couldn't help but look good.

[wereeverywhere]

Perhaps Lula's forgotten what right wing coups look like. Ahmadinejad just stole an election and is busy jailing, shooting, and generally brutalizing his opposition. While there never was freedom of speech or expression for Iranians, the political atmosphere post-election is even more stifled. I'm deeply disappointed in Lula's reference to Iranian resistance as 'poor losers.' It's hardly progressive to embrace reactionary thugs, even more so in Latin America.

[OdysseusNemesis]

“Why then, with so much going for him and his country, should he make such controversial choices in his friends? Lula's increasingly warm embrace of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad...”


Perhaps it is the author who has failed to understand the logic that it is not about Lula but 'what is best for his country, namely, Brazil'. Leaders who think that their personal feelings come before their country tend to be the most incompetent and corrupt ones.

The author's underlining argument is this: if one despises something (Iran), so too must all one's friends – it is very similar in tone to George Bush's “You are either with us or against us”.

Reading this article, I feel that the author is trying to appeal to sensibilities rather than reason.

[alexa07]

I detected many sour grapes in this article. The rest of the world is moving beyond the military adventurism of the American neocons & their friends. The NCs hope to demonize & attack Iran, but can't understand why many others don't share their delusions about the world.

[WorkingClass]

As for Iran's interest in Latin America, their thinking goes that the further they are able to penetrate into Washington's backyard, the safer they become.

Brazil is not Washington's back yard. Anybody who still thinks that way is irrelevant.

[Wisdo]

"with so much going for brazil"

What a chauvanistic opener. Brazil is perfectly entitles to make alliances with whomever it pleases. Better to have an alliance with oil rich Iran than pennyless Uncle Sam, who has been no friend to south America in its long history.

[chedet]

So, we americans are deciding who brazil should be friends with? Wow I didn't know Brazil is our 51st state.

[FoonTheElder]

Didn't you know that the Monroe Doctrine made all of Latin America the 51st state?

[piul05]

1."Lula" is not his nickname, it's his name since he changed it by deed poll;

2. Interesting that the world (Hollywood in particular) is abound with films showing countries/­historical events/ ethnic groups/people in a positive, even heroic, light, but somehow when it comes to a INDEPENDENT South American President, it's a process of "beatification" . What next? Will there be a speeded- up the canonization process? But isn't Lula a communist, a left-wing extremist? All very puzzling, this mixture of sacred and profane...very Mircea Eliade.

3. “There is no overlapping in values, for example”. Tell me, where is the overlapping in values between the US and China? Between the US and Saudi Arabia? Between China and Angola? Between Russia and Japan? All important trade partners with one another. In fact, if your criteria are not new commercial, financial, technological, or strategic alliances, but capital punishment, then Iran should be enjoying a warm relationship with the US, who comes fourth in such infamous list.
(http://www-secure.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT50/003/2009/en/0b789cb1-baa8-4c1b-bc35-58b606309836/act500032009en.pdf).

[Khirad]

Fair enough, but this was an opinion piece. All you say is correct (and wow, don't see Eliade refs too often!), but I agree with his opinion. In a perfect world, true progressives would give a cool reception to such leaders. I really liked Lula (though I will almost always root against his national soccer team), this does not help his favorability with me - but that's not to say I'm so fickle as to eschew him out of hand. Again, I like your points, I'm just laying out how I feel. The cynical Chávez relationship with Iran makes much more sense to me - though your points are well taken on this subject as well, of course.

[BiBiJan]

From your reply earlier: "Just because Iran is a lovely place with wonderful people, and more complex than often presented in mainstream media, does not make the reverse true, either."

One formulation for a progressive would be that commercial ties, and having cultural/e­ducational exchanges between the "wonderful" people of Brazil and Iran is a good thing. Especially so, because there is also money to be made.

We have all heard of "enterism", where folks with ulterior motives join and highjack progressive movements by harping louder about human rights than the victims themselves, etc., etc. and thus wind up acting as gatekeepers for directing thought/policy according to their nefarious agendas. Same technique, bowl hotter than the soup, works with conservative movement too. Just vex louder "no taxes" etc. Before long you've started a nice little influential neo-con scheme.

President Lula is not alone. The wonderful people of Iran are being treated like human beings by others too.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2009/10/iran-ahmedinejad-finds-ally-in-turkish-premier.html

Mr. Amsterdam is wrong about Brazil, wrong about Venezuella and wrong about Iran. And, none of them need your or his permission.

http://www.bibijon.org/iranimage/

[Wozzeck]

Ahmadinejad will get a much warmer reception than Lieberman received:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1101723.html

[Khirad]

So? Why no consistency, then?

[piul05]

Part IV

As the Brazilian Foreign Minister, Celso Amorim, told the Israeli government when the latter had the effrontery to summon the Brazilian ambassador to Tel Aviv, Pedro Motta Pinto Coelho, and demand that the Iranian President’s visit were cancelled: “If we stop welcoming some visitors because some countries object to it, then we’ll be inviting almost nobody into our territory”. A rather polite but firm way of saying that Brazil does not have to consult third parties about its international relations. The Brazilian position is one of diversifying its ties, without prejudice or privilege to any of the parts.

Ahmadinejad will go to Brazil and his visit will follow the official protocol pertaining Heads of State; but above all, he’ll be treated with courtesy and respect because that’s how Brazilians treat their guests.

[piul05]

Part III

Brazil is not trying to “contain” anybody because it doesn’t have to; because Venezuela is not a threat, because Iran is not a bogeyman, and because it does NOT have a fifth columnist government doing the US bidding anymore.

It may come as a surprise to you, but Brazil is a sovereign nation who will pursue what is in its own interest and that includes a relationship with Iran, that, if you did your research, dates back to the early 90’s (http://www.irantracker.org/foreign-relations/brazil-iran-foreign-relations) – long before Chavez were elected. Is Iran perfect? No, but neither are half a dozen other countries it trades with. But again, only one of those has overthrown its government back in the 60’s; and guess what? No grudges, they still have bilateral agreements.

[piul05]

Part II

Brazil, like Iran, is a natural regional leader whose recent history has been marked by the meddling of the CIA as soon as a democratically elected President had the audacity of putting his country’s interest first .Fancy that, having the proceeds of natural resources reverting to the people they belong to! I suppose, that falls into the profane category as of above…

Both Brazil and Iran have a young population and, in many ways, a couple of wasted generation. Young people who, if not given a glimpse of a future, become a burden to society, deepening the social cleavage. Both countries have a LEGAL nuclear project, being signatories to the NPT. And both countries have oil.

4. Now, to the Venezuelan pseudo “agent provocateur”; I do admire this contortionist exercise in playing one neighbor against the other - or more like it, in trying to set the cat among the pigeons. But make no mistake, Chavez may be over the top many times but he’s not out of sync with the mood in the Palácio do Planalto, in particular, or in Latin America, in general. With no little thanks to the change of focus in Washington, concentrating instead on the windmills of its Empire building in the ME, those countries cursed by the Monroe Doctrine had room to breathe, and their days of backyard are well and truly over.

[braz]

I think you have a point, but... should Lula, following your logic, reject ties with the US because you have capital punishment? Or because the US launches wars of choice against other countries?

I remember when the Brazilian press, which acts in unison as a mild version of Fox News, heavily criticized Lula for meeting with Libia's Gaddafi, as a sign of confrontation with the US and Europe. Two weeks later Bush and Blair were signing some agreement with Gaddafi to end most of the disputes between Libia and the "West".

Now Obama and Europe are in conversations with Iran about their nuclear program. It may not go anywhere, but it might just result in something positive.

One of the articles you point to says that Lula is "distancing from the US" by meeting with Ahmadinejad. I don't know how they are getting to that conclusion. This is what CBS news reported during one of the last meetings between Lula and Obama:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/09/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5146830.shtml

Earlier today, President Obama met with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and talked about Iran. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters that Mr. Obama pointed out Brazil's close trading ties with Iran and added that Obama told Silva that because of that relationship "they can have an impact on reiterating" the G-8's stance on Iran. "[That was a point the President wanted to stress," Gibbs said. "