Obama, Brazil and the Security Council

It is common practice for the press of two countries to exchange messages while preparing for international visits. They do this beforehand so they can formulate ideas of their positions regarding the content of meetings that will take place during the trip. Regarding this subject, it is worthwhile to mention an article posted in this newspaper on Feb. 8. In the article, a Washington correspondent declared that President Barack Obama does not want Brazil to be part of the United Nations Security Council. According to a State Department source, Brazil committed a “mortal sin” and “stupid mistake” when it opposed the sanctions approved by the Council against Iran. The article states that in the face of this, it will be a “miracle” if President Obama supports granting Brazil a permanent place in the UNSC when he visits in March.

Even though it is not essential for future relations, this subject deserves attention, because it impacts the bilateral relations of the two countries. It is also important, because it involves decisions on how the international community will be able to better organize itself in the face of various challenges. These challenges are economic, environmental, energy related, political, and those related to security matters. An important precedent came about unexpectedly: Abandoning the silent treatment about the expansion of the UNSC, on his most recent trip to New Delhi, President Obama praised India and fully endorsed its application to be part of the UNSC. He did so by formalizing an agreement of nuclear cooperation between the United States and India, a country that became an armed nuclear power contrary to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It was then India that was hailed as a strategic ally of the United States. This agreement was in the interests of the United States to counterbalance the economic, political and military growth of China. This is the Realpolitik of the situation, and it needs to be understood (the Brazilian government did so in this instance, although it was deeply critical of the Indian’s acquisition of the bomb at another time).

The result of Obama’s presence in Brasilia was that the North American president started to accept the principle of the expansion of the UNSC — it is now essential that Washington proceed with a careful, calm and objective analysis of the “Brazilian case.” For starters, it does seems senseless that the United States’ government would be so troubled with Brazil’s vote on Iran that they would let it affect their decision to make Brazil part of the UNSC, an issue with so many international implications. It is obvious that Lula’s government’s position was a deviation from the norm, in the sense that no important national interest was at stake. The unfortunate episode was serious, albeit momentary and transitional; it was a detour from the political precedents in the history of Brazil. It was an isolated and incredulous chapter that by no means represented changes in the direction of the country’s course in the international arena. What has been changing rapidly is Brazil’s rise as an internationally relevant country. The decisive roll it plays in a broad spectrum of international problems. Brazil will demand changes and reconfigurations in the United Nations and other forums.

It is necessary that the United States recognize, in due measure, the uniqueness of what I termed the “Brazilian case.” Unlike India, China, Russia and even the United States, Brazil is the only country with continental dimensions, a large population and a big and dynamic economy that is located (far) away from the contexts of geopolitical tension that demarcates other regions of the world. Will the United States consider adopting, as criteria for its support to join the UNSC, the possession of nuclear arms? If that is the case, Brazil will definitely never have any claims for a permanent place in the Council (and neither will the other strong candidates, like Germany and Japan). What makes Brazil unique is the opposite; it is the fact that it is fortunately located in a peaceful region, free of weapons of mass destruction and where risk of conflict virtually does not exist. This privilege was largely the result of more than a century of skillful and articulate diplomacy that was reciprocated by our neighbors.

The Brazilian diplomacy has not only been confined to its hemisphere or Latin America. Even before achieving the democratic stability and economic force that it now has, Brazil has always had an active voice and considerable influence in discussions regarding trade, economy and finance, disarmament, non-proliferation, and several other topics involving international peace and security. In reality, it has acted as an effective bridge builder between disparate regions and as an agent of reconciliation and understanding in several forums on many subjects. Obama, who is certainly popular in our country, is not a saint and does not have to perform “miracles” in his visit to Brasilia. He only has to reflect more closely on what it means that Brazil is increasingly becoming a decisive player on an international level — Brazil as an economy, nation and State. This reflection should include, in a bilateral level, the affirmation that in recent years a change has occurred in the nature of the relationship between Brazil and United States. A new dynamic of mutually growing support creates strong linkages and interdependency. What follows should be substantial growth in the areas of convergence and understanding, over different topics and points of view. The logical conclusion of such a reflection would be that the support for the Brazilian candidacy to be part of the council serves in the best interest of the international community, including, of course, the interests of the United States.