The
chamber of the U.N. Security Council: a permanent seat on
the Council
is considered the Holy Grail of global influence.
Estadão, Brazil
Brazil Just as
Worthy as India of President Obama's Support
"In
his recent visit to New Delhi, President Obama ended his silence on the
enlargement of the U.N. Security Council and raved about India, whose bid for a
permanent Council seat he fully endorsed. Is the U.S. now adopting the
possession of The Bomb as a criterion for supporting bids for Council
seats?"
By Roberto Abdenur*
Translated By
Patrícia Viana de Lemos and Brandi Miller
Brazil President Lula with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Lula's opposition to further U.N. Security Council sanctions on Iran is one of a number of factors that may have cost his nation President Obama's support for a permanent seat on the Council.
During preparations for an
international visit, it's common to witness an exchange of “messages” in the
press between one party and another. At the outset, these serve to air out certain
tendencies or even crystallized positions regarding issues on the agenda expected to arise during the trip. In this regard, the article
published in the Feb. 8 edition of this newspaper deserves attention. In that
story, our Washington correspondent said that President Barack Obama doesn't
want Brazil on the U.N. Security Council. According to a State Department
source, Brazil committed a “mortal sin,” a “stupid mistake,” by opposing
sanctions approved by the Council against Iran. Given this, when President
Obama visits Brazil in March, only a "miracle" will bring him to
support Brazil's bid for a permanent seat on the Council.
This subject deserves careful
evaluation since it isn't without impact on bilateral relations, even if it
isn't a sine qua non
requirement for progress that is, indeed, of great interest to both parties.
Moreover, this topic involves decisions that relate to how the international
community will be able to better organize itself to take on the huge challenges
that a number of issues pose in terms of economics, the environment, energy,
politics and security.
An important antecedent immediately
comes to the fore: in his recent visit to New Delhi, President Obama ended his
silence on the enlargement of the Security Council and raved about India, whose
bid for a permanent Council seat he fully endorsed. And he did so while
formalizing an unprecedented deal on U.S. nuclear cooperation with the country,
which became a nuclear-armed power in defiance of the Non-Proliferation
Treaty. At the time of Obama's visit, India established itself as a
strategic partner of the United States. Implicit in these bold steps was America's
interest in supporting the country in order to have it serve as a counterweight
to the growing economic, political and military power of China. This is what Realpolitik is all about,
and it's important to understand that. (Indeed, for its part, the Brazilian
government was once deeply critical of the Indian bomb).
Serving as the
reason for Obama's impending presence in Brasilia is that he has begun to
accept the idea of enlarging the Security Council - and that it is imperative
for Washington to undertake a careful, calm and objective analysis of the
“Brazilian case.” For starters, it makes no sense that in regard to a subject
with such tremendous international consequences, the U.S. government is
allowing itself to be led by its own dissatisfaction with Brazil's vote on the
Iran case.
It's obvious that
the attitude of the Lula government was a thunderous anomaly in the sense that
in that case, no national interest of Brazil was at stake. That was a serious
and unfortunate misadventure - albeit momentary and fleeting - and a deviation
from the historic norms of Brazilian diplomacy. It was an isolated event that
has been overcome and in no way represents a change in the international trajectory
of the country. What has been changing rapidly in the country's trajectory is
its ascension to the status of a significant and in many cases a decisive actor
in the broad spectrum of global problems, which require a rapid reconfiguration
of decision-making systems at the United Nations and other forums.
It's necessary for
the United States to acknowledge, in due measure, the virtual singularity of
what I call the “Brazilian case.” Unlike India - and China, Russia and even the
U.S. - Brazil is the only country with continental dimensions, a huge
population and a large, dynamic economy that is localized - yet far from the
geopolitical tension that characterizes other parts of the world. Is the U.S.
now adopting the possession of The Bomb as a criterion for supporting
bids for U.N. Security Council seats? If so, Brazil will certainly never have the
means to obtain a permanent seat on the Council (nor will any of the other
strong candidates, such as Germany or Japan). By contrast, what distinguishes
Brazil is the fact that it is privileged to be located in a peaceful region,
free of weapons of mass destruction, and where there is practically no risk of
conflict. This privilege is in no small measure the result of over a century of
skillful and lucid diplomacy, which indeed, has been reciprocated by our
neighbors.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
But Brazilian diplomacy has
never been confined to this hemisphere or to Latin America. Even before
achieving the democratic stability and economic vitality it can now boast of,
Brazil always had an active voice and considerable influence in debates over
issues involving trade, economics and finance, disarmament, non-proliferation
and a series of other issues involving international peace and security.
Specifically, it has acted as a bridge builder between different regions and
has been a factor in reconciliation and understanding in forums of all kinds.
Obama, although certainly popular in our country, is no saint. Nor does he need
to perform “miracles" during his visit to Brasilia. He need only think more
carefully about what Brazil stands for as an economy, a nation and a state -
and what it will increasingly mean as a decisive actor in the international arena.
The discussions should
include, specifically at the bilateral level, acknowledgement that over the
past few years, there was a change in the nature of the relationship between
Brazil and the United States. A new dynamic of increasing reciprocity is
creating strong interdependence and interlacing bonds, which has brought about substantial
development in terms of convergence and understanding, particularly in regard
to occasional differences of views. The logical conclusion of such a discussion
will be recognition that an endorsement of Brazil's candidacy for the Council
only contributes to the best interests of the international community, which
includes, of course, the United States.
*Roberto Abdenur was Brazil's
ambassador to the United States.
