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 has shown itself capable of training professionals with diverse technical and intellectual skills, within what is known as “bureaucratic insulation”[i].
It is interesting to note that foreign policy is not something fixed, but there are changes in its implementation over time. Responds to changes in the international system and the domestic environment and, even though each government has the capacity to create a certain profile in its execution, deeper and longer-lasting movements are preserved. Be part of 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 the policy of inserting Brazil as an important player on the global scene following redemocratization, what we see is a solid policy, based on more fixed values and causes, such 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 can be seen during the Lula government, that he had in the Secretary General of Foreign Affairs of the MRE, Ambassador Samuel Pinheiro Guimarães, one of its most explicit facets of ideological control[ii]. Like this, the attempt at ideological rigging in office by the current chancellor Ernesto Araújo is nothing 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 to the country on the international stage. The current international isolation that the country has suffered has not been seen since the worst moment of military governments, when the country was harshly criticized and isolated.
What explains this crisis in Brazilian foreign policy?? If the frames are more or less the same, if the search for ideological equipment is something already experienced by the ministry, whether exaggeration to the left or right generates 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 what the function of foreign policy is.. It's not such a trivial answer, since it depends a lot on the history of the country, of its relevance to the rest of the world and, about everything, of the guiding objectives of the action. It is important to note that these objectives are not temporary, linked to specific government agendas, but to the more perennial interests of a country (some theorists call this “national interest”). This is why it is often said that foreign policy is a State policy and not a government policy..
These interests remain valid, such as the search for improving Brazilian insertion on the International board from a vision with economic prevalence, the defense of the principle of non-intervention and the search for an international system with elements of balance through checks and balances. The point is that these interests are guiding (or advisors, As some Asianists would say), but they are not automatically translatable into everyday action. Which agendas gain relevance and which resources will be allocated to their construction depends on another lens that transforms interests into goals: a project.
It is the project that allows us to “translate” interests into concreteness, in shares. Rhetoric does not end in itself, it is just one of the instruments necessary 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 currently see is a lot of political energy being spent on rhetoric, in participation in international forums and in empty alignments. But little is known 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 position.
At the current moment in Brazilian foreign policy, what is perceived is the defense of agendas that are not effectively linked to Brazil, but rather to fragmented perceptions on topics linked to moral. It is precisely this attempt to take these issues from the realm of morality to the realm of politics that removes the pragmatism necessary for a good foreign policy., leaving it empty and forcing the removal of other international actors.
Brazil is increasingly toxic on the international scene and this must continue until we have a foreign policy project capable of translating national interests into actions. Until then, we will live in a self-affirmative desire 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 issues 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 – This is not the first time that ambassador Samuel Pinheiro Guimarães has become radical and taken controversial actions. Ten years ago, Another of his outbursts brought him the spotlight. He was dismissed from his position as director of the Itamaraty's International Relations Research Institute because he spoke, in a lecture to military personnel, against the creation of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (Auk), one of the government flags of the time, presided over by the toucan Fernando Henrique Cardoso.
Critics say the diplomat is anti-American, contrary to globalization and the free market and admirer of Bolivarian leaders, like the presidents of Venezuela (Hugo Chavez), from Bolivia (Evo Morales) and Ecuador (Rafael Correa). Pinheiro Guimarães was mentioned several times by the Venezuelan. In general, Chávez had in his hands, in speeches at the Mercosur summit meeting, in addition to the Constitution of your country, some ambassador's book, who he called a friend.
The statements against the FTAA pleased the then candidate for President of the Republic, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, what, by appointing Celso Amorim to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2003, invited Pinheiro Guimarães to be secretary general of Itamaraty. He and Amorim are friends and were colleagues at Embrafilme, in the decade 1970. To get an idea of the prestige of Pinheiro Guimarães, as he was not a 1st class ambassador as the position of secretary general required, Lula put an end to the demand.
To avoid becoming, again, “hostage of his opinions” — as a senior Brazilian ambassador says — the diplomat chose to remain silent when assuming the second most important post at Itamaraty. Stopped giving interviews, turned low profile, but continued to act behind the scenes.
Life was more difficult at Itamaraty, especially for young diplomats, when Pinheiro Guimarães, today with 73 years, held the role of general secretary. He established as a precondition for the removal and promotion of employees the reading of a series of publications, including some of his almost 20 books, in what became known as “Professor Samuel’s little school”. His influence on diplomacy was evident from the beginning of the careers of more than 50 years. In 2005, managed to exclude the English test from the qualifying exams for entry into Rio Branco.
to the United States, one of the main defenders of the FTAA, things weren't easy either. Lula buried negotiations to create a free trade zone in the hemisphere and approached countries considered 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 of 2011, high representative of Mercosur, position he 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 economic department of Itamaraty, created a manual to guide employees on how to speak on the phone. He used to use an hourglass to measure time in hearings and carbon paper for notes to subordinates..
Originally published in https://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/a-escola-samuel-de-polemicas-5348264
Ernesto Araújo attributes human rights issues to ‘harmful ideologies”
By Denise Chrispim Marin– Updated 7 Aug 2019, 20h45 – Published in 7 Aug 2019, 20h40
Cornered by opposition deputies in the Social Security and Family Committee this Wednesday, 7, when asked about his guidelines for Brazilian diplomacy to deal with women's reproductive health issues, gender and torture in international organizations, Chancellor Ernesto Araújo attributed the current issues under debate in the area of human rights to “harmful ideologies”.
Araújo said he was “concerned” about men accused of rape, claimed that it 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 handles the Venezuela crisis is a show of its respect for human rights.
In the audience, Araújo was especially confronted about the inconsistency of Jair Bolsonaro's government's positions on these issues and the country's candidacy for a place on the United Nations Human Rights Council. The selection will be in October.
“I want to tell the minister that I was appalled by his guidelines for Brazilian diplomacy in the UN votes (United Nations Organization)”, said deputy Fernanda Melchionna(PSOL-RS), one of the authors of the request for the Araújo hearing. She accused Itamaraty of having broken its approach to voting in line with ultra-conservative dictatorships, like those in the Middle East, on issues relating to women's health. “The guidance you gave and the Brazilian stance shame us.”
Melchionna specifically referred to Araújo's instruction to Brazilian diplomats not to approve, in international organizations, texts in which recognition of “gender diversity” and “women’s right to sexual and reproductive health” were mentioned. The PSOL deputy also mentioned the Bolsonaro government's own positions regarding 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 of the logic of destroying human rights principles.
“In the application document for the CDH, the Brazil, country where most LGBT people are killed in the world, not a comma is written about LGBTs. Don't talk about torture in a country that lived 21 years of military dictatorship, that you insist on denying, and who still practices torture”, said the deputy. “You want to be at the CDH to dismantle the conception of human rights, to defend barbarism”, concluded.
Araújo's responses sparked more indignation among opposition deputies, who tried to interrupt him to discuss specific points. The chancellor defended part of the topics raised, but avoided those that referred directly to President Jair Bolsonaro. About your determination to veto recognition of gender diversity, explained that this is a “harmful ideology” as it goes against “science, which says there are only men and women.”.
Reforestation, He stated that the use of the expression “women's reproductive health” in proposals for international resolutions is a trick by the left to pass a right not recognized in the Brazilian legal system, that of abortion.
“This is what the left does a lot: take a noble concept, kidnaps, perverts and distorts. This happens in this topic and in the environment”, declared. “It’s a trick that people with abortionist ideology are using. They always tried (circumvent the abortion ban) by court decisions or through the UN.”
Melchionna also asked the chancellor if he was not ashamed of having declared that “today, looking at a woman is already an attempted rape” and about there being a heavier moralism than that of the Victorian era. “You are not ashamed to make a statement like that in a country with 164 rapes per day?”, attacked the deputy, remembering that this number is much lower than the real one due to the blaming of victims.
“I am concerned about the demonization of male sexuality. We see a lot of situations in the United States in which women claim, without any proof, who was a victim of rape, and man’s life is destroyed.”, countered the chancellor.
Deputy Talíria Petrone(PSOL-RJ), co-author of the application, particularly attacked Itamaraty's guidance to veto women's right to reproductive and sexual health when, No brazil, there is a 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 terms of femicide. “You defend the lives of those who?”
Araújo took note of the parliamentarians' attacks and observations and left his responses until the end of the session, in order to avoid debate. Congressman Eduardo Bolsonaro(PSL-SP), Chairman of the Chamber's Foreign Affairs Committee, joined the audience in the front row. His presence was not omitted. Representative Sâmia Bonfim(PSOL-SP) questioned the chancellor about President Jair Bolsonaro's statement that he could send him to Washington as ambassador and place his son Eduardo at the head of Itamaraty if the Senate does not approve the deputy's appointment to the post in the United States.
“You have no self-love. If I had dignity, He would have already retired from his position.”, declared Bonfim.
Originally published in: https://veja.abril.com.br/mundo/ernesto-araujo-atribui-temas-de-direitos-humanos-a-ideologias-nocivas/
