BRAZIL-U.S.: Trade and Arms Complicate Bilateral Relations

By Mario Osava Reprint | | Print |

Mario Osava*

RIO DE JANEIRO, Mar 21 2002 (IPS) - Tensions between Brazil and the United States are on the rise with trade disputes simmering and Washington attempting to oust the Brazilian official who heads the intergovernmental Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

The bone of contention at OPCW is Brazilian José Mauricio Bustani, who has been the director-general of the independent body based in The Hague since its creation in 1997, and was re-elected last year for a second term ending in 2005. Before serving in that post, Bustani was Brazil’s ambassador to the United Nations.

The United States demanded Bustani’s resignation and, given his refusal, announced it would request that the OPCW’s 41-member executive council to remove him. But that would only be done by an assembly of the organisation’s 145 member countries, according to the diplomat’s spokesman, Gordon Vachon.

The U.S. position, according to State Department spokesman Richard Boucher’s statements Tuesday, is that Washington has lost confidence in Bustani, and there are allegations of financial mismanagement. However, the administrative director of OPCW is a U.S. national who was proposed for that position by the U.S. government.

“The United States and others don’t believe the organisation can continue to fulfil its primary mission of eliminating chemical weapons under its current leadership,” said Boucher. “We and others have urged the director general to resign for the good of the organisation.”

The conflict already has created international divisions. The European Union, Australia and Canada have aligned themselves with the United States, against China, India and Russia, which want Bustani to remain in his post.

Brazil’s President Fernando Henrique Cardoso and the Foreign Ministry have expressed their support for the diplomat, who, they point out, was “elected and re-elected unanimously.” His critics have not provided reasons to justify interrupting his five-year term, according to Brazilian officials.

“I cannot allow a precedent to be established where a director- general resigns under pressure from a group of member states, without any evidence of wrongdoing or malfeasance whatsoever,” said Bustani as he rejected calls to step down.

But the Brazilian government considers it “a lost cause” to actively fight for Bustani and will not make an effort to keep at the helm of the OPCW, according to the newspapers ‘Correio Braziliense’, of Brasilia, and ‘O Estado de Sao Paulo’, based on unidentified national and international diplomatic sources.

As an international official, Bustani no longer answers to Brazil, but to the UN, said President Cardoso.

A senior U.S. administration official was quoted by the New York Times Wednesday as saying that a majority of OPCW members would support the U.S. resolution or abstain from voting, paving the way for Bustani’s ouster.

The official also said the campaign against Bustani had nothing to do with the aggressive U.S. policy against Iraq, which is said to be secretly developing chemical and biological weapons.

The United States is not only dissatisfied with Bustani’s overall performance, said the source, but is also annoyed that he stated that the OPCW should be given a more significant role in the U.S.-led war against global terrorism and in responding to the use of chemical weapons worldwide.

The United States is reportedly the world’s second leading producer of chemical agents, with about 30,000 tons, with Russia in the lead with approximately 40,000 tons.

Since the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) took effect in April 1997, the OPCW has conducted hundreds of inspections of chemical weapons production facilities around the world. Its inspectors have also monitored the destruction of more than 3,500 tons of chemical agents and over one million chemical munitions.

The Bustani case underscores the “imperial, arrogant and unilateral behaviour” of the United States, which has been accentuated since the Sep 11 terror attacks, former Brazilian army colonel Geraldo Cavagnari, coordinator of a strategic studies institute at Campinas University, told IPS.

The OPCW had its first political run-ins with the United States in March 1998 when it included Cuban and Iranian inspectors on the team slated to visit U.S. facilities under the jurisdiction of the CWC.

Washington also reportedly was upset by Bustani’s efforts to convince Iraq to join OPCW and to accept a mission of chemical weapons inspectors.

Iraq’s acceptance would point towards a negotiated solution for ending the alleged Iraqi arms build-up and would complicate potential armed attacks by the United States, which has linked the Middle Eastern country to Iran and South Korea, the “axis of evil” defined by President George W. Bush.

The United States is leading a campaign to “bring pressure on me to resign,” which includes “inappropriately” approaching Brazilian authorities, said Bustani. They did so, “as though I were still functioning as a Brazilian diplomat,” and not an international official, he added.

Brazil is standing behind its diplomat “as an ethical matter, for his merits, and in favour of the multilateralism and independence” of bodies like OPCW, but the government “recognises that it does not have the strength to oppose” the world’s superpower, said expert Cavagnari.

It is a question of “being realistic,” added the retired colonel. The United States provides 22 percent of the OPCW annual budget, which reaches 60 million dollars, the largest single contribution to the organisation.

Current relations between the two countries “are not dangerous, but nor are they calm,” and present “a panorama of problems for the near future,” particularly those related to trade disputes, said Cavagnari.

The Brazilian government has taken an aggressive stance in the world trade arena, bringing its challenges of U.S. barriers and subsidies, particularly those affecting orange juice, steel, soya and cotton, before the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

On Wednesday, Brazil asked the WTO to seek an explanation from the United States for the 40-dollar-per ton tariff on Brazilian orange juice imposed by officials from the southeastern U.S. state of Florida, with proceeds going towards advertising and promoting the local product.

A Florida court ruled the tariff unconstitutional, saying states cannot levy customs taxes, which are a prerogative of the national government. The Brazilian government argues that the tariff violates WTO rules.

Brazil is also preparing to challenge U.S. protection of its own soya and cotton production. The U.S. measures will cost Brazil some 1.2 billion dollars a year in lost soya exports and the decline in prices attributed to U.S. government subsidies to its soya farmers.

U.S. cotton subsidies are preventing the expansion of the crop in Brazil, says Agriculture Minister Marcus Pratini de Moraes. The lack of local production obligates the country to import cotton, with losses of 300 million dollars, according to estimates by the Brazilian association of cotton growers.

On Mar 5, Washington announced extra tariffs and quotas on steel imports, which are condemned by Brazil, though the country will be less affected than other major producers, such as the European Union and South Korea.

Brasilia is not ruling out a challenge on the matter before the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, which would deepen tensions with the United States.

The government of this South American giant has put its foot down, saying that if Washington maintains its stance on these trade matters, it will be impossible to make progress toward the creation of the Free Trade Area of the Americas, a Western Hemisphere-wide endeavour.

* IPS New York correspondent Thalif Deen contributed to this story.