TRADE: US Treats Brazil with Kid Gloves, Despite Criticism on Iraq

By Mario Osava Reprint | | Print |

Mario Osava

RIO DE JANEIRO, Apr 25 2003 (IPS) - Brazil’s persistent opposition to the foreign policy decisions and actions of the United States and ongoing trade disputes between the two countries do not appear to have affected bilateral relations nor the shared interest in negotiating continent-wide free trade.

Brazil not only condemned the U.S.-British invasion of Iraq, but has systematically opposed Washington’s four-decade embargo against Cuba, as well as resolutions criticising Havana’s human rights record that are promoted every year by the United States in the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva.

It also rejects Plan Colombia, a U.S.-financed anti-drug and counterinsurgency strategy in that war-torn South American country.

In addition, the government of Brazilian President Luiz Inácio ”Lula” da Silva, the head of the leftist Workers’ Party (PT), in office since January, has worked hard to strengthen South American integration through its own channels, and has brought complaints in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) against U.S. subsidies to cotton farmers.

Nevertheless, Washington has been careful not to express annoyance or ”disappointment” with Brasilia, in sharp contrast to its angry reactions towards other countries, like Mexico, that have opposed the attack on Iraq.

On his visit to the Brazilian capital and Sao Paulo on Tuesday and Wednesday, U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow had only encouraging things to say about his government’s good relations with Brazil.

The United States believes it is vital ”to integrate the regional economy, under its own leadership,” and Brazil, Latin America’s giant, is indispensable to that process, José Guillón Albuquerque, coordinator of the University of Sao Paulo’s office of research on international relations, told IPS in a telephone interview.

In his view, there might be political disagreements, but that does not reduce the economic significance of Brazil’s participation in the creation of a 34-nation Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

Washington has taken a very different stance towards the opposition to the war on Iraq expressed by Chile, a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council.

In reprisal, Washington postponed congressional approval of a recently-agreed bilateral free trade deal between the United States and Chile.

For the United States, that agreement was mainly important in terms of political, rather than economic, interests, since trade with Chile is only of ”marginal importance” to the U.S. economy, said Guillón Albuquerque.

That means the trade accord stopped fulfilling its main objective when the administration of George W. Bush was unable to win Chile’s support in the Security Council for its war on Iraq, the analyst argued.

The United States also expressed ”disappointment” with Canada and Mexico over their opposition to the war against Iraq.

But Brazil’s clout as Latin America’s biggest economy and an undisputed leader in South America has led to entirely different treatment from the Bush administration, said Clovis Brigagao, director of the Centre of Studies on the Americas at the Cándido Mendes University in Rio de Janeiro.

Within the U.S. administration there have been expressions of ”irritation” over Brazil’s opposition to the war, but that has not affected commercial interests.

”There will be neither a greater opening nor a toughening” of the U.S. position in the free trade negotiations due to differences in foreign policy, which will not change the basic components of the FTAA, the most important aspect of inter- American relations over the next few years, said Brigagao.

However, political and commercial concerns are not completely divorced. The positions taken by Brazil ”reinforce the arguments of protectionist sectors” in the United States, which will make access to the U.S. market through the FTAA negotiations more difficult, said Gillón Albuquerque.

Against that backdrop, Snow’s visit was aimed at keeping discrepancies over foreign policy from ”contaminating” commercial and economic relations between the two countries, said the analyst.

Besides praising the Lula administration’s economic policy, which he said was ”right on track,” the U.S. official announced that his country was prepared to negotiate everything, and to review trade barriers as well as the subsidies that hurt Brazilian exports.

He said U.S. trade experts will negotiate ”with a seriousness of purpose and with a deep commitment to finding ways to create win-win situations for Brazil and the United States.”

Snow also underlined that he was speaking in the name of U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, who will visit Brazil in May to discuss the FTAA. The two countries are currently co-chairing the final phase of talks.

The diplomatic and conciliatory statements by the U.S. official contrasted with the sharp reaction by Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim.

According to Amorim, Snow’s statement that ”we are prepared to put everything on the table” in the FTAA negotiations has ”little credibility.”

”That is the same as saying nothing,” he told members of the Chamber of Deputies Foreign Relations Commission Wednesday.

Amorim criticised the U.S. vision of what the FTAA should look like as ”poor and discriminatory,” because it offers the countries of the Mercosur (Southern Common Market – Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay) more restricted access to the U.S. market, and excludes the products of greatest concern to Brazil.

If the unfavourable conditions for South America persist, Brazil may seek an extension of the late 2004 deadline for reaching a final agreement on the FTAA, the foreign minister announced.