DRUGS: Brazil Rejects US Aid as Derisory

By Mario Osava Reprint | | Print |

Mario Osava

RIO DE JANEIRO, Oct 3 1996 (IPS) - Brazil turned down US aid from the bilateral anti-narcotraffic cooperation agreement, claiming the sum offered was derisory and woulld only be a source of problems.

The aid offered is worth a million dollars per year, though this falls to 600,000 dollars net, as part of the reserve is kept to pay for the US embassy’s administration of the donation, executive secretary of the Ministry of Justice, Milton Seligman told IPS.

According to Seligman’s calculations, the national anti-drugs plan costs an annual 500 million dollars. The Federal Police are alloted 150 million dollars, and from 200 to 220 million go on the provincial police and the health and prevention systems.

Also, modernisation plans are underway in the Federal Police and the border controls, with planned expenditure of 685 million dollars assigned in four years.

Compared with these amounts, 600,000 dollars is “disproportionate” and will only complicate an “institutionally very good relationship,” said Seligman.

The official declared the cooperation agreement between Brazil and the United States would remain in action, but would concentrate on the exchange of information and technology, training and prevention programmes.

The sum in question is also insignificant compared with the amount the US offers to other South American nations, said Seligman. In the financial year ending in September, Washington granted 50 million dollaras and 15 aircraft to Bolivia, 30 million dollars and six helicopters to Colombia and 31 million dollars to Peru.

The decision to reject financial aid for the opening fiscal year is “technical and not political,” and will not affect bilateral relations, said Vice Foreign Minister Sebastiao do Rego Barros.

Seligman said the Ministry of Justice had come to the conclusion that the costs would be higher than the benefits. For while adminstrative costs had reached 290,000 dollars in the last year, this aid included obligations, like paying US officials in Brazil.

The US embassy in Brasilia issued a memo saying it was “surprised and disappointed” to have found out the Brazilian authorities had questioned “the usefulness of the joint cooperation and assistance programme, which has long been fighting crime and narcotrafficking” via the press.

The embassy said the Brazilian government had not informed them that they wished to put an end to a programme which represented a contribution of 16 million dollars in equipment, operational support and training over 22 years.

This diplomatic incident, though limited to the financial aspect, is yet another bone of contention added to numerous discrepancies between Brazil and the US on the issue of the war on drugs.

Brazil refuses to use its armed forces in the direct fight against narcotrafficking and does not agree that the best strategy is merely to restrict the production of drugs, the two proposals the United States most wants to impose on the continent.

The Justice Ministry wants to have its hands free to develop its own policy, without financial assistance from the US which implying commitments, like increased controls on outgoing passengers in the nation’s airports.

Both the US embassy and the Brasilian foreign office stressed that bilateral relations are on a high at the moment, though there are differences, especially in the area of trade.

The United States has just announced an investigation into the Brazilian automobile regulations, which impose barriers on vehicle imports and stimulate investment in national industry.

Meanwhile, Brazil is asking for the elimination of extra tariffs which the United States imposes on its steel and orange juice exports. Brazil argued these were unjustified, as they are applied to compensate for subsidies which were removed when the steel sector was privatised.

In the negotiations for the Free Trade Area of the Americas, Brazil is also opposed to the US proposal of a quick agreement on the basis of the North American Free Trade Area and appears to be winning support for a gradual process from the subregional blocs.

In the case of the war on narcotrafficking, the two parties “have different objectives,” said Seligman.

Once Washington’s initial reaction to the Brazilian decision is overcome, cooperation will be reestablished “on another level, amongst equals,” he concluded.