Atlantic-Community.org: Building Support for Brazil's Bid at the UNSC

Building Support for Brazil's Bid at the UNSC
W. Alejandro Sanchez
Atlantic-Community.org
April 4, 2013
Originally published: http://bit.ly/14RMUch

Brazil has taken its ambitions to become a global power to the next level. In recent years, the Portuguese-speaking giant has courted the international community to become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, and it has successfully gained the support of several nations and multinational blocs. If the UNSC were reformed to include more permanent members, the natural candidate to represent Latin America and the Caribbean would be Brazil.

In addition to its economic development, powerful military, and growing influence over the past years, Brazil has carried out significant UN-related activities. For example, the country has become a de facto permanent UNSC member because it has consistently served as the principal Latin American rotating member over the past decades. Brazil is also involved in UN peacekeeping operations in Haiti (MINUSTAH), East Timor, and the maritime task force of the mission in Lebanon (UNIFIL – MTF). In October 2012, the UN and Brasilia signed a $20-million agreement that "will seek to transfer the expertise of the South American country to support cotton farmers in developing economies."

In addition, Brazilian Jose Graziano da Silva currently serves as director-general of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Several Brazilian heads of state have declared that the UNSC should reform and that Brazil should become a new permanent member. For example, while addressing the UN General Assembly on the global financial crisis in 2011, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff called for a change within the UNSC, declaring "this crisis is too serious to be managed by a small group of countries."

Nations around the world, such as Russia and Indonesia, have also called for UNSC reform and declared their support for Brazil's bid. International organizations, such as theCommunity of Portuguese Language Countries (CPLP), have also declared their support for Brasilia's UN ambitions. Regarding the United States, during a March 2011 trip to Brazil, President Barack Obama praised the country's growth and development, but stopped short of explicitly backing Brasilia's bid for a permanent seat in the UNSC.

Though there is no evidence of an EU resolution supporting Brazil's UNSC ambitions, this does not mean European countries do not support Brasilia. For example, France, an influential member of the European Union and a permanent UNSC member, has declared its support for Brazil. In a February 2011 meeting with Rousseff, the former French Foreign Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said, "Brazil's request for a permanent seat should be taken into consideration, since the country plays an essential role in the international arena." Similarly, other EU members, such as the United Kingdom and Portugal (a member of the CPLP) have also backed Brazil.

A pro-Brazil EU resolution could help improve relations between Brasilia and Europe, especially regarding transatlantic trade. Brazil has a very attractive market and global players, including China, the Arab World, and Russia, want to increase economic ties with this nation. According to the European Commission, "the EU is the biggest foreign investor in Brazil with investments in many sectors of the Brazilian economy." Individual EU nations, such as the United Kingdom, France, and Poland, are also attempting to increase their ties with the South American giant, particularly in arms sales and military cooperation. The European Union and the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), which includes Brazil, are attempting to conclude negotiations on a trade pact between the two blocs. Nevertheless, it is important to note that not all EU nations are in support of Brazil's bid for permanent membership in the UNSC. Italy-Brazil relations, for example, are not ideal because of a dispute regarding the fate of the Italian fugitive Cesare Battisti.

More outspoken support for Brazil by the United States would place Washington in the uncomfortable position of having to also openly back other regional powers and US allies that have UNSC aspirations, such as South Africa, Japan, and India. Nevertheless, as Latin America enters the post-Hugo Chávez era, the United States could certainly use diplomatic initiatives, such as backing Brazil, to help improve its stance in the Western Hemisphere. During his first presidential term, Barack Obama has been accused of not having a concrete vision for Washington's role in the inter-American system during his first presidential term. Progressive initiatives, including supporting Brazil's UNSC bid or further lifting Cuban embargo restrictions, therefore, would be regarded as positive developments by Latin American governments.

An EU resolution openly backing Brazil's bid in the UNSC would help propel the debate of the UNSC's future. Moreover, given Brazil's influence, Brasilia could also encourage other prominent Latin American states, such as Mexico, Peru, or Colombia, to view trade with the European Union more optimistically. Such an EU resolution also has the additional factor of carrying little actual weight; just because the European Union supports Brazil's calls for UNSC reform, does not mean that the Security Council will reform. Nevertheless, these types of diplomatic gestures can go a long way in strengthening the transatlantic region.

VOXXI: The EU-CELAC Summit and the future of hemispheric integration

The EU-CELAC Summit and the Future of Hemispheric Integration
W. Alejandro Sanchez
VOXXI
January 30, 2013
Originally published: http://www.voxxi.com/eu-celac-summit-hemispheric-integration/

Around 40 heads of state and 60 diplomatic delegations from countries of the European Union (EU), and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), met during the weekend of January 26 in Santiago, Chile. The EU-CELAC summit focused on increasing trade ties between the two blocs while promoting sustainable development and protecting the environment.

Whereas the future of European economies remains uncertain due to the enormous amount of ongoing problems with several of its member countries, the economies of Latin America and the Caribbean continue to boom. However, not everything is perfect among CELAC members and the real underlying question is not the future of EU-CELAC relations but whether CELAC will be able to maintain unity between the new organization’s over 30 members during the coming years.

Europe needed a ‘win’

The EU-CELAC summit took place amidst that fog of the current global financial storm that has hit the EU particularly hard. EU countries like Greece, Spain, Ireland and Portugal have come very close to economic collapse on several occasion over the past few years, and their continued near insolvency and austere fiscal reforms have sparked several major protests, particularly in Greece.

In addition, Prime Minister David Cameron has announced his intent to hold a referendum regarding British membership in the EU by 2018 at the latest. What more, Scotland will hold a referendum regarding a possible Scottish independence from the UK in 2014. These challenges mean that the EU and its members will likely face many dramatic challenges in the near future.

Conversely, Latin America and the Caribbean have been enjoying an economic boom over the last decade, where countries like Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Peru have become economic powerhouses. As a result of economic growth, vast natural resources and a growing productive workforce, CELAC has increasingly attracted trade and investments from the international community. For example, the U.S. is looking to create an ambitious intercontinental free trade area, the Trans Pacific Partnership, which would include Australia, Singapore as well as Latin American nations like Mexico, Chile and Peru. In addition,Latin American trade with China has continued to grow. Finally, Latin America has also approached Middle Eastern markets, as exemplified by the Third summit between the Arab World and South America held in Peru. In light of recent positive regional economic developments in the Western Hemisphere, it was no surprise that Europe strove to portray itself as an attractive trade partner in Santiago.

EU-CELAC Summit: What keeps it together?

The ideological basis for CELAC is a desire for both greater regional integration and further independence from Washington’s hegemony in the region. However, it is debatable whether the new organization will remain united in the coming years due to the differences between its members in terms of national interests and objectives. Moreover, it is noteworthy to mention that Cuba has become the head role of CELAC’s rotating leadership. This sends a clear message to Washington that the rest of the Americas want Havana to be more integrated into the inter-American system.

It will be interesting to see how the White House will behave towards the region during Obama’s second presidential term. The new administration has already received multilateral diplomatic pressure during the 2012 Summit of the Americas in Colombia from several states who wanted Cuba to attend, contrary to the wishes of Washington. The next summit is scheduled to be held in Panama in 2015. It is expected that similar pressure on Washington to allow for Havana’s presence in such regional forums will only increase in the coming years.

Nevertheless, while Cuba is an issue that is commonly raised whenever there are talks about hemispheric integration, it is not a critical issue for nations that may have other, more immediate diplomatic concerns and which may prove to be more divisive among CELAC states. Some of the more consequential issues which have affected the region in recent years include: The border dispute between Nicaragua and Costa Rica, as well as Colombia’s discomfort stemming from a ruling by the International Court of Justice over a maritime border dispute with Nicaragua. In addition, Bolivia continues to demand a territorial corridor linking it to the sea that would transverse Chile; Bolivian President Evo Morales has declared that he wants his country to have sea access by 2025.

Even the EU-CELAC summit sparked controversy as Paraguay did not attend the high level meeting. (The Chilean government said Asuncion chose not to attend while the Paraguayans said they were not invited). Paraguay has been isolated from regional groups like UNASUR and MERCOSUR since former President Fernando Lugo was controversially removed from office last June 2012. Besides the Paraguay issue, the EU-CELAC summit also demonstrated the divide among some CELAC nations regarding commerce, as countries like Peru, Mexico and Chile were aiming to receive more investments from Europe. Meanwhile, ALBA nations like Venezuela protested the addition of paragraphs in the summit’s final declaration that called for the “legal certainty” of European investments. In other words, CELAC’s most foreboding challenge in the coming years will be to maintain unity among its members.

The upcoming March referendum on the Falklands/Malvinas islands will be a test to see if CELAC members can remain as a cohesive unit around an issue that isn’t based in anti-U.S. sentiments. It will be critical for Argentina to gain the support of CELAC in its protest of the referendum, as Buenos Aires contests the control of the islands with London.

The EU-CELAC summit culminated with the predictable resolutions and agreements to improve cooperation between both regions, particularly regarding trade. CELAC has arguably emerged as the next great economic powerhouse, but the key to its diplomatic weight will be the extent to which the group can remain as a single bloc in its dealings with the rest of the world. While at first glance CELAC may appear united, the truth is that there may not be much “glue” to hold this massive new multinational agency together in the long run.

Hoping for the Best: Austria to host EU-LAC Summit

by COHA Research Fellow Alex Sanchez
11 May 2006
Council on Hemispheric Affairs
http://www.coha.org/hoping-for-the-best-austria-to-host-eu-lac-summit/

• Just another meeting or a pivotal gathering?
• Skepticism surrounds upcoming summit
• Will nations on both sides of the Atlantic be able to put aside their parochial political and economic interests in favor of meaningful collective goals?
• Will Europe sniffily react to the decision of Bolivian President Evo Morales to nationalize his country’s oil and gas industries?
• With a bit of luck, the world could witness a powerful economic and political alliance forged between Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, while the U.S. would have to experience a stunning setback to its hopes for a FTAA

Beginning today, May 11, Austria, as the current EU president, will host the 4th Summit of Heads of State and Government of the European Union, Latin America and the Caribbean. As the countries of the Western Hemisphere continue their fitful quest to break away from Washington’s magnetic pull and make new friends and allies outside of the hemispheric ghetto to which they have been consigned by U.S. diplomacy, the Vienna gathering might be just the ticket. But most realists would say that there is only a remote possibility that such an outcome will occur.

The meeting comes at a particularly absorbing time for Latin America and the Caribbean. The mainland Latin American countries are essentially broken into three separate groups: those governments that fall within Washington’s sphere of influence (i.e., El Salvador and Guatemala, along with the other CAFTA countries), those staunchly opposed to the U.S. attitude of preeminence (i.e. Venezuela and Bolivia), and those in the process of figuring out with which side to align themselves (i.e., Peru, Chile and Mexico). The European Union thus opens a window of opportunity for Western Hemispheric nations to look for new friends, new alignments and new markets for their products.

Trade, Trade, Trade

Recent developments in Bolivia, the ongoing tensions between Venezuela and the U.S., as well as Latin America’s economic prospects will most likely be the three principle axes driving this year’s EU-LAC summit. Recently, Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez announced that his country would be pulling out of the Andean Community (a Lima-based regional bloc that also includes Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia and Colombia) if Bogotá and Lima do not reject a free trade agreement with Washington. Such trade agreement needs to be approved by the legislative body of each country; in addition, in Colombia’s case, it still also has to be signed by President Uribe. Interestingly, Caracas does not see its withdrawal from the Andes pact as a drastic measure that will bedevil either the pact or have particularly onerous repercussions on the EU. Recently, the Chinese news agency Xinhua quoted Venezuelan Deputy Foreign Minister Pavel Rondon as saying “the Venezuela-EU relationship will be intense and will continue without suffering problems [in spite of Venezuela’s decision to leave the Andean Community].”

In the meantime, there has been much discussion about whether the EU should itself begin to consider entering into a trade pact with Latin America. Currently, Brussels has signed such agreements only with Chile and Mexico. Latin America generally courts more binding trade agreements and a flow of new foreign investment from Europe. Deutsche Presse-Agenteur recently quoted a Mexican official as observing that: “Mexico has always been for trade agreements.” Peru also has expressed similar sentiments, suggesting that the Andean Community – with or without Venezuela – will push forward with a free trade linkage with Brussels. There have been rumors about a supposed letter from outgoing Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo to European Commission chief Manuel Barroso, in which the soon to be departing leader promised to make an Andean Community-EU agreement his top priority, after he arrived in Vienna.

Not everyone supports the current favored free trade model for Latin America though, as indicated by a February article in Mexico’s El Universal that featured researcher Alberto Arroyo Picard of the Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana. Professor Arroyo Picard has called for the renegotiation of the country’s free trade agreements. He went on to explain that Mexico’s average global trade with the EU stood at 6.6% in 2000, before the FTA went into effect. In November 2005, the number stood at 7.11%, only a 1% growth in six years. On the other hand, one can point to Argentina, a country whose trade with the EU is markedly improving. Latin America News Digest has reported that Argentina’s exports to the European Union (EU) increased 25 percent year-on-year to $1.232 bln (1.018 bln euro) in the first two months of 2006. The article goes on to explain that the EU was the largest destination for Argentine exports. In any case it will be up to EU members to decide whether more trade agreements with Latin America and the Caribbean is a direction that they are inclined to go.

Group vs. National Interest

Predictably, the meeting will scuffle over the issue of human rights, which will likely be broached by the Czech Republic. While the Czechs bleed copiously over all human rights derelictions, they do so particularly when it comes to Havana, even though Castro’s shortcomings are significantly less heinous than a whole raft of nations which almost methodically escape Prague’s notice. The latest round of scrapping, which stretches back to Havana’s woe-begotten support of the Stalinist suppression of the 1968 Prague Spring uprising, saw Czech diplomat Stanislav Kazecky expelled from Cuba in April after being accused by Havana of being a U.S. spy. Meanwhile, Prague proportionally responded by refusing to renew a Cuban diplomat’s visa.

It is widely expected that many bilateral meetings will take place among the scores of different heads of state attending the summit. Observers will carefully note whether Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende will meet with Surinamese president Ronald Venetiaan and if they will discuss the future of former Surinamese dictator and military strongman Desire Bouterse. The latter was tried in absentia by a Dutch court in 1999 for money laundering and drug trafficking and was condemned to serve 11 years in prison. On this occasion, Bouterse escaped punishment because under provisions of the Surinamese constitution, its citizens cannot be extradited for trial.

Another issue likely to gain prominence at the gathering is the ongoing dispute between Argentina and Uruguay over the latter’s plans to construct two pulp mills on the Uruguay river that forms the border between the two nations. The news agency MercoPress published an article on April 26 detailing how President Tabaré Vazquez of Uruguay will likely introduce the issue at the Vienna summit. The dispute is particularly relevant since the proposed plants will be constructed by European firms – Finland’s Botnia and Spain’s Ence – representing a very significant influx of investment for Vazquez’s cash-strapped economy. Argentina has objected to the plants on environmental grounds, and escalating protests have severely strained the MERCOSUR trade bloc. Buenos Aires recently sued Montevideo over the issue in the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

How to deal with Bolivia?

Regarding Bolivian President Evo Morales’ move to nationalize his country’s hydrocarbon industry, eyes at the Vienna summit will be riveted on how Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero will react. Spain’s petrochemical group Repsol YPF has a Bolivian subsidiary named Andina, which was one of the foreign multinationals just nationalized by the recently inaugurated Morales. Back in early April, the Bolivian press had quoted the country’s hydrocarbons’ minister, Andres Soliz Rada as saying that Andina would not be nationalized because it had debts of $177m (146.2m euros). The critical aspect here is that Bolivia-based resources are a vital source of revenue for Repsol; in essence, the future of the company could depend on the future of its Bolivian operations. Eighteen percent of Repsol’s total reserves are located in Bolivia. Zapatero previously had warned of potential “consequences” in the relations between Bolivia and Spain if Morales went ahead with the move, which, in any event, the Bolivian president did. Morales has since said that foreign companies have 180 days to accept the new contracts imposed by La Paz or they will have to leave the country. The Spanish media has reported that government officials will go to Bolivia to discuss Morales’ decisions, but it is doubtful, given Zapatero’s teeming ambitions to have Spain play a large role in Latin America, that any negative repercussions will ultimately play onto.

Britain’s BG Group and BP companies also maintain operations in Bolivia. A recent article by Bill Condie of Knight-Ridder explained that while BG’s current output in Bolivia is relatively small, the country accounts for 11 percent of BG’s proven and probable oil and gas reserves. BP is mainly involved in exploration but it does hold 30 percent of Empresa Petrolera Chaco. It is unknown if both BG and BP have met with Whitehall, and what actions, if any, Prime Minister Blair will carry out to protect British interests.

As for the EU, Javier Solana, the body’s high representative for foreign and security policy, has been quoted by the Spanish national radio RNE Radio 1 as saying that the events in Bolivia have caused him “great unease, great dissatisfaction.” Perhaps Solana was thinking that he already has sufficient issues to cope with as the EU tries to deal with Vladimir Putin and his unsavory manipulation of the Russian state-controlled gas company Gazprom.

An Issue to be discussed? The Caribbean – Bananas & Sugar

Both bananas and sugar are in particularly fragile conditions right now due to the price instability of the two commodities (in part, this is attributable to last year’s destructive hurricane season in the Caribbean and Central America), which rendered the local straitened economies even more vulnerable. The economies of the Caribbean island nations are especially dependent on sugar cultivation, and the EU’s decision to implement a 36% cut in the prices it is prepared to pay for the commodity over the next four years from African, Caribbean and Pacific states is highly controversial. The CMC news agency reported that Ian McDonald, chief executive officer of the Sugar Association of the Caribbean, declared that “the EU decision is an outrage because the price cut is brutal.”

Similar problems posed by economic struggles exist for the region’s hard-pressed banana producers. The Windward Islands’ Farmer Association has been actively attempting to rally its members around the issue of relatively high EU import tariffs on bananas, which currently stand at 176 euros per ton, in contrast to the original 75 euros. Brussels even attempted to push the price up to 230 euros per ton; however, the World Trade Organization found such an increase to be unfair in its August 1, 2005 decision that the tariff would remain at 176 euros. Despite the WTO mandate, at Vienna Caribbean nations could push their hosts to bring the tariff down to 75 euros once again. The controversy over bananas is no small matter: like sugar, the prosperity of many Caribbean countries’ economies is inseparable from the well being of the banana sector. In 2004, the EU’s 25 members imported a total of 3.87 million metric tons of bananas, which, according to Dr. Marshall Hall, Chairman of the Banana Exporters Association of Jamaica, as reported by the CMC, was responsible for “bring[ing] in about 25 million US dollars a year and…employing about 10,000 people.”

Certainly not United, but on their way

In spite of such setbacks, a new intercontinental arrangement could be in the making. As an example of further bi-regional integration, one can point to the Madrid-based Ibero-American Secretariat General, created in 2004. This institution already has Spain and Portugal as members, along with all of Latin America, and has as its Secretary-General, the famed Uruguayan economist Enrique Iglesias (former president of the Inter-American Development Bank). Meanwhile, the EU-LAC summits have become a predictable routine ever since they first began with the Rio summit in 1999. There is considerable potential for cooperation and development if both regions are able to come closer together, both in terms of institution building, trade and aspirations regarding cultural and societal matters.