Nikolas Kozloff on the Brazilian Election

[VioletLake]

Excerpt:

Brazilian Election: What Does South American Giant Want in Post-Lula Era?
By Nikolas Kozloff

In a scene from my first book, Hugo Chávez: Oil, Politics and the Challenge to the U.S. (Palgrave-Macmillan, 2006), I discuss how Brazil became an ally of Venezuela during a key moment of heightened political tensions. It was December, 2002 and Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez was facing down an economically damaging lock-out of the oil sector launched by the right wing political opposition.

As a result of the lock-out, Venezuela was obliged to import gasoline for domestic use. Chávez, who at the time was locked in a bitter political struggle with the Bush White House in Washington, desperately needed allies. Fortunately, just across the border Venezuela found an important diplomatic supporter in Brazil. In a clear sign that the South American giant was in no mood to cooperate with U.S. efforts designed to isolate Venezuela, Brazil shipped half a million barrels of oil to the Chávez government.

Luiz Inácio "Lula" da Silva of the Workers' Party had just won the Brazilian presidential election two months earlier, defeating conservative challenger José Serra. Though he had not yet officially taken office, Lula was reportedly involved in the sensitive decision to ship oil to Venezuela. In moving to help Chávez, Lula had his own political concerns: if the Venezuelan was overthrown, Lula said privately, "tomorrow" it would be his turn and this could give rise to a domino-like effect throughout the region.

Eight years later, Brazil is nearing the end of charismatic Lula's second term in office and must decide whether it wants to continue to pursue a more independent foreign policy which could ultimately risk Washington's ire. While the two leading candidates vying to succeed Lula in Brazil's October 3rd presidential election do not differ substantially on domestic issues, they have staked out very different positions when it comes to the country's role on the world stage.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nikolas-kozloff/brazilian-election-what-d_1_b_713267.html

[Peace Patriot]

1. Kozloff doesn't see the implications of Latin American integration for the poor majority

internally in Brazil, in Venezuela and in other countries throughout the region. Rather, he sees it in certain details--like Lula da Silva's oil aid to Venezuela when the U.S. was trying to bring down the Chavez government with an oil bosses' lockout--but he doesn't "grok" it (as we used to say in the '60s--take it in, understand it). What would have become of those millions of Venezuelans whom the Chavez government pulled out of poverty in the subsequent years, if the U.S. had succeeded in toppling Chavez and installing a fascist government? Would the other leftist democracy revolutions in the region have succeeded--in Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina and other countries--giving the leftist movement significant collective strength in the region?

And how would the poor majority within Venezuela, within Brazil, and within other countries, have been affected, if the U.S. had toppled the Chavez government? The implications of Latin American country helping Latin American country--in crises like that, and in economic integration and long term cooperation--are vast, and the implications for a better life for the poor are biggest of all. Kozloff says that there is little difference between Serra and Lula's designated successor, Rousseff, on DOMESTIC policy, but a big difference on FOREIGN policy, including Latin American integration policy vs. U.S. domination. But U.S. domination means increasing poverty and more disempowerment--if not death squad murders and other horrors, as in Colombia and Honduras--for the great majority of Latin Americans, if they have the misfortune to live in a U.S.-dominated country, and even if they live in a country that still has a good leftist government, like Venezuela or Bolivia, but one that is being squeezed, bullied, plotted against by U.S. client states, in a region in which integration (cooperation, mutual aid, fair trade and common goals such as social justice) has largely failed.

This blind spot causes Kozloff to underestimate the impact on Brazil's poor majority of a loss to Lula's Workers Party and its current presidential candidate, Dilma Rousseff, to a business-friendly, U.S.-friendly party and candidate, even if that candidate parades as a "centrist." There would be enormous implications. For instance, Lula has followed Chavez on insisting that the profits from Brazil's new oil find benefit the poor and that the Brazilian government keep majority control of the venture. This is the result of integration--of Chavez's and Lula's close alliance and common goals, and their alliance with other like-minded leaders. One of Chavez's most notable achievements was punching Exxon Mobil in the nose and then attracting investment from many other countries and corporations on Venezuela's terms. The result in both cases--in Venezuela and Brazil--is very substantial benefit to the poor majority. Would Serra follow such policies? Not likely.

I find this problem with a lot of Kozloff articles--a sometimes hard-to-pin-down lack of focus, lack of rigorous thinking. In any case, he reports the one thing of great importance, that Rousseff has a big lead and will likely win.

I do worry, though, about Diebold's involvement in Brazil's election system--something Kozloff doesn't get into, and should. How the votes are counted is rather important, here and in Latin America. Political commentary which does not mention privatization of vote counting and other insecurity, bad practices and potential fraud in the election system--especially when a factor like Diebold is in the picture--isn't worth a whole lot. Is Brazil's voting system secure from private corporate tampering? I would really like to know that. I would also like to know how much of our tax money, through agencies like the USAID, is being used to support Serra. THAT would be more informative than this slack analysis which misses the point of the entire leftist revolution in South America--that integration helps everybody.