This doesn't surprise me. Brazil's emergence as a great power has been expected by American administrations at least since Nixon's time. The only question was when it would happen.

It is worth mentioning that even when wracked by internal difficulties Brazil has always been known for having an exceptionally talented diplomatic corps. And, it is true that Brazilian interests and our own coincide in more places than they differ. There is little reason for us to fear and much cause to welcome a larger Brazilian role in regional and world affairs.

Also, as Brazil seeks more power in its neighborhood and becomes more concerned with regional stability, it will see its own interests as being more aligned with the US. After all, democratic countries really do have aligned foreign policy interests. Usually, the bitterest disputes come over means, not ends. (Such as in Iraq.)

Good news. Look, any democracy can oppose us diplomatically as much as they want and still be worked with and hopefully friendly. Democracies dont go to war with each other. There has been a lot of speculation that a democratic Iraq isnt in our interest because they might hate us. Too bad, thats the world we are trying to build. This isnt a popularity contest. When all the world is democratic, we will have to sit humbly at bargaining tables and reach consensus as our 'multilateralists' demand. That is the price. But until that day comes we dare not put down the sword. Democracy simply cannot evolve in the midst of such tyranny, poverty, and ignorance that we see in places like Iraq. War isnt always the solution, but it isnt always not the solution. It is our national _duty_, even destiny.

Well, yes, Mark. But what do you think of the idea that in the long run Brazil is likely to be much more important to the United States than Iraq?

Dan, I think you forgot to close a blockquote tag somewhere.

"Well, yes, Mark. But what do you think of the idea that in the long run Brazil is likely to be much more important to the United States than Iraq?"

In the long run, principle almost always trumps expedience. A democratic, prosperous Iraq can be forever. An upset brazil vis-a-vis Iraq is a temporary inconvenience. Look at the Cold War, how many European toes did Reagan step on. Was it worth those strained ties to free Eastern Europe? Or today would we be better off with a lovey dovey France and Poland under the Iron Curtain?

Seems as tho da Silva has managed to appear populist while simultaneously working with Brazil's commercial interests. If Chavez could achieve that in Venezuela, with their oil production, he would have us at the table.

Look, any democracy can oppose us diplomatically as much as they want and still be worked with and hopefully friendly. Democracies dont go to war with each other. Mark
This administration's attacks on France over Iraq tend to belie that. As for Democracies not going to war, in the past couple of years, we have seen our democracy overthrowing a democratically elected president in Haiti and trying to overthrow another in Venezuela.
In view of the history of American intervention in South America on behalf of its business interests, I cannot blame Brazil from developing nuclear capability: that seems to be the only power the Bush regime respects.

In the long run, principle almost always trumps expedience. A democratic, prosperous Iraq can be forever. Mark
No, in the long run self-interest trumps principle; and, whereas a democratic Iraq could last forever, there is no guarantee that the United States will not re-conqueror it if the oil situation worsens. Indeed, there is no indication that the Bush government is planning to leave Iraq: they are building permanent military bases there.

"This administration's attacks on France over Iraq tend to belie that"

Attacks? Which cities were bombed? Which ports were mined? Come now. France has opposed us politically, we have opposed France politically. Thats how things work. We havent cut off trade or invaded or pulled out our embassy. Dont mistake me, we must expect other democracies to oppose us when they see fit, they must expect the same in return. Even best friends argue and fight from time to time. Sometimes they dont even speak for a time. Thats a long way from war.

"overthrowing a democratically elected president in Haiti and trying to overthrow another in Venezuela"

Adolf Hitler was a democractically elected leader, did you oppose his overthrow? Democracy isnt a one shot deal, its a process.

"No, in the long run self-interest trumps principle; and, whereas a democratic Iraq could last forever, there is no guarantee that the United States will not re-conqueror it if the oil situation worsens"

There is no guarantee we wont invade Siberia, but its not going to happen. If we wanted oil, why didnt we just annex Kuwait when we had a hundred thousand troops there? Self interest _does_ coincide with principle sometimes. Other times we dont do things interest dictates _because_ of principle, happens all the time.

Its so funny, the same exact people that constantly bash America's record in places like Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Chile are the same ones so willing to drop Iraq like a hot potato now. A more skeptical guy would theorize they were proposing it just so they could bash it later (see Bush 41 not overthrowing Hussein). Is it or is it not progressive to do everything possible to democractize Iraq? What's your motive here Mike? Would you rather see us pull out and Iraq turn into Beirut just to blast Bush for it? Or would you rather see a democratic Iraq even if it require US military bases (gee, dont we have some in Germany and Japan btw? puppets?)? Seriously, what is your goal for Iraq at _this_ point? What do you propose?

Given the US proclivity to mess into internal politics in South America, and the pro torture and agression policies of the current US regime, Brazil has good reason to want atomic weapons.

I wouldn’t read too much into the nuclear issue with Lula. I really doubt that they want to develop and maintain nuclear weapons. Some of the military (I have cousins by marriage in the Brazilian Army) have been diverted from traditional roles to help on social issues. When you consider, as the article indicates, that Brazil’s traditional betes noires like Argentina are now very much allied this is probably a good allocation of resources. Indeed, again as the article noted, the greater dangers are in the border area with Colombia.

Mark Buehner: The Bush Administration deliberately withheld signing of a trade agreement with Chile because of Chile’s opposition on the Security Council to the Iraq War. The truly clumsy and thoughtless aspect of that is the complete lack of consideration the Bush administration in their typical bull-in-a-china-shop fashion, gave no thought to the fact that 85% of the population and party leaders across the political spectrum met with President Lagos and confirmed that under no circumstances would they support the war. What would Bush expect of Lagos? Commit political suicide?

I really wish the article had made direct mention of Lula’s predecessor, Fernando Henrique Cardoso who in true statesman fashion laid a lot of the groundwork for Brazil’s stature in Latin America today.

"Mark Buehner: The Bush Administration deliberately withheld signing of a trade agreement with Chile because of Chile’s opposition on the Security Council to the Iraq War"

Randy Paul: That is how politics works. That is how democracy works. Its called horse trading. You dont think other countries pay us back when we dont back their proposals? Please.

"What would Bush expect of Lagos? Commit political suicide?"

Lagos should have done what he felt he needed to, which he did. That _doesnt mean there isnt a price to pay_. Its a grown up world Randy. Should Bush not have done what he felt was right by sending a message to the Chilean people that not supporting the US just might lead to the US not supporting Chile? Why exactly is the US supposed to live up to this Utopian vision of setting our own interests aside so as not to offend the sensibilities of others, while you make the exact argument that Chile and Brazil must be expected to pursue their own interests? You realize that's a flat out contradiction right? Classic double standard the US is held to.

Why exactly is the US supposed to live up to this Utopian vision of setting our own interests aside so as not to offend the sensibilities of others, while you make the exact argument that Chile and Brazil must be expected to pursue their own interests?

You presume that attacking Iraq - a policy the reasons for which we now know was predicated on deceit - has been in the US's interests. It was in the Bush administration's interest and has not made us any safer. The last I remember the president is not Louis XIV. That wasn't horse trading; it was vindictiveness.

Remember this:

"If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation but strong, they'll welcome us.

And our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power. And that's why we've got to be humble and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom.

So I don't think they ought to look at us in any other than what we are. We're a freedom loving nation. And if we're an arrogant nation, they'll view us that way. But if we're a humble nation, they'll respect us as an honorable nation."

He doesn't know how correct he was.

Your comment also ignores matters of scale. The US is the world's only superpower. Acting thuggish as what happened with Chile builds resentment. There's no double standard here. Just listen to the way the cotton lobby pissed and moaned when the recent WTO decision went against them. They screamed that it was vindictiveness, but all Brazil and the African cotton countries did was seek remedies available under the treaty. They didn't through their wieght around as the Bush administration did with Chile.

As for the way Chile was treated, I think Marcela Sánchez put it best:

The lesson to be learned from Chile is that independence pays off, and independence can be an acceptable risk. Without it, Chile wouldn't have become the global player that it is today. There is no better proof of that than Washington's persistence, after more than a decade of flirting with the idea, to make Chile only the sixth country in the world to reach a free-trade agreement with the United States.

To be sure, Chile owes much to the United States as a model of market economy and democracy. And unlike France, Chile's actions at the United Nations were in the spirit of compromise, not obstruction.

What happens next is up to Washington. It can approve the trade pact and in so doing, bless the example Chile has set. Or it can reject the accord, and punish Chile for demonstrating the same freedoms and independence that Washington goes to such great lengths to defend.

Adults enagge in negotiation and compromise. Children engage in vindictive, arrogant payback.

"a policy the reasons for which we now know was predicated on deceit "

We know no such thing. It _may_ have been predicated on faulty intelligence. To assume the president knew the intelligence was faulty is absurd, particularly considering every intelligence agency in the world agreed with the assessment. Deceit indeed.

"It was in the Bush administration's interest and has not made us any safer."

The overwhelming authorization by congress belies that.

"Acting thuggish as what happened with Chile builds resentment. "

Its only thugish when you're on the recieving end. Of course from our point of view they were ungrateful for opposing us.

"Adults enagge in negotiation and compromise. Children engage in vindictive, arrogant payback."

Yet the article you just quoted claims Chile came out of it stronger than ever for standing up to the US. Which is it? Your argument is rank with hypocracy. Lesser nations should pursue their own interests with the tools they have, while the Superpower should eat crap with a grin (encouraging future opposition needless to say)because we are.. bigger? But dont we, being bigger, have far greater responsibilities? If all hell breaks loose in the Middle East, is the world going to call upon Chile to save it? Thats the point you are missing. The US _must_ throw its weight around, because the world relies on it as the 911 hotline. Why in gods name is it our duty to let the international community muck things up and then call us to shed blood and treasure when all hell breaks loose (Kosovo?)? Again, you are living in a fantasy world that only exists in your head. Chile or any nation would and will hold us over the coals for their own interests. The only difference is the US is the one nation that actually takes the interest of the world as a whole seriously, the proof being in the pudding and the pudding being the blood we've shed on every continent.

Your argument is rank with hypocracy. Lesser nations should pursue their own interests with the tools they have, while the Superpower should eat crap with a grin (encouraging future opposition needless to say)because we are.. bigger?

Please do me a favor. Don't put words in my mouth in an attempt to frame the debate in a way that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. The US should also pursue efforts within the treaties it has ratified to achieve its goals.

As for deceit, consider the forged documents in the Niger uranium issue as well as the stream of defectors the INC sent and if you don't regard that as deceit, God help you.

No hypocrisy on my side. Laws enure to the benefit of all. Frankly, if throwing your weight around here is the way to achieve your goals, then why should we expect other nations to "eat crap with a grin."

Why in gods name is it our duty to let the international community muck things up and then call us to shed blood and treasure when all hell breaks loose (Kosovo?)?

That was a NATO operation.

If all hell breaks loose in the Middle East, is the world going to call upon Chile to save it?

No, a real coalition of nations with strong international support like what Bush 41 did in 1990.

Again, you are living in a fantasy world that only exists in your head. Chile or any nation would and will hold us over the coals for their own interests. The only difference is the US is the one nation that actually takes the interest of the world as a whole seriously, the proof being in the pudding and the pudding being the blood we've shed on every continent.

When you can't make the argument on the facts pound the table and engage in the ad hominem. To my knowledge the US has never fought a war in South America or Australia. No other nation in the whole world "takes the interest of the world as a whole seriously" and you accuse me of living in a fantasy world? There's a way to disagree on issues without slurring your opponent and engaging them on the merits of your argument. I hope you learn how to do so someday.

The part about Brazil's nuclear program isn't great news, but Eli pretty much nailed it. Plus, I'll gladly take a nuclear Brazil that comes along with its new foreign policy. South America needs a leader.

"The US should also pursue efforts within the treaties it has ratified to achieve its goals."

What has the US done in regards to Chile that is in violation of treaty?

"As for deceit, consider the forged documents in the Niger uranium issue as well as the stream of defectors the INC sent and if you don't regard that as deceit, God help you."

Are you implying Bush forged the documents? Didnt they come via Italy? Do you have some proof he knew about them being fake and promoted them? If you are referring to the famous yellow cake issue, its been repeatedly proven that the British had an intelligence source in another African country that Bush was referring to in his speech. Ill dig up the links if necessary. Dont mistake error with malice.

"Laws enure to the benefit of all. "

What laws? The law of human brotherhood? How is this any different than senators wrangling for a highway bill?

"That was a NATO operation."
No kidding. Why did nothing happen until America sent forces? Lets be real, it was an American opporation under NATO auspices. Without America, not a bomb would have dropped. America could have competed the mission completely alone, while no other nation or combination had the will or resouces without America. They are what we call window dressing. If America is such a bully perhaps some European nation besides England should try fielding a military force capable of impacting the region. Its pretty bad when Europeans cant even effectively keep the peace in Europe.
For that matter the record of European UN peacekeepers standing by in the Balkans while atrocities were occuring is pretty ugly.

"No, a real coalition of nations with strong international support like what Bush 41 did in 1990."
It was a real coalition because France was there? Syria? Dont England, Spain, Italy, Poland, and Australia (and a bunch more) count? And speaking of coalitions, most agree the coalition would have collapsed had 41 toppled Saddam. If coalitions are the key to legitimacy, in your opinion did Bush make the right decision, or did he condemn tens of thousands to death wrongly by not taking out Hussein. Cant have it both ways.

" To my knowledge the US has never fought a war in South America or Australia."

There are American troops in Columbia right now. American troops defended Australia in WW2. I said shed blood, and we've shed plenty.

"No other nation in the whole world "takes the interest of the world as a whole seriously" and you accuse me of living in a fantasy world?"

Aside from the UK, I stand by the statement. Any UN posturing is just that. Where has France dispatched troops outside of its old colonial interests? The bottom line is, without US/UK forces to do the bloody work, nothing gets done. See Rwanda.

"There's a way to disagree on issues without slurring your opponent and engaging them on the merits of your argument."

Habitually ignoring issues inconvenient to your worldview might make things seem that way. Sorry, its not sliming to rattle your cage.

"I hope you learn how to do so someday."
Gee thanks.

Habitually ignoring issues inconvenient to your worldview might make things seem that way. Sorry, its not sliming to rattle your cage.

French troops are in the Congo protecting lives. Brazilians were and are in Angola and East Timor and are in Haiti along with Chileans. Glass houses and stones, sir.

US troops are not fighting a war in Colombia. Do you have any evidence that the status of forces agreement or the rules of engagement put them in a combat role? Please provide it if you do. there are US troops in England and Germany (FYI I went to a USDOD High School in Germany and grew up in that environment) but it doesn't mean they are there in combat roles. Hell, they may even be assigned to Vatican City at the US Embassy there for that matter.

While they helped defend Australia, they did as part of an allied effort.

Now who's ignoring "ignoring issues inconvenient to your worldview" and who's just ignorant? You on both counts.

What laws? The law of human brotherhood? How is this any different than senators wrangling for a highway bill?

Treaty law. The president needs to remember what he said as a candidate which I quoted above.

As for the issue of deceit in the runup to war, it certainly appears that the president was willing to believe anything that justified his arguments, regardless of how flimsy it was. If he had vetted these claims better, and had not hyped the reasons for the war on flimsy evidence, things might have been radically different.

"French troops are in the Congo protecting lives"

Lol. For France's sterling record in the Congo:
http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/fax/france/ffrenchcongo1905.htm
Imperalists!

"Brazilians were and are in Angola and East Timor and are in Haiti along with Chileans"

Ewww, bad choice. http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/angola0803/
I cant any evidence that Brazilians remain in Angola, and at most they deployed less than 800 troops.

Haiti? There are 247 uniformed personel from 16 different countries as of May 31st.(http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/minustah/facts.html). Think the American marine detachment might be doing a bit more?

East Timor has 1549 international troops from 23 different countries. Way to go World! http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unmiset/facts.html

"US troops are not fighting a war in Colombia. Do you have any evidence that the status of forces agreement or the rules of engagement put them in a combat role"

You're the one who brought up the 'war' standard. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/americas/02/22/colombia.americans/

"While they helped defend Australia, they did as part of an allied effort."
Ah, the goal posts keep moving. Now it doesnt count because it was an 'allied effort'. Tell it to a vet.

"Treaty law. The president needs to remember what he said as a candidate which I quoted above."
WHICH TREATY? QUOTE IT.

"As for the issue of deceit in the runup to war, it certainly appears that the president was willing to believe anything that justified his arguments, regardless of how flimsy it was"

Thats significantly different from lying.

Mark,

The exact same "The Economist" article linked by Daniel in his blog entry puts the number of brazilian troops in Haiti at 1200, plus 400 from other nations.

It is not much, but it is a lot to the nations involved and it isn't so bad when we consider that this is one UN peacekeeping force in a place where there is not too much trouble.