The USA and the world: A Brazilian viewpoint
11 October 2004
Article written by the Foreign Minister of
Brazil, Ambassador Celso Amorim, published in Le
Monde on 11 October 2004.
The climate of optimism that marked the beginning of the Nineties led many people to believe, albeit somewhat naively, that the capacity for multilateral collaboration, particularly in the UN Security Council, would automatically increase. It was believed that once the difficulties that had characterized the Cold War had been surmounted, countries would unite in a collective endeavour to maintain peace and security and, in a spirit of solidarity, foster development. The years passed and reality proved to be decidedly more complex. The proliferation of new challenges gave the lie to the then popular, and somewhat premature, idea of 'the end of history'. On the eve of another election in the US, the current issues continue to be much the same as they then were: how do we build a peaceful and developed future in a scenario that features a unipolar tendency? How do we strengthen multilateralism, democratize the decision-making processes and foster the emergence of a multipolar world? For a country such as Brazil the answers to these questions are of real moment.
Some years ago, Madeleine Albright, a former colleague of mine at the UN in New York, and later the US Secretary of State during the Clinton government, referred to her country as "the indispensable power". I remember that at the time that expression was criticized by some people as manifesting the wish of the US to impose their vision on the world – a stance the roots of which were to be found in the Monroe Doctrine and in the policy of the 'Big Stick'. Others, however, thought the expression merely reflected the political, economic and military might of the US in the post-Cold War period, during which the USA had emerged as the only putative superpower.
Latin America, and Brazil in particular, have a very close relationship with the USA which dates from our respective struggles for independence. The virtues of freedom, equality, representativeness and sovereignty that inspired the 1776 revolution closely influenced the history of the continent. One of the most important precursors of Brazil's independence, Joaquim José da Silva Xavier, known as Tiradentes (the tooth-puller), used to carry a copy of the US Constitution in his pocket. The proclamation of the Republic, after almost seventy years as an independent monarchy, was very much influenced by the path taken by the US. Throughout the twentieth century, Brazil and the US acted together on various fronts and initiatives, collaborating, for instance, in liberating Europe from Nazi fascism. The values and ideals pervading our countries continue to be the reference-points for perfecting democracy. They act as an inspiration in the search for a more fair and equal world, through the democratization of the international decision-making processes, particularly in international forums such as the UN Security Council, which is the only organization that may legally authorize the use of force. With regard to this point, one question would seem to be unavoidable: in view of its present might, is it in the interest of the only superpower in the world to promote multilateralism? I think it is. Even with all its imperfections, the multilateral system is still the only one able to provide the bases for a constructive dialogue between the various viewpoints in the world which may lead to a collaboration that includes and is beneficial to all. The championing of multilateralism makes sense not only from a political but also from a purely pragmatic point of view: as recent facts have shown, laying down the law unilaterally is not conducive to international stability. An unforeseeable and unstable world is not good for anyone. The possibility of disagreeing and the voicing of different points of view must not be seen as inopportune or uncomfortable hindrances. On the contrary, by making our different opinions known, the decision-making process is nourished and enhanced, conferring greater legitimacy and increasing the probability of the decisions adopted being successful. The recent war in Iraq and the consequences still being felt clearly demonstrated the shortcomings inherent in a unilateral approach and once again showed the need for the international community to be heard when the crises that affect it are being discussed. That is why the UN was created. That is why it is still irreplaceable.
Almost sixty years after it was created, the UN continues to mirror the reality of the post-war period. The threats and challenges, however, are more complex. The lack of representativeness that affected the Security Council has become even more pronounced in the light of the responsibilities it has assumed and that it will inevitably continue to have to assume. This paradox led the secretary-general to set in train a series of discussions with regard to the mechanisms available to the organization, which were based on the Security Council, in order to ensure that peace and security should prevail. The modernization of the most important UN body must not only correlate with the gravity of the threats facing us but also with the specific nature of the international community. The emergence of developing countries capable of crafting effective diplomatic strategies must also be taken into account when the reforms aimed at making the UN more effective in promoting peace, security and development are undertaken.
It is the belief of President Lula's government that dialogue and diplomacy are the instruments of choice in the search for solutions to contemporary challenges. Unilateralism merely reinforces isolation, exacerbates inequality and feeds on frustrations and fanaticism. We therefore do not hesitate to express our opinions regarding the international issues under discussion, in the belief that we are thus helping to assimilate different points of view and establish a genuine consensus. I am reminded of a remark that Bill Richardson made to me when he was the US representative at the UN, with regard to a resolution on Iraq. It had to do with an agreement that Kofi Annan had managed to extract when on a mission to Baghdad in connection with the inspection of the presidential palaces. As always, the problem hinged on authorizing the use of force, which Brazil and other countries were against. Finally, and largely owing to our efforts in the matter, we arrived at a formula that allowed us to reach a consensus: Richardson said: "You were quite a nuisance, but I must admit that, without Brazil, we should not have had a consensus of opinion". I replied that the best kind of friend to have is not a friend who is always ready to agree with you, but one who does not hesitate to disagree when defending an issue that he thinks is fair and wise.
The debate on terrorism is taking up a great deal of space on the international agenda, and has also become one of the main subjects under discussion in the US electoral campaign. Brazil vehemently condemns all terrorist acts in whatever form and wherever they take place, and has striven to collaborate as much as it is can with the US and other countries in their struggles against this scourge. However, the idea of effectively combating terrorist activities merely by deploying armies all over the world is patently unthinkable: we cannot achieve international peace by the unilateral use of force; we cannot arrive at a true and lasting peace through intimidation.
The roots of terrorism are deep and mostly nourished by social exclusion and poverty. Eliminating terrorism – and hunger and inequality – requires solidarity and collaboration. It also requires respect for the international rule of law, an understanding of cultural differences and the safeguarding of human dignity – qualities that separate civilization from barbarism and which can best be protected by institutions such as the UN.
That is the attitude we should expect to find in every country, whatever the political hue of their respective leaders. If we were to apply to the field of human relations the concept of common but differentiated responsibilities that emanated from the debates on the environment, it would not be improper to suggest that the US is, to a significant but by no means exclusive extent, responsible for the collective responsibility to promote peace on solid foundations. Nor should the 'indispensable power' disregard the consensus of the international community. The United Nations, particularly a reformed, democratic and representative UN, is the proper place in which to seek to obtain that support.
The climate of optimism that marked the beginning of the Nineties led many people to believe, albeit somewhat naively, that the capacity for multilateral collaboration, particularly in the UN Security Council, would automatically increase. It was believed that once the difficulties that had characterized the Cold War had been surmounted, countries would unite in a collective endeavour to maintain peace and security and, in a spirit of solidarity, foster development. The years passed and reality proved to be decidedly more complex. The proliferation of new challenges gave the lie to the then popular, and somewhat premature, idea of 'the end of history'. On the eve of another election in the US, the current issues continue to be much the same as they then were: how do we build a peaceful and developed future in a scenario that features a unipolar tendency? How do we strengthen multilateralism, democratize the decision-making processes and foster the emergence of a multipolar world? For a country such as Brazil the answers to these questions are of real moment.
Some years ago, Madeleine Albright, a former colleague of mine at the UN in New York, and later the US Secretary of State during the Clinton government, referred to her country as "the indispensable power". I remember that at the time that expression was criticized by some people as manifesting the wish of the US to impose their vision on the world – a stance the roots of which were to be found in the Monroe Doctrine and in the policy of the 'Big Stick'. Others, however, thought the expression merely reflected the political, economic and military might of the US in the post-Cold War period, during which the USA had emerged as the only putative superpower.
Latin America, and Brazil in particular, have a very close relationship with the USA which dates from our respective struggles for independence. The virtues of freedom, equality, representativeness and sovereignty that inspired the 1776 revolution closely influenced the history of the continent. One of the most important precursors of Brazil's independence, Joaquim José da Silva Xavier, known as Tiradentes (the tooth-puller), used to carry a copy of the US Constitution in his pocket. The proclamation of the Republic, after almost seventy years as an independent monarchy, was very much influenced by the path taken by the US. Throughout the twentieth century, Brazil and the US acted together on various fronts and initiatives, collaborating, for instance, in liberating Europe from Nazi fascism. The values and ideals pervading our countries continue to be the reference-points for perfecting democracy. They act as an inspiration in the search for a more fair and equal world, through the democratization of the international decision-making processes, particularly in international forums such as the UN Security Council, which is the only organization that may legally authorize the use of force. With regard to this point, one question would seem to be unavoidable: in view of its present might, is it in the interest of the only superpower in the world to promote multilateralism? I think it is. Even with all its imperfections, the multilateral system is still the only one able to provide the bases for a constructive dialogue between the various viewpoints in the world which may lead to a collaboration that includes and is beneficial to all. The championing of multilateralism makes sense not only from a political but also from a purely pragmatic point of view: as recent facts have shown, laying down the law unilaterally is not conducive to international stability. An unforeseeable and unstable world is not good for anyone. The possibility of disagreeing and the voicing of different points of view must not be seen as inopportune or uncomfortable hindrances. On the contrary, by making our different opinions known, the decision-making process is nourished and enhanced, conferring greater legitimacy and increasing the probability of the decisions adopted being successful. The recent war in Iraq and the consequences still being felt clearly demonstrated the shortcomings inherent in a unilateral approach and once again showed the need for the international community to be heard when the crises that affect it are being discussed. That is why the UN was created. That is why it is still irreplaceable.
Almost sixty years after it was created, the UN continues to mirror the reality of the post-war period. The threats and challenges, however, are more complex. The lack of representativeness that affected the Security Council has become even more pronounced in the light of the responsibilities it has assumed and that it will inevitably continue to have to assume. This paradox led the secretary-general to set in train a series of discussions with regard to the mechanisms available to the organization, which were based on the Security Council, in order to ensure that peace and security should prevail. The modernization of the most important UN body must not only correlate with the gravity of the threats facing us but also with the specific nature of the international community. The emergence of developing countries capable of crafting effective diplomatic strategies must also be taken into account when the reforms aimed at making the UN more effective in promoting peace, security and development are undertaken.
It is the belief of President Lula's government that dialogue and diplomacy are the instruments of choice in the search for solutions to contemporary challenges. Unilateralism merely reinforces isolation, exacerbates inequality and feeds on frustrations and fanaticism. We therefore do not hesitate to express our opinions regarding the international issues under discussion, in the belief that we are thus helping to assimilate different points of view and establish a genuine consensus. I am reminded of a remark that Bill Richardson made to me when he was the US representative at the UN, with regard to a resolution on Iraq. It had to do with an agreement that Kofi Annan had managed to extract when on a mission to Baghdad in connection with the inspection of the presidential palaces. As always, the problem hinged on authorizing the use of force, which Brazil and other countries were against. Finally, and largely owing to our efforts in the matter, we arrived at a formula that allowed us to reach a consensus: Richardson said: "You were quite a nuisance, but I must admit that, without Brazil, we should not have had a consensus of opinion". I replied that the best kind of friend to have is not a friend who is always ready to agree with you, but one who does not hesitate to disagree when defending an issue that he thinks is fair and wise.
The debate on terrorism is taking up a great deal of space on the international agenda, and has also become one of the main subjects under discussion in the US electoral campaign. Brazil vehemently condemns all terrorist acts in whatever form and wherever they take place, and has striven to collaborate as much as it is can with the US and other countries in their struggles against this scourge. However, the idea of effectively combating terrorist activities merely by deploying armies all over the world is patently unthinkable: we cannot achieve international peace by the unilateral use of force; we cannot arrive at a true and lasting peace through intimidation.
The roots of terrorism are deep and mostly nourished by social exclusion and poverty. Eliminating terrorism – and hunger and inequality – requires solidarity and collaboration. It also requires respect for the international rule of law, an understanding of cultural differences and the safeguarding of human dignity – qualities that separate civilization from barbarism and which can best be protected by institutions such as the UN.
That is the attitude we should expect to find in every country, whatever the political hue of their respective leaders. If we were to apply to the field of human relations the concept of common but differentiated responsibilities that emanated from the debates on the environment, it would not be improper to suggest that the US is, to a significant but by no means exclusive extent, responsible for the collective responsibility to promote peace on solid foundations. Nor should the 'indispensable power' disregard the consensus of the international community. The United Nations, particularly a reformed, democratic and representative UN, is the proper place in which to seek to obtain that support.