Is it possible to be, at the same time, a giant from a commercial point of view and «a dwarf» from a «diplomatic aspect»? This is the question that Brazilian media continues to ask after the recent crisis with Israeli’s government, wondering if the South American country – protagonist inside BRICS and MERCOSUR – can be a leader also at different latitudes.
The desire to revalue its position in foreign policy came after some disagreements with Israel relating the war in Gaza. Brasília – after being in favor of an investigation that would clarify possible war crimes by Tel Aviv – has issued a note defining «disproportional use of force by Israel». Asking for Brazilian’s ambassador in Tel Aviv for an explanation has been just the next step.
The reply of Netanyahu government, however, arrived immediately through Yigal Palmor, spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: «This is a demonstration of how Brazil, unfortunately, is a giant in terms of economic and cultural development, while remaining a midget in diplomacy» aspects. Palmor’s irritation ended into a sports metaphor – «it is no proportional a football match ending 7-1 and not 1-1» – clearly referring to Brazilian debacle during the World Cup.
In the past few days, Brazilian government had the opportunity to reply, but the situation is obviously tense. Apart from Palmor’s not very polite words – for whom the number of deaths in a war can be, in some way, compared to the number of goals conceded in a football match – Brazil has got the shot. And it’s trying to metabolize it, because the response of Netanyahu’s government has got it right, highlighting the weaknesses of Brazilian foreign policy. The questions made by local press, especially the anti-government one, is if Brazil is really incapable or is acting for ideological ends. The foreign policy of Dilma Rousseff, as well as Lula’s one, is not easy to interpret, but we can find some common features. PT’s government (Partido dos Trabalhadores) has not even spoken about the crash of flight MH17, Malaysia Airlines, on Ukrainian territory. A note of precaution by Rousseff, but not even a note of condolence immediately.
Analyzing its relations with Israel and the silence about the Ukrainian’s accident, it is not difficult to observe an anti-American position, exacerbated by the international case of NSA. Brazil is ready to strengthen its position in foreign policy only through its own channels: partnerships with emerging countries (apart from the BRICS) and leadership in South America. More the continent moves away from the United States, more is getting close to Brazil as a reference. Which is a necessary and automatic polarization. The support of the government of Nicolas Maduro; the suspension of Paraguay from MERCOSUR and the inclusion of Venezuela; financing Cuba; the agreement between Lula and Ahmadinejad about Iranian uranium enrichment. These are always transversal alliances.
Brazil continues to wait for UN Security Council to open its doors to guarantee a permanent seat on it. However, in the meantime, the country continues to try also other possibilities. It seems that Dilma doesn’t care if France does not like the idea of a free trade between South America and the European Union; it does not matter if the Ukrainian president Poroshenko defects the final of the World Cup because there’s Vladimir Putin and does not despair if Israel accuses her of wanting to build friendships in the Arab League taking advantage of the crisis in Gaza. She does not move from the diplomatic point of view: only 21 the Heads of State were received in the first three years, only a third of the ones received by Lula in the same period of his government. She rarely speaks or exposes herself: Dilma understood that internal policy is the new foreign policy. At least until the next elections in October.
Is it possible to be, at the same time, a giant from a commercial point of view and «a dwarf» from a «diplomatic aspect»? This is the question that Brazilian media continues to ask after the recent crisis with Israeli’s government, wondering if the South American country – protagonist inside BRICS and MERCOSUR – can be a leader also at different latitudes.
