Brazzil In the August issue of Brazzil, Leda Beck quotes mega-investor George Soros as saying, "In modern global
capitalism, only Americans get to vote, Brazilians don't." The travesty of external forces determining the outcome of Brazil's
elections, something that is largely being engineered by powerful American voices, is something that cannot and should not be
accepted; I urge you all to speak out directly against these voices. Something I read recently spurred me to action, and I'll
share with you the results.
(I apologize in advance, because there is a lot of info here, so please bear with me. But I think it's important for all
Brazilians, as well as Brazil's friends here in America, to see what some people in high places are doing to interfere with Brazil's
fragile political process.) The following is a note I sent to my Brazilian friends and posted on the local Brazilian Yahoo bulletin
board here in Davis, California:
"Some of my Brazilian friends alerted me to the following article, which ran August 7 in the pathetic
Washington Times, a shameless rightwing rag. The author, Constantine C. Menges, is an accomplished professor, writer, and former
government official who warns that the possible election of leftist candidate Luiz Inácio (Lula) da Silva as president of Brazil might
create "a radical regime," an "axis of evil" encompassing Brazil , Venezuela and Cuba. I thought some of you might take interest
in the exchange noted below, where Menges and I traded e-mails. I also want to encourage everyone to let this Cold War
dinosaur know what they think of his absurdly alarmist views. This may be important because there are many people in positions
of power in this country who are doing everything they can to ensure that only a candidate "favorable" to the U.S. (and
"globalism") wins the election.
After reading this, I urge all of you to express your views to Mr. Menges directly via e-mail at
menges@hudsondc.org or by phone at 202-974-2410 or 202-223-7770.
You can also write a letter to the editor of
The Washington Times (I've included two excellent letters below that were
already published): letters@washingtontimes.com. Even better, write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper to complain
about this unacceptable interference in the internal affairs of Brazil.
Here's the original article that inspired me to speak out, followed by the e-mail exchange plus a reply that my wife
Leila sent to Menges.
Blocking a new axis of evil
By Constantine C. Menges (Published 8/7/2002) A new terrorist and nuclear weapons/ballistic missile threat may well come from an axis including Cuba's Fidel
Castro, the Chavez regime in Venezuela and a newly elected radical president of Brazil, all with links to Iraq, Iran and China.
Visiting Iran last year, Mr. Castro said: "Iran and Cuba can bring America to its knees," while Chavez expressed his admiration
for Saddam Hussein during a visit to Iraq.
The new axis is still preventable, but if the pro-Castro candidate is elected president of Brazil, the results could
include a radical regime in Brazil re-establishing its nuclear weapon and ballistic missile programs, developing close links to state
sponsors of terrorism such as Cuba, Iraq and Iran, and participating in the destabilization of fragile neighboring democracies. This
could lead to 300 million people in six countries coming under the control of radical anti-U.S. regimes and the possibility that
thousands of newly indoctrinated terrorists might try to attack the United States from Latin America. Yet, the administration
in Washington seems to be paying little attention.
Brazilians will hold presidential elections in October, and if current polling is any guide the winner could be a
pro-Castro radical with extensive ties to international terrorism. His name is Luis Inácio da Silva, the presidential candidate of the
Workers Party who is currently at about 40 percent in the polls. The Communist candidate is second with 25 percent and the
pro-democratic contender is at about 14 percent. Mr. da Silva makes no secret of his sympathies. He has been an ally of Mr. Castro for more than 25 years. With Mr.
Castro's support, Mr. da Silva founded the São Paulo Forum in 1990 as an annual meeting of communist and other radical terrorist
and political organizations from Latin America, Europe and the Middle East. This has been used to coordinate and plan
terrorist and political activities around the world and against the United States. The last meeting was held in Havana, Cuba, in
December 2001. It involved terrorists from Latin America, Europe and the Middle East, and sharply condemned the Bush
administration and its actions against international terrorism.
Like Mr. Castro, Mr. da Silva blames the United States and "neo-liberalism" for all the real social and economic
problems still facing Brazil and Latin America. Mr. da Silva has called the Free Trade Area of the Americas a plot by the United
States to "annex" Brazil, and he has said that the international lenders who seek repayment of their $250 billion in loans are
"economic terrorists." He has also said that those who are moving their money out of Brazil because they fear his regime are
"economic terrorists." This gives a hint about the kind of "war against terrorism" his regime will conduct.
Brazil is a vast, richly endowed country, nearly the size of the United States, with a population of about 180 million
and the world's eighth largest economy (with a GDP of more than $1.1 trillion). It could soon become one of the world's
nuclear armed powers as well. Between 1965 and 1994, the military actively worked to develop nuclear weapons, it successfully
designed two atomic bombs and was reportedly on the verge of testing one nuclear device when a newly elected democratic
government and a Brazilian congressional investigation caused the program to be shut down.
That investigation revealed, however, that the military had sold eight tons of uranium to Iraq in 1981. It is also
reported that after Brazil's successful ballistic missile program was ended, the general and 24 of the scientists working on it went
to work for Iraq. There are reports that with financing from Iraq, a nuclear weapons capability has been covertly maintained
contrary to directives from the civilian democratic leaders.
Mr. da Silva has said Brazil should have nuclear weapons and move closer to China, which has been actively
courting the Brazilian military. China has sold Brazil enriched uranium and has invested in the Brazilian aerospace industry,
resulting in a joint imagery/reconnaissance satellite.
Brazil shares common borders with 10 other countries in South America. This would help da Silva to emulate—as he
has said he would—the foreign policy of the pro-Castro and pro-Iraq Chavez regime in Venezuela, which has provided
support to the communist narco-terrorist FARC in Colombia as well as other anti-democratic groups in other South American
countries. Hugo Chavez worked with Mr. Castro to temporarily destabilize the fragile democracy in Ecuador two years ago. Now
both support the radical socialist leader of the cocaine growers, Evo Morales, who hopes to become president of Bolivia this August.
Along with helping the communist guerrillas take power in the embattled democracy in Colombia, a da Silva regime in
Brazil would be well situated to aide communists, narco-terrorists and other anti-democratic groups in destabilizing the
fragile democracies of Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru, as well as to exploit the deep economic crisis in Argentina and Paraguay.
Further, a da Silva regime is likely to default on its debt, causing a sharp economic downturn in all of Latin America,
thereby increasing the vulnerability of its democracies. This could also trigger a second phase of economic downturn in the
United Staes as export markets contracted.
A Castro-Chavez-da Silva axis would mean linking 43 years of Fidel Castro's political warfare against the United
States with the oil wealth of Venezuela and the nuclear weapons/ ballistic missile and economic potential of Brazil.
Come our own elections in November 2004, Americans may ask: Who lost South America? The United States was
politically passive during the Clinton administration, when it ignored the pleas of Venezuela's democratic leaders for help
in opposing the anti-constitutional and illegal actions of Mr. Chavez and also ignored his public alliances with state
sponsors of terrorism. Why can't the Bush administration act before 20 years of democratic gains in Latin America were allowed to
be reversed? Why can't anything be done before a vast new southern flank is opened up in the terrorist threat and our
nation menaced by one more radical anti-American regime intent on acquiring nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles?
This disaster for U.S. national security and for the people of Latin America must and can be averted if our policy
makers act quickly and decisively, but they must do so now. Timely political attention and actions by the United States and
other democracies should include encouragement for the pro-democratic parties in Brazil to unify behind an honest, capable
political leader who can represent the hopes of the majority of Brazilians for genuine democracy and who has the resources to
mount an effective national campaign.
Constantine C. Menges, a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute, is a former National Security Council member.
This was Mr. Menges' response to an initial e-mail that I sent blasting him for his alarmist, reactionary, and
unrealistic assessment of the situation (I didn't save the text from that one, sorry):
August 23, 2002
Note for Mr. Castles,
Your e-mail indicates that you disagree with my analysis. I hope that you are correct and that my judgement about
Mr. da Silva is incorrect. I thought it would interest you to know that in the forty years that I have worked on International
Politics and political development, I have always been a strong supporter of political democracy and an opponent of
dictatorships from the right and from the left. I came to the United Sates as a child refugee speaking Portuguese and German; my
father, a political opponent of the Nazi regime, was to be imprisoned or executed but fortunately, my family escaped and
Portugal granted us refuge as we fled to the United States. The three attachments will hopefully provide you with more information that will help you understand why I am
concerned about Mr. da Silva's possible future actions. He has for example, convened since 1990, a group of communist, radical,
and terrorist organizations called the Forum of São Paulo. The attached list of participants, who last met in the communist
dictatorship of Cuba, is one of the statements I cite concerning press reporting that it is his wish that Brazil have nuclear
weapons and try to equal or surpass Chavez. Venezuela has done exactly what I warned against in 1998/1999 and which I also
summarized in another attached article.
While editors in publications may choose dramatic titles for articles written by scholars, I hope you understand that
I am concerned about the well being and freedom of the people of Brazil, Venezuela, and Cuba and view them as good
people. I hope that Brazil maintains its political freedom and has more social justice, and does this without falling into the hands
of a radical political leadership, which could cause immense suffering there and in other countries.
It is my view that the future of Brazil is up to the citizens of Brazil. It is also my view that American scholars may
offer their views of political leaders in other countries just as you have offered your views of my work—this is an element of
freedom of speech.
Sincerely,
Dr. C. Menges
This was my reply:
Reply to Prof. Menges,
I appreciate your prompt reply and the polite tone of your note, Professor Menges, but the strength of my beliefs
and the absolute abhorrence I have for your absurd positions do not allow me to reciprocate so kindly. You say that you
have always been a strong opponent of dictatorships: Am I to understand that you spoke out as vociferously against the
military dictatorships in Brazil that preceded their transition to democracy? Somehow I doubt that. After all, those were "our
boys." It seems you're just another anti-left hypocrite, hiding behind the cloak of "pro-democracy" and fighting a futile battle
against events and processes of which you have very little true grasp.
I'm sorry, professor, but your alarmist views simply aren't based in reality. I lived in Brazil under Cardoso for three
years, I'm married to a politically astute Brazilian, and I know what the typical Brazilian thinks; there is no way Brazilians are
going to tolerate a return to dictatorship, unless, of course, the U.S.—as it has done so many times in the past in Latin
America, and always with counterproductive results—isolates the country and effectively sows the seeds for the type of scenario
you warn against.
Various representatives of the banking community just held talks with Lula and came away reassured; that alone
questions the validity of your views. The best policy for the U.S. is to start preparing for the possibility of a Lula victory and do
whatever it can to ensure mutually productive relations between the two nations. In other words, the U.S. should exert its
influence in a positive, not negative, way—for once.
Co-option, not confrontation, is the way to ensure that Brazil stays on a reasonably straight path. I, for one, fear that
too many Brazilians, already hypersensitive about the fragile state of their economy, will at the last minute have knee-jerk
reactions to all this foreign-generated crap being heaped on Lula—then they will vote for the "safe" candidate, the one that will
not bring them change but will simply continue to bleed them dry with continued corruption, ineptitude, and inaction.
You say it is your view that "the future of Brazil is up to the citizens of Brazil." Then why don't you leave it up to the
citizens of Brazil? If the Brazilian electorate chooses their candidate democratically, what right do you have to subvert that
choice from afar? I am forwarding your article, message, and "strategic warning" to all my Brazilian friends here in the U.S. and
in Brazil; I will also post them on various Brazilian forums that my wife and I participate in.
One response I have already received, from my very close friend who works for KPMG Consultants in Rio, is telling:
"Fucking lies!" she writes. I have yet to hear from a Brazilian who is not absolutely disgusted and alarmed with your views. And
don't hand me that tired old freedom-of-speech line. I'm not saying you aren't entitled to your views. But disseminating
agenda-driven misinformation is not something that should be taken lying down; it should be met with a loud and passionate
objection. And I'm sure that you will be hearing those objections very soon via e-mail, phone calls, etc.
You say, "I hope that Brazil maintains its political freedom and has more social justice." First of all, this current state
of affairs may very well represent a defining moment in Brazilian history, where Brazilians are finally exercising their
political freedom to the maximum extent! And why do you think people are leaning toward Lula? Because those neo-liberal bozos
that have held the reigns of power for the past several years have failed, like so many Brazilian governments before them, to
deliver ANY real progress in social justice and stability.
After forty years of service, perhaps it's time for you to hang up your spurs (along with that dinosaur thinking of
yours) and make way for some new blood that demonstrates more contemporary ideas and doesn't rely on divisive and
exclusionary scare tactics. Forty years of wrongs do not make a right (although, in your case, it has most assuredly made you
"Right"!). People like you have done a hell of a job promoting misguided, damaging, and ultimately counterproductive foreign
policies vis-à-vis Latin America.
Your work is doing absolutely no good for the citizens of this country or for those living outside our borders.
Despite what you and that cowboy in the White House might think, the Golden Age of commie/liberal-bashing is over! The
"radical threat", you say? Christ, man, it's not the 1950s anymore. Do the world a favor and retire before you do any more damage.
Peter Castles This is my wife Leila's message to Menges:
Dear Dr. Menges,
I am Mr. Castles' wife and he sent me a copy of your prompt response to his e-mail regarding your article published
on The Washington Times, which is wreaking havoc among Brazilians all over the world via Internet.
Please pardon some of my grammar mistakes since English is my second language, but I did want to write to you in
order to give you a Brazilian's point of view of Lula and the leftwing movements in Brazil.
As a Brazilian journalist who witnessed several so-called left-wing meetings with international attendants in Brazil, I
can assure you that it is very common in this kind of forum that parties and organizations that deeply disagree with one
another will gather with one common objective—be it to demonstrate against world neoliberalism, be it to protest against the
Area of Free Trade of the Americans, which they consider a bad deal for every country except the U.S.
Like with the Social Forum of Porto Alegre and other meetings, any international organization is free to attend and
they will not be denied participation. Usually the atmosphere in these meetings is festive, democratic and pacific, and the
most radical organizations are looked upon as a curiosity rather than taken seriously. These events are usually sponsored by
several non-governmental organizations, and not by one party only. Political parties prefer not to be involved in these
events' organization, even though their militants and some of their politicians will be present, depending on the prestige or
visibility (for the public or press) of the event.
Now, regarding Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and the Workers Party (Partido dos Trabalhadores-PT), you have no reason
to be afraid. Both Lula and PT have come a long way since the party was founded in 1980. The ideological naiveté and
administrative inexperience have given place to a much more mature program of ideas and administration proposals and
experiences that are receiving compliments from all segments of society, including international bankers who met Lula earlier this
week. The Workers Party's constituents range from grassroots unionists to entrepreneurs, professionals and intellectuals. The PT has had several members elected governors and mayors all over the country in the last 15 years, and they
pretty much stuck to the orthodox ways of management, with conservative budgets and all. It was NEVER in the PT program
the idea of revolution, armed violence or the like. By the way, the Brazilian people have the most absolute aversion to
violent radicalism, guerrilla-like movements, etc.
Most Brazilians would rather stay poor for the rest of their lives than having to fight with arms to change their
political situation. They will try to improve the economy by voting for the candidate they consider the most promising, and every
once in a while take part in pacific street demonstrations, period. Brazilians love their happy-go-lucky lifestyle too much to
jeopardize it by engaging in war games. Therefore, rest assured that Brazilians will NEVER be indoctrinated to become
terrorists, as you state in your article.
The PT has even deleted the word "socialism" from their programs and principles statements. The Workers Party is
for a capitalist society that is capable of promoting better income distribution, through moderate changes in the taxing
system, incentive to industrial production and employment, etc. The PT and Lula are even supporting the current
Government's agreement with the IMF.
If Lula ever showed affinity with Castro or Chavez, it was only regarding some of their policies that were directed to
improve the poor population healthcare, education, or to guarantee national sovereignty, etc. Lula does not support the
antidemocratic way those men rule their countries, but he does want to make the point that there are some positive aspects in their
administrations that should be noted. It's as if an American radical Republican who hated Clinton would recognize that at least
he did a great job with the economy. But anyway, Lula would never try to emulate Castro's or Chavez's government style
in Brazil, because the Workers Party is a very ethic and democracy-oriented party, and so are their voters. Populism is
definitely not the PT style.
Anyway, since you are a Portuguese speaker I would suggest that you read the Brazilian newspapers coverage of
the presidential elections, so you would have a more accurate scenario of our political situation. Good websites of Brazilian
news are:
I would rather rely on the daily coverage of the election facts and the analysis of competent Brazilian political
columnist's articles (such as the ones at Folha On
Line "Pensata" and Jornal do
Brasil's Dora Kramer) than on the opinion of other
scholars that might not be really up-to-date with recent Brazilian history.
Thank you for your attention.
Leila Costa
These are the Letters to the Editor of the Washington
Times:
August 19, 2002
Next stop for war on terror: Brazil?
Constantine C. Menges' column, "Blocking a new axis of evil" (Commentary, Aug. 7) is an outrage to all Brazilian
people. First, I do not sympathize with presidential candidate Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva because I don't think he's really prepared
for that office. Even so, I cannot imagine all the unnamable horrors predicted by Mr. Menges would happen if Mr. da Silva
were elected. Indeed, Mr. Menges' column is like a jigsaw puzzle with no matching pieces: lots of old and inaccurate
information (such as Mr. da Silva's connections to Cuban leader Fidel Castro) rearranged to make Brazil look like a potential terrorist
threat to America.
Brazil has its own problems battling narcotics traffic, so tell me one good reason why would it help the Colombian
terrorist outfit FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), which is financed with drug money? Also, Mr. Menges'
speculation about Brazil developing nuclear weapons is ludicrous; we hardly have a decently working nuclear power plant. If this
column was meant to turn Brazil into an enemy in your readers' eyes, it seems as if reverse propaganda has occurred. If more
Brazilians are thinking like me at this moment, they are thinking that the United States has been behaving in a paranoid manner
since last September, seeing terrorist threats everywhere.
Pedro Giglio
Playing in the Enemy's Hands
It is bad enough that the international financial community has seen fit to punish Brazilians for expressing
dissatisfaction at the polls. Now neo-cold warriors such as Constantine C. Menges are playing the terrorism card to discredit one of
Latin America's most distinguished champions of democracy, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Mr. da Silva gained notoriety on the
front lines of the democracy movement in the late 1970s and was pivotal in the dismantling of Brazil's military rule.
People may disagree with his policies, but there is no doubt about his commitment to democratic principles. He is no
Hugo Chavez of Venezuela or Fidel Castro. His party leaders have proved themselves skilled managers of Brazil's largest cities,
and they have promised to clean up Brazil's notoriously corrupt government. Even current President Fernando Henrique
Cardoso respects Mr. da Silva and his Labor Party and has vowed to endorse him in a runoff election against the populist Ciro Gomes.
The people we should fear in Brazil are Mr. da Silva's enemies. Armed with an ideology of fear, they may overthrow
the government and remilitarize Brazil. Mr. Menges' essay plays into the hands of the real enemy, an enemy that is far more
dangerous than Mr. da Silva ever could be.
Mark Andrews Peter Castles, the author, can be reached at
petecax@yahoo.com
Politics
September 2002
Speak Up, Brazil!
Brazilians will never tolerate a return to dictatorship, unless
the U.S.—as it has done so many
times in the past with
counterproductive results—isolates the country
and sows the seeds for such a scenario.
Peter Castles
Rio de Janeiro
Student Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies University of California in San Diego
