I’ve just returned from a month in my home state of New York. I found the atmosphere both promising and discouraging. I came down on encouraging, despite everything the citizens are experiencing.
On the negative side, my home town of Albany, which now has about 85,000 people (when I was growing up, there were 120,000), has belatedly been feeling the effects of the Great Recession. To some degree, Albany has been insulated from great economic shifts. As the state capital, it benefits from a substantial work force in the public sector that provides stability and a reliable source of disposable income. Real estate values rise and fall less than in more volatile environments. The area has had the good sense—and some unexpectedly good leadership—that has enabled it to parley the advantage of being a capital into attracting major investments in nanotechnology. This evolution, along with the several universities that have contributed to the synergy, has attracted a number of immigrants from all over the world. The area’s inhabitants maintain the small-town atmosphere, showing a courtesy and tolerance absent in many other places. Although provincial in some ways, Albany’s openness to new things and people is reflected in the proliferance of ethnic restaurants that offer terrific food (when I was growing up, ethnic offerings were pretty much limited to red-sauce Italian and Cantonese food) and a window on the larger world. Albany’s residents have been, by and large, optimistic. It was a good place to grow up in.
They seem less optimistic today. They are concerned by an increase in crime that appears tied to migration from larger cities. They are concerned that a significant number of businesses (including restaurants) have recently closed—although a number of new ones have also opened. They worry about the large deficit New York State is running, which the dysfunctional legislature is incapable of addressing, and its impact on services such as health and education. And they, particularly the elderly, note the decline in civility that used to characterize relationships on the street. They, and not only senior citizens, tell me there is a new anger that is partly based in one general effect of the recession—that they have less control over their lives, that banks are increasingly predatory and bankers increasingly greedy, that helping one’s neighbors is less common, that they no longer trust the government to do the right thing. They are less optimistic about the future.
In truth, little of this evolution is really new, even the greatly increased public expression of anger. Research suggests that the historic passage of Medicare in 1964 was only possible because of the relatively high level of confidence in government that existed at the time, and that the Obama Administration’s difficulties in cobbling together the much needed reform of the health sector is a result in the decline in that confidence.
But it’s new for Albany.
Having grown up there, I have faith that Albany’s citizens will get beyond it, that they’ll find new ways to offset the effects of destructive outside events. In fact, while I was there earlier, I saw one such initiative. The Albany area has made itself an attractive and cost-effective place for Hollywood to film. When “Salt” opens, you’ll see there’s life in the old town yet.
Resilience—that’s what you should expect from a small town with four hundred years of history, and I should have realized it earlier.

While Brazil celebrates gaining the 2016 Olympics, congressional delegations from the U.S. and Brazil visit Honduras. Enquanto o Brasil comemora ter ganhado as Olimpiadas de 2016, comitivas parlementares desse pais e dos Estados Unidos visitam Honduras.
All good wishes to Brazil, which can now begin to prepare for the 2016 Summer Olympics as well as the 2014 World Cup. Brazil now has the opportunity to show that it can manage two global spectacles, the preparations for either of which would tax any country in the world.
Parabéns ao Brasil, que pode agora começar os preparativos para os Jogos Olimpicos de 2016, além da Copa do Mundo de 2014. O Brasil tem a chance de mostrar que pode administrar dois espetaculos globais – apenas um deles já seria dificil para qualquer pais.
Likely to be lost in the euphoria—Brazil will be the first country in Latin America to host the Olympics—is the spectacle unfolding in Honduras. Much of the latest news has to do with two congressional visits. One is from Brazil, the other from the United States.
Com chance de perde-se na merecida euforia — Brasil será o primeiro país latinoamericano a patrocinar as Olimpiadas — está o triste espetáculo que segue em Honduras. A maior parte das últimas notícias gira em torno da visita de dois grupos de parlementares.
Let’s look first at Brazil. Six federal deputies, headed by Raul Jungmann (PSB-SP) from an ideological range, visited on Thursday. They had a full agenda of meetings with their legislative counterparts, and people either running or inhabiting the Brazilian Embassy . . . and an invitation to dine with the head of the government in fact, Roberto Micheletti. Of the six legislators, four opted to accept the dinner invitation. Was this a show of independence from the Brazilian government, which (like just about everyone else) does not recognize the government in fact? Was it an opportunity to have a dialogue with, again, a regime unrecognized by Brazil that might nonetheless advance the cause of democracy? Was it a preference for something other than the take-out food provided to the Embassy? Was it yet another incomprehensible step in the dance that is playing out in and outside of Honduras? In any case, at least one article apparently based on notes of the deputados, seems to clarify more questions than do official statements.
Vamos dar uma olhada primeiro no Brasil. Uma comitiva de seis deputados federais com uma gama ideologica variada visitou na quinta passada. Liderado por Raul Jungmann (PSB-SP), o grupo tinha uma agenda cheia de reuniões com sua contrapartida legislativa, com funcionários e “visitantes” da embaixada brasileira, além de . . . um convite para jantar com o chefe de fato do governo, Roberto Micheletti. Dos seis parlementares, quatro optaram por aceitar o convite. Foi uma amostra de sua independência do governo brasileiro que (como praticamente todo o mundo) não reconhece o governo de fato? Foi uma oportunidade de dialogar com um regime não reconhecido pelo Brasil que pode, no entanto, avançar a causa da democracia? Foi uma preferência por qualquer coisa que não fosse a comida “pra viagem” disponivel dentro da embaixada? Foi mais um passo incompreensível na dança que está rolando dentro e fora de Honduras? Pelo menos um artigo publicado aqui, aparentemente baseado em observações dos deputados, parece esclarecer mais sobre o que está acontecendo do que as declarações oficiais.
While the Brazilian deputados were in Honduras, four U.S. representatives were about to begin their own visit. The Obama administration has made it clear it wants no official meetings with the Micheletti regime, which it considers—again, along with the rest of the world—to have engaged in a coup against the elected president, Miguel Zalaya. But, as anyone who has dealt with the U.S. Congress knows, it’s difficult to tell an elected official what he or she may or may not do.
Enquanto os deputados brasileiros estavam em Honduras, quatro representantes norteamericanos estavam prontos para comecar sua própria visita. O governo Obama já deixou claro que não quer reuniões oficiais com o regime Micheletti, que considera—de novo, com o resto do mundo—ter iniciado um golpe contra o presidente eleito, Miguel Zalaya. Mas, como qualquer pessoa que governa com o Congresso norteamericano sabe, é dificil dizer a um legislador eleito o que pode ou não pode fazer.
The U.S. “delegation,” according to a spokesman, believes that its visit supports the constitutionally mandated elections at the end of November. This is arrant nonsense. Readers might recall that the person leading this group, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), is the same Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) who has decided that the Obama administration shouldn’t have the firepower of either an Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere or an Ambassador to Brazil. It’s this honorable Senator who has put a hold in the august U.S. Senate on a plenary vote on both nominees. Since July.
Esta “delegação” dos Estados Unidos, segundo um porta-voz, acredita que sua visita apoia as eleições determinadas pela Constituição para fins de novembro. Isso não faz sentido nenhum. Os leitores talvez lembrem-se que a pessoa liderando esse grupo, o senador Jim DeMint (R-SC), é o mesmo senador que decidiu que o governo Obama não deve usufruir da força de um Secretário para Assuntos Hemisféricos nem de um Embaixador no Brasil. É o mesmo excelentísimo senador quem atrasa os votos no plenário sobre ambos os indicados para esses postos. Desde julho.

Now, of course, everyone is watching what is unfolding in Honduras, Brazil, the OAS and the United Nations. Deposed President Zelaya is back in Tegucigalpa or, rather, on sovereign Brazilian territory that happens to be located in that city.

It’s very interesting, watching Brazil assuming a far higher public, active profile than usual in an international matter that in one sense seems very simple but in about everything else very complicated. The simple: an elected president was flown out of his country in a coup. The not so simple: the legislature, judiciary and military worked together and, at least in some ways consistent with Honduran legal procedure, to determine that the president had overstepped his authority and acted unconstitutionally. And the de facto president says he won’t run in the forthcoming election but does not accept the San Jose Accords painstakingly elaborated by Costa Rica’s president, Oscar Arias, because they call for Zelaya’s reinstallation (albeit with circumscribed powers and no possibility of reelection). And the deposed president, at the time the guest of Managua, hops back and forth between Nicaraguan and Honduran soil in defiance of the de facto government. But to what embassy—if any—did the unidentified vehicle belong, the one that brought Zelaya to the Brazilian Embassy? And did he just knock at the gate and walk in? This one has elements of high drama, mystery, and farce.

It will be a good-sized feather in Brazil’s cap, now that it has committed itself to a leadership role, if this situation can be resolved peacefully and intelligently through negotiations, to the benefit of the Honduran people. It also might have an impact on Brazil’s eventually gaining a permanent seat in the UN Security Council.

Maybe then, and after they vote on some kind of health reform , the members of the U.S. Senate will take up the nominations of Tom Shannon and Arturo Valenzuela. The vote on them is still—remember?—hostage to some far-right Republicans who put a “hold” on their consideration because of . . . Honduras. No, not because of the coup (emphatically not because of the coup), but rather Zelaya’s increasingly close relationship with Hugo Chavez.

Or maybe not. Maybe that vote will only come after the next Honduran election.

Why is President Lula’s chief of staff going to the U.S.? Several reasons, probably.

On the macro level, Dilma might want to reinforce the Obama administration’s pledge to open a new chapter in relations with Latin America, and its more constructive role in the OAS as evidenced by its actions vis-à-vis Honduras. This could also open the door to a conversation growing out of attempts in Central America to amend constitutions to permit re-election or extensions of time in office of presidents.

Another topic, midway between macro and micro, would be to discuss progress made thus far in reaching a treaty that rules out double taxation. Long a concern of business, conclusion of such an agreement would boost two-way trade and, probably, direct long-term investment in Brazil (and, who knows, maybe in the U.S. as well)—as opposed to more volatile inflows that can leave just as suddenly as they arrive.

Linked to that might be a conversation about the benefits of a more rational and balanced visa system, particularly for businesspeople. There is already a welcome manifestation of movement, as described by members of the U.S. Consulate in Brasilia. Interviews and articles in local media describe steps taken to reduce the extravagant delays that have characterized many Brazilians’ attempts to get visas to go to the United States for business and/or tourism, and answer some questions that have long baffled applicants. The new procedures reflect a mission-wide effort to fix a stone-in-the-shoe irritant to bilateral relations that has had a variety of negative repercussions, including but not limited to the damage it’s done to the Embassy’s image. Applicants still have to go through a series of steps, but the revised process promises to be more transparent and more respectful as well as more rapid. Extending this approach to commerce-related visas, with due attention to reciprocity, only makes sense.

Of course, Ms. Rousseff ought to be prepared to field thornier questions in other areas. One that comes immediately to mind is Brazil’s adherence to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, a topic forcefully raised by New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez during his questioning of ambassadorial nominee Tom Shannon as well as by President Obama in at least one meeting with President Lula.

Another might be how Brazil plans to manage its relationships with countries like Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela, all of which present to official U.S. eyes (and, let’s face it, many others) threats to regional if not global stability and democratic values.

Way back when, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva commanded a very effective and successful effort to reassure Washington and New York that, despite earlier rhetoric, a Lula administration could be counted on to do the right thing in a number of areas of concern. At that time, the main focus was international finance and economics. For a potential pre-candidate to succeed him, with the advantages of a context of substantially improved bilateral relations and the emergence of Brazil as an important player on the world stage, this would seem a visit offering opportunities to make further, equally positive strides.

Lista de tarefas da Dilma?

Porque a chefe da Casa Civil do presidente Lula vai aos Estados Unidos? Provavelmente por várias razões.

No nível macro, Dilma talvez queira reforçar a promesa do governo Obama de abrir um novo capítulo nas relações com a América Latina, e o papel mais construtivo que o presidente norte-americano tem feito na OEA, como mostram suas ações en relação a Honduras. Isso pode também abrir a porta a uma conversa mais filosófica e geral inspirada em tentativas, na America Central, de mudar constituições para permitir reeleições ou extenções de mandatos presidenciais.

Outro assunto, entre macro e micro, seria discutir o progresso alcançado até agora no sentido de fechar um tratado que proíba a dupla tributação. A conclusão de tal acordo fortaleceria o comércio bilateral e provavelmente o investimento direto de longo prazo no Brasil (e, quem sabe, talvez nos EUA também) — e não as aplicações voláteis, que podem sair tão repentinamente quanto chegaram.

Vinculada a essa, estaria uma conversa sobre os benefícios de um sistema mais racional e equilibrado de concessão de vistos, especialmente para empresários. Já temos uma indicação de movimento nesse sentido, dada por funcionários do Consulado dos Estados Unidos em Brasilia. Em entrevistas e artigos na mídia eles revelaram os passos tomados para reduzir os atrasos extravagantes que tem caraterizado as tentativas de muitos brasileiros de conseguir vistos para uma viagem de negócios e/ou turismo. Os novos tramites refletem um esforço para eliminar uma irritante pedra no sapato das relações bilaterais, que tem provocado danos desnecessários à imagem da Embaixada e do país. Ampliar essa reforma a vistos relacionados com o comércio, com a devida atenção e reciprocidade, faz sentido.

Evidentemente, Dilma Rousseff deve se preparar para responder a questões mais complicadas em outras áreas. Uma que surge imediatemente diz respeito ao fato do Brasil subscrever a Convenção de Haia sobre Cooperação Internacional e Proteção de Crianças e Adolescentes em Matéria de Adoção Internacional – um assunto levantado mais recentemente, com veemência, pelo senador federal de New Jersey, Bob Menendez, sobre o caso (Sean) Goldman, durante a sabatina de Tom Shannon, indicado como próximo embaixador norteamericano no Brasil. Também foi discutido pelo Presidente Obama em pelo menos um encontro com o Presidente Lula e pela Secretaria de Estado Hillary Clinton com seus pares brasileiros.

Outro assunto pode ser como o Brasil pretende gerenciar suas relações com países como o Irã, a Coréia do Norte, Cuba e Venezuela, que apresentam aos olhos oficiais norteamericanos (e, há que admitir, muitos outros) ameaças à estabilidade regional, se não global, e a valores democráticos.

Anos atrás, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva desenvolveu um esforco eficiente e exitoso para acalmar Washington e Nova York em relação à retórica anterior sobre assuntos que as preocupavam. Naquela época, os temas principais estavam no campo da economia e das finanças internacionais. Para a potencial pré-candidata à sucessão dele, que ainda conta com as vantagens de um contexto de substancial melhoria nas relações bilaterais e de emergência do Brasil como participante importante no cenário mundial, esta visita parece oferecer oportunidades de dar passos mais largos e igualmente positivos.

I’ve been thinking about a little-noticed program two weeks ago on the OAS and the future of hemispheric relations sponsored by George Washington University’s Center for Latin American Initiatives. In it, Assistant Secretary of State Tom Shannon emphasized the larger role that multilateralism will play in the Obama Administration’s hemispheric policy.
Multilateralism has long been a favorite approach of many countries of the hemisphere in relations with their neighbors. Brazil, of course, played a pivotal role in the establishment of the United Nations, and for years has pursued a larger Security Council where it could have a permanent seat. Other nations have held different positions. Despite the work undertaken by Eleanor Roosevelt to help make the United Nations a reality, the United States has not been consistently supportive of multilateralism. Indeed, only sporadically has it paid more than lip service to the UN’s potential. There are reasons for this, one of the most basic being the isolationist tendencies—usually citing George Washington’s warning that the U.S. should avoid “foreign entanglements”—that has long been a component of the country’s complex foreign policy. Most recently, the UN has been subjected to criticism and even ridicule in some, mostly very conservative, U.S. political circles.
So Assistant Secretary Shannon’s words suggest the United States is in the process of modifying its approach to regional and global affairs. Fine. Long overdue. I’ll be looking for evidence of more timely communication between Washington and its embassies abroad on issues of importance to the U.S. Countries which have more established traditions of multilateralism and activism in multilateral fora establish their position on an issue early, then instruct their diplomats to engage their interlocutors and win support for that stance. In my experience, Washington often procrastinated in sending instructions—sometimes for months,—with predictable results.
(Update: Actually, I do have a bit of confirming evidence—namely, the way in which the U.S. is dealing with the current situation in Honduras. Not only a lot of multilateral activity, but an explicit rejection of attempts to make it a bilateral issue.)

Um novo multilateralismo?

Chamou minha atenção um evento sobre a OEA, organizado recente pelo Centro para Iniciativas Latino-americanas da Universidade George Washington, que atraiu pouco interesse da mídia. Nele, o Secretário Adjunto de Estado para os Assuntos Hemisféricos Ocidentais, Tom Shannon, falou do papel relevante que o multilateralismo pode fazer na administração Obama.
O multilateralismo tem sido uma estratégia preferida por muitos paises deste hemisfério. O Brasil, claro, teve um papel crucial no estabelecimento das Nações Unidas e durante anos tem apoiado a expanção do Conselho de Segurança onde ele poderá ter uma vaga permanente. Outras nações tem, no entanto, posições diferentes. Apesar dos esforcos de Eleanor Roosevelt para tornar as Nações Unidas uma realidade, os Estados Unidos não apoiaram consistentemente a idéia de multilateralismo. De fato, isolacionismo tem sido uma influência constante na politica externa do país, dando voz a críticas de organismos internacionais.
Nesse contexto, as palavras do Sr. Shannon sugerem que os Estados Unidos estão no processo de mudança da ótica sobre questões regionais e mundiais. Muito bem. Vou ficar procurando por provas dessa nova importância do multilateralismo.
Em tempo: Tenho uma pitada dessa evidência no modo pelo qual os EUA estão respondendo à situação atual em Honduras. Não só está ocorrendo muita atividade multilateral, mas principalmente uma rejeição de pulso nas tentativas de tornar o episódio um assunto bilateral.

Terrific, the main result of the Organization of American States meeting in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, earlier this week. The participants had a chance to open the door to Cuba’s re-entry into the OAS—and they did.

Secretary of State Clinton wanted to condition Cuba’s entry on its undertaking democratic reforms. This seems a reasonable approach because the OAS is supposed to be composed of democratic states. And it was diplomatically reflected in the language used in the unanimously approved resolution regarding Cuba’s possible reintegration into the group.

All this is grounds for celebration after five decades of friction, and the summit’s participants can justifiably hoist a few Havana Clubs. But this isn’t the end of the story, and there are some ironies. One is that Cuba has repeatedly said it is not interested in joining the OAS and has regularly described the OAS as a pawn of the United States. Will it come back to the multilateral organization?

Domestic political considerations in the U.S. are another factor in subsequent chapters of this work in progress. They make anything involving Cuba, not least its accession to the OAS, controversial and emotional. There has been some recent bilateral progress, with Cuba advising the United States it was willing to discuss several specific proposals, including resuming talks on migration and undertaking negotiations on direct postal service, in response to President Obama’s recent overture. But U.S. officials have been careful to distinguish the bilateral relationship from the multilateral one. Just as well. At times it seems that bilateral diplomacy is far less complex than multilateral; it seemed that way to me when I was on the job. But I’d be the last to say that one-one-one diplomacy is easy.

Senator Bob Menendez, a Cuban-American, has already harshly criticized the OAS decision. A group of Cuban-American federal representatives—the U.S. House of Representatives holds the government’s purse-strings on such issues—has already put forward a proposal to suspend U.S. financial contributions to the OAS, some 60 per cent of the organization’s overall budget.

So there we have, for the moment, two ironies: Cuba may not be interested in rejoining the OAS, and elected Cuban-American members of the U.S. Congress find the decision that opens that door abominable. Understandable, but not productive. Mired in the past, not looking at the opportunities of the future.

My suspicion is that Brazil played a major and positive role in the negotiations that eventually led to the unanimous vote. It had earlier been left to Tom Shannon, Assistant Secretary of State for the hemisphere and Obama’s choice for Ambassador to Brazil, to confirm to the U.S. media that those talks had been broken off.—before they got resurrected and agreed to. I hope he’s confirmed, and that he’ll have an opportunity to work with the Brazilian government to relax if not resolve some of the Cuba-U.S.related tensions, pain and memories that dog this hemisphere in so many ways.

Sucesso na OEA

A decisão unanime da OEA de abrir a porta para a volta de Cuba à organisação merece aplausos. Umas ironias persistem dos lados cubanos e norteamericanos. Mas a eventual chegada de Tom Shannon ao Brasil como embaixador pode significar uma colaboração que possa beneficiar o hemisferio inteiro.