In Brazil and Latin America 85% Say No to Bush

    Washington rumbles with suppressed outrage over Latin America’s latest demonstrations of its sovereignty – Bolivia’s nationalization of its oil and natural gas reserves. At the same time, newly inaugurated president Evo Morales is a prime candidate to join Washington’s pantheon of Latin American bad boys, presently dominated by Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez.

    Meanwhile, the region’s new populist leadership, also known as the "Pink Tide," extends its colors across South America ready to leap to much of the rest of Latin America.

    The "pink tide," consists of left-leaning South American governments seeking a third way to register their political legitimation to their citizens as well as to register their autonomy regarding such foreign policy issues as Iraq.

    Meanwhile, Washington’s lame regional policy has spurred disbelief even among the hemisphere’s most ardent pro-U.S. governments. Some specialists maintain that while the region’s oncoming economic enfranchisement can be understood from a number of perspectives, perhaps the most forthcoming analysis places the roots of the new movement in the bedding soil of an egregiously failed Washington regional policy.

    Throughout the Cold War’s gestation, Democratic as well as Republican presidents have not hesitated to call for U.S. intervention in Latin America however persistently malignant these events have turned out to be, ranging from coup-making in Guatemala and Chile, to the fostering of civil wars in Central America, most of these intrusions later proved to be irrelevant, or at least insufficient to protect genuine, even narrowly defined, U.S. national interests.

    Most of all, they proved to be counter-productive or destructive. As a result, much of the region has become estranged from Washington’s leadership, a legacy now apparent in the difficulties currently being encountered by U.S. policymakers.

    No wonder that in polls undertaken throughout Latin America regarding the Iraq war, and in the strategy of the Bush administration, an average of 85% of respondents have said no to U.S. initiatives.

    Post Soviet Latin America

    The demise of the Soviet Union in 1990 allowed the illusion to be born of a new non-ideological hemispheric alignment almost exclusively based on trade, and not, unfortunately, on a reworked and broadened confidence-building relationship between the U.S. and the rest of the Americas that reflected at least a passing interest in issues pertaining to social justice and the expansion and exercisable option.

    Throughout the years, Washington’s policy towards the region has been fueled by a paroxysm of odium aimed at Havana. In Washington’s eye, Castro, who is always with such kindred legions as Venezuela’s Chávez and now Bolivia’s Morales, poses a lethal threat to Washington’s Latin American cosmography.

    Under the Bush White House, the relative closeness of its ties with any given nation became a function of the latter’s relations with Castro Cuba. Meanwhile, non-ideological programs, such as maintaining the drug war at a satisfactory level and the White House’s almost obsessive interest in privatization and trade, were prioritized first by the Clinton administration and then by the Bush White House.

    In affected areas of Colombia, Bolivia and Peru, already functioning anti-drug strategies prompted a series of U.S. initiatives during this period which ended up in failure as a result of ill-conceived crop fumigation and interdiction processes that led to widespread environmental damage along with illness and disease among locally exposed populations.

    The particular rights of indigenous communities along with the compromising of national sovereignty were among the casualties of these U. S.-led efforts. During this epoch, the Pentagon authored a growing pattern of collaboration, mainly with the Colombian military, but also with the armed forces of Ecuador, Peru, and Paraguay. These collaborations, as a result of burdensome military budgets and other ill-started priorities, often ended with the wholesale destruction of traditional agricultural practices and distortion of local economies.

    Finding Its Own Way

    The policy of replacing meaningful socially-directed aid to the region with increased emphasis on the drug war, as well as stepped up trade in upscale consumables and other luxury items, usually involved no more than 5% of the populace.

    Only too late did a number of governments discover that their often flawed economic liberalization policies, encouraged by Washington conservative think tanks and other proponents of the Washington Consensus, not only failed to ameliorate profound social and economic structural lesions, but also predictably contributed to tensions between the haves and the have-nots, both here and abroad. For Latin America, this meant disenchantment with the status quo, along with adding further stress to ties between the north and the south.

    For its part, upon taking office, the Bush administration immediately picked up where the previous administration had left off but also embedded hard ideological tenets into U.S. hemispheric policy that Clinton had tended to neglect.

    This was the period that saw the rise of such hard core ideologies and the prominence afforded to such doughty Cold Warriors as Otto Reich and his protégé Roger Noriega, after the former, due to his extremism, was unable to secure a confirmation vote from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to be Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America.

    The Bush administration’s Latin Americanists now saw the region uniquely through a prism molded by its anti-Havana passions. The administrations Cold War paradigm had the hemisphere divided into a Zoroastrian world of absolute darkness and light. On one hand, favored right-wing governments like El Salvador’s and Chile’s, which had pragmatically allied itself with Washington, in contrast Venezuela and Bolivia, whose leftist politics found themselves out in the cold.

    The Contradiction of U.S. Policy

    The decision by Bush to submit U.S.-Latin American relations to an outdated and small-minded game plan, which featured a preemptive and expansionist foreign policy accompanied by an increasingly dysfunctional anti-drug policy, has already pushed strained inter-American ties almost beyond the breaking point.

    In spite of the economic weight and influence of the U.S. market, Latin America’s growing discontent over the failures of the U.S. to make its market entirely accessible to Latin American products accompanied by the trade advantages enjoyed by U.S. subsidized crops and products, set the stage for an increasingly snarling relationship between North and South.

    The failure to introduce reforms that would accelerate real, inclusive growth, was compounded by a series of egregious foreign policy missteps by the Bush administration. Examples of these range from orchestrating the ouster of constitutionally-elected President Aristide in Haiti, to helping finance the abortive anti-Chávez coup of April 2002, to attempting to blackmail Central American and Caribbean countries to join the "Coalition of the Willing" in Iraq, and to supporting favored conservative presidential candidates throughout the area.

    The latter action cynically caricaturing its profound concern for "free and fair" elections as it threatened the suspension of various forms of aid if the "wrong" kind of "democrat" was elected to office. Also, there was the Reich-Noriega bullying of government leaders and local politicians who didn’t take the "right" position on such issues as the embargo against Cuba, the election of the OAS secretary-general, and trade.

    The ferment generated by Washington’s increasingly malign neglect of the region gave rise to what began to be known as a "Pink Tide" movement that sweeps across South America. But despite the tendency of Washington right-wingers and other species of conservative think tanks, like Freedom House, to demonize this political trend, the Pink Tide was a natural reaction to pressing trade, security, and social justice issues of paramount concern for the region, even though such concerns seemed to have dropped off Washington’s agenda.

    The Bush administration, now led by the State Department’s Secretary Rice and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, had no problem accusing these left leaning governments, led by Hugo Chávez, of being threats to the U.S. national interest and of being destabilizing factors to other Latin American countries, even though they could never quite identify the source of that threat.

    In fact, the reforms enacted by these pink new populist left-leaning leaders turned out to be far more reminiscent of New Deal reformation than any mythic reemergence of a grand neo-Stalinist era. The strength mainly stemmed from the rejection by a new wave of enlightened Latin American leaders of the faux democratization which was being offered by various U.S.-backed governments as a miracle cure for the maladies of underdevelopment, but which upon the next dawn, turned out to be only pure snake oil.

    New Players

    The recent re-awakening of the indigenous population of regional civilizations has started to profoundly reshape Latin America’s political landscape. As this new awareness peaked, indigenous communities began to retroactively say "no" to presidential candidates who, once in office, reneged on their glib commitments and proceeded to repudiate campaign pledges to their Aymara and Quechua-speaking altiplano constituents.

    They then countered these acts of treachery by ousting leaders in Ecuador, Argentina and Bolivia after the presidents had revealed themselves to be anything but bona fide servants of the people. This process ran conterminously with the increasing political involvement of those indigenous groups, who, with an increasingly powerful voice, began rejecting neoliberal reforms with roadblocks and other rejectionist public manifestations.

    As Latin American populations were spurning traditional politicians and their dusty programs, different actors emerged to capture the discontent by offering new solutions. These were most visible in 1998 with Hugo Chávez’s victory in Venezuela, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s 2002 triumph in Brazil and in Evo Morales’ defining victory in Bolivia last March. While the May 28 triumph in Colombia of ílvaro Uribe, Washington’s favored South American leader, produced great joy at the State Department, it had to be disheartened by the strong showing by left-leaning candidate Carlos Gaviria.

    Even with Uribe’s big vote, Washington is still a bit disenchanted by his strong sense of nationalism and his querulous reaction to any display of U.S. sentiments of mastery over Colombia’s public policy, the war against drugs or Uribe’s desire to maintain close business-like ties with Chávez.

    But just as it appeared that this pink tide was spreading to Argentina, Uruguay and Bolivia and had gained credence and political voltage in Peru, Ecuador, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Mexico and some of the Caribbean islands, two developments could be discerned: first that Chávez had come to be seen by huge numbers as being the movement’s spiritual leader, as well as its sage, just as the staccato-like peppering of the political scene by Chávez’s ADS-like interventions in other countries weakened thereby their already only loosely common front.

    Chávez is sometimes belied by what his critics see as his buffoonish outbursts and raffish personality, and could well be seen as perhaps the most dynamic leader in the region today – though is power is more with the streets than the diplomats of other Pink Tide countries.

    A Hero for the Poor

    As both a committed democrat, (having been confirmed by popular vote three times; twice in national elections and once more in a recall referendum) and seen by the majority of Venezuela and much of the rest of Latin American chambers, as an inspired social activist, Chávez appears to embody the region’s greatest hope for the future and the growing despair over his irrepressible style.

    His myriad social programs, ranging from medical services for the nation’s poor through an innovative oil exchange arrangement with Cuba, to a meaningful land reform and educational project, to a broad pattern of disconnected oil sales to many neighboring countries as well as directly to deprived neighborhoods within countries, have given luster to his revolutionary credentials.

    In exchange, he has not asked for tribute, but merely called upon other leaders to do what is best for their own countries. Chávez has also been the region’s chief proponent of increased integration in the case of social justice, as well as promoting discounted oil for the Caribbean islands with strained economies, and poor neighborhoods in Boston and the Bronx, while spearheading the effort to construct a gas pipeline running between Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina, with an extension to Bolivia.

    In spite of the State Department’s most benighted efforts to caricature him as a human right’s abuser, a bully and an anti-democrat, Chávez has demonstrated that he has an incontestable record for transparency and for obeying the law far more clinically than much of the leadership of his middle class detractors within Venezuela or Washington’s hypocritical salvos who helped to finance a coup to oust him in 2002.

    A New Model Dares to Emerge

    Furthermore, Chávez and now Morales may, if they politically survive, represent a historic development in Latin America. As long as they survive, they are the first democratically elected leaders espousing a mixed economy containing socialist values that the region has witnessed since Salvador Allende came to power in Chile in 1970.

    Clearly up to this point, due to open market competition and the denigration of a mixed economy featuring a vigorous role for the public sector, a sense of civic responsibility has not been available for the average Latin American. The UN has stated that the region has the highest level of concentrated wealth in the world. The result is that the process produces few "winners" and a plethora of "losers" throughout the region.

    The values shared by Chávez and now Morales are not without their detractors: The Venezuelan President is meeting the same portion of Washington-backed subterfuge that eventually led to the coups that overthrew Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954, and Allende in 1973.

    The Bush administration has employed a range of strategies against its Venezuelan nemesis as part of an intensifying campaign to ridicule, pillory, and perhaps eventually arrange for the demise of his government. Themes ranging from Washington providing strategic funding to nominally, if heavily compromised, "democratic" bodies such as Súmate, to allegedly encouraging acts of espionage and attempts to foment anti-Chávez unrest within the Venezuelan military, are almost daily events.

    All sense of proportionality has now fled the scene in Washington, when Chávez expels a U.S. embassy military attaché (a relatively junior officer) for trafficking documents with Venezuela military personnel, and the U.S. retaliates by expelling the second in command at the Venezuela embassy in Washington. It’s as if in return for Chávez launching a rhetorical gonzo jab against President Bush – his beloved "Mr. Danger"- the "Decider" readies the B 3’s to bomb Caracas.

    Meanwhile, in its totally discredited annual certification reports regarding drug trafficking, human trafficking, human rights abuses and a respect for religious freedom and the war against terrorism, the administration shamelessly manipulates data in order to come forth with preordained findings, with Venezuela being the target of choice for such protesting.

    The Advantages of a Full Leader

    Chávez, of course, has had the sort of leverage that Allende grievously lacked: with oil at over US$ 70 a barrel, the Venezuelan leader is not only flush with petrodollars but ready and able to fund revolutionary domestic and regional projects.

    He holds the additional trump card of an increasingly important strategic resource that has yet to be exploited on a major scale the heavy crude yielded from the Orinoco’s tar sands. Furthermore, with a widening slate of regional allies, theoretically including venues like Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Bolivia, with several other potential candidates in the wings and Mercosur as his bride, Chávez, theoretically has the geopolitical heft to stand up to U.S. machinations.

    At the same time, the already fragmenting loose knit Pink Tide alliance is suffering from some important viperous tendencies, including Chávez’s lamentable habit of self destructively intervening in the local affairs of other Latin American countries.

    Standing up to Washington is a theme that has gained widespread currency elsewhere in South America, as part of a leitmotif of the pink tide movement, which in reality may be more apparent than real.

    The resounding defeat of both U.S.-backed candidates in the OAS Secretary-General race a number of months ago, indicated that the region was no longer willing to docilely follow the diktats coming from the north.

    Additionally, Brazil’s decision around the same time to deny the U.S. even token observer status at the Arab-Latin American Summit in Brasí­lia represented a momentous, if symbolic, shift in U.S.-Latin American relations – something like the dog being ready to bite the hand of its owner.

    A Rush of New Development

    As one of the more dynamic aspects of a fast moving scenario, Evo Morales in Bolivia has emerged as a particularly plucky figure, unwilling to allow his country’s traditional bended knee posture to the U.S. to continue unchallenged. He insists that while wanting to have a good relationship with the U.S., it must be not one based on "submission."

    Underscoring this escape from the "Latin American ghetto," Morales’ travels after winning the presidency, included quick visits to Caracas, Europe, South Africa, Brazil and China, but conspicuously left out Washington, suggesting that the emperor’s ring no longer needed to be kissed.

    The trip also highlighted another phenomenon of the pink tide, which is an increasing propensity to turn towards multilateral ties with non-traditional partners in order to achieve diversification. Trade between South America and the EU is quickening as the region seeks to construct new economic and political ties around the world, and as Washington becomes an increasingly problematic partner.

    Nascent bodies such as the Ibero-American Summit and the IBSA (India-Brazil-South Africa) South-South alliance seek to integrate Latin America into a world that looks and acts more like them, and as a way to escape the imperial ukases, traditionally emitted from the State Department.

    The forward, if fitful, motion of the pink tide has the potential to profoundly reshape the internal politics of Latin America and grant the region a new and enhanced place in the global pecking order. For Washington, which has been wholly unable to constructively engage this movement and still clings to the disabling vision of a wholly U.S.-dominated "back yard," sustained more by manipulation than by collective regional interests, the pink tide, whatever its centrifugal tensions, presents a serious diplomatic dilemma.

    Rumsfeld almost divisively indicates that the Pink Tide could be dealt with by a series of U.S. mini military bases (FOLS) or "lily pads" throughout the region, along with a beefed up and entirely complaisant Latin American military establishment.

    If the White House continues to return to a now poisoned well to draw from its legacy of past arrogant initiatives that have helped create the disastrous conditions that have so frayed bonds of the current distressed relationship, the rest of the hemisphere can be excused for becoming increasingly alienated from a diplomatic hegemon which has so lost its way that it risks finding itself pushed aside, as an outdated and rather useless relic.

    This analysis was prepared by COHA Director Larry Birns.

    The Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) – www.coha.org – is a think tank established in 1975 to discuss and promote inter-American relationship. Email: coha@coha.org.

    Tags:

    • Show Comments (10)

    • Colter

      Wow.
      America is hell, huh? Wow.
      You make it sound like all we do all day here is watch televangilists and go outside and thank God that we don’t live in another country.
      You’re either ignorant or arrogant… or both.

      These damn stereotypes of Americans. “We’re the infidels,” I hear.
      Our president doesn’t speak with God. You’d think he was a saint or something. Far from it. He’s a mortal like you and me. You act like your God is the God of all and all others should burn. Pretty narrow-minded. It doesn’t matter what damn faith you have… as long as you have faith. You don’t celebrate your faith. You mourn it.
      No one speaks with God and gets their “orders” from him. If you think that America’s presidential cabinet thinks that way, then you’re WAY off buddy. If you recieve your “orders” from a militaristic God, then good for you. Most other people don’t.

      America is the evil empire, right? I mean.. come on. We do so much damage to the world… right?
      I mean, damn. Buying your country’s oil to help your economy. Man, we really are assholes for helping other people.
      Name me a few of the things that we do…? You say our president is a dick. Cool. 73% of Americans think that too; what else you got? That we invade for oil and we’re nasty and evil and Iraq was just an excuse to get oil. Sounds Halloween-ish. I wish Saddam was still in power so he would cap your country and fuck it over just like he tried (and to a few, did) to others.

      So, Bush is the anti-Christ and America is his playground. Man, hard to expect such action as helping your poor ass countries from the anti-Christ. Wonder what your country would be like if you got cut off from the rest of the world. Probably a shithole. So, before you start bashing America… shut the hell up. You’re probably typing from an American made computer.

      Besides, all in all, you’re probably just some fat fuck that does nothing but sits and bitches all day about politics. Get a damn life. Go outside. Look up at the sky. Appreciate what you have, god damn. We could be at war with your ass.

      You hate America? Good for you; piss off. That’s why you don’t live here right? End of story.

    • Guest

      WON´T TELL YOU \”GO TO HELL\”
      Because you ARE in hell. Your leader pretends to follow HIS orders, but he just keeps off track.

      Although he says he talks with God, he defends ‘ AMERRRICA UBER ALLES”.

      Poor countries´ citizens don´t sell to THE us, they give their bloodto them..

      Right now THE us is preparing to snatch thousands of nurses from developing countries ( a very profitable move) while builds up a shameful wall along thousands of kilometers.

      Heil …

    • Guest

      Francis
      Why the USA are the most hated country in the world and not only in SA or LatAm ? That’s the question.

    • Guest

      What a joke, what a joke..
      the article !

      Does noboby knows who really rumbled and still rumbles the most for the Bolivian gas nationalization ???????

      The country who bought the most of their energy and at well below 50 % of the Inrternational market price :
      B R A Z I L

      And not the USA. They dont buy natural gas from Bolivia !

      This just shows once more how Brazilians are hiding the truth
      and how they lie daily and repeatedly !

      In fact Morales iks dreaming to sell his natural gas to the USA. He even said it officially and loudly.

      Not surprising, if he can sell his natural gas 3 times the price you are paying Bolivia !

      And finally if the USA is such a bad country and their citizens devils, why are millions and millions of Brazilian ready to even pay to enter illegally in HELL ????

      I also remind you, that the USA is your first or second largest trade partner with whom you have the biggest trade surplus.

      Just continue to insult America and Americans. Without them Brazil is NOTHING !

      Is no one realizing yet what already started since mid May 2006 ??????
      All emerging countries financial markets are in deep troubles.
      This is just the start !

      You will struggle again.
      Afterall you are just able to produce and export basic commodities.
      That is why your nickname is :
      BOOM AND BUST ECONOMY !
      But this time Brazil did even worse : you had not even a booming economy !
      You simply lagged by far the economic growth rate of ALL developing countries !
      Simple as that !

      Great Brazil, Great Brazilians !
      But the recession is just in front of your door. Just….another one…that you are so accustomed to have…..every 4 years for the last 50 years !

      Contrary to what is teached you, rich nations are NOT your competitors. Rich nations are your biggest clients.
      Your competitors are China, India, Russia and all the developing countries also wishing to sell goods to richer nations.

      And the more you dislike and treat appropriately your best clients, you can easily guess where america will buy more goods and where they will buy LESS goods.

      Elsewhere than from South America is better and cheaper anyway !

      Cheers !
      From the EU, that you dont treat any better than America.
      we will do just what the Americans do : buy more eleswhere !
      You deserve neither our friendship, nor our help.

      On your knees, you will be again very shortly !

    • Guest

      When Chavez turns His guns…
      on the poor, helpless, uneducated, sick, homeless or culturally different – Call the USA and we’ll come help you. It’s what our people have always done when we can. It’s what kind of people we are. We are a sacrificial people. That is why we continue to be blessed with so much. Sometimes doing the right thing isn’t very popular, but it still has to be done.
      And when the boots of some communist, national socialist, or Islamic zealot come kicking in your doors to exterminate – as they always do – pick up the phone.
      And go ahead and heap the insults on us. We’ve been insulted as a people for over 200 years now by elitists from every country on earth.
      It makes the helping handshake of an American that much more special. We don’t claim to have all the answers, but we’ll at least stand by you and try to help you make things right again.
      May God bless us all
      Robert Ledbetter – Aracaju Brazil

    • Guest

      Yes, thank God you are. Maple Leaf forever and all that. Learn to spell. And stay away from Blaine, WA.

    • Guest

      Sure is!
      Yes, it feels good to bash US. That’s why we do it. When you ‘re all proud and cocky like an NBC peacock (U-S-A!!) you have no qualms about opening your mouth to the world. But when everything goes sour and the majority of the world can’t stand you, then you play the poor victim. Reality is, you lead your oveindulging consummerist lifestyle while the thousands in the world die as a result of your poltics for the last 50 years.
      Yes, we’ll take our moment to bash you. Thank God I’m Canadian!

    • Guest

      Let\’s Be Serious
      Is this lengthy USA bashing article the least bit productive?

      71% of Americans don’t approve of Bush. So it seems reasonable that Latin Americans wouldn’t much care for him either.

      This figure of 85% is nonsense. Brazilians electing Lula is not Anti-US. It’s a reflection of a desire for social change. And, Lula, apart from rhetorical support for Chavez and the like, doesn’t seem anti-US; he’s pro-Brazil and there is a big difference.

      And, just how deep is the “love” between Lula and Chavez? Or between Lula and Evo Morales?

      Columbia just decided by over 60% that they didn’t want a “socialist revolution”. Do you think that Mexico is far behind? (Check the latest poll results).

      The writer of this article confuses peoples desire for justice and social change with this large “anti-US” movement.

    • Guest

      Eduardo
      What a high price in economy and credibility America is paying for putting in charge somebody “who has a mission”,”talk to his higher power”and like to “say” “bring them on”

    • Guest

      Strange Analysis !
      Every Latam and S.A. country apparently hate the USA.
      On the other hand everyone is begging to do more trade with the USA, despite all of you have already a large trade surplus.
      In fact what do you really want ?
      You critic the USA for their budget and trade deficits but should those deficits be reduced, who do you think will struggle the most ?
      How can you not like your best client ????

      Lets assume that you are the biggest client of the butcher or baker in your area and you hear that on your back he is criticizing you every day.
      At one point, what will you do ?
      I suppose that you will buy your meat/bread from another butcher !

      Right ?

      I dont think you are very smart and even less business minded !

      Afterall 90 % of illegals in the USA come from S.A and LATAM !
      Do these people believe that living in the USA is worse than their own country ?

      And why do you complain all the time against the country, in which you all dream to live ?

      Something doesnt match in your common sense !

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    comment *

    • name *

    • email *

    • website *

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

    Ads

    You May Also Like

    Brazilian Journalist Goes into Hiding After Report on Human Body Traffic

    Reporters Without Borders (RSF), an organization headquartered in Paris, which fights for freedom of ...

    President elect Dilma Rousseff

    Brazil’s President Elect in Korea Urges Global Effort to Rein in the Dollar

    Dilma Rousseff, Brazil’s president elect, has arrived in Seoul, the capital of South Korea, ...

    Guido Mantega

    Brazil’s President-Elect Expected to Cut Spending and Interest Rates

    Brazil’s President-elect Dilma Rousseff’s efforts to restrain public spending will allow the Brazilian central ...

    Brazil to Get 4th Spot as IT Outsource for US

    Three-quarters of U.S. companies outsourced some or all of their information technology activities in ...

    Brazil Slashes 30% from 2016 Olympic Games Expenses

    The organizers of Brazil’s Rio 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games are making cutbacks of ...

    Brazil: Misery and Hope Unite Twin Cities

    Guaribas in Piauí became known when it was transformed into the showcase town where ...

    MST

    Brazil MST’s Chief: ‘We Must Defeat Serra, Who Represents Bourgeoisie and Neoliberalism’

    For João Pedro Stédile, of the MST’s (Landless Movement) national leadership, Dilma Rousseff’s victory ...

    French Heritage Allowed to Sell Silicone Breasts in Brazil

    France-based Heritage Worldwide Inc, a top-three provider of breast implants internationally, yesterday announced that ...

    Lula Obama in Copenhagen

    Lula Criticizes Obama Once Again But Hails Cop-15 as Step in Right Direction

    The president of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, made an assessment this Monday ...

    Brazilian Bishop Decides to Starve to Death Over River Transposition

    With the aim of stopping the São Francisco River transposition project, the Catholic bishop ...