Growing pains

John Briley for the Washington Post

Most accounts about Brazil fall into one of two categories: they either talk about the country’s booming economy and rising political importance, or about rampant corruption, crime and delusional megalomania. Those are the more “serious” accounts, of course. I prefer not to delve into popular myths about pristine beaches populated by supermodels and endless parties (I have yet to meet someone who, after finding out I am Brazilian, does not talk about how he/she plans to visit this “idyllic” place very soon).

That is why I enjoyed the story the Washington Post published on its travel section this saturday. It was a realistic narrative about Rio, its problems and wonders, without falling into the temptation of seeing only the good or the bad nor gloating about the “country of the future”. No glorification of poverty, but a seemingly balanced appreciation for its culture.

When the reporter visited favelas (slums), he commented about how his initial fear turned into a sense of safety, a real change for the city. But he also talked about locals concerns about losing recent security gains after the World Cup in 2014 and the Olympics in 2016, which would echo previous experiences. We all remember how Rio was “cleansed” before the “Eco 92” conference on climate and before the Pope’s visit in 97 (theme of the celebrated movie Elite Squad, which I recommend).

There is a joke that says that “Brazil is the country of the future, and always will be”. The joke is outdated: it is common now to say that the future has arrived. It is undeniable that we have risen considerably in political relevance in the past decade, much due to the diligence and ambition of our former chancellor, Celso Amorim, who currently serves as Defense minister. We also benefited greatly from the financial crisis: Brazil became an even more attractive destination for foreign investment, to the point where capital flows turned into a problem and forced the government to implement taxes and other measures to try to slow it down.

Obviously, these improvements come with caveats. We feel the pressure to be more present in general world affairs, which are sometimes beyond our capacity. And Brazilians are suffering from a generalized process of “gentrification”. Growing foreign interest in the country is bringing inflation (already above the Central Bank’s target) and a housing bubble. Rent prices are sky rocketing. When I visited Sao Paulo for the holidays a few weeks ago, I saw several friends looking to move into cheaper neighborhoods, not being able to keep up with the jump in living expenses in the nice areas they used to live.

It is not clear yet how much regular Brazilians will benefit from all the attention the country is getting abroad. We now talk with a certain longing about the days when “things were more simple and we weren’t on the cover of  The Economist every other week”, as one of my friends put it.

I do think it is all for the better. But we are clearly having growing pains.

A comment on comments

Because I believe in Internet freedom, I have no problem allowing comments like this one and this one. I would like to make a comment on comments, however. I think we here at D&S have a preference for sound arguments and good grammar over juvenile nonsense.

Unresponsive Democracy & the Middle Class

The value of a healthy middle class in the promotion and support of a liberal democratic state has long been a generally accepted reality. While opinions may vary on the precise sociological value of the middle class, we largely recognize the ability of those with a reasonable measure of wealth and comfort to assist in a nation’s stability and development.  This social group is invaluable in balancing the interests of the wealthy and the poor while presenting a theoretically attainable degree of comfort for people to aspire toward.  Thus, it is surprising to see the economic troubles and lack of political support that this social class is be facing around the world, particularly in light of current political turmoil.

Most interested in this subject have likely already read F.Fukuyama’s  “The Future of History” or a number of the recent articles citing the importance of his opinions. This understanding of a middle class in decline is hardly news to anyone paying attention to world politics or the rhetorical focus of politicians addressing the economic woes of the common man.  Virtually everyone recognizes that there is a problem, and that in democratic states there has been a deep and growing disparity between the portions of the populace who are served by political elites, and those whose woes are ignored.  One noteworthy contribution of Fukuyama’s article is a possible explanation for why this is happening, and what potential consequences this change might have.
Continue reading »

Democratic Values in Domestic vs. International Policy

These last few weeks I found myself struggling over how to approach some of the recent issues in US domestic governance.  From uncomfortably authoritarian reactions to left-leaning protestors, to authoritarian flavored ideas on internet freedom and detention of citizens, I’ve floundered for weeks somewhere between Chicken Little style ranting and my -tragically common- defeated indifference.  Finally looking to a thoughtful recent post from Liza on US Foreign Policy on issues of Rule of Law and Human Rights in Russia, I decided that the best approach to writing on these subjects would just be to ride the coattails of my sharper witted peers .
Continue reading »

“Principled and Purposeful Engagement:” US Policy on Supporting Human Rights and Rule of Law in Russia

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Melia, co-chair of the Civil Society Working Group of the US-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission, today argued for “principled and purposeful engagement” with Russia in a Senate hearing on “The State of Human Rights and the Rule of Law in Russia: U.S. Policy Options.” DAS Melia and Assistant Secretary of State Philip Gordon outlined the Obama Administration’s position in regard to Russia. Their testimony can be downloaded and watched here. From a civil society perspective, Freedom House Executive David Kramer, Human Rights Watch Washington Director Tom Malinowski, and President and CEO of the US-Russia Business Council, Edward Verona, testified as well; while their testimony is not yet uploaded on the Foreign Relations website, it should be up within 24 hours of this posting.

Recognizing the backdrop of the Duma elections and dramatic citizen protests that have swept Russia, four US policy-specific issues emerged in the hearing:

The Obama Administration’s Policy of Dual-track Engagement: Bi-lateral Relations and Civil Society Support. ”We firmly believe that a credible dialogue about democracy and human rights should involve not only contacts between the American and Russian governments, but also direct communication and linkages between American and Russian non-governmental organizations, independent policy experts, and regular citizens to confront common challenges,” Melia’s written testimony stated. Further, in addition to the $160 million provided in civil society strengthening and civil society assistance since 2009, “the Obama Administration submitted Congressional Notification for the creation of a new $50 million fund to support Russian civil society” in October 2011. “The new fund would not require additional appropriations because the $50 million would come from liquidated proceeds of the U.S. Russia Investment Fund.” (also from Melia’s written testimony). Both Gordon and Melia provided statements that reflect the Administration’s new-found voice in support of democracy and human rights; while the voice had existed previously, it was arguably muffled to a whisper under the “reset” policy.

Trade: Terminate Jackson Vanik. Both Republican and Democratic Senators expressed support for the repeal, as did the Administration through Assistant Secretary Gordon and DAS Melia. The Jackson Vanik legislation, passed in 1974, has been a barrier to Russian membership in the World Trade Organization; Senator Corker provided a moment of levity by asking Gordon whether he agreed that Jackson Vanik is now causing us to “shoot ourselves in the foot” by restricting US trade with Russia with little to no benefit or human rights leverage in return. Gordon diplomatically repeated the Administration’s support for its termination. Kramer advocated for parallel legislation in support of human rights (in the form of the Sergei Magnitsky legislation or comparable legislation) to be passed if Jackson Vanik is terminated.

S. 1039: The Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law and Accountability Act. A bi-partisan cadre of senators has supported this legislation, which would impose US visa bans on individual human rights abusers, most notably those involved in Sergei Magnitsky’s tragic death.  Melia noted that the Obama administration has and is “taking action to deny human rights abusers entry into the United States…Consistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and President Obama’s “Proclamation on the Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Non-immigrants of Persons Who Participate in Serious Human Rights Abuses and Humanitarian Law Violations and Other Abuses.” Essentially, the position taken by the Administration is that this is already underway. The concern is perhaps that passing the legislation can open a Pandora’s Box of difficult questions: who in the US government maintains the list? What if a name is added by mistake? Is this duplicating the already successful Human Rights Reports produced by DRL? Is it going to bureaucratize issues that are too important to bureaucratize? Further, it has also been reported that the Russian government, in particular the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with orders from the top, may respond with its own list of Americans blacklisted from Russia should that legislation pass. Sponsors of the legislation, its supporters (including Kramer), and those debating whether to support it must be wary of paving the foreign relations road with good intentions. That said, this policy difference between the congress, which is seeking to institutionalize support for human rights (as Senator Cardin articulated), and the executive branch, which is seeking to proceed with dual-track diplomacy to include human rights, should not be taken as a reflection of wavering US support for justice for the 37 year old lawyer –  Sergei Magnitsky - who died because he dared to investigate state corruption and because of acts of commission and omission perpetrated by the Russian authorities. Gordon, Melia, and Senators Cardin and Shaheen recognized this terrible truth, though they may differ on how the US should respond.

Appointment of Michael McFaul. McFaul was nominated to be US Ambassador to Russia and a confirmation hearing was held in the senate on October 12^th. Gordon, Melia, and Kramer agreed that the US needs a permanent Ambassador – our man in Moscow – now more than ever, and asked the Senate to confirm McFaul as soon as possible. The conservative right mobilized against McFaul after his hearing, mobilization that is arguably dangerous to foreign policy goals in the region at such a critical time.