In an interview for Panorama, Cristina evaluates the current context in the United States, which, in her opinion, is going through a political secession and a social war. The researcher argues that the 2016 elections in the United States were polarized, inciting violence and prejudice. She also shares her views about the changes in the foreign policy of Barack Obama in comparison with that of George W. Bush and discusses the geopolitical role of Brazil in the American geopolitical strategy.
Panorama: Soon after his inauguration in 2009, Barack Obama sought to make clear his different intentions in foreign policy in comparison with those of the Bush Era (2001-08). He mentioned, for example, the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, the end of the Guantanamo detention camp and the “reset” of the relations with Russia. In your assessment, what really changed in terms of foreign policy between Bush and Obama?
The main change in Obama’s foreign policy compared to that of the administration of Bush Jr. refers to the tactical and rhetorical style. While Bush used to act unilaterally and hold a militarist tone in his agenda even before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Obama engaged in translating the hegemonic acts into multilateral and cooperative agendas. Thus, there was a certain acceptance of his positions in the international community, although, in practice, a closer examination shows a high level of continuity between the Democratic and the Republican administrations. Among the elements of continuity, we can highlight the persistence of the American military supremacy, the maintenance of the power projection in the Middle East, despite the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, the tension between Russia and the U.S., in particular on issues such as Syria, the spy programs, among others. But Obama happened to be more successful than Bush because of impact actions such as the resumption of diplomatic relations with Cuba, which has hidden tensions and fragmentations such as the rise of the Islamic State.
Panorama: Several analysts have pointed out the fragile recovery of the U.S. economy after the 2007-09 crisis as well as the increase in inequality that has characterized the last decades in the U.S. In recent news, we can notice an aggravation of episodes of racial violence. How do these social and economic problems interfere with American politics?
The United States is a nation in permanent war, both within and outside its borders. Externally, the demands of expansion and military projection generate constant deficits in the government accounts which are not expected to be revised. Internally, the economic recovery is unable to generate jobs systematically, bringing the unemployment rate to over 10% in many U.S. states, especially those affected by foreign competition. Likewise, it is a country marked by falling income, wage stagnation and racial tensions. The fiscal and trade deficits further weaken the economy. This scenario is illustrated by the outbursts of daily violence all over the country which are not limited to racial violence, but also involve gender, sexual preferences, ideological choices, leading to a polarized politics. The symbol of this process is Trump’s candidature, as it reflects all the rage and dissatisfaction emanating from society over the economic crisis, the fear and the fragmentation generated by the ascension of black and Hispanic minorities as a majority in the population and the proportional loss of space of the so-called American “WASP”, white, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant population. It is a nation in political secession and social war.
Panorama: The 2016 elections in the United States were remarkable due to an intense polarization not only between Republicans and Democrats, but also along the primaries. Is there a parallel between this context and the political polarization also under way in Brazil?
The polarization of the 2016 elections in the United States, coupled with the incitement of violence and prejudice, especially by the Republican candidate, which emptied the space for the discussion of political projects, is a reflection of the social transformations undergone in the country. Such transformations, which are related to income changes, ethnicity, ideology, population profile, are common to many countries, including Brazil and many nations of the European Union (and the world in general). As a constructive debate is absent, personal and offensive attacks are preferred, through which the problem is attributed to the “other”, the immigrant, the gender, the race or the religion. What is observed is a tendency towards xenophobia, lack of tolerance and dialogue in a comprehensive way. The point is that very few people have mobilized to try to resume a constructive debate not based on prejudice. Times are tough, but we must try to restore a certain balance. Historical periods without this balance have been followed by major humanitarian disasters, such as World War II and the Nazi experience.
Panorama: If we follow the speeches of the new government in Brazil, the agenda focused on regional integration and multilateralism will be replaced by a global integration with more attention to Washington and other advanced economies. What should the role of Brazil be in the U.S. geopolitical strategy and how can this strategy interfere with our economic decisions?
A Brazil aligned with the U.S. without a focus on regional integration in South America, distant from its partners in the coalitions of emerging countries, such as the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, China, India and South Africa), is a weak country and, therefore, subordinate to the Americans. All the attempts in which Brazil sought this position were times of few internal and external achievements, since there were loses in its bargaining power, and its economic decisions became limited to the U.S. policy. The geopolitical role of Brazil vis-à-vis the U.S. is irrelevant. Paradoxically, the United States fears, but recognizes a strong Brazil. However, the U.S. prefers a weak Brazil, although that may bring larger social, political, strategic costs to South America. The focus on the North-South axis and on the mitigation of the South-South partnerships is detrimental to Brazil, but it is also cyclical in the international relations of the country due to the strength of the U.S.
[1] Free translation of Grupo de Estudo Inserção Internacional Brasileira: Projeção Global e Regional.
