I am going to consider this question in relation to a current topic which is making headlines at the moment in relation to Brazilian politics: the Iranian nuclear debate.
Hilary Clinton, the US Secretary of State recently visited Brazil in an attempt to get our government to vote with the US on the Security Council when the debate comes up about the sanctions to impose on Iran. The US are of course pushing for the toughest sanctions. However our President, Lula, has rejected these proposals.
I believe that this rejection came about, at least partly, due to the Americans using more modern forms of diplomacy. Traditionally the communication lines between ambassadors and those more senior in the government may have been kept more private and subsequently the President of Brazil may have been more willing to take advice from those who have the most exposure to the Iranian situation. However, with the Secretary of State coming to personally push the plans, the media becomes heavily involved and the decision is no longer solely related to the Iranian issue. By conducting relations in the public eye such as this, our President has to consider his own image much more. As the most respected left wing president in Latin America, Lula must be concerned about his image if he toes the American line. As such, supporting the US could have a damaging effect on his own political standing. While through old forms of diplomacy, it is likely that his support could have been kept private until the crucial time nearer to the vote.
Indeed many who are closest to this situation feel that a resolution cannot be achieved through mediation, Cláudio Luiz dos Santos Rocha, the former Brazilian ambassador to Iran (Tehran) has claimed recently, in response to this issue (link below) that sanctions are the only way to move forward and achieve an end to this. He has not been the ambassador since 2001 but his exposure to the situation cannot be denied. Perhaps if this was not such a public debate, and more traditional methods of diplomacy had been used, the Brazilian President may have been more willing to listen to those who had the most experience, and to take a decision with just this issue in mind.
I feel that the developments in society have forced a new type of diplomacy to emerge: the globalisation of all aspects of our society, and the increased media attention worldwide means that the public demand exposure and answers to even the most sensitive of political issues. This kind of access would not have been available under the old forms of diplomacy; in fact many issues were resolved without the media being aware that there was any negotiation taking place.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/03/03/brazil.us.iran/index.html?iref=allsearch
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/03/04/us.iran/index.html?iref=allsearch
http://veja.abril.com.br/100310/bombinha-diplomatica-p-084.shtml
No comments:
Post a Comment