RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL – In an interview with DW Brazil, Nestor Forster, the Brazilian representative to Washington, criticized the report submitted by NGOs to the US president and said that the countries are discussing projects to fight deforestation in the Amazon.
Less than two months after Biden’s inauguration as president of the United States, the Brazilian embassy in Washington, headed by Nestor Forster, has identified a change in “style” in the relationship with Brasilia. There is more concern about environmental protection, joint engagement in multilateral organizations and diplomatic rapprochement conducted by the State Department rather than the White House.
Forster told DW Brazil that the two countries have been discussing initiatives to reduce deforestation in the Amazon and promote the region’s bio-economy potential, as well as their participation in the upcoming climate conference in Glasgow, Scotland, in November.
In his campaign, Biden promised to pressure Brazil to protect the environment and the Amazon rainforest, following record deforestation and wildfires, and Bolsonaro’s government measures that curtailed the ability to monitor and punish environmental crimes.
In early February, academics and NGO activists delivered a brief to the White House calling on the US to suspend imports of products that could be linked to deforestation and to withdraw its support for Brazil’s membership in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) for environmental protection and human rights violations. Forster says that the move was an “attempt to push a non-agenda,” but says he is pleased with the White House’s reaction, which said it intends to strengthen ties with Brazil.
Forster, who joined deputy Eduardo Bolsonaro, the president’s son, on a visit to Ivanka Trump at the White House on January 4th and at a meeting with entrepreneurs at the embassy on January 5th, a day before the Capitol storming, says he does not know whether the deputy attended a meeting with Trump supporters on January 5th that would have discussed the storming of the US Congress. On Monday, March 8th, Senator Jaques Wagner (PT-BA) submitted a request to Brazil’s Foreign Ministry to clarify the deputy’s trip to Washington and his potential connection to this meeting, which was reported by American journalist Seth Abramson, from Proof website.
DW Brazil: A month and a half into Biden’s inauguration, have you perceived any changes in the US government’s relationship with Brazil?
Nestor Forster: The change perceived is in style, in emphasis, but the relationship remains based on a deeper bond between Brazil and the United States. What has changed? The Biden administration started with a very firm agenda in the environment and climate change area.
DW: During the electoral campaign, Biden said that, if elected, he would organize an international initiative to transfer resources to Brazil in exchange for preserving the Amazon. Has the embassy detected any moves by the American government in this direction?
NF: We initiated the moves. The Minister of Foreign Relations [Ernesto Araújo] has been in contact with the Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, and there have been contacts here with the special envoy for climate change, ex-Secretary John Kerry.
These are complex issues and it is difficult to summarize them in a formula that is presented in the electoral campaign. We are discussing a specific agenda on what Brazil and the United States can do together, both at the bilateral level, to fight deforestation in the Amazon, with cooperation projects for the bio-economy, and at the multilateral level, in preparation for the November Paris Agreement conference in Glasgow.
DW: In February, over 100 academics and NGO activists delivered a brief to the Biden administration calling on the US to suspend the import of products that could be linked to deforestation in the Amazon and to withdraw its support for Brazil’s membership in the OECD, among other issues, due to environmental protection and human rights violations and risks to democracy in Brazil. How do you assess this initiative?
NF: It is normal that, in a democracy, all political currents express themselves, and activists from any area can say whatever they want. It was an attempt to build a non-agenda. This is not based on serious, professional work in the relationship between two countries. The important thing is the White House’s reaction, which was thoughtful and realistic about the said brief.
DW: Have you perceived any other changes in the new American administration?
NF: Biden has emphasized the importance of the United States seeking alliances and acting in international organizations, which differs from the previous administration. Also, in the past, there was a focus on shaping US foreign policy in the White House, sometimes more than in the State Department itself. The new administration intends to return [this] to the State department and enhance the role of professional diplomacy.
DW: Biden was not Bolsonaro’s preferred candidate, as he openly advocated Trump’s reelection. How to minimize the impact on bilateral relations of the Brazilian president’s choice?
NF: The electoral campaign is behind us, we are engaged with the new government here at all levels. People got too caught up in the recent issue of the friendship between the heads of state. This friendship helps, it can speed up the agenda, but it doesn’t set the agenda. Specific interests extend beyond this, they are deeply rooted.
DW: The Bolsonaro government signed some bilateral agreements with the American government one for the joint development of defense products, in March 2020, and three on trade, good regulatory practices, and anti-corruption, in October 2020. Have these agreements had any practical results?
NF: The first agreement, on research, development, testing and evaluation of products in the defense area, the United States only has with 14 countries in the world; Brazil is the first in Latin America. The project was forwarded to the National Congress and is being assessed by the Foreign Relations Commission, and we hope that in the coming months it will be passed and will come into force. While it doesn’t, the two countries’ defense establishment is exploring which cooperation agenda will be implemented.
With respect to trade agreements, they have met a demand from the private sector, both in Brazil and the United States, for greater trade rapprochement. It is hard to understand why the two largest economies in the Americas do not have a broader trade agreement. These agreements have been referred to Congress in Brazil for consideration. On the American side this is not necessary, they are ready to come into force. We need to do our part with parliamentary approval. Once passed, they will yield benefits in terms of reduced costs to do business in Brazil and will pave the way for a more comprehensive trade agreement.
DW: Brazil’s trade balance with the US in 2020 was the worst in six years, with a US$2.7 billion deficit. In the entire last decade, with the exception of 2017, the balance was negative for Brazil. What happened?
NF: This result in itself does not mean much, we have to look at the broader picture of the bilateral relationship and also bring in the investment component. The United States continues to be the largest destination for our exports of industrialized and higher value-added products, and it remains the largest foreign direct investor in Brazil. In 2019, the US investment reached US$145 billion in Brazil.
DW: During the Trump administration, some researchers claimed that the relationship between Brazil and the US was one of “automatic alignment,” something unheard of in the Foreign Ministry’s history. The Bolsonaro administration made several concessions to the US with no clear reciprocity, such as dropping the nomination of a Brazilian to the IDB (Inter-American Development Bank) presidency, having eliminated the import tax on a quota of American ethanol, accepting the American surcharge on Brazilian steel, and waiving visas for Americans to come to Brazil. On the Brazilian side, has the style adopted in the bilateral relations also changed?
NF: I don’t think this is a good premise. I have criticized, from the very first moment, the notion that there was an automatic alignment, because it is impossible for a country the size of Brazil to automatically align itself with anyone.
With respect to the IDB, from the first moment the issue of succession was brought up, Brazil always said it was interested not in positions, but rather in the project, which is represented by the candidate Brazil supported and won [American Mauricio Claver-Carone].
On the ethanol issue, the exemption was temporary, lasting two months, to allow a negotiation, which did not bear fruit. Today both countries have a 20% tariff on ethanol. The surcharge on steel exports is a serious matter, and we are pressuring for its elimination, but it is a unilateral decision by the American government.
The visa waiver was not something to meet a demand from the United States, but from the Brazilian tourism sector. And the exemption was not only granted to the United States, but also to Canada, Japan and Australia. In the first six months, tourism from these countries to Brazil grew by 30%, particularly from the United States.
Brazil was designated as a preferential extra-NATO ally, and the United States supported Brazil’s admission to the OECD. And we are not talking about a pandemic, the Americans provided a huge contribution in this area when there was a shortage of ventilators, they donated 1,000 units to Brazil.
DW: In relation to ethanol, the Brazilian agricultural sector itself, represented by the ruralist bench in Congress, opposed the exemption of the import tax on the American product.
NF: This was a government decision, I don’t know the details of the parliamentary part. It was intended to create an opportunity for negotiation, which seemed to be the right thing to do at that time. There was a demand, from the Brazilian side, not only for the liberalization of the ethanol sector, as was being demanded by the Americans, but also to eliminate the tariffs on corn and sugar. But no progress was made.
DW: The day before the January 6th Capitol storming, there was a meeting at the Trump International Hotel in Washington with close Trump supporters who reportedly discussed the invasion of Congress. On that same day, deputy Eduardo Bolsonaro was in the city and met with one of Trump’s allies who allegedly encouraged the raid, entrepreneur Michael Lindell. Do you have any information about the deputy’s involvement in this meeting at Trump’s hotel?
NF: I don’t have any information. At the embassy we work with the ambassador’s agenda. I am not aware of any other agenda of deputy Eduardo Bolsonaro, other than the one I joined on Monday, January 4th, at the White House, when we visited Mrs. Ivanka Trump, and a meeting on Tuesday, January 5th, at the embassy with him and entrepreneurs.
DW: At an event held on March 5th by the US Council of the Americas think tank, Minister Ernesto Araújo said that Brazil wanted to work with the US to “rid Latin America of narcosocialism.” Could you detail what is the Foreign Ministry’s goal in this line of foreign policy with the Americans?
NF: What the Minister said was a little more complex than that statement. He mentioned the issue of supporting a democratic transition in Venezuela promoted by the Venezuelans themselves, through free and fair elections. It is nothing new that one of the main supports of Nicolás Maduro’s dictatorship in Venezuela is based on drug trafficking.
Source: DW