Antonio Patriota at the Itamaraty Palace, Brasília, Aug. 28, 2013. Ueslei Marcelino/Reuters/Corbis
February 17, 2014
Brasília is a diplomatic backwater no longer. On the
strength of impressive economic and social strides, the Federative Republic of
Brazil is projecting its influence throughout the Americas and beyond. It is
making a strong push for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security
Council. And in 2014 and 2016, respectively, Brazil pulls off the enviable feat
of hosting two international sporting spectacles back to back: the Fédération
Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) World Cup, and the Olympic Games.
To take the measure of Brazil’s growing global
stature, the Cairo Review caught up with one of the country’s star diplomats,
Antonio Patriota, a former foreign minister, envoy to Washington, and currently
Brazil’s permanent representative to the United Nations. In addition to also
serving in Brazilian missions in Geneva, Caracas, and Beijing, he has held
numerous positions in the Ministry of External Relations in Brasília including
secretary general of the ministry, under secretary for political affairs, and
secretary for diplomatic planning. A native of Rio de Janeiro, Patriota, 59,
holds degrees from the University of Geneva and the Rio Branco Institute,
Brazil’s diplomatic academy. Cairo Review Managing Editor Scott MacLeod
interviewed Patriota on December 20, 2013, at the Permanent Mission of Brazil
to the United Nations in New York.
CAIRO REVIEW: Do you see
a way out of the Syria crisis?
ANTONIO PATRIOTA: The Syria crisis has now become extremely violent,
brutal, deadly. Of course, this is something that has particular resonance for
Brazil, because of the large number of Brazilian descendants of Syrians and
Lebanese, mostly Christian Syrians and Lebanese, but Muslims as well. This
instability and the scale of the violence is something that affects us very
personally and in a very emotional way. Now the way out for us is obviously
through diplomacy. We don’t see a military way out of the crisis. This is
something we’ve repeated many times, since we were in the Security Council in
2011, in fact. We welcomed the appointment of Kofi Annan at the time as special
envoy to the Syrian issue for the United Nations and the Arab League. His
efforts that culminated with the outcome document of the first Geneva
Conference in mid-2012 to me provided a blueprint for a diplomatic solution in
Syria. Unfortunately, that document was not endorsed by the Security Council in
the following months for reasons that I think have more to do with domestic
politics in [the countries of] some of the permanent members of the Security
Council rather than with the Syria crisis itself. This delayed the
establishment of a strategy for pressuring the parties into a political
transition. Several months later, the use of chemical weapons in Syria led to
the U.S.-Russian Federation agreement that led Syria to join the convention on
the prohibition of chemical weapons, and to the dismantling of the chemical
weapons arsenal in Syria—which is a very positive development in itself. But
perhaps as important was the final endorsement by the Security Council of the
Geneva I document. Which among other things says that there is no military
solution for the Syrian crisis, and foresees a transition and a political
program for the country.
Now that a Geneva II conference
has been announced, and Brazil is going to be among the parties, along with
India and South Africa, this is something important. From the very outset,
Brazil, and myself in my former capacity [as foreign minister] in Brasília, we
had defended the idea that the IBSA countries—India, Brazil, South Africa—that
enjoy correct relations with all the countries in the region including Israel,
and that kept a diplomatic presence in Damascus through the conflict, could add
some value to the multilateral efforts to put an end to the violence, to
promote a ceasing of hostilities, and to support a political transition. This
doesn’t mean that we have condoned the actions by the Syrian government. Brazil
in particular has condemned systematically the human rights violations by the
Al-Assad regime, at the Human Rights Council and at the General Assembly.
As you speak to me today, [UN and Arab League envoy to
Syria] Mr. [Lakhdar] Brahimi has just announced the twenty-five countries that
will be participating in Geneva II, and Brazil, India, and South Africa are
included. We welcome this announcement and look forward to the possibility of
creating a kind of adequate environment for a solution to the crisis to be
negotiated and upheld by enlisting the support of the United Nations in
particular. I think the department of peacekeeping operations here in New York
is making contingency plans to look at how a UN peacekeeping or a civilization
mission or some form of UN presence including a military component can ensure
that whatever agreement is now reached for the Syria crisis can be sustained
and lead to a sustainable peace.
CAIRO REVIEW: What
is the formula for peace?
ANTONIO PATRIOTA: The
formula is already in Geneva I, so you don’t need to reinvent the wheel. I
think one of the big challenges now is the presentation by the opposition. The
opposition as we know is very fragmented. The [Syrian] government has already
expressed its intention to participate in this new conference. So what is not
clear is who will represent the opposition. Within the opposition, there are
extremist groups. How do you handle that situation? There are the Kurdish
elements. There are Kurdish elements that are sympathetic to the government.
There are others that are sympathetic to the opposition. Whereas the way
forward is not difficult to imagine, since we already have the first Geneva
conference outcome document, the real difficulty lies in the modus operandi:
who will be there, how do we ensure that the actors who need to sit around the
table to negotiate will actually do so.
There is also the question of the supply of weapons to
the factions or to those involved in the conflict in Syria, involvement by
countries in the neighborhood and countries beyond the neighborhood. That also
has to be taken into consideration. Even today, there was an article in the New
York Times that talks about the inter linkages between Iran and Syria. I
think it is a legitimate question to ask whether the more favorable atmosphere
that is developing between the Iranian authorities and the Western
governments—in particular the United States—that has led to an interim agreement
on the nuclear file for Iran, will have repercussions for the Syria situation.
What has become clearer in the past few months is that whereas in the past
certain countries considered the departure of [Syrian President] Bashar
Al-Assad as a precondition for looking at a transition in Syria, well, this is
no longer a realistic proposition.
CAIRO REVIEW: What
about internally in Syria? You mentioned the split within the opposition.
Something’s got to give or they will continue fighting with more bloodshed and
bigger crisis.
ANTONIO PATRIOTA: I think
the process has to be Syrian-owned. This is a point that Mr. Brahimi made today
in his press conference in Geneva. I don’t think it would be appropriate for
me, up front, and at this point, to pronounce myself on how the Syrians
themselves should negotiate. Or what exactly is the format for them. I think
that the general framework adopted in 2012 provides the necessary parameters
for an agreement to be reached.
CAIRO REVIEW: I was
in Beirut in the 1980s covering the Lebanese civil war, and today the world is
still talking about how to reconcile Lebanese factions. Should the Syrian
people really put much faith in this process?
ANTONIO PATRIOTA: Well the first step is cessation of hostility.
Reconciliation takes time and is obviously difficult when you have 100,000
deaths plus, and different sectors of society that have been killing each
other. But I think there is something to be said also about a foreign
involvement. You were mentioning the 1980s. But you know the crisis, for
example, between Iran and the United States predates that. And if we were to
evolve into a scenario where there is communication—there doesn’t have to be
agreement across a whole range of issues, but adequate communication between
Tehran and Washington. In the press recently, one was reading that there
actually are many areas where the two countries would have common interests in
the Middle East—certainly in Afghanistan and possibly in Syria as well.
Especially in avoiding the worst-case scenarios, which I think are—and this
perhaps is where also a consensus is emerging—the prospect of the more radical
Islamist groups occupying parts of territory, or coming to dominate the country
to some extent. So I think one has to be pragmatic but also not be deterred by
the challenges, because there are also positive elements on the horizon. I
think the chemical weapons agreement in many respects seems to have been a
turning point. And maybe in the future, as we look back hopefully to a
stabilized Syria—there have been societies that have gone through civil war in
the past and that reconciled. I mean, the United States went through a civil
war that killed more than 300,000 people in the nineteenth century. Even
strength can be derived from that, and look into the future.
CAIRO REVIEW: You
mentioned the Islamic extremists. Is there a growing feeling that stability of
the regime, even around the Al-Assad regime, is now an international interest?
To prevent more gains by radical elements, to prevent a failed state scenario?
ANTONIO PATRIOTA: I think
the expression ‘failed state’ is a little bit overused. I don’t see Syria as
ever falling into that category because it has such a strong sense of identity.
Syria is a society that has millennia behind it. Damascus is the city in the
world that has been inhabited for the longest time continuously. This is one
aspect of your question. The other one is how do you deal with some of these
Islamic agendas that are appearing in the Middle East? I think to the extent that
they don’t advocate violence, and that they are ready to participate in a
democratic process, they should be allowed to do so. And to the extent that a
transparent fair electoral process gives them a voice in society, I think that
this voice should be heard. I think it is very problematic when Islamic groups
that are participating in a democratic process and have electoral victories are
not allowed to govern. And this unfortunately has happened in the Middle East.
And when they are not allowed to govern, what we witness is a lapse into even
more extremism. We’ve seen this in Algeria; we’ve seen this to some extent in
Palestine. The question is raised whether we are witnessing this in Egypt.
Certainly Brazil has gone through military dictatorship and today there is a
national consensus that places democracy as one of our priorities in terms of
our national development. Certainly there are no voices that question the value
of democracy in Brazil. We also defend democracy for others. I think it would
be a serious mistake for groups of countries or individual countries in the
international community to predetermine who are the leaders who should govern
country X or Y. It is up to the electorate to determine that. And if a ruler
doesn’t govern to the satisfaction of the majority, he can be replaced through
another democratic process.
CAIRO REVIEW: What
do you make of the recent Geneva Agreement with Iran? Has Iran simply succumbed
to sanctions pressure, and buying time? Has the Obama administration genuinely
opened a window for Iran? Or is this a tactic so that if Iran fails to live up
to the agreement, Washington can win more support for stronger measures against
Iran?
ANTONIO PATRIOTA: I was
present at the inauguration of the new Iranian administration in Tehran a few
months ago, when President [Hassan] Rowhani took office, as an envoy of
President Dilma Rousseff. And I had meetings with the outgoing foreign
minister, Mr. [Ali Akbar] Salehi, and brief encounters with some of the
incoming [ministers]. All the expressions I heard from the Iranians at that
time—that they were committed to reaching an understanding with the United
States and with the P5+1 countries that are negotiating with them the nuclear
file—have within a short time span in effect revealed themselves to be correct
and true. I think the answer to your question is, yes, there is something
important happening here. A new administration in Tehran, democratically
elected, through their procedures, by the Iranian people, on a platform that
included the idea of overcoming this stalemate that is creating difficulties
for Iran, is going forward.
And here, on the part of the United States also, I
think there has been a readiness to open serious channels of communication.
This is something that has not been going on since the 1970s. So it is a major
diplomatic event, and we should not underestimate its importance. I think it
has the potential for being a real game changer in the Middle East, in a
positive sense. In a sense of limiting violence, limiting tensions, introducing
more rationality in a region where, unfortunately, there has been considerable
irrational behavior. The irrational behavior is not only a manifestation of
behavior by those in the Middle East. I think the U.S.-led Iraq intervention in
2003 was a very irrational intervention as well. It took place under a false
pretense, the pretense that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Rather than contributing to stabilize a region, I think it actually
destabilized it quite considerably. Let’s give credit to those who are sitting
around the table through the P5+1 format negotiating with Iran, and hope that
this will continue to lead to improved contacts between Iranian authorities,
the West, and their immediate neighborhood. I think the fact that the Iranian
foreign minister has been visiting the countries of the Gulf to explain the
agreement is an additional demonstration of their interest in normalizing
relations in the region and beyond.
CAIRO REVIEW: How
did this come about? There have been years of false starts, Iranian reluctance,
American reluctance.
ANTONIO PATRIOTA: I like to
believe that people learn from their mistakes. The accumulation of all these
years, and the fact that this stalemate wasn’t producing any positive results
for the region, led a more enlightened leadership to reach the conclusion that
a renewed effort should be made to try to look at possibilities for an
understanding that would preserve Iran’s essential interests as regards Iran’s
development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. They have always affirmed
that their objective is purely peaceful. So if this is sincere, and we have
reason to believe it is, then there should be ground for understanding.
CAIRO REVIEW: Does
Iran have a “right” to enrich uranium?
ANTONIO PATRIOTA:
Certainly, yes. NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty] signatories have a right to
enrich for peaceful purposes. Brazil is an NPT signatory. It has enshrined in
its constitution a commitment not to develop nuclear weapons. And yet it has
enrichment capacity that was developed through an autonomous technological
process. Iran should have the same right; of course provided that it grants the
kinds of assurances that are being requested from Iran that its nuclear program
is exclusively for peaceful purposes. The Iranian situation has been brought to
the attention of the Security Council. The international community included
this item in its agenda at the United Nations. What is it saying? It is saying
that it is not perfectly or entirely satisfied by the guarantees that Iran has
provided. So there is a question here of Iran reconquering the trust and
credibility that will indeed allow it to pursue enrichment. I think the
position that Brazil holds, and it is not only Brazil, it is a mainstream
interpretation of the NPT, is that signatories who afford the necessary
guarantees that their programs are for peaceful purposes have a right to
enrich.
CAIRO REVIEW: Can those assurances actually be given on a
technical basis, or is it ultimately a political decision in Washington whether
the assurances are acceptable or not?
ANTONIO PATRIOTA: I think
there are technical assurances that can be satisfactory. Certainly. For
example, in the case of Brazil and Argentina, we are countries with advanced
nuclear technology. We have nuclear reactors, the capacity to build nuclear
reactors. Some years ago, we had kept an option open of pursuing a military
program, especially as non-NPT signatories. We only signed the NPT in the
1990s, so there was no international obligation that would have prevented us
from doing that. We unilaterally gave up this option through our 1988
constitution. And we provided the international community with the guarantees,
the technical guarantees, that our program is exclusively geared toward peaceful
purposes. This was through a very sui generis kind of understanding that
includes a bi-national entity, which is the Brazilian-Argentine Agency for
Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials. And through agreements between
Brazil and Argentina and this agency that have been deposited at the
International Atomic Energy Agency today the international community and
entities such as Nuclear Suppliers Group have recognized that the kind of
assurances we provide are satisfactory. Iran in fact has even gone beyond
Brazil in some respects because they have signed an instrument called the
Additional Protocol to the NPT, although they have not ratified it. Now I
understand that, through this agreement that was just reached in Geneva, they
have also opened up the country to much more intrusive verification by
international experts. This is something that is feasible, and I think the
international cooperation in this area has advanced sufficiently for there to
be satisfaction that a country is actually fulfilling its commitments.
CAIRO REVIEW: Brazil
became involved and negotiated the Tehran Declaration in 2010. Is there a
diplomatic role for Brazil in the ongoing negotiations with Iran to ensure a
successful outcome?
ANTONIO PATRIOTA: I
wouldn’t rule out the possibility that at some point Brazil may be called upon
to play some role in contributing to the full satisfaction by the international
community that Iran’s program is exclusively for peaceful purposes. But in some
respects we have already made a significant contribution that historians and
political analysts often refer to. And I would mention a recent book by Trita Parsi, A Single Roll of the Dice. There is a
chapter in the book called “The Art of Taking Yes for an Answer,” which is
about the efforts by Brazil and Turkey that led to the Tehran Declaration of
May, 2010, that at the time conformed integrally with the kind of parameters
that letters by the president of the United States to Prime Minister [Recep
Tayyip] Erdoğan and to
President [Luiz Inácio] Lula da Silva had established for what would be seen as
a significant confidence-building measure in dealing with the Iranian nuclear
file. And yet was not well received once it was achieved due to other
considerations and probably some degree of discomfort in the face of two
non-permanent members of the Security Council accomplishing through their own
diplomatic efforts and through a process that was essentially based on dialogue
and not on threats or military pressure, for that matter, where others had
failed. It remains an important contribution, I think, that speaks in favor of
exhausting channels of communication before you resort to coercion.
CAIRO REVIEW: The
Tehran Declaration showed that the P5+1 was not achieving success with Iran at
that time. Can it do so now? Or do they need Brazil and Turkey back in the
process?
ANTONIO PATRIOTA: There is
a new government in Tehran. This new effort that is yielding results is very
much the product and consequence of a deliberate political decision by the
Iranian authorities who have been recently elected to, in fact, seek better
communication, dialogue, and try to reach an agreement with the P5+1. That’s a
very important element. Under the previous circumstances, there was greater
animosity between the Iranian government under President [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad,
the U.S., and others. We always condemned the kind of hostile rhetoric by the
Iranian authorities regarding Israel’s right to exist, for example, or
Holocaust denial. Notwithstanding our disapproval of these messages, we always
thought that threatening Iran with unilateral military action was not in
conformity with international law, in the absence of concrete proof that Iran
had any hostile designs over Israel or another neighboring country. And the
hostile rhetoric would not qualify as sufficient in that case. Not only Brazil,
Turkey, but other leaders, like the foreign minister of Sweden, have considered
that the Tehran Declaration was a good example of what can be achieved through
dialogue. Whereas intimidation will not get you there, necessarily. And it can
still be an interesting reference. Be that as it may, I think we are in a
different context, and we welcome the agreement announced in Geneva last month
and hope that this process indeed will promote a more stable environment.
Because if there is one thing the Middle East needs, it’s stability.
CAIRO REVIEW: Secretary
of State John Kerry has also been very active on the Israel-Palestine issue. Is
there any sign that the approach of the United States on this issue is any
different from what we have seen in the past?
ANTONIO PATRIOTA: I suppose
that those who take a more skeptical view of what these efforts may lead to are
in part justified in their attitude. Indeed there is a sense of déjà vu—you
know, that this has been attempted before, it doesn’t really lead very far, the
Israelis continue building settlements, we don’t really see tangible results
coming out of the diplomatic negotiations. But on the other hand experience
shows that even when it looks like you are going through a repetitive motion,
there are new elements always coming into politics domestically or diplomacy
internationally that alter the equation somehow. And I mean we’ve been talking
about Iran, Syria, and others—the mere fact that the U.S. is speaking to Iran
today, and that an agreement is being reached on the nuclear file—I think that
takes away from the Israeli authorities the kind of argument that they have
been using that the real existential threat to Israel is the Iranian nuclear
file.
I say this very comfortably
because when I met with Israeli authorities in October [2012], I told them, in
a very straightforward manner, I told this to Mr. [Avigdor] Lieberman, the
foreign minister, and to Mr. [Benjamin] Netanyahu [the prime minister] in a
meeting where he was courteous enough to receive me as an envoy of President
Dilma Rousseff, that to our mind the real threat to Israel was not Iran. It was
the absence of an agreement with the Palestinians. This is what Israel needs in
order to continue on a sustainable path for development and peace in its
region. You can be assured that Brazil is a very firm supporter of Israel’s
right to exist in the first place. We enjoy strong relations with Israel; we
cooperate in a number of areas including science and technology, trade is
thriving. There is an influential and well-integrated Jewish community in
Brazil with which the Brazilian government stays in close contact. So our own
commitment to positive relations with Israel is one that cannot be called into
question. But at the same time, we are extremely worried by some of the
manifestations we see on the ground, the continued settlement activity, and the
subterfuges and delaying tactics that seem to always be preventing Israelis from
seriously addressing the question of a sovereign and viable Palestinian state.
We saw this even through opposition at the United Nations to grant observer
status to Palestine or UNESCO where Palestine is already a member, and in other
instances. It may look like there is a repetition here but there are other
elements in the surrounding environment and complex equation that are moving.
And of course we are very supportive of Secretary Kerry’s efforts and we
believe that everything should be done in order to try to advance in this
direction. Like many have said before me, the essential elements of what an
agreement should look like are well known by the two sides. It is really a
question of political will, and enlightened leadership taking the difficult decision
to compromise where the compromises have to be made.
One aspect that I’ve been highlighting recently, that
struck me as very significant but sometimes doesn’t transpire into the mass
media, is the strength of Israeli civil society. Beyond and outside
governmental circles there are NGOs and groups of Israelis that actively pursue
peace. There are extremely admirable groups such as the Parents Circle group
that is made up of Israelis that lost family through terrorist attacks. But
rather than becoming anti-Palestinian, they reach out to Palestinians who have
also lost family in this conflict. And they join hands in favor of peace. I
think it is very important to become aware that these groups and these
individuals exist. These are heroic people and with the right kind of
leadership on both sides, I think Israel and Palestine have everything to heal
their wounds and join forces in making the region a region of prosperity and
democracy. They already are Israel and Palestine, and through their own models
and given their own circumstances that are very different, they are successful
examples of democracy in the Middle East. And this is something that we should
value in itself.
CAIRO REVIEW: Broadly
looking at the Arab Spring, are you optimistic it will change the Middle East
for the better?
ANTONIO PATRIOTA: Brazil will always be on the side of the forces
that promote democracy, social justice, and emancipation for societies. I think
the previous regimes in many of these countries that are now experiencing turmoil
were not really sustainable and didn’t meet standards of democratic rule that
we would like to see for ourselves and for others. We obviously supported and
identified with all those who manifested in favor of a greater say in their
countries’ futures, better institutions, more economic opportunity, employment,
freedom of speech and expression, and we will continue siding with those views.
Now radical change in any part of the world, if we look at history, always
brings with it new and unforeseen consequences and complexities. We are
witnessing some situations that seem sometimes to point in a direction of even
more circumscribed freedom of expression or democracy. But I think we also have
to be to some extent respectful of each society’s trajectory without undue
interference. We’ve been defending this perspective here at the United Nations
and at the Security Council and elsewhere that whenever the international
community is authorized to intervene it should do so responsibly. It is the
concept of “responsibility while protecting.” Because, if there is one thing
that the United Nations or the Security Council or anyone from outside the
region should avoid doing, it is making a situation worse than it is.
Unfortunately this is what I
believe the 2003 military intervention in Iraq did. And perhaps in the case of
Libya, there are arguments in favor and arguments against and there are several
schools of thought. But I believe that today there is an international
consensus that the way the intervention was carried out, it actually spread
instability into the Sahel, into Mali, and into other areas where weapons are
now finding their way in a pattern that has actually created more difficulties
for the civilian population perhaps than the benefits the intervention may have
brought to some civilians in Libya. This is not to say that the former regime
of Muammar Gadhafi was one that could be considered minimally acceptable from
all these standards I have mentioned to you—democracy, offering opportunity,
equality, justice, etc. But it is a very difficult call at times, and one of
the questions this raises is precisely the question of governance. Here, one of
the challenges is having mechanisms that reflect today’s distribution of power
and influence and capacity for dialogue in order to reach and devise the best
possible strategies for dealing with these complex situations. And not just
taking decisions in a precipitate manner in order to placate your domestic
public opinion in one direction or another. I am referring indirectly to the
need for the Security Council to reform for example.
CAIRO REVIEW: Do you
think in your diplomatic lifetime that Brazil will have a seat as a permanent
member of the Security Council?
ANTONIO PATRIOTA: The
debate has been going on for twenty years. I think there is a sense of
frustration with the absence of results. I’ve been called to participate in a
small advisory group to the president of the General Assembly here in New York
to try to impart new impulse into the discussions on Security Council reform.
And if there is one common element that I identify, it is the desire by a
majority of UN members—and when I say majority, I think what we need here is a
two-thirds majority—to reach some understanding on the expansion of the
Security Council within a relatively short time span. The time span that Brazil
has been advocating, for example, is 2015. Because that will be ten years since
a declaration in 2005 was issued at presidential level that called for early
reform of the Security Council. While you can interpret “early” in a rather
elastic way, I think that after ten years we can agree that it will not be
early anymore. We are working very hard to ensure that by 2015 we will have
made significant progress in this direction.
CAIRO REVIEW: President
Rousseff came to the United Nations and delivered a very strong statement
against the American government’s global network of electronic surveillance.
Why has Brazil been so outspoken on this issue in comparison to other nations?
President Rousseff demanded apologies, explanations, and assurances that this
espionage would not be repeated. Have any of these demands been met up till
now?
ANTONIO PATRIOTA: We take this to heart strongly, but we are not the
only country that has reacted in this manner. Germany has, and others have,
around the world. And many in the United States also expressed their
disagreement with these practices whether they affect Americans domestically or
others internationally. A demonstration of this is the strong NGO support that
Brazil and Germany received when they decided to present an initiative on the
right to privacy as a human right in the Third Committee of the General
Assembly. Brazil, and Germany and others, what we are doing is trying to raise
awareness regarding practices that can represent an abuse of power and a
violation of human rights; the right to privacy, the right to freedom of
expression. You are a journalist. The extensive wiretapping of communications
involves also placing journalists’ sources at risk. In that sense it affects
your profession, it affects the kind of free societies we would like to see
thriving internationally. But, of course the human rights dimension is not the
only one. There are other aspects that have to be dealt with. The disregard of
sovereignty of other countries, which brings to mind issues of cyber security.
There are the gaps in international law that we have been calling attention to,
and today we are reaching a situation of a new consensus that we need to look
at Internet governance in ways that are equitable and that do not accept a
disproportionate amount of control by one individual country. There are other
aspects that have to do with the secrecy and security of communications from
diplomatic missions and embassies around the world, which I think also require
strong vigilance. We have international commitments in this regard through the
Vienna conventions on diplomatic relations and consular relations. But the
truth is that the digital age has provided new means for international
surveillance—or domestic surveillance, for that matter—that have completely
revolutionized this area [and] that I think are urgently calling for
international cooperation. It is in this sense that we are working here at the
United Nations.
If you ask me why does Brazil
react in this way, I think it is because Brazil values freedom, values justice,
values its independence, and is not ready to compromise on any of these
agendas. Maybe what also drew attention was the fact that it is true that
Brazil asked for explanations and apologies and assurances that these practices
would not continue. And so far the response has been less than satisfactory.
This does not mean we cannot have correct relations with the United States. The
United States is the number one investor in Brazil, our second largest
individual trading partner. The two nations are multiethnic democracies in the
Americas that share values and objectives. But I think one of the objectives we
share is upholding the rights of individuals. The U.S. Constitution says that
all men are created equal. I think this has to apply universally.
CAIRO REVIEW: What
kind of assurances would Brazil be looking for, in terms of the practice not
continuing? The National Security Agency is a spy agency that operates in
secret.
ANTONIO PATRIOTA: Just to
give you a very broad and general answer, I think the assurances are that the
rights of Brazilian individuals will be respected, and the Brazilian leadership
will not be spied on, and that Brazil will not be the object of wholesale
spying that is entirely unjustified and disassociated from common objectives.
For example, if the U.S. is interested in combatting terrorism through these
mechanisms, well then we should develop a dialogue about this and join forces.
We already have mechanisms, for example, for looking at the so-called
tri-border area that joins Paraguay, Uruguay, and Brazil, where there were
suspicions in the past that there may have been some financing for terrorist
activities. So we created a working group and joined forces to see how we could
work. This is how nations that value cooperation and openness join their
efforts.
CAIRO REVIEW: Is
Brazil ready for the World Cup?
ANTONIO PATRIOTA: Brazil is
absolutely enthusiastic about soccer, as you know, very proud to have been
chosen for the venue of the 2014 World Cup. We will be ready. There are
setbacks, this happens in different countries at different times, but I think
they can be overcome, and they will be. And I know that we will be providing
the world with a fabulous spectacle of a sport that we excel at.
CAIRO REVIEW: What
does it mean for Brazil to host the World Cup and then the Olympics, back to
back? Luck of the draw?
ANTONIO PATRIOTA: First of all, it is not only a draw. To some
extent this involves quite a bit of diplomacy, achieving the honor to host such
events. And by having convinced the necessary number of countries to support
your bid to host them, well, this says something about the country in question,
and about Brazil in particular. I think that this is also associated with the
economic growth, the social programs, the kind of model that today one sees in
Brazil that associates economic and social progress, environmental awareness
and progress in that dimension as well, and very strong engagement with the
outside world. In some respects, Brazil is a large country with a large economy
and has always had a strong diplomatic presence in the region and in
multilateral organizations. But perhaps for the first time in our history, we
are in a position where we have true global outreach. In the past ten years,
we’ve opened close to forty new embassies across the world, many in Africa,
some in Europe, and in Central Asia, and the Far East. It’s hard to find a
place around the globe where you won’t see a Brazilian company or Brazilians
interacting with any given society. So this new kind of global outreach, in a
situation where, for a country of this sized economy and population, we are in
a very distinct situation of not having enemies anywhere in the world, having
essentially an agenda for peace and development in our relations with other
societies and with other countries. If you put all that together it is a very
compelling case for hosting events that symbolize international cooperation
through sports, peaceful means.
CAIRO REVIEW: Does that
in itself make Brazil a target for terrorism during the World Cup and Olympics?
ANTONIO PATRIOTA: I think
we have to raise our awareness somehow, because we have been blessed in Brazil
and by and large in our part of the world, with exceptions here and there, in
having been spared the scourge of terrorism and extremism that is based in
intolerance. We take pride in being a very multiethnic but also a relatively
harmonious society. Of course today we are more aware than in the past of the
remaining manifestations of racial prejudice that still affect us, but we are a
society where Jews and Arabs and people of African descent and European descent
intermarry and cooperate in all areas of activity; in business, the arts, etc.
So the answer is that while not underestimating the importance of being on the
lookout and being vigilant, I think we have reasonable grounds to be confident
that this is not going to happen in Brazil.
CAIRO REVIEW: After
the protests in Brazil in 2013, should we expect some domestic unrest around
these events?
ANTONIO PATRIOTA: I think the important observation to make here is
that to the extent that these manifestations are peaceful and do not involve
destruction of private or public property, or any violent attitudes, they are
legitimate expressions of opinion that a democratic society such as Brazil’s
does not repress. In fact, the president herself is on record having said that
we must listen to the voice of the streets. It is quite an extraordinary
development, for those who know Brazil and have observed Brazil, given the
passion for sports and soccer that most of the population have, that young
people and others should come to the streets and say, “Listen, we also want
first rate hospitals and schools. We don’t only want first rate stadiums.” I
think this is well received by the political establishment. In some respects,
as the president and others have said, the reason these expressions of
frustration are coming out into the open, into the streets, is because the
standard of living has been rising continuously in Brazil. More than forty
million people brought into the middle classes, and extreme poverty being all
but eliminated. I think within this decade we will be able to say that Brazil
is a country that, with very rare exceptions, you don’t have extreme poverty
anymore. So when this happens in a society, the public starts aspiring for
better transportation, better schooling, better health system. And these
improvements come gradually; they don’t come from one day to the next, hence
the frustration. But again to the extent that manifestations are peaceful, this
is part of what democratic societies are about.
CAIRO REVIEW: Connection
with the Arab Spring protests?
ANTONIO PATRIOTA: I see
more differences than similarities. To the extent that there are
manifestations, there is some parallel. The other similarity is the way in
which new technologies and new social media, Internet, cell phones, can be used
for rallying people to come out in the streets in favor of a cause. That is a
common phenomenon. But the important difference is the following. In the Arab
World, what you saw in Egypt, or Tunisia, or in Syria in the first stages in
the manifestations was a rejection of the form of government that was in place,
which was, let’s face it, dictatorial, undemocratic, suppressing fundamental
liberties and freedoms and human rights. In Brazil, this is quite the opposite.
We have fully democratic institutions, increasing respect for and protection of
human rights. In fact, in many areas we are at the forefront of legislation.
For example, in combating violence against women, we have some of the most
progressive laws in the world. In other areas as well. So there is no parallel
in that sense. There is a national consensus that upholds and defends the
conquests of the past decades in terms of political institutions, human rights,
social progress, etc. What happens in Brazil is a desire for better services,
quality of life that is superior to the existing quality. Let’s face it, in
many respects we remain a developing country. We have made strides but it takes
time to establish and to provide the great majority of the population with the
kinds of services you have in a highly developed country. So the manifestations
reflect this aspiration for an accelerated transformation into a higher degree
of development. Not something easy to deliver within a short time span. I think
also in the recognition by the government itself that these manifestations are
legitimate and should be taken seriously you have another contrast with what
the attitude was, perhaps, in the Arab Spring.