Brazil's Newest Friends: Syria and Iran?

A recent surge in foreign diplomatic relations with Syria and Iran demonstrates that some nations will abandon even an outspoken commitment to human rights when there is money to be made.

Syria and Iran, two countries often dubbed by the United States as “terrorism central”, were first placed on a diplomatic “black list” by the United States as a result of their reluctance to end a number of grave human rights violations as well as a sea of allegations of terrorist activity. Since this controversy, these two countries have felt the ramifications of a global shunning as Western pressures have led many other countries to follow suit.

As such, it was all the more surprising when two of the most important menin Brazil recently announced that they would be facilitating meetings with leaders from each respective nation. This month, shortly after Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva announced that he would be accomodating a visit by Syrian President Bashar Assad, Brazil’s Foreign Minister announced that he would be taking a diplomatic trip to Iran.

Perhaps not surprisingly, this new, “social” foreign policy of developing relationships with whoever has the “money bags” is widely supported by many Brazilians. Many have come to speak out in favor of this controversial move that they feel Brazil is wisely making in its nation’s best fiscal interests. Many disregard the idea that Brazilians should override their own benefits in an effort to support the United States’ seemingly fruitless War on Terror.

Still, all acknowledge that these bold moves openly undermine the United States and its War on Terror and they agree that this recent development puts United States President George W. Bush in a precarious position. While Bush is still attempting to recover from a loss of support on his home front, he must now convince other increasingly skeptical nations to believe in his idealistic plans. Although one would consider the U.S. President to have great powers in foreign policy, he loses much of his influence when nations openly ignore his agenda. If the rest of the world is so tired of the United States’ dominance that it is no longer willing to support it, the President must consider what other ramifications this will have on the effectiveness of the foreign policy he attempts to advocate.


Brazil's President Silva, expecting such a reaction from the United States, publicly justified his actions directly to U.S. President George W. Bush first by acknowledging “political divergence” between Iran and other countries while attempting to position Brazil as moderate middlemen who, having no particular political divergence with the country, can justifiably work as trade partners with Iran as it is in their “national interest.” The world will look to these meetings with anticipation as we wait not only to see what affect this will have not only on Brazil, but also to find out if it will have negative implications on the future of United States foreign policy. Is this defiance the beginning of a new trend?