Remarks at the Fundacao Armando Alvares Penteado (FAAP)R. Nicholas Burns,
Under Secretary for Political Affairs
Sao Paulo, Brazil
February 6, 2007AMBASSADOR SOBEL: I want to thank you again for inviting us here. I want to thank my very, very good friend for being here to open up this program, and I am sure that we will have an insightful and stimulating discussion. Our Under Secretary, Nicholas Burns.
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Thank you very, very much, Cliff. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. It is a pleasure for me to see all of you here. I know there are some other people who are listening in from another area, so I look forward to questions from all of you, and listening to your point of view after I make my remarks.
I am so pleased to be here. I want to thank Ambassador Sobel and Mrs. Barbara Sobel for their leadership of the United States Diplomatic Mission in Brazil. They are a great couple. They are very energetic and we are extremely proud that they are serving our country and trying to make connections with Brazilians from all walks of life, as they have been doing so successfully.
I also wanted to say to both of the ambassadors how pleased I am to be here. Ambassador Amaral, Ambassador Ricupero, thank you so much for what you are doing to help Brazilians understand the United States of America. This is one of the inaugural lectures, I know, in the formation of the center for study of the United States, here at FAAP. I was so impressed by this building, and by the long history, 60-year history of FAAP. Now we are honored that there will be a center here in Brazil, so that people can begin to understand this great country to your north, the United States of America, which has been such a good friend of Brazil, we think, for so many years. So thank you very much for that.
I also want to say, I was last here eleven years ago, in Sao Paulo. I have not been a frequent visitor, but it is extraordinary to come back and see what you have built in this great commercial hub. I remember being here eleven years ago with Secretary of State Warren Christopher, and being amazed that you could not see to the end of this city from a skyscraper. I had the same feeling again today.
There are a few great business capitals of the world. Shanghai is one, Mumbai is another; in two rising countries, China and India. We like to think that New York is a third, and Sao Paulo is certainly in that group, because it shares the energy and the dynamism and the great commercial strength of a great country. So it is really a pleasure for me to be in this city.
We have had a busy day. We have had a discussion with Brazilian experts on biofuels. We had a discussion with business leaders about trade and investment between the United States and Brazil.
We had the great honor of having lunch with Governor Serra, and I was really impressed by his presentation, and that of his secretaries, to us, because it struck me at the end of our lunch with Governor Serra that his agenda and the agenda of the governors here in Brazil is very similar to what our state governors are confronting in the United States of America. We will be meeting many of the other governors in Brasilia on Thursday.
I think you would find similar concerns if you went to Sacramento, California, to meet Governor Schwarzenegger, or to my hometown of Boston, Massachusetts, to meet our new governor, Deval Patrick. The concerns are, how do we cope in this very much changing world, with these great trans-national forces that on the one hand provide great positive opportunities, but on the other hand, also some danger for us all.
We talked about biofuel cooperation with Governor Serra, and he is a strong supporter. We agree that the two countries that are the dominant forces in the ethanol market worldwide ought to be doing more together. We talked about crime on the streets. Now, we have that problem where I live now, in Washington, D.C. We have it in every major city of the United States, and you have it here in Brazil. We talked about the scourge of narcotics trafficking, about the problem of building modern infrastructure to support a growing economy.
I was struck by the uniformity of views, and I was struck by the concerns that really make a bridge between the United States and Brazil for the future. I was encouraged by that discussion. We look forward very much to being in Brasilia tomorrow, to work with our colleagues in the Brazilian government, so that the United States and Brazil can be the kind of partners that we need to be.
I would say this about our two countries; we are natural partners in the world, and that is the way that Brazilians and Americans should think of each other. It does not mean that we have uniform views. It does not mean that we are not going to have disagreements, because of course we will have them on many issues. But it does mean that both of us are continental powers, we are the strongest countries in the hemisphere, in any dimension of strength, economic or political.
Both of us are nations of immigrants. I had interesting meetings with a variety of people today. You come from all over the world. So do we. We are a nation of immigrants in the United States. You have a tolerant, open, democratic society. We like to think that we have the same type of society in the United States of America. You have these enormous strengths in Brazil, these great natural resources, a very talented, well educated population. We like to think that we also have a talented, well educated population. It is societies like ours that ought to succeed in the information age, in the post-industrial age, where it is human power, brain power, which is really the commodity that we bring to the global market. It is the comparative advantage that your society has, and that our society has.
So in that sense, we are very similar as countries in how we look at the world, in the challenges that we face and in what we bring to the rest of the world itself. Now, it is also true that we face some of the same threats around the world, and I do think that that will inform the relationship between our governments.
We are natural partners. We have a good relationship between our two governments, but it can be stronger, and it can be a better relationship. It seems to me that now is the time, 2007, to say as two governments, let us build a stronger partnership in the Americas, and let us build a stronger global partnership between Brazil and the United States. There is huge potential for growth in any endeavor that you can think of, whether it is political cooperation between our countries in this hemisphere, on whether it is economic and trade cooperation in this hemisphere, whether it is the responsibilities that Brazil and the United States have to make this world more stable, more productive, more peaceful. We share this responsibility, and so on that basis, we ask the Brazilian government to meet us halfway, to build a stronger partnership.
In many ways, this relationship reminds me of the relationship that my country has had with India. Since 1947, when India was created, we had the ultimate unfulfilled relationship between us. We never could quite seek or attain the type of political and economic partnership that we felt, 60 years ago, was our destiny. But now that has changed, and in just the last ten years President Clinton and President Bush have made India a strategic partner of the United States.
I would not say that Brazil and America have an unfulfilled relationship, but there is so much room for growth and for success that we ought to be more ambitious about what our two governments and countries can do together. This should be a year of engagement between us.
We have just experienced a very interesting year in this hemisphere. It was the year of elections, and we were trying to think Ambassador Shannon, Ambassador Sobel and myself, a couple of hours ago, so where were there been elections in 2006? In Mexico, in Panama, in Costa Rica, in Columbia, in Peru, in Ecuador, in Venezuela, in Saint Lucia, in Brazil, in Chile, in Haiti, in Nicaragua, in Honduras, in Canada, and in the United States of America. We all had elections in 2006, and while regional politics was not on hold during this year of elections, elections tend to concentrate the minds of democracies. They make us a little bit more inward looking, rather than ambitious in our foreign policies. If 2006 was a year of elections, 2007 should be a year of engagement by all of us to make the hemisphere more peaceful and more stable and more united.
How do we Americans look at these 13 elections? What do we think voters were saying in Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Nicaragua, the United States of America, in our mid-term elections? Here are some general observations. Now, you may have your own views, and I would be interested in hearing from you about them first. It was a celebration of democracy. From the southern end of the hemisphere to the northern end, from Chile to Canada, it was a celebration of democracy, and that does unite us in this hemisphere. Second, we saw a diversity of results. Some countries elected leftist governments. Some countries elected centrist governments. Some elected center-right, or rightist governments.
The view of my country is that we ought to have relations with all of them. We ought to have a rather ecumenical view in Washington, D.C. that if people are going to elect a government, we respect those results, and we want to engage the government that has been elected by the people. Third, these elections reveal that the people of the hemisphere have a wide variety of concerns about their futures. Some people are concerned about a diminished commitment to democracy in one or two countries. Everyone is concerned that economic growth in open markets should lead to prosperity and to success, and to employment and good jobs. Everyone is concerned about narcotics, and about what it does to our children, our teenagers, whether it is heroin or cocaine, and the debilitating effect that has on our young people. Everyone is concerned about the corruption that is linked to narcotics, and the criminal gangs that are present in my country and in your country, and throughout the hemisphere. We Americans heard that many people of Latin countries are concerned about poverty and about social justice, that this has to be part of the agenda in this hemisphere, and that we Americans have to be part of that debate, to see what we can do to help alleviate poverty in this hemisphere, and indeed, worldwide. In the great majority of these elections, we would say people were clear that we need trade and open economic relations, and that frankly, most of the countries of this hemisphere want a relationship with the United States.
You may not always agree with us. You may not always favor everything that our country does worldwide. But we think the great majority of governments, as well as peoples, want a relationship with the United States of America.
I do not think that is true of the government of Venezuela, a government that in our view seems to be practicing the politics of the past and the politics of division and of disunity. We do not see that as the agenda for any of the other governments that had elections in this hemisphere in 2006. So despite the many differences - and you cannot generalize about all these elections, you may have derived different conclusions about them - these elections were a very good sign about the basic health of this hemisphere. It is a good record that we can build on for the future. So let us make 2007 a year of engagement between our countries, and let the United States reach out to all the elected governments.
We reach out to every government, including the government in Caracas, including the government of President Chavez, to say we are willing to meet you halfway. We do not want conflict. We want engagement so that our peoples can prosper, prosper in the future.
Now, what can the U.S. and Brazil do to be responsible countries in this hemisphere? It seems to me that we should operate in two ways. One is regionally, and the second is globally.
What is our regional agenda? Well, certainly we have a responsibility as two powerful countries for security in this region, and we were very pleased to see the continuation over the last year of Brazil's leading role in Haiti and MINUSTAH. I think Brazilians should feel proud of what they are doing. Ambassador Shannon and I were in Port-au-Prince, about a year ago. Last Thursday, we hosted an international conference in Washington designed to support President Preval and to see if we can all give him economic support and political support, and to ask the U.N. force to stay there and try to end the violence in Cité Soleil and the other troubled neighborhoods of Port-au-Prince. Brazil is leading this mission, and we are very grateful to Brazil. It is the only U.N. peacekeeping force in the world led by a majority of Latin countries. It is working and it is having the effect that it should have, so we are thankful for that.
We are thankful for the port security that we are working on right here in Sao Paulo between the United States government and your government, your state government here in Sao Paulo, to make sure that ports are secure. It seems to us that on a regional basis, Brazil and the United States have to have a security dialogue. Our two militaries need to talk more frequently. We hope very much we can build on this in the year ahead.
Second, we have got to have an active trade and investment agenda. That is very important. You all know about Doha, about how difficult it has been, but there is some new hope in recent weeks that we may succeed after all in Doha. I am encouraged that the private sector in Brazil and the private sector in my country are leading this effort to bring us closer on trade and investment. But we in government can do more. I was a little bit surprised to hear from Ambassador Sobel and his staff today that there is no bilateral investment treaty between the United States and Brazil. It is a little bit shocking. There are 190 member states of the United Nations. I would bet that we have a bilateral investment treaty and other economic agreements with the majority of those countries. The two leading countries in the hemisphere ought to have a treaty which tries to lower the barriers to trade between them, and tries to establish an environment that's conducive to trade and investment.
Next, you are victims of crime, narcotics, and criminal gangs in Brazil. So are we in the United States. It is a problem in Central America, South America, and North America. It seems to us whether it is on state-to-state cooperation, I mean, capital-to-capital cooperation, or whether it is working on a state-municipal level here in Brazil or in my country, we have to take on the narco-trafficers. We are trying to do that with Mexico and Columbia. We are trying to do it in our own country, and it is terribly important that we win this battle. Brazil and the United States have to be in the center of it in this hemisphere.
Next, energy is an the area of real growth and promise for the United States and Brazil. We are the two world leaders in biofuels. There is much more room for growth in Brazil and the United States in ethanol production, and in other alternative energies. What we are trying to do is work very hard with the government of Brazil to establish an agreement that we might together continue to invest in research and development, so that the biofuels industry can be even more efficient than it currently is. We ought to be working together in this region to help other countries to become producers and consumers of energy, of biofuels, to diversify and get us off the addiction of oil, which has been so damaging to the environment and to our economies and to our pocketbooks.
Last, Brazil and the United States should lead in the creation of a global ethanol market, with ethanol as a true commodity, so that the whole market is bigger and so that there is then more for all of us; more profit to plow back into research for the benefit of both of our peoples and our economies. This is a very powerful area of opportunity for Brazil and the United States. I hope very much that this will be the year where we have the agreement that we've been working so hard to negotiate. Greg Manuel, who is Secretary Condi Rice's Advisor on Energy, who has been the focal point of this, is here, right here in the front row, so you can get a hold of him after this meeting if you have a question or an idea on how Brazil and the United States can be successful together.
This kind of energy cooperation can be a democratizing force in the world. We do not have to be at the mercy of the oil producers forever. We do not have to be under the influence of countries that have a distorted impact in the world. Iran and Venezuela are two of them, because of their oil power. We can create in the next generation alternative fuel sources of supply that can be beneficial to us, and frankly, more democratizing in the world energy picture. So in all those respects, those are just five ideas where the United States and Brazil ought to be regional leaders.
I would just conclude my remarks by saying, we have to be global leaders, as well. Here I would like to say, that if you look ahead over the next 50 years, the world will change quite rapidly, and the kind of threats that we will face as Brazilians and Americans will also change very much. We do not live in the Cold War era anymore. We do not live in a bipolar world anymore. We live in a multi-lateral, multi-polar world.
The defining feature of the international landscape, economic, political, environmental, to us is the fact that we have to face globalization. We have to face the positive and negative sides of globalization. On the positive side, there are few societies better positioned to succeed in the Information Age, in the Computer Age, in the age of advanced health and science and medicine and alleviation of disease, than our two countries.
There is a very big positive up-side of globalization. There are benefits for average people that flow from these extraordinary breakthroughs in science and technology. We should be pushing our governments to make sure the money is there for academic research to continue these extraordinary advances in science and technology.
But there is a dark side of globalization, and that dark side affects my country and your country and every other country in the world. It is all the threats that are going right through our borders, and underneath them, and over them, so that we in America cannot look at the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans anymore and say we are protected from what is going wrong in the world, not when there is global climate change, which is such a big problem for the world, not when there is trafficking of women and children on a global scale, not when there are international criminal cartels and narcotics cartels, not when there is terrorism in many parts of the world and terrorists who could get their hands on nuclear, chemical, or biological technology with horrifying consequences for all of us. If that is the dark side of globalization, then we had better cooperate across national boundaries, because even powerful states like yours and mine, cannot face these problems alone.
This has important lessons for Americans. Number one, we cannot be isolationist. Since the eighteenth century, we have had periodic bouts of separating ourselves from the world. We can no longer afford to do that. Sometimes some Americans feel that we can be unilateralist in the world. We cannot be unilateralist, because that is a recipe for failure in our foreign policy. We have to engage with the rest of the world, and sometimes it will be with alliances like NATO, which is such an important alliance for us, or our relationship with the European Union, or the Organization of American States, or ASEAN. We need to weave together a web of political and economic and military organizations so that together we confront these problems.
That is the destiny for all of us who live in the twenty-first century, and whose children will have to inherit from us the responsibility to make this world secure and to make it peaceful. So in that sense, the major powers of the world have an enormous responsibility for global peace and global security, and we cannot just be consumers of what other people do. We have to think of ourselves as the leaders, and we have to contribute to security.
We like what Brazil has done with MINUSTAH, with the United Nations effort in Haiti. Could Brazil begin to think of itself as among the group of countries that will contribute even more broadly to United Nations peacekeeping in Africa, where there are right now five or six major U.N. forces? We need one to go into Sudan. We are in Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. We have a U.N. force in Southern Lebanon, where China and India and South Korea are contributing forces. We have a peacekeeping force in Afghanistan.
So we would suggest that Brazil begin to think of itself as a global provider of security, alongside Australia, Japan, Korea, China, India, the United States, and the European Union, so that we might all work together for peace and security. These are my reflections on the global agenda between our countries.
I would just like to say it is a privilege to be here. I hope we can have a good dialogue. I look forward to getting your honest views about the relations between our countries, but more importantly, how do we make the world safer and more secure, and with less risk so that it's a better world for all of us to live in. Thank you for listening to me, and I look forward to a very good discussion. Again, Ambassadors, thank you for hosting us and good luck with this Center for the United States. We wish you all the luck, and you will have our full support. Thank you very much.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Portuguese).
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Professor, thank you very much -- and perhaps here I am going to share the microphone with my friend, Ambassador Tom Shannon, because he is responsible for our relations with Latin America. I would just take advantage of your question to say, we all need to strengthen the United Nations, and I say that with some degree of humility. Ten years ago my country did not pay its dues to the United Nations. We sometimes had checkered relationship with the U.N. But we are the host nation. We are the founding country. We are the largest contributor. So first and foremost, whether it is Latin America or around the world, the U.N. needs to be strengthened, particularly in peacekeeping, where there are so many conflicts that require the intervention of a multi-lateral U.N. peacekeeping force. That costs money. It is very expensive. It costs billions of dollars a year. It requires trained professional troops, and it requires a lot of sacrifice by the troop contributing countries. So, I would like to say that in this hemisphere we need to lead more and contribute more to what the United Nations is trying to do.
Obviously, in this hemisphere, we work through the Organization of American States, and we work through a variety of other bilateral and multilateral alliances to try to further all of the objectives I have talked about, but I have done a lot of talking. Tom Shannon is a very smart guy. He should probably take over the microphone.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHANNON: Thank you very much, Nick. In regard to multilateral relations in the hemisphere, let me make a couple of very quick comments. First, in the Organization of American States and in the other institutions of the inter-American systems, especially the Inter-American Development Bank, all of the democracies of this hemisphere have important tools, important organizations, and important resources to address common problems and to identify common agendas. This is accentuated through these organizations as well as through other informal or less structured multilateral arrangements, such as the Defense Ministerial of the Americas.
One of the striking things about the Organization of American States, and about the multilateralism that we see in this hemisphere, in the Americas, is that it is a multilateralism which is informed by common political values. The Organization of American States, through the Inter-American Democratic Charter, have recognized democracy as a right. They have recognized the promotion and defense of democracy as an obligation of member states, and also, and this is a very interesting aspect of what the OAS has done, it has drawn a connection between democracy and development.
As we look at our institutions multilaterally, in a very crude way, we can see the OAS as an institution that promotes democracy and defends democracy, both in terms of building institutions, but also consolidating values and processes. In the Inter-American Development Bank we can see an institution that promotes development. The trick is to find the point where the two cross and meet, because ultimately, the big challenge we face in the region, and I think ultimately what is going to be both the test and the potential success of our multilateral institutions in the Americas, is our ability to show that democracy did deliver development, and that development can be democratic.
This is a huge challenge that this region has taken on itself. Never before has a regional organization faced the kind of social agenda that the Americas faces today, facing the inequality, the poverty, and the social exclusion that exists in the Americas, and been committed to solving these problems in a democratic fashion. It really is, in that sense, a revolutionary commitment, and I think it carries with it huge import for the rest of the world, because the problem with development is really the problem that we see so dramatically in the Middle East, and South and Central Asia, and Africa and in parts of Asia proper.
The degree to which the Americas, as a hemisphere, the degree to which organizations like the OAS and the Inter-American Development Bank can show that democracy can deliver the goods, can show that we can deliver the benefits and services that the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society require, it's an enormous motivation for those struggling to create democratic states in different parts of the world.
The degree to which we fail, it really provides succor to those who have also asserted that only authoritarianism can solve the big development problems we face. I think in this regard, the United States and Brazil can play a hugely important role, because we are both democratic and we have both faced development issues of different types at different times in our history. The degree to which we can hold these two ideas together, democracy and development, we can really make something special out of our multi-lateral institutions.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Portuguese).
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Thank you very much for that question. I will just try to give you a brief answer, because I think we have talked about it a little bit here.
Energy has soared to the top of the international agenda. It is one of the issues that is now discussed most by world leaders because of the enormous impact that high oil prices have had, a distorting impact in many countries, particularly in poor countries, and poses so much difficulty.
You heard our president, President Bush, when he gave his State of the Union address just two weeks ago. He said that the United States has to develop alternative fuels, he put a very ambitious target for the American people, to reduce gasoline consumption by 20 percent in 10 years. That is an enormous goal for us. It is going to be very difficult to reach, but we can do it if our government, our federal government, our state governments, and our private sector are all looking for the advantage in creating an alternative fuel environment.
Of course, there are concomitant climatic and environmental advantages that spring from this. I do not have to tell Brazilians this. You are the pioneers in flex-fuel cars. You are the pioneer in ethanol. You have really been leading this debate. We are trying to catch up in many ways, and we hope to be able to be your partner on this issue. I know there has been a great deal of unhappiness around the world about the refusal of the U.S. Senate and of our administration to ratify the Kyoto Treaty some years ago. I do not think Kyoto is going to be ratified by the U.S. Senate any time soon, but it does not mean we are not interested and concerned about climate change.
President Bush mentioned his concern two weeks ago today. We have spent $29 billion in research into clean energy technology since 2001. We have budgeted $6.5 billion in clean energy technology research for 2007. We have a lot of climate change partnerships now, particularly with India and China, countries that are large contributors to greenhouse gasses, as well as Japan and Australia in the East, in the Pacific, where we have so much of our economic and political focus. This ought to be firmly, squarely at the front of the U.S.-Brazilian agenda, for our leaders to talk about what we can do to work together to diminish greenhouse gas production, and to try to be responsible on this issue of climate change.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Portuguese).
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: I was waiting for that question, and you asked it. You will be happy to know that Governor Serra mentioned this in the first 30 seconds of our meeting today, just as we sat down to have our lunch. It was the first issue, and I am sure we are going to hear about it in Brasilia tomorrow from the government. So we are ready. I wish Greg Manuel were here, because he is so much smarter than I am on biofuels.
We are trying to achieve a mixture of energy sources for our economy. We are a producer of oil and gas in the United States, obviously. We have been moribund on civil nuclear power for 30 years, and there is a rising consensus that we ought to begin building nuclear power plants again, because that is clean energy, and it is relatively cheap once you have made the capital investment. We have to look at biofuels. We do not think that biofuels is the answer to all the world's energy problems, but it is part - it is a big part of the answer. Therefore, it provides a connection between us. I told some of the business leaders -- and by the way, they asked about it, too -- I said, I am just a humble civil servant here. We have a tariff. That is the law of our land. The Congress has spoken on it. We do have a democratic process, so sometimes things change and sometimes they do not, but we live with the tariff now, and we implement it. That is the obligation that we have as government civil servants.
One way to look at this would be to say, is it even possible for ethanol producers in Brazil to satisfy growing Brazilian needs as more and more of your cars -- I heard the figure of 80 percent -- will be flex-fuel cars? Is it possible for ethanol producers in the United States to satisfy our needs? Probably not. One thing we can do, and we are actively trying to work on this with your government, and your government has taken the lead in establishing this international forum for biofuels, can we make the world market larger? Can other people, other countries, begin to produce? Can we expand the market, which should bring greater profitability to both of us, and to all other producers of biofuel? That would be the way that we look at it. I am convinced that it has not satisfied you. But it is the answer I have. May the debate continue between Brazil and the United States. I am sure it will.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Portuguese).
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Professor, you have given me a tall order. I do not know if I can satisfy -- these are very, very profound thoughts, and very good questions. I will just take a stab at them, because they really deserve a better answer than I can give.
I would just say that we are all interested in economic growth, obviously, every country is. Can we combine trade with open markets to produce economic growth? That is a challenge for the hemisphere, and for the debate in the hemisphere. Now, there is one voice, in the hemisphere, saying let us go back to state planned socialism and nationalization of private enterprise. In every other country, leaders are, and people are basically saying, let us have a level playing field for trade. Let us stimulate trade, and let us have our governments make sure that trade is free and fair. I do think there is a dichotomy in this hemisphere, and those of us in your country and our country who believe that trade can lead to jobs and to growth, and even to social justice. That can happen.
I would add that there is no alternative in this hemisphere to democracy. The few countries that have deviated from it have done so with disastrous consequences, whether it has been military juntas in the past, and now we see that societies are so much healthier with democratically elected civil governments. I do not need to preach to Brazilians or Argentineans about that. You are so much better off. And we are so thankful that your democracies are so strong. In terms of anti-Americanism, I would just say objectively, that it is a very interesting phenomenon to study. I ahve been to India seven times in the last year. The United States is very well thought of, and very high in the public opinion polls. We have a different relationship, a different history. In China, the same case. In Australia and Japan. Certainly not in the Middle East, certainly not. Certainly not in Western Europe, unfortunately, where there is this very unusual situation where the governments are strong partners, and we have repaired all the bridges that were threatened in 2002 and 2003, but where the publics continue to express strong anti-Americanism.
I think that we have to recognize in my country two things; first of all, we are the great global power. I do not say that with a sense of arrogance. It is just an objective fact, in terms of military, economic, and political power we are the most powerful country, and sometimes that produces negative sentiments. It certainly occurred during the presidency of President Clinton. It is happening under President Bush's presidency as well.
Second, and here is maybe where we Americans can respond to, we need to be good citizens of the world. It cannot just be our agenda. We have to be mindful that other countries and other peoples have an agenda, too. I was so proud to see our president and country speak up about the problem of global climate change just over the last couple of weeks. This says that there is no question people all around the world are concerned about it, and so we Americans need to be part of the solution on global climate change. We recognize that we are going to be criticized in a lot of countries, but if we also try to be good citizens and respond to other people's concerns, I will not worry too much about anti-Americanism. I think it will take care of itself.
QUESTION: Ambassador Burns, I had the privilege about two years ago, at the invitation of the Aspen Institute, to spend four days with 15 American Congressmen in a very isolated place where we had the chance to discuss very intensively the relationship between the United States and Brazil. One very interesting point, at the outset, the knowledge about my country was close to zero. When we left, perhaps it was about five percent. Even taking into consideration that one of the Congressmen at the end said he, at that moment, knew more about Brazil than France, which I think was a sort of compliment to our effort to make Brazil more well known. I do not know if he had any bias against France or not. But anyway --
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: No. I met my wife in France, so it is a great country.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: After that, we prepared as one of the founders of Brazil's Center for International Relations, a very extensive document dealing about the relationship about our two countries. One of the conclusions, it was very well focused, (unintelligible) this initiative (unintelligible) is very important to create the Center to understand better the United States. But my point of it all, Ambassador, you Americans should know more and learn more about Brazil. We are also a very complex country. We Brazilians, from time to time, we do not understand our country. It is very difficult for us to grasp some of the decisions. You should make an effort. And what I talk about this is not only the executive branch. It is also the legislative branch. You should make an effort to learn more about Brazil.
And my second point, this singularization of Latin America does not exist. Latin America is geographical concept. You mentioned in your lecture, the differences exist. We ask democracy unite us, all aboard, but within democracy are very different types of democracy. Mr. Chavez says that he is running a democratic country, and that is - I am not going to question that, evidently. Anyway, my point is that Latin America is interesting but within Latin America are different countries, different concepts, different civilizations, different histories, and that an effort that United States should make in order to understand us better. Thank you.
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Brief comment. I agree with everything you said. At my graduate school, Johns Hopkins, there is a Center for Brazil, and it is one of the finest centers in the United States. At the Woodrow Wilson Institute in Washington, another Institute for Brazil. So you are right, Brazil is one of the leading countries of the world. We Americans need to study it. I agree with you. Believe it or not, you know, our country is still adjusting to being a world power. That may sound to a foreign ear, to Brazilians, a little bit odd to say, but it is true.
There was no reason for most Americans to travel outside our country - it is a huge country - or to work outside the country for most of our history. That is changing. I have three daughters. Three are all much more outward focused than I was when I was 17 or 18, and I think the next generation of Americans, you will see them working more overseas, traveling more, with a much more sophisticated understanding.
Football. I think that I should not make any predictions. You are the great power in football. We respect that. We bow down to that. I would say that in women's football, we are pretty strong. But I told Governor Serra this morning that there are more 12-year-olds playing your football, soccer, than baseball or American football in our country, so watch out in another generation. Thank you.
AMBASSADOR SOBEL: Can I just add one thing to what you are saying? Because I think your comment is perfect. Part of Tom Shannon and Nick Burns' trip here, which is three days, so they are going to hear and see a lot, includes a meeting with the governors, those people, those leaders that are involved even more intimately with the Brazilian people. Tomorrow night we are having a dinner in Brasilia, not only with government, but with the private sector, and your legislative branch, an integrated group. Today, obviously, we have had multiples of different meetings with the private sector, as well. I think that they will leave better informed, more knowledgeable. And you are right, Brazil is a very complicated country.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Portuguese).
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Thank you. We are looking forward to our meetings in Brasilia tomorrow. Thank you for your question. We do have a strategic dialogue with the Government of Brazil, and have had for a number of years. On the issue of biofuels, there will be no agreement reached tomorrow. We are here just to push that issue forward. That is really an issue for our leaders to discuss when they next meet. But I can tell you, it is number one on the agenda. In many ways, this issue of biofuels could become the symbolic centerpiece of the U.S.-Brazil relationship in the near future. We are the world leaders. There is no reason why we should not be cooperating together more closely, and we look forward to that. But I would not anticipate that by tomorrow morning. Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Portuguese).
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Under Secretary, we just returned from the United States a couple days ago, and we had several meetings with conservative movements and Heritage Foundation, (unintelligible) and many other institutions, and we have realized that one of the areas in which we still have a lack of information in South America, and mostly in Brazil, is the lessons that United States might deliver to us that how you have made things since your independence, like the Founding Fathers' principles, and all those things, free enterprise, limited government, private property respects, respect the law. I mean, all of the principles that United States have observed during your existence have to be taught to the Latin American countries in order to deliver, to show us that there are other options than the Bolivarian and socialist ideas that have been inserted in our minds in Brazil.
I would like to ask you, have you at a Department of State, have you thought about having a permanent -- I believe that FAAP has started here right with this institution out near this group that Ambassador Amaral have founded -- have you thought about how to teach us, to tell us, to show us what has succeeded in the United States and what options are available to us here in South America, especially in Brazil, as opposed to the Bolivarian and socialist ideas that we have faced for the past, I do not know, hundred years, or 50 years, or 30 years? How could we explain to our people that there is an option and we should move in that way?
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Thank you. That is a very challenging set of ideas, but let me say first, and I mean this quite sincerely, the United States does not have any lessons to teach Brazil. You are a great country. You have got a great history. It would be a mistake for us to think that we have got lessons to impart to others. I think it is more that we can work together, learn from each other, and have a certain degree of humility in that process.
Secondly, we have a left in the United States. We have a center, and we have a right in our political spectrum, and you saw that in our mid-term elections. I am a career diplomat, and I am not a political person. I do not belong to either party, so I say that quite objectively. We have a very dynamic debate under way right now on Social Security, on worker rights, on the environment, on the death penalty, a very big debate, so it is important to talk to the left, center, and right in the United States to get, I think, an even picture of where the society is now.
Last, I will say, we do not obsess about Hugo Chavez in the United States. I just thought there was a veiled reference to him in your question. We concentrate on our friends, and so we concentrate on Brazil and Argentina, and Chile, and Panama, and Mexico, and Colombia, Peru, and Ecuador, and all the other countries which I do not have time to mention. The great stream of history in our hemisphere is democracy, trade, development, poverty alleviation, and that stream is being led by Brazil and Chile, and Mexico, and Colombia, and my country, and Canada, and all the others.
If other countries, other leaders want to take their countries in a completely different direction, that is their choice. We do not have to go there with them. We spend most, perhaps 98 percent, of our time focused on you and the other democratic countries of the hemisphere. That is the way I would answer that question, and I am confident the stream of history is going to reward the countries that trust their own people and that honor their democracies, and that try to have a positive agenda, rather than a negative one.
Released on February 16, 2007
|
