CORRECTED COPY MEDIA REACTION: WESTERN HEMISPHERE:

UNCLAS SAO PAULO 000177 SIPDIS SIPDIS STATE INR/R/MR; IIP/R/MR; WHA/PD DEPT PASS USTR USDOC 4322/MAC/OLAC/JAFEE E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: KMDR OPRC OIIP ETRD BR SUBJECT: CORRECTED COPY MEDIA REACTION: WESTERN HEMISPHERE: PRESIDENT BUSH IN BRAZIL; SAO PAULO ¶1. "Lula And Bush In Globalization" Economic columnist Carlos Alberto Sardenberg commented in center-right O Estado de S. Paulo (3/12): "Many Latin American nations have already signed free-trade agreements with the US and do not pay the ethanol tariff Brazil has to pay.... Seen from this viewpoint, Brazil is in a disadvantageous position given the Lula administration's decision to bury the FTAA and its diplomats' contempt vis-`-vis free-trade agreements with the US. This is an ideological position adopted by the GOB, which, like the demonstrators, only sees the US as an imperialist devil. Reality has shown the contrary,that the US may become the preferential ally in a globalization process that is in Brazil's interest because it may foster economic growth and create jobs, especially in the interior of the country. President Lula seems to have realized that and will try to reach an understanding with Bush in the case of ethanol. But let us imagine that Bush proposes the complete removal of tariffs on ethanol in exchange for a removal of Brazilian barriers on industrial and service sectors. Before answering, Lula will have to consult with his Mercosul colleagues Chvez, Kirchner...." ¶2. "Bush Didn't Say What We Would Like To Hear" Ambassador Marcos Azambuja opined in center-right O Estado de S. Paulo (3/11): "Bush did not have the power or the intention to say what we would like to hear: that the US will reduce protection of its corn and facilitate the entry of Brazilian ethanol in its immense market. Bush does not have the conditions to defy the US agricultural lobby.... But there have been and there will be advances in this area because our as well as the US's interest will create space for accommodations that work for both parties.... We are not on the top of the USG agenda for Latin America, which is essentially negative: drugs, clandestine immigration, human rights violations and environmental threats.... Brazil does well in not serving as an instrument for the US policy interests in the region. We have, for the most part, a sometimes turbulent and irrational neighborhood and it is not useful for us to give preference to others' interests over ours.... Our interests favor an efficient multilateralism, and we can work with Americans, Europeans and the main Asian nations in a firm and constructive way.... An enlarged G-8 and a full participation in the OEDC are preferable to a problematic permanent presence in the UN Security Council.... This visit by President Bush has been perhaps the most profitable among all visits of American presidents to Brazil.... The visit may have helped Washington to recognize that Brazil is one of the necessary pillars to build a multipolar, globalized and stable international order." ¶3. "Few Decisions, Much Intimacy" Center-right O Estado de S. Paulo remarked (3/11): "President Bush's visit to S. Paulo neither marked a 'renewal' of Brazil-US relations nor showed a higher level of 'intimacy' between the two nations, as Foreign Minister Celso Amorim had announced. But the visit showed that the contact between the two presidents became more fluid and informal. The result of such a personal affinity will only be noticed after March 31, when Lula will arrive in Washington for an official meeting with Bush in Camp David.... Only time will be able to reveal if the cooperation agreement in the biofuel area will truly become a strategic partnership and bring benefits to Brazil from the transformation of ethanol into a commodity and the opening of markets. Bush's visit to Sao Paulo indicated that he has little power to respond to Latin America's demands." ¶4. "Beyond Ethanol" Liberal, largest national circulation daily Folha de S. Paulo (3/10) editorialized: "The memorandum of cooperation on ethanol signed by President Lula and Bush is a generic and unpromising document. What saves it from irrelevance is the context in which it was signed. The partnership to develop new technologies, the transfer of productive know how to Latin American and Caribbean nations and the dialogue to make ethanol a global commodity have gained importance due to changes in the energy policy of the world's two largest economies. The European Union has ratified its plan to use at least 10% of biofuels in transportation by 2020. The US intends to add 20% of renewable fuels to gasoline by 2017. Japan is just awaiting a sign of confidence from the world market to announce a similar public policy.... Therefore, it is natural that Brazil privilege agricultural negotiations in both the Doha Round and its relations with the US. But in the opportune strengthening of relations with Washington, Brazil should have more comprehensive and strategic goals. Brazil and the US - responsible for the FTAA fiasco - are the only actors with the conditions to relaunch a trade liberalization initiative in the Americas." ¶5. "Much Ado About Nothing" Center-right national circulation daily O Estado de S. Paulo (3/10) maintained: "Bush's capability to substantially reduce his administration's lack of attention to Latin America in the second term is negligible. The FTAA is gone and it is very unlikely that ethanol will be the fuel of a new effective alliance between the US and its southern neighbors. What really matters is that Bush does not have and will not have political power in the US to go from words to action.... The executive powers he abuses in foreign and military policies do not extend to the trade arena.... Now that the ethanol bubble - which had served to create the mirage that Brazil would finally ascend to the First World through biofuel - has been emptied, what remains from Bush's visit to Sao Paulo is a climate of much ado about nothing. There is no doubt that Hugo Chvez's influence has forced Bush to change his policy towards Latin America, a region he ignored after September 11." McMullen