a policy of appeasement.
Why Does Brazil Want a Permanent Seat
in the UN’s Security Council?
The guy is a long-time known tyrant, a butcher of his own people, therefore when a wave of protests sweeps through the Middle East forcing two of his neighboring dictators to step down he vows to fight to the death.
Sitting on tens of billions of dollars in cash, the despot and his sons begin a cruel and relentless crackdown. First, he gives a substantial wage increase for government workers, then with the army, police and mercenaries he consolidates his grip on the capital city and goes on reconquering other small cities from rebels’ hands.
On retaking those cities his forces show no mercy, shelling any resistance and making house-to-house searches to kill whoever had joined the uprising.
When practically was left only one city under opposition control – but this time a city of 800,000 inhabitants - and the dictator’s forces were about to break into it: the western world moved quickly to prevent the worst.
What might have happened is anybody’s guess. But France, the Great Britain and the USA have preferred running risks than doing nothing and bearing the blame. In 1994, the world powers’ passivity allowed the genocide of about 800,000 Tutsis in Rwanda.
Thus, this troika got passed a UN’s Security Council resolution – with the abstentions of the BRIC plus the now peaceable Germany – permitting the enforcement of all necessary measures to protect civilians.
Since then, reaching now the third week of the intervention the coalition faces widespread criticism. One of the accusations was expected already: that they intervened in Libya because of oil; otherwise, they must do the same in other war-torn countries such as Ivory Coast and Sudan.
Inside America, the Obama administration that had come under attack for doing nothing was blasted after it did. The republicans who slammed him before for being hesitant and for letting the French take the leadership against Gadhafi, criticize him now for entering a war without a exit strategy and for bombing Libya but allowing Iran and Syria governments to do whatever they want with their people.
But it all is unfair, you can’t intervene everywhere even being the world’s superpower. You have to weigh up the pros and cons earlier and strike the first blow only if it is rewarding. However, the Libyan case was unique: a breakaway region surrounded by desert calls for a no-fly zone to avoid being massacred and continue fighting for freedom.
Non-interference would set a precedent for all embattled dictators to follow suit slaughtering their opponents. Furthermore, it would increase the growing perception that America is tough with allies and soft with enemies.
But what Brazil has to do with all that mess?
It has because Brazil is long demanding a permanent seat in the UN’s Security Council.
As a permanent member, beyond occupying an everlasting seat, a country is entitled to the power of vetoing any proposal of resolution voted by the Security Council. Thus, Brazil is requiring the perpetual right of meddling in other countries’ affairs.
Obviously, the uppermost reason why a state wants to be in this hot seat is to defend its own interests. Consequently, nothing explicitly contrary to a permanent member will ever be approved.
Nevertheless, although the simple existence of permanent members comes to be an aberration already, it would be a lot worse if as China and Russia the new ones do not have allegiance to democracy.
Brazil and India, two of the pretenders, are truly democratic regimes. But their foreign policies seem to follow China’s pragmatism that doesn’t care who is on the other side of a trade deal.
In fact, the Security Council must stick up for recognized universal values such as democracy, freedom and justice. And Brazil’s behavior that appeases dictators under the guise of being stimulating dialogue is not a good résumé to apply for membership.
A former Brazilian president, who already had been indulgent with Iran, suggested that in the Libyan crisis lacked someone to talk with Gaddafi. But speaking with a tyrant that has been in power for forty-two years about democracy does not appear to be a good idea. When peace talks take place, those sorts of people are used to mislead the insurgency only to suppress it afterward.
So, for the sake of the free world, Brazil’s upgrade of status would be good only if it exercised its new powers more frankly in favor of democratic rule.
ARTIGOS EM PORTUGUÊS
ARTIGOS EM INGLÊS
TRADUTOR DA PLOTSTATION
Plotstation's Sample Test
ver edição de ontem
Teste sua habilidade no inglês.
VOTE DOESN’T MEAN DEMOCRACY,
The most common excuse given by pretense democratic rulers is that their countries hold regularly fair elections. And such a claim is bought for many people, who tend to think that if anything those leaders were at least elected. But can we consider Russia, Venezuela and Iran democracies if their elections are in fact fair?
By definition the answer should be yes, nevertheless, we must analyze deeper what have to be the real meaning of a fair election to say so.
A fair vote presupposes that each of the events making up an election ought also to be fair. Therefore, we need to have for certain a correct count and the acceptance of the majority of the voters’ decision.
But only these two pillars cannot tell if a country is democratic or not, since judging by these parameters America would have been disqualified after failing to fulfill them when George W. Bush was first elected president.
The admittance of whoever wants to be candidate could be also a decisive element to be taken into account, however, every democracy has got its manners of culling candidacies. Hence that was left only a way to say if a country is democratic or not and that is by measuring its level of freedom.
Most of the people are ever minding their own business, seeking their basics or trying to get rich. Mostly, they are disenchanted and hopeless about politics thinking they waste their precious time in taking part in it.
The understanding of this behavior leaves politicians with two alternatives to be elected: to change people’s mentality or adapt their ideas to it. And, of course, that being much easier to do the latter almost all the pols have their stump speeches filled with assistance policies.
Nonetheless, so far, there is nothing wrong with these attitudes, both voters and politicians are looking for what they think to be better for them and in an ideal democratic regime one ought not to be deceiving the other. The problem begins when presidents eager to be reelected start manipulating the perceptions into changing the environment.
The taste of power is too sweet and so corrupting that once someone is taken to a position of authority, feelings such as vanity, pride and self-esteem commence having an overwhelming effect on them so that many cannot resist the temptation of trying to remain in office.
Obviously, would-be dictators do not see things that way; they use to rationalize the reasons by which they want to stay in power. And the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, is a classic example that illustrates the ascension of a despot.