Brazil Will Attend DC Climate Meeting, But "US Does Not Represent Any New Path"

[hatrack]

RIO DE JANEIRO (Reuters) - Brazil on Tuesday played down the importance of a meeting on climate change called by U.S. President George W. Bush, and said the issue should be tackled at the United Nations.

Bush has called a meeting in Washington on September 27-28 to work out new greenhouse gas curbs. Brazil will attend but a senior official said on Tuesday it expects no change in the behavior of the world's leading greenhouse gas emitters.

"The U.S. debate does not represent any new path," said Joao Paulo Capobianco, executive secretary at the environment ministry. "If the United States opens the debate, it of course interests us, but we have to make clear our understanding that the place for such debate is in the United Nations," he said after a meeting on the environment held in Rio de Janeiro.

Bush has refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol for targeted greenhouse gas reductions, but he is calling for a long-term global goal to cut emissions and sees the meeting in Washington as the first of a series between polluting countries.

EDIT

http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKN0441954720070904

[razzleberry]

1. who writes this crap?

the act of a US President, or his representative,
signing a treaty, is meaningless.

the president decides if the treaty will be sent to the
Srnate, or not

[Peace Patriot]

2. With the success of democracy (leftist government) in South America, the environment

has become a much higher priority to government leaders and politicians in the region, and thus you have South American leaders actually speaking the truth on this issue, such as this--that the Brazilian rep expects no change in U.S. behavior or that of other major greenhouse emitters (i.e., the U.S./Bush is insincere in calling a meeting about it), and that the matter should be dealt with by an objective body that has the authority to impose fair and effective solutions.

I am especially glad to hear this from a Brazilian leader. Brazil has a leftist (majorityist) government, led by former steelworker Lula da Silva, who is friendly towards Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution (social justice, Latin American self-determination). However, in March of this year, when Bush visited Latin America--although he failed miserably on most counts (for instance, on convincing Latin American leaders to "isolate" Hugo Chavez and Venezuela)--he did seem to entice Lulu into a biofuels deal (corporate monoculture that will devastate small peasant farmers and parts of the Amazon). I don't know the status of that deal (which is opposed by peasant farmer groups, the indigenous, environmental and human rights groups, and the Bolivarians and other leftists), but it illustrates the tightrope that a politician like Lulu has to walk: he has millions of dirt poor people; they need jobs; he needs (or thinks he needs) deals with big investors.

Mowing down parts of the Amazon to create corporate monoculture biofuels, to feed the U.S.'s insatiable need for vehicle fuels, as a solution to global warming, is nuts, of course. And Bush clearly intended "divide and conquer" in his Latin American connivings. But Lulu needs development. It appeared to me that Lulu was shrewdly (from a certain perspective) using pressure on the U.S. from the left (the Bolivarians) to cut a deal with Bush that favors Brazil (at least short term). I oppose this deal and hope it doesn't happen, but it also makes clear how much the political landscape has changed in Latin America, especially in South America. The Bolivarians' strong advocacy and activism for Latin American self-determination gives countries like Brazil (also Chile)--who still want to play games with the U.S.--new leverage with the northern giant. As with Chile's copout (abstaining from the vote), under U.S. pressure, regarding Venezuela's seat on the UN Security Council, I hoped that the compromising leader--in that case Michelle Batchelet, in this case, Lulu--extracted good terms for their country and achieved something beneficial for their people. You can't always expect the best policy from leaders under such pressure. And you have to have some sympathy with countries that, for centuries, have gotten the short end of the stick (to say the least).

But the fact that these instances of Bushite "success" with Latin American governments are so RARE is the important point to notice. Uruguay turned Bush down flat. Paraguay (rightwing government!) took the opportunity to announce that it was joining the Bank of the South (--started by Venezuela to oust the World Bank/IMF from the region). Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Uruguay, Nicaragua, and Brazil (Lulu, in his own way) all expressed solidarity with Chavez and Venezuela, and even the rightwing president of Mexico felt obliged to lecture Bush in public on the SOVEREIGNTY of Latin American countries, using Venezuela as an example! This was likely a reference to a plot, hatched by rightwing forces in Colombia, in league with the Bush Junta, to assassinate Chavez and destabilize Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, just after the December '06 election in Venezuela (which Chavez won with 63% of the vote). Even Uribe, president of Colombia (fat with Bush "war on drugs" billions) felt compelled to distance himself from this plot. In other words, the Bolivarian concept of Latin American self-determination is so popular and so powerful that it is even attractive to rightwing governments--or, at the very least, they must pay lip service to it.

And it sounds to me--from this bit of news in the OP--that Brazilian leaders are well aware of the deviousness, lies, and double-dealing of the Bushites. Saying that the matter of global warming policy is properly handled by the UN is a slap in the face to the Bush State Department.