In April 2009, the richest countries in the world got together for the G20 Summit in London. After lunch, when world leaders were informally chatting, US President Barack Obama shook hands with Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, then-president of Brazil. Smiling and in good spirits, Obama called Lula the “most popular politician on earth� and attributed the fact to his “good looks.� “Love this guy,� said Obama.

Brazil was looking good back then. Having kept former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso’s economic policies, Lula invested in social programs and used his charisma to promote Brazil—and himself—internationally, traveling to more than 80 countries and trying to project a stronger and more influential presence among the world’s biggest powers.

But with the election of Dilma Rousseff, a presidential candidate supported by him, Lula and Brazil’s dream turned into a nightmare. ¸é´Ç³Ü²õ²õ±ð´Ú´Ú’s government was involved in many corruption scandals, and due to a combination of legal problems and a complete lack of political talents, it ended prematurely shortly after her second term began. President Rousseff was impeached in 2016.

Without the necessary talent—or patience—for foreign policy, ¸é´Ç³Ü²õ²õ±ð´Ú´Ú’s government fell into a void internationally, and her disastrous administration also brought down her creator. Lula and his allies are facing many accusations of corruption, and his international image melted like ice under Copacabana’s sun.

With ¸é´Ç³Ü²õ²õ±ð´Ú´Ú’s impeachment, Michel Temer, vice-president during both of her terms, took office and became the president of Brazil. One of his first and most decisive decisions as Brazil’s leader was to nominate a prestigious name, Jose Serra, ex-governor and senator of São Paulo, as minister of foreign affairs.

Affonso Celso de Ouro Preto lived through part of this period abroad, but he was far from being an outsider. The diplomat worked and represented Brazil overseas during Fernando Henrique Cardoso’s government, but also through Lula and ¸é´Ç³Ü²õ²õ±ð´Ú´Ú’s terms as well.

In this special edition of The Interview, Ambassador Ouro Preto talksÌýabout the change in the Brazilian government’s foreign policies and the country’s presence in the world, among other strategic and important global issues.

*Ambassador Ouro Preto passed away on December 28, 2016, after a long fight against cancer. This is his last interview.

Felipe Machado: The new Brazilian government, with Mr. Jose Serra as the minister of foreign affairs, apparently made a significant change in the diplomacy area. Do you think the policy that was ruling before, which was more focused on the South-South relations, was adequate? What do you think of the new multi-player and more commercial approach?

Affonso Celso de Ouro Preto: I worked in the previous administration as ambassador-at-large for the Middle East, and I was also ambassador in China for the last years of President Lula’s administration, although I was designated by President Fernando Henrique Cardoso. I know Mr. Celso AmorimÌý[minister of foreign affairs during President Lula’s administration, from 2003 to 2010]Ìývery well and I admire him.

I would agree with almost all of the policy which was enforced then, and I have the impression that the change of foreign policy from the previous group to Michel Temer is not so great as it has been said.Ìý[Note: Rousseff had three ministers of foreign affairs during her government: Antonio Patriota, 2011-13; Luiz Alberto Figueiredo, 2013-15; and Mauro Vieira, 2015-16.]ÌýTo my understanding—and this is my personal opinion only as a Brazilian citizen—I would say that the focus has not changed so much. I see only as an important difference the change of relations with the so-called “Bolivarian states,â€� but I must admit that even during the previous government the relationship with the Bolivarians was not so deep.

Brazil was never a Bolivarian state, receiving instructions or orientation from the Venezuela government; [and] Brazil never had a confrontation with the United States. We have always had very correct relations, which is quite different to what happens in Venezuela. That friendship or tolerance that we had with the “Bolivarians�—which, by the way, was not such a close alliance as some Brazilian newspapers say—of course has quite changed. We see the position that Temer and Serra adopted in relation to Venezuela is much harder today.

But the other issues—yes, before we had an emphasis on the South-South relations, but this has not totally disappeared. We must always make a reference to the administration of Dilma Rousseff, because then practically there was no foreign policy—foreign policy disappeared with her. She even cut the budget of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by 70%. She seemed to dislike the subject deeply. I don’t know why.

So, we must compare Michel Temer’s policies to the foreign policy during the Lula government, because with Dilma Rousseff we have nothing to compare. There was no foreign policy then, it was a very sad gap. In comparison to Lula, except for the mentioned relation with the Bolivarian states, I do not see a deep change. China was the first country Temer visited after he was confirmed president. The second one was Argentina. This is exactly the same areas that were exploited by Lula, so I don’t see a big difference.

Machado: One of the strongest criticism to the previous administration was regarding the strong influence of the Workers’ Party’s (PT) vision on foreign affairs, which was accused of being more focused on the party’s ideology than on Brazilian national interest. Do you agree with that critic?

Ouro Preto: To a certain extension, yes. I would say there were two diplomacies during the Lula years. One was from Minister Celso Amorim, which was the diplomacy of the Brazilian state, and the other one was done by Marco Aurelio Garcia, which assisted the presidency and made contact with political parties overseas. So there was a parallel diplomacy, which does not exist anymore.

Serra is the minister of foreign affairs, and we also see that Temer, even without much experience in that area, has a certain interest in the subject. The fact that he immediately went to China, Argentina, Paraguay afterwards and then gave all his prestige by going to the BRICS [Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa] meeting in India confirms that there is not such a different vision from the diplomacy during the Lula administration.

This dual diplomacy was conducted by Marco Aurélio Garcia, the man in contact with the parties, but let’s remember [that] he had never negotiated any agreement between states. He was received at a high level by the minister of foreign affairs when I was the ambassador in China. When the [Chinese] minister of foreign affairs asked him about Brazilian policy, he replied that [the] subject would be a matter for the Brazilian minister of foreign affairs. He said he represented the government’s party but not the state.

I don’t know if this kind of speech also happened in other countries, but this is what I saw. And he had a very small staff, so he was not able to act as a minister. He was a kind of contact to the international left-wing parties in places such as Bolivia [and] Venezuela but always speaking in the name of PT.

It’s kind of hard to talk about the details of his relations with the minister of foreign Affairs. There was probably tension but it was not apparent—it was very discreet—and he never contradicted what the minister said. During the Dilma years, his staff in the presidency increased and then I believe he was practically the minister of foreign affairs.

President Lula had, or pretended to have, a genuine interest in foreign affairs. He was actively interested in the Middle East and in the BRICS, but he did not buy totally the ideas Celso Amorim, then his minister of foreign policy. The minister [was] a strong believer in the WTO [World Trade Organization], so perhaps that is why he did not give such a great importance to regional treaties, to the European Union or to the United States. He still believed that a new round of negotiations with WTO would come up. This is an idea that has, more or less, disappeared nowadays.

This might be another difference comparing to the new diplomacy: the faith in WTO. Celso Amorim was the ambassador in [the] WTO for many years—he understood how the WTO worked and believed that progress could be easier achieved through [the] WTO than with agreements through blocs of countries.

The idea of [the] WTO now has not been forgotten, but it has been placed in a rather modest place. The idea of agreements with blocs, such as the European Union or the ones regarding the Pacific Ocean area, has become almost impossible because of the worldwide crisis we live today. We see that as the reason for the Brexit decision; we see it on the rise of someone like Donald Trump; we see it in the European Union crisis. We are living in a world where nationalism and isolationism is growing everywhere and the moment is not favorable. We see the extreme right rising in Europe, so it’s not a moment where we should expect any breakthroughs in diplomacy. The European Union, for example, is going through such a crisis that it will take years to recover the true meaning of the expression “European Union.�

Machado: In that context, what do you see in the future for BRICS, the block formed with Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa?

Ouro Preto: The BRICS were never an alliance but a term created by the British economist Jim O’Neill. It had different political systems and was formed by three democracies, an authoritarian state, China, and a semi-authoritarian state, Russia. So they all are very different. Each of these big countries has special interests in the world. I see the BRICS as a forum where large, developing and emerging countries have in common their economic situation, but it never intended to be an alliance or even a trade area. It is a place where leaders can meet.

China has a special interest in BRICS because [it] wants to become more than a regional power. That’s why it insisted in having South Africa; China has many economic and political interests in the African continent. These countries are not really part of the internationalÌýstatus quo, not part of NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization]—they are somehow outsiders.

Russia wants to show that, despite the dissolution of the Soviet Union, [it] still remains a great power and can play an important role, especially in the Middle East, specifically in Syria. I think as a forum to discuss questions which are sometimes common to these countries, the BRICS will still go on.

The fact that President Michel Temer has been to the last meeting in India shows that, even though Russia is diabolized in the rest of the world, Brazil accepts it as part of the international community.

China has the special interest to present itself as a great nation, especially in Asia, so it created the BRICS bank to project the new Chinese power. The Chinese want to promote themselves not only as a great power, but as a power very close to reach the position of [a] superpower. It still cannot replace the United States, which for a long time will still beÌýtheÌýsuperpower, the biggest military establishment and the biggest disseminator of soft power, which China doesn’t have.

Even though I see a certain erosion of the United States as a superpower, it is and will still be for a long time the greatest power in the world. But it’s not as powerful as in the past. It cannot face one problem in Asia and another one in the Middle East simultaneously. It’s acting in the Middle East but it can’t send troops anymore. “No boots on the ground,� as [President Barack] Obama says. Nobody is asking to send the US Army to fight in Syria, as they have in Iraq, which by the way did not bring such a great results for the United States.

Machado: Since you’re talking about the United States, how do you see the relations between the US and Brazil? How can it evolve from now?

Ouro Preto: It’s becoming better with the Temer government, but it has never been so bad before. President Dilma Rousseff cancelled a visit the United States because of the “espionage� episode, which of course existed and it was unpleasant, but it was not such a drama. It happened also to Angela Merkel in Germany and it did not affect the relations between Germany and the United States.

The reaction here was exaggerated, in my opinion. The [relationship] between Brazil and the United States was never bad. Even in the Lula years, there was an understanding, an exchanging of points of view. There was never a confrontation or antagonism between the US and Brazil. There is a conscience in Brazil about the importance of the United States—that’s why Lula never acted as [Hugo] Chávez did, accusing the United States of being an “empire.� This word has never been used [in] Brazilian diplomacy. It has always been a fluid dialogue with the United States. There is now an increase in the degree of approximation, but not a creation of a totally new relationship.

Machado: Going a little bit further south, we’ve been having problems with another bloc of countries: the Mercosul. Relations between the countries have gotten especially harder since Venezuela joined the group.

Ouro Preto: I think it was a mistake to bring Venezuela into the Mercosul. Venezuela has isolated itself and its regime is in a terminal mode now. It will have a very slow agony. It’s surviving but in an agonizing state.

The idea of the Mercosul integration is an idea that any Brazilian government is obliged to accept. The relations with Argentina were not so good with previous Argentinean government, but with President Mauricio Macri it got much easier. The administrations of Lula and Cristina Kirschner had a political sympathy, but in trade terms they were a disaster. I believe this has changed.

The Mercosul, I would say, is important and essential but is not enough. Brazil must have good relations with its neighbors for many reasons, but also because the region is the greatest market for our industrialized goods. But we cannot limit our foreign policy to that. This is only a part of it all—something that is understood by the Temer government. The first commercial partner of Brazil is China, the second is the United States and the third is Argentina. So we are condemned—excuse me if this is a strong word—to have good relations with Argentina.

Machado: Mr. Ouro Preto, do you believe that the world today has a tendency for “commercial diplomacy�? It seems that what we called “diplomacy� in the past was a bit more focused in the political side of the relations between countries, and now we have a more economical approach to the negotiations.

Ouro Preto: There has always been a certain amount of commercial interests—of “commercial diplomacy.� Perhaps it was not a priority, but it has always existed. One cannot replace the other; diplomacy will always be essentially political. The amount of trade in political diplomacy is growing, but it’s not substituting. Diplomacy will always be about the politics with a very powerful arm, which is trade. As a matter of fact, trade is also a political issue, so it’s nothing new to say that we’re not taking care of politics, just trade. Trade has always been part of diplomacy and of politics, so I don’t see such a deep change in that matter. I see a policy that is becoming more and more pragmatic, but it has always been a tradition of Brazil to be pragmatic in foreign policies. Brazil was not a member of NATO, but on the other hand it was not a member of the non-allied [Non-Aligned Movement] countries either. Brazil has mostly one big issue: reform of the Security Council at the United Nations [UN].

Machado: It became almost an obsession.

Ouro Preto: Yes, that obsession already existed during the Fernando Henrique Cardoso’s government, but it became a priority with President Lula. There is a consensus in Brazilian society that the Security Council, which is a creation of the Second World War context, has to change. Why [are] Germany and Japan not permanent members? But to change it is very difficult. The possible presence of India, for example, does not please China. I think it has lost the priority with the new Brazilian government. It still is an aim for the Brazilian diplomacy, but not so much anymore.

Machado: The Brazilian presence in Haiti, leading the United Nation peacekeeping mission known as Minustah, seemed to be a way to attest to the world that the Brazilian army could play a major part in an international operation.

Ouro Preto: The troops that are in Haiti were sent by the UN, and most of the operation was financed by the United Nations. Brazil could not send the troops without the support of the UN. But to be involved seemed a correct attitude; Haiti is the poorest country in the American continent. The troops have not been withdrawn by the Temer administration, but probably will decrease slowly its presence in the country. It certainly created a closer relationship with Haiti, which was a correct attitude. One of the consequences is that we have a certain amount of immigration from Haiti to Brazil, around 80,000 people. It’s a large number, but [it] is not so much for a country of more than 200 million. I don’t see any reaction against it in the Brazilian society, except perhaps in certain areas of São Paulo.

Machado: You mentioned immigration, which seems to be one of the biggest issues in the world nowadays. How do you see the actual crisis, and how is it different from other immigration movements from the past? Is it a natural consequence of globalization?

Ouro Preto: Immigration has become the main political issue in the First World. I think globalization has stopped. With the policies failing in Europe and also in the United States, immigration explains the Brexit, it explains the debate about the succession in France, and it explains the defeat of Mrs. Merkel in the last local elections in Germany.

Immigration has stopped globalization. The rich countries don’t know how to face it. With the war in Syria and other conflicts that are not solved yet, like Afghanistan, we see the biggest immigration problems since the Second World War. People running away from their respective countries and finding war in front of them. Even the pope criticized the European attitude. But the fact is that this is an issue that will not disappear so soon.

And this means also to a certain extent that Europe is becoming small. Europe—except perhaps one country, Germany—is giving up what it was in the past. To me, the Brexit episode represents the policy of a “Little England,� which is watching England [the United Kingdom] becoming a second-rate country. Isolationist policies have been a reality in certain countries of Western Europe for the last 50 years, but they are accelerated now.

Machado: Besides the issue of immigration, the world also faces the fear of terrorism. How do these two problems relate to each other?

Ouro Preto: They were born together, of course. One is used as a pretext to defend the other, but they are not quite the same. When I was younger, in the ’50s, I studied in France and the main issue back then was also terrorism because of the Algerian War. And the conflict was finally lost by France, when the country admitted the independence of Algeria. General [Charles] de Gaulle, a conservative politician and a very intelligent man, accepted the independence of Algeria and the fall of the French Empire, and that kind of terrorism disappeared from France during 30 years.

Yes, it came back again, but it’s not something so new either in Europe. [The] UK had the Irish terrorism; Spain had the ETA. They are not quite the same, of course, but the concept of terrorism is not so new to Europe. It has been a reality, in different forms, for a long time. Now, it became the Muslim terrorism, which frightens and also contains a certain amount of prejudice. It reflects the situation in the Middle East. So, how do we solve these many crises of the region? Because we have the one that has never been solved, and I don’t know how it would be solved, which is the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

Machado: It seems that the Israeli-Palestinian crisis was the main focus of international attention in the Middle East for a long time, but not as much anymore. It seems that there are so many crises in the region—Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan—that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was left aside for a while. Do you agree?

Ouro Preto: There is a strong interest in changing the government in Syria. [Bashar al-]Assad is a leader who has been accused of being a bloody dictator, which is probably true. But all the others in the region are also. To characterize the government of Syria as a dictatorship is false for a simple reason: they all are. You hardly can say that the main enemy of Assad, Saudi Arabia, is a democracy.

So, I see the Syrian crisis mainly as a dispute between the United States and Russia to see who will be the main power in the area. [The] United States [has] allies such Saudi Arabia and Egypt, but Syria is firmly linked to Russia. That’s why [Vladimir] Putin wants Assad to stay in power. Putin wants to keep Syria not as a satellite, which it has never been, but as a country under Russian influence. [The] United States and Israel want to put down the Syrian government to transform it in a kind of “Saudi Arabia� instead.

Machado: And then, right in the middle of all of these, you have a common enemy to them all: ISIS [Islamic State].

Ouro Preto: Yes, as a paradox, ISIS is fought by both sides. And they can’t stop ISIS. There is a complication with Turkey, which wants to finish with the Kurds, and the Kurds are the main allies of the United States in the fight against ISIS. There is a problem with the presence of Iran, which has always been an enemy of ISIS. So, you have a war where Russia, Iran and the United States are fighting the same enemy, ISIS, but [at] the same time they disagree among themselves.

Because ISIS is a dream but also shows something dramatic that was born after the Arab-nationalism. The movement, which began with [Gamal Abdul] NasserÌýin the ’50s, was not religious. But since all these regimes from the region failed in the conflicts against Israel, the power of religion became stronger and stronger. Nasser was never religious; he was a nationalist.

The non-religious regimes, such as Iraq and Syria, have always been contested by religious movements. They consider that the non-religious parties had failed in the great fight against Israel. And Israel, to a certain extent, helped the religious movements. Hamas was helped by Israel because they thought that it would become rather a benign force in opposition to nationalism—although it was not exactly what happened. It also happened with the United States in Afghanistan, who supported the religious movements in their fight against Russia.

So, all these religious movements were helped by the West in the beginning. Suddenly they escaped their control and now they became the main force in the Middle East. Something ironic and dramatic.

Machado: Going back to Brazil, how do you see the country in this global context? We have a new government that took office after a controversial process of impeachment, which was called by the opposition and by a few countries in the region a “coup d’état.�

Ouro Preto: That was false, of course. It was not a coup d’état.

Machado: Yes, but how do you see Brazil’s rise in the future, looking into a further and historical long term?

Ouro Preto: Brazil has lost importance since the Lula years. Brazil is not a member of the Security Council and it has never been a military power. Brazil has always been a political-economic middle-size power, but it lost that position with President Dilma Rousseff. We’ll recover the position of a middle-size power, I think, with Temer.

What is the future of Brazil? Brazil has been the eighth or ninth economy of the world—it depends [on] the exchange rate we use. But Brazil is condemned to look over its boundaries. It’s a middle-size power so it will have an interest in the rest of the world. It can’t totally wash its hands from the Israeli-Palestinian problem—it must have opinions on that. It’s condemned to have an opinion on the Syrian War also. On the issues of globalization, a concept which is in a very difficult situation after the rise of nationalism, Brazil will be obliged to have a certain role in strategic global issues.

About the reform of the Security Council, I don’t think that in the next 10 or 20 years something will happen—there is too much opposition to that. I see the position of China, for example, that wants to be the only country from East Asia, and it will not accept the presence of Japan. I don’t see any change for the Brazilian position at the Security Council to achieve its goal.

Brazil will still have good relations with the United States. We will also try to have good relations with Europe, which is not easy in trade terms because France opposes Brazil in order to protect its agriculture. It will be very hard to overcome France’s resistance because they say that if they open their door to Brazil, it will ruin France’s agriculture.

Brazil will try to have good relations even with countries that are not too sympathetic to this administration, such as Bolivia. But Bolivia understands that it cannot look for a confrontation with Brazil. So, Brazil will always have a weight in Latin America. Brazil will not become a great power, but a middle-size power respected by the rest of the international community. This will oblige Brazil to have opinions on the African issues, on the Nigerian civil war, on the Middle East, on the quest of immigration. Brazil cannot condemn itself to a parochial situation.

We have a certain amount of confrontation with Venezuela now, but Venezuela stands in a very special situation since [it] is a dying regime, even [though] the agony could last a long time. What Venezuela says or means now doesn’t have great importance. And Brazil will always be guided by something it has always had, which is a great amount of pragmatism—not by ideological criteria.

Brazil will have good relations with Cuba, which is showing to be [on] the verge of change, at least in economic terms. But it will not look for confrontation with Cuba either. Cuba has played an important role in the negotiations for the peace deal with FARC in Colombia, and Brazil has been absent of that. It’s a big, big mistake. Brazil, which has a large frontier with Colombia and has an obvious interest in the country, has been absent in the previous government and also now. After being away from the negotiations with FARC, why [are] the discussions with the ELN, the second guerrilla group in Colombia, taking place in Ecuador? There’s no reason for that, and it shows a total absence of Brazil.

Brazil is slowly recovering—and I hope it will with Michel Temer, who has much more interest in foreign policy than Dilma Rousseff—but it will never be either an [alignment] policy with any bloc nor ideological policy either. We’ll be only pragmatic. Brazil will grow up at least to the position it had in the past—perhaps a little more.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ô¹Ï’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:

The post Brazil at Home and Abroad appeared first on 51³Ô¹Ï.

On August 3, 1992, a Petrel airplane crashed near the city of Oshkosh, Wisconsin, during the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) AirVenture fair. Two people died. According to the (NTSB) report, the cause of the accident was “inadequate quality control� of the tail boom as it was constructed with “only four of the six required carbon fiber laminate plies.� The tail boom came assembled from the Petrel kit manufactured in Brazil by Scoda Aeronautica.

In July 2016, 24 years later at the same AirVenture fair, thousands of airplane aficionados and the aircraft homebuilt/experimental community were exchanging information about their new sets of wings, light sport aircraft (LSA) models and engines. LSAs are a wide variety of aircraft, including two-seat, ultra-light designs and powered parachutes, antiques and classics. But unlike in America, where even experimental manufacturers have to follow minimum security standards, in Brazil they easily fly over our heads but under the inspections radar.

Among them, promoting and selling airplanes to the American market, was a Brazilian company named Super Petrel USA. In 1992, the same company had a different name: Edra Aeronautica.

Edra Aeronautica, which changed its name to Scoda Aeronautica in 2015 and is now called Super Petrel USA, is only one of the many Brazilian aircraft manufacturers that endangers pilots and aircraft owners by offering poor quality products.

A deeper analysis reveals that the sources of these problems are not only the Brazilian companies that do not follow international aviation rules, but the Brazilian legislation itself, or rather the lack of it. The sector’s regulation in Brazil is inadequately conducted by (ANAC), a regulatory agency similar to the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in its duties, but quite different in its organization.

Investigating Accidents

In Brazil, the aeronautical authority for all aircraft accidents investigations (civilian or military) is CENIPA—the Brazilian Air Force department. On the other hand, the aeronautical authority for regulation and enforcement is the civilian ANAC. Due to this, the mixture of civil and military aviation authorities, the proper prevention and, eventually, investigation of aeronautical accidents do not work in harmony. CENIPA does not investigate experimental/homebuilt accidents as a rule, because these pilots fly over restricted areas at their own risk. For that reason alone the agency should be stricter toward the companies that manufacture them, but there is no data and for this segment of the aviation industry.

Because there are no official records, it is difficult to assess how many accidents involving experimental planes occur in Brazil. We only hear about the ones involving well-known people, like the one that killed Roger Agnelli and six members of his family in March of last year.

Moreover, the same experimental industries create ANAC regulations for the experimental/homebuilt segment. The are the aircraft owners, kit assemblers and importers, and plane producers like Edra/Scoda/Super Petrel USA.

This is just another proof of how chaotic Brazil’s experimental aircraft industry is. It starts with the regulation of LSAs—Aeronaves Leves Esportivas (ALE) in Brazil. To be a LSA, among other characteristics, you have to follow a set of rules set by (ASTM), but ANAC simply allows all Brazilian experimental manufacturers to certify themselves as ALE even though .

Because there are no official records, it is difficult to assess how many accidents involving experimental planes occur in Brazil. We only hear about the ones involving well-known people, like the one that killed Roger Agnelli and six members of his family in March of last year. Agnelli was the president of Vale, the world’s . His experimental airplane, a Comp Air 9 turboprop monoplane, slammed into two residential homes minutes after taking off from an airport in the heart of São Paulo, despite Brazilian air law experimental airplanes to fly over populated regions.

Preventable Tragedies

In January of 2015, Brazil faced another tragedy that could have been prevented had the system of regulations worked properly. An accident with a Super Petrel killed a 19- year-old pilot—one of the rare accidents with experimental airplanes that were investigated by CENIPA. Analysis of these items by certified mechanics and engineers revealed other problems concerning the Petrel/Super Petrel model and the Edra/Scoda quality control: its fuselage is not made of carbon fiber, as it is advertised; the aircraft has non-aeronautical components; Super Petrel does not have a fuel indicator for each of its three tanks, to name but a few.

Also, the legislation analysis revealed that the sources of these problems were related to the sector’s regulation in Brazil—ANAC again.

A few months later, representing (Abrapavaa), the pilot’s father denounced ANAC at the Brazilian federal Senate, leading to changes in the experimental/homebuilt regulatory environment. The key step is the proposed ban on experimental aircraft sales to customers, as suggested by a special committee responsible for the initial hearings during the discussion of the new Brazilian Aeronautical Code law project.

The CENIPA official report also revealed information regarding the manufacturer of the aircraft: Although there was a mandatory —the equivalent of a recall—warning that the company should replace the engine’s fuel hose and that the “non-compliance with these instructions could result in … fatal injury.� Edra/Scoda informed that the piece was replaced during aircraft production, but the report shows that it was not replaced, with the flight ending in anticipated fatality.

Next August, the Senate will start to discuss the reform of the . Before the politicians vote on the proposal, an expert commission with strong general aviation representation is going to propose an updated legal code governing the industry. It is more than obvious that the current, 30-year-old Code of Aviation (CBA) needs to reflect the new developments such as increased air passenger traffic and new technology such as drones.

But nothing will be more helpful to the Brazilian society than a good review of the prevention and regulation laws concerning accidents related to experimental or fake LSA aircraft—a problem that hangs over all of our heads.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ô¹Ï’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:Ìý

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. YourÌýÌýis tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be aÌý.

The post Brazil’s Aviation Industry Flies on Wings of Trouble appeared first on 51³Ô¹Ï.

“There are three sides to every story: mine, yours and the truth,� as my high school teacher used to say. But in the information age, the most important asset to public opinion is not the truth, but the “narrative.� It doesn’t matter what the facts are, but what one publicizes as “truth�—in politics that means spreading an easier-to-believe version than your opponent.

The problem starts when that version of a fact is not only false, but is a rhetorical device created only in order to escape from justice. As an old propaganda master once said, “Tell a lieÌýoften enough and it will become the truth.â€� This strategy is prevalent in Brazil today, and that is exactly what Dilma Rousseff has been doing since her presidential impeachment on May 12.

False Narrative

According to the law, she could return to office in 180 days. But it is doubtful even she believes that will happen. Vice-President Michel Temer has taken over the presidential office and begun to clean up the house. For instance, he has announced the elimination of useless cabinets (like the Ministry of Fishing), many of which were created only to accommodate the ruling Workers’ Party- (PT) affiliated members. The more members hired, the better, since the party charges 20% of their salary to back up party expenses.

Removed from Brazil’s presidency, Rousseff has declared herself “the victim of a coup d’état.� Her message is not only false, but immoral. It’s a desperate cry from someone only interested in saving her own skin, even if that means dragging the country’s image through the gutter and making Brazil look like a stereotypical banana republic.

The most painful effect of this speech is seeing serious media players around the world buying into this false narrative. To see Bolivarian leaders such as Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro or Raúl Castro backing ¸é´Ç³Ü²õ²õ±ð´Ú´Ú’s speech is nothing new. Brazil has been investing millions of dollars in these countries’ infrastructures for years. It hurts to read texts such as the May 14 editorial from the British newspaper , saying that “male prejudice against a female leader certainly played their part in ¸é´Ç³Ü²õ²õ±ð´Ú´Ú’s impeachment.â€� No facts, no quotes, and nothing that justifies the claims. Dilma Rousseff being a woman has never been an issue in Brazil. It only confirms the narrative being peddled by her.

Marketing Power

¸é´Ç³Ü²õ²õ±ð´Ú´Ú’s downfall started with the man that handed her power—ex-President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva. Although he was presented in the international media as a great and popular leader who took care of the poor, many Brazilians knew he was simply surfing the good wave from the financial revolution started by the success of Plano Real—the stabilization program created by ex-President Fernando Henrique Cardoso in 1994. Lula was elected in 2003 and made Dilma Rousseff his successor in 2010.

© Shutterstock

She was marketed to the Brazilian people as a “great manager�—probably the biggest lie propagated by her government. You could mention dozens of facts that destroy this “great manager� image, . Before becoming Lula’s chief of staff and then president herself, Rousseff was minister of energy and president of the Petrobras Administrative Council. Petrobras is Brazil’s largest company and Dilma was President Lula’s key person in matters pertaining to the multibillion-dollar oil industry.

In 2014, the so-called “great manager� voted (as president of the Petrobras Administrative Council) in favor of a contract to buy 50% of a refinery in Pasadena, Texas, for $280 million from a Belgian company that had paid $43 million only one year earlier. The decision cost Petrobras $1.2 billion—in a single deal. Rousseff tried to justify the “mistake� by saying she did not have sufficient information and was not briefed correctly. One would have to be very naïve to believe her … let’s say “narrative.�

Today we know where most of the money had gone. The company announced last year it lost over $2 billion between 2004 and 2012. That’s an astounding . How many people can you buy with that much money?

Things have only worsened. In 2014, Petrobras announced losses of $7.2 billion in its first audit following the government’s . In 2015, losses were up to $9.6 billion.

“Petrobras’s problem isn’t about oil or finance, it’s about trust. The first thing the company needs to do is recover its credibility because today the market doesn’t believe it,� , chief analyst at the consulting firm Gradual Investimentos, in a story run by Business Insider.

Clean Hands

The government’s “narrative�—or fiction—tries to sell the idea that Rousseff has not committed any crimes. But that is only because she has not yet been charged. However, it was the ruling party and its coalition partners who appointed their own candidates to Petrobras’s most important executive positions. Led by Paulo Roberto Costa, a former director who became a whistleblower after being , the executives diverted funds valued up to 3% of contracts to PT and its allies. Some of the . You read that right: The company’s directors diverted more than $100 million each to Swiss bank accounts, while others bought paintings and sculptures. It must be comfortable having a position in the left-wing party while you buy art collections with the people’s money.

Is the Brazilian Congress that voted for her impeachment crowded with other corrupt politics? Yes, there is no doubt about that. Was the session that decided her impeachment a sad political circus that the country will want to forget as soon as possible? Definitely.

Operation Lava Jato (Car Wash) investigated the Petrobras scandal, and has lead to at public companies such as Banco do Brasil and Eletrobras. Lead by Judge Sergio Moro, Operation Lava Jato was inspired by Mani Pulite (Clean Hands)—an Italian operation that arrested hundreds of mafia criminals.

So far, Lava Jato has put more than 50 people in jail. Among them are powerful construction company owners and directors, as well as lobbyists and corrupt executives. And now that ¸é´Ç³Ü²õ²õ±ð´Ú´Ú’s cabinet has lost its legal shield, the number will probably increase. Will that number include some of Michel Temer’s allies? Probably. But the recent departure of Romero Jucá, minister of planning, shows that Temer will act as he has promised—to not intervene in Moro’s work.

Yes, Brazil’s largest construction companies were part of the scheme, and that leads us back to Lula. The ex-president, once called “The Man� by Barack Obama, faces multiple criminal investigations. It’s likely he received gifts such as a farm and a three-floor penthouse on a beach near Sao Paulo from construction companies. To obtain legal protection, Rousseff tried to name him chief of staff of her cabinet last March. But the real coup-to-be was a humiliating fail after a taped conversation between Lula and Rousseff was aired on a TV show—the police was folloeing Lula in other ongoing investigations—and a . Due to the revelations from the scheme, .

Paying the Price

¸é´Ç³Ü²õ²õ±ð´Ú´Ú’s impeachment aside, the truth is that her government was a tragedy for Brazil. Under Lula’s presidency the country followed Fernando Henrique Cardoso’s economic policy and turned his successful stabilization plan into long-needed social welfare programs. But the long term revealed his policy to be a house of cards. Under the “great manager,â€� Brazil reverted back to its previous abysmal state.

Protests in SAO PAULO, BRAZIL, 2015 © Shutterstock

has risen from 6% in 2014 to nearly 11% in 2015; from 6,41% in 2014 to 10,6% in 2015. to its lowest level in 25 years. Financial consultant firms fear this number will be even worse in 2016. According to the new president’s economic team, the .

On top of all that, the Zika virus threatens Brazil a mere three months before the Olympic Games begin in Rio de Janeiro. Both international and Brazilian companies have refrained from making additional investments since the beginning of the year, when ¸é´Ç³Ü²õ²õ±ð´Ú´Ú’s government lost all its credibility: Rousseff has been accused of manipulating government accounts in 2014, breaking , which “establishes public finance rules enforcing responsibility is fiscal management.â€�

It’s important to note that ¸é´Ç³Ü²õ²õ±ð´Ú´Ú’s financial maneuvering took place before and during the 2014 presidential campaign, which means she deliberately masked her accounts to fool the voters who believed the national economy was doing fine and that the country was safe with a “great managerâ€� at its helm.

To explain it in simple words: If you break a law, it’s a crime. If it’s a crime, there is legal basis for impeachment. It’s that simple. No conspiracy theories or complex narratives can change that. Is the Brazilian Congress that voted for her impeachment crowded with other corrupt politics? Yes, there is no doubt about that. Was the session that decided her impeachment a sad political circus that the country will want to forget as soon as possible? Definitely.

But there’s also no doubt a coup d’état did not happen in Brazil. The country suffered a coup in 1964, when tanks rolled through the streets, journalists were censored, thousands of people arrested and generals sat in the president’s chair. Brazilians know what a coup d’etat is. We even had the impeachment of President Fernando Collor de Mello for corruption in 1992. After examining both events, it’s not very hard to picture how Dilma Rousseff will go down in history.

While the fault for ¸é´Ç³Ü²õ²õ±ð´Ú´Ú’s impeachment lies in part with the PT and Lula, it mainly pertains with her. Her inability to play the realpolitik game, her economic incompetence and her silence over flourishing corruption (assuming that it wasn’t a common occurrence inside her own office). The creators of ¸é´Ç³Ü²õ²õ±ð´Ú´Ú’s “narrativeâ€� should have advised her to pay more attention to the famous political motto, “It’s the economy, stupid.â€� If they did, they should have also added, “And don’t forget the politics, stupid.â€�

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ô¹Ï’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: Ìý/ Ìý

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. YourÌýÌýis tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be aÌý.

The post Dilma ¸é´Ç³Ü²õ²õ±ð´Ú´Ú’s Impeachment Was Not a Coup appeared first on 51³Ô¹Ï.

If you’re planning to watch Under the Skin because you’ve heard it’s a film about sex and that Scarlett Johansson appears naked, then think again. This ambitious masterpiece from Jonathan Glazer is a movie like no other, with no defined characters or even a logical plot. It’s more of a perception — an interpretation each viewer will form based on his or her own experiences.

Under the Skin is what we call an “open artwork,� with several possible inferences. This must have been the reason why Glazer has been compared to the master Stanley Kubrick — besides the visual and sound are inspired by the final sequence of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

³Ò±ô²¹³ú±ð°ù’s Under the Skin is not a silent film, but it could be. The dialogue of the narrative says nothing or, rather, doesn’t drive the story to any logical conclusion. The film takes place on the screen in a grandeur and perverse beauty of images, but also in the minds of viewers. “What is happening?â€� “Who are these people?â€� “What does that mean?â€� These are questions that require the attention of the audience during the screening of the film, and not just after its end, as is often common in cinema.

So, what’s the story? Johansson’s mission is to avenge a woman who appears to have been raped and left by the side of the road. She wears the clothes of the victim and drives a van through the inhospitable landscapes of Scotland, seducing and eliminating men who are interested in female beauty alone.

Johansson’s apathetic character is a woman composed ​​only of skin and beauty. She exists for the sole purpose of punishing men who approach women from this superficial perspective. After being naively attracted to the trap, these men disappear into an oily, black substance that appears to be made of amniotic fluid. Birth and death, womb and tomb, soul and sex — the dialectic discussion is an integral part of the film as much as the special effects disguised as contemporary art.

Having consummated revenge, Johansson leaves behind more and more victims. In one case, a family is torn apart in front of her character without causing any trace of emotion. As the movie goes on, however, we see that some men do not deserve to be punished. One of them, physically deformed, has never even committed the “sin� of being sexually involved with women. His skin, his outer beauty, is “defective,� so he deserves to be saved because his hands are beautiful and noble.

Another man treats Johansson with respect and raises in her a feeling she had never imagined was possible to feel. But her character is still suffering. Even this charming prince, who leads her to the only romantic part in the movie — a visual joke by Glazer, who stages the scene in a castle — cannot make her feel human or complete. She is, and always will be, just a beautiful girl; a stereotype for female sex appeal. Johansson does not exist under the skin.

Copyright © Shutterstock. All Rights Reserved

Scarlett’s Scarlett

Incidentally, Johansson deserves special praise for the film. She is not only one of the most popular actresses in Hollywood, but also one of the biggest sex symbols in the film industry. Acting in an experimental project like ³Ò±ô²¹³ú±ð°ù’s movie was an exercise of professional maturity, but also a test of her courage and artistic ambition. The actress is clearly a beautiful woman, but in the movie she doesn’t rely on her sex appeal to sustain its performance. She is a little overweight, her hair is dyed black and she wears contact lenses. She plays the role of an average woman —a girl next door, perhaps.

The intention from Glazer is to show her as a representative of women in a more universal way. Watching the flick, we even forget that the character is played by Scarlett Johansson, the bombshell from Vicky Cristina Barcelona and Match Point. It must have been difficult for a person accustomed to the star system to leave her ego aside, go to Scotland and suffer under the heavy weather by hunting strangers. Yes, Glazer used hidden cameras and the people initially approached on the streets were unaware they were being filmed.

Images recorded by those hidden cameras give even greater strangeness to Under the Skin, a sense that something really unexpected could happen at any moment. As if like a documentary made about the ritual of human seduction, and the stakes we never even consider because it would be something too rational.

Glazer chose to shoot in Scotland, and the climate of the country is a perfect dramatic frame for the story. No sunny days or storms — just rain and fog. Even the beautiful scenery of beaches and forests is strained, as if nature is an enemy that humanity has to fight against for space to exert its fullness.

Scotland is a hard place, as is the language of its inhabitants. There is no classic winter with pure white snow and beautiful landscapes, but images of personal coldness that reveal loneliness not only geographically, but spiritually as well. Yes, we’re back to the soul vs. the body quest, one that permeates the entire film.

When the story comes to an end, we are left with more questions than answers and more reflections than affirmations. In fact, the answers do not entirely satisfy the intellect even after completion of the film. This must have been ³Ò±ô²¹³ú±ð°ù’s very intention: constraining thought that he intuitively fills with silence. Despite all this, there’s a story here, immersed deeply under the skin of the characters and drowned in the same black liquid that swallows men seduced by Johansson’s character

Is the film a critique of the oppressive behavior of men in a male-dominated society? Yes, I’m sure this could be one interpretation. Does it aim to promote the appreciation of inner beauty (soul) vs. outer beauty (skin)? Yes, this can be another complementary reading that the plot allows. Does the film deal with the loneliness of those who cannot love or feel for others? Yes, this too. There are so many layers of understanding and examination that it is easy to imagine the director himself would have trouble defending a single focal point.

But isn’t that the real goal of an artwork? Often, the experience of spending two hours watching a strange film like this may not be the most enjoyable. However, when a movie is good, clever and challenging, it generates a debate of ideas and a great intellectual pleasure that is worth the effort. What was initially a period of two hours of tension, doubt and curiosity, instead becomes a stimulus for discussions that push the boundaries of cinema.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ô¹Ï’s editorial policy.

/

The post What Lies Under Scarlett Johansson’s Skin? appeared first on 51³Ô¹Ï.

I confess that I didn’t want to write this, but the circumstances and some personal angst force me to do so. Seeing all the buzz surrounding the FIFA World Cup as Brazil head into the last 16, I couldn’t help but remember the finals in South Africa in 2010, an event I had the pleasure to cover.

I went to several games, traveled around the country and saw much of the new infrastructure. Despite many problems, I came to realize that South Africa understood the importance of hosting a mega sports event and took the opportunity in several areas with enough professionalism. Was there corruption? Of course. But South Africa, famous in recent history for being the birthplace of apartheid and the country of Nelson Mandela, became the first African nation to hold the World Cup. And that slightly improved their position amid international public opinion.

Fast-forward to 2014 and we see failure after failure by the Rousseff government. The World Cup in Brazil was announced in 2007. Yes, seven years ago. What have we done during this period? A few overpriced stadiums here. A shameless airport renovation there.

What was announced as the “World Cup paid by companies� soon became the World Cup paid by the government. That’s right: Brazilian citizens are paying billions in tax so that FIFA bosses are satisfied. And the worst thing is the ghost of white elephants: What is Brazil going to do with those “FIFA standard� stadiums in cities where there’s not even a popular football team like Manaus or Cuiabá? “Yes, but that happened in South Africa too.� But are we so foolish that we can’t learn from the mistakes of others?

Despite the goals flying in, the truth is Brazil has already lost the World Cup. Brazilians have thrown in the trash the opportunity to invest in infrastructure, public transportation and decent services. The Brazilian government didn’t plan anything in advance and then tried to rush things at the eleventh hour — or in stoppage time, if you prefer. I am ashamed for the incompetence of our government, who don’t even know the meaning of “planning ahead.� Improvements in infrastructure are not only for foreigners or internal tourists. The World Cup could have been a legacy for Brazilians, if only it had been done correctly.

I wonder why we didn’t do it properly? Is it enough for us to be the “country of football�? Really? Is that enough for a nation? We proudly say that we are the only country to win the World Cup five times — possibly a sixth on July 13. We are proud that Brazil is the only national team that has participated in every World Cup. This is all said and done but, the way things are going, the only ones who will profit from the World Cup will be taxi drivers and English schools due to inflated prices.

In July 2010, then-President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva was asked about one of his promises: the bullet train between São Paulo and Rio. He said:

“The World Cup in Africa hasn’t even ended and you are already asking ‘where are the Brazilian airports? Where are Brazilian stadiums? Where are the Brazilian bullet trains? Where are Brazilian subways?’ As if we are a bunch of idiots who don’t know how to do things and set our priorities.�

Well, nearly two weeks into the World Cup, I’m still asking these questions but I don’t get an answer. So I guess, I must be an idiot. We, Brazilians, are millions and millions of idiots, according to Lula. Because I certainly can’t find the bullet trains, the new airports or the private stadiums.

And I feel sorry for tourists who have come to Brazil and want to rent a car. If one has a GPS, maybe he can get to a hotel — of course, that is if he doesn’t get robbed amid the country’s spiraling crime or if the car doesn’t sink into a pothole on the atrocious roads. Yes, we can’t even construct proper streets, so how can we build bullet trains?

Many nations use events like the World Cup to grow economically. If Brazil was an intelligent and honest country, we would have invested properly to improve the lives of Brazilians. Instead, the Rousseff government has spent over $11 billion on a World Cup. Unfortunately, we are too used to the “Brazilian way.� Who knows? Maybe we’ll do a better job in the 2054 World Cup.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ô¹Ï’s editorial policy.

/

The post Brazil Has Lost the World Cup appeared first on 51³Ô¹Ï.

Before September 11th, history was a process. Of course we have been through specific moments in time when it seemed that history books were being written in front of our eyes.  This happened in December 7^th of 1941, when the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor threw the United States into the Second World War. It was the same with June 28^th of 1914, when the murder of Franz Ferdinand von Österreich, Archduke of Austria-Este, triggered the first real world conflict. The main difference between these 20^th century events and September 11^th was what they represented in terms of consequences. They pitted countries against each other, whereas 9/11 set faceless enemies disguised as one of us against our way of life.

Forget also about the fall of the Berlin Wall, an event that started when the East German government announced, on November 9^th of 1989, that the citizens from the East could cross the boundaries and visit their relatives in West Germany. That was History at its best, sure; but it was not the beginning of an ideological revolution in post-modern society: it was the end of one. And a sad one, we must add.

September 11^th was the largest, most pivotal world event ever broadcast live while it was taking place. Those apparently primitive terrorists living in caves in Afghanistan understood better than anyone the power of image, the notion that the attack would replicate its power every time it was broadcast on TV. That is why I refer to our Age as B9/11 and A9/11: Before September 11^th the world was one, full of problems, but ‘understandable’ problems.  A few hours later we had no idea what was going on. The sequence of events that followed, better known as ‘President Bush’s War on Terror’, still continues.  . Ten years later,  this single event has resulted in  more than one hundred and sixty thousand people dead (amongst them soldiers and civilians) in two bloody wars, Afghanistan and Iraq. It has also produced the biggest problem for the American economy since the crisis of 1929: so far, more than 1.2 trillion US dollars have been spent to keep the war machine alive, almost 10% of the gigantic and problematic American debt. This reminds us of another terrible date: September 15^th of 2008, when Lehman Brothers went bankrupt.

Nineteen individuals armed with small knives and radical ideologies were responsible for the death of almost three thousand people and for harming more than twice that number. There are previous accounts of terrorism in  history, of course,  but that group of Islamic fundamentalists, led  by ex-Public Enemy number 1, Osama Bin Laden, produced more destruction from one blow than they could ever have dreamt possible, armed as they were with the knowledge that the attacks were more powerful because of their  media impact.    Besides the thousands dead and injured in the two wars, there were terrorist attacks in London and Madrid, an increasing movement of prejudice against Muslim believers, and more riots in the Middle East. However, perhaps the worst consequence for the human race was not measurable by the number of lifeless bodies. The worst impact from the attacks was the cycle of fear that swept the minds of our generation, caused by a face of hatred that most of the world had never seen. At least, not live, on every news channel across the planet.

The post B9/11 – A9/11 : Before Sep.11th – After Sep. 11th appeared first on 51³Ô¹Ï.