news.ft.com By Raymond Colitt Published: March 4 2003 4:00 | Last Updated: March 4 2003 4:00

In four attempts over the last 14 years to win presidential elections, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was seen as too radical to govern Brazil. Now that he is in office, he is concerned at being seen as too conservative.

Having run on a platform of far-reaching social and economic change, Mr Lula da Silva has come under fire from critics on either extreme of the political arena. Austere economic policies including tough budget cuts and tight monetary policy, they say, are a continuation of the government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso, his social democratic predecessor.

In response, Mr Lula da Silva has gone out of his way in recent weeks to justify economic austerity and explain that his plans for a more equitable society will take time. Behind the message is an attempt to manage enormous expectations and sustain his popularity.

Last week the Lula da Silva administration fired back at critics with an advertising campaign on national television and radio that sought to justify his gradualist approach during the first two months in office. Comparing Mr Lula da Silva's reform plan with the restoration of a house, a young actress against the backdrop of a Brazilian flag said: "You cannot tear down all the old walls at once. You need a lot of patience and care." The one-minute television spot continued: "President Lula's commitment is not with haste but profound change with security and serenity."

Earlier in the week, Mr Lula da Silva sought to rebuff criticism that too much debate within his government was delaying proposals for structural reforms. "Structural reform will happen but it's like harvesting fruit," he said. "You cannot be hurried and pick it while it is still green. The people will taste it, not like it and spit it out."

During an unusual visit to Congress in February, Mr Lula da Silva sought to blame recent interest rate rises and draconian budget cuts on the threat of war in Iraq. Yet in the attempt, the Brazilian president sounded more of a continuity man than an agent of change, repeating almost verbatim the same justification Mr Cardoso had given Congress in 1999.

"Basically his words are the same as ours a few years ago," says Tasso Jereissati, a prominent senator in PSDB, the social democratic party. "I think it's great that Lula speaks our language," he mocks.

The PSDB launched its own media campaign, belittling Mr Lula da Silva's policies - particularly his flagship "zero hunger" social programme - as a continuation of their own. "The battle against hunger is not starting from zero," said José Anibal, PSDB president, in an advertisement also aired on national television. The PSDB's broadcast sought to showcase the party's achievements in education, housing and health during its eight years in government.

Radicals within Mr Lula da Silva's own Workers' party (PT) have been equally disappointed with their leader's about-face. A handful publicly criticised his choice of central bank chief, interest rate rises and reform plans to cut social security and labour benefits.

Mr Lula da Silva's public relations management in coming months will be the key to selling his ambitious legislative agenda to congress and the general public. For now, many are still giving him the benefit of the doubt and his new image as a moderate reformer seems to have worked for public opinion.

"The PT came into government with a number of untested projects and ideas but quickly had to adapt them to the adverse economic reality of the country," says Walder de Goes, a Brasilia-based political analyst. "It was inevitable this would trigger criticism but I think they are handling it well. I give Lula's honeymoon a year, which is more than many other presidents had."

www.csmonitor.com from the March 05, 2003 edition By David Buchbinder | Special to The Christian Science Monitor

CARACAS, VENEZUELA – When bombs blasted the Spanish Embassy and the Colombian Consulate in Caracas last week, Venezuelan officials denounced the attacks. They issued a flurry of statements insisting that affairs between Venezuela and the two nations hadn't been damaged.

But that wasn't saying much. Venezuela's foreign relations weren't very good to begin with. The powerful explosive devices dramatically punctuated the discord that exists between Venezuela and other countries, both in South America and overseas.

Because of his autocratic leanings, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez fell out of favor with the international community long ago. More recently, the international community appears to have fallen out of favor with Mr. Chávez.

"Chávez is willing to sever ties to the international community," says Miguel Diaz, a senior analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

In recent weeks, diplomatic noises coming from foreign capitals rose a notch with the detention of Carlos Fernandez, head of Venezuela's largest business-owners organization and a key leader of the 2-1/2-month general strike aimed at ousting Chávez that fizzled in early February. Cesar Gaviria, secretary-general of the Organization of American States (OAS); Spain's Foreign Minister Ana Palacios; and US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher all protested the arrest.

Chávez, in turn, blasted the governments of Spain and the US for "meddling" in Venezuela's affairs. He was so incensed that he threatened to break off diplomatic ties with Colombia, whose foreign minister the week before accused Chávez of meeting with Colombian rebels.

Two days later, both Colombia and Spain saw their diplomatic compounds in Caracas shattered by bombs; five people were injured. The US Embassy, citing a credible threat of an attack, closed down for a day. Leaflets found at the crime scenes warned American Ambassador Charles Shapiro, the OAS, the CIA, and anyone else who would listen that "the revolution doesn't need your selfish intervention." The Venezuelan government denies that its sympathizers were behind the blasts, but the fliers echoed Chávez's position: other countries involved are not to interfere in Venezuela's internal affairs.

"The only pressure he really feels and responds to is that coming from Venezuelans themselves to remove him from power," says Mr. Diaz. "Once that disappeared, there was really little that could move him."

From the beginning of his administration in 1998, Chávez raised eyebrows in foreign capitals by paying official visits to Muammar Qaddafi in Libya and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. While Venezuela's president has remained formally within the law, his opponents see his rewriting of the Constitution, his reshuffling of the supreme court, his crackdown on the media and, most recently, his jailing of political enemies as antidemocratic measures. His opponents worry that Chávez's demonization of them is leading to greater violence. On Sunday, a car bomb went off in the western oil city of Maracaibo, where many who were involved in the strike work and live. No one has claimed responsibility for the blast.

According to Michael Shifter, senior analyst with InterAmerican Dialogue in Washington, Chávez's strong-arm style has unnerved a region that saw more than its share of authoritarian regimes in the '80s and '90s. "You talk about rule of law and institutions, and you have this guy who comes on the scene and shows disdain for that, and says, 'I was elected by the people, and that's enough,' " Mr. Shifter says. "It's a nightmare for people in the region, because they've seen this movie before, and it doesn't have a happy ending."

Venezuela's status as one of the world's largest petroleum producers has allowed Chávez to be recalcitrant when foreign diplomats call for concessions. The US, long accustomed to being the dominant player in the hemisphere, has had to tread lightly in Venezuela ever since it welcomed a coup that temporarily ousted Chávez last April.

But some analysts note that the thrust of collective mediation efforts, such as those sponsored by the OAS, are remarkably in line with the diplomatic will of the United States.

"The 'international community' is often a euphemism for the 'United States,' and it's not that much different in this case," says Mark Weisbrot, codirector of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington. "Given the United States's hostility to Chávez, I think the [Venezuelan] government has been actually quite friendly and willing to work with everyone."

The government had been meeting with the opposition at talks mediated by the OAS, but last Wednesday government representatives presented a declaration rejecting international interference in Venezuela's crisis.

The statement read in part: "No foreign government or institution ... may pretend to guide the Venezuelan people, nor influence the functioning of national public power."

Citing security concerns, the government side was a no-show at meetings scheduled for the rest of the week. The messages coming from the Chávez administration are clear: Other countries may not like what they see in Venezuela, but there isn't much that they can do about it.

"There's really no arm-twisting going on behind the scenes," says a Western diplomat in Caracas. "The international community has no leverage - there's no foreign aid to cut, and people need the oil."

www.sun-sentinel.com By Patrice M. Jones Foreign correspondent Posted March 4 2003

RECIFE, Brazil · The dimly lighted clubs and bustling bars where a tourist can pick up a young girl or boy for sex are widely known in Recife, a beach city in Brazil's impoverished northeast that has a reputation for prostitution.

Even on a quiet weeknight in the upscale Boa Viagem tourist district, girls as young as 12, teenage boys and young transvestites line up under the bright lights of the main thoroughfare, hoping for foreign customers.

President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva made ending child prostitution one of his main campaign promises. But prostitution and the sexual exploitation of children are as old as Brazil, and in the sun-worshiping northeast, the world's oldest profession helps fuel the tourism industry.

Da Silva, who was born in Pernambuco state where Recife is the capital city, has begun a national campaign to stop child sexual exploitation. Leading up to the country's Carnival celebrations, which kicked off last week, the campaign has warned Brazilians and particularly foreign tourists that sexual exploitation of anyone younger than 18 is a crime.

"There is a lot of official marketing that says Brazil has lots of natural wonders, including beautiful women," said Lauro Monteiro, founder of a nonprofit organization that works with the government on child-protection issues.

"This is good for business, but I don't think tourism sold exclusively on this aspect is good," Monteiro said. "This marketing has led to the idea that people can do anything they want in Brazil -- that they can have women or children as conquests because people here are poor. We don't want this kind of tourist."

Some child-rights activists, who have long pushed the government for a crackdown, have argued that the annual Carnival festivities are at fault for helping create an image of Brazil as a place of decadence.

Because prostitution is a clandestine business, government officials do not know how many visitors come to patronize the sex trade or how many children are involved.

But even without numbers, the pervasiveness of the underground youth sex trade is evident in places such as Recife. There are well-known Internet sites where devotees of sex tourism talk about their experiences, suggest what clubs to visit, tell about prices and share other information on underage prostitutes.

Last month a major police sweep was launched in 19 states, resulting in the arrests of 52 child "exploiters" and 19 children taken into protective custody. Arrests of foreign tourists involved in buying sex from minors have been on the rise in recent weeks.

Starting this week, several nonprofit organizations nationwide are beginning a prevention campaign. Tourists and local residents will be given pamphlets in their native languages and greeted with posters in international airports and busy thoroughfares.

"The idea is [to] have police action but also prevention," National Secretary for Justice Claudia Chagas said.

Many activists say the social ills that cause Brazilian youth to end up on the streets are complex, and government programs that focus mainly on arrests will do nothing to shake the nation's biggest obstacle, poverty, which besets nearly one-third of the nation's 175 million residents. Many in the drought-stricken northeast are affected.

An often corrupt and weak police force and an overburdened and slow judicial system mean the crime of child sex abuse often goes unpunished, activists said. The maximum penalty for child exploitation is 10 years in prison.

Even with the high-profile arrests, child-rights activists say little has changed in the nightly entertainment on the streets of Recife.

A 15-year-old male prostitute who calls himself Catherine stood on a street corner in Recife waiting for his next client. He said his mother does not object to what he does because the money helps his family.

"This is the easiest way to earn money in this city. How else could I make this much money?" he asked, referring to the roughly $14 he earns from his mainly European clientele for one hour of work.

Patrice M. Jones writes for the Chicago Tribune, a Tribune Co. newspaper.

ens-news.com By David Dudenhoefer

BRASILIA, Brazil, March 3, 2003 (ENS) - A recent cut in Brazil's federal budget of 14.1 billion reals (nearly US$4 billion) could make it difficult for the country's Environment Ministry to maintain its varied programs.

Last month the administration of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, popularly known as Lula, announced a "temporary" cut of nearly 23 percent from the federal budget for 2003, promising that funds would be reinstated if the economy improves. The Environment Ministry's budget was slashed by almost 57 percent, from approximately 786 million reals (US $220 million) to 340 million reals (US $95 million), although the ministries of Health, Education, and a new program to combat hunger suffered only minor cuts.

Lula, the leader of Brazil's left leaning Workers Party, assumed the presidency on January 1 amidst widespread popular celebration. He has since surprised supporters and critics alike by adopting neo-liberal economic policies. While members of the international environmental community praised Lula's appointment of activist Marina Silva to head the Environment Ministry, the recent budget cut will hinder her to ability to institute change. She has until mid-March to come up with a new budget for the ministry.

The Lula administration cited several reasons for the budget cut, but observers note that it is closely linked to a decision to raise the target for the country's budget surplus from 3.75 percent of gross domestic product - a level demanded by the International Monetary Fund last year - to 4.25 percent of gross domestic product.

Lula may have little choice since he needs to boost the value of Brazil's national currency, the real, which fell significantly against the dollar once it became clear he would win the presidency. Brazil is scheduled to pay more than $7 billion of its foreign debt this year, much of which is pegged to the U.S. dollar.

"It's very bad for a new administration to begin by the cutting budgets," said Adriana Ramos, a public policy expert at Brazil's Instituto Socioambiental. Though she admitted that the Lula administration is in a difficult position, she lamented the decision to continue a trend established by the previous government, which cut the Environmental Ministry's budget several years in a row.

Ramos claimed this budget cut is not as severe as it appears, since the original 2003 budget allocated much more money for the Environment Ministry than was spent the previous year. She explained that after the cut, the ministry's budget is only about 15 percent less than what it spent in 2002.

Seasonal rainforest in bloom in eastern Brazil (Photo courtesy U. Texas-Austin) Many people might consider $95 million insufficient funds for natural resource management in a nation the size of the United States minus Alaska. However, many of Brazil's major environmental projects receive significant funding from foreign governments and international organizations.

Ramos said a priority for the ministry is to prevent the budget cut from effecting bilateral projects that require the Brazilian government to match foreign contributions.

"If Brazil doesn't pay its part, it won't be able to use the foreign funds," she said. "By guaranteeing its matching funds, [the ministry] can guarantee that most of its programs will be maintained."

Ramos said that the current situation presents a special challenge for nongovernmental organizations. "We need to get resources from other sources, such as international cooperation and private enterprise," she said.

While some countries have cut foreign aid to Brazil in recent years, on the grounds that it is in better shape than many African and Asian nations, Ramos noted that her country still needs help to protect its vast natural resources.

"The conservation of biodiversity and environmental services in Brazil is a global concern," she said.

www.theatlantic.com D.C. Dispatch | March 4, 2003

Some of our allies act like spoiled teenagers who badmouth their parents while they're living off of them by Stuart Taylor Jr. .... Imagine President Bush responding as follows to the latest rebuffs from France, Germany, South Korea, and others and to the stunning surge of anti-Americanism around the world: "Enough. The American people are weary of holding the world's rogue regimes and barbarians at bay in the face of sneers and obstructionism from faithless 'allies' such as France, Germany, and South Korea, who owe their freedom to America. So I have decided, with a heavy heart, to acquiesce in the profoundly misguided but implacable demands of world opinion and to end our efforts to disarm Iraq and liberate its oppressed people. From this point forward, my policy will be to defend the United States and our true friends. We will pull our troops out of Germany, the Persian Gulf, and South Korea. We will disengage from NATO and the United Nations. I will urge Congress to invest the savings in airtight border controls and missile defense. And I will begin a crash program to end U.S. reliance on Persian Gulf oil. "We will leave our critics to deal as best they can with nuclear-armed North Korea; with soon-to-be-nuclear-armed Iraq, Iran, and maybe Libya, Syria, and Indonesia; and with the nascent black market in doomsday weapons for terrorists. It has become clear that the United States and our friends cannot long prevent the spread of such weapons while nations such as France and Germany undermine our efforts and trade with our enemies." How would the French, Germans, Arabs, South Koreans, Chinese, and other America-bashers like that? It would be only a matter of time until Iraq or Iran, or both, took over the entire Persian Gulf region. That would send oil prices to unprecedented levels and drag European, Arab, African, and Asian economies into recession or depression—and it would mean the bloody subjugation of the region's Arab peoples. Islamist terrorists, bent on destroying Western civilization, would find it far easier to attack targets in Europe than in the newly fortified United States. With North Korea's million-man army poised to sweep through Seoul and beyond, South Korea would face blackmail to unite on terms dictated by the North's Stalinist regime. China would soon find itself facing two nearby nuclear threats, as Japan would rapidly go nuclear to defend itself against North Korea. The point of this exercise is not to suggest that the time for such a lurch into isolationism has arrived. Not yet, at least. Pique is not a policy. And an unpoliced, anarchic world would be an economic and national security disaster for the United States as well as others. The point is to underscore how the Europeans, South Koreans, and others who have become so anti-American depend on American power—unthinkingly, ungratefully, and completely—for their well-being. Abdicating their own responsibilities to help maintain world order, they are free riding, as my colleague Clive Crook noted last week, on the same U.S. polices that they publicly denounce. Like a spoiled teenager who expects her parents to support her even though she refuses to do any work around the house and constantly mouths off to them, these nations enjoy the benefits of U.S. global policing while refusing to share in the costs and trashing the policeman. Take the views of many anti-war Europeans that Iraq should not be invaded but "contained." By whom? France? Germany? Belgium? They could not contain the two-bit Serbian tyrant, Slobodan Milosevic. And they have been no help—indeed, they have been a great hindrance—in containing Iraq. They want the U.S. to do it, through a costly, draining, long-term commitment of American forces. At the same time, they bash the U.S. for the military pressure and economic sanctions—"starving Iraqi babies"—that undergird containment. The ignorance and hypocrisy of the European free-riders is perhaps best illustrated by their clamoring that Bush is bent on a greed-driven "war for oil." But Bush could get a lot more cheap oil, a lot sooner, by joining the long-standing French-Russian push to lift the sanctions on Iraqi exports than by spending vast sums and betting his presidency on an invasion and occupation of Iraq. No American leader would dream of invading but for Saddam's persistence in seeking weapons of mass destruction. If Bush's goal were to grab an oil-rich colony for his corporate buddies, Venezuela would be a much easier target. It's true that the vast oil reserves in and near Iraq help drive U.S. policy—but not in a way that justifies European or Arab sneers. It is oil that brings Saddam enough money to buy and build weapons of mass destruction. And the regional hegemony he seeks would enable him to raise prices to extortionate levels. Every other nation in the world has at least as strong an interest as the United States does in denying Saddam such a stranglehold on the global economy. The tidal wave of anti-Americanism has multiple wellsprings, of course. Critics are understandably resentful of the Bush administration's arrogant demeanor; its disdain for international institutions, agreements, and diplomatic niceties; and its unqualified support of Israel's Ariel Sharon and his expansionist settlement polices. And they're understandably attached to a U.N.-centered vision of international law that has worked well enough in Western Europe—ever since America liberated and rebuilt the place—but is useless against terrorists and rogue regimes with weapons of mass destruction. Mix in German pacifism; Russian insecurity; French ego and cynicism; Arab self-pity, paranoia, and envy; and near-universal resentment of the world's only superpower. But underlying them all is the implicit calculation that the safest course for European nations (and others) is to obstruct American policies while free riding on American power. This calculation rests on two assumptions that may prove to be catastrophically wrong. The first is that as long as Paris and Berlin appease the Arab world and Europe's own militant Muslims, it will be New York and Washington—not Paris or Berlin—that are targeted for destruction by any weapons of mass destruction that jihadists obtain from Iraq or other rogue regimes. The second is that Europe need not share in the costs and risks of keeping rogue regimes in check, because Uncle Sam will do it for them. Similarly, most South Koreans have lulled themselves into assuming that the North will not attack them and that its nuclear buildup is America's problem. They seem to have forgotten that the main reason they are not under the boot of the Stalinist North already is that the United States rescued them 50 years ago and still protects them with 37,000 troops and the nuclear umbrella. Or perhaps they assume the U.S. will protect them no matter how much they spit on us. This assumption may be correct in the short run. Viscerally satisfying as it might be for the United States to offer North Korea a trade—you abandon nukes, we abandon South Korea—the North would no doubt sign the deal, do its best to take over South Korea, and then resume its nuclear buildup. All of this is somewhat analogous to the American public's isolationism while Hitler's armies were marching through Europe. Not our problem, Americans thought. Let England and the Soviet Union fight Germany. That seemed the best way to stay out of the war. But only in the short term. As President Franklin Roosevelt understood long before Pearl Harbor, German (and Japanese) aggression would eventually threaten America too. So FDR did all he could to change public opinion and help Britain fight the war. European or South Korean leaders with a long view would likewise see their own nations' interest in standing with America against the rogue states and barbarians. The reason is that even the American "hyperpower" probably lacks the will or the strength to carry the burden of world security for much longer, with little help from anyone but Britain, and in the face of increasingly widespread anti-Americanism. And unless someone stops the spread of doomsday weapons, anti-Western jihadists are probably within five to 15 years of obtaining enough of them—from Iraq, North Korea, or elsewhere—to endanger civilization as we know it. Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder should ask themselves: After New York and Washington and London have been destroyed or depopulated, how long before Paris and Berlin meet similar fates? It may be too much to expect the European and Arab publics, who are fed grotesque caricatures of Bush and America by their media and intelligentsia, to grasp their own interests in helping the United States defang Iraq. But wise leadership is about seeing one's national interest in the long term, and educating public opinion instead of pandering to it. The superficially clever Chirac and Schroeder are not wise leaders. They are fools. And they are helping to bring the world closer to a dark era of nuclear anarchy.