Region offers no support for war against Iraq

www.miami.com Posted on Sun, Feb. 02, 2003

BRASILIA - If one had to measure the degree of support for a possible U.S.-led attack on Iraq in this part of the world, it could be summed it up in one word: zero.

Opposition to the war goes far beyond old-guard leftists and young marchers at anti-globalization rallies. In fact, in interviews with Cabinet ministers, business executives and people on the street in recent visits to Brazil, Mexico and Argentina, I couldn't find one single person who showed sympathy for President Bush's threat to go to war with Iraq without United Nations support.

It's not that Latin Americans are disinterested, or that they see the war preparations as a far-off affair. Newspapers are full of war-related stories, and radio talk shows feature long debates on Bush's possible motivations for attacking Iraq.

On the contrary, they see it as a real economic threat to their own countries, and as a dangerous political precedent that could incite other nations to undertake unilateral attacks on other countries.

In Brazil, South America's biggest country, U.S. war plans have sparked a strong reaction from new leftist President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who said during a trip to Europe last week that Bush is ''obsessed'' with Iraq.

FIRST CRITICISM

It was da Silva's first open criticism of Bush after a successful visit to Washington prior to his Jan. 1 inauguration, which had been described by both countries as the beginning of an unexpected Bush-da Silva honeymoon. U.S. officials had earlier suggested to da Silva that, if he wanted to forge good relations with Washington, he was welcome to criticize U.S. policies, but should abstain from personal attacks on the U.S. president.

''The war on Iraq could bring the honeymoon to an early conclusion,'' said William Barr, a private consultant who until late 2002 served as a senior political officer at the U.S. Embassy. ``Both sides will have to be especially careful not to go back to the old days of mutual recriminations and distrust.''

In an interview at his office, Brazil's foreign minister, Celso Amorim, told me that, in addition to being a strong defender of multilateralism in international affairs, Brazil is worried about a possible war's economic impact on Latin America.

''We have great concerns,'' Amorim said. ``For a country like Brazil, whose position is slowly improving after all the [negative] speculation during the election campaign last year, the risk of rising oil prices -- and a world recession -- may affect us. So we must be concerned.''

ECONOMIC FEAR

Brazil's industry and foreign trade minister, Luiz Fernando Furlan, said in a separate interview that a war could also dry up foreign investment in Latin America. ''When there is war, when there is economic turbulence, there is a flight to quality: investors go to the safest ports,'' he said.

Newspapers here are full of speculation about U.S. motives for going to war with Iraq. In most cases, columnists and readers refer to an alleged Bush desire to grab Iraq's oil fields, get a firmer hold on the Middle East, or finish the job his father didn't complete in 1991.

Virtually no one takes seriously Bush's assertion that Iraq is violating United Nations disarmament resolutions because it is amassing weapons of mass destruction that it may hand over to terrorists, or use directly against the United States, Europe or Israel.

`REAL MOTIVES'

In a typical editorial, Brazil's daily Folha de Sao Paulo said Friday that ''unless the [U.S.] president demonstrates that Baghdad is an imminent threat, it seems more reasonable to believe that the real motives for the war are oil, and U.S. hegemony.'' Even the more pro-American daily O Estado de Sao Paulo said in an editorial the same day that Bush's war could ``open the doors to hell.''

In neighboring Argentina, even the influential daily La Nacion ran an editorial last week cautioning against Washington's ''confusing notion'' of its ''alleged right'' to launch preventive attacks ``and proceed, without hesitation, to summary executions whose motives nobody could dare explain.''

Former President Carlos Menem of Argentina was a lone exception to the rule, saying Friday in Miami that ''it is an error for us not to send troops to the Gulf.'' But Menem, who has been the focus of several corruption inquiries, is trying to win Argentina's upcoming presidential elections on the claim that he is a friend of the Bush family, and would thus receive extra U.S. help for his country.

The bottom line: The Bush administration has done a terrible job in explaining its motives to the rest of the world, and -- as far as I'm concerned -- to the American people.

Unless Secretary of State Colin Powell comes up with hard evidence of Iraq's transgressions when the U.N. Security Council meets to hear his speech on Wednesday, there will be an even greater anti-American backlash in this part of the world, no matter how hard U.S. officials try to play it down.