But I would like to critique a specific part of the text: its bottom, whose message is that, by developing nuclear technology for military purposes, Lula is somehow being hypocritical. And this because the military regime also tried to develop nuclear military technology – albeit for different ends; it wanted to develop not just submarines but also nuclear bombs. That is a fallacy, the association fallacy. That Lula has an aim that was also pursued by the Brazilian dictatorship, does not mean he is being hypocritical. Lets suppose the military regime also had established some social program for income redistribution: would it, then, be hypocritical for the current administration – or the ones which preceded or will succeed it – to restore this same idea? We know it would not. What, then, is the difference between that hypothetical scenario and that of the nuclear program? There is no difference. From the fact that a program – whether it is of military, economic or social nature – has been pursued by an authoritarian regime, it does not follow such program is necessarily a bad one. It also does not mean it is detrimental to the country. It seems to me Sánchez’s reasoning is at least very poor in logical consistency.

Also poor is his attempt to read the nuclear program as a trick by the government party to deflect popular attention from a serious corruption problem. That is not what Nelson Jobim, Brazilian Defense Minister, has indicated; he has said¹ the current military program will prevail no matter who is to succeed Lula. As he put it, current Defense policy ‘is a program of the State, not of the government’ coalition only. And he would know that, for he himself has strong ties with opposition figures (especially with José Serra, current oppostion presidential candidate). Finally, Lula’s attempt to strengthen the country’s military might doesn’t contrast with the style his regime has imposed on Brazilian foreign and defense policies (he is known, and very widely so, to pursue a policy independent from that of the Western powers, something that has been bothering people both in and outside of the country). There is, then, no reason to read it in malicious fashion.

By-the-bye, that Coha has decided to give space to such an article – a poor text that, as also pointed by previous commentators, is both factually manipulative and logically faulty -, surprises me, for its coverage on other issues – such as the recent text on Kirchenism – has consistently been better than the average seen in American outlets, which tend to present Latin American politics precisely in the derisive terms seen in Sánchez text when it comes to countries that try to develop a policy that is independent from that of the U.S.

¹ Interview with Jobim: http://defesabr.com/blog/index.php/19/04/2010/nelson-jobim-com-dilma-ou-serra-a-defesa-nao-muda/

PS: The only real nuclear threat is the United States which was the only country that killed thousands of civilians in a cowardly and unnecessary attack .

Dear Sirs:

Although COHA poses as a non-biased center for discussions of issues
involving Hemispheric affairs, if has been a systematic outlet of
American views on hemispheric issues, but not necessarily also an
outlet for Latin American views on U.S policies regarding Latin
America. There is no doubt COHA is entitled to that position, but it
should announce its collors in a clearer way. But, considering
Washington mores, that may be asking for too much…
The article published under the signature of your researcher Mr. Alex
Sanchez on “Lula’s yellow submarine” is a perfect specimen of the US
dominant view of the subordination attended from the other Hemispheric
countries, as well a piece of disinformation, not necessarily expected
from a so-called researcher.
If we start from the latter, Mr. Sanchez asks rhetorically what will
be the State Department reaction now after the words of praise that
“the two South American Presidents have demonstrated exceptional
statesmanship in moving to free their continent from the risk of
nuclear weapons proliferation” when Brazil signed an agreement in
December 1991with Argentina and the IAEA in Vienna?
But Mr. Sanchez the researcher cannot ignore the public texts of such
agreement that establishes clearly in its article 13 that nuclear
submarines are not within the weapons the parties forego its decision
in constructing as a result of the agreement then signed. Such
disclaimer is expressed most clearly in the Agreement, and only bad
faith could justify using the intention of going ahead with the
nuclear submarine project as an evidence of breech of the same.
But the rhetorical question probably hides the real concern of the
“researcher’.
When he asks whether Lula really needs a nuclear submarine, derided as
an yellow submarine, What he really has in mind is “does the US want
Brazil to have a nuclear submarine?”
Ridiculing Brazil for wanting to take care of its own defense (Brazil
has 5,000 kms of coast, off-shore oil and the capability through its
own corporations of exploring the mineral resources of the ocean bed)
is one of the old lines for submission put up since the 40s by US
policy makers. Such concerns do not seem to be there when the US sells
weapons to “rich” countries” like Pakistan, Morocco, Egypt and Chile.
That Brazil has serious social issues to solve, there are no doubts.
But it should not mortgage its national security and sovereignty while
it does not tackle such problems more efficiently. Mr. Sanchez could
try writing another article comparing US military expenses and the
appalling human condition in the many pockets of poverty of which the
Katrina episode showed to exist in the US.