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.