Brazil, the United Nations and the World

It has been said "Brazil is the Land of the Future". Well, maybe the future is here. It was back in the mid 1970's that I first recall hearing of the concept "Brasil Potencia - this means, in general terms, Brazil World Power. The fact is that Brazil is now seeking its place in the sun among the nations on this small planet. And why not?

In early 2005, Brazil, Germany, Japan and India launched a joint bid for permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council. Brazilian diplomats have stepped up efforts to win support for becoming the first (and only) Latin American nation on the Security Council. This is justified, it is believed, because of the increased importance of all these 4 nations, and because of the many changes that have occurred since the UN has formed over 60 years ago. For the most part, the arguments for including these four countries seems to be "regional leadership" - a concept based upon population, geography and economic importance.

Can of worms! China doesn't like Japan. Pakistan doesn't like India. Mexico and Argentina don't like the idea of Brazil on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), and nobody likes Germany. And why no country from Africa? And no Islamic Country? No Arab nation, also. And why not Indonesia? And what about Canada and Australia? And think of Spain and Italy (it did invent the pizza, after all!). Both Mexico and Argentina grumbled when the 'Group of Four' proposal was presented. Mexico has grown tremendously and its economy is basically about the same as Brazil's. The Mexicans argue that if Brazil deserves a big chair at UN, so does Mexico. Nobody is happy!

I support Brazil on the Security Council! And Germany, Japan and India. They are all great nations and each plays a major role in its region and in the world economy. The only change I would make would be to add South Africa, recognizing both the continent of Africa and that Blacks actually exist.

Argentina. The main opposition to Brazil's being given a permanent seat came from Brazil's dear, loving neighbor down south - again! I have written before about the long and sometimes difficult relationship between then Brasileiros and Argentinos. In that page it was mostly about history and football (soccer) with a special emphasis on the many jokes you hear in Brazil about Argentines. You can check it out by clicking on the icon on the left. This time the issues are rivalry and politics, but the stakes are much higher.

Brazil vs the World

Lula at the UN. Since 1822 the Brazilian government has pretty much acted in the best interests of the Brazilian government, as do all governments. Some times the Brazilian people take a back seat in the bus to the government as the country drives down History Highway. Sometimes there are no apparent alternate roads to make the journey easier. For much of the 19th century, the international politics of Dom Pedro II and the Brazilian Empire consisted of consolidating borders and occupying lands. This was mostly accomplished without any major problems - even the Paraguay war was only a sideshow in this process. As the Republic was established in 1889 and the 20th century arrived, the Brazilian government began a process of alignment with foreign powers. For the first 30 years, France probably had more influence on Rio de Janeiro than any other country, due to cultural and intellectual ties (even though Britain had a greater economic investment). In the mid 1930's Brazil flirted with Fascism, maintaining strong ties with Germany and Italy. Alarmed, the Roosevelt administration moved it and so began about 40 years of strong American influence. Even the establishment of the Petrobrás oil monopoly and the conflict around Getulio Vargas in the early 1950s did little to change things. Brazil was a quiet and good neighbor, and the world pretty much ignored it.

Around 1975 something happened: The Brazilian Government decided that: 1. Brazil had potential to become a world power, and 2. that American's interests and Brazil's interests were not necessarily the same. This really happened under Geisel and continued with Figueredo, both generals belonging to the Military Oligarchy that ruled Brazil for over two decades. The overall foreign policy goals set in place by these men have not changed in the last 30 years, and continue to be pursued by the Lula da Silva government today.

After 1975, Brazil began to assert its independence in many ways over many different issues. It instituted an increasingly independent foreign policy, maintaining friendly relations with the United States, as well as the Soviet Block. Brazil extended its territorial waters to a 200 miles limit, over Washington's protests. Also contrary to Uncles Sam's wishes, Brazil developed a major weapons export capability and began to make significant armament sales around the world, especially to Arab and Middle Eastern governments. Perhaps the two largest issues in the relationship were Brazil not accepting gracefully American criticism of Brazil's Human Rights record and the fact that Brazil not only refused to sign the International Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) but even entered into an agreement with Germany that would provide Brazil with sophisticated technology over the full cycle of atomic energy processing, as well as elaboate enrichment and reprocessing facilities. At this time Brazil began to push exports, offering incentives across a broad spectrum of products, from orange juice to airplanes, from meat to steel. All of this while closing its own markets to most imported goods. This, of course, conflicted with American interests, but worse was to come. Brazil did not join the US on issues relating to Cuba, Nicaragua and El Salvador. At the UN, Brazil voted against Israel and the US, supporting the infamous resolution equating Zionism with racism. This was part a long, close and sometimes rocky courtship of Arab nations by Brazil that continues to the present.

By the mid 1980s, Brazil had established itself as an independent player on the world scene, but only in the minor league (segunda divisao, as the say in Brasil). Brazil wanted more! Brazil has pushed hard to assume a position of international leadership, not only on regional economic issues through trading blocks such as ALALC and later Mercosul (loosely modeled on the old European Common Market), but also on political issues typical of the North / South conflict between 'First World' (ie, Industrialized, Developed Nations) and what are called now generously the Developing Nations, aka the Third World. This, of course, presents an inherent contradiction, due to logic dictating that you cannot be First World if you are the Leader of the Third World. This is where Brazilian jeitinho comes in to play, I guess.

As the 21st century begins Brazil is flexing its muscles, still looking for its place in the sun, but facing new and complex problems. On one hand Brazil still has to resolve traditional issues relating to regional stability with its South American neighbors, and even to deal with problems within its own borders (Sivam and the Control of the Amazon, which I write about here:

). On the other hand, Brazil is seeking to adapt to the new reality of a digital, integrated world and a global economy. These include serious issues about the role of intellectual property (patent and copyright issues) across a broad spectrum of sectors (software, music, medicines, biochemicals, etc..), environmental issues and the globalization and integration of digital (telecommunication and computer) technologies (the Internet) as well as capital and financial markets. The problem is how to open the door, and how to keep up and, at the same time, how not to get run over. As seen in the cartoon on the left, there is a perception, not just among the left but even among average Brazilians, that it is the US that is keeping Brazil down, and that America does not want Brazil to be a World Power. This is nonsense, but after 30 years of this type of propaganda, a lot of people believe it. The banner in the cartoon (called a charge in Brazil) says: Fight back, people of Brasil!

What is a World Power?

Power, as applied to a nation, is defined in many ways. Perhaps the main determinant is what clubs you belong to. Perhaps the most restrictive membership is to a permanent seat on the UNO Security Council, which has 5 members. Sure, the UN is nothing but a politically correct social club, but the Security Council is the high-rollers section - the most exclusive room in town. This is what India and Brazil aspire to, and to a lesser extent, so do Japan and Germany. Another nice club is the Group of Seven (G7), a coalition of eight of the world's leading industrialized nations: France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada. With Russia we get the Group of Eight (G8). Adding Brazil, China and India we have the proposed G11. There is also a G20 (Group of 20), consisting of European Union (counted as one) and 19 other rich nations: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. This group is not to be confused with the other G-20, which according to Wikipedia, is comprised only of developing nations (Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, China, Cuba, Egypt, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, South Africa, Tanzania, Thailand, Uruguay, Venezuela and Zimbabwe). This G-20 sometimes has 21, 22 or 23 members, and nobody really wants to be a part of it! And there are also the G33 and G77 groups, which even has a web site but nobody actually knows who is in or out! The simple fact is that anything beyond 20 or any group that has the word "developing" attached to it is a waste of time and Brazil knows it! The only groups that count are the small, exclusive ones!

Times have changed. The UN system that was set up at the end of World War II and which continues until today (with some minor adjustments!) no longer accurately reflects which countries are leaders and which are not. The previous criteria for "World Power" status was military might (1). That concept is useful, but three others factors need to be considered: Economy (2), Population (3), and Size (4). By 'size' I mean not just landmass, but food producing capability because of available land area. Also I would throw in a Human Development Index (5) to reward and penalize nations according to their treatment of their own populations. By using all these five criteria, one can better understand the concept of "World Power" and rank nations as to their total influence among the nations of the planet. There are two tables below that reflect these concepts. The first shows the world's largest economies and the second (my work!) shows a ranking taking into consideration these five factors that I have indicated. This type of index, considering multiple factors, would be the best choice for a rational selection of 'important' nations. Of course, the criteria and weights are subjective, and do not begin to take into account the interests and animosities that go with the territory. The simple fact is that there is no formula to determine what countries 'deserve' to be on the UN Security Council. One can cut the cake 50 different ways, but nobody will be happy! The question of why France should have a seat and not Japan (which has an economy many times larger), or why England and not India (with 15 times more people!) brings us to the the BUTT theory of power. BUTT stands for Big Ultimate Terrible Toy, and it is the only thing that makes people respect you!

The 500 Pound Gorilla

the International Atomic Energy Commission wants Brazil's toy!, Click for image

Yes, I am talking thermo nuclear weapons capability. Yes, having an atom bomb or two laying around gets you respect. You may be a dirty, little, pathetic thug like Kim Il Jong of North Korea, but if you have a nuclear weapon (and a missile) you are now a dirty, little, pathetic thug with nuclear capability, and that makes you a respected, dirty, little, pathetic thug. I hope you see the difference.

Back in the early 1980s I came to the conclusion that Brazil had a nuclear weapons development program. This was mostly based upon rumors and varied news articles in the Jornal do Brasil and O Estado de Sao Paulo newspapers. There were also reports about secret funding and the nuclear submarine project, which to me was/is nothing but a cover for the real program - building a bomb. The fact is that a lot of money has been spent and there is not much submarine to show for it. The Brazilian Military goverment had a lot of faults, but big-time corruption was not really one of them - so a lot of money went somewhere. There were also articles about 'secret' underground testing and/or development facilities in Rio de Janeiro (Resende), Minas Gerais and Goias. My guess is that this atomic weapons program has continued, off and on, hot and cold, for two plus decades - always downplayed by the Braziilian government, but never abandoned. I also think the issue is not if Brazil needs an H-bomb, but whether it wants respect (see above), or what happens if (perish the thought!) some day Buenos Aires announces that it has tested a nuclear weapon in the Patagonia.... That is something to think about. The fact is that the only way Argentina can leapfrog ahead of Brazil is to build a nuclear weapon - treaty or no treaty. The temptation down south must be very strong. And there is still the Falkland (Malvinas) issue.

Wonder what this means? Now an article from the Washington Post, by Peter Slevin: Brazil Shielding Uranium Facility - Nation Seeks to Keep Its Proprietary Data From U.N. Inspectors (4/2004). The Brazilian government has refused to allow U.N. nuclear inspectors to examine a facility for enriching uranium under construction near Rio de Janeiro, according to Brazilian officials and diplomats in Vienna, home of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The IAEA and Brazil are at an impasse over the inspections, the diplomats said. Brazil maintains that the facility will produce low-enriched uranium for use in power plants, not the highly enriched material used in nuclear weapons. Nonetheless, Brazil refuses to let IAEA inspectors see equipment in the plant, citing a need to protect proprietary information. The diplomatic standoff plays into fears that a new type of nuclear race is underway, marked not by the bold pursuit of atomic weapons but by the quiet and lawful development of sophisticated technology for nuclear energy production, which can be quickly converted into a weapons program. The US Government is unhappy. One official said: "If we don't want these kinds of facilities in Iran or North Korea, we shouldn't want them in Brazil." To which a Brazil official responded: "We feel deeply bothered, almost offended, when suspicions are raised about Brazil." The article continues: A series of Brazilian statements about nuclear matters raised worries in Washington and Vienna about Brazil's intentions, however. During his winning campaign, leftist Workers' Party presidential candidate Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva criticized the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty as unfair. "If someone asks me to disarm and keep a slingshot while he comes at me with a cannon, what good does that do?" da Silva asked in a speech. He later said Brazil has no intention to develop nuclear arms. Brazil says IAEA inspections are unnecessary because it has formally forswore nuclear weapons in the 1990s and has declared its intention to abide by the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Brazil is offended and I am shocked, really shocked, that anybody would think that Brazil might doing anything that could be considered perfidious in any way. Shocked, I say, shocked! How about a little trust here?. On the other hand, a slingshot with a little radio-active rock in it is still a slingshot, technically speaking.

Brasil and Argentina, again...

South America, as seen by Argentina, Click for image

South America, as seen in Buenos Aires. Once again, we are back to talking about Argentina. Why couldn't Argentina be one of the only two countries in the whole continent that doesn't share a border with Brazil? Maybe Argentina could swap names with Equador - that would help a lot! Actually the rivalry between Argentina and Brazil is mostly on the Argentine side. It really makes no sense at all (except in soccer): Argentina's population is too small and its economy is too little. Even its geography is wrong; Argentina is too far south and has limited borders with other nations (unlike Brazil). The only thing it has going for it, as compared to Brazil, is that it has a better rock opera (Evita) but even that was written by one of those detested Englishmen (ha!). Well, two things, actually: Evita and big egos, also - but those are not enough to get you a chair at the table with the big boys!

This continent isn't big enough for both of us, click for image

Even so, that doesn't stop Argentina. One thing is for sure: those portenhos (people from Buenos Aires) don't give up easily! Here are a few lines from a report by Henry Chu in the Los Angeles Times (May 3, 2005): Argentina takes exception to elbowing by Brazil. At stake is which nation the world views as the leader of South America. Fueled by a longstanding rivalry over who should lead South America, tensions between Brazil and Argentina escalated Tuesday amid reports that Buenos Aires is preparing to adopt a tougher approach toward its neighbor... Comments by Argentine officials this week disparaging Brazil's attempts to exert more international influence touched off a flurry of speculation that relations between the nations were in a nosedive. Newspapers in both countries carried front-page headlines Tuesday warning of a growing rift that could complicate already-thorny negotiations between the continental heavyweights over regional trade and politics. Argentine President Nestor Kirchner appears to have grown increasingly irritated over diplomatic initiatives by Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva that in effect cast Brazil as the natural leader of South America. Since his election in 2002, Lula has aggressively sought to raise his country's profile on the world stage by traveling extensively and enlarging Brazil's role in multilateral organizations. "There's a place in the World Trade Organization; Brazil wants it. There's a place in the United Nations; Brazil wants it ... They even want to name a Brazilian pope," Kirchner complained, according to the Argentine daily El Clarin. I have added some of the cartoons found in Brazilian newspapers this month that give a general idea of this conflict between the two nations. I guess a picture is really worth a thousand words. I really like the one with the two birds!

Choosing a new pope. Anybody but an Argentine - Click for image

Actually the report has two errors: 1. There is no doubt about who leads South America: it is Brazil. Period. The only people who have doubts are those that live directly south of Uruguay. 2. Brazil (and Lula) are not thinking of South America - they have bigger fish in mind. What Brazil wants is simply to be recognized as a world power - nothing more and nothing less. And as far as a Brazilian Pope, it didn't happen, and Brazil didn't want an Argentine pope either (see cartoon). So, as far as the Great Pontifical Games of 2005 are concerned, its Brasil 0 x Argentina 0. Oh yes, let me say that when I was looking at the article about Brazil's uranium facility (see above), I came across a Brazilian blog about this issue, with comments like this: "I wonder what Argentina thinks about this?". Once again, here is the link to my page about Brazil and Argentina:

Brazil has a plan

Yes, Brazil has a plan to become a world power, and to be recognized as such. It is a simple plan and it is a good plan. As far as I can tell, Brazil's plan to join the big boys in the UN Security Council has six basic strategies, as follow:
1. Develop internal industry and commerce, especially in the high tech area. Brazil has a large domestic industrial base and produces just about everything it consumes. Among other items, Brazil produces jets, computers, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and has a significant arms production. It is also building rockets, for satellites, of course.
2. Develop Brazil's immense agricultural and livestock capacity. Brazil is one of the top three producters of food producers in the world, and still has the greatest unused agricultural capacity on the planet. That is something to remember!
3. Export, export, export. See two items above. Unlike certain countries (the USA), Brazil has a significant surplus on its trade balance, and government policy offers great incentives to export more. Foreign investments are subject to restrictions in many sectors, and those that build in Brazil must share technology.
4. Form regional and international alliances. Be the leader. These are economic and political alliances. Brazils like to see itself as numero uno power in the North - South context, and as a leader in all trade negociations for the Americas. This may be why Brazil is so opposed to NAFTA (The North American Free Trade Agreement) and FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas) or ALCA (Area de Livre Comércio das Américas).
5. Push social welfare programs on a world basis. Brazil wants to also be seen as a moral leader, not just an economic and political power. And what better way for this than to feed the hungry? More about this below...
6. Develop atomic energy production capability. This means all aspects of atomic energy. So if, as a side benefit, a few nuclear weapons somehow appear, oh well, oops!

Becoming a World Power is easier than being recognized as a World Power (just ask Japan), at least if we are referring to a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. The fact is that the five countries that are on the UBSC have no interest in expanding it. They gain nothing and lose a lot. Even the fact that Brazil has joined India, Japan, and Germany in this quest has not really helped Brazil, because for reasons I don't need to explain each of the other countries has its enemies and detractors, which will bring stiff opposition. In fact, Brazil is probably the least "problematic" of the four nations, in many ways. The bottom line is that any move to expand the Security Council will cause so many problems with so many nations for so many reasons that I seriously doubt it will ever happen, except in a symbolic format with no real power sharing. Personally, I believe that if France has a seat, so should India. If India deserves a seat, so do Japan and Germany. If Japan and Germany are members, well why not open the doors wide and let the 25 nations I have ranked below join an expanded Security Council. The list below uses several criteria to determine "worthiness" and gives extra weight to the Human Development Index (HDI). As you can see, not just Brazil but Mexico and Argentina (gasp!) are reasonably ranked (numbers 12, 13 and 14). And we could get rid of the rest of the UN and General Assembly, since it is a corrupt organization only good for cocktails, raping African women and starving children.

Will it work?

Recently the Miami Herald (5/24/05) explored this question in an article "Is Brazil ready to lead?" by Carlos Alberto Montaner: The government of Brazil wants the country to become an internationally respected power. It already heads the Mercosur trade bloc and now wishes to become the head of South America. It hopes to gain a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council... In size, Brazil is similar to China, the United States and Canada. Its population -- 186 million -- is considerable. The size of its economy, once its purchasing power is factored in, is $1.5 trillion, one third larger than Mexico's or Spain's. The economy is also somewhat larger than Russia's. ...Brazil has the technical know-how to manufacture jet planes and exploit nuclear power. It has important scientific niches, and some of its research centers are equal to those that we find in the developed world.

So the issue is not capability. Brazil has all it takes to be a World Power: population, economy, infrastructure and technology, as well as a national culture and common language. Even so, the article has doubts about if Brazil can live up to its promise. It continues: In any case, economic power, size and population are not the only decisive factors that explain the weight of some nations in the international arena. The ancient histories of Holland and Portugal demonstrate almost the opposite. There are other key elements: the vocation for leadership of a ruling class that has come together in the pursuit of a national program and the existence of a society that is willing to pay the high price that effort usually demands.

Obviously, the writer has doubts as to both the ability of Brazil's ruling class to articulate a vision for the country and the will of the Brazilian people to make the effort needed to carry out that vision. Personally I have no doubt as to the ability of the Brazilian people. The question is, rather, if the people agree and espouse that vision presented by the leaders. That is the question.

Some humor, but serious humor....

Lula takes Zero Hunger to Africa, Click for image

More Lula and Zero Hunger in Africa, Click for image

Lula goes back to his origins..., Click for image

I'll just say a few words about the use of the Brazil's Zero Hunger program as an international political tool and then end this topic and page. In a very smart move, the President of Brazil (Lula da Silva) has gone to the UN to propose a global version of his Fome Zero (Zero Hunger) program. He also visited Africa to enlist support from that continent (See cartoons), with mixed results. Even giving Lula the benefit of the doubt as to his motives, I am sure that this is also a play for global recognition. So we have a noble leader (Lula) from a noble country (Brazil) pushing a noble cause (feeding hungry people). I am always cynical about these things, but it is good politics, even if the practical results are less that all of us would like. I have written a full page about Lula, humor, sex and the anti-hunger program here:

Table one....

Here is a list of the largest economies on the planet. This is one simple way of determining importance. Of course, there are x number of factors that can be considered. And of course, each nation will choose those factors that will benefit itself and advance its interests.

Largest World Economies
No.	Country	GDP $US billions
1	USA	10,208
2	Japan	4,149
3	Germany	1,847
4	United Kingdom	1,424
5	France	1,307
6	China (exc.HK)	1,159
7	Italy	1,089
8	Canada	700
9	Mexico	618
10	Spain	582
11	Brazil	504
12	India	481
13	Korea	422
14	Netherlands	380
15	Australia	357
16	Russian Federation	310
17	Taiwan	282
18	Argentina	269
19	Switzerland	247
20	Belgium	227

Table Two...

Here is my proposed list of the 25 nations that count, and that should be on any major World Council. Notice that I have used 5 different criteria to calculate the ranking.

Rank	Country Name	Economy	Military	Population	Size/Food	HDI Index	Sum Points
1	USA	1	1	3	3	7	15
2	Japan	2	10	10	11	9	42
3	United Kingdom	4	3	21	11	13	52
4	Germany	3	7	14	11	18	53
5	France	5	6	20	11	17	59
6	Canada	8	17	34	2	8	69
7	Italy	7	11	23	11	21	73
8	Spain	10	15	29	11	19	84
9	Korea	13	9	24	11	30	87
10	Russian Federation	16	2	8	1	63	90
11	Australia	15	13	54	6	4	92
12	Brazil	11	16	5	5	65	102
13	Mexico	9	18	11	11	55	104
14	Argentina	18	20	31	8	34	111
15	China (exc.HK)	6	4	1	4	104	119
16	Taiwan *	17	14	50	11	50	142
17	Belgium	20	23	82	11	6	142
18	India	12	8	2	7	127	156
19	Switzerland	19	24	97	11	10	161
20	Israel	25	5	106	11	22	169
21	Indonesia	25	25	4	11	112	177
22	Pakistan	25	21	5	11	144	206
23	South Africa	- x -	- x -	- x -	- x -	- x -	- x -
24	Nigeria	- x -	- x -	- x -	- x -	- x -	- x -
25	Egypt	- x -	- x -	- x -	- x -	- x -	- x -

The last three countries didn't rank, but I added them any way. They are important and each of the three represents a different aspect of Africa.

Another idea would be to put all the European members of the European Union into one seat, representing all of Europe on the list of 25. So out go the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, and Switzerland, and in comes the EU. Now we are back to 20 nations. I sincerely doubt, however, that France would give up its seat, even if it would clearly benefit all mankind. Not going to happen! On the other hand, as far as I'm concerned, they can have the US seat, since the UN is not only ineffective and inefficient, but also corrupt. Any Organization that has countries like Cuba, Libya, Syria and Iran on the Human Rights Commission is morally bankrupt! You can be sure that I would never sit down a table with people representing those nations.

Update... (August 2005)

From the LA Times: Brazil Dictatorship Wanted Atomic Bomb, By Harold Olmos (AP).
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil -- A former president (Sarney) has disclosed that the military dictatorship that ruled Brazil for two decades tried to develop an atomic bomb, but says the program was scrapped when an elected government assumed power in 1985.
... The 1964-85 dictatorship was long suspected of seeking nuclear weapons, but ex-President Jose Sarney's comments Sunday were the first confirmation of the program.
Sarney said he denied the existence of the atomic weapons program when he was president so as not to jeopardize talks intended to head off a nuclear arms race with neighboring Argentina.
Sarney would not say how far along Brazil's military was in its work on atomic weapons or how close it was to detonating a nuclear device. But he said that after the treaty with Argentina, Brazilian officials found out their neighbors "were at least 10 years ahead of us."
The two nations later signed the United Nations-sponsored Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which commits them to not obtaining atomic weapons.

I saw Sarney's interview with TV Globo, and he said that the bomb was being built (or to be tested) in a facility in Serra do Cachimbo, in the south of the State of Para. This confession is not exactly news, but I think the whole story has not been told. I find it hard to believe that both Brazil and Argentina (especially the latter) would just shrug their collective sholders and say 'oops' and then abandon these programs (This was done in 1994, according to informal sources). There has to be more to it than this....

Page updated: May 2005