Solutions for Syria
Brazil raises the tone and presents proposal, but humanitarian donations is still trivial
Brazil’s speech came as a positive surprise this week at the Geneva II Conference, held in Montreux, Switzerland, to discuss solutions for the internal armed conflict that has been raging for nearly three years in Syria. Despite only having sent a mid-level representative to the conference, while most participating governments sent their foreign ministers, the Brazilian government had a far more concrete message to convey than on previous occasions.
“It addressed the arms embargo and holding the guilty to account. This is positive,” said Camila Asano, coordinator of Foreign Policy at Conectas, who analyzed the speech by the Secretary-General of the Foreign Ministry, Eduardo dos Santos. Asano maintained her criticism of the lack of assertiveness and transparency demonstrated the day before the conference, when the Foreign Ministry published a short and timid statement, of just 6 lines, and once again criticized Brazil for having donated trivial amounts to mitigate the effects of the humanitarian crisis in Syria that has already left 100,000 dead.
In the world of diplomacy, which is full of encrypted signals, what does it mean that Brazil sent its foreign minister to visit a World Cup soccer stadium instead of sending him to this conference?
Camila Asano – It means a lack of clarity in the definition of foreign policy priorities by the government. Despite the calls for Brazil to play a more prominent role in the major issues of international politics – including the demand for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council – the fact that it did not send its Foreign Minister (unlike the vast majority of the 40 representatives sent to the conference) to head up the delegation that would debate one of the largest international peace and security crises in the world today reveals a lack of vision and consistency by our diplomacy.
What were the positive and negative points of the speech?
Camila Asano – First, it was positive that Brazil emphasized that “we should never lose sight of the fact that behind the statistics there are real people, millions of them. Their lives have been profoundly affected – and, and for tens of thousands, destroyed – by the conflict in Syria.” In a tragedy like the one playing out in Syria, putting a stop to the suffering of the victims must always be prioritized, and not held back by political constraints.
Also notable was the fact that the speech was more objective, by pointing out the measures that Brazil deems necessary for a political solution to the war. One of the measures defended by Brazil involves assuring that all those responsible for human rights violations be brought to justice, representing a commitment by Brazil to not support impunity. Also positive was the call for the immediate adoption of measures against violence targeted at more vulnerable groups, namely women and children, who have been particularly affected by the crisis that has gripped the country. The Brazilian request to establish a comprehensive and effective arms embargo gives more credence to the Brazilian position that has repeatedly opposed the militarization of the conflict.
Foremost among the negative aspects of the speech was the mention of “important financial contributions to United Nations humanitarian aid efforts in Syria and the region”, a declaration that is not compatible with the size of the financial commitment made by Brazil at the 2nd Pledging Conference in Kuwait, held last week, when the country pledged to donate US$300,000 to alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Syria, the smallest pledge of any country present in Kuwait and Montreux. The relaxation of visa rules for Syrian nationals seeking asylum in Brazil, established in September 2013, was another point announced as a good practice by Brazil that featured ambiguously in the speech. Although positive in its conception, the initiative still faces implementation problems due to the lack of clear criteria for issuing the visas, since, in practice, each Brazilian embassy adopts its own criteria.
Conectas responded harshly, the day before the conference, to the statement by the Foreign Ministry that mentioned very little about the Brazilian position on the Syria issue. Is this a lack of transparency or do diplomatic relations really need this tone?
Camila Asano – The statement by the Foreign Ministry the day before the conference in Montreux exemplifies the need to improve transparency and social participation in the definition and implementation of Brazilian foreign policy. The Geneva II Conference itself is a good example. Brazil was formally invited to participate in the conference on January 6, but only released a statement on the country’s position one day before the event, and even then, in very simple terms. Purely as a means of comparison, the UN Secretary-General made an additional 10 invitations to Geneva II on Sunday, January 19. On the same day, Mexico, one of the newly invited countries, had already released the position it would defend in Switzerland on its Foreign Ministry’s website.
Why does Brazil donate so little to humanitarian aid in Syria? How much would be enough?
Camila Asano – I think Brazil has been inconsistent in its treatment of the humanitarian crisis in Syria. On several occasions, the Foreign Ministry and even the Presidency have mentioned the importance of the issue for Brazil, considering the influence of Syrian ancestry on our national identity, and declared a commitment to provide financial humanitarian aid for the crisis in Syria. However, according to UN data and information from the Brazilian government itself, of the world’s 10 largest economies, Brazil was the country that donated the least to alleviate the situation in Syria and neighboring countries in 2013. On the matter of how much is enough, it is unrealistic to expect Brazil to make donations on the scale of developed countries or those with direct interests in the region – recalling that Kuwait has announced a commitment to donate US$500 million in 2014. But perhaps a good gauge might be the contributions announced by other emerging countries, such as India (US$2 million) and Mexico (US$3 million).
