Sergio Tavolaro is a sociology professor at the University of Brasília. He presents today his account of Barack Obama’s recent visit to his country. -Jeff

It is nearly impossible to speak of one Brazilian approach to the United States, given Brazil’s domestic diversity and complexity. Indifference, suspicion, admiration, anger and interest can all be found among Brazilian citizens when invited to reflect upon the North American giant partner. Yet, by and large, it is fair to say that President Obama’s first visit to Brazil was widely welcomed. More than a mere encounter of two heads of states simply complying with protocol obligations, the meeting had a great deal of symbolic charge. To be sure, the historical importance of Obama’s rise to the presidency was greatly appreciated by Brazilians from the very beginning. As the rhetoric tone of his campaign was closely followed by the local media, a significant portion of Brazil’s public opinion shared the excitement experienced by Americans when Obama was sworn in.

But many additional ingredients contributed to the success of this diplomatic event. To begin with, as President Dilma Rousseff herself highlighted, one should not underestimate the privilege of witnessing the encounter between the first US Afro-American president and the first Brazilian woman president – especially if one remembers how filled with racial problems both societies are and the subordinate status of women in Brazil.

National Congress of Brazil, Brasília © Rob Sinclair | Wikimedia Commons

Besides, there are signs indicating that Brazil – US relations are now changing in a positive way, in comparison with the recent past. One ramification of President Lula’s independent and bold foreign policy was a distancing between the two countries on a varied set of issues. The divergence over the recent political crisis in Honduras was just one manifestation of mounting diplomatic rifts, which also included different views regarding Venezuela, Bolivia and, for sure, Iran’s nuclear policies. The US reluctance to legitimate President Lula’s ambition to grant Brazil a permanent seat in the UN Security Council contributed even more to sour relations. Under these difficult circumstances, President Obama’s decision to come to Brazil prior to Dilma’s visit to the US, unprecedented in the diplomatic history of the two countries, was much praised as a demonstration of Brazil’s increasing prestige in the global scene. Thus, expectations are high that other improvements will follow. First of all, Brazilian entrepreneurs rejoiced with President Obama’s recognition that the US must treat economic relations with Brazil as seriously as it has with China and India. Moreover, though no open support has been made, many saw as a quite positive step what appeared to be a more considerate position towards Brazil’s UN ambitions.

On March 20th, President Obama delivered a touching speech in Rio, in which he highlighted the historical commonalities that bring Brazil and the US together. He mentioned that both countries are former colonies that fought for political independence. Both countries developed through the contributions of immigrants, and that both countries are concerned with the consolidation of democracy. President Obama envisions a prosperous future for both societies as they succeed in increasing their ties in a variety of areas. His words were deeply appreciated.

Yet, one day before, while still in Brasília, he authorized the coalition attack on Libya. As usual, this facet of the US foreign policy raises concerns among Brazilians. The Dilma administration’s criticisms of the coalition actions, coupled with her government’s abstention from supporting the military intervention, demonstrates that the US, if it is truly interested in having Brazil as a partner in the international arena, will have to accept Brazil’s independent positions.

This week we have had been responding here at DC to the massacre in Tucson and to President Obama’s speech addressing the tragedy.  We also have been considering Presidential speeches more generally.

Gary Alan Fine has presented an unorthodox account of the identity of the assassin.   I presented a quick analysis and appreciation of Obama’s address, focusing on the media response to it.  And Robin Wagner Pacifici and I have thought about Presidential speech making more generally.  We will continue exploring these issues in the coming days, continuing our exploration of the speech and the response to the act of Jared Lee Loughner.  I will give a critical overview of our discussion in next week’s DC Week in Review.

Here, instead, I want to draw attention to a post of a few weeks ago, specifically to the replies it has generated.  I think the discussion as a whole provides insight into an important practical and theoretical problem, the relationship between realism and imagination.

First recall the initial post by Vince Carducci, he opened:

“Brazil is fast setting the pace for both developed and developing nations by declaring itself the world’s first “Fair Trade” nation, an announcement that comes on the heels of the election of its first woman president. Scholars and advocates have taken note. But while Dilma Rousseff’s election has been reported, the Fair Trade story has gone unnoticed in the mainstream Western media.”

And he closed expressing his hope by citing Kenneth Rapoza who:

“characterizes the election of Rousseff, Lula’s handpicked successor, as a refutation of the Washington Consensus that prescribes privatization and so-called open markets as the pother to success for lesser-developed countries. Fair Trade Brazil marks yet another step down a road less traveled.”

Carducci used Brazil to reveal that there are alternatives to “neo-liberalism.” But Felipe Pait as a Brazilian pointed out:

“This seems to be a marginal phenomenon in Brazil. …Lula’s economic policies have been rather conservative, and so have his and Dilma’s presidential campaigns. No one in Brazil is interested in autarky – not university graduates looking for every opportunity to study and work abroad, much less the poor.

I am a big freeycler by the way, both in the US and in Brazil, and I frequent handicraft fairs. I love the concept, but that’s not enough to sustain an economy.”

Carducci recognized Pait’s point, conceding but indicating why even a marginal phenomenon can be important:

“I agree that scale is an issue. There were some folks on the Solidarity Economics Network who were pretty hot on this issue. And my perception was that there might be more smoke and mirrors than substance at play here. What interests me, however, is the fact that something like this has gotten some traction in an institutional context.”

And then Michael Correy joined in, drawing upon his managerial experience in one of Brazil’s leading forestry, pulp, and paper companies, pointing out that on the ground decency of conditions and prosperity of workers and shareholders had less to do with one economic or social model or another, more to do with how people fused their own customs and practices with the “best business and technical practices from all over the world.”

“The last president of the company that I had worked with started in the mailroom and worked his way through a series of positions and ultimately was chosen to lead the company. Virtually all of the employees were Brazilian and its cash flows were reinvested in the operations. The original manufacturing location was regarded as the safest facility of its type in the world.

Being a profitable producer has helped lift the standards of living of many Brazilians that were directly and indirectly associated with this company. It enabled workers to have outstanding wages, benefits, and challenging work opportunities.…

Virtually none of the developments that took place within the company was seen through the prisms of globalism, neo-liberalism or virtually any other ideological framework. All of the developments were pragmatically dictated by how to make the best products and services in the most efficient, safest and most responsible manner. Its profitability allowed it to accomplish this, grow and prosper. Employees throughout the company were driven to achieve excellence and find innovative solutions to problems.”

And then Heloisa Pait joined the conversation, pointing to a dramatic conclusion:

“Handicraft can be important in very specific areas of this vast country, but as my brother pointed out Brazilians’ consumption aspirations need constantly improving technology and managing techniques. And all of us need global links. I wish there were more news on Brazil in English as this would give a better sense to readers unfamiliar with Romance languages how daily life is in Brazil and how it has changed in the past decades…

The changes in our economy and society can be accessed by statistics, by recent studies done about the emerging middle class, but also in daily interactions with this vast group of people who suddenly have more, and aspire for much more, than their parents had in their youth. The Brazilian working class used to have a subservient manner when dealing with middle class folks which were invariably called “doctor”. Now this is gone, at least in the big cities: construction workers and cleaning ladies look into your eyes and explain what they will do, as professionals they found themselves to be. I don’t think this is the work of Lula, and I don’t think it is Fernando Henrique’s either.

The country has changed. Students want to study abroad. Working class families pay private lessons for their kids. Everybody seems to have a goal in mind. When things go wrong, people demand “providências” from the authorities instead of accepting their fate as in the past. For good and for bad, the country is becoming more like the U.S.  Like in every developed country, we are concerned about the environment, voting for the Green Party, recycling, and supporting green initiatives.

I think the real Brazil will have to seriously face the environmental challenge its own development brought. We will also have to face democratic challenges coming from a government that intends to concentrate economic power in its large state companies and others controlled by political allies. (Although, I have to admit, Dilma is giving me the impression that she belongs to the group of women in her generation who came to public life with something to prove, while most politicians, including Lula, came to power as if they were doing us a big favor…)

But I think the article (Carducci’s)  touched on another issue, that of the imaginary Brazil of savagery and beauty, one whose existence we forgot when, in our daily lives in Brazil, we follow the news of floods in big cities or grade students’ term papers. When utopias fail in the real world, people have to project them into other realms. The democratic experience of the Island of Cuba, the liberating rule of Hamas in Gaza, and, why not?  Alternative production in the fast-growing Brazil.”

Carducci knows that the idea of a “Fair Trade Nation,” involves more of a gesture than a profound alternative economic commitment.  He is interested that the gesture is coming from a new and developing economic power.  It has important symbolic meaning.  It suggests that there may be alternatives to the present order of things.  But the Paits and Michael Correy know Brazil in their lived experience and also know that certain utopian dreams can get in the way of improvements in real life.

And Heloisa rejects the imaginary savage Brazil.  For better and for worse, she prefers the country as she knows it, in which the dignity of ordinary people is now part of the social landscape, not against economic development but because of it.

Brazil is fast setting the pace for both developed and developing nations by declaring itself the world’s first “Fair Trade” nation, an announcement that comes on the heels of the election of its first woman president. Scholars and advocates have taken note. But while Dilma Rousseff’s election has been reported, the Fair Trade story has gone unnoticed in the mainstream Western media.

On November 17, President Luis Ignacio “Lula” da Silva, whose tenure ends at the end of this year, signed a decree formally establishing a National System of Fair Trade. At the same time, he initiated a national business incubator network to encourage grassroots economic development. The actions continue the evolution begun in 2004 with the establishment within the Ministry of Work and Employment of the National Secretary of Solidarity Economics to liaise with federal government bureaus, local municipalities, and civil society organizations in developing policies and programs that foster economic and political equity and social inclusion in Brazil.

What is “Fair Trade?”

To better understand this event, one must distinguish between the concepts of Fair Trade and solidarity economics. Fair Trade is more commonly known to American consumers and entails a specific set of exchange practices. These include: pricing floors, living wages, long-term financing guarantees and purchasing agreements, profit sharing, community reinvestment, and the like, the costs of which account for the extra two bits or so one pays at the local coffeehouse for an “ethically sourced” cup of cappuccino.

Fair Trade is sometimes called alternative trade because it seeks to circumvent prevailing market transactions, especially those espoused under neo-liberalism and the process of globalization. For reformers like Joseph Stiglitz, Fair Trade is a viable model for international development in that it advances “trade not aid” as the solution to growing global inequality. Yet Fair Trade has also been criticized as a new form of dependency, tying the livelihoods of Third World producers to the largesse of privileged consumers in the First World.

Solidarity economics encompasses much broader ideas of cooperative exchange. These include: unpaid labor and household provisioning exchanges, bartering systems, production and purchasing collectives, local currencies, gift economies, “freecycling,” and regional reciprocity coalitions. Radical interpretations of solidarity economics foresee the end of capitalist economics and politics whereas more moderate views hope to simply negotiate a “humanizing” intervention within the existing market system.

According to a 2006 report by the ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability), efforts to promote solidarity economics in Brazil actually date back to the 1970s. These initiatives occurred under the auspices of several mostly faith-based international NGOs that organized rural workers into collectives to make and export handicrafts for sale to an emerging cadre of “conscientious” consumers, initially in Europe and now throughout North America and beyond. These efforts continue today through the government-sponsored Brazil Handicraft Program and associated social entrepreneurs such as EcoArts and Brazilianas Handicraft.

By contrast, Brazilian Fair Trade seeks to develop an internal market for domestically produced goods and services. In this regard it’s a potential move toward autarky and ultimately independence from the forces of free-market globalization. (Though at this point the investment is minimal in relation to Brazil’s GDP.) The system of university-based incubators, harnessing the intellectual capital of researchers and students and marrying it to popular local knowledge, has the makings of a cultural revolution presumably without the severe dislocation (not to mention the brutality) of the Maoist “sent down” program.

Writing in The Nation, Kenneth Rapoza characterizes the election of Rousseff, Lula’s handpicked successor, as a refutation of the Washington Consensus that presribes privatization and so-called open markets as the pather to success for lesser-developed countries. Fair Trade Brazil marks yet another step down a road less traveled.