Mitterrand in Latin America
– Folha de S. Paulo, February 23, 1982 –by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
A news article in a Recife newspaper (Diário de Pernambuco, January 21, 1982) makes me pause the article I was planning to write today, as I promised in my piece “Self-Management and Chickenpox” on January 30.
To answer this question, let’s directly look at the news item in the Diário de Pernambuco.
Mr. Jacques Huntzinger, secretary of the French Socialist Party for international relations, describes Mitterrand as an “apostolic” statesman, similar to former President Carter in the United States (whom many Brazilians, including myself, were glad to see leave the White House).
The French head of state aims not only to “increase his economic and commercial presence in Latin America,” which is expected, but also to develop “a diplomacy attentive to human rights.”
If Brazil allows itself to be led down this path, I do not see how “the sun of liberty that shone in the Homeland’s sky at that moment,” according to our National Anthem, can remain shining. “That moment” refers to when Dom Pedro I declared Independence.
You don’t have to be very malicious to see that the “apostolic” Mitterrand wants to “increase his economic and commercial presence” among us, specifically to help achieve the utopian philosophical-political leadership he claims for himself.
One might argue that all of this holds little significance for us, as it mainly involves Mitterrand’s interference in the small Central American republics.
According to the same news report, Mitterrand’s action aims to develop a “more active policy on human rights, particularly in Argentina and Chile.” In other words, focusing on two major South American countries. Brazil, undoubtedly another major country on the continent, should be cautious.
This is far from insignificant. But above all, it is far from everything. Mitterrand simply aims to participate in our internal struggles. Mr. Huntzinger explained that this French “presence” should be exercised notably “in certain areas of struggle that seem to be leading certain Latin American societies toward horizons different from those proposed by the United States.”
In other words, we understand very well what ideological currents are at play here, aiming to mobilize, deepen, and lead Brazilian minds filled with resentment — some of it openly justified — into conflict against the United States. For the socialist-communist coalition that rules France, establishing a “presence” in Brazil means encouraging cultural unrest, or perhaps even sending technicians to “raise awareness,” stir up the masses, and create social tension.
What will the proposed cooling of relations with the United States lead to? It risks depriving us of a powerful, wealthy partner driven by alternating impulses of selfishness and fraternal understanding. If we lose this partner, where would we find another? Given Brazil’s current stature, France, Great Britain, or West Germany would not be enough. However, on the road, where we would suddenly realize that loneliness has surrounded us, a large hand extends to us, wide open. It is the hand, or rather the bear’s paw, of Soviet Russia.
Where does the gold that Russia lavishly spends around the world come from? Is it only from the labor of the mujiks, performed under a slave regime? That’s a ridiculous hypothesis, since this labor isn’t enough to sustain Russia.
In reality, this gold comes from capitalist nations, where groups of highly-placed bourgeois “toads” conspire and cooperate with high-ranking left-wing clergy to keep the Soviet budget afloat as long as possible.
It is the power of evil capitalism, the same evil capitalism that bourgeois “toads” and left-wing clergy criticize as if it represented all of capitalism.
Anyway, this all steers us too far off course. Let’s return to Latin America, especially to Brazil.
I will now refer not only to Secretary Huntzinger’s statements but also to everything that can be inferred about foreign policy from the French Socialist Program and other documents I recently quoted extensively in an article published in major Western newspapers (Folha de S. Paulo, January 8, 1982). The socialist-communist coalition ruling France seeks to unite the entire Third World behind that country in an international front ideally positioned between the two superpowers, the United States and Russia.
The front of raw-material-supplying countries would not only share a common economic interest but also a shared ideology that lies midway between capitalism and communism. It would be a self-managing socialist ideology.
This third bloc, or Third World, would not see itself as an enemy of the other two but as a link between them. It would act as a meeting point where the capitalist and communist blocs connect to prevent a third world war.
All of this might attract fans of political fiction and utopias. In truth, self-management is simply the final goal of communist ideology.
Are Brazilians and Latin Americans aware enough that this is what President Mitterrand is inviting them to do?
I am sure that our country definitely does not want to go down that road. And I wonder, somewhat perplexed, what direction our Foreign Ministry is heading in response to this.
__________________________________________________________
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike
Index of English posts - Plinio Correa de Oliveira