Brazil Elections

[Chu]

:D!! I was expecting the worse! That's good news, at last! I wonder what the real percentage of voters was, and why "they" allowed her to win. It's going to be interesting, indeed.

 

[Jacques]

:D!! I was expecting the worse! That's good news, at last! I wonder what the real percentage of voters was, and why "they" allowed her to win. It's going to be interesting, indeed.

I'm wondering the same thing too.

 

[Nienna]

:D!! I was expecting the worse! That's good news, at last! I wonder what the real percentage of voters was, and why "they" allowed her to win. It's going to be interesting, indeed.

I'm wondering the same thing too.

This is quite a relief, although, I agree with others who are suggesting that she tighten security among other things.

As for how she won, maybe Renaissance is right in saying,

Dilma does have relationships with some of Brazil's wealthy elite, and my guess is they see what is coming for the US and those under it's influence. And it seems these factions were powerful enough to not allow their country to go down with a sinking ship.

Hopefully, that is the case and some of the rich elite can see the signs.

 

[Courageous Inmate Sort]

:D!! I was expecting the worse! That's good news, at last! I wonder what the real percentage of voters was, and why "they" allowed her to win. It's going to be interesting, indeed.

I'm wondering the same thing too.

These are the official numbers from the Electoral Court for the presidential second round:

N. of votes % of valid votes
DILMA 54.501.118 51,64 %
AÉCIO 51.041.155 48,36 %

Total electorate: 142.821.358
Abstentions: 30.137.479 (21,10%)
Blank votes: 1.921.819 (1.71%)
Null votes: 5.219.787 (4.63%)

In number of votes, the difference is only 3.46 million, that is, 3.28% of the valid votes, 2.42% of the total electorate, and about 1.7% of the population. Given the frailties in the system and the massive anti-Dilma campaign, I wouldn't entirely dismiss the possibility that the Workers' Party gave a little helpful nudge in the right direction. I believe about 530 thousand voting machines were used, if you could change about 6.5 votes in each you would already get the difference in the number of votes.

I attached a map from G1 (Globo main internet site) that shows who won in each state, both in 2014 and 2010. I didn't check their numbers but it is interesting to see the clear divide between north (generally poorer, less developed) and south (richer, more developed and holds the financial center of the country in the city of São Paulo).

 

[Courageous Inmate Sort]

Thank you for finding and translating these articles, Courageous Inmate Sort. I think this quote says it all:

"I want to ask you to say no to regression in this election, to going backwards, to the loss of rights," added Dilma.

Also, have you read Ricardo Melo's column? (http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/especial/191539-aecio-perde-batalha-da-verdade.shtml)

I've tried to translate it, as I found it very interesting. Hope you can correct any errors!

latulipenoire, apologies for not replying to you sooner. Thanks for translating the article, I think it's pretty good. I made some suggestions in the attached document so you can evaluate them. I really didn't know how to translate the Doril reference, so I suppressed it just leaving the connotation of 'it disappeared'. Please take any change as a mere suggestion and not as a standard of proper English.

It looks, English alternate media also started picking up.

_http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/10/21/soros-and-cia-now-banking-on-neves-to-defeat-rousseff.html

Thanks seek10, this is a great article. Here are the articles SOTT is running on the subject, for future reference:

http://www.sott.net/article/287743-George-Soros-and-the-CIA-banking-on-Aecio-Neves-to-defeat-Rousseff-in-Brazilian-elections
http://www.sott.net/article/287782-CIA-pressure-in-Brazilian-elections
http://www.sott.net/article/287867-Financial-market-forecasting-President-Dilmas-win-in-Brazil-on-sunday-turns-to-post-election-scenarios
http://www.sott.net/article/287826-Fake-celebrity-twitter-endorsement-for-CIA-backed-presidential-candidate-in-Brazil-elections
http://www.sott.net/article/287973-Brazil-presidential-elections-2014-Reason-to-defeat-the-extreme-right-represented-by-Aecio-Neves-of-the-PSDB

Tomorrow is the election day and I'm trying not to feel depressed about it so I'll try to convey some observations here...

1) Today two of the biggest newspapers in Brazil have published "news" of the alleged involvement of both Dilma and Lula in the corruption scheme of Petrobras. Now they say there is testimony proving that Dilma and Lula knew about the corruption and actively participated in it. They (the official media) are trying so much to slander and debase the current government that some people who were not overtly leftist or conservative are waking up to the fact that there is something truly wicked at play, and IMHO, that's some improvement over the situation we had last week.

On the matter of defamation by the mainstream media, this article quotes some very interesting numbers:

Original at: _http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/colunas/guilhermeboulos/2014/10/1533264-massacre-midiatico.shtml

Media Massacre
10/16/2014

Public opinion, once more temperate, radically joined the anti-Workers' Party phenomenon [encapsulated in the neologism antipetismo]. The Workers' Party (PT) is now synonymous with dirty tricks and their voters are ignorant parasites of social programmes. Public opinion, said Millôr Fernandes, is nothing more than whatever is published.

Prior to becoming a widely spread rhetoric — in particular in the Southeast, South and Midwest of the country – the antipetismo was carefully fermented by a far more select group, those who publish. The 30 Brazilian Berlusconi, as defined by the European organization Reporters Without Borders.

Now that the Social Democratic Party (PSDB) has real chances to return to the Presidency, what was progressive erosion has become an open massacre. The low-intensity war turned into an indiscriminate bombing.

The page Manchetômetro (manchetometro.com.br) conducted surveys of positive and negative news regarding the candidates in these elections. The result reveals a lot about the impartiality of Brazilian journalism. Among the three major newspapers in the country, there were four positive headlines for Dilma and 32 for Aécio Neves. Among the negative headlines, 176 were against Dilma and 31 against Aécio.

On the main television news program in Brazil, the "Jornal Nacional" from TV Globo, news coverage favorable to Dilma was four minutes and 14 seconds long. For Aécio it was nine minutes and 52 seconds. In the case of unfavorable news for Dilma, 53 minutes and for Aécio it was seven minutes and six seconds.

We're not just talking about partiality. This limit has already been exceeded. This is media bombardment against the PT candidate. Bombardment now intensified with selectively leaked reports from a supposedly confidential investigation on corruption at Petrobras.

That there was and is corruption at Petrobrás sounds about right. That the press should disclose it is unquestionable. But the same criteria should be applied to the case of Aécio's airport in Cláudio (Minas Gerais) or to the fraudulent cartel of the São Paulo subway. With the same amount of coverage, the same accusatory tone and the same proportions. The numbers from Manchetômetro show something else.

But, let's face it, the PT cannot complain about it. They had 12 years to raise the debate on democratization of communications in Brazil and did not do so. They lacked courage but had too much presumption. They believed that the social pact was a something magical that would last forever. They became – in this case as in many others – victim of they lack of boldness to make structural changes.

The communications monopoly in Brazil is scandalous. The Reporters Without Borders' report, published last year, only says what has been known for a long time about the ownership of the media in the country. "The characteristics of the general functioning mechanism of the media obscures the free flow of information and prevent pluralism. Ten major economic groups, corresponding to some other families, share among themselves the market of mass communication", notes the report. These families are the 30 Brazilian Berlusconi.

Any attempt to critically discuss this structure is stereotyped as censorship so that these groups maintain their privileges. These are quite lucrative economic groups, including revenues from official publicity contracts. And let's not be naive, their controllers have political position and social class. Freedom of communication is precisely what this monopolistic structure prevents. The power to inform the society cannot be owned by 30 families.

But if the PT didn't even question this structure of privilege, why so much hatred against them!? That is the question. Something tells me that it is for the same reasons that, even with banks earning record profits, the stock market rises when Dilma falls.

The Brazilian elite, in finance or in the media, does not accept compromises, however minor. They are intolerant even to changes of lower impact and that are less offensive to their interests. Something remains of the spirit of the master's farmhouse in the times of slavery: hatred of the poor, the northeasterners and blacks. They do not accept social ascension, even when it reinforces their position at the top. They want exclusivity at the airport, at the University and in political power.

Last but not least, they want Arminio Fraga as Finance Minister. It's understandable. If I were a magnate or banker I would want that too.

That is why they see the defeat of PT as their victory. And having the media in their hands, they managed to produce a sentiment that also encompasses those from the lower classes. Corruption fell like a glove in the massification of the argument.

The massacre we are seeing and will see until the 26th reveals the elite massively adhering to the candidacy of Aécio and his bet on polarization. If they win, they will be able to consolidate a conservative wave in Brazil and in Latin America. If they lose, they may have to pay for their excesses, since polarization is not something that can be dismantled with the same ease with which you can create it.

 

[Courageous Inmate Sort]

I just came across something troubling and then something interesting. The troubling part is that following Dilma's reelection, social media exploded with comments against north-easterners to the point of many suggesting that the south and south east should secede from the rest of the country. Just taking a five minutes look into facebook confirmed this. There is a lot of hatred going around.

This seems like a replay of the old grudge that south-easterners have against north-easterners because the south is rich, the north is poor and so people came down from the north to look for work. Currently, this is not true anymore (or at least not to the same extent as in the past) but the grudge morphed into north-easterners are dumb and lazy and they all live on government subsidies through social programs and therefore should be hated all the same. And so the people from the northeast are being blamed by the followers of Aécio for having reelected Dilma.

On the other side of stupidity a politician from the northeast suggested that the north and northeast should secede and form 'new cuba'.

Fortunately there are people on both sides that have a moral compass and try to quell the hatemongering, while some right-wing journalists are feeding the fire with headlines like 'This is not a time for unity but for opposition!'.

The interesting part is that an economic historian made a new map of votes by state using a more precise gradation of colors between red and blue to show that the country is not so geographically polarized as many think it is (myself included). The caption on the map reads 'Less hatred please!'.

Some interesting numbers:
Dilma highest percentage on a single state was 79%, her lowest was 35%.
Aécio highest percentage on a single state was 65%, his lowest was 21%.
So, even in the five states where Aécio got his higher percentages, between 61% and 65%, Dilma won between 35% and 39% of votes. Another thing to consider is that the population is concentrated in the southeast, especially in the state of São Paulo, which alone has more than 41 million people (out of 200 total).

All in all, it does seem that even though there is a tendency towards Dilma in the Northeast and the opposite in the Southeast, she is pretty well represented across the country.

 

[SeekinTruth]

Well, that sounds like it will be harder to cause trouble in a particular geographical area if Rousseff is well represented throughout the country. The more polarized north-south would be in reality, the easier to manipulate conflict and separatism, etc. We'll see how things are going to work out with the NGO-intelligence-finance axis stirring trouble.

 

[latulipenoire]

Quote from: SeekinTruth on October 26, 2014, 09:53:41 PM

Quote from: seek10 on October 26, 2014, 09:41:05 PM

Quote from: Perceval on October 26, 2014, 09:12:45 PM

Rouseff won it, by a nose, 51.45%.

3 days back, according to 2 opinion polls she had 8% lead, it looks it shrunk considerably. BRICS will be there for a while.


Great news!! Now we'll see if they try any shenanigans by claiming the results aren't valid and organizing street protests.


If the opposition didn't try to pull a fast one, I would be surprised. I just hope that Dilma has good security. As well, it might not be a bad idea if she closed the American embassy and sent the ambassador packing, abolished all ngos, and legislated strict rules against lying by the media.
In any case, the next few years are going to be interesting.

Great news indeed! After the final result I went to Avenida Paulista (in São Paulo) to celebrate! (That's part of the reason I could only post today... :P) Dilma suffered terrible attacks from the right-wing media (notoriously from Veja magazine, who said she knew about the corruption schemes one day before the elections) and it could be great if she could pass the legislation to avoid this in the future.

latulipenoire, apologies for not replying to you sooner. Thanks for translating the article, I think it's pretty good. I made some suggestions in the attached document so you can evaluate them. I really didn't know how to translate the Doril reference, so I suppressed it just leaving the connotation of 'it disappeared'. Please take any change as a mere suggestion and not as a standard of proper English.

No problem at all, Courageous Inmate! I thank you again for your input - sharing so many facts about the election and offering another translation! Your suggestions made the text more coherent! Also, "It simply disappeared" express better the meaning of the Doril reference, I quite agree.

Some interesting numbers:
Dilma highest percentage on a single state was 79%, her lowest was 35%.
Aécio highest percentage on a single state was 65%, his lowest was 21%.
So, even in the five states where Aécio got his higher percentages, between 61% and 65%, Dilma won between 35% and 39% of votes. Another thing to consider is that the population is concentrated in the southeast, especially in the state of São Paulo, which alone has more than 41 million people (out of 200 total).

Some people are really obsessed (especially in the richer states) with the absurd idea that Dilma owes her victory to the North and Northeast, saying the only the most ignorant and destitute voted on her. Over the social networks we can find bullying remarks such as "Raise your hand if you voted on Dilma" and "I know you voted on her, that's why she won". I remember what happened in Bolivia and Venezuela, where the media helped by the elites tried to cause civil wars. See, for example (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/12/15/bolivia.unrest/index.html?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail). The Ukraine situation also is similar.
I'll try to share and discuss those maps with the people around me too! Thanks again!

 

[latulipenoire]

I just found out that even the CIA World Factbook recognizes the success of the Worker's Party social policies over the past 12 years, and tells us that Brazil has a long history of inequality (clearly needing more state policies, which Aécio Neves seemed reluctant to admit):

Brazil's rapid fertility decline since the 1960s is the main factor behind the country's slowing population growth rate, aging population, and fast-paced demographic transition. Brasilia has not taken full advantage of its large working-age population to develop its human capital and strengthen its social and economic institutions but is funding a study abroad program to bring advanced skills back to the country. The current favorable age structure will begin to shift around 2025, with the labor force shrinking and the elderly starting to compose an increasing share of the total population. Well-funded public pensions have nearly wiped out poverty among the elderly, and Bolsa Familia and other social programs have lifted tens of millions out of poverty. More than half of Brazil's population is considered middle class, but poverty and income inequality levels remain high; the Northeast, North, and Center-West, women, and black, mixed race, and indigenous populations are disproportionately affected.

from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/br.html (Under "People and Society" section, then "Demographic Profile".)

I also found of note this article http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/28/dilma-rousseff-divided-brazil. When reading, it's better to keep in mind what was said about the so called "divided country" and the media propaganda.

 

[Voyageur]

Dilma does have relationships with some of Brazil's wealthy elite, and my guess is they see what is coming for the US and those under it's influence. And it seems these factions were powerful enough to not allow their country to go down with a sinking ship.

Think what you said may well be very close.

As such, was very surprised at the results after following what was going on with the other CIA influenced and corrupted political players, along with the prospect of rigged voting machines etc. and at the same time was trying to learn a few things about Brazil. One thing that was curious, and this happened back when Lula Da Silva was president, was the initiation, which Dilma then moved forward, of the Belo Monte (BM) dame project. So this project caught my attention as it is controversial and was touted as being one of the biggest dams in the world, with a generating capacity of 14,000 megawatts, except, it will be well less than this and for only one third of the year (rainy season), then it continues to drop output. So that is one controversy, the other is that it relocates a large indigenous population base, not sure just how many, something like just less than 40,000 people to more than 60,000 and greater, which is never good. The land area to be sunk (variable) is somewhere less than 7,000 km2. So no matter how it looks, it is a large footprint with social ripple effects once people have to relocate and merge with a population outside their cultural norms. So on the one hand, it can be imagined that many people inside and outside the country were not pleased with this project based on social and environmental tampering. On the other hand, like any country, Brazil requires energy and energy has self sustaining aspects and monetary aspects, especially if state owned?

In this light, was curious of the ownership, the BM dam funding and investments. Apparently, it is mostly state owned, and when it comes to utilities, osit, things like this should be owned by the people as long as they have a say in them and are supported and not fleeced by them; as is the case in BC, Canada with its Provincial government (people's) owned and funded Hydro. Looking a little further, then there is the bank that funds projects like this, and was initially thinking it would be IMF related somehow, yet in this case, it is BNDES Brazil's National Development Bank, which is very large indeed. According to wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Development_Bank it falls just behind the biggest development bank in the world, The Chinese Development Bank. The project also has a share ownership by the mining company, Vale and there is some type of long term (30 year) management agreement via Vale stake in the consortium of electrical companies, Norte Energia. Of the costs, the project is something like 13 billion with a likely massive cost overrun, as was the case with one of Brazil's older dams named Itaipu.

Of the IMF, there was a article in the Economist _http://www.eiu.com/industry/article/1351100719/brazil-warning-over-public-sector-bank-lending/2013-10-23 just a year ago, whereby they were complaining that Brazil's big banks: "Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (BNDES), Banco de Brasil (BB) and Caixa Econômica Federal (Caixa)." were funding public banks and the private banks were losing ground. They wrote it in such a way of course as to suggest that this is just bad for business, yet these big banks are funding economic recovery, or at least attempting to do so, and not so focused on extortion, at least from the modus operandi of the IMF.

Anyway, perhaps influential friends related to BRICS played a bigger part than is known in the win for Dilma. In this article http://blogs.aljazeera.com/blog/americas/brics-bank-rattles-washington-consensus, the BNDES banker, Luciano Coutinho, is said to be "one of Brazil's most influential behind-the-scenes economic players." He is also "part of the Brazilian negotiating delegation for the new bank {BRICS}." So may be the southern richer areas have more reason to align with Dilma than the results show, or it is perhaps fractured along economic lines in the south, basically between those that are looking to BRICS and these types of projects and business at large to those that are influenced by the CIA/IMF gangs of economic hitman?

As things go forward, I hope Dilma can ensure the people displaced by the dam will be well cared for, yet that never seems to be the point of projects such as this. Good luck Dilma Rousseff in being a good leader to the people.

 

[Courageous Inmate Sort]

voyageur, the Belo Monte issue is, I think, a good example of the contradictions that plague Lula and Dilma's governments. From what I can remember, all you wrote is true. I'm not sure whether this is a result of the Workers' Party compromise with big capital (my opinion so far) or whether all the publicity against Belo Monte is political maneuvering against the Workers' Party (the opinion of the left-wing alternative media).

There is an interesting documentary about it with english subtitles: Belo Monte Announcement of a War

There is also an interesting article from John Perkins (of Economic Hitman fame) Occupy the Dam: Brazil’s Indigenous Uprising.

As for the ownership of the dam, there is this: Who owns Belo Monte?

Executive Summary
The Belo Monte dam project is widely believed to be a national project owned, constructed and financed by Brazilian consortia. This analysis shows however, that roughly 10 % are indirectly owned by foreign – including European – corporations. Given the dam’s tremendous environmental and human rights impacts, this case shows once more the lack of effective policies of these corporations to prevent their capital from getting involved in human rights abuses and environmental destruction. While the individual shares may be small, they point at the urgent need for implementing dam and human rights policies.

edit: quote correction

 

[goyacobol]

voyageur, the Belo Monte issue is, I think, a good example of the contradictions that plague Lula and Dilma's governments. From what I can remember, all you wrote is true. I'm not sure whether this is a result of the Workers' Party compromise with big capital (my opinion so far) or whether all the publicity against Belo Monte is political maneuvering against the Workers' Party (the opinion of the left-wing alternative media).

There is an interesting documentary about it with english subtitles: Belo Monte Announcement of a War

There is also an interesting article from John Perkins (of Economic Hitman fame) Occupy the Dam: Brazil’s Indigenous Uprising.

As for the ownership of the dam, there is this: Who owns Belo Monte?

Executive Summary
The Belo Monte dam project is widely believed to be a national project owned, constructed and financed by Brazilian consortia. This analysis shows however, that roughly 10 % are indirectly owned by foreign – including European – corporations. Given the dam’s tremendous environmental and human rights impacts, this case shows once more the lack of effective policies of these corporations to prevent their capital from getting involved in human rights abuses and environmental destruction. While the individual shares may be small, they point at the urgent need for implementing dam and human rights policies.

edit: quote correction

Yes, the heat is being turned up big time now. From voyageur's link http://blogs.aljazeera.com/blog/americas/brics-bank-rattles-washington-consensus "China will be calling the shots". If only we earthlings could balance technology and nature instead of always making things worse. The battle for conscience is not over yet. Even though I was routing for BRICS to succeed I now see it is not totally uncontaminated by the banking world, be it Brazilian Development Bank, IMF, World Bank or Bank for International Settlements.

The Belo Monte dam project is going to displace thousands and ruin the ecology of the region/regions and for what? The banks always have their sights on the next investment. Cosmic mind protect us from repeating the same "dam"/damn mistakes.

 

[Courageous Inmate Sort]

From US Department of State:

Obama’s Call with Brazilian President Rousseff

28 October 2014
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
Washington, D.C.
October 28, 2014

Readout of the President’s Call with President Rousseff of Brazil
President Obama called President Dilma Rousseff this morning to congratulate her on her re-election. The President emphasized the strategic value of our bilateral partnership and reinforced his commitment to deepening our cooperation in areas such as commerce, energy, and other priority bilateral issues through our existing strategic dialogues. President Rousseff thanked the President and affirmed that strengthening ties with the United States is a priority for Brazil.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, D.C.
October 27, 2014

STATEMENT BY SECRETARY KERRY
Elections in Brazil
I congratulate President Dilma Rousseff on her hard-fought victory, and we particularly congratulate the Brazilian people and electoral officials on another successful election marked by extraordinary participation and energetic debate. We look forward to continuing to work with President Rousseff and her administration to strengthen our shared aspirations and advance our bilateral relationship.
This is a vital relationship for the hemisphere and for the world. It’s a strategic relationship bigger than any differences. Representing the two largest democracies and economies in the hemisphere, our partnership reflects scores of common interests, whether it’s confronting the Ebola crisis, promoting peace and security in Haiti, increasing educational exchanges, supporting the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement, and continuing to support deeper business and commercial relationships that strengthen job-creating trade and investment. If we both make this relationship the priority it can and must be, our cooperation and commitment will only continue to deepen.

From the Workers' Party official website:

Re-election showed the strength of the Brazilian democracy, says Obama to Dilma

The President of the United States, Barack Obama, congratulated President Dilma Rousseff on her re-election on Tuesday (28). In the phone call, he said that the electoral process in the country has shown "the solidity of Brazilian democracy" and reiterated his desire for closer relations with Brazil.

According to the Press Office of the Presidency, Obama values the bilateral partnership and sees great opportunities for cooperation in economic-financial areas and energy in the country. [give us more money in interest payment and, by the way, can I have your oil?]

During the ten minutes long phone call, he suggested that Brazilian and American teams should work to set the 2015 agenda, establishing the basis for the Brazilian President's state visit to the United States "in due course".

Last year, Rousseff canceled a visit to the United States after allegations of espionage by the United States' National Security Agency (NSA) against members of her Government appeared in the press around the world.

During the World Cup, the vice president of Obama, Joe Biden met with Rousseff aiming to minimize the diplomatic crisis. In the phone call, Obama claimed to have received very positive impressions from Biden about the meeting with Rousseff, in Natal (RN).

According to the Press Office, Rousseff thanked the colleague's compliments and emphasized Brazil's interest in strengthening ties with the United States. The heads of State should meet during the G-20 meeting in November in South Korea.

And from the Government official blog:

Partnership with the United States
In relation to the call from President Barack Obama this afternoon, journalist Kennedy Alencar wondered about the bilateral relationship with the US. Rousseff said that she wants to reverse the trade deficit with the United States. "We have immense interest in a strategic partnership with the US in terms of innovation, science and technology, in addition to cooperation in the areas of strategic defense, technology and commercial relations". She recalled the meeting with Obama at the G-20 Summit in November, in Australia, and said a future visit to the US is being scheduled.

While Dilma mentions 'innovation, science and technology, strategic defense, technology and commercial relations', Obama goes directly to 'economic-financial areas and energy'. As usual it seems Brazil will keep a more or less stable relation with the US, not extremely friendly but also probably far behind the discourse of Putin and other leftist Governments in Latin America.

By the way, while Israel sends people to train the US law enforcement, the US trains Brazil law enforcement, as it happened in the preparations for the World Cup. From this long article in Portuguese:

FBI and other American agencies trained 837 officers of the 12 host cities in various courses, which also include digital research and relationship with the media

Some articles in English:

Academi to Train Brazilian Police Forces for the World Cup

The U.S. private security contractor Academi has trained Brazilian police forces for the World Cup, according to an article published by journalist Patricia Campos Melo, of newspaper Folha de S Paulo. A group of 22 federal policemen as well as military policemen from different states were sent to the Academi training center in Moyock, in North Carolina, where they were taught anti-terrorism techniques in the largest private training center in the United States, that includes scenario facilities, four ship-boarding simulators, two airfields and three drop-zones. According to Lieutenant Ricardo Nogueira, of the Sao Paulo Police, the course — named “Maritime Interdiction of terrorism” — focused on the US experience in fighting terrorism.

But if you have never heard of Academi, don’t worry. I am sure you know who I am talking about. Academi is the company formerly known as Blackwater, one of the biggest U.S. contractors in the early stages of the occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan under billion-dollar military Defense Department contracts. The company is accused of killing 17 Iraqis in a massacre in Nisour square in 2007 and of other misdeeds that led to two changes of its name in the past 5 years.

This is the same company that trained the Greek police forces for the 2004 Olympics in Athens, a prominent player in a security market that covers form the protection of sensitive infrastructure like mines in Africa, to secure compounds in Afghanistan, and of course security of mega events. Most of the employees are former soldiers, and the proximity with the U.S. government means that many sensitive tasks — from training foreign forces to protecting foreign diplomats — are third partied to them.

As Wikileaks documents showed back in 2010, the U.S. has vamped up its assistance on anti-terrorism for the World Cup because it saw a right risk of danger — and also a great business opportunity for its companies. However, opaqueness surrounds this support; the total investment of the U.S. embassy in the training was only revealed now — U.S.$ 2.2 million over the past 2 years. The deal was never publicized in full, and many questions remain. The Ministry of Justice is yet to explain for instance, how many courses were funded by the U.S., and who were the trainers — U.S. military? Mercenaries?

World Cup Security Gets U.S. Training as Brazil Seeks Expertise

The U.S. is taking the leading role in helping Brazil train security forces to prevent a repeat of violent protests that erupted during a warmup tournament for soccer’s World Cup last year.

The U.S. has provided and paid for 39 programs on issues such as crowd control, maritime security and border control, said William Marcel Murad, special projects director at Brazil’s major events secretariat, which is coordinating security for the quadrennial tournament.

Security has become a focus since last year’s Confederations Cup, which triggered the biggest demonstrations in a generation in South America’s largest country. During the warmup event, police used tear gas, rubber bullets and percussion grenades as they clashed with protesters in every city that hosted games.

“We have this course that tries to develop all the police forces to better deal with violent protests,” Murad said.

Canada, the U.K., France, Germany and Japan also have provided significant assistance to Brazil, which has put together a list of what each country has to offer in terms of security training. Brazil is getting help from the U.S. even after President Dilma Rousseff canceled a state visit to Washington in September following allegations the U.S. spied on senior Brazilian officials.

Brazil plans to deploy 150,000 military and police personnel for the monthlong tournament that starts June 12. Soccer’s showpiece will be played in 12 cities from Porto Alegre in the south to Manaus, the capital of the Amazon region.

Maritime Training

With several host cities along Brazil’s coast and Manaus on the banks of the Amazon river, a U.S. course on maritime terrorism has proved particularly useful, Murad said.

The World Cup will be the biggest sporting event ever held in Brazil, and two years later Rio de Janeiro will become the first South American city to host an Olympics.

The U.S. Embassy press office in Brasilia confirmed via e-mail, without giving further details, that it is providing training to the host nation leading up to the World Cup.

Murad said all training is organized and funded by the U.S., which has run programs since 2012. He said Brazil doesn’t have information on who provides courses.

“Our major partner right now for the World Cup is the U.S. embassy,” said Murad. “They had more availability and offer more courses than the other countries.”

Rousseff is scheduled to host U.S. Vice President Joe Biden on June 17 after Biden attends the U.S.-Ghana match.

“I don’t have to think of that,” Murad said of Brazil’s relationship with the U.S. “That’s another level of government. Our focus is technical.”

U.S. Training

Brazilian authorities were criticized in local media for sending 24 police officials to an exercise in North Carolina that was conducted by Academi, a closely held company formerly called Black Water that provided security to the U.S. during the war in Iraq.

Some Brazilians remain wary of the U.S. because of links to the military dictatorship that ran the country between 1964 and 1985, said David Fleischer, a political science professor at the University of Brasilia.

“It leaves a bad taste in Brazilian mouths because back in the 60s and 70s there was a lot of training done, not just by the U.S., but also by the U.K. and France,” Fleischer said in a phone interview.

 

[Courageous Inmate Sort]

Yes, the heat is being turned up big time now. From voyageur's link http://blogs.aljazeera.com/blog/americas/brics-bank-rattles-washington-consensus "China will be calling the shots". If only we earthlings could balance technology and nature instead of always making things worse. The battle for conscience is not over yet. Even though I was routing for BRICS to succeed I now see it is not totally uncontaminated by the banking world, be it Brazilian Development Bank, IMF, World Bank or Bank for International Settlements.

The Belo Monte dam project is going to displace thousands and ruin the ecology of the region/regions and for what? The banks always have their sights on the next investment. Cosmic mind protect us from repeating the same "dam"/damn mistakes.

The way I see it at the moment is that in a very broad scale we are immersed in a cycle of decline (not to mention the fact that the space-time we inhabit is STS). Inside that cycle there are still opposing negative and positive forces, but they operate under the constraints of the overall decline. So there is likely no one with angel-like morality calling the shots, but there are gradations of conscience and behavior that express how much they are aligned with the positive or negative forces. Add to that that countries and institutions are formed by a myriad of people and even the best efforts can be a mixed bag of good, not so good and just plain terrible.

It has been particularly difficult for me to recognize that the Workers' Party is actually the best we have in this country with any chance of governing it, because there is so much you could use to condemn them.

This is the reason I still read local right-wing media, because just as their counterpart the left-wing media can not be trusted to make unbiased analyses, especially since one of their parties is in power, or so I think. As we have more knowledge on a specific subject, it becomes easier to see who is distorting the facts. By the way, I think mainstream is worse than the clear right-wing outlets, both because of their reach and how insidious they can be.

Paraphrasing the Cs, even Putin is not perfect, he is just the best we've got.


Edit: there is also this pertinent quote from Session August 16, 2014:

Q: (Puck) So we have a question about BRICS. Do the BRICS leaders have a genuine interest in improving the collective future for humanity?

A: Partly, but as with everything in your realm, there are mixed motives and cross purposes.

 

[Courageous Inmate Sort]

Lula became more directly involved in publicly defending Dilma and the Workers' Party during the elections and he continues to do so:

source: _http://www.brasil247.com/pt/247/poder/159041/Lula-refor%C3%A7a-import%C3%A2ncia-de-parceiros-que-n%C3%A3o-sejam-EUA-e-Europa.htm

LULA REINFORCES IMPORTANCE OF PARTNERS OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES AND EUROPE


In a new video, in which he talks about foreign policy in the PT Government, the former President underscores the importance of maintaining Africa, the Middle East and South America as trading partners, as to be "less dependent" on the United States and the European Union; According to him, in some sectors of Brazil "it still prevails" a mongrel complex, which means that "you don't believe in yourself, you're always thinking that others are better than us"

31 OCTOBER 2014

In the forth video in the series commenting on the elections of 2014, former President Lula talks about foreign policy and defend Brazil's relationship with partners other than the United States and the European Union.

He said that, during the rule of the PT, "we introduced a novelty in Brazil", which was to establish new relationships, such as with Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. "There are people who still won't accept it," he said.

According to him, "it still prevails," in some sectors of the country, the "mongrel complex", a characteristic that defines, according to Lula, that "you don't believe in yourself, you're always thinking that others are better than us." "In the case of foreign policy, there are people who believe that everything has to be done with the United States and Europe," he explains.

"We introduced a novelty in Brazil, we didn't want to reduce the relationship with the US, which is a strategic partner, and we recognize the importance of the European Union, but we would need to be less dependent on these two blocks," he said.

"We then decided to create other blocks. That's why we didn't let the Free Trade Area of the Americas be approved, why we strengthened the Mercosur, Latin America, South America, created the Unasur and have established a strong relationship with Africa, the Middle East and China. Because what we actually wanted was to look for new partners so that we would not be dependent on the United States and Europe," he said.

He adds at the end of the video (even though his tone is pretty serious, I can't help but smile at the 'Atlantic river'):

I am certain, I am convinced that President Dilma will resume these efforts vigorously and that she will keep the same attitude towards the USA and the EU, but that she will also strengthen our foundations that are, precisely, our neighbors at one side and our other neighbors separated by a river called the Atlantic.