Hello, everyone!
I invite you all to read this article on http://www.newsweek.com/id/194604?from=rss and have in mind the following questions to guide your comprehension and encourage you to write your comments on the blog.
1) How did the journalist Mac Margolis describe Lula's participation in the Domestic and International scenario (number of embassies/ number of International trips/ number of departments in Foreign Ministry) ? What about Brazil's participation ?(G5/BRIC/peacekeeping mission/ trade with Latin countries and USA) . What do you think?
2) What is your view on Brazil having military expenditures stagnant compared to other countries?
3) Do you agree on what was said about Fernando Henrique Cardoso? Why?
4) What about WTO rules in favor of Brazil? Was Lula responsible for that?
5) Do you think the journalist was partial or impartial when talking about Lula and Brazil? Give examples from the article.
6) Is there any relevant piece of information that you disagree on? Why?
Hope you all take this very chance to post your ideas in writing. Have a nice work!
Best wishes of fun with writing!
Flávia
Mário Soares - engineer
ResponderExcluirRegarding “The Crafty Superpower” article, issued by Mac Magolis in NewsWeek magazine last month, which praises Lula as the responsible for Brazil´s outstanding milestone in South America leadership, we have to consider that the author was a little bit superficial in his analysis.
Although most of actions of Lula´s government related to its foreign politics have being valuable to reinforce Brazil´s role in the international economic scenario, the author gives to his readers the false image of a striking government.
It´s important to mention that Brazil has improved its status in economy worldwide, but this soaring movement was more influenced by the rising of the global economy (before the crisis, obviously) than Lula´s efforts results. In fact, we can say that Lula failed when it didn´t implement the public cost reduction and decreasing taxes programs which could promote a higher Brazil´s economic development at that time.
In addition, Lula´s government has been marked by successive internal political crisis caused by several corruption scandals involving important people in government hierarchy. Local press has exposed many dirty political negotiations to benefit the president´s parties and its allies “trading” important places in state companies, or other governmental institutions which control a great amount of money of government budget and infrastructure investments.
Instead of representing Lula as a “Third World Messiah”, Mr. Magolis could have done a better job if he had analyzed a little deeper the pros and cons of Lula´s government looking at its behavior at domestic and foreign political and economic environment . Probably he could have presented a more realistic scenario from Brazil, and could have brought to his readers a good reflection about the difference between Lula´s image and his government reality.
Este comentário foi removido pelo autor.
ResponderExcluirLigia Capriotti - lawyer and administrtor says:
ResponderExcluirLula´s domestic performance is described as a unique one, unlike any other emerging giant. Stability, democracy are one of Lula´s trademarks. In the international scenario, Brazil has now become a more assertive voice for the emerging markets. Brazil has emerged in the middle of 1990s during Cardoso´s goverment, but it is during Lula´s government that the world is paying a close attention to our country. Since 2003, Lula´s government has opened 35 embassies mainly in Africa and the Caribbean.
Brazil´s participation in BRIC has an strategic importance for our future – a cooperation among countries aiming at economic Power. The sending of Brazilian troops to Haiti, even with the “feeling” of peacekeeping, was widely critized by political analysts stating that this is a way of guaranteeing a permanent seat at UNO – Security Council, one of Lula´s targets.
There is no need in becoming a military super-power and there is no need in increasing expenditure into defense. Brazil has to defend its economic interests.
Fernando H. Cardoso´s goverment had a great importance with the implementation of Plano Real reducing inflation, foreign trade opening and promoting normalization with the financial community, but Brazilians had its economic power recovered under Lula´s government.
The journalist is impartial. In my opinion, the text is his glance at Lula´s government and points Lula´s political importance. Some examples in the text : “Lula is building a unique regional giant”, “The Brazilians have also become a more assertive voice for the emerging markets in international affairs!” The journalist is stressing strong points without taking somenone’s side.
The military issue could be a piece of an argument. Brazilian expenditure with defense is stagnated right now, but in twenty years it could be different.