Celso Amorim, the chief international advisor to President Lula, and who, due to his personal political clout, is practically the foreign minister of the country, ventured into the lion’s den a few days ago and, like Daniel in the Old Testament, came out unscathed!
The lion’s den, in this case, is the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington-based think tank funded by oil corporations, arms industries, Northern global government agencies, and Atlanticist diplomatic representations.
To simplify: it’s one of NATO’s official think tanks.
Amorim participated in a conversation with Dan Baer, one of the institution’s directors, who, in my view, made some rather crude remarks to our ambassador, which only an imperialist mindset could explain.
But Amorim handled it very well, taking everything in stride and even making the audience laugh (while wonderfully irritating the interviewer).
The first spark between Amorim and Baer was actually lit by Amorim himself, who started his response with a few provocations, like stating that Brazil had geopolitical disagreements with the United States. He emphasized, however, that both countries share many affinities, such as combating inequality and defending the environment.
Despite the interviewer’s moments of aggression, Amorim was warmly received at the institution. The opening speech by its president, Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cuéllar, was almost laudatory, praising not only Brazil but also President Lula for the democratic values he represents in the U.S.
The video description on YouTube begins by saying that “many democracy advocates around the world sighed in relief after the election of Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, also known as Lula.” But then, the description takes a lamenting tone: “[but] they expected greater cooperation on the global stage.”
This “greater cooperation,” as evident from the questions and even the interviewer’s bouts of irritation, would mean aligning Brazil with U.S. geopolitical positions, which hasn’t happened.
The second provocation from Amorim came early in the conversation when the interviewer broached heavier topics and used the term “rules-based order,” a term used by Atlanticists to describe a world order anchored in American domination.
Amorim almost jumped out of his chair upon hearing the term, as any decent representative of the Global South would, and retorted bluntly: “I don’t like that term.”
The interviewer countered that “nobody likes it,” but that there was no better term at the moment.
“Yes, there is,” Amorim cut in, “international law.”
This was Amorim’s first strong punch against the NATO… I mean, Carnegie representative, causing a dramatic pause. A few minutes later, while discussing the G-20, which Amorim had defended as an “inspiration” for a more democratic governance model, Baer returned to the offensive to push the cherished term, asking if Amorim didn’t think the world needed to be governed by “real rules.”
This was Baer’s first knockout, as Amorim’s blow was devastating. He responded:
“Well, you know, the rule of law or a legal order, that is, the rules-based order is more or less like Alice in Wonderland. It’s a rules-based order that changes as you wish. The G20 is an inspiring body. I mean, if they agree, it’s because it might become law, but it has to become law, it has to be something everyone must obey because in the rules-based order you really don’t know which rules you’re referring to and how they change. Is it a rules-based order that the U.S. wants or that Russia wants? I don’t know. I don’t agree with that. I think international law is like in our own life. You can say you have a rules-based order with your neighbor, but there’s a law that allows you to do some things and not others. The rules-based order can be an addition, but it’s not a substitute for international law.”
Ouch!
Amorim gave a lengthy explanation about the need to improve the UN Security Council, incorporating a couple of African countries and removing one European (he gave the audience an ironic look when he said this, and they laughed. He would repeat the idea of removing a European country from the Security Council at the end of the conversation, causing even stronger laughter).
The U.S. wasn’t spared from criticism. I have the impression that Amorim participated in that event mainly to savor the inevitable delicious irritation of his interlocutors when he criticized the U.S. stance, especially regarding the war in Ukraine.
“What we have today in the Security Council are countries that have the veto and are the ones that most disrespect international law. You can judge the situation as you wish, but, formally speaking, the invasion of Iraq was the same as the invasion of Ukraine. In both cases, you have a great power using its might to do what it thinks is right. I’m not going into the details of what’s right and wrong, it’s a legal matter.”
Another dramatic pause from the interviewer.
Another point of friction between Amorim and the interviewer came when the latter tried to point out a contradiction between Brazil and the “authoritarian regimes” of the BRICS, such as Iran, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates.
Amorim responded calmly, with a smile full of generosity and irony, pointing out a certain religious fundamentalism in the hegemonic geopolitical approach among Americans. He said he had criticisms of how Iran treats its women but also disagreed with the death penalty in the U.S., so the best stance was not to meddle too much in other countries.
Another dramatic pause, followed by a small burst of fury from the interviewer. Baer said that comparing the death penalty in the U.S. to the Iranian regime wasn’t “respectable” and that using it would affect the moral credibility of anyone making it. I found this to be a crude remark. Amorim responded by merely spreading his arms, as if to say, “sorry, but that’s my opinion,” while mentally thinking of some expletive.
At one point, while defending the importance of the BRICS, Amorim explained that it has an extremely important geopolitical function for the countries that compose it. For instance, without the BRICS, he said, the world would still be more focused on the G7, which is an extremely closed group of rich Northern global countries. With the BRICS, the G7 needs to look at China, Brazil, and South Africa, and consequently the G20, where these countries participate.
One of the most interesting points Amorim raised was the need to expand international health policy. He noted that the total budget provided by the World Health Organization is just over $5 billion, most of which is already earmarked for combating certain diseases. This is an insignificant amount for the needs of protecting humanity from new pandemics, for instance.
The final clash came when Baer tried to embarrass Amorim over his friendship with Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, making an incredibly crude insinuation about Lavrov carrying “increasingly beautiful watches.”
Below is the excerpt of the dialogue, showcasing the interviewer’s final knockout. Amorim argued that the world needs a Kissinger, referring to the longest-serving American diplomat. But not the Henry Kissinger of the Chile coup, of course, but the one famous for his pragmatism, seen as crucial for avoiding a confrontation between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, and re-establishing political and commercial relations between the U.S. and China. After another juvenile, crude intervention from Baer, where he said something really dumb about those who don’t like to obey laws often appealing to history, Amorim retorted with a quote from Pascal, the French philosopher who destroyed the castle of arrogance, arrogance, and moral violence that characterized the Catholic Inquisition and the justice system of the Middle Ages.
Oh, Baer made another incomprehensible crude remark, saying he “suspects people who ‘respond on both sides’ to everything.” Of course, he suspects: the Atlanticist mindset, represented by Baer and Carnegie, is essentially dogmatic and fundamentalist. There’s only one truth. That which emanates from think tank documents like Carnegie’s, naturally after being approved by all the billionaire foundations and corporations listed in the endless donor lists.
At the end of the response, Amorim elegantly rebuffed Baer’s infamous comment about the Russian minister’s “watches” by saying that Lavrov “is a good person.” Baer’s pallor at the praise of Lavrov is priceless.
Check out the excerpt:
Dan Baer: “The United States and Brazil have obviously had private and public discussions about Brazil’s position regarding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. I know you have a long personal friendship with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.”
Celso Amorim: “I have a long friendship with Bill Burns [former U.S. ambassador to Russia] too, so I can’t deny that.”
Dan Baer: “Let me confess that I am deeply suspicious of people who respond ‘on the one hand and on the other hand’ to everything, but I also like Bill Burns very much and have worked with Sergey Lavrov.”
Celso Amorim: “As it should be.”
Dan Baer: “When you think about Brazil’s interests in international law, understanding your criticisms of the United States and Russia, what do you think Brazil needs to do to ensure its interests in upholding international law? Does it require more political leadership from Brazil on the global stage, being a spokesperson for that?”
Celso Amorim: “Yes, of course, there was a violation of international law by the Russians when they invaded Ukraine, I have no doubt about that and have said that many times. But one thing is condemning a country, perhaps even in the right way. I mean, you can’t impose sanctions the way it’s done by Europe or the United States. It would have to be the Security Council as the only body that can do that. If you tell me the
Security Council doesn’t do that, reform it, but don’t use any subterfuge. But, on the other hand, if you want to find a solution, sometimes you have to be a bit pragmatic. The other day, I was saying, he was heavily criticized in Latin America for what happened in Chile and other countries, Kissinger. But I think the world needs a Kissinger these days, someone who is able to look at things in a more pragmatic way. You can’t destroy Russia and our goal isn’t to destroy it. What you’re doing is heading in that direction. It never happened, it just reinforces their position against poor Ukraine, which is being crushed between the West’s moral arrogance and, if you want to call it brutality or whatever, the Russians’. I think you need people who can talk to both countries. I’ve talked about Ukraine many times with Jake Sullivan and others, we don’t agree, but I’ve talked many times. I went to Russia also to talk with them, I went to France, I went to Germany, we have to find a way that is pragmatic. I don’t know exactly what the solution is, I’m not going to preach the solution, but there has to be a point where both sides are tired and have to come to a conclusion, and that’s what we have to do. You have to have people who can somehow be in the middle and try to help them. I don’t know exactly what the solution is, I don’t want to preach any solution, but there is. If you get into history, it’s very complicated, very complicated, because history before was one thing, before that was another thing, before that was another thing.”
Dan Baer: “People who don’t obey the law like to talk about history instead.”
Celso Amorim: “Yes, but you know, there’s a saying by Pascal, Blaise Pascal, the Frenchman, who said that, not being able to make what is just strong, one must make the strong just. So, it’s more or less what happens. I mean, you have to find a solution that can be accepted by both sides. I don’t want to get into the merits because it’s very long. Of course, what the Russians say is that if Ukraine joins NATO, it will be 300 kilometers from Moscow and that is something they can’t stand and can’t accept, and so on. So, I don’t know, but I think you have to deal with both. You can’t ignore them and you can’t think you’re going to defeat them, because, as some very important people said very clearly at the beginning of the war, I’m not exaggerating, they said we have to destroy Russia. I remember that, I’m not making it up, and you know what comes next? What comes next? I don’t want to mention, Chechnya, Dagestan, all becoming independent countries, and if they do, they will become hotbeds of a new kind of al-Qaeda. What are you going to do? I think you really have to see things more realistically.”
Dan Baer: “So, I’m going to ask one last question before turning to the audience, which is a personal question. Tino mentioned that you are the longest-serving foreign minister in Brazil when we add up your time as foreign minister. Sergey Lavrov has been Russia’s foreign minister for 20 years and, from my observation, not yours, he has managed to get increasingly beautiful watches on his wrist over those 20 years, but increasingly distant from actually making foreign policy. And I wonder if you think he ever gets tired, in private, of becoming more and more a seller of policies rather than a maker of policies? He is a talented diplomat, as he should be after 20 years, but do you think, as his friend, he gets tired of being a seller of policies rather than a maker of policies?”
Celso Amorim: “You’re exaggerating our friendship, anyway, we went years without seeing each other. I’ve known Lavrov for a long time, just as I’ve known other people for a long time. I think he has a great capacity for adaptation, which is certainly true. Others do too. When we talk about the great diplomats of the world, remember that Talleyrand served the French kingdom, the French Revolution, and Napoleon. One thing is being a great diplomat, another thing is agreeing with his ideas. At the time when I dealt closely with Lavrov, it was when the U.S. was preparing the invasion of Iraq and we both had the same position, as did the French, De Villepin also in the Security Council. De Villepin, who was probably one of my best teachers in terms of multilateral diplomacy. So, we don’t need to agree with a person all the time, I mean, we disagree. Once, Lavrov came to me, years ago, and said: ‘Oh, Brazil is the only country that hasn’t yet accepted the Russian terms to become a WTO member.’ And I said: ‘What would you think if I said Russia is the only country in Eastern Europe that hasn’t yet accepted Brazil?’ It’s a completely wrong standard. So, I don’t always agree with him, but he’s a great diplomat and a good person.”
***
In summary: on July 18, 2024, Celso Amorim agreed to participate in a geopolitical conversation with the folks from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington-based think tank.
The event was presented by the institution’s president, Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, better known as Tino, and the person in charge of questioning and interacting with Amorim was Dan Baer, one of the institution’s directors.
