MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Brazil rejects any idea of NATO interfering in the South Atlantic
Brazil rejects any interference of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, in the South Atlantic or any idea of a similar organization at South Atlantic level, reports “O Estado de Sao Paulo”. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesBrazil says:
Oct 22nd, 2010 - 04:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Brazil rejects any interference of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, in the South Atlantic”
Think says:
Ain't Britain a member?
We are indeed Think ... but we are also just Britain, and we have a presence in the south Atlantic too of which the Falkland Islands are just a part .... but then you know that anyway.
Oct 22nd, 2010 - 04:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0What's more interesting is the suggestion that the US is starting to glance south ....... and if they want to consider a SATO I'm sure the British would be interested .... and we have a number of potential bases.
Don't forget that the south Atlantic has two sides :-)
That Antartic treaty is starting to look a little shaky maybe ??
Well Brazil words are not new; they always talk about south atlantic but always when the topic is promoted by Argentina, like in last mercosur statement about Malvinas.
Oct 22nd, 2010 - 04:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0These Jobin words are a change; perhaps Brazil is telling the world wich ir their state policy for the next 20 years; this is Itamaraty style.
I don't think wariness about NATO presence in the region has anything to do with an expansion in membership to South Atlantic countries. It has to do primarily with actual military activity by that organization in the region. So far, the US has not ratified the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. As such, the White House is not under obligation to recognize the sea area the convention has granted Brazil - an area that covers the pre-salt oil discoveries made by Petrobras some years ago.
Oct 22nd, 2010 - 04:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Itamaraty........ This name has a nice “tune”.... and, for the first time in nearly 500 years,..... totally in tune with Argentina ....
Oct 22nd, 2010 - 04:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks Britain.
Your 1493 “Iselandic” settlers are the perfect tool for SA unity :-)
“ ... “The South Atlantic has security questions which are very different from those in the North Atlantic”, Jobim is alleged to have argued...”
Oct 22nd, 2010 - 04:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argued yes ....but persuaded ?
You're “cute” when you get semantic in your argumentation....
Oct 22nd, 2010 - 04:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Shaken,... not stirred :-)
Actually kelpers wellfare is guaranteed; their interest and way of living are paramount; 1° transitory clause of arg.constitution. Brazil and Mercosur and UK could be guarantors of any deal.
Oct 22nd, 2010 - 04:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hoyterd, cool down, no warmongering please; what´s only in challenge here is the link beetwen Malvinas and London.
It's a link of both blood and history billious ... hard to break :-)
Oct 22nd, 2010 - 05:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Laughable isn't it that Argentina, and now Brazil think they have dominion over the South Atlantic now. Not very friendly are they? You're welcome to come and play in the North Atlantic. Brazil can even bring its second hand French aircraft carrier. I'm certain NATO would even help with the logistics if the Brazilians ask nicely.
Oct 22nd, 2010 - 05:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0As you are quite aware Billy boy, interests and wishes are inextricably linked, so don't start talking about one without the other.
Oct 22nd, 2010 - 05:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0@Alexei
Oct 22nd, 2010 - 06:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Instead of looking the issue in this dumb manner of yours - no one is disputing whether or not the region has an owner - consider the fact that an advance by a military organization in a region, alters the power balance in the area. That's why Russia makes a fuss when a former Soviet country is invited into NATO.
It is really laughable how NATO tries to revive itself even if it has pretty much no long term usefulness since the socialist bloc downfall. Does the US really think expanding NATO is a good idea? If so, why? Expanding it would just make it more dilute, and thus meaningless. Plus, I am sure neither Brazil nor Argentina have any interest in “play[ing] in the North Atlantic.” You see, not all countries are like the UK, not all of them would like to have their military used in whatever the US demands of them.
What a shame that Brazil, nor anyone else, gets a say in where vessels belong to nations that happen to be members of NATO get to go.
Oct 22nd, 2010 - 02:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Breaking Rumours
Oct 22nd, 2010 - 02:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please………….. don’t tell anybody because then, I will have to kill you and then autodestruct….
””Dusty” rumors are leaking out of Desire’s Ocean Guardian platform”
They are certainly not leaking oil :-)))
Then, how UK´s debt will be paid?
Oct 22nd, 2010 - 02:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0www.debtbombshell.com/
NATO in the South Atlantic?? Lies! They are stuck in their own rocky waters. Any good news for UK this week?
Oct 22nd, 2010 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8081090/HMS-Astute-operation-underway-to-refloat-worlds-most-advanced-nuclear-submarine.html
(15) Pheel
Oct 22nd, 2010 - 03:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Easy.....:
Lowering Wages….
Abandoning Welfare….
Cancelling Development Aid….
Lifting British Pension Age to 70….
Getting out of the European Union….
Implementing Total Fiscal Austerity….
Slackening labor and environmental legislation…
Lowering taxes for their elite segment to avoid ”Brain Drain”…
Strengthening their Speculative Short Term Financial Market…
Launching a “Preemptive” attack against some dangerous “Rouge State” (Argentina for instance)
The possibilities are endless…, Mate :-)
6 firsts in-motion.
Oct 22nd, 2010 - 04:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Last 3, infinite and plus ultra...imaginable
This is weird and funny at the same time, because the U.S. already is in South South America, Argentina, Brasil, Chile, Perú, Paraguay. It won't take long until this idea of “NATO interfering in the South Atlantic” becomes a reality. It will help a lot the fact that President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner kisses Zionist feet, she loves them! One day she'll be doing Israel's dirty laundry, and that's what she wants us to do too. She's the real skunk ape.
Oct 22nd, 2010 - 04:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And it's even funnier, the fact that many people in my country think that we'll get those islands back lol President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is well aware of the fact that those islands will never be under Argentina's control. There's still a similar dispute going stronger between Russia and Japan over the Kuril Islands.
xbarilox ,“ NicoDin, Marcos Alejandro and JorgeARG, these individuals work for the government”
Oct 22nd, 2010 - 04:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Did you accidentaly get my check? Please mail it back to me :-)
gentlemen, when the Americans suggest something, what they are really saying is, THAT THEY WILL INTERFEAR, only you just don’t know it yet, you see, the yanks go nowhere unless there is a very good reason, and in this case. The reason is clear to all to see, except fools, [OIL OIL] gentlemen, that is the only reason they will come, and NATO will come with them. Brazil has no say in the south Atlantic, brazil sits on the top, nowhere near the south, this is occupied by the Falklands [British] Argentina, and south Africa, and British territories, [if im correct] so if the Americans are suggesting a little holiday in the south Atlantic, you south Americans have a right to be worried, now it would be nice if you had a friend in the south to help you, [sorry] i forgot you don’t like the British do you.
Oct 22nd, 2010 - 09:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0so quiet frankly [YOUR FXCKED] you just don’t know it yet lol
Briton, Not even the yanks supports your cause anymore, remenber a few months ago?
Oct 22nd, 2010 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100043042/hillary-clinton-slaps-britain-in-the-face-again-over-the-falklands/
briton, what is your nationality? You need to improve your English grammar, your spelling skills and your vocabulary. And believe me, that will make you look and feel more British and less dumb!
Oct 22nd, 2010 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I hope you're not a Mexican... Are you?
for your information pure British.
Oct 22nd, 2010 - 11:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0as for your remark abt spelling and grammar, was you not told that to criticise someone else make you look even more stupid, that why people cant understand your crap, but then being a south American one can expect nothing less. Over educated and probably over privileged Spanish speaking twerp what do we expect, besides even your exquisite unnatural spelling capabilities still wont get you the Falklands,
is that ok for you,
“was you not” lol lovely!
Oct 22nd, 2010 - 11:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 019 xbarilox
Oct 22nd, 2010 - 11:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is weird and funny at the same time, because the U.S. already is in South South America,[this should be, the U.S. is already in south America] []and not south south repeated twice,[silly boy??]Argentina, Brasil,[should be Brazil] Chile, Perú, Paraguay. It won't take long until this idea of “NATO interfering in the South Atlantic” becomes a reality. It will help a lot [full stop,] silly boy]]/.And this stupid delinquent over rated impostor of the English language thus picks me up for my spelling. The boy must be illiterate
He probably descends from the Spanish inquisition. In that the question was, who is this silly half breed send him to Argentina with rest of the criminal illiterate riffraff, and this boy is the result of this, stupid stupid stupid, and insulting me will STILL not get you the Falklands,
annd im still ok
Yes, you're a Mexican lol
Oct 22nd, 2010 - 11:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 026 briton , Can you translate your paragraph? Thanks.
Oct 23rd, 2010 - 02:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0@12 Forgetit87 Don't be so disingenuous, or are you really that dumb? I'm making a serious point, albeit with levity that you apparently feel is beneath you. NATO has nearly 30 member countries, most of which have navies. NATO has every right to exercise in international waters, as it has for decades. The UK is also a NATO member, and has legitimate interests in the region and territorial waters to protect. Have you forgotten the unprovoked Argentine aggression in 1982. That country has certainly not renounced its expansionist colonial ambitions towards British protected areas, as I'm sure you know. What exactly is the problem? Is Lula afraid that those nasty North Americans and Europeans with their “olhos azul” might try to steal Brazil's precious oil? Ridiculous.
Oct 23rd, 2010 - 05:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ briton 26#
Oct 23rd, 2010 - 05:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sometimes in my country we say Sur Sur, especially when we talk about the Province of Santa Cruz, Tierra del Fuego or Islas Malvinas, that's why I wrote South South.
Brasil is in Spanish, like Perú.
Full stop? Please, learn to read and stay away from the computer.
Insulting you? Wich of these is more insulting and offensive: Dumb or Mexican?
Period.
xbarilox I should point out that 'period' is an American expression with little or no use in Britain unless you are describing a period of time.
Oct 23rd, 2010 - 05:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0In all fairness Briton, I'm from Birmingham and even I speak better english than you do ......the education system today eh!
@Alexei
Oct 23rd, 2010 - 05:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0You don't seem to realize what the point is. That NATO has “the right” to exercise in international waters is of no importance. That it has such right, doesn't mean other countries feel good about it. Nato invited Ukraine to join its ranks. Ukraine had a right to join Nato, and Nato had the right to extend its invitation to whatever country it feels like. But Russia was uncomfortable over that move, and rightly so. Russia does not own Ukraine, but it was defending its interests in protesting the Nato invitation to that country - for such invitation, if accepted, would alter the geopolitical landscape of Eastern Europe. The same is true about the South Atlantic. Having countries from that region - specifically from South America - joining that organization, would leave some other nations (not only Brazil) uneasy for it would alter the power balance in the area. Again, Nato might have the right you cite. But deep down international relations are not about exercising rights. They're about doing what is convenient. And NATO presence in the area is not perceived by Brazil to be convenient to its interests. As for the FI and the UK-Argentina quarrel over that area - well, who cares? I don't think Jobim had that in mind when he protested Nato's actual or planned activities in the S. Atlantic. And last time I checked the current US leadership is not keen on supporting the UK over its brawl with Argentina. So I doubt NATO is really getting itself involved in there - even by merely practicing exercises - anytime soon.
@ Hoytred # 31 “xbarilox I should point out that 'period' is an American expression with little or no use in Britain unless you are describing a period of time.”
Oct 23rd, 2010 - 07:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Really???? Oh my God, Hoytred, the world is crazy, I didn't know that. I'm shocked!
PERIOD sounds better than Full Stop.
For all the British people that are not British. Isn't it gross?
Period.
“ ... last time I checked the current US leadership is not keen on supporting the UK over its brawl with Argentina....”
Oct 23rd, 2010 - 07:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Forgetit87 - I'd check again .. more recently they've followed the British line on missile testing. Clinton got her hands smacked over her earlier remarks!
xbarilox - I seem to recall that the Americans and the British were famously described as, “ one people divided by a common language” !
As far as I remember…, a “Period” is equivalent to a “Full Stop” for most British and American….............................Women.
Oct 23rd, 2010 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@forgetit87
Oct 23rd, 2010 - 02:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh I’m sorry, I didn’t realise NATO was inviting South American nations to join. Are you sure about this? I missed that bit. I’d agree, if that were the case, certain South American countries might have reason to ask questions.
As I understand Brazil already has military cooperation agreements with the UK and France. A bit of hypocrisy perhaps? My personal opinion is that the UK and France are naïve to enter into defence technology sharing agreements with Brazil for short-term financial gain. Brazil is the clear winner, obtaining advanced technology that it would otherwise have been unable to develop indigenously for decades, if ever. The assumption on the part of European nations is that Brazil is a friend and ally, some of the anti European rhetoric of the current Brazilian government raises serious questions about Brazil’s reliability. I’d be more concerned about the intentions of China in that region, especially with China’s ever-growing desire for all those lovely hydrocarbons. You might be aware that China has recently overtaken the United States as the worlds greatest energy consumer. For that reason alone (as well as others previously mentioned) NATO should be monitoring the region. The Brazilian governments objections should be noted and questioned.
@ Alexei #36- Europe needs South America, as usual.
Oct 23rd, 2010 - 04:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The texts mentions an expansion of Nato, one that would make of it an “Atlantic”, instead of a “N. Atlantic”, organization. That likely means that Nato is considering to expand its membership to S. Atlantic countries.
Oct 23rd, 2010 - 05:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for the parallel between Nato and Brazil's agreement with France, I fail to realize what they have in common. That agreement is one of trade: it doesn't concede to France any military presence in Brazil. But a S. American country joining Nato, that'd indeed be an open door for Nato's dominating countries, specially the US, to establish a presence in the area. The military treaties Brazil's signed with European countries (and the US) have nothing to do with the issue. As for them, the fact that you complain about - that European countries (and the US, I should add) are now signing agreements that guarantee technology transfer - means three things: that those countries are in real NEED to find new markets for their military products; that competition in this sector is higher than in some years ago; and that, to export their products, they need to offer advantages that most other exporters are unwilling to guarantee. It doesn't have anything to do with countries believing that Brazil is “a friend and ally”. If you think international relations are established on the basis of friendship, then you don't understand the subject.
As for the Brazilian government being anti-European, why is that? Americans tend to moan about anti-Americanism whenever someone applies political realism - the theory that countries act on the basis of self-interest alone - to interpret US's moves in the international arena. As such, under political realism a country should always be suspicious of another. Do you think a government is anti-European just because it is suspicious towards whatever intention European countries have in the area? Well, suspiciousness is standard when it comes to international relations. If you think differently, then you don't understand the subject.
To surveille China's energy consumption! Is that Nato's new quixotic mission? After being beaten by Iraqi terrorists and some Afghan Middle-Agers called Talebans, one wouldn't think they would try to take on such a great issue. I doubt that's really what Nato is up to. And even if it were, I don't remind S. Atlantic countries requesting Nato presence in the area to deal with the issue. So a Nato move in this sense would amount to interventionism. Tell me, why China is so worrisome to Nato that it would try to interfere with bilateral trade issues - the export of hydrocarbons - over which the organization has no say? Unlike the US, China recognizes the sea boundaries established by the Convention on the Law of the Sea. So it is not likely to violate other countries' sea area. And unlike the US - and its faithful if a bit goofy sidekick, the UK - China doesn't have a recent history of revolting interventionism such as illegally invading other countries. As I said above, being suspicious of other countries is always a sensible stance when it comes to international relations. But recent history teaches Nato deserves other countries' suspiciousness more than China does.
Oct 23rd, 2010 - 05:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So now the moles have the brits attacking each other. Well now all you have to do, is defeat the spent royal navy, and you are the winners.Congratulations.
Oct 23rd, 2010 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@38 Forgetit87
Oct 25th, 2010 - 10:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Tell me, why China is so worrisome”
“Unlike the US, China recognizes the sea boundaries established by the Convention on the Law of the Sea. So it is not likely to violate other countries' sea area. And unlike the US - and its faithful if a bit goofy sidekick, the UK - China doesn't have a recent history of revolting interventionism such as illegally invading other countries”.
“Nato deserves other countries' suspiciousness more than China does”.
Now I see where you’re coming from, NATO is bad, China is good. And you tell me I don’t understand the situation?Need I remind you of China’s invasion and occupation of Tibet, and its persistent threats towards Taiwan?
They’re now taking a keen interest in Africa...
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9557/china_africa_and_oil.html
... and Brazil
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9557/china_africa_and_oil.html
Not to mention Japan...
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9557/china_africa_and_oil.html
“New Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara expressed concern Friday about China’s military expansion, citing the continued increase in its defense spending... China’s military spending has logged a double-digit annual increase over 20 years”
As they probably say in China, “There’s more than one way to skin a cat”. But it seems you’re more concerned about NATO exercises in International waters in the South Atlantic. Odd.
Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say China was good. I said that all countries are bad, and that, as such, it's always good to be suspicious of another nation. But that doesn't preclude one to recognize that Nato's recent military history is a far worse one than China's - and that has earned Nato a worse reputation than China has deserved so far. Find me a Chinese equivalent to the Iraq War: an illegal invasion by China, one that has killed about 100,000 civilians, against a faraway country motivated by immoral reasons. China's feud with Taiwan and Tibet won't do. Why? Because Taiwan originally belonged to the same political entity as mainland China. That only changed when the Chinese Communists repelled their original government and the latter sought harbour in Taiwan. The thing in Tibet is similar: though one can deplore the whole situation, the fact is that Tibet has always been a part of China. And you know that, according to UN international law, a country is not forced to admit secession or threats to its sovereign integrity. Therefore, China's attempts to restore control over Taiwan, and not to lose it over Tibet, are not illegal. So how can those situations be a Chinese equivalent of Nato's misbehavior?
Oct 25th, 2010 - 04:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Funny that you cite China's businesses activities with Africa and Brazil. But I ask you again: has anyone asked Nato to help us deal with China? No, we haven't. Brazil is even asking Nato to keep a distance. Nobody asked Nato to watch over other countries' bilateral trade relations. Doing so, therefore, would amount to both interventionism and paternalism. You should mind your own business for it seems to me Nato already has too many problems of its own.
China's business activities in Africa might be exploitative, but they're not illegal. African governments have thus far been welcoming to Chinese “investment”. Of course the situation is a dangerous one: China might wound up owning very large chunks of African territory - but such an expansion has been put into motion in a peaceful way, namely by buying lands. So the only ones that can do anything to help African countries against further Chinese expansion, are African governments themselves.
Oct 25th, 2010 - 04:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The thing with Brazil is different. The article you cite seems to imply that China plans to do with Brazil the same that it is doing with Africa: that it's trying to buy up Brazil. The fact, however, is that foreign acquisition of Brazilian lands is ALREADY regulated. Before a piece of land is handed over to a foreigner, the central government is to be notified and it is up to it whether to authorize the process or not. Plus, federal law forbids the sum of land space owned by all foreigners in a given location to surpass 25% of the total space available. That piece of legislation was in discussion in 2008. It passed Congress earlier this year, some months before The Guardian published that paper. The Guardian should have mentioned it for it is clear that legislation was relevant to the subject at hand. Perhaps TG didn't because it WANTS - even if it has to resort to half-truths - to portray a menacing China swallowing defenseless countries.
Again, I don't believe Nato is really looking to supervise China's imports of energy fuels. How'd that be done in the 1st place? Be that as it may, the fact is that we - Brazilians and Africans - didn't ask you to be concerned about us. Go mind your own business.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!