EDITORIAL

By The New York Times Editorial Board

MARCH 21, 2015

When Dilma Rousseff was elected president of Brazil in 2010, industry was thriving and her goal of stamping out poverty in the world’s seventh-largest economy appeared within reach. Many Brazilians hoped that Ms. Rousseff, a former political prisoner, would establish a legacy as a transformational head of state at home and abroad.

So far, those hopes appear to have been misplaced. Ms. Rousseff has been an underwhelming leader on domestic matters and, perhaps most disappointing, on the world stage. While the other three large emerging economies, China, Russia and India, are pursuing muscular foreign policies, under Ms. Rousseff’s watch, Brazil’s voice in the international arena barely registers above a whisper.

After being re-elected by a tiny margin last fall, Ms. Rousseff is now facing the most turbulent period of her political career. The economy is sputtering, and Brazilians are enraged by the widening corruption at Petrobras, the state-owned oil company, which has tainted top figures from the ruling Workers Party. With thousands of Brazilians taking to the streets to protest Ms. Rousseff’s leadership, and some calling for her impeachment, the president will very likely be tempted to hunker down and focus on weathering the political crisis.

While restoring the trust of constituents will undoubtedly be tough, Ms. Rousseff would be wise to spend more energy looking outward, to help strengthen the country’s economy.

Demonstrators called for the impeachment of president Dilma Rousseff in Sao Paulo last week.
ANDRE PENNER / ASSOCIATED PRESS

A first move would be to get Brazil’s relationship with the United States back on a healthy track. American officials saw significant promise in Ms. Rousseff during her early years in office, viewing her as a more pragmatic leader than her predecessor and mentor, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a stalwart of Latin America’s leftist flank.

But negotiations for an expansion in trade and diplomatic engagement were upended in late 2013 when National Security Agency documents leaked by Edward Snowden revealed that Ms. Rousseff was among the targets of American surveillance. She denounced the spy agency’s mass collection of global data as a “breach of international law,” canceled a state visit to Washington and walked away at the last minute from a $4.5 billion deal to buy fighter jets from Boeing.

This year, the Rousseff government and the Obama administration have expressed interest in engaging at a higher level on areas of mutual interest, which include expanded trade, environmental policy and the future of turmoil-ridden Venezuela.

Ms. Rousseff, a former Marxist guerrilla leader, will not become a firm American ally overnight, and there is much on which the two governments will continue to agree to disagree. Brazil, for instance, has been critical of the use of American military force abroad and has in the past used its diplomatic clout to strengthen multilateral institutions that act as a counterweight to Washington.

Nonetheless, Brazil can play a pivotal role in two Latin American countries that are of growing importance to the United States.

In Venezuela, Brazil may be the most influential external actor capable of bridging the dangerous divide between the government of President Nicolás Maduro and the opposition, which Mr. Maduras has confronted by jailing its leaders. Mr. da Silva, a charismatic politician who reveled in diplomatic deal-making, often used his significant leverage on Mr. Maduro’s fiery predecessor, Hugo Chávez.

In Cuba, Brazil could play a constructive role in the economic and political evolution of the island as the Castro era comes to an end. Brazil has already invested in a huge new seaport that could help resurrect Cuba’s anemic economy.

As a leftist leader, Ms. Rousseff has predictably been sympathetic toward the authoritarian leaders of both of those nations. As a former political prisoner who endured torture during an era of repression and military rule in Brazil, Ms. Rousseff could do far more to champion the cause of those who stand for democratic values and the type of societal movements that enabled her rise to power.