Disclaimer: This site has been first put up 15 years ago. Since then I would probably do a couple things differently, but because I've noticed this site had been linked from news outlets, PhD theses and peer rewieved papers and because I really hate the concept of "digital dark age" I've decided to put it back up. There's no chance it can produce any harm now.
| Identifier: | 05RIODEJANEIRO853 |
|---|---|
| Wikileaks: | View 05RIODEJANEIRO853 at Wikileaks.org |
| Origin: | Consulate Rio De Janeiro |
| Created: | 2005-06-06 18:23:00 |
| Classification: | UNCLASSIFIED |
| Tags: | PGOV SOCI PHUM BR Domestic Politics |
| Redacted: | This cable was not redacted by Wikileaks. |
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 RIO DE JANEIRO 000853 SIPDIS STATE FOR WHA/BSC, WHA/PDA-LGOULD, DS/ITA AND DS/IP/WHA E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PGOV, SOCI, PHUM, BR, Domestic Politics SUBJECT: The Separation of Rio de Janeiro City from Rio de Janeiro State: The Debate Summary ------- 1. Thirty years after the creation of the new State of Rio de Janeiro, which occurred in 1975 with the fusion of the old States of Guanabara (the city of Rio) and Rio de Janeiro, a group of prominent residents of the city of Rio de Janeiro initiated a campaign for the separation of the City of Rio de Janeiro from the State of Rio de Janeiro. The idea is to create a city-state with a modern administration, separate from the Baixada Fluminense and the interior of Rio de Janeiro State. "De-fusion" is generating strong public debate, going from promises of increased control over the city's administration and with concomitant economic upsurge to a fear that the folly undertaken in 1975 should not be repeated, whatever the promised results. At least some of the energy and frustration in the proposal may derive from the desire of "Carioca" residents to be quit of the Garotinho couple, Rosinha (current governor) and Anthony (previous governor), who have administered the state for nearly six years, created tense relations with the federal and municipal governments, and still maintain a strong populist base in the countryside which has kept them in power. Background ---------- 2. In 1975 during the military regime, the State of Guanabara (city of Rio de Janeiro) was fused with the old state of Rio de Janeiro, and the new State of Rio de Janeiro was born. The former State of Guanabara had tremendous cultural, economic and political influence, while the former State of Rio de Janeiro, with its vast territory outside the City, was strong in agriculture. The decision to merge Guanabara State, with its restricted territory and very specialized manpower and financial resources, with a state (Rio de Janeiro) with vastly more territory, seemed natural. At the time, both regions were losing ground in the country's economy. The military government wanted to transform the new State of Rio de Janeiro into a dynamic industrial pole, with a powerful agro-industry, such as found in the State of Sao Paulo. By nominating an admiral to be the governor, the dictatorship diminished the power of opposition to the dictatorship at the same time. Different Opinions, Hot Discussions ----------------------------------- 3. Economist Paulo Rabello de Castro, the "father" of the de- fusion project and author of a detailed study on the creation of the new city-state of Guanabara, thinks de-fusion is the only real chance to rescue the City of Rio from continuing degradation. He believes that as a city-state, Rio would have its own police, its own government, avoiding duplication of government administration, thus decreasing the total number and cost of political jobs. He stresses that Rio could have a large and strong economy based on services - tourism, sports, design, national and foreign financial services, scientific research, education, etc. The new city- state of Guanabara would have nine million inhabitants and Brazil's third GDP of Reais 100 billion (approximately USD 42 billion). Rabello de Castro argues that the fusion in 1975 was forced on the people by the military dictatorship, and after thirty years, it should at least be seriously debated. He suggested a plebiscite. 4. According to Maria Silvia, former Municipal Finance Secretary and former President of Companhia Siderurgica SIPDIS Nacional (CSN), the crisis in Rio de Janeiro city is sharper than in any other Brazilian city. During a period of fifteen years (from 1960 to 1975), Rio de Janeiro suffered three major political-administrative changes -- the transfer of the capital to Brasilia, the creation of the State of Guanabara in 1960, and its fusion with the State of Rio in 1975. Anthropologist Roberto DaMatta said that the fusion of 1975 traumatized the city. Subsequent administrations were incapable of dealing with public security, health, education, transportation, or the environment, according to DaMatta, for lack of a new self-image and inability to accept the City's reduced role in national affairs. Rio was the political, cultural and administrative center of Brazil from 1763 to 1960; it was the capital of the Republic from 1889 to 1960; and it was recognized since 1834 as a "neutral city" - one that was unique and special. How does a city with this kind of history transform itself into a "mere" state capital? 5. The Governor of Rio de Janeiro, Rosinha Garotinho, is vigorously against the idea of separating Rio City from Rio State. She believes that the capital of Rio would not survive without the development of the interior of the state, where important industrial poles like oil and gas are located. Hugo Leal, a lawyer and member of the current state government, stressed that the argument that the City would be better off standing alone - free from the Baixada Fluminense and the interior of the state - is erroneous. He pointed to investment and development outside the city of Rio, which have been growing apace - fruit plantations in the northeast, the petroleum industry on the northern coast, the metal- mechanical pole in the south Fluminense area, the re- establishment of the naval industry, and the gas-chemical pole in the Baixada Fluminense are all products of the government and industry working together, creating jobs throughout the state. This distribution of investment and jobs is slowing the migration of the poor to the City of Rio's favelas (shantytowns) - one of the major problems the City has had to face in its history. Workers' Party (PT) Mayor Lindberg Farias of Nova Iguacu in the Baixada Fluminense takes a less generous view of the motivations of those interested in de-fusion, accusing the "elite" of the Zona Sul in Rio City of wanting to keep all the money of the city to itself, calling the call to create a city-state of Rio "autistic." He noted that many of the people who work in the City of Rio live in the Baixada Fluminense; he finds it niggardly on the part of the rich to resent spending money outside the City on streets and health care and other services for the workers who serve them. 6. Other opponents to the idea, like the President of Rio de Janeiro State Federation of Industries (Firjan), Eduardo Eugenio Gouveia Vieira, criticized the concept of de-fusion, saying that this proposal has no planning or technical basis and is repeating the same mistake made in the past when the capital was transferred to Brasilia. He said that in the future, the process of de-fusion would bring considerable fiscal disadvantages to both states. Besides this, the re- distribution of the state's indebtedness would lead to the non-compliance with the limit of indebtedness established by the Law of Fiscal Responsibility. Gouveia Vieira questions those behind the proposal. Approximately 45% of the population of the State of Rio de Janeiro was born after the fusion and another 82% was either an adolescent or a child at that time. This means that for the great majority of Rio inhabitants, Guanabara means only a name of a famous and polluted bay. Gouveia Vieira criticized the lack of consultation with, for example, federal Deputies and Senators who represent the State of Rio de Janeiro in Brasilia, or other influential organizations, like Firjan. 7. Another opponent, Tito Ryff, Rio de Janeiro State Secretary for Planning, said that de-fusion would not solve SIPDIS any of the city's problems but rather create new ones. The new city-state would have to assume some very expensive functions that are now the State's responsibility. He provided some examples like the present police force that operates in the City, some State hospitals and schools located in the city, plus social security (previdncia) payments. These four functions together represent expenses of more than Reais 4.5 billion (approximately USD 1.8 billion). Ryff believes that the city's talent is in the provision of a modern economy, an economy of services, tourism, information, culture and leisure. Such a modern economy interacts with the industrial economy and, in certain cases, with the agricultural economy, both of which are undertaken outside the City, precisely in the Baixada and the interior that proponents of de-fusion seek to disadvantage. Comment ------- 8. The possibility of the re-creation of a city-state in Rio, as it was during the golden years of 1960 through 1975 as the old State of Guanabara, brings intense emotions to those who support it. Some opponents like Rio de Janeiro Senator Saturnino Braga opined that between the lines of the proposal one could read the dissatisfaction of the inhabitants with Rio's Governor Rosinha Garotinho, and her husband Anthony Garotinho, both of whom came from the interior, and were elected by the rural population of the State. This should not, however, be a reason to support de- fusion, in Braga's opinion. This opinion was conveyed to the Consul General by many of his interlocutors and was the subject of heated debate at a recent Rotary Club luncheon. 9. Pol/Econ specialist spoke to an economist at Getulio Vargas Foundation, who doubts that de-fusion, thirty years later, will be the solution for the problems of the City of Rio de Janeiro (former Guanabara State). He said the fusion in 1975 brought many benefits to Rio de Janeiro, including a more visible position on the national stage than it had before the merger (between 1960-1975). He does not believe the fusion is solely responsible for the city's decline, as many claim. Bad state and municipal administrations should likewise be held responsible. If the fusion was a big mistake in the past, it does not make sense to commit the same type of mistake again. Very careful analysis should be done before any action is taken, he stressed, very careful. ATKINS
Latest source of this page is cablebrowser-2, released 2011-10-04