Who is better for Brazil, Obama or McCain?

Maybe it's proximity, not familiarity, that breeds contempt.

In Mexico, which has close economic ties and a long border with its neighbor to the north, presumptive U.S. Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is seen as an advocate of trade policies that will do little good and maybe much harm.

Contrast that with Brazil, where Obama's trade and foreign policy proposals elicit passionate approval -- something Brazilians may regret if he's elected U.S. president.

Every political leader should place reason over passion, especially when considering what is in the best interest of the nations they command. That seems to be what's happening in Mexico, but not in Brazil.

Based on what Obama said during the primary campaign, it is clear that he is no free trader. He wants to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, opposes a trade accord with Colombia, favors maintaining agricultural subsidies and backs the continued protection of the expensive and inefficient U.S. ethanol industry.

Nafta is crucial for Mexico. Undoing the treat, Mexican President Felipe Calderon said, would ``inflict considerable damage on the economy'' and force North America, as a region, ``to compete from a position of backwardness in today's world.''

Obama has said his campaign rhetoric may give the impression he wants to terminate the trade agreement among the U.S., Canada and Mexico. When pressed, he says he just wants to make sure that environmental and labor standards are enforced.

Protectionist Pretext

There is a fine line between encouraging developing nations to adopt better environmental and labor practices and using these standards as an excuse to foster protectionism in rich nations.

How are poor countries going to finance the adoption of these expensive practices? How much time should they be given to comply with them? Are U.S. consumers willing to pay more for goods imported from developing nations?

If thorny questions like these merge with the rebirth of world protectionism led by surging international commodities prices and food shortages, then the Doha Round of world trade negotiations may be postponed indefinitely. That's why several analysts are suggesting negotiators should try to reach an agreement before President George W. Bush -- whatever his faults may be -- leaves office in January.

Yet in Brazil, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva hailed the rise of Obama as ``a revolution in the mindset of the American electorate.'' If Obama wins the presidency, Lula said, it would be ``the biggest news in 100 years.''

Bad Form

Lula's embrace of Obama is unfortunate on so many levels, it's hard to know where to begin.

It surely is bad form not to keep a certain dispassionate distance from a presidential election in another country. What if Republican John McCain wins? Where does that leave Lula?

Worse than that, though, Lula revealed how ill-informed he is about Obama's foreign-policy proposals and their potential effects on Latin America, and Brazil in particular.

Take renewable fuels, for example. This is one of the global issues dearest to the Brazilian president -- one closer to his heart than to his mind. Otherwise, how to explain Lula saying the following about Obama: ``What he's already done for Brazil, with regard to renewable fuels, is a big step.''

Did I miss something here? What exactly did Obama do for Brazil's renewable fuels? What big step? If anything, just the opposite is true.

Backing a Boondoggle

Obama voted in favor of the 2008 Farm Bill, a $289 billion tribute to protectionism that maintained the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff the U.S. levies on imported ethanol. Obama rejects lowering this tariff, even though U.S. consumers are paying more than $4 a gallon for gasoline. Ethanol could help lower those costs, reduce pollution and reduce U.S. dependency on oil imported from unstable nations.

In a document posted on his Web site, Obama suggests Brazilian ethanol threatens to destroy the Amazon, while ``ethanol producers in the United States rightfully worry about competition from Brazil.''

It's clear that Mexicans are paying a lot more attention than Brazilians to the risks underlying Obama's rhetoric on trade. In a recent worldwide survey by the Pew Research Center, Mexicans were among the most skeptical toward Obama's foreign policy proposals.

Of Mexicans following the U.S. campaign, 51 percent said they don't trust Obama to do the right thing in foreign policy. Excluding Turkey and the Middle Eastern countries of Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt, respondents in Mexico were the least confident in Obama of the 23 nations surveyed.

The opposite holds in Brazil. Among Brazilians following the U.S. presidential race, 58 percent said they are confident Obama will do the right thing in world affairs.

Only time, and U.S. voters, will tell whether Mexicans or Brazilians know Obama better. For now, Brazilian President Lula will continue to ``wish to God that, should he win the election, he might have a different U.S. policy for Latin America.''

Lula may rue the day he got what he wanted.