Voices

Views from elsewhere

Syndicate contentRSS

A shameful Brazilian legacy

Why hosting the World Cup and Olympic Games is bad for Rio de Janeiro.

A policeman salutes the Brazilian flag atop Alemão favela
A policeman salutes the Brazilian flag after conquering Complexo de Alemão . Photo: Reuters

For all its golden beaches and panoramic hillsides, Rio de Janeiro is a dangerous place. Homicide is the number one cause of death in “La Cidade Maravilhosa” and its numerous favelas have gained global infamy as the crucible for the city’s endemic drugs problem. Recently, Brazil became the world’s largest market for crack-cocaine, largely due to the rampant network of drug-traffickers that tyrannize the country’s cityscapes.
 
For a country scheduled to host both the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Olympic Games, this is an enormous issue.

On Sunday, over 1,300 military policemen swept through two of Rio’s most notorious favelas – Manguinhos and Jacarezinho – in a substantial pre-dawn operation. Flanked by a phalanx of armoured vehicles and with helicopters hovering above, military policemen armed with high-calibre assault rifles poured into the slums. 60 kilograms of cocaine was seized and three suspected traffickers were arrested.

More importantly, control was restored to a portion of the city once lost to drug barons.

Sergio Cabral, Rio’s state governor, hailed the operation as “another step toward peace, for reducing the number of homicides, car thefts, and home break-ins”.

These operations have become commonplace in Rio as part of a wider security initiative to install “Police Pacification Units” (UPPs) – semi-permanent police forces – in the city’s most troublesome favelas. With the World Cup and Olympic Games fast approaching, UPPs have become the centrepiece of the city’s campaign to clean-up its image and tackle its perennial drug issues.

Beginning in December 2008, 6700 military police have installed 29 UPPs to reclaim territory lost to drug-traffickers, with 11 more planned before the World Cup’s opening fixture.

The brainchild of the initiative, Rio's Security Secretary Jose Beltráme, hailed the success of the UPPs as a “major victory for society, for the people, for public service”.

However, many of the city’s residents aren’t convinced.  

“It’s not guns that are going to make things better: It’s services. Things like running water, sewage, and shoring up unstable hillsides that can slip when it rains. And those aren’t here”, Jose Martins de Oliveira, a local resident of Rocinha, told the Associated Press.

Others protest that the measures serve only to displace the violence, with drug gangs simply upping sticks and moving to the city’s north-western favelas that lie beyond the reach of the UPP programme.

But this is the very essence of the initiative: redirecting the flow of crime away from wealthy areas set to host the mega-events and towards Rio’s more peripheral shanty towns, far away from the hordes of FIFA/IOC delegates and far away from the camera lens. In some cases, the government has even erected enormous walls to hide its shame.

And while these communities are forced to cope with an influx of drug traffickers, the residents in Rio’s “pacified” favelas don’t have it much better.

Rio’s police force has a nefarious reputation for brutality. Human Rights Watch reported that the rate of civilian deaths at the hands of Rio’s police was a staggering 57 times higher than in the US. This predilection for extra-judicial assassination is further encouraged by the chronic failure of the state’s justice apparatus to hold policemen accountable for murder, as courts rely almost entirely on police investigations for their inquiries.

The end product is a police force with almost total impunity and officers routinely opting for bullets instead of dialogue.

As Beltráme admitted himself: “In Brazil, the law is dictated by assault rifles”.

To make matters worse, the complex relationship between favela residents and drug traffickers has blurred the boundary between the two. Often, favela communities who are provided services by drug gangs are seen as complicit in the criminality. 

“We were so hopeful”, Martins de Oliveira told the Associated Press.

“But now it seems we’ve traded the guns of traffickers for the guns of the police”.

The UPPs are essentially a top-down approach to a bottom-up problem. Instead of instilling martial law, the state must address the chronic lack of investment in vital services such as housing, public health, and education to confront the systemic failures of Brazilian capitalism.

What it has done instead has created a dual city: an Olympic city of opulence and a non-Olympic city plagued by the tyranny of unfettered crime and banalised police brutality. Ultimately, Rio's favela communities find themselves wedged between the iron fist of the law and the merciless violence of turf wars. 

Undeniably, the UPPs have produced results: homicides are down, robberies have fallen sharply and real estate prices have soared.

But this has come at a cost: growing social dislocation, urban militarisation and the erosion of civil liberties.

The World Cup and Olympic Games will certainly go some way towards cementing Brazil’s reputation as an emerging global player, but it will leave its people with a far more sinister legacy.

3 comments

cantagalo's picture

Well, Cariocas generally seem to approve. The Mayor Eduardo Paes has just been re-elected on the first ballot with over 60% of the vote. There is a general optimism in both Zona Sul and the favelas that after years of scandalous neglect the State is finally addressing the city's chronic problems.

Where is your evidence (apart from one quote from a favela resident) that social dislocation, urban militarisation and the erosion of civil liberties are getting worse since the introduction of UPPs? The perception here is quite the opposite. You seem to think that security is an alternative to investment in housing, public health and education rather than an essential pre-condition.

And the name of Rio's largest favela is Rocinha, not Rochina.

Bill Cooke's picture

I can't help but feel that, for all the truths this contains, there is a deep tropicalist condescension going on here.

So, to begin. The World Cup is not in Rio. It is in Brazil, and will take place in a number of cities besides Rio, like Sao Paulo and Belo Horizonte. Last time, it was in South Africa, absent as a comparator here yet I would have though, pertinent, in terms of crime.

Brazil is the greatest footballing nation in the history of the world, and has produced the greatest players in the history of the sport. Unequivocally. Corinthians, a team famously supported by the poor, has just won the Libertadores. That Brazil has achieved this in the face of inequality, and imperial exploitation might be cause for praise, and to be glad that the World Cup will be hosted there.

And then, that point about "the rate of civilian deaths at the hands of Rio’s police was a staggering 57 times higher than in the US." The report itself was published in 2009; when were the data collected ? 2008 ? So to suggest there is some connection between these pacification initiatives - problematic though they are - and the loudly flagged Human Rights Watch Report is umm, making stuff up really.

And then, the comparison itself. The City of Rio versus the whole of the USA. Comparing mangoes and cherry pie. To reiterate, Rio is not a country. The USA is. It has lots of relatively tranquil places. But how about comparing Rio to Detroit, or Baltimore (we've seen the Wire, right ?) or South Central LA ? And of course there are no Brazilian soldiers in Iraq. Count the deaths by Paramilitary Americans there ?

The people in "problem" favelas whose lives are blighted by drug dealers, and hardly mitigated by pacification (but the author has checked out all the social science surveys and research - from the bottom up - on this right ?) - do they count as part of "Brazil"? Is the "shameful" attibuted to them ? There is evidence, from the bottom up again, that they wish the World Cup to be cancelled ? They won't enjoy a game of football ? Is this piece saying they should be forbidden - by a New Statesman columnist - to do so ?

And how do the traduced "wealthy" of Rio compare in affluence to the average New Statesman reader ? So while we consume in our safe middle class UK suburbs the products of Brazil - the Havianas, the Mangoes, the music, the movies, and, eventually, the World Cup - only those who are physically adjacent must bear the shame ?

Forget bottom up. That is so last century. Try "locus of enunciation" and see where that gets you.

Jessica Jenkins's picture

Just a note: 'la' is not the definite article in Portuguese. You meant 'A Cidade Maravilhosa'.

Latest tweets