Brazil Must Choose: Sovereignty and the Multipolar World or Subordination to US Interests

According to S. Glazyev, in his seminal essay “Sanctions and Sovereignty”, didactically discussed in the excellent interviews here and here, the opportunity of the century would consist of the possibility of definitively freeing oneself from the imperialist harassment of the Collective West through the construction of a multipolar world order based on the exercise of sovereignty and win-win multilateral arrangements.

The journey towards multipolarity is complex and imposes some arduous tasks, such as the formulation of architecture and financial instruments suitable for economic growth and income redistribution, ideally immune to the dollar – the main weapon in the Hegemon’s arsenal. It also imposes the need to formulate new multilateral forums and entities, without the vices of the existing ones, which were largely designed and imposed by the Hegemon, for its own benefit, after the Second World War.

In addition, operating in a multipolar environment also presupposes that each country seeks the ability to articulate its own interests from a sovereign perspective, but without ignoring or offending the interests of partner countries.

And this obviously includes absolute respect for the domestic policy of others.

Having said that, we recall that since the inauguration of the current Brazilian government we have pointed out how Brazil has pursued an erratic foreign policy, which oscillates between a supposedly obsolete strategic ambiguity and an echo chamber-style representation of certain interests of the collective West. Our focus on the current government is justified because it was under Lula’s first terms in office, in the early 2000s, that Brazil became a founding member of the BRICS and one of the driving forces behind the G20.And it is precisely this point that prompts our first question.

Is there, or has there ever been, a sincere interest on the part of Brazil in the BRICS and multipolarity?

The doubt is well-founded because, despite all the rhetoric and enthusiastic propaganda about the BRICS and multipolarity that the Brazilian president exerts around the world to an international audience, Brazilian attitudes towards its partners in the Global South seem to suggest not. Simply put, Brazil’s engagement seems insincere, and is certainly inconsequential. The history of evidence has become too overwhelming to ignore.

The list is long, but a few episodes stand out:

First there was the bizarre position of the Brazilian authorities in relation to the Russian Special Military Operation in Ukraine, in which Lula emulated Montezuma.

Then there was another bizarre episode, decorated with cowardly overtones, about Israel’s  ongoing genocide of the Palestinians of Gaza.

And more recently, we have been following the Brazilian government’s deplorable and irresponsible stance regarding the elections in Venezuela, in a graphic intrusion into that country’s domestic politics, which has only served to legitimize the imperialist position of the US and its European vassals and further weaken the stature of Brazilian diplomacy.

Moreover, still on the subject of the ongoing crisis in Venezuela, we have just learned that there are discussions in government circles, led by the presidential adviser for international affairs, Celso Amorim, to make Brazil’s recognition of the Venezuelan government conditional on new elections being held in that country.

Regardless of whether or not this proposal is formalized, the effort to avoid a domestic resolution of the crisis and Brazil’s desire to promote regime change in Venezuela, in line with US interests, are now completely exposed. Furthermore, by worrying about popularity ratings, indirectly corroborating the hegemonic media’s narratives on Venezuela, Lula is missing the opportunity to raise his stature and politically educate the Brazilian population, as well as further alienating the remaining left-wing militancy.

At this point, it’s worth asking an additional question. Is Brazilian leadership in Latin America nothing more than a myth fabricated in the corridors of Itamaraty?

In another news item, we have the appointment of a Brazilian ambassador (a first-class diplomat) to Taipei, Taiwan, and the omission of the link between that diplomatic mission and the Brazilian embassy in Tokyo. The nuances of development did not go unnoticed and can be interpreted as raising the status of the diplomatic mission to the same level as the one in Beijing, which would indicate the perception of Taiwan by the Brazilian authorities as an independent political entity. In other words, a potential diplomatic blow to a BRICS partner, which happens to be the world’s largest economic power and one of Brazil’s biggest trading partners.

Furthermore, if confirmed, it would be another case of the Brazilian government emulating another feature of US foreign policy.

Considering all of the above, would it be premature to conclude that Brazil is slowly giving up its engagement in the BRICS and multipolarity, while reaffirming its colonial status quo in the field of the collective West?

I asked this question to a very dear friend, who is widely known and read around the world. His answer:

“Get ready for KAMALULA !”

Brazil vs Venezuela: A Question of Loyalty

Of all the aspects that define the ethical and moral stature of a politician and his or her legacy, Loyalty is perhaps the most decisive because, in general, it is the ability to exercise loyalty that makes a politician trustworthy and useful in the most difficult of times. Loyalty manifests itself on several levels: to the electorate, to one’s partners on the road and to one’s companions in the ideological camp, i.e. those who don’t bargain for support in order to extract advantages in times of difficulty.

Yesterday, President Lula said that Brazil will not recognize the victory of Nicolas Maduro,, and then indicated the need for new elections in Venezuela. The decision came before the conclusion of the appeals trial processes underway in the Venezuelan courts. Our geopolitical reading of Brazil’s position has already been expressed. Today we would like to comment on this development from a slightly different perspective.

There are no records of attacks on Lula or Dilma Rousseff by Hugo Chavez or Nicolás Maduro. Quite the opposite. Chavez and Maduro have always been at the forefront of defending sovereignty and democracy in Latin America. In fact, Maduro was Dilma Rousseff’s most vocal defender in South America, and relentlessly denounced the white coup d’état that led to her impeachment as president of Brazil in 2016. Maduro also always denounced the illegal imprisonment of Lula by Lava-Jato.

Basically, we have no record of Maduro asking Lula, or Dilma, for proof of their innocence before supporting them in the countless cases of fraudulent accusations, lawfare and international sabotage that have always targeted Brazil under the administrations of the Workers’ Party. Nor have Chavez or Maduro intervened in Brazilian domestic politics to enable imperialism’s interests in the region.

We believe that every genuine left-wing activist – whether they voted for Lula or not – as well as every decent Brazilian should be ashamed of the graphic disloyalty shown by the Brazilian president. We fear that for them, Lula’s words no longer matter.

Could it be that the kind of “leadership in the region” that the Brazilian ruling class aspires to – Lula and Celso Amorim included – is analogous to that which the bush captain exercised in the cane fields?

Translation by Internationalist 360°