Brazil has Become an Enemy to Democracy on the World Stage
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has charted a disastrous foreign policy to the detriment of democracy around the globe
Editor’s Note: Moving forward, all Brazil articles will be published in English under the World section and in Portuguese in the Brasil section.
Você pode encontrar a versão em português deste artigo aqui!
Lula, Brazil, and the World
In the run-up to the 2022 Presidential Election in Brazil, Democracy’s Sisyphus endorsed Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s (Lula) bid for the presidency. We did this not because we believed Lula would be a good president, it was clear that he would not be, but because he was better than the alternative. That alternative was the country’s then-president, Jair Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro spent his entire presidency vacillating between stunningly incompetent administration and actively attempting to undermine the country’s constitutional institutions as he publicly fantasized about a return to the dictatorial regime that the military had imposed on the country between 1964 and 1985 but under his control.
Lula was hardly new on the scene. He became Brazil’s first working-class president after he won his first presidential election in 2002. He won reelection and became one of the most popular presidents in Brazilian history serving through 2010 (The Brazilian Constitution does not have a presidential term limit but prohibits presidents from serving more than two consecutive terms). A member of the socialism-oriented Workers’ Party, Lula had lost the three previous presidential elections and only won in 2002 after moderating his positions. His popularity stemmed from the enormous economic growth Brazil experienced during his tenure and the dramatic reductions in poverty that accompanied it. While some of Lula’s policies were responsible for this transformation the economic growth was due to a commodity boom linked to China’s expanding economy and had almost nothing to do with Brazil’s internal politics. In many ways, Lula can also be said to have squandered some of the opportunities this growth brought through short-sighted and inefficient spending binges. When the extent of corruption within his government and party was later exposed, Lula’s popularity took a hit (he spent some time in prison before he was released on a procedural technicality). Nevertheless, he never attempted to overthrow the constitution and his supporters didn’t fill the streets to call for a dictatorship as Bolsonaro’s had. Ultimately, there is a difference between being a bad president and a threat to your country.
The DS endorsement of Lula cited two key points. First, care for the environment and combating climate change. Bolsonaro denied the existence of climate change and oversaw historic amounts of deforestation in Brazil which he encouraged as necessary for Brazilian development. On this point, Lula has proven a success. Deforestation in Brazil has fallen dramatically as the country has started to take climate change seriously again. The second point we felt was key to the election was democracy (no surprise here, it’s in our name). As discussed above, Bolsonaro actively positioned himself as an enemy of Brazilian democracy and his supporters eagerly called for the military to step in and create a dictatorship under Bolsonaro, especially after Lula won what was a free and fair election at the end of 2022. On this second point, Lula’s record is far more suspect. As predicted, he has strengthened Brazilian democracy internally. Not through some great program of reform but simply by not attacking and undermining it. He has at times, fallen into the left-wing logic trap of believing that the “popularity” of his government justifies broad executive action. Still, he hasn’t violated the constitutional order or attacked the other branches of government. It is on the world stage where Lula’s relationship with democracy has been abysmal.
Referring back to the running DS topic of the Second Cold War, under Lula, Brazil has time and time again defended authoritarian countries, supported their leaders, provided economic relief, and attacked defenders of liberal democracy. Lula claims, as he has throughout his political career, that he favors peace over competition. He denounces the idea of a new cold war and maintains that Brazil won’t choose sides. However, in practice, this has meant favoring acquiescence to dictatorships and excusing their worst behaviors in the name of undermining the Liberal World Order (including its system of human rights) which Lula clearly sees as a manifestation of American imperialism. Neutrality in no way describes the positions Brazil has taken. What is worse is that Lula seems to believe that a world order run by China and Russia will somehow be more beneficial to Brazil (it won’t).
Brazil and Russia
Just a week before Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine, then-President Jair Bolsonaro made an official visit to Vladimir Putin despite widespread condemnation from the international community. He declared Brazil’s “solidarity” with Russia and promised Brazil would remain neutral in the coming conflict with Ukraine. The move was widely seen as throwing Putin a lifeline at a time when the US and its allies were trying to isolate Putin. So naturally, the democracy-loving Lula has reversed course on Russia? No, he has dramatically increased Brazil’s support for the aggressor in the largest European conflict since World War II and for the dictator who stands accused of war crimes by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Throughout his political career, Lula has been extremely critical of US foreign intervention which he has criticized as unwarranted imperialism. During his first administration, Brazil adamantly defended new international criteria for foreign intervention to prevent countries from intervening without the consent of the country being intervened in. All of this seemed to slip Lula’s mind when it came to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Lula’s initial response was to insist that Ukraine needed to be willing to surrender portions of its territory to secure peace before insisting that “the world needs to calm down.” What inspiring leadership, the world and victimized nations need to capitulate to dictators because this will make the world more peaceful. Surely if Argentina invaded Brazil tomorrow, Lula would quickly surrender a portion of his own country in the name of peace. Brazil’s president may wish to study pre-World War II appeasement to understand just how wrong this position is.
After a harsh backlash, Lula eventually backed off of the position that Ukraine should cede territory but otherwise maintained a pro-Russia stance. Lula instead turned his condemnation to those really responsible for the invasion of Ukraine, the United States and its allies. “The United States needs to stop encouraging war and start talking about peace; the European Union needs to start talking about peace so that we can convince Putin and Zelensky that peace is in the interest of everyone and that war is only interesting, for now, to the two of them,” Lula stated during a trip to China. Yes, by not abandoning Ukraine to the mercies of Putin, the United States and the European Union were “encouraging war” and all could be solved by “talking about peace.” I guess in the many diplomatic engagements between the US, EU, and Russia before the invasion all those leaders and diplomats forgot to talk about peace. Lula further insisted that Ukraine was equally responsible for the conflict telling European leaders, “If one doesn’t want to, two can’t fight.”
Happy as always to blame the world’s problems on the United States, Lula had no similar criticisms for Russia (the invading nation) or China which has actively provided economic and military support to Russia’s war. Instead, Lula included China as one of the “countries willing to find a way to make peace.” Russia’s Foreign Minister publicly thanked Brazil for its “clear understanding of the genesis of the situation." A quick rule of thumb, if an invading dictatorial regime thanks you for understanding a situation, you have misunderstood the situation.
In practice, Lula has continued to oppose supplying Ukraine with the weapons it needs to defend itself while drawing closer economic and political ties with Russia. In 2023, Brazil was the top importer of Russian diesel and it has become one of the main financiers of Putin’s regime. When asked if Brazil would be willing to enforce the ICC warrant for Putin’s arrest Lula defiantly responded no before suggesting that Brazil might even withdraw from the ICC.
Lula’s approach to Russia and the invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated an alarming level of hypocrisy, justification of dictatorships, and a grade school-level understanding of international relations. Not only has Brazil stood apart from the pro-democracy coalition, it has actively taken the side of dictatorship and aggressive imperialist expansion. The contention that Brazil is neutral cannot be taken seriously.
Brazil and China
In the case of China, Lula has warmly embraced the world’s leading authoritarian country with none of the disdain he seems to hold for the US and other liberal democracies. As when he was first president, Lula has had little to no criticism of the widespread human rights abuses in China. No words of defense for the people of Hong Kong whose democracy was violently stomped out by Beijing, and no sympathy for the more than one million Uyghur people it has imprisoned in concentration camps.
Instead, Lula maintains that China is an “indispensable partner” for Brazil, and during his visit there rebuked the United States by proclaiming that “Nobody can stop Brazil from continuing to develop its relationship with China.” Since returning to the presidency Lula has sought closer economic ties with China which has included multiple bilateral agreements and steps to eliminate the use of the US dollar in trade between the two countries. Lula started 2024 by receiving a visit from the Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs and continuing to celebrate the value of China’s friendship. One might think the value of such friendship would be in question as countries across the world find their sovereignty and financial stability undermined by faulty Chinese loans and debt traps, but not for Lula.
Brazil and BRICS
The fallacy of Lula’s foreign relations is on full display in its approach to the BRICS alliance a multilateral organization uniting the developing economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. BRICS was one of the “accomplishments” of Lula’s first presidency. He sees it as a way to project Brazilian leadership across the developing world and create a global financial system that is independent of the United States. What it has become is a tool for China and Russia in their oft-expressed goal to overthrow the US-led Liberal World Order. Specifically, the authoritarians hope to use BRICS to undermine institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Unsurprisingly, Lula is supportive of this vision, he claims that BRICS is the key to “a new global order committed to multilateralism.”
Let’s take a look at what we know about this new global order China and Russia seek and Lula supports. Their designs envision a “transactional” world order where countries will “prioritize sovereignty” (meaning allow dictatorships to terrorize their populations in peace) and abandon the idea of a “rules-based” order that pushes countries to adhere to annoying principles like respect for borders, liberal democracy, free trade, and human rights. Every country will be free to do whatever terrible thing it wants within its borders and the strong can more freely bully the weak outside of them. These are not just musings but plans that have been put to paper. Such a global order would see many of the most important advances of humanity since the end of World War II rolled back as the world became a less prosperous and more hostile place with Beijing calling the shots. Lula is either too foolish to see what China and Russia are doing or he wrongly believes that this world order would leave Brazil better off, and he doesn’t care about the horrendous moral implications.
Brazil and Venezuela
Since Lula first came to power, he has shown significant empathy and support for the left-wing dictators of Latin America and has consistently prioritized ideological affinity over democracy within the region. Dictatorships in Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela have all benefitted from Lula’s ideological blind spot. Since returning to power his support for Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro has been on frequent display.
.jpg){kind=link}
With no regard for the suffering of the Venezuelan people under a dictatorship that has destroyed the economy and rigs elections, Lula has offered Maduro his support, welcomed him with great fanfare in Brazil, and condemned the United States for opposing him. He absurdly claims that Maduro is simply the innocent victim of US spun political narrative.[1] When said innocent victim used a likely fraudulent referendum to declare his intention of annexing the oil-rich region of his neighboring country, Guyana, Lula was forced to express disapproval of Venezuela’s aggressiveness. Nevertheless, official statements from the Brazilian government merely discouraged aggression and called for a peaceful resolution. Again, as with Russia and Ukraine, Lula seems to blame some mysterious external force for causing the contention and expects both sides to find a “peaceful solution” to an aggressor’s demands.
Conclusion
An anonymous South American diplomat recently asked Reuters, “Where is Brazil the defender of human rights? It's not clear what Brazil stands for today when it picks Putin and Maduro as allies.” It is becoming increasingly clear where Brazil stands as it throws in its lot with authoritarians across the globe time and time again. Lula spent the early part of his life and political career campaigning against Brazil’s military dictatorship and fighting for democracy. Throughout both his presidencies, he has made it abundantly clear he believes that that fight is a privilege to which only he and his country are entitled. It is incumbent upon everyone else to submit to authoritarians. Either Lula is incredibly naïve and ill-informed, and this has allowed him and his country to become the puppet of dictatorships across the world OR his foreign policy is nothing more than moral bankruptcy masquerading as idealism. His foreign policy is often couched in high-minded rhetoric and claims to moral superiority but in the real world he has made himself and his country undeniable enemies of democracy.
[1] Multiple non-US government actors like the Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented the election fraud and human rights abuses of the Maduro dictatorship.