Search results

On Sunday, Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva criticized Israel's actions in Gaza in the strongest possible terms. "What is happening in the Gaza Strip with the Palestinian people has no parallel in any other historical moment," Lula said to a gathering of reporters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. After a beat, the head of Latin America's largest nation added that, actually, there was a similar episode worth recalling: "when Hitler decided to kill the Jews." Lula's comments in Ethiopia came after a brief visit to Egypt, where he addressed the Arab League. Both African nations are new members of the BRICS — a growing geopolitical grouping originally composed of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. While Lula's visit emphasized past ties and future opportunities, his comments on Hitler eclipsed whatever other message he may have hoped to convey. The fallout opened a new line of attack against him at home, undermining his administration's domestic policy goals at least temporarily. The practical result abroad, however, is unlikely to add up to very much. If anything, the newly pronounced enmity between the Lula and Netanyahu governments is clarifying. The differences between this historical moment and World War II so vastly outweigh the similarities that it is hardly worth debating the merits of the comparison that Lula drew. The more intriguing question is whether Lula's comment signaled any kind of shift in Brazil's position on the issue of Israel-Palestine. There are multiple ways of reading his intentions. Many foreign critics pilloried him for invoking the Holocaust to make a political point. Netanyahu called Lula's remarks "shameful and serious," suggesting the Brazilian president aimed to "harm the Jewish people and Israel's right to defend itself." For Netanyahu, who has faced mounting legal troubles and popular opposition at home while overseeing a military campaign plausibly accused of acts of genocide, Lula's words "cross[ed] a red line."Standing alongside Brazil's ambassador to Israel at Yad Vashem, Foreign Minister Israel Katz on Monday declared: "We will not forget nor forgive. It is a serious antisemitic attack. In my name, and in the name of all Israeli citizens, tell President Lula that he is persona non grata in Israel until he retracts his statements."At home, opposition forces have mounted a quixotic impeachment effort that has nevertheless garnered significant support, including from some members of Lula's governing coalition. Lula was hammered in several of Brazil's mainstream press outlets for purportedly isolating his country on the world stage, supporting Hamas, or trivializing the murder of 6 million Jews between 1941 and 1945.A more charitable interpretation of what happened is that Lula simply spoke off the cuff and made a bad historical analogy. After all, nothing had fundamentally changed up to that point in his government's position, which was to work with the Israeli government even as it strongly criticizes what it sees as unconscionable excesses in its war against Hamas. Before this weekend, Brazil had not gone as far as other countries in Latin America in reconsidering its ties with Israel.Moreover, it's unclear why Lula would make a calculated decision to stake so much on an extemporized comparison between the Netanyahu government and the Third Reich. He surely would have known that the fallout, entirely predictable as it has been, would be extremely inconvenient in political terms. For example, the week ahead promises even more troubling legal news for former president Jair Bolsonaro, the leading counterweight to Lula in terms of Brazil's national politics. Rather than allowing the media narrative this week to focus on Bolsonaro, the Lula government has had to expend time and energy on addressing criticisms of the president's remarks. In so doing, it has established the contours of a new, much more openly hostile relationship with the Netanyahu government.On Monday, Lula recalled the Brazilian ambassador to Israel for consultations. Celso Amorim, Lula's former foreign minister and close current adviser, said the president would not apologize for his comments. "Israel is the one placing itself in a condition of increasing isolation," he insisted. According to journalist Eliane Oliveira, the Lula government is annoyed with what it sees as Netanyahu's eagerness to make hay of the Brazilian president's remarks and use them to his own political benefit. In that regard, it is worth noting that Bolsonaro was a close Netanyahu ally. The prime minister even endorsed Bolsonaro in his 2022 race against Lula, indicating that there was already a vast political divide between Lula and his Israeli counterpart. On Monday night, Alexandre Padilha, Brazil's Minister of Institutional Relations, spoke at length about Lula's comments during a televised interview, asserting that the president's critique constituted a passionate reaction against the Netanyahu government, not a criticism of Israel per se and certainly not of Jews worldwide.Since last year, Lula has strongly criticized Israel's assault on Gaza, calling it "as grave" as the Hamas attack on October 7. Before that, Brazil secured overwhelming support within the United Nations Security Council for a resolution that called for "humanitarian pauses" in Israel's bombing to allow for aid and supplies to enter Gaza, but the measure was vetoed by the United States. The implosion of Brazil's relationship with the Netanyahu government is unsurprising given the politics of the Brazilian left that makes up Lula's base and the broader landscape of Latin America. Countries like Colombia, Bolivia, and Chile, which has the largest Palestinian refugee population outside the Arab world, have been more strident and willing to act on their criticism of Israel's military campaign in Gaza, so the continued degradation of the Brazil-Israel relationship should surprise no one.On Tuesday morning, Amorim doubled down on the argument that Lula's comparison, attributed to a sense of visceral outrage, might push the international community to take firmer action on the matter: "Lula's speech shook the world and triggered a swirl of emotions that could help resolve an issue that the coldness of political interests has been unable to resolve." The fact that the Lula administration has closed the door on any public apology to the Netanyahu government is telling and is, in fact, what seems to have changed the nature of the bilateral relationship. It signals that the Brazilians have decided they are comfortable, if not entirely pleased, with where they've landed vis-à-vis Israel after the weekend. Since returning to the world stage for a third term in January of last year, Lula has rekindled his country's independent streak, steadfastly refusing to embrace the U.S. line on a host of key geopolitical issues even while working assiduously with Washington on matters of mutual interest. As I have argued previously in these pages, Lula insists on cultivating ties across ideological and political lines in pursuit of greater Brazilian influence over a shifting world order.It is not entirely clear whether a firm break with Israel is actually in the offing. As far as Brasilia is concerned, a meeting between Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira and Israel's ambassador on Monday constituted the end point of current tensions. No more escalation is expected from the Lula government, which now sees the ball as being in Netanyahu's court, according to journalist Guilherme Amado.The Israeli government, however, seems unlikely to tone down its criticisms of Lula. On Tuesday afternoon, the country's official X account accused Lula of Holocaust denialism and, in a post written in Portuguese on the same platform, Israel's foreign minister reiterated that Lula was persona non grata until he issued an apology, something the Brazilian government has said it will not do. So will Brazil break with Israel over its sustained bombardment of the Gaza Strip? A great deal of other Global South players have been there for some time. Brazil may well arrive there now, too.Either way, Lula is unlikely to garner any political benefit at home from this row, especially considering that those likely to welcome escalating tensions with Netanyahu already saw Lula as a staunch ally of the Palestinian cause. Given the challenges facing his political agenda, the last thing Lula needs is a muddled diplomatic crisis like this to galvanize opposition forces. The Israeli prime minister, on the other hand, may well benefit from having the Brazilian as a foil — which, from a Brazilian perspective, is precisely why Lula should have been more careful on that stage in Addis Ababa.

When the BRICS grouping held its annual summit in late August, it was widely covered as a portentous affair that signaled a ripening challenge to the U.S.-led global order. For the first time, the group expanded considerably, reflecting a growing ambition not necessarily shared by each original member. It was reasonable to wonder whether a robust challenge to U.S. hegemony was imminent.For Latin America's largest nation, however, participation in an increasingly assertive BRICS need not conflict with a warm working relationship with Washington. Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva demonstrated as much at last week's UN General Assembly. Indeed, Lula's deft diplomacy turned his country into arguably the biggest winner at the annual gathering of global leaders, showing almost single-handedly that the door is not yet shut on a genuinely independent foreign policy in a moment of heightening superpower tensions. He did so by identifying substantive areas of mutual interest with the United States and taking concrete steps to show flexibility and an openness to dialogue, also with respect to the Ukraine war.When Lula, who began an unprecedented third term in January, announced early in his address on Tuesday that "Brazil is back," he was interrupted by applause from members of the General Assembly, which by tradition Brazil opens. Lula's address emphasized many of the same points he made as Brazil assumed the reins of the G20 in India earlier this month: the urgency of combating climate change, the need to find mediated solutions to armed conflicts, and the importance of reversing growing inequality worldwide. Lula's return to the dais 20 years after his first address as president marked a welcome return to form for Brazil, a country long committed to the UN as a meaningful arena of international diplomacy. Indeed, aside from South Africa's Cyril Ramaphosa, Lula was the only BRICS leader to attend this year's General Assembly.Lula used his address to criticize the UN for its inability to preserve its relevance, describing the impasse as he sees it and calling for reforms that he believes can make the body matter more. "The international community must choose: On the one hand, there is the expansion of conflicts, the deepening of inequalities and the erosion of the Rule of Law," he said." On the other, the renewal of multilateral institutions dedicated to promoting peace." He decried sanctions applied unilaterally and the ongoing embargo against Cuba. He also criticized the ineffective insularity of the UN Security Council, discredited by "the actions of its permanent members, who wage unauthorized wars in search of territorial expansion or regime change. Its paralysis is the most eloquent proof of the need and urgency to reform it, giving it greater representativeness and effectiveness." Lula made clear that his nation wants a greater say in a UN that is actually functional and effective, not withdrawal from a body consigned to irrelevance.Lula's meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky the next day demonstrated his careful and even-handed diplomacy in pursuit of an early end of the war in Ukraine. Brazil, like most Global South states, has prioritized relations with both warring parties as it realizes well the high economic costs of the conflict's continuation. Even though he has clearly criticized Russia's invasion of its much smaller neighbor, he had before this week not met personally with Zelenskyy. Finally having done so, Lula has bolstered his claim to fairness and balance.For his part, and from a different angle, President Joe Biden argued for the continued importance of the UN. He called the lack of further world wars, the ascension of hundreds of millions out of poverty, and the eradication of several devastating diseases "a profound testament to what we can achieve when we act together when we take on tough challenges." U.S. health assistance in Africa — such as PEPFAR and fighting the Ebola epidemic — have been excellent examples in this regard. Biden urged the UN to re-embrace its founding precepts of collaboration, respect for sovereignty, and human rights and seemed to signal support for a reform of multilateral institutions to reflect shifting international dynamics. He also spoke of strengthening democratic values around the world. In these areas, his message aligned with Lula's.The following day, Lula and Biden held a bilateral meeting to discuss a host of issues, but most importantly to announce a new joint effort related to workers' rights. "Over the last few days," Biden said by way of introducing the initiative, "the nations of the world have talked about climate change, sustainable development, food security, economic resilience." The president noted the centrality of working people to each one of these challenges and concluded that "we have to empower them as well. And that's what this new partnership is all about." Pointing at Lula, he added, "the partnership actually was this man's idea." While both leaders talked about the importance of union protections, living wages, pensions, and other basic rights often denied in the modern economy — Lula's labor minister also took the opportunity to sit down with members of the United Auto Workers to discuss the ongoing strike and working conditions in the United States — it remains to be seen what concretely will come from this new undertaking. Nevertheless, its importance should not be underestimated. More than anything, it marks an identifiable point of convergence between Brasília and Washington, an issue on which both leaders are personally and politically invested. Durable, productive ties between nations require such investment. A willingness to collaborate in this area — or even just to be seen committing to collaboration — is a positive sign. However, the Biden-Lula convergence on global labor standards may not be aligned with many Global South states, especially in Asia, who see the U.S. push for such standards as protectionism in disguise.Labor was not the only area in which members of the Brazilian delegation sought to make clear that it still very much wants to engage with the United States. Climate action was another. Finance Minister Fernando Haddad held multiple meetings with activists, government officials, and investors to pitch them on green investments in Brazil. Before flying to New York, Haddad gave an interview in which he praised Biden's economic agenda and said there was absolutely no reason the United States shouldn't see Brazil as a key trading partner — not least because, as he noted, "China is entering America through the Southern Cone." Minister of the Environment Marina Silva held several meetings as well, emphasizing Brazil's role in mitigating the effects of climate change. Together, these efforts underscored Lula's attempts to show that Brazil's embrace of a multipolar world does not mean it is eager to turn its back on the United States. That Brazil is finding meaningful areas of collaboration with countries of various ideological and political stripes indicates that international relations in Latin America have not yet ossified into the rigid opposing camps that would characterize a new cold war.It might serve as a model, in fact, for countries looking to avoid one.

Abstract: Over twenty-one years in power, the Brazilian military dictatorship sought to secure a degree of popular legitimacy outside of competitive electoral politics. One of the ways it did so was by cultivating a demonstrative, uncomplicated sense of patriotism. This article examines that strategy by focusing on the trajectory of Dom and Ravel, a musical duo that became synonymous with the regime's flag-waving boosterism before fading when they no longer served official interests. I seek to understand the group as a short-lived media sensation, drawing on newspaper and magazine coverage to situate them within the broader context of the regime's patriotic authoritarianism. The duo's fate allows us to draw some substantive conclusions about the dictatorship's efforts to legitimize itself through patriotic propaganda. First, I argue that artistic output explicitly backed by the regime failed to escape association with the military government. Second, that the group's success was ultimately short-lived because the type of patriotism the regime sought to inculcate in the population held limited lasting appeal in a nation that remained woefully unequal and politically divided throughout the period of military rule.

Evangelical Christians and especially Neo-Pentecostals in Brazil have gone from accepting a position as junior partners in a broad governing coalition led by the Partido dos Trabalhadores (Workers' Party—PT) to asserting themselves as an indispensable pillar of the Jair Bolsonaro administration. A close examination of the career of the prominent Bolsonarist pastor Silas Malafaia suggests that if progressives want to improve their political relationship with evangelical voters they must first find discursive and material ways to neutralize or at least work around the most prominent and virulently conservative faith leaders.Os cristãos evangélicos (em particular os neo-pentecostais) no Brasil passaram de aceitar uma posição de ser parceiros menores numa coligação governamental abrangente dirigida pelo Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT) para impor-se como pilar imprescindível do governo de Jair Bolsonaro. Uma análise exhaustiva da trajetória do renomado pastor bolsonarista Silas Malafaia constata que se os progessistas quiserem melhorar a sua relação política com eleitores evangélicos, eles devem por primeiro descobrir meios discursivos e materiais para neutralizar ou, no mínimo, evitar os líderes religiosos que são os mais preeminentes e fortemente conservadores nesses grupos sociais.

This essay reviews the following works:Women's Empowerment and Disempowerment in Brazil: The Rise and Fall of President Dilma Rousseff. By Pedro A. G. dos Santos and Farida Jalalzai. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2021. Pp. 213. $91.05 hardcover. ISBN: 9781439916179.A Horizon of (Im)possibilities: A Chronicle of Brazil's Conservative Turn. Edited by Katerina Hatzikidi and Eduardo Dullo. London: University of London Press, 2021. Pp. 195. $35.00 paperback. IBSN: 9781908857897.Cynical Citizenship: Gender, Regionalism, and Political Subjectivity in Porto Alegre, Brazil. By Benjamin Junge. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2018. Pp. xi + 304. $64.70 hardcover. ISBN: 9780826359445.Precarious Democracy: Ethnographies of Hope, Despair, and Resistance in Brazil. Edited by Benjamin Junge, Sean T. Mitchell, Alvaro Jarrín, and Lucia Cantero. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2021. Pp. 238. $39.95 paperback. ISBN: 9781978825659.O Brasil dobrou à direita: Uma radiografia da eleição de Bolsonaro em 2018. By Jairo Nicolau. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 2019. Pp. 144. $23.04 paperback. ISBN: 9788537818886.Dilma's Downfall: The Impeachment of Brazil's First Woman President and the Pathway to Power for Jair Bolsonaro's Far-Right. By Peter Prengaman and Mauricio Savarese. New York: Associated Press. Pp. 274. $14.52 paper. ISBN: 9781735845999.Gender and Representation in Latin America. Edited by Leslie A. Schwindt-Bayer. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. Pp. xv + 352. $38.95 paper. ISBN: 9780190851231.Democracy against Parties: The Divergent Fates of Latin America's New Left Contenders. By Brandon Van Dyck. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2021. Pp. 288. $55.00 hardcover. ISBN: 9780822946946.

This article deals with the disputed terminology used to refer to the Brazilian military regime (1964–1985). On one side is the traditional "military dictatorship" nomenclature, which places the armed forces at the center of the political system during the period in question. Conversely, the more recent "civil-military dictatorship" terminology notes that the regime depended on civilian allies in business and government, as well as popular support, throughout its existence. My entry point is a heated 2012 debate between journalist Pedro Pomar and the radical art collective Coletivo Zagaia. I explore how new social actors that emerged after redemocratization have become central to the struggle over human rights in Brazil and, more specifically, how the dictatorship is remembered in the present. This debate among scholars, activists, bloggers, and journalists is fundamentally about memory, accountability, and, I argue, the quality of Brazilian democracy today.

ABSTRACT: For many socialists, the classic political model comes from the left-wing parties grounded in workers' movements that formed in Europe over a hundred years ago. Today, many of the left's broadest goals, and its primary antagonists, remain the same. But the conditions under which socialists pursue those goals have changed drastically. And the social and political climate varies greatly across our unequal planet. This conversation, held in October, brings together scholars who focus on different regions in order to help us understand the challenges that left political formations and popular movements face around the world. What do they hold in common? Where do their perspectives diverge? What brought them to this point—and where are they headed?