Brazil’s Abstention From 2014’s UNGA Vote On Ukraine Proves That Lula Changed The PT’s Policy
The precedent established by former President Rousseff upon her ordering Brazilian diplomats to abstain from voting in support of an anti-Russian UNGA Resolution in March 2014 was indisputably changed by Lula. Precisely because his recalibrated multipolar vision makes him amenable to the US’ grand strategic interests, he decided to do away with Rousseff’s pragmatic stance towards the Ukrainian Conflict in favor of showing the world that he now supports the US’ position.
Brazilian President Lula’s condemnation of Russia in his joint statement with Biden and his country’s vote in support of an anti-Russian UNGA Resolution shortly thereafter, both of which were analyzed in the context of his grand strategy here, prompted some of his supporters to make excuses for this policy. Instead of acknowledging the reality that he’s politically aligned with the US against Russia in the most geostrategically significant conflict since World War II, they prefer to mislead others about this fact.
To that end, one of the most common narratives that they invented is that Lula is supposedly bound by Article 4 of the Brazilian Constitution to condemn anything that Russia does in those territories that Kiev claims as its own. Foreign Minister Vieira also justified his boss’ political hostility towards Russia on that exact same pretext in an interview with leading Brazilian media late last month, which can be read in full here.
Google Translate shows that he made the following point: “Brazil condemned the invasion of Russia and it could not be otherwise. This is even one of the constitutional precepts that guide foreign policy. This is in the initial articles of the Constitution which establishes, among other things, international law, human rights, territorial integrity and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Brazil could not fail to condemn the invasion of Ukrainian territory.”
This is a blatant lie that’s debunked by the policy that the Workers’ Party (PT) previously practiced towards this issue during Rousseff’s government, which succeeded Lula’s second term and was fully endorsed by him. Back then, Brazil pragmatically abstained from an anti-Russian UNGA Resolution condemning Crimea’s democratic reunification with its historic homeland, which post-“Maidan” Kiev and its Western patrons described as a “Russian invasion” just like they describe its special operation.
The official UN Digital Library website shared proof of Brazil’s previous position here by placing an “A” next to its name to indicate that it abstained, unlike those countries that have a “Y” and “N” to correspondingly show that they voted yes or no. Brazil’s former Permanent Representative at the United Nations explained his country’s stance on the Meetings Coverage and Press Release part of the official UN website here, which is being shared below for the reader’s convenience:
“ANTONIO DE AGUIAR PATRIOTA ( Brazil) said the international community must reaffirm its strong resolve to urgently find a peaceful solution, emphasizing that his country’s concerns reflected its close bilateral ties and strategic partnership with Ukraine.
Noting that Brazil hosted one of the largest Ukrainian-descendant communities outside Europe, he expressed deep regret over the deaths in Kyiv.
The United Nations Charter must be respected under all circumstances, as should international law, he stressed, urging all parties to engage in constructive talks, while commending the Secretary-General’s initiatives to de-escalate tensions, restore calm and promote dialogue.”
These are the same points as those that Lula himself, other Brazilian diplomats like Vieira, and their supporters on social media have all made, with the exception being that Brazil abstained from March 2014’s anti-Russian UNGA Resolution under Rousseff but voted in support of February 2023’s under Lula. Neither he nor the opposition at the time demanded that she be prosecuted on the pretext of supposedly violating Article 4’s provisions related to the formulation of her country’s foreign policy.
Brazil’s previous policy and the factual observation that nobody accused it of being anti-constitutional at the time combine to debunk the lie that Vieira recently relied upon for justifying his country’s decision to vote in support of late February’s anti-Russian UNGA Resolution. Lula could have ordered his country’s diplomats to abstain just like his then-successor Rousseff pragmatically did but instead deliberately decided to have them politically align Brazil with the US against Russia on the Ukrainian Conflict.
This proves that the PT did indeed change its position towards Russia since the last time that it led Brazil, which also naturally prompts the question of why Vieira lied about this instead of doing his job as his country’s top diplomat by articulating the ruling party’s new stance on this issue. As was explained at length in this analysis from early March here, the falsehood that he spewed to justify Lula breaking with his BRICS partners by refusing to abstain from that vote is part of the Hybrid War on Brazil.
The latest manifestation thereof is actually being waged by the PT’s elite and their supporters in order to mislead the party’s multipolar base about the “politically inconvenient” reality of Lula politically aligning with the US against Russia in the most geostrategically significant conflict since World War II. The precedent established by former President Rousseff, who remains such a key figure in the PT that she was recently appointed as the head of the BRICS Bank, was indisputably changed by Lula.
Precisely because his recalibrated multipolar vision makes him amenable to the US’ grand strategic interests as was explained in late January here, he decided to do away with Rousseff’s pragmatic stance towards the Ukrainian Conflict in favor of showing the world that he now supports the US’ position. Further insight into his thinking can be obtained by reviewing the analysis that was cited in the introduction, but the point is that nobody can deny that Lula changed Rousseff’s policy on this issue.
Instead of resorting to toxic ad hominem attacks against those who draw attention to this undeniable fact and even sometimes concocting the kookiest conspiracy theories about their intentions out of desperation to distract from this issue, Lula’s supporters should directly address it. Continuing to wage their Hybrid War by denying this “politically inconvenient” reality is dishonest and makes observers wonder why they’re so obsessed with misleading everyone about this policy.