Lula and Bolsonaro are striking exceptions to the oversimplification of contemporary leaders in the New Cold War either being unipolar liberal-globalists or multipolar conservative-sovereigntists since the first can be described as a multipolar liberal-globalist while the second was a unipolar conservative-sovereigntist. This is an admittedly imperfect assessment but one which nevertheless serves to make an important point: each leader has significant idiosyncrasies that complicate analyses of their foreign policy.
The economic issue is important when we analyze the Bolsonaro and Lula administrations, and project Lula's new mandate in the international context. In summary, Lula is 'nationalist' in the sense of investing in public policy on education and health, in workers' salary correction, in science and technology, in environmental preservation. Among other actions, Lula proposes investing in important public companies and takes a stand against the privatization of national companies and defends the reduction of hunger and misery and industrial growth. This national developmentalist action with sovereignty differentiates the two rulers and positions them internationally as well.
You are right, simplifications must be avoided when dealing with the cases of Lula and Bolsonaro. Something that escapes this analysis and that Lula's supporters generally avoid touching on is the immoral support that the new president of Brazil gave the US and Canada for the occupation of Haiti during his first government.
Why did Lula act like this against the poorest Latin American country? Many in Brasilia think that the main cause was the desire to present Brazil as an emerging power capable of assuming "responsibilities" in its area of influence.
With the new US occupation of Haiti in the making, it is also worth wondering if Bolsonaro had not also supported it despite his differences with Biden. With all this, what I want to emphasize is that Lula's foreign policy had notorious errors that must be corrected in his new administration.
very good observations... Bolsonaro was and is a product of army generals and the army itself. It is hard for me to grasp whether the conservative uprising expressed within bolsonaro's government was due to external or internal factors - most probably both. The thing is that Bolsonaros Foregin policy can be described as in some degree defiant to USs hegemony though it has internally shut down any attempts to overcome its position as a vassal state. On the other hand, the worker's party has tried to gain leverage on the foregn policy arena with internal policies that would make possible a quality change on the international position of Brazil...the most striking example is the energy policy Bolsonaro and Lula have played. One with a vast investment project to become self sufficient in production and refinary of oil and even become a major exporter of refined oil and the other with sell outs and placing Petrobras policy as one of a net importer even though we are not. Just some thoghts...with the new cold war, i dont know wht will be lulas foreign policy
Very sophisticated analysis. We will have to see if the US decides to undermine Lula again, if Brazil becomes too independent again.
The economic issue is important when we analyze the Bolsonaro and Lula administrations, and project Lula's new mandate in the international context. In summary, Lula is 'nationalist' in the sense of investing in public policy on education and health, in workers' salary correction, in science and technology, in environmental preservation. Among other actions, Lula proposes investing in important public companies and takes a stand against the privatization of national companies and defends the reduction of hunger and misery and industrial growth. This national developmentalist action with sovereignty differentiates the two rulers and positions them internationally as well.
You are right, simplifications must be avoided when dealing with the cases of Lula and Bolsonaro. Something that escapes this analysis and that Lula's supporters generally avoid touching on is the immoral support that the new president of Brazil gave the US and Canada for the occupation of Haiti during his first government.
Why did Lula act like this against the poorest Latin American country? Many in Brasilia think that the main cause was the desire to present Brazil as an emerging power capable of assuming "responsibilities" in its area of influence.
With the new US occupation of Haiti in the making, it is also worth wondering if Bolsonaro had not also supported it despite his differences with Biden. With all this, what I want to emphasize is that Lula's foreign policy had notorious errors that must be corrected in his new administration.
very good observations... Bolsonaro was and is a product of army generals and the army itself. It is hard for me to grasp whether the conservative uprising expressed within bolsonaro's government was due to external or internal factors - most probably both. The thing is that Bolsonaros Foregin policy can be described as in some degree defiant to USs hegemony though it has internally shut down any attempts to overcome its position as a vassal state. On the other hand, the worker's party has tried to gain leverage on the foregn policy arena with internal policies that would make possible a quality change on the international position of Brazil...the most striking example is the energy policy Bolsonaro and Lula have played. One with a vast investment project to become self sufficient in production and refinary of oil and even become a major exporter of refined oil and the other with sell outs and placing Petrobras policy as one of a net importer even though we are not. Just some thoghts...with the new cold war, i dont know wht will be lulas foreign policy