Much Ado about Nothing: Accurately Assessing Lula’s Recent International Overtures
Rafael R. Ioris is Professor of Latin American History and Politics at the University of Denver and a WBO Research Fellow. This text was originally written for Global Americans, then reproduced in issue 77 of the WBO Newsletter, published on July 28, 2023. Fill in the form at the bottom of the text to access and subscribe to the WBO weekly newsletter in English.
That the world is undergoing major geopolitical transformations is no longer in question. The rise of Asia, particularly China, has indeed presented unprecedented challenges to the West-centered liberal order of the postwar era, whose roots in fact go back to the neo-colonial European and US expansions of the late nineteenth century. These events have become even more unsettling with the onset of a major military conflict in Ukraine, which has helped to further polarize political alliances along East-West lines.
It was to be expected that such trends would provoke confusion, and a special kind of effort is required on the part of international analysts in order to make sense of the complex dynamics unfolding in the world of today. This is particularly true when examining the role played by countries traditionally less influential in the international arena, whose fate depends much on their ability to navigate the challenges and opportunities presented by such an evolving global scenario.
One such a country is Brazil, Latin America’s largest society and economy, and a nation that has recently seen its share of turbulence. In fact, after a stable period of democratic consolidation that lasted between 1985 and 2015, Brazil saw rapid erosion of its democratic institutions, so painfully gained in the long transition from military rule four decades ago. This process culminated in the election in 2018 of Jair Bolsonaro, a divisive political figure whose authoritarian rhetoric and administrative mismanagement gave voice to an extreme right-wing nostalgic for the dictatorship of the 1960s and 70s and cost over 700,000 lives.
And although Bolsonaro is no longer in power and battles multiple lawsuits, Brazil faces the challenge of rebuilding not only democratic practices, but also democratic values that need to be shared by all political actors should the country’s democracy indeed survive. This tasks in now mainly in the hands of Lula da Silva, a former president that served two extremely successful terms in the early 2000s, but who has become a more polarizing figure in recent years. Bringing the country together will require major political skills, which Lula has already demonstrated to have, as well as improvements on the economic front.
“His main task is the reconstruction of the country’s democracy, and he will need all the help he can get on this effort, especially from its main historical partner, the United States, whose recent role in defending the country’s elections was decisive in paving the way to Lula’s inauguration”
In a global economy shaped today by new inflationary trends, energy shortages, and market instability, Lula’s domestic success will depend to a significant degree on his international achievements. While Bolsonaro obscured the relevance of country in the global arena, Lula had expanded Brazil’s presence by enlarging the list of economic partners and diversifying strategic partnerships, particularly in the global South, all of which done without jeopardizing traditional relations with countries such as the United States and the European Union.
Since taking office, Brazil’s returning president has sought to promote a bold revival of his previous highly effective “active and assertive” foreign policy. But reproducing Brazil’s major achievements of twenty years ago are much harder to repeat in today’s challenging and changing world. Therefore, Lula has made sure to start his international pilgrimages by visiting traditional and central partners, such as neighboring nations and the United States. In his first month in office, he attended a meeting of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean nations (CELAC) in Argentina, where he outlined a desire to strengthen Brazil’s relations in the region. Soon after, Lula visited President Joe Biden in Washington, where both leaders professed their mutual desire to promote democracy and push for a more environmentally sound developmental path, particularly in the Amazon region. Once that trip was concluded, Lula visited China to deepen trade relations and to try to lead a peace effort for the war in Ukraine. He then met with traditional allies, like Spain and Portugal, as well as Italy and France.
All things considered, this “many friends” approach isn’t so different from Lula’s experiences of 20 years ago. Then, Brazil was largely welcomed as a rising diplomatic force in the developing world. President Barack Obama, during a 2009 meeting, made special note of Lula’s “forward-looking leadership in Latin America and throughout the world.” What has changed since then are the domestic and global contexts in which Lula now operates. Still, regrettably, what was once seen as a progressive pursuit of an autonomous and assertive foreign policy is now being interpreted by many in Brazil and the West as divisive, inappropriate or even a betrayal of Brazil’s traditional alignments. These views ignore not only Lula’s earlier international record but also a wider historical perspective.
For more than a century, Brazil’s diplomatic efforts have focused on promoting multilateralism and on pushing for the peaceful resolution of conflicts. And while it drew closer to Western allies during World War II and the Cold War, successive governments in Brazil – be they progressive or conservative, democratic or authoritarian – pursued a policy of self-determination. Shaped by those dynamics, Brazil’s foreign policy has served the country well as an instrument of its own development.
Considering all of these elements, it is concerning to see that even qualified analysis about Lula’s attempt to reposition Brazil in the world after the fiasco of Bolsonaro’s subservient alignment with the United States under Trump still tend to be biased, particularly by taking the part for the whole. At first, some saw in Lula’s visit to China and his repeated attempts to urge for peace talks in Ukraine as a sign that Lula was espousing an anti-Western approach to international affairs. This is clearly not the case. Similarly, fears that Lula may be trying to create an anti-US Latin American alliance supported by China is unfounded and not supported by the facts.
Yes, Lula dispensed more than advisable prestige to Nicolas Maduro during his recent visit to Brasilia to attend a meeting of South American nations. This, however, does not place Lula in close alignment with Venezuela, nor does it diminish the role that Lula actually played in calming things down in that country, largely with the approval the Bush administration early in the century. Likewise, Lula’s recent attempt to revive Unasur does indeed face important challenges. But that does not similarly diminish the fact that regional collaboration – a goal pursued by Lula’s predecessor, as well – has proven to be a challenging but promising project, including for the purpose of providing more economic and political stability, an objective that should, in fact, be seen as beneficial for, and thus worthy of support from, the United States.
Brazil under Lula won’t risk the county’s future by picking sides on rising international conflicts or disputes. His main task is the reconstruction of the country’s democracy, and he will need all the help he can get on this effort, especially from its main historical partner, the United States, whose recent role in defending the country’s elections was decisive in paving the way to Lula’s inauguration. Lula is not seeking to isolate the country from traditional allies, and accurately understanding Lula’s recent international overtures can be helpful to avoid repeating previous analytical traps so detrimental no only to Brazil, but also to its relations with the United States and the world at large.
