By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva used the United Nations General Assembly to defend his country’s democracy, highlighting the conviction of former president Jair Bolsonaro for attempting a military coup. Lula condemned anti-democratic forces globally and criticized foreign interference, specifically from the United States, in Bolsonaro’s trial, including the imposition of tariffs and sanctions. The US pressure campaign has thus far failed to impact Bolsonaro’s sentencing. Despite the tense situation, both leaders briefly met and agreed to meet next week, while Lula also criticized US actions in the Caribbean.
Read the original article here
Brazil’s president says in UN speech that democracy can prevail over ‘would-be autocrats’ – a statement that, on the surface, seems like a rallying cry for freedom. The core idea is that democratic principles are strong enough to withstand the pressures of those who seek to undermine them. However, as is often the case with pronouncements on the world stage, the situation is considerably more complex than it initially appears.
The immediate question that arises is: who exactly is the president talking about? If the focus is solely on “would-be autocrats,” does that exclude actual, established dictatorships? This distinction is critical. Praising democracy’s resilience while maintaining close ties with countries known for their authoritarian rule, like Russia, raises eyebrows. It implies a selective application of values, one that prioritizes certain geopolitical alliances over a consistent commitment to democratic principles.
Moreover, the idea of democracy prevailing is not simply an automatic process. History shows us that democracies themselves can sometimes give rise to, or at least tolerate, autocratic tendencies. The very mechanisms that allow for free and fair elections can, paradoxically, be exploited to erode those freedoms. The strength of democracy depends on the will of its citizens to actively defend it, not just on its theoretical superiority.
The context provided suggests that any critique of the US’s geopolitical behavior is often met with the argument that the US has done a lot of good in the world. The US has undeniably played a significant role in areas like humanitarian aid, health initiatives, and the development of technology, along with having provided opportunities for immigrants, something that is often overlooked. However, the US’s foreign policy record also includes actions that have destabilized regions and harmed populations.
The historical experience of Latin American countries provides a particularly relevant perspective. During the Cold War, the US supported dictatorships in the region, often at the expense of democratic movements. This history understandably colors perceptions of the US’s current stance on democracy, and as a result makes any criticism of Russia that much less effective. To some, US interventions have created a situation where the US can come across as hypocritical on democracy.
The argument is often raised that it is the nature of international politics, which by its very nature is often messy and based on self-interest, so expecting pure altruism is unrealistic. Furthermore, some argue that there is a distinction between a global role that acknowledges its failures and actively tries to rectify them, and a role that actively tries to undermine the freedoms of others. The US, while having made mistakes and being inconsistent in its application of democratic principles, often has an open debate of its failures, something that authoritarian powers often avoid.
The discussion underscores the complicated dynamics of international relations, where nations have to make complicated decisions. The choice is often not just between good and evil, but between varying shades of grey, and those choices have consequences. This can lead to a situation where those that have lived under the US shadow are often reluctant to criticize Russia.
Ultimately, the president’s UN speech, while seemingly advocating for democracy, is likely a more complicated statement than it seems. His willingness to engage in alliances with known autocrats calls into question his commitment to those principles. The success of democracy depends not just on its inherent strength but also on the consistent application of its values and the willingness of nations to hold each other accountable.