Experts classified as wrong and meaningless to. She stated that former President Donald Trump imposed rates and sanctions on Brazil to protect freedom of expression, and said the United States will not hesitate to use their economic and military power to defend it.
The speech took place amid the judgment of the former president (PL) by the (Supreme Federal Court). For Carlos Poggio, Professor of International Relations at PUC-SP and US Policy Specialist, Levitt is impetuous and, like the government, is not careful about the words. “[A ameaça] It should not be taken seriously. It is the administration that words are used without the lowest level of care, “he says.
Poggio says “Donald Trump makes threat day and day too and most of the threats he does not fulfill.” He mentions that Russia is constantly targeted by, who usually promises consequences for Putin’s country if the war is not ceased. “Russia continues to bombard. It is a government that has no credibility in what conceives the words.”
Poggio also considers that the statement was made in a dispute and spontaneous manner. “It doesn’t seem to me that she [Leavitt] Understand the difference between Brazil and Venezuela, for example, “he says, who concludes that, therefore, the statement should not be taken seriously.” Another empty statement coming from the Trump administration. “
According to the teacher, the statement does not seem to be part of a structured strategy. The expert believes that the testimony should be ignored by the Brazilian government.
“If everyone is going to respond to every mad house that leaves the White House, everyone enters the crazy. It is up to the other governments to understand that this is a government outside the curve that does not respect the basics of diplomacy,” he says.
Itamaraty issued a note on Tuesday night stating that it condemns the use of economic sanctions or “threat of use of force against democracy.”
“The Brazilian government condemns the use of economic sanctions or threats to use force against our democracy,” the note says. The same statement says that the powers will not be intimidated by attacks on national sovereignty.
On the other hand, Camila Rocha, a doctor of political science from USP, a researcher at CEBRAP (Brazilian Center for Analysis and Planning) and, ponders that it is necessary to be careful, although members of the Trump government have already minimized the statement.
“Nothing is spoken for nothing. Brazil is a country that has a number of strategic resources, which may be the target of dispute. The struggle for freedom of expression in favor of Bolsonaro is still a kind of rhetoric to actually leverage interests that can have them in relation to Brazil,” he says.
The researcher has already “promoted wars, caused social chaos in several countries and led to a series of interventions for certain economic interests. I think it’s a password so that some kind of intervention can happen.”
Lawyer Pierpaolo Cruz Bottini, professor at USP Law School, classifies the White House statement as incomprehensible. For him, the threat of using military power to press the judiciary is inexplicable from a country “that claims to be democratic and that respects the separation of powers.”
“Brazil has no legal possibility to give in to such pressures,” he says, who considers that the country remains the diplomatic exit to convince the international community of the “absurdity of US claims.”
In the same line, lawyer Gabriel Sampaio, director of the NGO Conectas, considers that the statement is another serious attempt to threaten the independence of the judiciary and sovereignty of Brazil.
For him, in mentioning military power, the statement makes “the collaboration of Brazilian citizens with the White House conduct even more serious.” Sampaio says speech also reveals that, in addition to the attempt to obstruct justice, “there is and with the collaboration of a foreign country to commit the crime of attack on sovereignty.”
According to Paulo José Lara, co-executive co-director of the NGO Article 19, International Human Rights Organization, the declaration represents another step in the aim of destabilizing multilateralism and disturbing the international order.
“It is particularly worrying because it shows an attack on our region, which have been increasingly harassed,” he says, who considers that the United States historically makes use of pretexts to justify military actions and improper intervention of its political and economic power.
“Fundamental ideas such as freedom, democracy and freedom of expression appear again as a veil to cover the political, economic and ideological interest of this administration,” he says that he counteracts the argument that Brazil would be violating freedom of expression. “Freedom is an essential right and, in principle, is the opposite of what promulgates, defends and performs the Trump administration.”
For him, although understanding of what is freedom of expression must be understood from legal, social and cultural criteria of the realities of countries, the principles and foundations of human rights must be fulfilled. “It is unreasonable for a country to threaten another by justifying the violation of freedom of expression. There are mechanisms of international law to deal with any violations of states and abuses committed.”
He also considers that the Trump government is contradictory to claim the lack of freedom of expression in Brazil. “It is ironic a government that violates academic freedom and the right of manifestation, which harasses artistic and cultural expressions and despises the qualified debate between equals, uses the justification of freedom of expression to attack another nation.”
