The federal deputy (PL-SC) prepared a request for information for the Civil House to find out if there was guidance from the president (PT) so that the dictator should not be mentioned by name in Brazil’s official position on the .
An ally of the former president (PL), the parliamentarian asked to make an exception and receive the request for information during the parliamentary recess “in view of the urgency of the facts”.
In the request, Zanatta asks the minister (Casa Civil) to send detailed information about the involvement of the PT member and the Presidency in the definition, validation and coordination of the .
The Bolsonarista also asks, in the document, whether Lula’s statements on the day of the attack, in which he condemned the operation, were previously discussed, analyzed or validated by the Civil House. Furthermore, it asks to inform “if there was direct guidance from the President of the Republic so that he would not be mentioned by name in the official statements of the Brazilian government, despite being the central object of the aforementioned international operation”.
Zanatta also questions the role of the political and institutional coordination last Monday (5) that discussed the capture of the Venezuelan.
Furthermore, it asks whether there was any determination by Lula for the government to exclusively condemn the actions of the United States, without an official statement about the authoritarian nature of the Venezuelan regime, the “international accusations of systematic human rights violations” and the “accusations of drug trafficking and crimes against humanity attributed to Nicolás Maduro”.
In the request, Zanatta also asks the Civil House to inform whether the president “considers it compatible with the defense of democracy and human rights to adopt a public position that condemns the actions of a democratic country, but deliberately remains silent about a regime accused of persecuting opponents, rigging elections and causing a humanitarian exodus, like the Venezuelan regime.”
In justification, the parliamentarian states that the decision not to mention Maduro by name in her initial position causes strangeness and institutional insecurity, especially given the fact that the Brazilian government itself did not recognize Maduro’s re-election in 2024, due to suspicions of electoral fraud, formally distancing itself from the democratic legitimacy of the regime”.
“Given the gravity of the facts, the international repercussion and the centrality of the President of the Republic in the conduct of foreign policy, it is essential to clarify whether the position adopted resulted from a direct political decision by the head of the Executive Branch, as well as the role played by the Presidency of the Republic and the Civil House in formulating this diplomatic line”, he writes.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
