The arrest of the former federal deputy (-RJ) by US authorities and his subsequent release opened a new front of friction between Brazil and the US government, exposing conflicting versions and tensions.
For Fábio de Sá e Silva, a Brazilian professor at the Department of International Studies at Oklahoma, , who lived in the USA and worked as a liaison officer at the immigration service, demonstrates a “total disconnect” between Trump and the president (PT).
“As long as there is no meeting between the two [presidentes]I think the environment is one of total disagreement politically”, he says, for whom the version announced by Brazil combined with Ramagem’s quick release reveal a disagreement that goes beyond the episode itself. “It was perhaps a more operational case, but, when you take it to the political level, it is explosive.”
The professor also mentions that the episode may demonstrate that the Trump administration already had some reservations about the last crisis between the countries, when Brazil, Trump’s advisor. “Lula, in turn, is at a stage where, for electoral reasons, he is also exploring this.”
The new crisis began when Ramagem was detained by the American immigration service last week. Brazilian authorities stated that the action had taken place within the scope of cooperation between the two countries.
Days later, he was released and, subsequently, the State Department, through the Office of Western Hemisphere Affairs, accused delegate Marcelo Ivo de Carvalho, without mentioning his name, of having “manipulated” the migration system to circumvent formal channels, classifying the action as an extension of “political persecution” on American territory.
“This disclosure [por parte do governo brasileiro] created more noise because she didn’t define very well how this interaction between the Brazilian delegate and ICE would have happened and invited the politicization of the case”, says the professor.
A former advisor to Donald Trump, who agreed to analyze the current scenario on condition of anonymity, states that there is little willingness within the American government to meet demands associated with the Lula government, which increases the chance of technical decisions being reviewed when they gain political visibility.
According to him, the State Department’s environment is marked by resistance to the Brazilian government, the absence of American interlocutors with in-depth knowledge of Brazil and less weight of career diplomats in decision-making processes.
After the expulsion of the Brazilian from the USA, the Lula government decided to apply the principle of reciprocity and expel the American who — he also left Brazil and is back on American territory.
In the former advisor’s assessment, the crisis also exposes differences in the way the two countries operate their foreign policy. According to him, Brazil takes the principle very seriously, while the USA does not.
He claims that the way the case was handled may have contributed to the escalation. According to his assessment, Brazilian action may have initially been treated as a routine procedure within the American bureaucracy, without the political context being fully considered. When this changed, the reaction was immediate.
Trump’s former advisor assesses that there is a risk of escalation based on successive retaliations.
The concern is shared by Sá e Silva. “In the absence of understanding, we will live in cycles. Every two or three months a new problem arises”, he says.
The episode occurs at a sensitive time for both countries, with internal political pressures influencing the conduct of foreign policy. On the one hand, the Lula government has adopted a more assertive discourse in relation to the United States. On the other hand, sectors linked to Trump tend to interpret Brazilian actions under an ideological logic.
For Sá e Silva, the way out to avoid new crises involves direct alignment between the presidents. “A meeting would be important to establish common priorities and prevent minor issues from continuing to generate friction”, he states. Without this, he says, the tendency is for the current scenario to continue. “This permanent tension doesn’t help anyone.”
