[ad_1]
The pressure exerted by the Brazilian government to isolate Nicolás Maduro and strengthen the Venezuelan opposition is more a rupture of Chancellor Ernesto Araújo compared to his predecessors, said experienced ambbadadors heard by GLOBO. According to experts, although Brazil has already taken an active stance in diplomatic crises in other countries, the current level of participation is unprecedented.
The day before yesterday, Araújo had an eleven o'clock meeting with Venezuela's opposition leaders. At the end of the meeting, Itamaraty issued a note to the insulting language in which he accuses Maduro of "drug trafficking, human trafficking, money laundering and terrorism".
According to O GLOBO, Chancellor Ernesto Araújo wrote the note in his own hand. Until the arrival of Araújo at the head of the ministry, Brazil only defined groups similar to those qualified by the United Nations as terrorists. The tradition was broken on Sunday when the MRE used the adjective to refer to the Italian Cesare Battisti, which was repeated the same week in the note on Maduro.
Rubens Ricupero, retired ambbadador and historian of Brazilian diplomacy, particularly criticized the tone of the note against Maduro, which he defined as a change of "over 200 years of tradition of restraint, of meaning of measures and proportions "and" demoralizing ". the own Itamaraty ":
– The note is very surprising, even in this line already described. This type of language is equivalent to a serious insult, a savage insult, in which one is accused of moral vices, serious vices, "said Ricupero." The greatest consequence is to demoralize those who use it. Just as in the relationships between individuals, you respect those who know how to express their thoughts within certain limits.
Ricupero adds that these positions "completely rule out the principle that Brazil has always respected non-interference". According to him, there is up to 150 years, a statement like that of Araújo "would be a reason for war"
– The note is absolutely out of our tradition and follows no other logic than that of aggression, "he said .– It's not about being against or in favor of the Venezuelan regime.It is possible to say things energetically and severely, without falling into that kind of insult.
Necessary risk
According to the retired ambbadador, Marcos Azambuja, in the situation with Venezuela, "the risk is necessary, but the words are excessive and too forceful":
– Brazil has an interest in joining the Lima group and participating in the joint statement. The Venezuelan electoral process is illegitimate and diplomatic and peaceful efforts must be made to find a solution – he said. – We should stick to that. We can not be tempted to use rhetoric to go beyond what good diplomacy recommends. Brazil must remain in the parameters of sobriety and moderation.
Diplomats stress the need for a peaceful solution. The last military intervention in which Brazil participated took place in the Dominican Republic in 1965 under the military government, in accordance with US guidelines. The period is now considered negative by diplomats for violating the principle of non-interference.
– Since the nineteenth century, we have had no more military conflict on the continent – said the retired ambbadador, Luiz Augusto de Castro Neves.
According to the professor of international relations of Unes Gabriel Cepaluni, Bolsonaro made a bet:
– We do not depend on Venezuela. In case of break, we will not sink. If there is a victory for the Venezuelan right and the dismantling of the Maduro government, Bolsonaro scores a goal and concludes a series of favored deals. (
Eliane Oliveira collaborated)
[ad_2]
Source link
