Brazil is a supporting player in the UN vote on the war in Ukraine

With an eye on an eventual international protagonism, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) sought diplomatic negotiations and the PT’s expectation was to propose an alternative for the end of the war between Russia and Ukraine. In addition to the attempt to create a “peace club”, Itamaraty included an excerpt in the text of the resolution approved at the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN) this Thursday (23). However, Brazil’s votes and positioning put the country in a supporting position.

Brazil voted for approval of the resolution that calls for Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine, an invasion that completes one year this Friday (24), but voted for abstention on two amendments presented by Belarus, which asked for the exclusion of language referring to “full-scale invasion” of Ukraine and “aggression by the Russian Federation”. The text passed at the UN also brings the demand that Russia immediately withdraw all its troops from Ukrainian territory.

By voting in favor of the resolution, Brazil takes a stand alongside the United States, the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). By abstaining from the amendments presented by Belarus, which benefit the country itself and Russia, it makes nods to Russians and China. Thus, despite Lula’s intentions, Brazilian foreign policy does not play a leading role, argues political scientist and director of Projects at the Center for Strategy, Intelligence and International Relations (CEIRI), Marcelo Suano.

“The pretension is to be a protagonist, but due to a need and personal interest of the President of the Republic, the way he positions himself is of a supporting role”, he says. Suano maintains that, under Lula’s administration, Itamaraty advocates the thesis that it is possible to adopt two paths for contradictory situations. “Lula has the pretension of someone who wants to win the Nobel Peace Prize, as was considered in the past, but there is no way to be on one side and the other at the same time, it is a contradiction”, he adds.

Professor Thales Castro, coordinator of the Political Science course at the Catholic University of Pernambuco (Unicap), endorses the analysis. For him, Brazil’s votes suggest that Itamaraty tries to “rescue the universalist and ecumenical tradition” of Lula’s administrations, to bring the perspective of “trying to please everyone, all the time and in all scenarios”.

“The supporting interpretation is valid because Brazil did not have a haughty posture in terms of developing its own independent formation of foreign policy. Furthermore, Brazil ends up bowing to external interests absolutely from central countries, with their multiple links”, ponder.

Political scientist Nicholas Borges, from BMJ Consultores Associados, disagrees with the view that Brazilian foreign policy played a supporting role. “I see Brazil trying to recover the role it had as a mediator in the conflict between Iran and the United States. The countries also recognize Brazil’s role as a moderate country with a moderating profile that can, in fact, enter the period of conciliation of war conflicts “, it says.

What is the difference between Lula and Bolsonaro’s diplomacy posture towards war

The perception of the analysts interviewed by the People’s Gazette is that the current position of Brazil in the UN differs from the position of the foreign policy until then in force, of former president Jair Bolsonaro (PL). Opponents of the previous government criticized the neutral position, while Itamaraty at the time argued that it was a “balance” position, since it condemned the Russian invasion in international forums, but without asking for sanctions.

Although the posture adopted by Lula’s diplomacy continues the traditional pragmatism of Brazilian diplomacy, analysts maintain that it differs by reflecting the interests and agreements negotiated by Lula with the world, says Professor Thales Castro. “Brazil shows that it tries to accommodate itself, given last year’s electoral political change, with the multiple interests it has”, he says.

Castro cites interests in relation to Europe and points out that Lula met with the president and prime minister of Germany, Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Olaf Scholz, respectively. “The interests are there and Lula’s visit with [Joe] biden [presidente dos Estados Unidos] also had this commitment and engagement. There is a tradition of ecumenism, pragmatism and universalism, but there are also more immediate demands”, he highlights.

The director of Projects at the Center for Strategy, Intelligence and International Relations endorses the analysis and argues that Bolsonaro’s foreign policy adopted a responsible pragmatism. “When Bolsonaro adopted his position, he never offended the [Volodymyr] Zelensky [presidente ucraniano]. Lula offended [- o petista disse em 2022 que Zelensky é culpado pela guerra, assim como o presidente russo Vladmir Putin]”, says Marcelo Suano.

“Not now, Lula wants to position himself as a leader who will end the war. He creates a trap of his vanity for himself, not least because he doesn’t know how to behave in the face of the situation, in addition to bravado and bravado saying he can solve it [a guerra] with a little bar and round of beer”, comments Suano, in reference to a statement by the PT in 2022.

What are the practical effects of the UN resolution on war

Another point that reinforces the analysis of the supporting role of the current foreign policy is that the practical effects of the Brazilian contribution to the approved resolution are null. Unlike UN Security Council resolutions, which have binding force, resolutions passed by the General Assembly do not have imputation force. “The only thing that could have an effect and make Putin back down would be if China voted for approval,” says Suano.

For him, the effects of the resolution approved this Thursday are symbolic and are restricted to enabling countries to create some guidelines that may or may not be adhered to individually by countries that voted. “That they can even change their minds at any time. In the end, it is something symbolic that each one tries to take advantage of in the way that is best for them”, he highlights.

In general terms, the UN expects that the resolution will encourage “member countries and international organizations to redouble their support for diplomatic efforts to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine”.

The text also reiterates that Russia must “immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all its military forces from the internationally recognized borders” of Ukraine. This was the passage in which Brazilian diplomacy articulated an addendum, through the determination of the “end of hostilities” by Moscow.

Despite the addition negotiated by Brazilian diplomacy to the resolution, the practical effect is small in the strategy to end the conflict, analyzes Luciano Munõz, professor of International Relations at the University Center of Brasília (UniCeub). “What we have at the moment are two uncompromising positions. [Volodymyr] Zelensky [presidente da Ucrânia] wants the withdrawal of Russian troops to start negotiating. Russia, on the other hand, wants the maintenance of occupation troops and the guarantee that Ukraine will not join NATO. And today there is no common ground to start negotiations, “she argues.

In the same line, Gunther Rudizit, specialist in International Security and Asia and professor of International Relations at ESPM in São Paulo, defends that the international scene since the first time that Lula governed Brazil for the first time.

“In the 2000s there was a certain convergence in managing the international system. Today we are moving towards the formation of these two blocs of the West, led by the United States, and autocratic countries led by China. It is very difficult [Lula] think that on the basis of the conversation and his presence, this very different picture that we live today will be resolved”, he explains.

In Rudizit’s view, however, that Brazilian diplomacy is returning to play a certain role on the international stage, but not in relation to war. “In terms of diplomacy, Brazil is returning to being one of those international protagonists. For example in the environmental issue, in this aspect it can have a prominence and influence. But in a war, far from South America, Brazil does not have the capacity to influence “, complete.

The UN is made up of 193 member states, and since the beginning of the Russian invasion countries such as India, South Africa and Algeria have systematically adopted the position of abstaining from UN votes. The same position is followed by many African nations and former Soviet republics, as well as Asian ones such as Vietnam and Pakistan.

Lula intends to open dialogue with the president of Ukraine

In addition to articulating via Itamaraty the inclusion of an excerpt in the UN resolution, government diplomats are sewing a connection between Lula and the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, in the coming weeks. This will be Lula’s first contact with the Ukrainian president since the election results.

Last year, Lula was included on a Kiev government list as a propagandist for Russia. The report by the Ukrainian government’s Disinformation Containment Center, released in July, contains a speech by Lula that displeased Ukraine.

The Brazilian said that the president “[Volodymyr] Zelensky is as much to blame for the war as [Vladimir] Putin”, president of Russia. Lula’s statement was given in an interview for the magazine Team before his election in Brazil.

Subsequently, the government of Ukraine removed the then candidate for the Presidency of the Republic by the PT from the list of “speakers who promote narratives in line with Russian propaganda”. The reason for updating the list was not disclosed by Kiev.

Recently, however, Lula said that Russia had made a “crass error” by invading Ukraine. But she weighed in by pointing out that “when one doesn’t want to, two don’t fight.”

“I think that Russia committed a crass error of invading the territory of another country. But I think that when one doesn’t want to, two don’t fight. We need to find peace”, said Lula, at the end of January, after a meeting with the chancellor German, Olaf Scholz, at the Planalto Palace.

For Professor Munõz, Brazil’s appeal is that other countries neutral in the war also join the appeal for pacification. “This could happen, if this UN resolution has fewer abstentions and more countries support this opening of dialogue”, he explains.

“Brazil needs to find a point of intersection with Ukraine. We need to know what they [Lula e Zelensky] will talk. Today, what we have in common is that Brazil condemns the aggression against Ukraine”, completed Munõz.

Lula’s “peace club” should also be rejected by China

At the same time, Lula is expected to propose to Chinese President Xi Jinping the creation of a “peace club” to seek a possible solution to the war. International analysts, however, believe that the measure should also be rejected by the Beijing government. The issue championed by Lula had also faced resistance from the US government.

In the strategy, Lula intends to bring together a group of countries that, in the view of the Brazilian government, are not directly involved in the war and could discuss a long-term vision and a solution to the conflict. Brazil recognizes that Russia was an aggressor country when it invaded Ukraine, but argues that sanctions and the shipment of arms will not help to reach peace.

Unlike Brazil, the US has provided weapons and a billionaire aid package to the Kiev government. On the other hand, the Chinese government is close to the government of Vladimir Putin.

In September last year, Xi Jinping said that “China stands ready to work with Russia to extend strong mutual support on matters concerning their respective core interests.” The statement came during a meeting with Putin, who praised China’s “balanced position” in the Ukraine war.

“This proposal [do clube da paz] It makes no sense. Most international leaders also want to end this war, but this is not the case. I think this is a very simplistic view. [do Lula]of when you have a dispute between great powers, thinking that this will be carried out by other countries,” said Rudizit.