Majority of Congress disapproves of Lula’s stance on the Ukraine war

A survey carried out by think tank Ranking of Politicians provided exclusively to People’s Gazette showed that the majority of parliamentarians in the National Congress disapprove of the stance of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s (PT) government on the war between Russia and Ukraine.

According to the study, 57% of senators and 52% of federal deputies evaluate the positioning of Palácio do Planalto as “bad/terrible”. 23% of senators and 25.5% of deputies classify it as “regular”. Those who consider it “excellent/good” total 19% and 21.6% – respectively.

The Ranking interviewed 102 federal deputies from 21 parties and 21 senators from 12 parties, respecting the criterion of party proportionality. Data collection took place between March 18th and 20th.

In the opinion of political analyst, Luan Sperandio, director of Operations at the Ranking of Politicians, the survey is a reflection of the Lula government’s performance on specific issues dear to Congress. In this case, the conflict between the mentioned countries would be one of them.

“Specifically on the Russia x Ukraine issue, Brazil behaves in an unusual way in relation to foreign policy. What would it be like if other countries behaved in foreign policy like Brazil in this conflict? If a country invaded Brazil, they could say something like ‘Brazil has to cede part of the territory to avoid conflicts and bloodshed’, as Lula suggested on some occasions to Volodymyr Zelensky”, said Sperandio.

He added: “There is an obvious reason for countries not to quibble about values, principles and world views over other people’s sovereignty. The Lula Government does the opposite.”

Lula’s speeches about war generated strong rejection

The perception of congressmen indicates that Lula’s speeches throughout 2023 about the conflict still reverberate within Congress. At the beginning of 2023, Lula even condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, claiming that Russian President Vladmir Putin committed “the classic mistake of invading the territory of another country”. However, the PT member changed his speech after saying that both countries were responsible for the conflict.

“The construction of the war was easier than the end of the war, because the decision to go to war was taken by two countries”, said the president in April last year. The repercussion of the statement caused the PT member to backtrack. However, In May, Lula suggested that Russia and Ukraine need to “give in a little” to reach an end to the war in Eastern Europe.

“Today, they both want 100%. And I don’t think it’s possible. Everyone will have to give in. If not now, it will be tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, a year from now, but it will happen,” she said.

Member of the Chamber’s Foreign Relations Committee, deputy Ricardo Salles (PL-SP) classified the Brazilian government’s stance in relation to the conflict between the two countries as “erratic” and “ideological”.

“The government has had an erratic position, without objective criteria and clearly guided by ideological aspects. Furthermore, it started with that childish declaration that the crisis would be resolved by drinking beer with Putin and Zelensky, which requires no comments as it is so absurd,” said the deputy .

Putin’s presence at the G20 could put Brazil in a “fair way”

Putin’s possible presence at the G20 meeting, scheduled for November 18 in Rio de Janeiro, could place Brazil in a delicate situation on the international stage. In March last year, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for the Russian president for the alleged scheme to deport Ukrainian children to Russia. As a result, signatory members of the Rome Statute, which includes Brazil, must follow the decision.

In the meeting between the president of France, Emmanuel Macron, and Lula, this Thursday (28), the French head of state emphasized that an invitation to the Russian president to the G20 summit must be the subject of a consensus within the club of the most powerful countries. industrialized countries in the world.

“The meaning of this club is that it must be consensual with the other 19, and this will be the work of Brazilian diplomacy,” said Macron.

The pressure on Lula regarding Putin’s presence at the meeting has been going on for months. When asked about the matter, in September 2023, Lula initially stated that he would invite Putin to the G20 Summit in Rio de Janeiro, and that the Russian president would not be arrested if he traveled to Brazil.

But, after the negative repercussion, he changed his tone and stated that the matter is the responsibility of the Justice Department. “The Court decides this. It is not the government or Parliament. It is the Court that will decide,” she said.

He also said he was unaware of the court’s existence. “I didn’t even know this court existed, you know? I just want to know why the United States isn’t [sic] signatory, because India is not a signatory, because China is not a signatory, because Russia is not a signatory and because Brazil is a signatory”, argued Lula.

Asked about Putin’s possible arrest, Ricardo Salles states that, despite Brazil having an agreement with the ICC, the issue is “controversial”.

“The automatic application of decisions by the International Criminal Court is controversial, especially because, as in many bodies, there is a lot of politics involved. However, it does not seem to us that Putin has, at this point, the interest or even room for maneuver to attend G20 meetings, about everything in Brazil at the moment”, said the parliamentarian.

Rome Statute obliges Lula to arrest Putin

Signed by then President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Decree No. 4,388, of 2002, ratifies Brazil’s accession to the ICC and guarantees that the country will comply with the clauses established in the Rome Statute.

According to article 87 of the agreement, the signatory country that refuses to cooperate can be taken to an internal assembly with the other members or even to the United Nations Security Council (UN). From this, a penalty would be defined for the government.