Bolsonaro studied Trump and seems to pave the way to question elections, says former ambassador

Former ambassador to Brazil and a reference in the United States for Latin American issues, diplomat Thomas Shannon, 64, tells Sheet that Jair Bolsonaro (PL) seems to pave the way for questioning the outcome of the October elections.

According to him, the Brazilian president and his team studied the strategy adopted by former American leader Donald Trump, who on January 6, 2021, inflated an invasion of the Capitol to try to reverse the defeat in the presidential election.

Now retired from diplomacy, Shannon argues that Washington would have no problem working with a possible new government of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT), now a leader in polls, and says that Brazil would be isolated in the event of an institutional rupture.

what mr. did you think about Bolsonaro’s meeting with ambassadors to propagate lies about the electoral system? I don’t understand why the president chose to speak to the diplomatic corps on this topic, but I think he indicated a desire to explain to this community in Brasilia — one of the largest in the Western Hemisphere, so he spoke to the world — why he doesn’t trust the electoral system.

I find it totally surprising that a president, elected by this system and who heads a government that represents the popular will, calls into question the country’s own electoral system. And making this argument to a diplomatic audience turns the surprising into the dangerous. He seems to be paving the way for not accepting the election result.

Do you think this confirms the analysis that Bolsonaro is imitating Trump’s strategy? I believe that Bolsonaro and his team studied the events of January 6 very closely. [de 2021] and came to a conclusion. First, that Trump failed because he relied on an undisciplined crowd and lacked institutional support — from party leaders, the courts, the military. Bolsonaro and his team evaluated that, in the event of trying something similar, they would need institutional support.

However, in the election of Joe Biden, although in the popular vote there was a difference of 7 million votes, in the Electoral College there was a very tight result, which allowed Trump to argue that there was fraud. In Brazil, research indicates at the moment that the dispute is not tight. So the question to be asked is: what is President Bolsonaro’s plan? Wait for the vote to take place and declare it invalid? Or prevent the election from taking place by disqualifying the entire process now?

Does the fact that Bolsonaro has some institutional support give him more chances of being successful in an eventual rupture attempt? A lot depends on Brazilian institutions and how they will respond. It is up to them to make it clear that they have confidence in the Brazilian electoral system.

and mr. see this institutional reaction taking place? It is gaining strength as people understand the gravity of the situation. I’m not Brazilian, I’m not going to vote. It is up to Brazilians and Brazilian institutions to decide which path the country will take. The Brazilian electoral system guided the country in the democratic period since the 1980s, helped the country go through presidential elections, two impeachments, was able to guarantee peaceful transitions.

It’s a system that has earned the respect of the world, and it’s shocking that at this point it doesn’t have the respect of the president. It is a mistake to criticize the Brazilian electoral process because it opens space for people to try to question the election through violence, not through normal channels and the courts. This should not be accepted in a political leader.

The American embassy published a note expressing confidence in the Brazilian electoral process. How do you interpret this text? The US has great respect for Brazil and the country’s democracy and is prepared to work with whatever leadership the Brazilian people choose.

The communiqué states that the relationship between the two countries is based on democratic commitments and common values. It also states that the US respects Brazilian institutions and the electoral process and, in this sense, does not agree with Bolsonaro’s claims.

There are analysts in Brazil who argue that the international reaction would be enough to prevent an institutional rupture. Mr. do you agree? It is up to Brazilians to protect their democracy, just as it is up to Americans to protect ours. We cannot depend on the British, the French or the Japanese. But what the world is saying is that the argument that the Brazilian electoral system is fraudulent is false.

When you think about what could happen in the event of a rupture, we are talking about consequences against actions that are not democratic. What the diplomatic community is trying to do is make sure Brazil doesn’t get to that point.

What kind of consequences could a rupture generate? There are those in the government who say that Brazil is too big to be isolated from the world. In my experience, Brazil does not accept threats. It is a mistake to threaten Brazil. That is why countries are not addressing the issue to talk about consequences in the event of a rupture. What countries are doing is telling Brazilians: their electoral system works well and we have confidence in it. They are offering their support.

But if the argument in the Bolsonaro government is that Brazil is too important to be able to do whatever it wants, that is simply not true. See what is happening with Russia. It’s a huge economy, the biggest territory in the world, a country where the US has spent 30 years building an economic relationship. And it was all over in an instant due to the behavior [da Rússia, que invadiu a Ucrânia]. If there is a constitutional rupture in Brazil, the collapse of the democratic order, Brazil would be isolated, at least in the Western Hemisphere and in Europe. Under a lot of political and economic pressure.

At the recent meeting between Bolsonaro and Biden, the press reported that the Brazilian leader portrayed Lula as a threat to American interests. Is this type of message effective? As long as the Brazilian leader is freely chosen by the democratic system, the US will work with whoever the Brazilian people choose. In the case of Lula, he was president for eight years; your successor [Dilma Rousseff] he was in office for nearly six years. There are 14 years of PT government. The US knows well and is familiar with Lula and his party. A very good working relationship was developed, as with all democratically elected presidents in Brazil. Until now, of course.

How worried is the Biden administration about the institutional instability caused by Bolsonaro? The fact that the embassy issued a statement, followed by a statement by the State Department spokesperson [Ned Price]means that the US government is very concerned.

Republicans in the Senate barred the approval of the nominated ambassador to Brazil, Elizabeth Bagley. This limits the ability of the US government to voice its positions in elections.? We have an excellent embassy in Brazil, and our charge d’affaires [Douglas Koneff] it is a very good server. He has been reporting the situation to Washington and voicing US views. [ao governo Bolsonaro]. That said, in a world defined by protocol, an ambassador is better than a charge d’affaires. Elizabeth Bagley was a good choice. The fact that the Committee on Foreign Relations did not approve her name was unfortunate. And it has a very negative impact due to the importance of the relationship [dos dois países] and of the moment. Republicans knew this.

X-RAY | Thomas Shannon, 64

US Ambassador to Brazil from 2009 to 2013. He was Under Secretary for Political Affairs at the Department of State, one of the most important positions in US diplomacy, and Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs. He had a first stint at the embassy in Brasília between 1989 and 1992.