Lula’s Reported Statement About The “Summit For Democracy” Is A Public Relations Spectacle
Objectively existing and easily verifiable facts from the official State Department, UN, and G20 websites leave no doubt that Lula’s reported refusal to sign the “Declaration of the Summit for Democracy” is based on two false pretexts. Not only that, but his refusal to sign the aforesaid declaration was an attention-grabbing stunt intended to deceptively shift the discourse about his politically unfriendly stance towards Russia’s special operation for the reasons explained in this analysis.
“Principled Refusal” Or “Perception Manipulation”?
Brazilian President Lula is feeling pressure from his base and fellow BRICS partners over his political alignment with the US against Russia in the most geostrategically significant conflict since World War II judging by his public relations spectacle towards the “Summit for Democracy”. The O Globo newspaper cited a letter sent by him to the event to report that he refused to sign its joint declaration on the basis that it’s anti-Russian and not the appropriate venue to discuss the Ukrainian Conflict.
The Relevance Of A Recent UNGA Resolution
Lula’s reported stance towards this event and that issue are insincere as proven by the facts that will now be shared, which will expose his statement as a perception manipulation stunt. After confirming the disconnect between his words and deeds, the analysis will then segue into reminding the reader of his actual position towards the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine, prior to which a cogent explanation will be put forth to account for why he just tried to deliberately mislead everyone about this.
The “Declaration of the Summit for Democracy” can be read in full on the official State Department website here, and it’s the third preambular paragraph that attention should be drawn to since that’s the one that concerns the Ukrainian Conflict. Unmentioned in the text and likely unbeknownst to all but the most astute observers who closely follow the international legal dimension of this issue, practically every part of the section is copied from the anti-Russian UNGA Resolution passed on 23 February.
Readers can see this for themselves by reviewing the text of that document from the official United Nations website’s press release that was released at the time here. They just have to click the preceding hyperlink and then the one in the article’s second paragraph titled “resolution”, after which they can choose which of that global body’s official languages they’d like to read it in. It’s recommended that they review the English version in order to more accurately compare it with the declaration’s wording.
The Relevance Of Two Recent G20 Documents
Upon doing so, they’ll see that Lula isn’t being sincere about his reported refusal to sign the “Declaration of the Summit for Democracy” on the basis that it’s anti-Russian since the third preambular paragraph’s text is almost exactly the same as the UNGA Resolution’s that he ordered Brazil’s diplomats to vote for. This includes the demand that Russia “immediately, completely, and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from the territory of Ukraine”, which is repeated word-for-word in both documents.
The second of Lula’s reported points to debunk is his claim that the “Summit for Democracy” allegedly isn’t the appropriate venue to discuss the Ukrainian Conflict, which O Globo said he believes can only be the United Nations. That also isn’t true as evidenced by Brazil agreeing to the language included in the third paragraph of the “G20 Chair’s Summary and Outcome Document” published after both the Finance and Foreign Ministers’ meeting in late February and early March respectively.
Readers can review those corresponding documents here and here from the official G20 website, which they’ll see for themselves contain reaffirmations of each members’ national positions as expressed at the UN. They were each published in the days after Lula ordered his diplomats to vote for the latest anti-Russian UNGA Resolution, thus meaning that Brazil did indeed have no problem discussing the Ukrainian Conflict at this particular venue outside the United Nations on two separate occasions within a week.
The Driving Motivations Behind Lula’s Latest Public Relations Stunt
Having cited objectively existing and easily verifiable facts from the official State Department, UN, and G20 websites, there’s now no doubt that Lula’s reported refusal to sign the “Declaration of the Summit for Democracy” is based on two false pretexts and anyone who claims otherwise is literally lying. Not only that, but his refusal to sign the aforesaid declaration was an attention-grabbing stunt intended to deceptively shift the discourse about his stance towards Russia for reasons that’ll now be explained.
Returning to the official State Department website, the very end of the previously shared link reveals that some countries endorsed the declaration “with reservations or disassociation from the text”. In particular, Armenia, India, and Mexico are shown to have expressed precisely this stance towards the third preambular paragraph concerning the Ukrainian Conflict. Delhi has consistently abstained from all anti-Russian UNGA Resolutions so this approach is consistent with its policy towards that issue.
Considering this, there’s no reason why Brazil couldn’t also have done something similar if it was truly recalibrating its position towards the Ukrainian Conflict in the direction of principled neutrality along the lines of that which is expressed by its fellow BRICS partners like Lula’s reported statement deceptively suggests. Dramatically refusing to sign the whole thing was clearly designed to generate attention from non-Western countries, though as was already proven, Brazil’s stance hasn’t actually changed.
By reportedly characterizing the entire thing as anti-Russian and thus supposedly refusing to sign the document in any capacity on that pretext, Lula’s statement implies two factually false narratives: 1) India is less neutral and Russian-friendly than Brazil; and Brazil is more pro-Russian than Russia itself. To elaborate on both and beginning with the first, his position casts aspersions on the sincerity of Delhi’s ties with Moscow due to it signing that declaration with reservations while Brasilia outright refused.
Debunking Lula’s Two Implied Factually False Narratives
In truth, India has always abstained from anti-Russian UNGA Resolutions while Brazil always voted in support of them with the exception of the one about removing Russia from the Human Rights Council. Furthermore, Lula’s joint statement with Biden after his trip to DC (which can be read from the official White House website here) endorsed the “Summit for Democracy” in its third sentence and then condemned Russia later on in the text. By contrast, India never joined the US in condemning Russia.
The second factually false narrative implied by Lula’s reported statement is debunked upon referencing the earlier mentioned “G20 Chair’s Summary and Outcome Documents”. Their third paragraph about the Ukrainian Conflict notes that both Russia and China didn’t agree to that particular part. Even so, Russia’s Ambassador to India Denis Alipov recently published an op-ed in Indian media that can be read on his embassy’s official website here confirming agreement on all issues except that one.
The two fact-checks above, which are based on official sources, show that Lula’s refusal to agree to anything connected to the “Declaration of the Summit for Democracy” on the pretext that it’s anti-Russian was an overreaction since he could have simply expressed reservation with the third preambular paragraph like India did, which followed Russia’s and China’s lead vis-à-vis the G20. That approach would have been more pragmatic and principled, yet he instead chose to create a scandal.
Recalling the insight shared thus far in this analysis, it’s now known that the entire basis upon which he artificially manufactured that aforesaid scandal is false since Brazil agreed to practically the exact same wording in the anti-Russian UNGA Resolution and related affirmations thereof in two G20 documents. This prompts the question of why he’d stage this spectacle in the first place, thus leading to the conclusion that he’s feeling pressure from his base and BRICS partners.
Lula’s Scandalous Stance Towards The NATO-Russian Proxy War
So as to avoid redundantly rehashing the facts connected to his political alignment with the US against Russia in the most geostrategically significant conflict since World War II, the reader can simply scroll to the end of this analysis here to review a list of all related pieces proving Lula’s unfriendly position. The previously cited joint statement with Biden and Brazil’s vote in support of February’s anti-Russian UNGA Resolution are the primary facts in support of this position, though other related ones exist too.
Lula’s stance towards the NATO-Russian proxy war isn’t popular with the Workers’ Party’s base, hence why leading members of the ruling party and their partners are waging an information warfare campaign to mislead them by concocting conspiracy theories alleging that this approach is secretly Russian-friendly. Readers can learn more about this here, which is also included in the abovementioned hyperlinked list, but the point is that efforts are being actively undertaken to manipulate his supporters.
At the same time, however, a similar intent exists vis-à-vis Russia and the rest of Brazil’s BRICS partners. This is more urgent than ever considering the dilemma that Biden just imposed upon Lula wherein he’s now forced to decide whether to deport a suspected spy back to Russia or extradite him to the US to face charges, which readers can learn more about in detail here. In brief, the US’ filing of charges against that individual last Friday after a full year of his detainment in Brazil puts Lula on the spot.
The Influence Of Growing Domestic & International Pressure
He’s therefore presently facing multidimensional pressure from the Workers’ Party’s base and his fellow BRICS partners to do something dramatic to deflect from his political alignment with the US against Russia in the most geostrategically significant conflict since World War II, ergo this week’s stunt. Seeing as how his reportedly newfound stance was so easily discredited via official sources as proven in this analysis, however, it can be concluded that this was an ill-thought-out perception manipulation attempt.
Candidly speaking, it would have been better for him to quietly emulate the Indian approach towards the “Declaration of the Summit for Democracy” by expressing Brazil’s reservations with its third preambular paragraph about the Ukrainian Conflict. He and his party’s elite could then have encouraged friendly media and influencers to amplify this with the intent of more convincingly suggesting that Brazil might finally be recalibrating its unfriendly stance towards Russia in the direction of a more neutral one.
That would have been much better for his interests in terms of manipulating domestic and international perceptions about his approach than dramatically refusing to sign the document outright and then prompting this fact-check which comprehensively discredited him. This insight suggests that his decision was taken out of desperation after the pressure upon him became too much, hence why he and his advisors weren’t thinking clearly otherwise they’d have done what was just suggested.
The takeaways from this incident are several. First, this stunt was meant to generate attention. Second, it was premised on false pretexts that were exposed by facts from official sources. Third, the intent was to deflect from his politically unfriendly stance towards Russia’s special operation. Fourth, nothing has actually changed with respect to Brazil’s approach. And fifth, his refusal to sign that declaration was likely done at the last minute out of panic to manipulate perceptions in response to growing pressure.