The beginning of the United Nations General Assembly, taking place until next Monday (28) in New York (USA), was marked by speeches fromPresident Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT)and his main antagonist in the current international political scene, President Donald Trump.
In their remarks, the two heads of state did not refer to each other directly, but addressed topics, in the current context, sensitive to nations and foreign relations between them. Lula spoke in defense of democracy, sovereignty, and the pursuit of peace. Trump reinforced the violent war discourse and advocated for the actions of big techs and the operation of artificial intelligence without any regulation under the pretext of freedom.
The UN, although it has lost importance in terms of an organism where strategic political decisions are made, is still a space that manages to bring together the largest number of nations from the most diverse ideological spectra.
Empty and outdated
In his speech, Lula criticized the process of emptying the UN and called for the reform of the international body, specifically suggesting the expansion of the Security Council, currently limited to 15 countries with veto power. The UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, in his address, echoed the same understanding of the Brazilian president, even describing the institution as "outdated" in its current form.
In participation in a podcastText: The ForeignerOn January 20th, journalists from the O Globo reported on the ongoing protests across Brazil. They highlighted the diverse demands of the protesters, ranging from political reforms to calls for the resignation of President Jair Bolsonaro. The article emphasized the peaceful nature of the demonstrations, with participants emphasizing their right to freedom of speech and democratic participation.Brazil of FactLucas Estanislau, Monyse Ravena, and André Lucena argue that, in reality, one must consider that the model of nation organization that led to the creation of the UN may be reaching its limits. For Lucena, there is a process of power center shifting.
There is a very blatant underlying movement through Trump, but it's not new, thatThat multilateralismPost-World War, which then had its major chapter with the fall of the Soviet Union, no longer reflects the power relations that led to the construction of this UN as we know it. Something very similar, but with a very different context, occurred with the League of Nations and when they held the Vienna Congress at the beginning of the 19th century. It's not the institution itself; it doesn't exist in isolation, it exists to express a correlation of forces that may no longer exist. And, not coincidentally, this gradual depletion of the UN goes hand in hand with the growth and strengthening of institutions in Asia," said the journalist.
He assessed that Lula and Trump's speeches presented "two opposing worldviews" and that the Brazilian president made "an anticipatory counterpoint to what Trump could say," as if it were a debate, but without the right to reply. "The government tried to address all possible points. I found a speech that preached multilateralism, but it backfired when it said that Brazil is not anyone's backyard," Lucena noted.
The analysts also highlighted the passage where Lula speaks about the importance of regulating big tech companies and criticizes them using the phrase "techno-oligarchs who want a rule-free neoliberalism."
A major arrangement
Trump adopted a unilateral stance, marked by direct threats to Iran, attacks on progressive movements, and openly admitted that all attacks on Venezuela and the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro had a single goal: Venezuelan oil. In this sense, commentators criticize the fact that these statements were made in a place like the UN and nothing concrete happened.
"There is an institutional incapacity. There is an arrangement, and this arrangement is a consensus to some extent. The main issue is that perhaps a figure was missing who would stretch the rope to the limit, like Trump is doing, so that there is this sense," journalist André Lucena assesses.
The episode also analyzed the potential impact of speeches at the UN on the Brazilian election process and how the population voting on October 4th perceives the real risks of US interference. For Lucena, this is not a concern that Brazilians are currently considering when making their voting decisions.
There is a difference between the importance of the US interference issue and it mobilizing Brazilian voters, because this electorate is diverse, they care about issues in their street, neighborhood, city, family. And when we are talking about such a tight election as this one, and we have a group of people leaning towards voting for Flávio Bolsonaro, perhaps they are also saying that sovereignty doesn't matter.
Check out the full episode below:
To listen and watch
The podcastThe Foreigner Airs weekly on Wednesdays at 3 p.m., available on the Brazil of Fact channelsBrazil of Fact.