Photo: Reproduction: Ricardo Stuckert
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva at the United Nations
Advertising
On October 18, the United Nations (UN) Security Council rejected the Brazilian resolution on the conflicts between Israel and Hamas. The text was largely adopted with 12 yes votes. However, the United States vetoed the document, claiming that the resolution did not mention Israelis’ right to selfdefense.
In the resolution, Brazil called for a ceasefire in the region, the opening of humanitarian corridors and the possibility of expanding humanitarian assistance in the Palestinian territory.
Brazil will chair the UN Security Council this October. The country aims to play a mediating role in international conflicts such as the one between Israel and Hamas and the war between Russia and Ukraine. However, it was not successful.
“In an increasingly multipolar world, Brazil is finding ways to assert its interests. And this is clear at a time when Brazil is reinvesting in new agreements such as the Brics states and, for example, holds the G20 presidency,” says Ismara Izepe de Souza, international relations specialist and professor at the Federal University of São Paulo (Unifesp ).
“In this time of threats to international security and paralysis of decisions due to US veto power, it is important that a country like Brazil “leads” the discussion from other parameters. The UN Security Council is frozen, but it is important that Brazil continues to put forward proposals. Ultimately, it is also an opportunity to show the world the inefficiency of this anachronistic and unfair council model,” adds the internationalist.
Israel and Hamas
The conflict between the extremist group Hamas and Israel, which began on October 7 with an unprecedented attack on Israeli territory, is already the deadliest in the history of the Gaza Strip region. More than 8,700 people have died in the collision. According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, the latest tally is that there are 1,400 deaths on the Israeli side and 7,300 on the Palestinian side.
“Brazil is able to be a dialogue facilitator because it has historically had good relations with the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Many countries that want to act as mediators are too focused on one side of the dispute. Brazil’s position in condemning acts of terrorism is very clear, but at the same time it raises the need to understand the history of noncompliance with resolutions by Israel, which since 1947 has expanded its territory and subjected the Palestinian population to a colonial situation. What Brazil has done is to demand agreement and point out that this situation has a history. And only the creation of two states agreed in 1947 can resolve these tensions in the long term,” says the Unifesp professor.
On the other hand, for Igor Lucena, doctor of international relations, Brazil should not act as a mediator and appease conflicts due to “lack of content”.
“I think Brazil presents itself as an important player from the point of view of international relations. This shows that Brazilian diplomacy can be active and not passive, but from my point of view it is not very positive.” I think that Brazil’s positions Ukraine’s view has been criticized. I have a big question about the current Brazilian foreign policy of independence or nonpositioning on controversial issues. Is it valid in the modern world? Even if Brazil actually shows a greater international presence in the debates in the panels, in my opinion there is a lack of content to actually represent more serious positions,” said Igor.
A few months ago, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) tried to broker peace in the war between Russia and Ukraine. That’s why the president got into controversy when he said that both sides were responsible for the confrontation. The speech was not well received internationally and since then the head of Brazil’s executive branch has taken a more neutral and pacifist stance towards this conflict.
On Monday (23), President Lula made a new attempt at mediation. He called Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss the situation between Israel and Hamas and also to talk about Russia’s war against Ukraine, which has lasted a year and eight months and left more than 200,000 people dead.
According to a statement from the Brazilian presidency, “President Lula reiterated Brazil’s willingness to assist in any mediation if the parties involved are willing to talk about peace.”
“Brazil’s ideas may even be praised by one side or the other, but the ambiguities the country raises by delaying the designation of Hamas as a terrorist group and criticizing Israel’s selfdefense make Brazil a weaker actor and incompetent in this matter to actually be a protagonist,” says Lucena.
Brazil in the UN Security Council
Brazil took over the presidency of the UN Security Council on October 1st this year. Due to rotation between countries, the country will leave the position on the 31st of this month.
The body is responsible for monitoring international security. Fifteen countries belong to this group and all have the right to vote. Five of them are permanent members: the United States, Russia, France, the United Kingdom and China. They have the right to veto, which means that if one of them rejects a decision, it does not come into force.
The other ten countries filling the rotating positions are: Brazil, Albania, Ecuador, United Arab Emirates, Gabon, Ghana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique and Switzerland.
Lula defends the reform of the Council and calls for a permanent seat in the group, as do South Africa and India. For the Brazilian president, the principle of global multilateralism is not being fulfilled and the UN security body is “increasingly losing its credibility”.
“This fragility arises in particular from the actions of its permanent members, who wage unauthorized wars to achieve territorial expansion or regime change.” “Its paralysis is the most eloquent proof of the need and urgency to reform it and make it more representative and to make it effective,” Lula said in September during a speech to the United Nations General Assembly.
For internationalist Ismara de Souza, “the Security Council must be reformed to reflect the international order of the 21st century, which is very different from that of 1945. In order to have legitimacy and be able to solve international security problems, he should ideally end the veto power of five countries.”
However, the expert notes that despite the pressure, it is currently very difficult to implement the reform.
“The need for Security Council reform is not only expressed by Brazil. The CS does not reflect the international order. There have been times when this campaign has been bigger as there are powers like Germany and India that also want reform. But in the current context, I think it is very difficult for this to happen,” emphasizes Ismara.
read more