Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff defends herself against the effort to oust her. (photo: Antonio Cruz/Agência Brasil)
The effort to oust twice-elected Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff has been big news in the United States. Since December 2015, when Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies began an impeachment process over Rousseff’s budget maneuvers, the New York Times has had 74 pieces that mention “Rousseff” and “impeachment,” according to the Nexis news database; the Washington Post has had 138 such stories.
But something that hasn’t been big news in US corporate media has been the reaction from Brazil’s neighbors to Rousseff’s suspension pending a Senate trial. While some Latin American governments were supportive—notably, newly right-governed Argentina said it “respects the institutional process” in Brazil, while close US ally Colombia “trusts in the preservation of democratic institutionality and stability”—several others were harshly critical. Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega called Rousseff’s removal an “anti-democratic process that has cast a shadow on the reliability and strength of institutions.” Bolivia’s Foreign ministry said Rousseff’s opponents were trying to “destabilize democratic processes and ignore the will of the people expressed in the popular vote.”
Three Latin American countries—Venezuela and El Salvador on May 14, and Ecuador today, May 18—announced they were recalling their ambassadors from Brazil, one of the strongest expressions of disapproval a nation can take. Salvadoran President Sanchez Ceren said he would not recognize the government formed by Vice President Michel Temer after Rousseff’s removal. “We respect democracy and the people’s will,” Ceren said. “In Brazil an act was done that was once done through military coups.”
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro labeled Rousseff’s ouster a “coup,” calling it “a grave and dangerous sign for the future stability and peace of all the continent.”
The region’s major multilateral organizations have also been critical of Brazil’s process. Secretary General Ernesto Samper of the Union of South American Nations, representing the continent’s 12 nations, called Rousseff the “legitimate leader” of Brazil. Samper, the former president of Colombia, said the attempt to remove her was “compromising the democratic governability of the region in a dangerous way.”
Prior to Rousseff’s ouster, Secretary General Luis Almagro of the Organization of American States released a strong statement:
Our Organization has made a detailed analysis of the impeachment process against Dilma, and has concluded that it does not fit within the rules that govern this process.
There is no criminal accusation against the president; rather she has been accused of the poor administration of public resources in 2014. This is an accusation that is political in character, and that does not merit an impeachment process.
A Nexis search turns up no US newspaper that reported on the recall of the Venezuelan or Salvadoran ambassadors–and Google News shows no US coverage today of Ecuador’s move. Samper’s comments do not seem to have been covered by any US paper. Almagro’s statement wasn’t quoted by any US papers, though his criticism was briefly alluded to in a handful of stories (New York Times, 4/14/16; LA Times, 4/16/16; Washington Post, 5/12/16).
These omissions are perhaps not surprising, given that most US news coverage of Latin America is strongly guided by the attitudes of the US government. And Washington seems amenable to regime change via legislative action for leftist governments in Latin America: After Honduran lawmakers ousted President Manuel Zelaya, then–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton worked for international recognition of the coup regime, as her published emails revealed. Questions have also been raised about a US role in the legislative overthrow of Paraguay’s President Fernando Lugo.
If the US government is happy with legislatures overthrowing presidents in Latin America, most US journalists will not go out of their way to indicate that not everyone in the region is celebrating.
One of the few articles in a major US paper to cover the reaction of Latin America to Roussef’s ouster as a story in itself appeared in USA Today (5/12/16). Coming out before any ambassadors had been withdrawn, it had a classic here’s-what-you-should-think headline:
Leftist Leaders Leap to Defense of Ousted Brazilian President
People who work for an industry that so predictably suppresses news that’s unfavorable to the official narrative maybe shouldn’t be so quick to mock others for “leaping.”
Jim Naureckas is the editor of FAIR.org. He can be followed on Twitter: @JNaureckas.
hat tip: Left I on the News
I’m not sure what to think about this. WBUR/NPR’s “On Point with Tom Ashbrook” did a lengthy segment on this situation, and based on what I heard, I’m inclined to think that maybe impeachment is justified. The Brazilian people are so fed up with government corruption that they’ve launched “Operation: Car Wash.”
http://onpoint.wbur.org/2016/05/17/brazil-venezuela-in-crisis
Don’t be too quick to believe what you hear on NPR anymore. They are (now) known for touting the official narrative.
The Koch Industries are now a sponsor for NPR. News from the US mainstream media these days is solely about ratings — If it bleeds, it leads.
The impeachment is NOT justified–she is accused of breaking budget rules and NOT corruption. And her accusers are all implicated in massive corruption in the giant LavaJato investigation.
Dilma Rousseff has been impeached and will be tried for what are impeachable offenses under Brazilian law. Period. Those “budget rules”, as you put it, ARE impeachable. No, corruption is not the specific issue in this case, although the corruption of her and the previous president’s party is an undercurrent. Lava Jato is targeting people in ALL parties, not just those of her accusers. One of the biggest figures involved in the corruption under investigation is Lula. her predecessor.
I suggest you learn more about Brazil and its history BEFORE you comment. FYI, I’ve lived here off and on since 1989 and have had permanent residency for over 22 years… You, in short, are quite wrong.
I’m Brazilian and say without any hesitation you’re deadly wrong. The alleged budgetary irregularities are not impeachment-grade material and that understanding is almost consensual among Brazilian jurists. Even the current president the usurper Michel Temer had the same opinion a year ago. Lava Jato is mainly targeting members of PT, no matter how hard they have been trying, they still have no proof of any wrong doing committed by Lula. You come here saying a pack of lies and trying to smear leftist politicians, don’t date to think they won’t be disputed.
I don’t know which Brazil you are talking about but in the one I live in that “understanding” is not “almost consensual” by any stretch of the imagination. Just ask Hélio Bicudo, among others. 2) Lava Jato has been active across the board. Just ask Eduardo Cunha, former president of the lower house. 3) You say “they have no proof” on Lula. That’s not what the Polícia Federal and certain federal judges seem to think. 4) Spreading lies… hmmm…. now that’s an interesting accusation for you to make when you seem to be the one with a rather challenged perception of what is actually happening in this country. Oh, and, just for the record, I’m not exactly right wing material, so don’t make assumptions about people you disagree with. I’ll compare left wing credentials with you and win on any given day of the week. You are quite wrong on everything, even on calling Michel Temer the “current president”. He is the acting president. Dilma Rousseff has not been convicted and is still titular president of Brazil. You obviously don’t know Brazilian law. This process is FAR from over.
Rousseff has less involvement in the corruption that is indeed an epidemic in Brazilian political culture than just about any other major political figure. The violations she’s nominally accused of are, by all accounts, one routinely committed by her predecessors and were even hardly mentioned by her accusers in voting for impeachment. This is a case of a constitutional process being turned into a sham.
NPR said it, I believe it, that settles it.
That’s a terrible distortion of what I said. In addition, my understanding isn’t based on what “NPR” said (as though NPR speaks with one voice) – it was based upon the expert guests that Mr. Ashbrook interviewed.
Instead of dismissing out of hand, might I suggest listening and deciding for yourself?
Brazil must be going into recession. Blame it on the president. Then impose “austerity”
National Fruit Company all over again!
United Fruit Co., to be more precise.
I’m talking about the country where I have been living since I was born 64 yrs ago. Bicudo is a resentful old man to whom it was denied a post as ambassador in Vatican State and since then has turned against Lula and PT. He’s the author of the request for Dilma Roussef to be impeached, that’s why I used the almost was used, because it’s not an absolute unanimity, let’s say 90% of jurists and lawyers don’t think the alleged accounting irregularities don’t constitute an impeachable offense. You probably are not following those investigations closely. They are trying to implicate Lula to alleged bribes involving civil construction contractors, not a shred of evidence till now. Last but not least, forgive my sloppy English, you’re right Temer (Count Dracula’s butler) is the acting president.
The reply above is to Mr. William Shelton.
I’ll give you your description of Temer, Count Dracula’s butler. That was funny.
Just to make the atmosphere more relaxed. But why I said about Bicudo is true. He became embittered since Lula didn’t give him the post he coveted, Brazilian ambassador to the Holy See. Even his close relatives were adamantly against his stance. Now, he has showing some regret after seeing Temer’s cabinet filled with “la creme de la creme” of Brazilian crooks, seven of them indicted in Oper. Car-Wash.
It’s obvious that the persons who write articles critical of Brazil’s impeachment process (a) don’t know what they’re talking about because (b) they’ve never been to Brazil and (c) get their information from closed-minded reporting, and (d) would change their tune if they used the same criteria for truthfulness and lawfulness which they apply in reporting on American politics.
Some facts which the ignorant critics don’t care to know:
1. Having suffered through more than two decades of fiscal crises which wrecked its economy and resulted in hyperinflation, in 1992 Brazil passed the Law of Fiscal Liability (the Portuguese word “Responsável” means “liable”) which requires that the President submit an annual budget to Congress, may spend only what’s in that budget, and may not exceed the budget without Congress’ specific authorization. Violation of these provisions was exactly what Brazil’s ousted President did and kept doing right up to and including her last day in office! Imagine Obama giving the finger to Congress and authorizing spending which wasn’t authorized? Blowing the lid off the Federal Debt limit? Do you think he’d not be accused of gross misdemeanors?
2. The Law of Fiscal Liability specifically prohibits the Federal Government from allowing financial institutions it controls, including the Federal Savings Bank, the Banco do Brasil, and other institutions, from making loans which are the responsibility of the Federal Treasury to make. Violation of these provisions, to the tune of the equivalent of US$30 billion, is exactly what Brazil’s ousted President did! Here’s how it worked:
A bunch of money was needed for program but the Brazilian Treasury didn’t have the funds. Instructed by the President’s team, the Federal Savings Bank and the Banco do Brasil, and others, funded the expenditures, which funding should have been immediately paid by the Treasury to those institutions. Neither those institutions nor the Treasury reported those disbursements to Congress, nor did the Treasury reimburse the institutions for long periods—some over a year—and then only after the press discovered and reported it!
Imagine if, during the period that Citibank’s shares were held by the Treasury, it disbursed US$30 billion for Obama’s favorite programs without telling Congress. How would that look to the Republicans—and the Democrats—in Congress? They’d impeach Obama in a minute!
3. Those are the crimes—in Brazil, with its history of hyperinflation, Yes, it’s a crime—Brazil’s ousted President is accused of. Ten zillion to nothing she’ll be convicted. And that doesn’t even scratch the surface of the massive corruption her predecessor and mentor, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and she institutionalized. Can you imagine stealing US$5 billion? US$10 billion? Who know how much? And the crazy projects which are never going to do anything more than swallow cash and will never operate? US$20 billion in an oil refinery in the northeast which should have cost half that—the rest was overpricing and theft—and will never operate. US$6 billion to transpose a river the size of the Missouri River that’s nothing but half-completed and will never be put into operation, but which put at least half that amount into the pockets of Lula, the ousted President, and three quarters of Congress. Where would Obama be if a US$2 million property were his to use but in the name of a friend of one of his daughters? And admittedly bought and paid for with money stolen from Petrobrás?
4. Now the economy’s in a recession worse than that of the 1930’s, with 11 million persons unemployed, the Federal Government’s deficit is forecast at 9% of GDP (!), Petrobrás—the apple of many Brazilians’ eyes even though inefficient as hell—financially destroyed, and all the progress from 1990 to 2014 undone. “Good riddance, Dilma Rousseff,” say three quarters of all Brazilians!
So, ignorant critics, before you swallow the criticism of a genuine dictator, Nicolás Maduro, who’s destroying Venezuela and killing his people explicitly and by depriving them of the resources for decent medical care, read what’s really going on in Brazil.
I’m an American who’s lived in Brazil for 44 years and vote Democratic in California.
Imagine “Blowing the lid off the Federal Debt limit?” Indeed I can. In fact a very strong case can be made that the “Federal Debt limit” is unconstitutional – per, the Fourteenth Amendment, section 4 “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” Thus spending authorized by Congress and signed into law by the President cannot lawfully be “capped.”
If your understanding of Brazilian constitutional law is on par with your understanding of U.S. constitutional law, your statements may safely be ignored.
I am disappointed that some commenters would present their opinions to FAIR without having looked to
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/5/10/glenn_greenwald_on_brazil_goal_of
Also, watch Glenn Greenwald’s interview with Lula.
The last time the US provoked a coup in Brazil to secure US economic interests, they ended up with a dictatorship for 21 years. I don’t think we can conscionably do that to the Brazilian people again. This is equivalent to if Paul Ryan were able to impeach POTUS Obama for whatever reason he found him to be most obnoxious, and VP Biden as well, then take over the Presidency himself. In Brazil, the VP Temer is from a party whose support for large national and multi-national corporate interests have been thwarted by Dilma’s party for quite some time due to popular support.
The difficulty lies in how we can best support a positive resolution for the majority of the Brazilian people. I think they must protest, carry out out non-violent civil disobedience, and maybe even organized work-stoppages, until all of the representatives under investigation for corruption resign or are expelled, and all the executives like Temer who have committed ‘impeachable crimes’, such as fiscal manipulation like Dilma is accused of, or worse, should also be impeached or recalled. If special elections are arranged before the 2018 elections, it would reduce the harm done by illegitimate administration assembled by Temer.