• HOME
  • ABOUT
  • DONATE
  • COUNTERSPIN RADIO
  • EXTRA! NEWSLETTER
  • FAIR STUDIES
  • ISSUES / TOPICS
  • TAKE ACTION
  • STORE

FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING

Challenging media bias since 1986.

ABOUT
  • Mission Statement
  • Staff & Associates
  • Contact FAIR
  • Internship Program
  • What’s FAIR?
  • What’s Wrong With the News?
  • What Journalists, Scholars
    and Activists Are Saying
  • FAIR’s Financial Overview
  • Privacy & Online Giving
DONATE
COUNTERSPIN
  • Current Show
  • Program Archives
  • Transcript Archives
  • Get CounterSpin on Your Station
  • Radio Station Finder
EXTRA! NEWSLETTER
  • Subscribe to Extra!
  • Customer Care
FAIR Studies
ISSUES/TOPICS
TAKE ACTION
  • FAIR’s Media Contact List
  • FAIR’s Resource List
STORE
  • HOME
  • ABOUT
  • DONATE
  • COUNTERSPIN RADIO
  • EXTRA! NEWSLETTER
  • FAIR STUDIES
  • ISSUES / TOPICS
  • TAKE ACTION
  • STORE

FAIR

FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation.

Challenging media bias since 1986
  • HOME
  • ABOUT
  • DONATE
  • COUNTERSPIN RADIO
  • EXTRA! NEWSLETTER
  • FAIR STUDIES
  • ISSUES / TOPICS
  • TAKE ACTION
  • STORE
  • CounterSpin Radio
  • About CounterSpin
  • Current Show
  • Program Archives
  • Transcript Archives
  • Get CounterSpin on Your Station
  • Radio Station Finder
FAIR
post
September 13, 2016

‘They Let Everybody Know the US Was on the Side of This Coup’

CounterSpin interview with Mark Weisbrot on the ouster of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff
Janine Jackson
Mark Weisbrot (photo: CEPR)

Janine Jackson interviewed Mark Weisbrot about the ouster of Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff for the September 9, 2016, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

Mark Weisbrot (photo: CEPR)

Mark Weisbrot: “This is not what the Brazilian people voted for in the last three elections.” (photo: CEPR)

Play
Stop
pop out
X

MP3 Link

Janine Jackson: A crawler at the top of the New York Times website announced “Breaking news: Dilma Rousseff, accused of misconduct as president, has been impeached, ending the power struggle consuming Brazil.” That sounds like an unlikely outcome, even to those who haven’t been able to follow all the twists and turns of events in Brazil. But what accounts for the difference between those who see something being resolved in recent political events, and those who see something being violated?

Joining us now to help sort through things is Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and author of Failed: What the “Experts” Got Wrong About the Global Economy. He joins us by phone from Washington, DC. Welcome back to CounterSpin, Mark Weisbrot.

Mark Weisbrot: Thanks, it’s great to be with you.

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff (photo: Antonio Cruz/Agência Brasil)

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff defends herself against the effort to oust her. (photo: Antonio Cruz/Agência Brasil)

JJ: Can you help us understand, especially, the last few steps? Because the last I heard was that a court had said that the charges against Dilma Rousseff were not impeachable. And I also seem to remember hearing that Michel Temer wasn’t going to be able to hold office for eight years. So what happened, just recently, to bring us to this moment?

MW: The prosecutor, the federal prosecutor who was in charge of the case, decided that what she was being impeached for, this financial maneuver, was not a crime. So that’s, I think, very important. And most people don’t know that. In fact, most people probably think that she was impeached for something having to do with corruption. But the Senate voted to remove her from office anyway, on August 29, and of course that isn’t going to settle the question.

As for Temer, who takes over as president, he’s been banned by the courts from running for office again for the next eight years, but it doesn’t stop him from finishing this two years of Dilma’s term. So that’s where it stands right now. But there’s already been big protests, people demanding new elections, because nobody likes Temer, and a lot of people see it as a coup.

JJ: Well, that’s my understanding, and I’m wondering how you can get to a place where it sounds like this was a political process working itself out legitimately. And I think one element of that was brought up by Glenn Greenwald on Democracy Now!. He said that Brazilian media were playing up the idea that, you know, impeachment is part of the democratic process, that’s a thing they do in America and in Europe — without making the distinction that in the United States, for example, if a president is impeached, the vice president takes over, not the opposition party.

MW: Yes. Well, the vice president did take over, but he’s also with a big opposition party. It was a coalition government. The Workers Party won the presidency, but they don’t control the Congress. So, basically, this is the right really taking over and trying to reverse the results of the last three elections. I mean, there is some similarity to the United States, in the sense, if you remember the Clinton impeachment–

JJ: Right.

MW: I think that was obviously a political move, and ultimately it didn’t prevail. They actually, at least, had a couple of crimes, I think that’s the difference, or at least alleged crimes. They had obstruction of justice and perjury, and they tried to make it into a impeachable offense, and the Senate decided it wasn’t. Here it is a little more outrageous in Brazil, because they didn’t really even have a crime.

And you did see some criticism of it from, first, the head of the Organization of American States, who is a very staunch US ally, nonetheless criticized it. So did the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, that’s from the OAS also, their independent body. They criticized it, too. But in Washington, you had absolutely no criticism at all from NGOs and human rights groups, and in fact, Human Rights Watch, Americas Watch division, the head of that, Jose Miguel Vivanco, actually was quoted in the Brazilian press on the day of the impeachment, and praised the democratic process in Brazil, and seemed to be very supportive of it.

JJ: Is there a sense that there’s some reflection of the popular will going on here, apart from what’s happening in terms of the political processes? I mean, it is fair to characterize the Brazilian public as unhappy in general terms.

MW: There was a reflection of popular will in terms of, you know, there’s a deep recession and Dilma was unpopular.

JJ: Right.

MW: But, on the other hand, nobody wanted Temer to take over. So there was a big call for new elections, and that’s what a lot of people are demanding now, and very few people want this right-wing government that’s going to try and reverse the social and economic progress of the last 14 years.

The Workers Party did do pretty well until just two years ago. They had reduced poverty by 55 percent and extreme poverty by 65 percent, and doubled the minimum wage in real terms. And this government came in, they said they’re going to double down on the austerity, and they got rid of the Ministry for Women and Human Rights, and they appointed a cabinet of all white men.

So this is really the biggest change without an election since the 1964 coup that brought in the military dictatorship. I think that’s why I don’t think it’s over yet. I mean, people are definitely going to resist this. And it’s unfortunate that the United States played such a negative role in the whole thing. That part was really completely ignored in the US press.

JJ: What should we know about the role that the US in fact played, and what should we be looking out for down the road?

MW: Well, we won’t know everything for probably a long time, if ever, but we do know, first of all, that on August 5, John Kerry, secretary of State, went there and did a joint press conference with the acting foreign minister, Jose Serra, of Brazil, and they praised the new relationship that the United States is going to have with Brazil. And so it was a real strong statement of support, without saying, “We support the coup.”

Because, after all, this wasn’t even the elected government he was dealing with. This is not a normal protocol for him to do. He should have waited till at least it was decided that Dilma was going to be permanently removed from office. Even if you think the impeachment process is legitimate, which, as I said, most people didn’t, he still didn’t have to do that. That was really a very strong message that they supported this coup.

And there was another one prior to that, back in April. Just three days after the lower house of the Brazilian Congress voted to impeach Dilma, you had a meeting between the No. 3 official in the State Department, Tom Shannon, who’s also the former US ambassador to Brazil, and the one likely making these decisions of what to do about the coup. He met with one of the leaders of the impeachment, Sen. Aloysio Nunes from the Brazilian Senate. And this was another and a very early signal, very strong signal that the US was on their side. Because, again, he didn’t have to have that meeting; they weren’t going to meet with, say, Dilma, for example. That’s the way that they took sides, and let everybody know that the US was on the side of this impeachment or coup.

JJ: Let me just ask you, finally, what were other possible ways forward? And are they still possible?

MW: Yeah, I think that this government’s going to be very unpopular. The demand for new elections is going to increase. But if that doesn’t happen, I think you’ll have two years and then the Workers Party will come back. Former President Lula de Silva has already pretty much indicated he’s going to run. He’s popular in the polls; according to polls now, he would win if the election were held today. So I don’t think it’s over, because, again, this is a real right-wing thing that’s going on. This is not what the Brazilian people voted for in the last three elections.

JJ: We’ve been speaking with Mark Weisbrot from the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Find their work online at CEPR.net. Mark Weisbrot, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

MW: Thank you.

Related Posts

  • 'Let Them Eat Tiramisu'!
  • Can the NYT Call a Coup a Coup?
  • U.S. Press Cites Pro-Coup Paper's Pro-Coup Poll
  • NYT Sees the Bright Side of Unending War

Filed under: Latin America

Janine Jackson

Janine Jackson

Janine Jackson is FAIR’s program director and producer/host of FAIR’s syndicated weekly radio show CounterSpin. She contributes frequently to FAIR’s newsletter Extra!, and co-edited The FAIR Reader: An Extra! Review of Press and Politics in the ’90s (Westview Press). She has appeared on ABC‘s Nightline and CNN Headline News, among other outlets, and has testified to the Senate Communications Subcommittee on budget reauthorization for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Her articles have appeared in various publications, including In These Times and the UAW’s Solidarity, and in books including Civil Rights Since 1787 (New York University Press) and Stop the Next War Now: Effective Responses to Violence and Terrorism (New World Library). Jackson is a graduate of Sarah Lawrence College and has an M.A. in sociology from the New School for Social Research.

Comments

  1. AvatarJohn Ellis

    September 13, 2016 at 10:20 pm

    MOST WEALTHY 51% — MOST GREEDY 51%

    It’s called democracy, but it’s really slavery, as the impoverished lower-half of society never goes to the polls, which allows the 26% most wealthy to be the voting majority for a majority of the time.

    In Brazil, the voting majority for the last three elections has been the 26% middle-class, but very little change has this brought to the impoverished laboring-class lower half of society, as the privileged upper-half of society has always owned all of the land and wealth

    • AvatarJohn Ellis

      September 13, 2016 at 10:23 pm

      Solution is simple, a law that guarantees the lower-half of society the right to own at least a forth of the wealth.

  2. AvatarFarhad Malekafzali

    September 14, 2016 at 12:02 pm

    The US also left it plainly clear to Iranians that they were behind the 1953 coup in Iran. A quarter century later the cry in the US was (and is to date), “why do they hate us.” The choice to be openly on the side of the coup government, of course, meant that many in Iran believed political change would not happen without US acquiescent which only served to perpetuate the pro-American regime for a quarter century. It also pushed Iranian politics away from parliamentary democracy toward radical, right-wing populism.

CounterSpin
  • CounterSpin Radio
  • About CounterSpin
  • Current Show
  • Program Archives
  • Transcript Archives
  • Get CounterSpin on Your Station
  • Radio Station Finder
You should tune in to CounterSpin, the program that sees things and says things about the media you’ll see no place else. —Ben Bagdikian, author of <i>The Media Monopoly</i>
CounterSpin
Listen on Apple Podcasts
Subscribe on Android

What’s FAIR

FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints. We expose neglected news stories and defend working journalists when they are muzzled. As a progressive group, we believe that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information.

Contact

Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York, NY 10001

Tel: 212-633-6700

Email directory

Support

We rely on your support to keep running. Please consider donating.

DONATE

© 2020 FAIR.

| | All FAIR Posts | CounterSpin

Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Sign up to receive all of FAIR’s articles of media criticism and news analysis, sent directly to your email.

Or sign up to receive our Weekly Update on Friday, with links to all our latest work.