Lula’s diplomacy fails with Maduro’s fall and is ignored

The capture of Nicolás Maduro by United States military forces on January 3 in an operation in Caracas opened a new chapter in the Venezuelan crisis and exposed the limits of Brazilian diplomacy on the international stage. Although the government of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) has signaled its willingness to monitor developments and defend a solution based on international law, experts assess that Brazil does not have the credibility, neutrality or political weight to act as a mediator or coordinator of a transition in Venezuela.

Analysts point out that the Brazilian position is the result of decades of an ambiguous foreign policy, marked by omissions, ideological alignments and frustrated attempts at international protagonism, which are now taking their toll in one of the most sensitive episodes of regional geopolitics, in South America.

Asked whether this history could lead the United States to definitively ignore Brazil as an interlocutor in the Venezuelan case, the doctor in International Law from the University of São Paulo (USP), the doctor in law and political commentator Luiz Augusto Módolo is direct: “it’s better to just ignore it”. For him, Washington knows that Chavismo, and Maduro’s dictatorial government, grew “under the beard” of Brazil, especially during Lula’s governments, and that Brazilian diplomacy helped fuel the problem that now requires external intervention.

When contacted, the Presidency of the Republic and Itamaraty said that “Brazil’s position in relation to the military operation carried out on January 3 was clearly expressed on several occasions” and reinforced their protocol notes.

In them, the government states that the “military attacks on Venezuelan soil” and the capture of the “head of state” are classified by the Brazilian government as “serious violations of sovereignty and international law”, capable of setting a dangerous precedent for global order and regional stability.

“Brazil condemns the unilateral use of force, reaffirms the defense of multilateralism, dialogue and the peaceful resolution of disputes, warns of the risk of destabilization of Latin America as a zone of peace and defends a firm response from the international community, especially within the scope of the United Nations, to contain the escalation of tensions”.

Expert reading goes further. The American operation was planned and executed without considering Brazil as a strategic partner, reflecting a loss of regional relevance that contrasts with the official discourse of South American protagonism.

Maduro’s capture, therefore, not only redefines Venezuela’s political landscape, but also exposes deep weaknesses in Brazilian foreign policy under Lula. Observers point out that the episode could mark a watershed in the way Brazil is perceived by global powers and its own neighbors.

“Without recognized neutrality, without effective regional leadership and with a history of alignment with authoritarian regimes, the country runs the risk of remaining on the sidelines of the strategic decisions that will shape the future of Latin America in the post-Chavism era”, warns Módolo.

“There is no status or desire for mediation”, says jurist

For political commentator and constitutionalist André Marsiglia, the idea that Brazil can assume a central mediation role after Maduro’s fall is not supported by international reality. For Marsiglia, neither President Lula nor the Brazilian State currently have the necessary status to be taken seriously by Donald Trump as interlocutors in a conflict of this magnitude.

He recalls that Lula’s previous attempts to present himself as a mediator in international crises, such as the war between Russia and Ukraine, did not have any concrete repercussions. “He [Lula] He presented himself as someone who could resolve a historical conflict ‘with a beer’, he offered mediation, and no one took him seriously. Now, with the USA and Venezuela, it will be no different”, he assesses.

For constitutionalist Alessandro Chiarottino, Brazil does not currently have the political or diplomatic conditions to present itself as a relevant interlocutor in the Venezuelan crisis after Maduro’s capture.

In the expert’s assessment, the stance of the United States government under Donald Trump has been markedly unilateral, with clear signs that strategic decisions are being taken without prior consultation not even with traditional allies, let alone Brazil and the Lula government. This context, according to him, undermines any Brazilian attempt at mediation or international leadership in the episode.

In Marsiglia’s view, President Lula’s movement is not guided by a realistic diplomatic strategy, but by an internal political calculation. “By positioning himself as a mediator, even with no chance of success, Lula tries to wear a false neutrality. Those who place themselves in the middle, in theory, seem more rational than the extremes. This is a narrative construction for his electorate”, he states.

Lula and Maduro: contested neutrality and ideological foreign policy

Marsiglia also highlights that the neutrality claimed by the Brazilian government is not sustainable given the recent history of foreign policy. According to him, Brazil has adopted clear ideological positions in international conflicts, which makes any claim to exemption unfeasible.

“Brazil is not neutral. Lula is not neutral. And the foreign policy conducted under the influence of Celso Amorim has been marked by significant ideological extremism, with repeated support for authoritarian regimes”, he says. For the constitutionalist, this alignment definitely compromises any attempt at mediation, especially in a context in which the United States conducted a unilateral operation and has already demonstrated that it does not recognize Brazil as a relevant actor in this process.

Chiarottino adds that the ideological alignment of the current Brazilian government weighs negatively on this scenario. For him, the fact that the government is identified as left-wing, coupled with public statements by high-ranking members, such as José Dirceu, “openly defending the implementation of socialism”, further reduces Brazil’s credibility as a neutral or trustworthy actor in the eyes of Washington. “This set of factors removes Brazil from any central role in negotiations or articulations related to the Venezuelan crisis”, he assesses.

Diplomacy marked by historical omissions

The criticism of the Brazilian role deepens in Módolo’s analysis. For him, Brazil’s current loss of relevance is not episodic, but the result of a mistaken diplomatic trajectory in relation to Venezuela over almost three decades.

He recalls that, since the beginning of the 2000s, Brazil adopted a stance of “diplomatic cynicism” in the face of the advance of Chavismo. In 2002, during the attempt to overthrow Hugo Chávez, then president Fernando Henrique Cardoso worked, in conjunction with other countries, to restore the Venezuelan leader to power. “That was the last real chance for Venezuela to free itself from Chavismo. Chávez learned his lesson and consolidated his absolute control of the State”, he states.

In PT governments, especially under Lula, recalls Módolo, support stopped being just tacit and became “ostentatious”. The expert recalls that Lula recorded videos in support of Nicolás Maduro in the early 2010s and even sent his marketer to work in the Venezuelan dictator’s campaign.

There are also reports, according to Módolo, that allegedly resources originating from corruption schemes involving large Brazilian construction companies, evidenced by the Lava Jato operation, had been used in political campaigns in Venezuela. “This history is not unknown on the international scene”, he states.

For the jurist, the behavior of the Brazilian government following international agreements that provided for free elections in Venezuela also contributed to the worsening of the crisis. “Maduro promised elections, rigged the process and remained in power. The Lula government’s soft stance in the face of this was explicit. Everyone saw it”, he says.

Lula’s silence on Maduro in the face of violations and humanitarian crisis

Another central point of criticism is the Brazilian stance in the face of human rights violations and the Venezuelan humanitarian crisis. According to Luiz Augusto Módolo, Brazil was one of the countries most impacted by the Venezuelan diaspora, but failed to lead a worthy regional response against Maduro’s dictatorship.

“Brazil was repeatedly humiliated by Maduro, sent money via BNDES, maneuvered to include Venezuela in Mercosur at a politically sensitive moment and maintained an eloquent silence in the face of atrocities”, he states.

In the expert’s assessment, Chavismo “would not have survived for so long without Brazil’s omission and, at times, direct action”. For him, this story explains why the United States chose to act against Maduro without any prior coordination with Brasília.

A leading role that remained in the speech

For Marsiglia and Módolo, the mediation discourse adopted by the Lula government tends to be restricted to protocol notes, anchored in international law that, according to them, appears to be silent or ineffective in the face of “regimes that massacre” their own people, such as the Maduro dictatorship.

“The State is not just territory, government and sovereignty. It is also people. When a government uses sovereignty as a screen to oppress its population, it fails to fulfill its international obligations”, summarizes Módolo.

In the current scenario, the predominant assessment is that Brazil lost the chance to lead when there was still room for preventive diplomacy. “Now, faced with direct intervention from the United States, the country is left to observe events from the outside and deal with the regional consequences of a crisis that it helped, directly or indirectly, to prolong”, highlights Marsiglia.

Government maintains condemnation of military action in Venezuela and talks about a diplomatic solution

The Brazilian government, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, expressed firm condemnation of the military attacks carried out in Venezuelan territory and the capture of Maduro, classifying the acts as a serious violation of national sovereignty and fundamental principles of international law. According to Itamaraty, unilateral actions of this type represent a dangerous precedent for the rules-based international order and increase the risks of instability, violence and regional insecurity.

The Lula government reiterated its rejection of the use of force as an instrument of conflict resolution and warned that initiatives of this nature hark back to periods marked by external interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean. For Palácio do Planalto, such episodes directly threaten the region’s commitment to peace, non-intervention and respect for people’s self-determination.

In a joint note with Mexico, Chile, Colombia, Uruguay and Spain, Brazil defended that the Venezuelan crisis be faced exclusively by peaceful means, through dialogue and negotiation, without external interference. Itamaraty also called on the United Nations and other multilateral organizations to act actively in de-escalating tensions and preserving Latin America and the Caribbean as a zone of peace.