What does Lula win with political asylum to Nadine Heredia?
Let’s see, let’s start with something basic, The relationship between Peru and Brazil is not at its best. We have a cordial relationship, but marked by indifference. It is not that Peru and Brazil today look like two nearby partners. That, for example, we saw it in The G-20 Summitfrom a few months ago, which was held in Brazil. Brazil invited, in addition to the participants, a series of countries as host of the region. For example, he invited the Colombian president and others like Paraguay, Uruguay, but Peru did not, despite the fact that Peru had just made the APEC summit, and the importance and visibility that that gave the country. So, I do not see Lula, looking at Peru very confident, in the light of what we know about the Boluarte government, its alliance with the conservative right, its repression policies. I think that Lula da Silva prioritizes those that have been the main allies of the Brazilian government. And let’s be sincere, at the time, both Ollanta Humala and Nadine Heredia, or the Nationalist Party, were very close to Brazil. That is, in the election of the year 2011, the same workers’ party directly supported the Ollanta Humala campaign, with political advice, with recommendations, there was a very intense relationship.
So warm is the relationship between Peru and Brazil that Lula himself has not made efforts to hide that he made the decision about asylum. And there are other elements that add to that. For example, the presence in this movement of the lawyer Marco Aurélio de Carvalho, who, according to Brazilian media, collaborated in the collection of funds for the last campaign of the Workers Party.
Which demonstrates or confirms the narrow link that was generated more than a decade between Lula da Silva, the Workers Party, the Nationalist Party, Ollanta Humala and Nadine Heredia. A link that served for Ollanta Humala to win the Presidency in 2011 and also served to accompany that process. It is true that then, even during the Humala government, the relationship cooled a lot, but I think for other reasons. I think that was closely linked to the issue of impeachment against Dilma Rousseff, and Brazil himself left his regional leadership and a little caused the end of Unasur. But I think there is a link there that is maintained. And it remains even on a personal level, which is something much deeper.
Now, it is clear that Lula does not prioritize the relationship with Peru, but perhaps I could think how much the asylum internally can affect him. Yesterday, for example, I saw the reactions to the tweet of the Foreign Ministry of Brazil in which he confirmed this benefit for Mrs. Heredia. Brazilian users wondered why they have to use their country’s resources to transfer it to Sao Paulo.
It is obvious that in recent years Brazil is a quite politically fractured country. From the time of Bolsonaro we have seen this very strong fracture between the center-left, the right and the most conservative sectors. And it is obvious that a decision like the one we are seeing is quite questionable, because obviously Nadine Heredia is not a persecuted political. That is, there is to question this decision everywhere, the right or the left. And that generates an opportunity to question the Lula regime internally. But the question is: how important Peru can be for this to become an important case in Brazil? No, I believe that the agenda with Peru, in Brazil, is not a priority, it is not an issue that generates so much debate. Probably, it will be in the media in the next few days and I think it will go to the background. Let us remember a little what happened with Mexico, with the asylum to the wife of former president Castillo. He also generated a space for discussion between the Mexican opposition and then diluted.
Well, but between both cases there is a difference, Mr. Castillo’s wife did not have a sentence. Instead, Mrs. Heredia travels with a sentence of first instance.
Yes, but somehow the Mexican regime defended the Castillo regime and until the end he denied the possibility that he had given a coup d’etat and questioned Castillo’s arrest. So, there was a justification behind that it was also unsustainable. The same goes now when pointing out that Nadine’s thing occurs because there is a political persecution, when there are no.
The internal cost of political asylum for Lula
I want to insist with the probable internal cost for lula of this asylum. Its approval is 24%, one of the lowest of all its mandates. So, is there no possibility that this will hit it, that the Bolsononians take advantage of this situation to question it and remember their old relationship with Odebrecht?
Everything is possible in politics. It seems to me that the opposition always, especially in such fragmented countries, will look for any possibility to hit a very popular president, but in recent times, for various reasons, it is not being. But, again, I believe that there are issues on the Brazilian agenda that can generate much more impact. Think about it, how much can the situation of a former first lady be interested in almost a decade ago?
You can see: Nadine Heredia and her asylum in Brazil: former first lady of Peru chooses São Paulo after Peruvian justice failure.
Now, everything that has happened to reinforce the tax hypothesis that Odebrecht money arrived at the Humala family by indication of the Lula government and the workers’ party.
Yes, what happens is that during those years the action of Brazil promoting its private companies abroad was very intense. That is, the Brazilian government created a very strong synergy with Brazilian business.
With the construction companies.
But there was more, there was Petrobras too. We are talking about how Brazil builds a relationship with its companies to have a greater presence in the region and consolidate as a regional leader. And in that synergy some illicit behaviors are obviously generated. In other words, What we saw here is how Odebrecht, a construction company, acted in all areas, both legal and illegal, very closely with the Brazilian government.
What also happened in other countries.
Yes, that was a regional consolidation strategy of Brazil. That had legal channels, but unfortunately there were also illegal channels. Where, apparently, the company acted together with the government. And it is true that this asylum generates a lot of suspicion.
Now, in Peru there is a left that feels close to Lula, which dialogues with him through organisms such as Puebla’s group. How are these organizations before the asylum granted to Mrs. Heredia?
I believe that, regardless of what Lula means to the regional left – which is a symbol, an icon of a democratic left, concerned about social transformation – justifying this asylum is something that does not support. And the truth is that left -wing leaders have not gone to defend asylum, but have had more cautious responses. The argument of political persecution, which is the only one that would validate asylum, is something that does not have much livelihood. The problem is that the same convention on diplomatic asylum of 1954 says that it is the asilate state, that is Brazil, it is responsible for describing whether we are facing a political persecution …
You can see: “I recommended that I do it.”
Of course, a series of arguments that denied that data could be given, but the responsibility of the qualification corresponds entirely to Brazil.
And also does not have to justify it.
Political asylum: Refuge of the political elite
I saw his tweet in which he said that the figure of political asylum ends up being a classmate, why does he say?
Classism expresses the differences that exist between social classes. And it notes how, for some privileged classes, there is a different behavior to less privileged social classes. That is classism. And what we see with the figure of asylum is how politicians or characters of the political elite can take advantage of a figure like this to not respond to justice. Alan Garcia tried to do it with Uruguay. Nadine Heredia does it now. Castillo tried to do it with the Mexican embassy, his wife finally left. That is, the political elite has legal and valid channels to flee from justice, something that does not have the less privileged population. Then, a figure like asylum reinforces these inequalities, and is a privilege for a few …
With influence on politics.
For a few with power, yes.
Does Mrs. Heredia’s exit suits Boluarte? At least a front with the continental giant has not been opened.
I say that the government was not convenient to generate a problem at this time, for two reasons. The first is that a government that has 3% approval does not help you have a latent problem with the Brazilian embassy. You also have to see it internationally. This is a government that generates distrust and has bad relations with many countries. It already has a problem with Mexico, which is a regional power. It is not the most appropriate time to open a front with the other power of the region.
