Former ministers unite against Bolsonaro to denounce coup threat

They come from different ideologies and from different parties. They come from different backgrounds and have held different positions over the years. However, faced with the threat of a far-right government that puts democracy at risk, they decided to unite to denounce the violations and the dismantling of the fundamental rights framework in Brazil.

This Friday, all those who have held the position of head of the Human Rights agenda in Brazil since the end of the dictatorship will launch a joint initiative. The project includes names like Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, minister during Fernando Henrique Cardoso's administration, Paulo Vannuchi, minister during Lula’s administration, and Rogério Sottili, who led the human rights agenda in Dilma Rousseff's administration.

Also part of the initiative are José Gregório, Gilberto Saboia, Maria do Rosário, and Ideli Salvatti, among others.

In an interview, Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro made it clear that only a broad front between different political forces and popular movements will defeat the extreme right and avoid a coup d'état.

“We cannot refuse to talk to everyone in the political sphere. Only the extreme right must be left out. In world history, it has not been any other way. Our neighbors had the courage to make these very broad fronts,” he argued. “Without this, the extreme right will prevail,” he warned.

For him, the existence of the current government is the very threat to democratic consolidation. “This government has dismantled what we took 30 years to build. Bolsonarism is, in fact, authoritarianism with a neo-fascist twist,” he said.

Here are the main parts of the interview:

Chade – Why is this initiative being launched?

Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro – It is a joint awareness-raising initiative against the policies contrary to democracy and human rights that this far-right government is putting into practice since the inauguration of President Bolsonaro.

It is a very strong symbolism. It shows that, in the face of a far-right government and threats, those parties must stand together, even if they had differences of opinion or policies. And that we must reaffirm our commitment to democracy and human rights in an explicit way and by demonstrating unity.

First, there is a backlash, which is this threat that has been looming since the presidential campaign. And that has deepened during the 1,000 days of the government. It was an escalation against the promotion and safeguarding of human rights. Those of us who have exercised that responsibility in different administrations in the human rights agenda have come together to raise the alarm and to say that, among us, the union is consolidated, against any authoritarian threat and against the dismantling of the democratic structure.

You are from different parties and have different political views. What unites you?

What unites us is that human rights have no party. They are not programs of each administration, but of the State, proposed by governments with different parties and political views. This, in fact, was one of the great achievements of the democratic consolidation. This capacity to construct a State human rights policy, which has a common denominator that is the international instruments, basically the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the American Declaration, and the covenants on civil and political rights, in addition to the covenant on social and economic rights.

The union is built around the common denominator, which is the principles of international law. All governments, to be honest, have gone in this direction. José Sarney, on his first trip to the UN General Assembly, signed the Convention against Torture and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the dictatorship had refused to sign.

This period of unity in human rights was opened even before the 1988 Constitution. Fernando Collor de Melo, also at the UN, stated that national sovereignty cannot be a protective shield for human rights violations in Brazil. And soon after, he issued orders to all Brazilian diplomatic posts abroad to welcome human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and others.

These governments also opened the period of ratification of international treaties. By the end of the 1990s, almost all of them were ratified. But none of this was easy. There were struggles in the parliament. We have some senators who were ahead of this fight, like Severo Gomes, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, and Eduardo Suplicy.

What was the consequence of this in the following governments?

During Itamar Franco's administration, Brazil was present at the 1993 human rights conference that would mark the evolution of the debate. There, the universality of human rights and their indivisibility were established. During the government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso, as a consequence of the 1993 conference, the preparation of the National Human Rights Plan began, and it was launched in 1996, in cooperation with civil society. Then we had two more plans, with a broad consultation during Lula’s administration.

During Dilma Rousseff’s time as president, the focus was on the fight against racism, the defense of women, and against slave labor. The greatest achievement was the creation of the National Truth Commission. Before its approval, we made visits to the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate. When we met with Sarney, who was presiding the Senate, he whispered in my ear: there will be no problem here, don't worry.

Today, what is the biggest threat to human rights in Brazil?

It is the existence of a far-right government that sees civil society as its enemy. None of the democratic governments in Brazil have treated civil society organizations as enemies. The relationship is always one of contradiction. The State is the one that has the monopoly on violence, but also the one that implements the policies, which translate into human rights. The State is the repressor and the one that can give the greatest guarantee for the existence of human rights.

The difference is that, in Brazil’s previous governments, we had only advanced. Civil society had only advanced. But in this far-right administration, this is not the case. Civil society is the enemy. The enemies are the poor, the Blacks, the children, the LGBT movement, and the women. Except for the Nazi government, there is no far-right government with such an anti-feminist agenda as this Bolsonaro government.

The existence of this government, therefore, is a threat in itself and a threat to democratic consolidation. Every week, Bolsonaro threatens a coup. He came close on September 7 and then apologized. This is as bad as it gets for a human rights policy, with a government that attacks our civil and political structure. The threats against the Federal Supreme Court are only matched by the dictatorship, which removed three justices from the court. This government has dismantled what we took 30 years to build.

The escalation began to occur in the coup government of Michel Temer, who extinguished the Ministry of Human Rights, proposed a 20-year freeze on social investments, and dismantled its operationality.

The dismantling of human rights structures, as you mentioned, is one of the hallmarks of the Bolsonaro government. What does this mean in practice?

The dismantling is done in different dimensions. One of them is through the discourse of the president and his ministers. I myself was investigated in the anti-fascist dossier. The president, in turn, dismantles the magnitude that is the Alvorada Palace, with those appearances to greet his supporters in an enclosure at the door of the president’s official residence. That place has become an auditorium show where the president tests the horrors he will say in his speeches. Bolsonarism is, in fact, authoritarianism with a neo-fascist twist.

Another dimension is Minister Damares Alves. She has tried to undermine the Commission of Missing Persons, the Amnesty Commission, and all the councils in which civil society actors participate, as well as the National Human Rights Council. The same happened with the Committee against Torture. The cherry on the cake was the creation by Damares of a phantom working group, because it is secret, to review the national human rights policy. This seeks to bury the state human rights policy once and for all.

In other words, the dismantling is not only verbal but also in practice and through the laws that are being approved. The “time-frame thesis” law and the anti-terrorism law, among others, are some examples of this.

Brazil became the target of constant attacks in the international arena, including by the UN, with condemnations regarding human rights violations. How do you evaluate this situation in the country?

This is what most depresses me. In these last 25 years, I have dedicated myself to various international mandates. What happened in all these places? Brazil was a valid discussion partner. During these 30 years, we were considered a partner for all the countries that wanted to work in defense of human rights. Despite racism, police violence, and the situation of the Indigenous people. Despite this situation, since the Sarney government, Brazil has not practiced negationism. The worst thing that can exist is to deny that these problems exist.

Brazil was a government that other countries could count on. Democratic countries that wanted to promote human rights knew they could count on Brazil. In the debate about sexual orientation, in which Brazil had always led and was esteemed by many countries that were not going in the same direction. All this went down the drain with this far-right government.

And what is the repercussion of this?

It is the deterioration of Brazil. Nobody wants to speak to the country anymore, only to criticize. Brazil no longer has any weight in the G20, it is no longer a discussion partner in the G7. This is over. What happens in the human rights arena has repercussions. We are treated like the clowns of the world in the international press. Brazil has lost what it had achieved, which was to be the interlocutor of all five permanent members of the UN Security Council. These horrors in human rights are reflected in the international view of Brazil. I live in Geneva and New York, and there is a feeling of deep depression about Brazil.

Is taking the Brazilian situation to the International Criminal Court a valid path?

It is one of the international routes, especially when crimes against humanity committed by a far-right government are found. Several complaints have already been filed, including by the Arns Commission. We received information from the ICC secretariat that the complaint would be examined. It doesn't mean that it is being investigated. But it has not been discarded.

All these paths are valid. But I don't expect the intervention of other democratic states. That's not what will change things in the country.

So what is the path?

What will provoke change is the mobilization of society and the capacity of Brazilian forces to have a broad front. This does not mean unifying parties or candidacies but uniting against the project of an authoritarian coup. A joint front of denunciations.

Civil society can call on political forces to stop this division and unite. Big popular movements, including unions, can do the same. Then, in the second round of elections, each one will have their own action. But the current debate is a joint action of denunciation of what is being planned.

We cannot endure another September 7th. We need a convergence of the different political forces and popular movements. It is not a government program. This comes later. This broad front has to deal with this threat, which is a coup d'état by the current government.

Unity is impossible and not even healthy. But convergence is. We cannot refuse to talk to everyone in the political sphere. Only the extreme right must be left out. That one doesn't get in. Everyone else has to come in. In world history, it has not been any other way. Our neighbors had the courage to make these very broad fronts.

No one can demand the other for what they have done or failed to do. We have to suspend that and find a minimum agreement. Without this, the extreme right will prevail.

What should be the international community's response to this dismantling in Brazil?

It is evident that the manifestations of public opinion and the international press were very valid during the dictatorship (1964-1985) and are valid at this moment. It is positive to create difficulties to ratify the trade agreement between Mercosur and the EU. Of course, it is also very positive to see environmentalist parties advancing in elections, as in Germany. This will draw the attention of agribusiness and the businessmen who support the current Brazilian policy. But all this will occur in an indirect way and not as threats or statements.

As for the international bodies, the precautionary measure that the Human Rights Committee gave to President Lula was important. We hope that the treaty bodies will make an important review of Brazil, as well as the UN rapporteurs. What matters, in the end, are the victims’ interests. And, in Brazil, the situation of these victims is desperate, whether due to lack of vaccination, racism, or poverty. We count on the international bodies to monitor Brazil. The civil society in Brazil is fulfilling its role. We hope that the international community does not frustrate us, in this hour of immense need, which is to be under a far-right government that is aiming for an authoritarian coup d'état.