|
Is It Possible to Rely on Solidarity from the Progressives in the US Congress? by Juliana Moraes
This is a question that requires a two-fold answer: One that regards the reasons why members of the US Congress should care to work alongside their counterparts in Brazil, and another on the viabilities and challenges of building a strong counter-hegemonic bloc against backward policies. Conservatives from both Brazil and the US have been aligned and working in collaboration for a while. For example, with members of the Brazilian Senate visiting conservative legislators (both Republicans and Democrats) with ties to agribusiness during the tumultuous second trimester of 2016. Simultaneously, members of the U.S. Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), who are mostly left-leaning Democrats, mobilized support for a letter among their colleagues denouncing institutional threats to Brazilian democracy. Back then, of course, advocacy groups played a key role in informing legislators of the unjust charges against former President Dilma Rousseff. It had been close to 30 years since progressive members of the U.S. Congress demonstrated concern with Brazilian institutions. And so, after listening to and learning from union leaders, Brazil experts, and members of the Brazilian community studying and working in the United States, over 50 members of the U.S. Congress wrote a letter positioning themselves in accordance with the Brazilian Constitution. Why did they continue to care? For one thing, the advocacy front has grown bigger. During the course of harsh neoliberal policies pushed by former president Michel Temer, groups that weren’t entirely convinced by the legitimacy of Rousseff’s impeachment started to understand better the complexity of that process. This was instrumental in amplifying the reach within the US Congress itself as environmentalists and indigenous defenders, anti-racism groups, and others joined forces. But aside from the essential work of advocacy groups, it became strategic for US legislators (some not necessarily in the CPC itself) to trace parallels between racial, gender, environmental, socioeconomic, and other similar agendas largely affected by neoliberal policies. For example, in February 2020, when Brazilian Congresswomen Joenia Wapichana, Erika Kokay, and Fernanda Melchiona met with US legislators, it was uncanny to see their shared struggles in opposing the setbacks set forth by their respective executive branches. Needlessly to say, during the years in which Trump was president the pendulum effect is shown by the number of progressive legislators that were elected to Congress. The squad was sworn in in 2018 with four legislators – Alexandra Ocasio Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ilham Omar, and Ayanna Pressley, and in 2020, two other members to the left of the general progressiveness of the CPC were elected and joined in: Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush. The road to changing the status quo within the U.S. Congress is a long one, no doubt, but it has grown considerably easier given the increasing number of members at the CPC, which was founded in 1991 and currently represents nearly one-fifth of the Congress, challenging the hegemonic and orthodox foreign policy of the U.S. government. There is a lively interest from most of the CPC members to learn from and collaborate with progressive members from around the world and, given the structural similarities with Brazil, that interest is even more apparent. Focusing on multilateral collaboration and internationalism and breaking the cycle from years of an intense conservative wave, it’s evident that US legislators are increasingly aiming at that. Former Congresswoman Deb Haaland, who is now the Secretary of Interior, worked actively to build momentum among indigenous legislators across Latin America and other parts of the world. Her first encounter in person with Congresswoman Joenia Wapichan reflected a genuine desire to solidify that momentum. Now, is it viable to build and sustain a bridge between progressive legislators in both countries? Evidence from the last seven years shows that it is. Close to 25 letters, a resolution, several statements, briefings, tweets, and many other expressions of concern with Brazil have been broadly publicized. From demands for an independent investigation of Marielle Franco’s assassination (also made by a broader international community) to questions related to the legitimacy of the charges against former President Lula, statements of solidarity with threats faced by Congresswoman Talíria Petrone, and concerns with the Brazilian Amazon and the Indigenous Peoples, these expressions are evidently signaling the viability of progressive coordination. The latest letter had one-third of Democrats, 64 members, as co-signers on a broad set of rather controversial issues: opposing the Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA) status given to Brazil, environmental and human rights violations, which reached record levels under Bolsonaro, and above all the disastrous management of the COVID-19 pandemic. Close to half of these members, particularly Congressman Hank Johnson, Raúl Grijalva, Pramila Jayapal, and Susan Wild, are aware of the involvement of the US Department of Justice with the success of Operation Car Wash in contributing to the regime change of 2016 and have been repeatedly demanding accountability with the DOJ directly. Are there challenges? Thinking about the historical record of the US foreign policy, these allied members themselves at times find internal constraints with certain topics. These constraints at times go beyond matters in which legislators find themselves going against US interests – i.e. the expansion of the Alcântara Space Base. They also need to attend to domestic needs that take an extensive amount of their time and dedication. Though they exist, challenges are continuously being debunked by the growing awareness and solidarity, which is a sign of hope that a solid change is in the making. There is a lot yet to be done, that’s for certain. Within the US Congress and other US institutions, finding the proper balance in identifying intersections across agendas regarding socioeconomic, racial, gender and environmental issues demands an intensive learning process. However, the momentum toward building a counter-hegemonic block in the U.S. Congress is in motion and cannot be ignored.
|
