By Marcelo Zero
The “generous offer” made by candidate Flávio Bolsonaro—officially recorded in a letter from Marco Rubio—to provide the current US administration with a “transition team” should he be elected, has caused astonishment and indignation for any Brazilian citizen who holds even the slightest regard for national sovereignty.
From a political standpoint, there is no doubt whatsoever that this constitutes an abject and extremely serious display of submission to a foreign power—a clear and direct affront to the country’s independence.
What is even more astonishing, however, is the tepid reaction from the mainstream media and conservatives in general to something that should have, at the very least, triggered widespread and fierce protests.
To illustrate the point, let us imagine the reverse scenario: suppose that in 2022, the then-candidate Lula had offered his transition team to the Chinese government. What do you think would have happened? I have no doubt there would have been a massive scandal, and that the Bolsonaro administration would have blocked Lula’s candidacy or prevented his inauguration—actions that were attempted anyway.
It is essential to consider, first of all, that candidate Flávio promised Marco Rubio something entirely illegal. No Brazilian candidate can promise a foreign power something that is not provided for by law—something that lacks any legal basis.
The national law governing the formation of the transition team—Law No. 10.609 of December 20, 2002—reads as follows in its main provision:
Art. 1. The candidate elected to the office of President of the Republic is granted the right to establish a transition team, subject to the provisions of this Law.
Art. 2. The transition team referred to in Art.1 …aims to gain a full understanding of the operations of the bodies and entities comprising the federal Public Administration and to prepare the acts to be initiated by the new President of the Republic, for issuance immediately following the inauguration.
§ 1º Members of the transition team shall be appointed by the President-elect and shall have access to information regarding public accounts, as well as federal government programs and projects.
Art. 3. Heads of federal Public Administration bodies and entities are required to provide the information requested by the transition team Coordinator, as well as to furnish the technical and administrative support necessary for the team’s work.
This is, therefore, a very serious matter. By law, the transition team gathers detailed information on all programs, actions, and figures of the incumbent government—including potentially classified and strategic data—primarily to prepare the major acts and decisions to be adopted immediately after the inauguration.
It is a complex process involving great responsibility and sensitive information.
For this very reason, Article 5 of the law clearly establishes that—without prejudice to the duties and prohibitions set forth in Law No. 8.112 of December 11, 1990—holders of the positions referred to in Article 4 must maintain the confidentiality of the data and information to which they have access, subject to liability under specific legislation.
However, officials of a foreign government are under no obligation to maintain confidentiality regarding sensitive information concerning the Brazilian government or Brazil itself. On the contrary, it is in the interest of foreign intelligence agencies to gain access to such information.
Thus, by offering US participation in the transition team, Flávio Bolsonaro provided the CIA, DEA, NSA, and others—free of charge—with sensitive information about Brazil to a foreign power; a power known to have a major strategic interest in applying the “Monroe Doctrine” to our region and our country.
The Trump administration wants Brazil as its backyard, as a zone of exclusive influence. This is no exaggeration; it is the official policy on the matter.
Now, beyond the obviously and deeply negative geopolitical aspect of the Bolsonaro team’s offer, it seems to us that there are also legal aspects to consider.
Indeed, Article 359-K of the Penal Code reads as follows:
“Handing over to a foreign government, its agents, or a foreign criminal organization—in violation of legal or regulatory provisions—a document or information classified as secret or top-secret under the law, the disclosure of which could endanger the preservation of the constitutional order or national sovereignty: (Included by Law No. 14.197 of 2021)
Penalty – imprisonment for 3 (three) to 12 (twelve) years.”
It appears to us that the transition team’s offer to the US necessarily implies an intent to make Brazil’s secret information available to the Washington administration—since, as we demonstrated above, this is what typically occurs within a national transition team. In other words, there is, at the very least, an intention to commit acts defined as crimes under our Penal Code.
It is even probable that such crimes have already been committed by the Bolsonaro team during the negotiations held with the US State Department.
Another legal aspect to consider is the offense of “assault on sovereignty,” introduced into the Penal Code by Law No. 14.197 of September 1, 2021. Accordingly, Article 359-I of the Code states the following:
“Art. 359-I. To negotiate with a foreign government or group, or their agents, for the purpose of provoking acts typical of war against the country or invading it: Penalty – imprisonment for 3 (three) to 8 (eight) years.”
Now, Bolsonaro and many of his supporters explicitly and enthusiastically encouraged and backed the classification of our common criminal organizations as “foreign terrorist organizations.” Such a classification allows the US to carry out acts typical of war against countries alleged to harbor these supposed “foreign terrorist organizations.”
This is what recently happened (and is still happening) in Venezuela, Colombia, and, to some extent, Mexico.
Many vessels belonging to alleged “narco-terrorists” (in reality, mostly fishermen) were bombed, as was the home of an alleged Venezuelan “narco-terrorist.” Venezuela was invaded, its president was abducted, and dozens of people were killed in the process.
Eduardo Bolsonaro-already sentenced to over 4 years in prison for lobbying US to interfere in his father’s coup trial-was so enthusiastic that he called for bombings in Rio de Janeiro’s Guanabara Bay.
Consequently, anyone who encourages and supports this US classification falls foul of Article 359-I of our Penal Code, given that similar acts of war could occur in Brazil at the whim of the US government, in a completely unilateral manner. All this without even mentioning the “Violent Abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law,” provided for in Article 359-L, which reads: “…attempting, through the use of violence or serious threat, to abolish the Democratic Rule of Law, thereby preventing or restricting the exercise of constitutional powers:
Penalty – imprisonment for 4 (four) to 8 (eight) years, in addition to the penalty corresponding to the violence committed.”
Trump and Marco Rubio have already made it clear that the US intends to interfere in the Brazilian electoral process and have once again cast doubt on the integrity of our country’s democratic mechanisms, paving the way for the kind of intervention that could result in the practical abolition of democracy in Brazil. And the Bolsonaro campaign, just as in the previous election, fully supports these unspeakable attacks.
National sovereignty must be defended; Brazilian democracy must be defended; and the Brazilian electoral process must be defended and preserved.
None of this will be possible if Flávio Bolsonaro’s candidacy continues. That is the crux of the matter.
Ideally, this great evil should be nipped in the bud. The risk to Brazilian sovereignty and democracy is immense.
In any serious country in the world, Flávio Bolsonaro and his ilk would have already been arrested.
It is worth noting that in the US, “treason” is the only crime explicitly defined in the Constitution. As established in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, treason consists of: levying war against the United States or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
If he were an American, Flávio Bolsonaro would be heading straight to jail. Being Brazilian, however, he might well win a medal—from the US, or perhaps even from Brazil.
Abject subservience to foreign interests has become a virtue in these parts.
