Author: Miguel do Rosário

  • For us, who, Merz? Certainly not for humanity!

    For us, who, Merz? Certainly not for humanity!

    The infamous interview of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, thanking and praising Israel for doing “the dirty work for all of us,” is one of those historical moments of revelation. A statement that will be remembered as undeniable proof of the moral collapse of the so-called “collective West.”

    His comments were made on June 17, 2025, to the German broadcaster ZDF during the G7 summit in Canada. Merz openly expressed his support for Israel’s bombing campaign against Iran, which began in the early hours of the previous Friday.

    “This is the dirty work that Israel is doing for all of us. I can only say I have the greatest respect for the fact that the Israeli army and the Israeli government had the courage to do this,” he said.

    For us, who? For Germany? For the West? For the Global North?

    While Merz was thanking Israel for its genocidal campaign, Donald Trump was posting messages ordering the “immediate evacuation” of Tehran, a city of more than 10 million people. At the same time, Netanyahu was talking about “burning Tehran.”

    These are not rhetorical threats. Under Netanyahu’s command, the Israeli army has already killed, as of June 11, 2025, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, more than 55,720 Palestinians in Gaza — in addition to 1,706 Israelis. The UN estimates that 70% of those killed in residential areas are women and children. Eighty percent of Palestinians killed are civilians.

    The dead also include 180 journalists, 120 academics, and 224 humanitarian workers — 179 of them employees of the UN’s own agency, UNRWA.

    How is it possible that Germany — or any country — supports a humanitarian catastrophe of this magnitude?

    The words of Merz, Trump, and Netanyahu demonstrate, once again, how Nazism was possible. Dehumanization, lies, normalization of barbarism, a cult of death.

    What explains this total absence of empathy? The name for it is racism. Racism in its most brutal form. Colonial, imperial, supremacist racism. The same logic that sustained centuries of looting and domination now manifests in the genocide in Gaza, the war against Iran, and the permanent siege of China, Russia, and any nation that dares to resist submission.

    It is the same racism that defines the West’s relationship with China. When European powers dominated supply chains, accumulated wealth, and imposed their order on the world, it was called “progress.” But now that China achieves, through its own efforts, productivity, technology, development, and sovereignty, it suddenly becomes a “threat.” Why? Because for Western elites, it is unbearable to see a non-white nation occupy the same spaces of sovereignty that they have always reserved for themselves.

    This has nothing to do with democracy, human rights, or international order. It is about racial, imperial, and colonial supremacy. This explains Gaza, Iran, the siege of China and Russia, and the criminal sanctions against Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and any people that dare to stand up.

    In Germany’s case, what we see is submission so humiliating, so degrading, it can only be described as psychosis.

    Who destroyed Germany’s most strategic infrastructure in the 21st century — the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines?

    It wasn’t Iran. It was the United States. And Germany didn’t even have the courage to demand an independent investigation. It bowed its head and accepted the damage and the humiliation.

    Who lied to the world, promising that NATO would never expand to Russia’s borders — a lie thoroughly documented — and then, breaking that promise, produced the war that has already killed more than 500,000 people in Ukraine?

    Was it Russia? Or was it the United States and its European satellites?

    Now, Israel attacks Iran based on the same lies that destroyed Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan. The accusation that Iran is building nuclear weapons has been disproved even by the US intelligence community itself.

    In March 2025, Tulsi Gabbard, US Director of National Intelligence, testified under oath before Congress that Iran has had no active nuclear program since 2003.

    Neither Israel, nor the United States, nor any international agency has presented a single piece of concrete evidence.

    We’ve seen this movie before.

    In Iraq, more than 1 million dead. In Libya, over 500,000. In Afghanistan, 240,000. In Syria, 600,000. In Yemen, 400,000. All killed in wars that have nothing to do with democracy, human rights, or security. They are about plunder, control, and domination.

    The cost of these wars exceeds $8 trillion — money burned in the destruction of countries, in the deaths of millions, and in the permanent manufacturing of refugees and misery.

    Are we going to let this happen again?

    From the first strikes, Israel assassinated Iranian negotiators who were in talks with the Americans about the nuclear program. This is not coincidence. It is method. Israel and the US do not want peace. They want war. They want destruction.

    The case of Iran is crystal clear. The historical record of the 1953 coup, organized by the CIA and MI6 that overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh and installed a pro-Western dictatorship, is public, vast, and irrefutable.

    The Western public cannot remain silent.

    Peace must be preserved.

    There is no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons. And we already know, from recent history, what happens when the West fabricates lies to justify wars. It was Iraq. It was Libya. It was Syria. It’s always the same.

    It is unacceptable that European servility drags its leaders, its media, its universities, and its intellectuals into total moral degradation. How can they ignore all the reports from the world’s largest humanitarian organizations? How can they ignore not just the reports, but the facts? The deliberate assassination of humanitarian workers, of UN employees, of UNRWA, the Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders — coldly hunted and murdered by Israel. How can they ignore the assassination of 180 journalists? Ignore the systematic destruction of hospitals, universities, schools, libraries, cultural centers? How can they normalize the militarization of food distribution — now handled by private, armed organizations that, instead of delivering food, shoot, bomb, and massacre starving Palestinians who are seeking food?

    The Iranian people must be protected from this monstrosity. The live-broadcast genocide in Gaza is already more than enough — and it continues to accelerate.

    What moral standing does Israel have today? After massacring more than 55,000 people in Gaza, killing over 20,000 children, destroying universities, hospitals, libraries, murdering UN staff, journalists, doctors, teachers, and turning food distribution into yet another extermination field?

    How can European leaders not see what is happening in the United States — a government that attacks its own Constitution, promotes fascist militias, threatens judges, journalists, and opponents, and is actively dismantling its own democratic institutions?

    Is this the morality that Europe is going to defend? A war against Iran, propped up by the same recycled anti-Iranian propaganda that’s been pushed for decades, while the empire leading this war rots from within — morally, institutionally, and politically?

    Can they not see that their own populations are in the streets — millions — protesting against the genocide in Gaza, against the war, against the massacre? Can they not see that Israel’s moral standing is destroyed, and that this war against Iran is nothing but a desperate attempt by Israel and the United States to forcibly impose an international order that is already collapsing economically, politically, and morally?

    It cannot be allowed to happen again.

    Barbarism today is not in Iran. Barbarism resides in the political leadership of the United States and Europe. That is where the machine of death lives.

    Once again, it is clear that the good sense, the rationality, and the hope for humanity now reside in the Global South.

    The statements of the leaders of the Global South — Lula, Xi Jinping, Narendra Modi, Cyril Ramaphosa, among others — are, almost always, for peace, for multilateralism, for sovereignty, for negotiation, and for equality among peoples.

    Except, of course, for a few humiliating exceptions like the current government of Argentina, kneeling to Trump’s fascist narrative, playing a disgraceful role in the history of South America.

    It is in the Global South where humanity’s civilizational resistance now stands.

  • The surreal vassalage of the German chancellor before Trump

    The surreal vassalage of the German chancellor before Trump

    German Chancellor Friedrich Merz listens as Trump boasts about cutting Nord Stream 2.

    By Miguel do Rosário

    Historians and scholars of diplomacy will struggle to find a moment more degrading, a more humiliating example of one nation’s vassalage to another, than what took place during President Trump’s press conference with current German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. The meeting, held yesterday in the Oval Office, saw the American president openly brag about cutting off the Russian Nord Stream 2 pipeline to force Germany to buy American oil — right in front of the German leader.

    “I’m the one who ended Nord Stream 2, going to a place called Germany, come to think of it. I’m sorry I did that. I ended Nord Stream 2, nobody else did. And then when Biden came in he immediately approved it… And by the way we have so much oil and gas you will not be able to buy it all,” Trump said, laughing, while looking at Merz.

    Friedrich Merz, the conservative CDU leader who became German chancellor on May 6, 2025, and was making his first visit to the U.S. since taking office, listened to Trump’s confession with an awkward smile — a telling example of the submissiveness Europe’s largest economy now displays toward the United States. In fact, Merz’s demeanor throughout the conversation was revolting. His posture, voice, words, gestures — his entire presence exuded a foul stench of vassalage, subservience, and low self-esteem. It was painful to watch.

    Trump’s statement was an explicit admission of the most serious sabotage of strategic European infrastructure since World War II. Nord Stream 1, which was bombed in September 2022, and Nord Stream 2, which was never put into operation, were both massive infrastructure projects built with European funds to transport Russian gas — from one of the world’s largest reserves — to the European Union.

    The Nord Stream 2 project cost €9.5 billion ($10.83 billion at current rates), financed by Russian state-owned Gazprom with the support of five European energy firms: Austria’s OMV, Anglo-Dutch Shell, France’s Engie, and Germany’s Uniper and Wintershall. All this investment was lost after the sabotage, and neither Europe nor Germany made any serious effort to investigate who was truly responsible.

    The numbers reveal the scale of what was destroyed. Nord Stream 1 had an annual capacity of 55 billion cubic meters and transported 59.2 billion in 2021 — its highest mark since operations began. Nord Stream 2, completed in September 2021 but never activated, would have doubled that capacity to 110 billion cubic meters per year. Together, the pipelines represented more than half the gas Europe imported from Russia.

    The absurdity of the situation becomes even clearer when one considers the costs and economic impact. Germany consumes roughly 100 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year, 55% of which came from Russia before the Ukraine conflict. In the first quarter of 2025, the European Union paid an average of €1.08 ($1.23) per cubic meter for U.S. liquefied natural gas — exactly double the €0.51 ($0.58) it paid for Russian LNG. Russian gas delivered by pipeline, when still available, cost only €0.32 ($0.36) per cubic meter.

    The math is devastating for the German economy. If Germany were still buying its 55 billion cubic meters of gas annually from Russian pipelines instead of U.S. LNG, it would save $47.85 billion per year. Over a decade, the savings would total $478.5 billion — more than 44 times the amount lost with the Nord Stream 2 investment.

    Today, Europe prefers to import far more expensive liquefied gas from the United States, through a process that is also significantly more polluting. U.S. gas is primarily extracted through hydraulic fracturing (fracking), a method banned in many parts of Europe for environmental reasons. In the U.S., the gas must be liquefied to be shipped across the Atlantic, then regasified upon arrival in Europe. This entire process dramatically increases both costs and environmental impact.

    Germany is now in economic crisis largely because of this forced change. Industrial costs have soared since the country stopped buying Russian gas, making German energy uncompetitive. Natural gas is especially important for industrial production, and its rising cost directly undermines the competitiveness of German manufacturers in global markets.

    German industries are losing ground due to skyrocketing energy costs, while China is gaining an advantage by buying cheaper Russian gas now redirected to the Asian market. Wolfgang Münchau, author of Kaput: The End of the German Miracle, notes that “the German miracle is over.” At the height of hyper-globalization, Russian gas provided cheap fuel to German industry — but that era, with Germany at the top, is gone. Major players in the chemical, engineering, and automotive sectors are struggling, along with the smaller supply networks that support them. Volkswagen, the largest private employer in Germany, is threatening to close factories in the country for the first time in its 87-year history.

    Meanwhile, Russia has suffered no real losses. It simply shifted its gas exports from Germany to China. China, in turn, has increased its competitiveness compared to Europe, benefiting from the cheaper gas that once fueled German industry. The only real winners in this scenario are the American oil and gas companies now selling LNG to Europe at inflated prices — reaping extraordinary profits at the expense of Europe’s deindustrialization.

    Chancellor Friedrich Merz listened to all of this with a smile during the White House meeting. The level of vassalage is surreal. Trump publicly admitted to working against Germany’s energy infrastructure, forcing the country to buy lower-quality, overpriced American energy — and Germany’s top representative reacted as if he were hearing a casual remark about the weather.

    This scene marks a historic moment in global diplomacy: rarely has a world power so openly confessed to sabotaging the infrastructure of an ally, and even more rarely has the sabotaged nation responded with such submission. Germany, once the economic engine of Europe, now serves as a cautionary tale of how geopolitical dependence can transform a prosperous country into an economic vassal of its so-called allies. With an annual energy overpayment of $47.85 billion, Germany is paying the highest price in history for its submission to Washington.

    After the meeting, the German chancellor posted the following message on his social media:

    “The US and Germany share the same DNA. We are partners. We are friends. We are literally family. Many citizens here in the US have ancestors from Germany. I just gave President Trump a copy of his grandfather’s birth certificate. He was born in Kallstadt, Germany, in 1869.”

  • The Geopolitics of Soy

    The Geopolitics of Soy

    The strategic importance of agribusiness in Brazil’s international relations.

    João Campos, the new national president of the PSB party and mayor of Recife, advocated in an interview with Folha de S.Paulo for a political strategy of rapprochement with three specific sectors: evangelicals, informal workers, and agribusiness. “The ideal world is to pull the center closer, not to push it to the right,” declared the politician from Pernambuco.

    Comments on evangelicals and informal workers will be analyzed at another time. In this article, we will focus on the mention of agribusiness.

    João Campos’ reasoning is valid, and for this strategy to work, it’s important to offer a contribution on how the left can relate to this sector intelligently and constructively.

    It would be a shame if sectarian leftism hindered Brazil’s historic chance to crush the far-right and coup plotters, and accelerate its development.

    The best way to build this alliance is through information: truly understanding the meaning of agribusiness for the national economy and for Brazilian life itself. The term carries political semantics that often generate prejudice. The word itself, with its suffix “business,” ends up creating an automatic association with purely capitalist aspects, generating resistance that overlooks a fundamental issue: without agriculture, there is no food. The second misconception is to imagine that the sector is composed exclusively of large producers, and the third is to harbor unjustified prejudices against these rural entrepreneurs.

    The numbers for soy in Brazil in 2024 reveal the gigantic dimension of this sector in the national economy. The soy production chain generated R$ 650.4 billion, representing 5.5% of Brazil’s entire GDP and directly supporting 2.26 million workers. In exports, soy and its derivatives were responsible for 15.5% of everything Brazil sold abroad. We don’t eat GDP – but we eat soy. It’s in our children’s milk, in the protein that sustains our families, in the food base that allows for the existence of modern urban life.

    The oilseed is the protein food base for Brazil, China, the United States, and practically the entire planet. Brazilian agribusiness alone feeds about 800 million people worldwide, with soy being responsible for a significant portion of this food capacity.

    It’s fundamental to demystify another prejudice: Brazilian oilseed is not produced by two or three large entrepreneurs. There are more than 236,000 producers spread across the country, with 73% of producing establishments having less than 50 hectares, characterized as small properties. Data from Embrapa reveal that in Paraná, 22% of the total soy production comes from small farmers; in Santa Catarina, 33%; and in Rio Grande do Sul, 20%. Although family farming represents only 9% of the total national soy production (due to the sector’s strong land concentration), its participation is significant in terms of the number of producers and social importance.

    Brazil as a Global Soy Power

    Brazil has achieved a unique position in the global soy scenario, becoming the largest global exporter of the oilseed and surpassing the United States. Between 2015 and 2025 (according to the USDA’s forecast, the U.S. government’s agricultural agency), Brazilian production jumped from 95.7 million tons to 175.0 million tons, a growth of 83%. In the same period, Brazilian exports grew from 54.4 million tons to 112.0 million tons, an increase of 106%. In contrast, the United States, which produced 106.9 million tons in 2015, is expected to reach only 118.1 million tons by 2025 (U.S. government estimate), a growth of only 11%.

    This Brazilian revolution has its roots in the scientific work developed by Embrapa starting in the 1970s. Brazil achieved an unprecedented feat in the history of world agriculture: it adapted a plant originally cultivated in temperate regions to the country’s environmental conditions. Soy, traditionally sown between latitudes 35° and 55° north, became viable also in equatorial and subtropical zones, thanks to the efforts of Brazilian researchers.

    Brazil developed a unique competitive advantage: while the Northern Hemisphere is in the off-season, Brazil is harvesting, ensuring constant supply to the world market. This seasonal complementarity has transformed the country into the main provider of global food security, especially for China, which imports over 100 million tons of soy annually.

    The Perfect Protein: The Secret of Essential Amino Acids

    Soy is the only vegetable that contains all nine essential amino acids in adequate proportions for human nutrition. Proteins are composed of 20 different amino acids, 9 of which are considered “essential” because the human body cannot produce them on its own. While most vegetable proteins are considered “incomplete” due to lacking one or more essential amino acids, soy represents a remarkable exception, receiving the maximum score in protein quality. This score places soy protein on the same level as animal proteins considered “complete,” such as meat, eggs, and milk.

    National Self-Esteem and Agricultural Technology

    Brazil needs to adequately recognize and value its technological achievements. We live in a society that often suffers from an inferiority complex, lamenting not producing cutting-edge cell phones, computers, or automobiles. This distorted view ignores a fundamental truth: Brazil masters agricultural technologies that are as complex as, or even more complex than, the production of numerous industrial products.

    Producing 3,500 kilograms of soy per hectare in the Brazilian Cerrado requires mastery of biotechnology, genetics, soil chemistry, climatology, precision engineering, and geographic information systems – an extremely sophisticated body of scientific knowledge.

    Modern Brazilian agriculture incorporates technologies at the frontier of world knowledge: autonomous GPS-guided tractors with centimeter precision, drones equipped with multispectral sensors, and variable application systems that automatically adjust the quantity of seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides according to the specific characteristics of each square meter of the field.

    Brazil developed and perfected an agricultural technique that revolutionized world agriculture: the no-till farming system. To understand its importance, it’s necessary to know that traditionally, farmers plowed and turned over all the land before planting, completely removing previous vegetation. No-till farming works completely differently: seeds are planted directly over the residues of the previous crop, without disturbing the soil. This permanent “mulch” protects the land from erosion, conserves moisture, improves natural fertility, and drastically reduces fuel and machinery use. This technique, now adopted worldwide, allows Brazil to produce soy more sustainably and efficiently. Crop-livestock-forestry integration (ILPF), a system developed in Brazil and now exported as technology to other countries, represents a sophistication of management that combines knowledge of agronomy, animal husbandry, silviculture, ecology, and rural economics.

    The Geopolitical Dimension

    Brazil’s position as the world’s largest soy exporter carries geopolitical implications of extraordinary relevance for the nation’s future. With the United States systematically losing market share in the global market and China consolidating itself as the main buyer of Brazilian oilseed, the country finds itself in an unprecedented strategic position in the history of its international trade relations.

    This new reality makes it urgent for Brazil’s democratic field to develop a strategic understanding of this sector’s importance for national sovereignty.

    Developing a political culture that can better and more strategically understand this sector, especially its geopolitical importance, is essential for the country to maximize the benefits of this privileged position. Brazilian soy is not just an agricultural commodity – it is an instrument of power that can determine alliances, influence trade negotiations, and strengthen Brazil’s position as an emerging power.

    The ability to feed hundreds of millions of people around the world gives Brazil a power of influence that transcends traditional trade relations. In a world increasingly concerned with food security, control over the production and distribution of essential proteins represents a form of soft power that the country has not yet fully explored.

    Sources:
    Embrapa, USDA FAS, Embrapa – História do Agronegócio da Soja no Brasil, AInvest, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Embrapa – Plantio Direto, Embrapa – Integração Lavoura-Pecuária-Floresta (ILPF).

  • The “Blood Pact” Between Brazil and China

    The “Blood Pact” Between Brazil and China

    Relations between Brazil and China continue to deepen extraordinarily. Brazilian exports to China in the first four months of 2025 (January-April) totaled US$28.5 billion, representing 26.5% of Brazil’s total exports during the period. If Taiwan were included, the total would reach US$29.0 billion, accounting for 27.0% of Brazilian exports. The main products exported by Brazil to China were soybeans (US$10.8 billion), crude oil (US$5.3 billion), iron ore (US$5.2 billion), and beef (US$1.9 billion).

    These four products—soybeans, crude oil, iron ore, and beef—represented 37.5% of Brazil’s exports from January to April 2025, with China absorbing 57.7% of this total. These items are fundamental to Brazil’s trade surplus, according to data from ComexStat (Brazil’s trade statistics system) and China Customs.

    This is not merely about trade, because these are not ordinary products, but absolutely critical commodities for the physical survival of the Chinese people. Two of these products are directly linked to the most decisive factor for human nutrition. Both beef and soybeans are the world’s richest food sources of protein.

    The other two products—iron ore and crude oil—are, in turn, equally strategic inputs. Oil remains the world’s primary energy source. Iron ore is the main component for construction, essential for steel production. Without iron ore, there is no steel; without steel, there are no railways, ports, or construction in China.

    Brazilian producers play a crucial role in China’s food security. In soybeans, Brazil’s dominance is absolute: 75% of the 100 million tons annually imported by China come from Brazil, followed by the U.S. (18%) and Argentina (5%). In January-April 2025, China bought 74.1% of all soybeans exported by Brazil. This soybean supply sustains the entire animal production chain of the Asian giant, as 70% of imported volume becomes feed for livestock that produce meat, milk, and eggs consumed by 1.4 billion people.

    Simultaneously, Brazil leads beef exports to China, holding 45% of the market, surpassing Argentina (15%), Uruguay (10%), and Australia. Brazilian beef accounts for 12.1% of Chinese consumption. In January-April 2025, China purchased 54.0% of all beef exported by Brazil.

    Brazilian iron ore similarly fuels China’s urban and industrial expansion, representing 25% of its imports, while Australia dominates with 60%. Brazilian ore supplies 8.7% of China’s total consumption and meets 20–25% of its imports. In Q1 2025, China absorbed 65.0% of Brazil’s iron ore exports.

    In energy, Brazilian crude oil accounts for 8% of China’s imports, in a market led by Saudi Arabia (17%), Russia (15%), and Iraq (12%). In January-April 2025, China bought 37.4% of Brazil’s exported oil, totaling US$5.3 billion. This share diversifies China’s energy matrix and reduces geopolitical vulnerabilities.

    China imports 85% of its consumed soybeans, 68% of its oil, 54% of its iron ore, and 26% of its beef.

    Among all agricultural commodities, soybeans stand out for unique nutritional traits. They contain 40% protein, far surpassing corn (8–10%), wheat (12–14%), and other legumes like beans (20–25%). Soybeans also provide complete protein, containing all eight amino acids essential for animal and human nutrition.

    Brazilian soybean production focuses on grains. China processes this material to extract oil and produce meal, which constitutes two-thirds of global protein ingredients for animal feed.

    Soybean’s historical trajectory spans five millennia. Farmers in the Yellow River Valley first domesticated this plant, which remained confined to the Far East for millennia. Its expansion to Europe occurred in the 18th century, reaching the Americas only in the 20th century.

    The nutritional revolution of the last century definitively transformed global livestock farming. Researchers discovered that combining soybeans with cereals creates highly efficient feed, enabling significant increases in meat and egg production. This discovery revolutionized animal production systems worldwide.

    Environmental limitations intensify China’s need for reliable partners. The country intensely exploits its arable land and faces growing soil degradation, water scarcity, and air pollution.

    On Brazil’s side, prospects are favorable for expanding protein supply. The MATOPIBA region (Maranhão, Tocantins, Piauí, Bahia) adds millions of productive hectares. Tropical agricultural technology enhances competitive advantages for national agribusiness. Brazil’s high-quality iron ore reserves guarantee supply for decades. The pré-sal oil fields offer stable energy for Chinese cities and industries while generating trade surplus.

    This convergence between China’s needs and Brazil’s capabilities creates an alliance deepening amid rising global geopolitical tensions. While Western powers intensify pressure on China and force alignments, Brazil provides natural resources, agricultural technology, and institutional stability. China reciprocates with market access, investments, and industrial technology.

    Brazil should leverage this position to attract Chinese infrastructure investments. The deepening strategic relationship creates opportunities for transformative projects. The bioceanic railway—connecting the Atlantic to the Pacific via Brazil and Peru, accessing Chancay Port—is only the beginning. The country could attract investments in high-speed rail, metro systems, and LRTs to revolutionize urban mobility.

    Another product scaling rapidly in exports to China—which may soon become a top export—is coffee. Chinese consumers are maturing their coffee habits, opening promising prospects for this Brazilian commodity.

    As Confucius observed: “Is it not a joy to have friends coming from afar?” In this partnership, friendship has transformed into a geopolitical blood pact, based on shared vital needs and a common vision for the future.

  • Maricá at the heart of the anti-imperialist struggle

    Maricá at the heart of the anti-imperialist struggle

    “What was taken by force can only be recovered by force,” declared Egyptian leader Nasser in 1956, after seizing the Suez Canal. Nasser’s advice remains relevant today. Countries of the Global South no longer need to reclaim canals, although they might need to defend one—the Panama Canal—but they do need to unite to confront an imperialism increasingly corrupted by wars, sanctions, tariffs, and genocides.

    The BRICS nations do not lack strength. China and Russia, together, are militarily unbeatable, and the entire bloc, including Brazil, combines economic, agricultural, industrial, and technological power that emerging nations have never had in the past. In the small and combative Maricá, a city of about 197,000 inhabitants located 47 km from the capital of Rio de Janeiro state, a few more bricks were laid for the construction of a new world.

    “We are living through a historic moment in which an old world order, based on hegemony imposed by force, war, and selfishness, is coming to an end,” declared Mayor Washington Quaquá during the first Assembly of the BRICS+ Association of Cities and Municipalities, held from May 26 to 28, 2025, at the Arena da Barra in Maricá.

    The BRICS, originally formed by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, has expanded significantly in recent years. In 2024, the bloc incorporated six new members: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, Iran, and Indonesia. Furthermore, in January 2025, nine partner countries were announced: Belarus, Bolivia, Kazakhstan, Cuba, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Uganda, and Uzbekistan. Today, with eleven full member countries and nine partners, the group represents over 40% of the world’s population and approximately 37% of global GDP. Brazil’s commitment to a multipolar world was reaffirmed by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva during his videoconference speech at the 16th BRICS Summit, held in Kazan, Russia, on October 23, 2024.

    Mayor of Maricá, Washington Quaquá

    Lula declared: “During Brazil’s presidency of BRICS, we want to reaffirm the bloc’s vocation in the fight for a multipolar world and for less asymmetrical relations between countries.” The president also advocated for BRICS to be a central actor in building a more inclusive and sustainable international governance, emphasizing the importance of strengthening South-South cooperation and ensuring that the voice of governments prevails over private interests.

    The event in Maricá, which served as preparation for the BRICS Summit in Rio de Janeiro (scheduled for July 6 and 7 at the Museum of Modern Art), brought together municipal leaders from 26 countries. Among the authorities present were Rio’s Mayor Eduardo Paes, president of the National Front of Mayors, and Ilsur Metshin, Mayor of Kazan (Russia), who had chaired the association since its founding in 2024.

    The assembly coincided with Quaquá’s unanimous election to the presidency of the BRICS+ Association of Cities and Municipalities. He already commanded the Brazilian Association of Municipalities (ABM) and now leads an association linked to a bloc that represents 40% of the world economy and almost half of the global population.

    According to International Monetary Fund projections released in May 2025, BRICS GDP is expected to grow by 3.4% this year, significantly surpassing the world average of 2.8%. The countries leading this growth are Ethiopia (6.6%), India (6.2%), and Indonesia (4.7%), according to Agencia Gov data.

    Brazil emerges with unprecedented strength in this new scenario. It has never been so strengthened in foreign trade. Its international reserves are reaching historical levels. Its democratic institutions have set an example to the world of resistance against destabilizing movements. It’s no coincidence that this meeting took place in Maricá, the rebellious jewel of Brazilian municipalities. With an annual budget of R$7 billion for 2025—higher than that of four state capitals—and oil royalties expected to reach R$4 billion this year, the city implements revolutionary policies in various fields, including urban mobility, popular credit, and education.

    The event reinforces that political agents should not be mere technical administrators. Quaquá exemplifies the manager who understands his political dimension. He represents not only administrative interests but also the political aspirations of citizens.

    Nasser died in 1970, but his message lives on; Egypt is now part of BRICS. If he were alive, Nasser would recognize in BRICS+ the continuation of his struggle: resistance against imperial domination and the construction of sovereign alternatives. BRICS is more important than ever at a time when the American government is attacking international trade. The entire world is looking to BRICS with hope that the bloc can bring some solutions to a planet in upheaval.

    It’s a good time to remember another historical leader in the anti-imperialist struggle: “Let us build together a world where all peoples can live in peace and dignity. This is the first intercontinental conference of colored peoples in the history of humanity. We are now free, sovereign, and independent. We are, once again, masters in our own house,” concluded Sukarno, President of Indonesia, at the end of the famous Bandung Conference in 1955, which initiated a movement similar to today’s BRICS.

    Photos: Maricá City Hall.

  • Trump’s Secretary’s Surreal (and Dangerous) Speech in Singapore

    Trump’s Secretary’s Surreal (and Dangerous) Speech in Singapore

    Last Friday, at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced: “The United States is proud to be back in the Indo-Pacific—and we’re here to stay.” Soon after, he admitted: “For a generation, we ignored this region, distracted by endless wars, regime change, and nation-building.” A curious detail: during the same period, Asia experienced its most peaceful and prosperous cycle, while the areas where Washington focused—the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia—were marked by ruins and deficits.

    The secretary then presented the new danger. According to him, “China seeks to become a hegemonic power” and “the threat is real—and it may be imminent.” The proof, he claimed, was the order for Chinese forces to be ready, if needed, by 2027. For analysts, this is merely a preparedness goal; for Hegseth, it became a countdown.

    To illustrate, he invoked scenes in the South China Sea: water cannons against Philippine boats, ship collisions, and artificial islands with airstrips. He concluded: “Any attempt to change the status quo is unacceptable.” The audience took note, remembering that a large part of the regional economy depends on the very routes the secretary promised to police.

    Then came the prescription: “peace through strength.” The U.S. military budget will exceed one trillion dollars, purchasing submarines, stealth bombers, and hypersonic missiles. And Hegseth was clear: regional allies should spend 5% of their GDP on defense. For those who still need to expand sewage systems or classrooms, this target is a heavy burden.

    Almost in the same breath, he warned that doing too much business with Beijing would create dependency. However, buying American weapons, he argued, would guarantee autonomy. A reversal that demands faith, not logic.

    The French analyst Bertrand offered a mirror: imagine China landing in Canada and Mexico, saying that “the American threat is imminent,” demanding 5% of their GDP for weapons, and promising to “fight and win.” Would this be seen as cooperation or provocation?

    Hegseth listed the package of measures: missiles on Luzon Island, medium-range tests in Australia, ammunition production with India, and a regional drone consortium. The idea is to “create daily dilemmas” for Beijing—constant pressure that, according to critics, transforms minor incidents into genuine sparks.

    He then praised Germany for spending more on defense and suggested that Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines do the same. To cap it off, he cited the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the Battle of Iwo Jima, and the American cemetery in Manila as reminders of sacrifices that justify new checks. The Asian audience listened in silence.

    The dilemma remains: what kind of peace arises from invented threats, paranoid speeches, and regional rearmament?

    Hegseth’s full address is available here.

  • The first major BRICS event arrives in Rio on May 28!

    The first major BRICS event arrives in Rio on May 28!

    Meeting of Municipalities on May 28th anticipates debates of the July summit.

    Amid a global landscape of rapid and intense transformations in trade and geopolitical dynamics, Rio de Janeiro is set to host the BRICS International Forum of Municipalities next week. The event, scheduled for May 28, will precede the highly anticipated BRICS summit taking place in July, also in the iconic city.

    Following the United States’ tariff hikes, which disrupted the global trade order and compelled countries across all continents to rethink their commercial and diplomatic strategies, the BRICS bloc has emerged with unprecedented visibility on the world stage. The recent visit of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to China and Russia, accompanied by a substantial delegation of ministers and business leaders, has only heightened expectations for the series of meetings Brazil is set to host.

    “The BRICS International Forum of Municipalities is a platform for communication and business, promoting the exchange of experiences, ideas, and opportunities among representatives of regional and municipal governments, as well as the business and investment communities from BRICS countries,” explains the official document of the event. It also notes that the forum has been part of the official annual agenda of the bloc’s presiding countries since 2020.

    Municipalities as protagonists

    The concept of “BRICS municipalities,” widely discussed in Russia, is gaining traction in Brazil with this event. The initiative enables Brazilian cities—particularly Rio de Janeiro—to engage directly with investors and municipal governments in BRICS member countries, bypassing the need for federal mediation.

    Eduardo Paes, mayor of Rio de Janeiro and president of the National Front of Mayors, leads the local organizing committee. “Our goal is to strengthen ties among BRICS countries through a city-centric approach,” states the event’s preparatory document.

    The event is expected to draw over 700 participants, including 150 mayors from BRICS countries, 150 Brazilian mayors, and 150 representatives from investment funds, financial institutions, and business associations. This gathering represents a unique opportunity to forge partnerships that could lead to direct investments, job creation, and economic growth for Brazilian municipalities.

    Strategic themes under debate

    The agenda includes critical topics for municipal development, such as the future of smart cities, public safety management, urban data integration, urban renewal through public-private partnerships, tourism and regional integration, sustainable development, and food security.

    A key highlight will be the session on municipal infrastructure, which will explore project planning, capital raising, operations, and funding opportunities—an especially pertinent issue for Brazilian cities facing fiscal constraints in executing major structural projects.

    The conclusions drawn from the meeting will be compiled into an official statement to be submitted to the BRICS presidential summit, scheduled for July 6–7, also in Rio. This linkage underscores the strategic relevance of the municipal forum as groundwork for high-level diplomatic discussions.

    July Summit: High Expectations

    The BRICS summit in July, set to take place at the Museum of Modern Art (MAM) in Rio de Janeiro, has already confirmed the presence of Chinese President Xi Jinping, alongside leaders of other member states. The summit is expected to welcome around 4,000 participants, including heads of state and delegations from more than 40 nations.

    Brazil’s decision to host these gatherings comes at a moment of shifting global alliances. As protectionist policies intensify in traditional economies and tensions rise between Western and Eastern powers, the BRICS bloc—comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—has emerged as a counterweight promoting a multipolar international system.

    The bloc’s recent expansion—with the inclusion of Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates—has further elevated its economic and geopolitical stature. Collectively, BRICS countries now account for over 40% of the global population and roughly a quarter of the world’s GDP.

    Opportunities for Brazil

    For Brazil, currently holding the rotating presidency of the bloc, these events provide a chance to assert itself as a global mediator and to attract direct investments into its municipalities. The municipal diplomacy strategy, to be tested at next week’s forum, could open avenues for partnerships traditionally brokered at the federal level.

    “This special edition allows us to address key topics for the upcoming BRICS summit in July,” notes the preparatory document for the municipal meeting, emphasizing the strategic alignment between the two events.

    To support the logistics and ensure security during the July summit, the Rio City Hall has declared a municipal holiday on Monday, July 7, the second day of the event.

    This is a particularly timely opportunity for Brazil, which is actively working to diversify its trade relations and attract investments in infrastructure, renewable energy, and technology. Closer engagement with powerful emerging economies like China and India may offer alternatives to traditional Western partnerships, especially in today’s volatile global trade environment.

    All eyes will be on Rio de Janeiro in the coming weeks to observe how Brazil navigates these critical diplomatic events and what concrete outcomes may emerge for the nation’s economic and municipal development.

    ***

    LEARN MORE ABOUT THE EVENT
    BRICS INTERNATIONAL FORUM OF MUNICIPALITIES 2025: BRAZIL
    Date: May 28, 2025
    Time: 9:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.
    Location: EXPOMAG – Rio de Janeiro

    PROGRAM

    MAIN AUDITORIUM
    9:30 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.: Official Opening – Opening ceremony marking the start of a new cooperation agenda between BRICS+ territories
    6:00 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.: Official Closing – Reflections on the event and reading of the Forum Declaration for submission to the presidential summit

    SESSION ROOM 1
    12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.: The Future of Smart Cities in BRICS+: Smart surveillance, public security management, and urban data integration
    2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.: Proptechs, PPPs, and the Future of Urban Requalification
    4:00 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.: Tourism and Regional Integration – Building connections between BRICS+ regions

    SESSION ROOM 2
    12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.: Sustainable Development in BRICS+ Cities: Food security and ESG
    2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.: Partners Session
    4:00 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.: Dialogue of Tomorrow’s Leaders for the Sustainable Development of BRICS – Youth Parliamentarians’ Perspectives

    SESSION ROOM 3
    12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.: Development of Municipal Infrastructure – Design, fundraising, and operations. Funding opportunities
    2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.: Partners Session – Social Development
    4:00 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.: Partners Session – Energy

    EXPECTED AUDIENCE
    Total expected attendance: Approximately 400 people
    150 BRICS Mayors
    150 Brazilian Mayors
    150 Representatives from Investment Funds, Financial Institutions, and Investment Agencies
    Business delegations
    Influencers, media, and public figures

    CONTACT
    Email (Brazil): brazil@imbrics.moscow
    Phone: +55 31 98282-1342 (Wagner Pereira – Sponsorship Packages)
    Official website: imbrics.moscow

  • Trump’s new imperial madness

    Trump’s new imperial madness

    US escalates sanctions, criminalizes global use of Huawei’s AI chips.

    By Miguel do Rosario, editor of Global South News.

    On May 13, the US Department of Commerce issued a sweeping new directive—imperialist, authoritarian, and disturbingly dystopian in scope.

    Under this latest order, merely using Huawei’s Ascend 910B, 910C, or 910D artificial intelligence chips could be deemed a violation of US export laws—even if those chips are used outside the United States, including inside China itself.

    Although the Ascend chips are designed and manufactured by Huawei, the US government argues that they were developed using American-origin technologies, design software, or manufacturing equipment. That claim triggers the so-called Foreign Direct Product Rule (FDPR), which allows the US to enforce restrictions on any foreign-made product built with American tech, regardless of where it’s produced or deployed.

    So, even if a Chinese company uses an Ascend chip inside China, it could be in breach of US law—because, according to the Commerce Department, it’s “highly likely” that the Ascend 910B, 910C, and 910D chips incorporate American technology.

    Washington’s crackdown on Huawei began in May 2019, when the company was added to the US “Entity List,” cutting it off from key suppliers and US technologies. That move effectively pushed Huawei out of the global smartphone market, as it lost access to advanced chips from suppliers like TSMC and Samsung.

    In response, Huawei ramped up development of its own chips in partnership with Chinese state-owned semiconductor maker SMIC. By 2024 and 2025, the company began mass-delivering the Ascend 910C chips to domestic clients, signaling Huawei’s comeback in the AI sector and posing a serious challenge to Nvidia and Apple’s dominance in China.

    In January 2025, the US tightened the screws further, expanding its restrictions on AI chip exports to China and requiring strict licenses for any tech transfers. China countered by launching AI systems like DeepSeek—initially trained on Nvidia hardware but now optimized to run on Huawei’s Ascend chips. DeepSeek quickly stood out for its low cost and high performance, emerging as a competitive alternative to Western models.

    The new Commerce Department alert is explicit: any company, in any country, using Huawei’s Ascend chips could face accusations of violating US export controls. That includes Chinese firms using domestically designed and manufactured chips inside China’s own borders.

    Even more extreme, the US is now threatening to sanction companies that use Chinese AI models—like DeepSeek, Qwen, or InternLM—even if those models are run on Nvidia chips made in America. The stated goal is to prevent “adversaries” from accessing US technology, but in practice, the measure suffocates the digital sovereignty of countries without domestic AI ecosystems.

    Penalties for violations could include trade bans, exclusion from the global financial system, loss of access to essential software, and even arrest of executives traveling through US-allied countries.

    Experts like Bill Gates have warned this strategy is likely to backfire, accelerating the development of alternative technologies outside the US orbit. For China and other nations, the only viable response is to double down on building independent tech and financial ecosystems.

    As Jonh Pang from Multipolar Peace put it:

    “Anyone, anywhere, using Huawei Ascend chips can be prosecuted for violating US export controls. A Chinese company using a 100% China-designed and China-made chip, inside China, would still be in violation. But if you use Nvidia chips to run a Chinese AI model, you’re also in trouble. The future under ‘American AI leadership’ is ChatGPT on Nvidia. Monopoly by decree.”

    Timeline of key events:

    • May 2019: Huawei added to US Entity List.
    • 2024–2025: Huawei launches and distributes Ascend 910C chips at scale.
    • January 2025: New US restrictions on advanced AI chip exports to China.
    • May 13, 2025: Global alert issued on use of Huawei’s Ascend chips.

    This tightening of US rules represents an unprecedented move in extraterritorial enforcement, with direct impacts on other nations’ digital sovereignty and the global tech market. What began as a race for innovation has now escalated into an open battle for technological sovereignty—and the US message is unambiguous: obey or be punished.

    —

    Sources:

    – US Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
    – Comments by Jonh Pang and Arnaud Bertrand
    – Coverage by Reuters, Financial Times, and Nikkei Asia on May 2025 sanctions
    – Bloomberg interview with Bill Gates (2025)

  • Exclusive! China racks up $1 trillion trade surplus over 12 months through March

    Exclusive! China racks up $1 trillion trade surplus over 12 months through March

    By Miguel do Rosario, editor

    In 2024, China came close to hitting a $1 trillion trade surplus — but just missed the mark. Last year’s surplus stood at $992 billion. Some analysts said it was “close to a trillion,” but the truth is, China hadn’t crossed that line yet.

    Now it has.

    The figures come straight from the Chinese government — more precisely, from the General Administration of Customs of the People’s Republic of China (GACC). The 12-month compilation was put together exclusively by Cafezinho

    According to official data, China exported $3.62 trillion worth of goods over the 12 months ending in March 2025, marking a nearly 7% increase from the previous period and a stunning 56% jump over the past seven years.

    Imports during the same period totaled $2.54 trillion, remaining flat compared to the previous year.

    That pushed China’s trade surplus over the past 12 months to a whopping $1.08 trillion — an all-time record.

    The trade surplus is calculated as exports minus imports.

    China’s total trade volume — the sum of exports and imports — reached $6.16 trillion over the 12 months through March.

    Looking at the monthly and quarterly breakdowns, the numbers also hit historic highs.

    In March alone, Chinese exports totaled $313.9 billion, up 12% from March 2024. Imports for the month dropped 5% to $221.3 billion, giving China a staggering monthly surplus of $102.6 billion — another record, and 75% higher than the surplus posted in March 2024.

    The first-quarter numbers tell a similar story of record-breaking trade.

    We’ve put together a series of tables below to help you get a sense of how the world’s top industrial powerhouse is doing on the trade front.

    You’ll see, for instance, that the United States’ share of China’s total trade dropped to just 10% in March — the lowest level in decades — compared to 18% for ASEAN countries and 12% for the European Union.

    China’s trade with Thailand, a key ASEAN member, grew 23% in March and 15% for the first quarter.

    For the first time, China is also breaking out the countries involved in the Belt and Road Initiative in its trade data. Altogether, these countries accounted for 51% of China’s total trade volume in March and during the January–March period.

    Meanwhile, Brazil is missing out on the action with China. In the first quarter, China slashed its imports from Brazil by a staggering 34%. As a result, Brazil’s share of China’s total imports plunged from 4.7% in Q1 2024 to just 3.3% in Q1 2025. In March alone, Chinese imports from Brazil tumbled 36%!

    One big reason seems to be a sharp decline in Brazilian soybean exports to China. It’s a clear sign that Brazil’s failure to diversify its export lineup with China is a costly strategic mistake.

    This slump flipped the Brazil-China trade balance — which had been heavily in Brazil’s favor — into negative territory both in March and for the full first quarter. However, this trend could reverse quickly starting in April as the new soybean crop comes to market. Plus, the ongoing US-China tariff war is creating fresh opportunities for Brazilian exporters.

    Among China’s top exports, technology products stood out. In the first quarter, China shipped $209 billion worth of high-tech goods, a 6% increase from a year ago — outpacing overall export growth.

    China also remains a powerhouse in mechanical and electronic goods. In Q1, China exported $47.7 billion worth of computers (up 7% year-on-year) and $41 billion in chips (up 11%).

    On the import side, China remains a major buyer of agricultural products (8% of its total imports) and oil (14%, including crude and refined). The country is also a significant importer of computers, chips, and aircraft.

  • Brazil’s ‘hundred years of humiliation’

    Brazil’s ‘hundred years of humiliation’

    By Miguel do Rosário

    The interview with China expert Elias Jabbour on the program *Reconversa*, hosted by Reinaldo Azevedo and Walfrido Warde, delivers high-quality insight into the frenzied geopolitical shifts of recent days.

    To think geopolitics today is to think about China.

    And to think about China is to grasp its historic challenge—a challenge often thrust upon it—to resist Western imperialism.

    Anyone who thought the concept of imperialism was outdated, gathering dust alongside books from the 1960s or confined to leftist discussion circles, may be rethinking that stance after President Donald Trump launched an economic offensive against China of unprecedented scale in modern history.

    True, the U.S. has imposed sanctions and tariffs on other nations since its inception. The free trade system promoted by the so-called collective West, especially after World War II and the creation of multilateral organizations to oversee international commerce, has always had to bend to American interests.

    But what we are witnessing now has no precedent.

    In 2024, the trade flow between China and the United States reached $688 billion—11% of China’s total trade volume that year, which surpassed $6 trillion and represents a significant share of global trade.

    The Trump administration slapped China with cumulative tariffs of 125% on all its products.

    So far, China has responded with 84% tariffs, also across the board on U.S. exports.

    There’s no other way to define this—given both the severity and the consequences—than as an act of war. And it became even more explicit when Trump “backed off” on similar harsh tariffs for other countries, dialing them down to 10%, while maintaining the maximum pressure on China.

    “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means,” said Clausewitz, and there’s little doubt that Trump’s tariff blitz—despite his announcement of a 90-day “pause”—marks the beginning of World War III.

    Naturally, humanity’s challenge will be to keep the conflict confined to economic skirmishes and avoid military escalation. But it would be naive to think that’s sustainable in the long run.

    Take the aggressive rhetoric and economic pressure the U.S. has applied to Iran, complete with open threats of bombing—this too is a way to pressure China, which, as the world’s largest oil importer, would be the primary victim of any spike in fossil fuel prices.

    A Middle East war involving Iran would send oil prices skyrocketing.

    The U.S., on the other hand, might be somewhat insulated, having once again become the world’s top oil producer.

    Just this week, Ukraine’s president Zelensky launched a bizarre anti-China propaganda campaign, showcasing a few Chinese mercenaries captured on the Russian side of the battlefield as if they were official agents of the Chinese state.

    Of course, there are mercenaries of all ethnicities fighting on both sides. The Russians have also identified Brazilians fighting for Ukraine, but Putin hasn’t taken to the global media to claim that Brazil is siding with Kyiv.

    Both Zelensky and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu are trying to frame their conflicts as part of a broader global war of “Western values” against imagined enemies—a loose (and undoubtedly fictitious) alliance of Islamic forces, progressive movements, Russians, non-aligned nations of the Global South, and above all, China.

    Thomas Friedman, a well-known mouthpiece for Western interests in major U.S. and European newspapers, recently jumped into the tariff debate to stress the need to protect Europe’s “industrial democracies” from China’s advance—a bizarre and cynical way to frame yet another ideological bloc.

    But behind the curtain of bluster and stock market speculation, the reality is simple: the West’s “industrial democracies” are falling behind, for many reasons.

    Their political model has ossified into a formalistic caricature of democracy where oligarchies rotate power. Europe—still relatively egalitarian—would rather cling to genocidal imperialism, hostile to diplomacy and built on lies, than embrace a new world order in which Global South nations, led by China, would gain greater voice and presence in global debates.

    Europe, for better or worse, may still enjoy a few more decades of comfortable decline—its high-speed rail, free public universities, and liberal democratic gains mostly intact since the end of WWII.

    Brazil, however, is not so fortunate. Like many of its Global South peers, Brazil is still living through its own “hundred years of humiliation.”

    China’s “century of humiliation” refers to the period from the end of the Opium Wars—won by Britain—until the Communist Party came to power in 1949.

    But one could extend that humiliating century, marked by foreign plunder and oppression, into the late 1970s, when China finally resolved many internal contradictions, broke out of global isolation, and launched the rapid development process that continues to astound the world.

    “Chinese socialism is characterized by the transformation of science into an instrument of government,” Jabbour says in the interview. “In an obscurantist world—this world we’re in—socialism today manifests as the transformation of reason into governance.”

    That, he argues, is the way forward for Brazil and the entire Global South: science. Even in political construction.

    “Our problem is that we’re unable to develop a science that enables us to govern the country through a broad front. That too is science,” Jabbour says, noting that major national breakthroughs came when the left broke out of its isolation.

    “An isolated communist is a dead communist. That’s a historical lesson. Independence, the republic, abolition, the 1930 Revolution, Lula’s 2002 election—none of these civilizational milestones came from a single party. They were built by heterogeneous majorities.”

    Now heading the Pereira Passos Institute, a public agency tied to Rio de Janeiro’s city government, Jabbour is trying to persuade Mayor Eduardo Paes of the need for deeper integration between Brazil’s economy and China—the world’s most dynamic economic pole.

    “I’m really concerned about the post-Lula era. And I consider Eduardo to be a key figure. He straddles the line between JK and Teotônio Vilela. That’s how we should see him, in my humble opinion.”

    Paes, he explains, mirrors JK (Juscelino Kubitschek) in his liberal roots gradually shifting toward developmentalism. One example is Paes’s resistance to a vision of Brazil’s future centered on agribusiness from the country’s central-western region—a vision potentially cemented by the new Chancay port in Peru, which will export Brazil’s grain and minerals once the necessary transport infrastructure is complete.

    At the same time, Paes echoes Teotônio Vilela, a conservative senator who became a voice of resistance during Brazil’s military dictatorship—driven by similar historical dilemmas.

    A likely candidate for Rio’s state government in 2026 and a public supporter of Lula’s reelection, Paes, according to Jabbour, has a “strategic objective” of making Rio “the vanguard of national resistance” against the reactionary values represented by the agribusiness heartland, Bolsonaro-style politics, and the fascist far right.

    “He’s someone who moved from one camp to another. Not by choice, but because history demanded it.”

    And now—with Trump’s tariff apocalypse lending his words even more weight—Jabbour draws a telling contrast: “American foreign policy is the Old Testament. China’s is Confucius. The idea of a ‘shared future for humanity’ didn’t originate with the Communist Party—it’s Confucian.”

    “Brazil’s reindustrialization,” he continues, “and I say this to Eduardo Paes, hinges on full productive integration with China. But we need to talk to the Chinese like adults.”

    To Jabbour, full integration is not about ceding sovereignty—it’s about leveraging Brazil’s massive trade flow with China to finance a modernization of infrastructure and the productive system.

    “Our current trade with China is colonial. It offers no strategic return. It doesn’t build the future. It’s short-sighted,” Jabbour warns.

    He urges Brazil’s intellectuals to develop a science “capable of grasping the concept embedded in China’s real social movement”—and to adapt those lessons in a way that advances Brazilian society.

    Jabbour says he feels “very alone” in Brazil’s political discourse. He faces resistance from the left for his pragmatic stance—both in advocating broad political alliances and rejecting rigid ideological dogma.

    “There’s a difference between fighting for equality, peace, justice, and socialism—and getting lost in fantasies, in a Pink Panther world. You have to ask whether science supports your hypothesis. That’s the question I’ve been asking since ’94 or ’95, with over 30 years of studying China.”

    “People confuse what it means to be radical. They think it means being reckless,” Jabbour adds.

    “But to be radical is to have a sense of historical process. I consider myself radical because I go to the root of things—because I have that historical vision. And people often forget that being broad in politics can mean being radical in substance.”

    He’s also rejected by the right for defending a “science of projection”—an economy rooted in long-term planning, which he sees as the core formula behind China’s success in building socialism.

    His favorite thinkers along those lines include Ignacio Rangel, Luiz Gonzaga Belluzzo, Darcy Ribeiro, and Celso Furtado.

    According to Jabbour, the main contradiction in Brazil today isn’t between fascism and democracy per se, but between a submissive, neoliberal fascism and a true national development project.

    “You’re not alone anymore,” Reinaldo Azevedo tells him at the end of the interview. The author of this piece disagrees with Jabbour on that point—and a few others.

    First, Jabbour is not alone. He may be in the minority, but he’s not isolated. There are people trying to think strategically about Brazil. What’s desperately needed, though, are more forums, events, and spaces to bring these people and ideas together.

    A second critique—more philosophical than polemical—is that a culture of planning must necessarily include political planning. If we aim for long-term economic projects, the same should apply to politics. This is especially important in dispelling the clouds of pessimism.

    Before China reached the political stage that enabled its astonishing development, it went through a long and painful period of political maturation.

    We are living through our own “hundred years of humiliation.” We’ve overthrown two “dynasties”—the neoliberal one of the 1990s and the fascist one in 2022—but both still have their tentacles in today’s politics. Only when we crush them once and for all—through a medium- to long-term strategy—will we be ready to begin our own accelerated development journey, cutting across this country like China did, with high-speed trains.