Brazil Supports Iranian Election Results

By Marcela Canavarro, Contributing Reporter

Foreign Affairs Advisor Marco Aurélio Garcia, Minister Celso Amorim and President Lula confirm that Brazil will respect results in Iran, photo by José Cruz/ABr.

Foreign Affairs Advisor Marco Aurélio Garcia, Minister Celso Amorim and President Lula confirm that Brazil will respect results in Iran, photo by José Cruz/ABr.

RIO DE JANEIRO – While Brazil hasn’t questioned Iran’s election results, the Brazilian External Relations Ministry’s official position is to respect the decision announced by Iranian authorities that confirmed Ahmadinejad as president. Minister Celso Amorim affirmed that Iran has its own voting system and that the country should decide on its own behalf.

“It’s not up to Brazil telling Iran what to do”, said Amorim.

The Brazilian government emphasized that Iran’s reaction to the presidential election is a signal of  democratic life in the country. Lula’s Foreign Affairs adviser, Professor Marco Aurelio Garcia, also confirmed that Brazil is expecting Ahmadinejad’s visit.

“The fundamental information is that it was an election with strong social involvement. More than 70% of population voted. This is not typical in Iran. We’ve seen people who didn’t agree with the results at debates and demonstrations at the streets. That’s a good sign,” said Garcia.

Brazil has been trying to tighten relations with Iran as it is an important commercial partner in the Middle East. Ahmadinejad was set to visit Brazil last May but canceled his trip to step up efforts for the Iranian election, which took place a few weeks later. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva affirmed he’s planning to visit Iran next year and that he’s convinced that election fraud didn’t occur.

“Iran is not the first country where there are protests after elections. It seems that President Ahmadinejad won with 61% or 62%, it’s a huge assumption to think there was fraud,” Lula said at a press conference in Geneva last week. “I think it’s impossible to manipulate 30% of the votes. Those protests are an expression of those who lost. I myself have been at these kinds of protests,” he added, highlighting he’s also been a defeated candidate.

Lula reminded the press that George W. Bush’s reelection in the US was also questioned and hinted that the world’s skepticism about the Iranian elections has an ideological motivation.

“There must be something else in the world that I would like explanations about. Recently there were elections in Mexico and the difference was 1%,” he said, citing the contested victory of the right-wing party in 2006. “Some people who are criticizing Iran are now being asked to respect the results in Mexico. We can’t ever forget about Bush’s election. The world accepted the result despite all doubts.”

15 Responses to "Brazil Supports Iranian Election Results"

  1. Lloyd Riddick  June 26, 2009 at 5:36 AM

    Once again the Brazilian government has shown its unwillingness to assume a strong position in the face of obvious fraud, and subsequent violent quashing of home-grown protest, in relation to the recent elections in Iran. It is reminiscent of the recent CNN interview of President Lula, in which Fareed Zakaria pointedly asked Mr. Lula whether he believed that Brazil’s growing importance in both Latin America, and on the world stage, didn’t require Brazil to take a more rigid, forthright stance in relation to abuses which occur in other countries. On that occasion, the question was in relation to Hugo Chavez and the eletoral practices of Venezuela. Lula said that countries have their own politcal “practices” and “cultures”, and that we must respect each countries practices. He continued that while we may not agree with these practices, no one could say that there is no democracy in Venezuela. He then tellingly said that Brazil has many important business dealings with Venezuela. Bingo! It seems that Lula may be more afraid of upsetting Chavez, and losing more Brazilian investments to a foreign state as a result (as has many times happened throughout Latin America) than taking a stand in favor of just representation. The Brazilian government, through its “go along to get along” policy, is continuing to forfeit the possibility of being taken seriously as an international player, a voice for justice. By doing so, Brazil would be recognized abroad as nation with a moral compass, and would make inevitable the long-needed changes required at home as regards representation. As long as this “lack-of-positioning” continues, Brazil will only grow in international importance as a potential market, and not as a nation where the rule of law has any true meaning. Brazil, take a stand!

  2. Gringa  June 30, 2009 at 4:54 PM

    Great website, I come here a lot. But I would really like to read more about the upcoming amnesty for illegal immigrants and I’m sure there are more Gringo Times readers who would be interested in this. Thank you!

  3. Pingback: Twitted by powerfulwig

  4. Rudy  July 9, 2009 at 6:12 PM

    It is true that the US presidential election left considerable doubt on the integrity of the political process in the United States… However, Mr. Gore “lost” his home state of Tennessee. It would be unthinkable for a President not to carry his home state into the White House. This left the door open for political shenanigans as happened in the 1960 election of Jack Kennedy. The situation in Iran is about ” a whole lot more” than the 2000 election in the United States. If you’ve tasted freedom and then denied it… $hit happens. Persians are a very cultured people. They’ve traveled the world. They know what is good and what isn’t (for them). I wish the Persian People the best!

  5. Luana Macagnan  July 9, 2009 at 6:27 PM

    Iran people should know, better then anyone, that a president’s opinion is not always the people’s opinion. When this unhappy declaration of our president came up, we all got just more thaqn sad with this, cause that’s not how we think.
    We know it was a fraud, we know there is people dying on Iran.
    So, its wrong to say that ” Brazil Supports Iranian Election Results”, cause it’s not Brazil that suports this fraud, it’s just our president

  6. mark  July 10, 2009 at 1:34 PM

    Very sad. It shows how much Brazil values iranian protesters.

    Money is more important than human rights.

    Also Lula should get his facts straight – Bush jr cheated twice.

    Once, the recount was halted by supreme court. The other time “simply” because he AGAIN had less numbers, but the ancient US system still gave him the winner because states have those retarted representatives “winner takes it all” crap.

  7. hellmouth2  July 11, 2009 at 6:22 PM

    Brazil is a neutral country and for many years now has been known for not interfering in others countries affairs, this “non interfering” policy has been going on for at least 20 years and Lula is a smart man for not changing it, Brazil still does not have the influence and representativity to take a public stand in a matter such as this, it would be pointless.
    And Brazil does not support the results of the election it simply chooses not to meddle in Iran’s internal affairs, saying that Brazil agrees with the fraudulent election’s results is like saying that Sweden was a Nazi country because it chose to remain neutral during WW II.

  8. Randi  July 11, 2009 at 7:12 PM

    How do you think Lula would react to hundreds of thousands of protesters in his streets?? Probably pretty similar to Ahmadinejad’s brutal repression. Anyone remember Brasil’s treatment of students and activists in the 60’s and 70’s?

  9. Pingback: Panegíricos de Lula

  10. BruceCarson  May 11, 2010 at 12:53 PM

    As Lula says, Brazil has profitable business dealings with Iran.

    And NO, Brazil does not in general maintain a “non-interventionist” policy, that is a crock of BS. Lula had no problem intervening in Honduras. This all comes down to money. Brazil has just as much a right to protect the profits of Brazilian corporations as the next country – that is a lot of tax revenue you’re talking about. In the case of Honduras, there wasn’t much (if any) money at stake so Lula felt free to throw his weight around.

    Also, Brazil is not so hyper sensative about this gay rights BS as the US and other countries are. Furthermore, why should Brazil care about Israel? Even if Iran is getting a nuke to use it against Israel, why is it Brazil’s duty to stop it? If anything, as an oil producer, Brazil would benefit greatly from a rise in oil prices following a wide spread war in the middle east. Lula is simply acting as a good arbiter of Brazilian international business interests. By doing so he’s defying the US and Europe… so what, colonialism is over. Brazil has the right to do this.

    Also, good point about the US election in 2000 (don’t know what you’re talking about with 2004, Bush won the popular and electoral vote in 04)… Iran is a very similar situation. Countries that have a history of problems, shouldn’t criticize other countries. Germany, for example, should shut up if anyone else were to start slaughtering Jews… after all, they did it in the past. Perhaps Iceland and a few other countries have the right to criticize other nations. Everyone else should shut up.

  11. BruceCarson  May 15, 2010 at 1:53 AM

    Actually, now that I think about it, Germany supporting sanctions against Iran is the height of hypocrisy! Germany had their own nuclear weapons program sixty five years ago, and now they judge Iran for having one. Also it’s laughable that Germany lectures Iran about respect for Jews or not having a second holocaust – they were the ones who did the first holocaust!

    Germany is the last country in the world which should take a stand against Genocide. It’s sheer, sickening, hypocrisy.

  12. Pingback: Brazil Offers Refuge to Iran Stoning Case | The Rio Times

  13. Pingback: Looking Back: Lula’s Presidency | The Rio Times

  14. Pingback: Rousseff’s Impact on Foreign Policy | The Rio Times

  15. Pingback: Brazilian Military Ties with U.S. Increasing | The Rio Times

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.