NEW YORK TIMES — 22/JUL/2018
Brazil’s Military Strides Into Politics, by the Ballot or by Force (excerpt)
RIO DE JANEIRO — Members of Brazil’s armed forces, who have largely stayed out of political life since the end of the military dictatorship 30 years ago, are making their biggest incursion into politics in decades, with some even warning of a military intervention.
Retired generals and other former officers with strong ties to the military leadership are mounting a sweeping election campaign, backing about 90 military veterans running for an array of posts — including the presidency — in national elections this October. The effort is necessary, they argue, to rescue the nation from an entrenched leadership that has mismanaged the economy, failed to curb soaring violence and brazenly stolen billions of dollars through corruption.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
The amnesty law has prevented Brazil from undergoing the kind of post-dictatorship reckoning that has kept the militaries of Argentina, Chile and Uruguay at arms length from politics, analysts say.
The lack of accountability could also enable a younger generation of Brazilians to romanticize what a new military intervention could bring, said Pedro Dallari, a jurist who oversaw the truth commission.
“The fact that the memory of the dictatorship dimmed with time, because the problems weren’t confronted, generates this risk,” he said.
RESPOSTA DESTE (E)LEITOR
July, 22, at 1:06 PM
From:<souto49@yahoo.com>
To: comments@nytimes.com
Cc: letters@nytimes.com
Bcc:
Subject: Information, truth and ethics – Brazil, from 1964 to Bolsonaro
To New York Times
Dear Sir
Concerning to the article “Brazil’s Military Strides Into Politics, by the Ballot or by Force”, by Mr. Ernesto Londoñoand Ms. Manuela Andreoni (New York Times, July 21, 2018), there are several controversial issues presented by the couple. Let’s analyze them.
They informed “the military’s push into politics is a major shift — and for many Brazilians, a worrisome one.” The majority of Brazilian people are not worried about the military’s push into politics, in the way they presented the matter. Actually, the Brazilians don’t agree with the mismanagement the Workers Party (Partido dos Trabalhadores – PT) had done from 2003 to 2014. The military personnel is the most reliable segment of the country. The politics polls of all institutes are clear indicators of this assertion.
They stated “analysts and politicians say the chances of a military intervention are probably remote, but they are wary of the rising political profile of military figures, particularly because the country has not fully come to terms with its authoritarian past.”Why the country has not fully come to terms with its authoritarian past? You want everybody who committed crime in jail? In this case, besides some military and civilian who fought as in war (and the combat is never agreeable, elegant or confortable — every American family knows that), to save the country from the communism, it’s imperative to condemn a lot of adversaries of the military government who murdered, robbed and performed other crimes; for instance, Dilma Roussef, José Dirceu et al.
They reported “military personnel tortured people suspected of being dissidents with electric shocks or beat them as they hung from walls, according to a 2014 truth commission report.”Ah! The Truth Comission? Many unsuspecting Brazilians consider it The Lie Comission. Concerning crimes supposed performed by military, you should have mentioned the death of an adolescent who was quartered by leftist in Amazon region; the military and the journalist who were exploded in Recife City; the soldier who was exploded in the Army headquarter in São Paulo City; and dozens of other barbarian murders of people who belonged to the government. The Lie Comission ignored these crimes.
They said that, from 1964 to 1985, “at least 434 people were killed or disappeared during the dictatorship.”Why didn’t they inform that the score was 434 x 120 (these are not soccer or basket score, these are numbers of dead people), which means at least 120 people were killed by those who fought against the government? American people killed more than half million of Vietnamese. But what was the motivation of the death? How many Americans died? American people killed more than one million Germans in the Second World War. But why? And what about the amount of sacrificed Americans? ‘It’s not only half of the facts; it’s the full set of facts and the context, wise and clever guys!’
They mentioned “yet Brazil has done far less than many of its Latin American neighbors to punish the abuses committed during the 1960s and 1970s, adding to concerns about giving military figures more political power.”Ok! There were abuses of the government. And what about the abuses of the opponents? You are transmitting half of the truth; but the other half of the truth is half of the lie; and this is absence of morality and ethics as well.
They assured “Mr. Mourão, the former general, and other retired officers are avidly backing the presidential bid of a far-right congressman, Jair Bolsonaro, …”. Well, Bolsonaro fights against corruption; he doesn’t accept unfair exchanges in politics; he prioritizes USA, South Korea, Israel and Japan in his trip abroad, searching for knowledge, values and support (oh! Are all these countries conducted by far-right politicians?); he prioritizes education and science & technology in the country management; he plans to reduce the public management structure, specially the number of ministries from 40 to 15; he defends the privatization or extinction of inefficient and non strategic public companies; and last but not the least, he wants the richness (and not the poorness) for everybody. Are these fair reasons to consider him far-right congressman? Are these fair reasons to confirm what the worst part of the Brazilian intelligentsia declare?
They declared “that, analysts and retired generals say, is the reason Mr. Temer has given military officers unusual power in his cabinet. In a break with the past, Mr. Temer appointed a generalin February to lead the Defense Ministry.”Oh! Is this forbidden? In the upshot, do you think there would be reasons for General Eisenhower not entering the American policy? Colin Powell not being Secretary of State? Do you agree with a man who complains for Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton being appointed Secretary of State? Do you think Mr. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin agree the color of the skin, the uniform or the gender is a pre-requisite for public function? Come on!
They asserted “Even Ms. Rousseff, a former political prisonerwho was tortured during the 1970s by the military government and considers her impeachment a political coup, said she would be stunned if today’s generals attempted to take power.”There are doubts of the torture Ms. Roussef declares she suffered. Never mind! Why don’t they inform she was in the team which put a bomb in the Army headquarter in São Paulo and transformed the innocent Mario Kozel Filho in ashes?
They think they are the owner of an enourmous knowledge of Brazilian history and for this reason they wrote “Brazil’s economy grew briskly during the early years of military rule, leading some historians to refer to the era as an “economic miracle.” But foreign debt ballooned during that period and inequality widened, setting the stage for a hyperinflation crisis that crippled the economy during the 1980s.”Good guys! Why didn’t they report when the military took the power, Brazilian economy left the 43ª position in the world and came to 8ª position? The oil production rose from 75.000 to 750.000 barrels a day? The number of students who reached the university increased from 200.000 to more than 1.000.000? Well I could mention some dozens of other relevant achievements of that period. Maybe more relevant is: in the last 14 years of the Workers Party, the overall government debt exploded to levels incomparable in the history of the country.
As a typical Brazilian leftist, they added that during the military period “The press was censored and the absence of an independent judiciary meant that abuses and corruption were seldom investigated. Before the military gave up power, the government passed an amnesty law that has shielded officials of that era. The amnesty law has prevented Brazil from undergoing the kind of post-dictatorship reckoning that has kept the militaries of Argentina, Chile and Uruguay at arms length from politics, analysts say.”The amnesty law was defended, ordered, required by those who had commited crimes against the military power and shielded people of both side of the dispute. Thousands of people opposing the government, including those people who murdered the 120 alied of the military power were shielded by the amnesty law. And your qualified journalist didn’t inform that. Aditionally, they didn’t reported that all the five former military presidents died poor or with the same goods they owned before becoming president.
I’m sure Mr. Londoño and Ms. Andreoni are not blind of an eye, deaf of one ear and so on, …, so why do their informations contain only half of the truth? What I mean is that the news aren’t similar to the moon, which has a hidden face, as Mr. Londoño and Ms. Andreoni advocate.
It seems Mr Londoño and Ms. Andreoni have a political concern in the Brazilian scenario. But it’s imperative to highlight the two distinguished journalists they never forget the side they are defending perpetrated the biggest scandal of corruption of the universal history. To defend these criminals means fight for a cause or for money. What is their choice? Does New York Times accept that?
Would Mr. Jefferson, Washington and Franklin aprove this way of letting people know the reality? Do the American readers agree with this approach of press? Do the American citizens deserve information of this sort, published by the most important newspaper of the world? Is this the contribution of New York Times to the world admiration for America?
Best regard,
ARS
# # #
