Bolsonaro at The UN: Globalization, Yes; Globalism, No

"This is not a global interest organization. It is the United Nations and it must remain so," exclaimed Bolsonaro

Facing the UN, President Bolsonaro of Brazil strongly condemned socialism and proclaimed the defense of sovereignty (EFE).

Spanish – The objective of the United Nations (UN) is to improve relations between countries, but several years ago, ideology replaced impartiality, leading to the internationalist spirit of socialism. And the president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, inaugurated the session of the UN General Assembly condemning it.

The primary issue discussed at the summit was climate change. Several heads of state, including French President Emmanuel Macron, proclaimed themselves as part of the Amazon, and also promoted internalization of that region which is vital for the health of the planet and its inhabitants.

Bolsonaro cited examples of Venezuela and Cuba as failures of socialism as these countries have not only failed to manage their resources but also condemned their population to poverty and repression.

“We are not here to erase nationalities and sovereignties in the name of abstract global interest,” exclaimed Bolsonaro. “This is not a global interest organization. It is the United Nations and it must remain so,” he added.

What is the difference between globalization and globalism?

The concepts of globalization and globalism are often confused. The first is the ease of trading between nations, exporting metals from America to Japan and in exchange importing electronics to any city in Latin America, for example. It is about ensuring the world is within reach, without major obstacles, especially regulatory ones.

In the words of Bolsonaro’s international advisor, Filipe G. Martins, “economic globalization consists of the global and spontaneous flow of economic agents who do not need the interference of bureaucrats, but work best in the absence of bureaucratic interference and are, in fact, detrimental to them. Globalism, on the other hand, is the attempt at political-ideological exploitation of globalization to promote a transfer of the axes of power of nations to a diffuse body of cosmopolitan and stateless bureaucrats, responding not to national communities but to a restricted set of influential agents with privileged access to those bureaucrats.”

Allowing exchange between individuals of different nations allows overcoming climatic obstacles, such as droughts and seasonal crudeness. For while resources are plentiful in one place, they are scarce in others.

Globalism, on the other hand, proposes the end of nations. This is what internationalist socialism aspires toward. A clear example of this is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which incorporated and annulled more than 15 nations and their customs.

Under this system, it was justified to expropriate the grain in Ukraine so that there would be no shortage of grain in Russia. If the Ukrainians refused, they were shot or condemned to harvest their own fruit without being able to eat it. About seven million people died of hunger in what is known as the Holodomor or great hunger.

Unlike globalization, globalism does not exchange, but rather expropriates and severely punishes whoever dares to question it.

Would invading Venezuela imply violating its sovereignty?

Currently, we can see cases of famine in the American continent, thanks to the same ideology. In Venezuela, the average citizen has lost more than 11 kilograms and the regime that has impoverished the country remains in power through force.

Those who complain see a tank passing over them, lose their sight or are pushed into exile along with nearly five million others who have already left the country.

Therefore, the discussion about sovereignty is at a high point regarding Venezuela. Well, one of the options to put an end to this agony is to invade the oil-producing country militarily.

The truth is, as Bolsonaro indicated, the same dictatorship that has been in power in Cuba for more than 60 years rules Venezuela. So removing it from power would mean recovering sovereignty in Venezuela since it would no longer be at the mercy of the internationalist socialist project.

Brazil resisted socialism, first with weapons, then with justice

Bolsonaro asserted before the UN that Brazil shed blood, both military and civilian, to defeat the socialist guerrillas that decades ago tried to subdue their nation, as happened in several Latin American countries.

When internationalist socialism laid down its arms, after the fall of the Berlin Wall and obtained financing from the Soviet Union, democracy became its weapon.

To remove them from power, which they clung to through corruption, Brazil managed to get rid of them through the law. First, former president Dilma Rousseff, who in her time as a guerrilla was a bank robber, had to resign from the presidency. Then, it was former president Lula da Silva, who is paying a sentence for corruption.

Bolsonaro reminded the UN that it was created to “promote peace among nations.” He urged member countries to confront the ideology that has caused the most violence, not only through its expansionism but also through the hunger and subjugation suffered by those who live within those regimes.

The UN can help defeat the materialistic and ideological environment that undermines some basic principles of human dignity. This organization was created to promote peace among sovereign nations and social progress with freedom, in accordance with the preamble of its charter.

In conclusion, he stated, “with humility and confidence in the liberating power of truth, (may the UN) be assured that it can count on this new Brazil that I present to you here.”

Brazil is one that calls for cooperation among nations in the face of tyranny. Not one that becomes an accomplice of an internationalist socialist project, as several nations intend to do with the UN. In that crusade, he is accompanied by the president of the United States, Donald Trump, who announced to that organization that the future does not belong to the globalists, but to the patriots.

Subscribe free to our daily newsletter
Sign up here to get the latest news, updates and special reports delivered directly to your inbox.
You can unsubscribe at any time