Terror & scam

Let's not fool ourselves. You don't need to be an admirer of Machiavelli to understand that in a moment of great political uncertainty like the one we are facing in Brazil, denouncing a possible terrorist threat can be very useful for forces that provisionally occupy the presidency of the Republic and need, as is visible every day, to "show results" in the eyes of a population suspicious of gestures and intentions in order to remain in office by any means.  

We are experiencing a situation of institutional disintegration where everything is political, as acknowledged by the government leader Rose de Freitas, when explaining why the Senate removed Dilma without proof of a crime of responsibility.

There's no need to have a banana republic complex, though. All you need is lucidity. 

In France, a country that has already given lessons in liberty, equality, and fraternity, the same President François Hollande who is facing a workers' uprising in defense of their rights—a situation that could be repeated in Brazil if Michel Temer goes ahead with his program to annihilate the CLT (Consolidation of Labor Laws)—has transformed the terrorist threat into his government's number one concern.

Unable to address the everyday problems faced by most of the population, such as unemployment, wage losses, and recession, since the end of 2015 Hollande has implemented numerous exceptional measures that have generated outrage—the Minister of Human Rights resigned in protest—and have done little to prevent further tragedies, as demonstrated by the Nice bus massacre, less than a year after the attacks on Charlie Hebdo and the Bataclan.

Even so, there is no doubt that the fear campaign worked a predictable miracle of an electoral nature. It transformed Hollande, until then a George W. Bush of French social democracy, into a minimally competitive candidate to confront fascism in the presidential elections.

These considerations recommend prudence and common sense regarding the arrest of ten Brazilians who may one day be considered terrorism suspects. To that end, it's worth remembering that information currently in a very preliminary stage will need to be transformed into evidence and proof. It's worth emphasizing – even if it's out of fashion – the principle of presumption of innocence. Nobody wants to build a new Guantanamo, right?

It is clear that no clue against the threat of terror can be disregarded, because if they are consistent and properly investigated, they can prevent acts of barbarity that threaten innocent lives, including children.

The problem is that any initiative to transform an inconclusive episode into a grand spectacle, without reasonable justification, amounts to a demonstration of absolute contempt for the intelligence of the Brazilian citizen. It is also a counterproductive act from the point of view of any investigation, which involves sensitive intelligence material and requires prudence and secrecy, instead of fanfare and sensationalism.

The shift to the spotlight is only part of the problem, however. Another sign is political and diplomatic.

This stance demonstrates a step, under Michel Temer's government, toward aligning the Brazilian state's police and legal apparatus with the priorities of the U.S. government. This is understandable, given the international isolation of the coup. It should be seen as yet another chapter in a program of generous external favors that includes, as its grand prize, the opening of Petrobras' pre-salt reserves to large foreign companies.

Consistent with a diplomacy aimed at preserving the existing order in the Middle East at all costs—a region containing oil reserves vital to its economy and to the revenue of some of its largest economic giants—Washington has made the fight against Arab-origin terrorism the touchstone of its international action and so-called cooperation programs. 

It's worth remembering that the main consequence, in Brazil, of the September 11 attacks was a reinforcement of investigations by the CIA and other intelligence agencies against Palestinian immigrants in the Tri-Border Area, based on suspicions that the US embassy in Brasília itself considered little more than laughable.

Not by chance, Washington continued to applaud, a decade and a half later, the anti-terrorism law passed by Congress, at the initiative of the Dilma government.

Interested in embellishing any and all measures by the Temer government that might contribute to the Senate's final approval of the impeachment, the mainstream media did not miss the opportunity to highlight the "collaboration" of the US secret service in the investigations. The diplomatic history of the two countries, marked by long periods of adaptation and even submission on the Brazilian side, with rare but real moments of independence and sovereignty, suggests that it is much more than that.

There is another point to consider.

It is true that, by their very nature, terrorist actions do not obey a predictable or rational logic. It is worth considering, however, that their most frequent targets involve countries and governments that have an aggressive stance in the conflicts of the Middle East, actively participating in support operations in relation to American diplomacy. The Madrid and London attacks occurred after the governments of Spain and Great Britain engaged in the invasion of Iraq. France came into the spotlight after sponsoring the fall of Gaddafi in Libya and carrying out war operations in Syria and Iraq. Before that, it was usually spared after, alongside Germany and the Brazilian government, it refused to support Bush in the Iraq war.

Several scholars believe that, up to now, the Brazilian government's diplomatic stance, aligned with the unwavering defense of each people's sovereignty to choose and define their governments, helps explain why the country has been spared, until now, from actions of this nature.

This offers no guarantee whatsoever, especially in the context of a country that will host an Olympics. But it does show the need to avoid any and all measures that are out of step with the proper approach.   

The only real suspect so far is Justice Minister Alexandre Moraes, who was corrected by the judge in the case for saying more than he should have.