João Cezar de Castro Rocha: Brazil has never had a right wing as subservient to foreign interests as it does now.

247 - The capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by US forces, described by the guest as a "kidnapping," opened a new phase of international tension and, according to writer and historian João Cezar de Castro Rocha, exposed an old pattern—little debated in Brazil—of US intervention in Latin America. For him, the episode highlights the return of an imperial logic that dispenses with ideological justifications and explicitly assumes the dispute over strategic natural resources, such as oil and "rare earth elements."

The analysis was conducted by João Cezar de Castro Rocha in an interview on the program Boa Noite 247, broadcast by TV 247. Throughout the conversation, he argued that the key to understanding the current moment lies not in the frequently cited Monroe Doctrine, but in the subsequent radicalization formulated at the beginning of the 20th century: "What is really at stake today is the anachronistic return of something that is rarely discussed in Brazil, which is the Roosevelt Corollary."

According to the historian, the 1904 corollary consolidated the idea that Washington had "the right and, above all, the duty" to intervene militarily in Latin American countries in crisis—especially when debt and instability jeopardized US business interests. He cited a historical example to illustrate the mechanism: the overthrow of Guatemalan President Jacobo Árbenz in 1954, following an agrarian reform that affected lands belonging to the United Fruit Company. "It was the CIA's first major psychological operation," he stated, describing how, in a few months, the government was destabilized.

According to João Cezar, what differentiates the current situation is the absence of an “ideological veneer”—an element that, in the past, served as a public justification for operations of this type. “There was, at least, a concern for an ideological veneer,” he said, citing the Iraq War and the rhetoric of “weapons of mass destruction,” as well as the discourse of the “fight against terror.” Now, on the contrary, he sees an open stance: “You can’t do politics without symbols… just saying ‘because I want their oil’… it’s too explicit.”

In the interview, João Cezar de Castro Rocha highlighted statements attributed to Donald Trump, according to which the US government would begin to "manage Venezuela's oil." For the historian, this statement encapsulates an unprecedented degree of cynicism in Washington's foreign policy. "This pretense will pay a price. It may not pay it immediately, but this pretense will pay a price because there is no justification," he stated, arguing that the explicit exposure of economic interests tends to generate political wear and tear and international isolation.

The historian also highlighted that, in addition to a crisis in international law, there would be an internal problem in the US if the military action had occurred without congressional approval. "According to the US Constitution, Donald Trump cannot engage in acts of war without congressional approval," he said, pointing out that the government would need to frame the operation as a counterterrorism operation to broaden its scope of action. He also cited the dispute over images and information about the episode, including demands for a "second video" showing the confrontation, in a context where the initial version of the "surgical" operation was contested during the program.

Another central theme of the conversation was the institutional succession in Venezuela and the political calculations stemming from Maduro's kidnapping. In the interview, the presenters reported that Delcy Rodríguez had assumed the presidency as interim president, reaffirming Maduro's status as a "kidnapped" president. João Cezar considered this gesture decisive in thwarting a strategy that, according to him, sought to create a power vacuum similar to that of 1964 in Brazil. "It seems that Trump's calculation was something similar to what happened in Brazil in '64," he stated, recalling the episode in which the presidency was declared vacant while João Goulart was in Porto Alegre. For him, by not assuming the presidency as the effective president, but "in an interim capacity," Delcy would prevent the counting of deadlines and block a mechanism that could lead to elections under external influence: "This already strongly contradicts what Trump, what Trump's team imagined."

The interview then moved on to a broader warning: the reconfiguration of the international order. João Cezar stated that if the action in Venezuela is consolidated, it will set a precedent where "the strongest countries will do the same to weaker countries." He connected this risk to the weakening of multilateral mechanisms and the impact on other regions: "If this... action is successful, it sets a very dangerous precedent for the world... It is the complete end of the international order created after the Second World War."

In the most forceful passage on Brazilian politics, the historian directed criticism at the national right wing and parliamentarians who, according to him, began celebrating Maduro's capture and insinuating that the same could happen in Brazil. "In my opinion, these constitute crimes of treason, treason against the homeland," he said, citing posts and memes attributed to public figures. In one of his strongest statements, João Cezar declared: "Brazil has never faced people with such brazenness, such lack of character, such villainy, such servility…". And he added, addressing threats to sovereignty: "He [a president] must be removed by vote. He cannot be kidnapped by a foreign nation."

The interviewee also linked the topic to the electoral environment, projecting that 2026 is likely to be marked by disinformation, digital manipulation, and aggressive actions by platforms. He stated that interference is already underway and that the weight of technology and social networks will be decisive: “Will there be interference in the Brazilian elections? A lot… Artificial intelligence will have an enormous weight in these elections.” As an example, he mentioned the possibility of mass circulation of false content through messaging apps, with the potential to produce irreversible political damage.

In the end, João Cezar argued that the outcome will depend, above all, on internal variables — both in Venezuela, regarding its capacity for resistance, and in Brazil, regarding its political and institutional response. In the program, he summarized the gravity of the moment as a historical turning point: “Either it’s the beginning of World War III, or it’s the final beginning of American decline,” associating the episode with an escalation in which the struggle for resources and spheres of influence could dismantle international checks and spur new offensives in different parts of the world.