PSDB: Dilma's positions embarrass Brazilians.
In a statement, the party led by candidate Aécio Neves says that the president used the United Nations "as an electoral platform" during her speech at the opening of the UN General Assembly on Wednesday, and that her position defending dialogue with the extremist group Islamic State "is astonishingly simplistic"; "It would be curious, if it weren't tragic, to try to put her own advice into practice," the text says; for the PSDB (Brazilian Social Democracy Party), with her speech, Dilma undermined "any pretension of international leadership that she might still have harbored."
247 - The speech given at the UN by President Dilma Rousseff last Wednesday, the 24th, undermined "any pretension of international leadership that she might still have harbored," says a statement released by the PSDB, in which the party "regrets" the statements made by the Workers' Party member, marked, according to them, "by provincial and misleading self-praise of an electoral nature."
The party led by presidential candidate Aécio Neves also strongly condemns Dilma's stance against the airstrikes in Syria, coordinated by the United States and its allies to dismantle the extremist group Islamic State. "It would be curious, if it weren't tragic, to try to put her own advice into practice," the statement says.
Read the full text:
Official note
The PSDB regrets the content of the speech delivered at the UN by President Dilma Rousseff, marked, on the one hand, by provincial and misleading self-praise of an electoral nature that basically harms herself, undermining any aspiration for international leadership that she might still have harbored.
On the other hand, when it condemned the reaction of the United States and its allies, including those with the support of Arab countries, to the offensive of the terrorist group calling itself the Islamic State, it did worse: it brought the demoralization of Brazilian foreign policy to its lowest point.
Invoking the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes between states to advocate dialogue with armed thugs is astonishingly simplistic. It would be curious, if not tragic, to try to put one's own advice into practice.
This risk does not exist, because the president's words do not point to any plausible course of action in the foreign policy arena. They are intended, as always, to activate the conditioned ideological reflexes of a large part of her party colleagues. It is doubtful that this trick, used for many years, will work to restore any enthusiasm to the reluctant supporters of candidate Dilma Rousseff.
For most Brazilians, this display of electoral opportunism with no commitment to the national interest is yet another demonstration of how the group currently in power operates, reinforcing the certainty that it is time for the country to put an end to a government whose lack of ethical boundaries goes so far as to use the United Nations as an electoral platform. And which defends positions that shame Brazilians.