Understanding Brazil: Who Really Shapes Brazilian Foreign Policy? Part I
In the last two interviews, Clarita Costa Maia argued that effective diplomacy in Brazil requires far more than an understanding of the country’s formal institutions. Drawing on her experience in the Brazilian Federal Senate, she explained that many diplomatic misunderstandings stem from misreading Brazil’s political culture and social norms.
Diplomats often mistake Brazilian warmth and hospitality for genuine friendship, overestimate the political influence of social contacts, or confuse visibility, titles, family connections, and social media prominence with real decision-making power. She emphasized that successful diplomatic engagement depends on systematic analysis, careful due diligence, and a comprehensive understanding of Brazil’s institutional ecosystem—including Congress, the judiciary, civil society, universities, think tanks, and the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB)—rather than relying exclusively on the Executive Branch.
Dr. Maia also highlighted Brasília’s distinctive political environment, where reputation, informal networks, and perceived influence often shape interactions as much as formal authority. She warned that diplomats should distinguish genuine political capital from appearances, remain cautious of individuals who claim privileged access to power, and recognize that they themselves may become targets of those seeking prestige through association with foreign missions. Finally, she stressed that personal conduct, professional presentation, and respect for local legal and cultural norms are essential components of diplomatic risk management, arguing that credibility, discretion, and sound judgment are among a diplomat’s most valuable assets in Brazil.
Installment I of III
In this installment, and in the next, we turn to the institutional architecture of Brazilian foreign policymaking and explore the following questions:
Understanding Brazil: The Institutions Behind Brazilian Foreign Policy
1. Why is Brazil politically more complex than it appears at first glance?
Brazil is politically more complex than it appears because its formal constitutional structure tells only part of the story. Much like the United States, the Brazilian Constitution is built upon the principle of separation of powers, albeit with important adaptations characteristic of civil-law presidential systems. It entrusts the conduct and negotiation of foreign policy to the President of the Republic, who is assisted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Itamaraty). For nearly two centuries, Itamaraty has been one of Brazil’s most prestigious state institutions. The diplomatic career was among the country’s earliest professional state careers, supported by its own government academy, the Rio Branco Institute, founded in 1945. For much of Brazil’s modern history, the country’s political and economic elites supplied a significant proportion of its diplomats, contributing to the perception of Itamaraty as an elite corps distinguished by technical excellence, institutional continuity, and a strong esprit de corps.
Yet constitutional design alone cannot explain how Brazilian foreign policy is actually shaped. Political decisions emerge from the interaction of the Executive, Congress, the Judiciary, political parties, governors, professional associations, civil society organizations, religious groups, economic sectors, and the media. Foreign policy has also become increasingly exposed to domestic political competition and public opinion. As a result, diplomacy is no longer understood as an exclusive domain of the Executive or of Itamaraty, but as the product of a broader institutional ecosystem in which multiple actors compete to influence both the substance and the political legitimacy of international decisions.
A particularly important illustration of this dynamic is the growing prominence of the foreign affairs committees of the Chamber of Deputies and the Federal Senate. Their influence tends to rise or fall according to the political salience of international issues and, above all, the partisan or personal alignment of their presidents with the incumbent administration. These committees are not merely technical bodies; they often become arenas where competing visions of Brazil’s international role are publicly debated.
Their hearings, reports, motions, and interactions with diplomats increasingly shape political narratives and can impose some political costs on the Executive. At minimum, eco a different narrative to the public.
2. To what extent both committees differ?
The Chamber’s Committee on Foreign Affairs and National Defense (CREDN), chaired by Deputy Luiz Philippe de Orléans e Bragança, has adopted a particularly vocal and confrontational stance toward the Lula administration’s foreign policy.
In July 2026, the Committee approved a Motion of Repudiation criticizing Itamaraty for what it characterized as an excessively militant and ideologically driven diplomacy, accusing the Ministry of abandoning Brazil’s traditional standards of technical professionalism and moderation.
The Senate presents a different political configuration. Its Committee on Foreign Affairs and National Defense (CRE) is chaired by a senator from the government’s support coalition, although one generally perceived as more pragmatic than ideological. Its Vice-Chair, Senator Tereza Cristina, a former Minister of Agriculture and one of Brazil’s leading representatives of agribusiness, is widely recognized for her market-oriented approach and is frequently mentioned as a potential candidate for the presidency or vice-presidency of the Republic.
For Israel, another committee deserves particularly close attention: the Human Rights Committee of the Chamber of Deputies. Traditionally chaired by parties on the left of the political spectrum, it has frequently served as an important parliamentary forum for expressing positions sympathetic to Palestinian demands and highly critical of Israeli government policies.
While it does not formulate Brazil’s foreign policy, its public hearings, motions, invitations to international organizations, and engagement with civil society contribute significantly to shaping public discourse on the Middle East, influencing media coverage and political narratives surrounding Israel.
I also believe diplomats should pay close attention to another often-overlooked aspect of Brazil’s institutional landscape: congressional activity is a major source of academic research and knowledge production in International Relations. Legislative hearings, committee reports, public consultations, expert testimony, and parliamentary debates are frequently studied by scholars, cited in academic publications, and incorporated into university curricula. In other words, Congress does not merely react to foreign policy; it also helps shape the intellectual frameworks through which foreign policy is understood and taught in Brazil.
For that reason, neglecting congressional committees—or failing to engage with them through rigorous, technically grounded dialogue—is a strategic mistake at the level of cognitive diplomacy. Parliamentary debates often transcend their immediate political purpose and become part of the country’s academic and policy discourse, influencing future diplomats, researchers, journalists, and decision-makers. States that seek to build long-term influence should therefore view these committees not simply as legislative bodies, but also as arenas where narratives are constructed, legitimized, and disseminated across Brazil’s broader epistemic community.
The provision of well-prepared materials — background notes, aide-mémoires, legal opinions, technical briefs, and factual memoranda — is therefore essential. These documents should not be prepared merely to circulate informally among members of Congress, but also with a view to being formally registered in the records of the Chamber of Deputies and the Federal Senate. Once incorporated into the legislative record, they may become part of the institutional memory of Congress and, eventually, a source for journalists, researchers, public officials, and scholars of International Relations.
For this reason, a mission operating in Brazil should treat intellectual, factual, legal, and academic preparation in its interface with Congress as one of its strategic priorities. Diplomatic engagement with Parliament is not only about access, courtesy, or political networking; it is also about contributing to the formation of the documentary and argumentative record through which foreign-policy issues will later be interpreted. In that sense, congressional engagement is also an exercise in cognitive diplomacy: the careful construction of facts, concepts, and narratives capable of influencing how a country understands international affairs over time.
3. So, what you are saying is that these committees are highly important within both Houses of Congress?
Certainly, for foreign missions. They are not necessarily the most politically coveted committees in the internal distribution of power. And in this Regard, they mirror the USA`s dynamic of committees.
Neither the foreign affairs committees nor the human rights committees of either chamber rank among the most coveted committees during the distribution of committee chairmanships among political parties.
In the Brazilian Congress, the most influential parties generally exercise priority in selecting committee leaderships, usually opting first for committees with greater budgetary, economic, fiscal, or constitutional significance.
As a result, the Foreign Affairs and Human Rights Committees are often allocated to parties with smaller parliamentary delegations or become available after larger parties have selected their preferred committees.
Consequently, although these committees frequently play a highly visible role in international debates, they are not necessarily chaired by the most influential figures within their respective parties.
4. So, does that mean these committees are generally chaired by politicians who are not among the most influential figures in Congress?
The answer is more nuanced than a simple yes or no. There is another feature of the Brazilian Congress that foreign diplomats should understand. Unlike committees dealing with the budget, taxation, the Constitution, or major economic issues, the Foreign Affairs and Human Rights Committees have not traditionally been regarded as politically rewarding in electoral terms. They generally attract less media attention and offer fewer opportunities to deliver tangible benefits to a legislator’s electoral base. Consequently, these committees have often been chaired either by members of smaller parties or by senior political figures who, because of their electoral circumstances, did not require sustained public exposure at that moment in their careers.
Several prominent political leaders illustrate this pattern. Former Presidents of the Republic José Sarney and Fernando Collor de Mello both chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during the middle of their eight-year terms as senators, a period in which they were not immediately facing re-election. Likewise, Antonio Carlos Magalhães, one of the most influential congressional leaders in modern Brazilian history and a former President of the Federal Senate, also chaired the committee during a period when he no longer depended on high electoral visibility. Their leadership reflected political stature rather than electoral necessity.
This dynamic is partly explained by Brazil’s electoral system for the Federal Senate. Senators serve eight-year terms, and Senate elections occur every four years on an alternating basis. In one election cycle, voters elect one senator per state; in the next, they elect two. Because of these long terms, senators spend a considerable portion of their mandates without the immediate pressures of an approaching election. This institutional design allows experienced legislators to assume committee leaderships for reasons of policy interest, institutional prestige, or political strategy, rather than purely electoral calculation.
This does not mean that these committees lack political significance, quite the contrary. Their importance stems less from their electoral visibility than from their capacity to shape parliamentary debate, influence foreign-policy narratives, interact with diplomats and foreign delegations, and contribute to the documentary record of Congress.
For diplomats, this distinction is crucial: committees that may appear peripheral from the standpoint of domestic electoral politics can nonetheless occupy a central position in Brazil’s international engagement and in the long-term formation of policy and academic discourse.
5. How does the Human Rights Committee address the Hamas–Israel war?
In recent years, the parties that have chaired the Human Rights Committee in the Chamber of Deputies have generally displayed a clear ideological orientation that is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and highly critical of Israeli government policies.
Over roughly the past decade, it has repeatedly convened public hearings on the humanitarian situation in Gaza at or around Yom Kippur. From the perspective of the Brazilian Jewish community, this timing has often posed practical challenges, as many community leaders and, at times, representatives of the Israeli Embassy are observing the holiday and are therefore less able to participate or respond promptly to the discussions.
Whether intentional or merely coincidental, the practical effect is that these hearings may proceed with limited participation from one of the stakeholders most directly concerned. For any foreign mission, this illustrates the importance of closely monitoring the congressional calendar and maintaining contingency mechanisms capable of responding even during religious holidays or other periods when normal diplomatic engagement may be reduced. In parliamentary diplomacy, timing can be as consequential as substance.
Even when representatives of the Israeli Embassy or the local Jewish community are available, the composition of invited speakers has often reflected the political orientation of the committee’s leadership.
Traditionally, the Human Rights Committee has seldom invited experts or witnesses who would present legal, humanitarian, or strategic arguments broadly supportive of the State of Israel. To be fair, however, the opposite can also occur in committees chaired by legislators more sympathetic to Israel, where invitations may similarly reflect the political preferences of the committee’s leadership.
As a result, many parliamentary hearings held since the attacks of October 7 have functioned less as genuine forums for dialectical debate than as echo chambers reinforcing pre-existing narratives.
Rather than facilitating the confrontation of competing legal interpretations, factual evidence, and policy perspectives, nuanced positions, these sessions have frequently provided platforms for one side or the other to consolidate its own narrative before an audience already largely aligned with it.
For foreign diplomats, this underscores an important lesson: parliamentary hearings should not be viewed solely as opportunities to persuade legislators. They are also instruments of public diplomacy, narrative construction, and political signaling, whose impact extends well beyond the walls of Congress.
6. What other parliamentary bodies should be of interest to Israeli diplomacy?
Depending on the subject, other committees may be equally—or sometimes even more—influential than the foreign affairs committees themselves. Issues such as terrorism, organized crime, cyber threats, technological innovation, public security, agriculture, religious freedom, defense procurement, science and technology, and human rights are frequently debated elsewhere in Congress, often by legislators who exercise considerable influence within their respective policy communities.
Particular attention should be paid to the Public Security and Organized Crime Committee, given Brazil’s growing concern with transnational criminal organizations and counterterrorism; the National Defense Committee when military cooperation or defense procurement is involved; the Agriculture Committee, considering the strong bilateral relationship in agribusiness and water management; the Science, Technology and Innovation Committee, reflecting Israel’s reputation as a global innovation hub. Likewise, committees dealing with digital affairs, artificial intelligence, education, and constitutional matters increasingly influence issues that intersect with international relations.
Beyond the standing committees, parliamentary fronts deserve close attention. Brazil’s Parliamentary Fronts are informal, cross-party caucuses organized around common interests rather than party affiliation.
Although they possess no formal legislative authority, they often become influential vehicles for agenda-setting, coalition-building, and public advocacy.
The Brazil–Israel Parliamentary Friendship Group, the Parliamentary Front for Diplomatic Relations and International Cooperation, the Evangelical Parliamentary Front, and sectoral caucuses representing agribusiness, public security, innovation, and religious freedom all constitute important interlocutors depending on the subject under discussion.
Finally, Israeli diplomacy should not overlook the technical structure of Congress itself. Legislative consultants, committee advisers, the Library of Congress, the legislative research services, and the permanent bureaucracies of both Houses play an important role in preparing reports, drafting opinions, organizing public hearings, and producing the technical documents that frequently become part of the parliamentary record.
These materials are subsequently cited by courts, journalists, academics, and policymakers. Effective parliamentary diplomacy therefore extends beyond cultivating relationships with elected officials; it also requires engaging with the institutional knowledge ecosystem that supports congressional decision-making. In the long run, this is one of the most effective forms of cognitive diplomacy.
These professionals enjoy considerable intellectual credibility within Congress. Their analyses, legal opinions, and technical assessments frequently inform parliamentary deliberations and are often regarded as authoritative references by legislators. Like any community of experts, they hold diverse intellectual and political perspectives, which may, depending on the issue, either facilitate or complicate a foreign government’s objectives.
For that reason, technical cooperation with these institutional support services can be highly valuable. Providing well-founded legal analyses, factual briefings, comparative studies, and academic materials helps enrich parliamentary debate, reduce misunderstandings, and foster more informed decision-making. Over time, such engagement can lower institutional resistance, build trust, and create more constructive channels of dialogue between a foreign mission and the Brazilian Congress.
