In the last installment of this interview series, Clarita Costa Maia examined the institutional architecture behind Brazilian foreign policymaking, arguing that understanding Brazil requires looking well beyond the formal constitutional framework and the traditional centrality of Itamaraty. She explained how Congress, parliamentary committees, technical staff, political parties, civil society, and the country’s broader epistemic community increasingly influence Brazil’s international agenda, highlighting the importance of what she describes as “cognitive diplomacy.” In this installment, she builds upon that analysis by exploring in greater depth the interaction between the Executive and Legislative branches, the evolving role of Itamaraty, the domestic actors shaping Brazil–Israel relations, the political instrumentalization of issues such as Gaza, terrorism and human rights, and the long-term diplomatic strategies most likely to succeed in Brazil’s complex political landscape.

The Executive–Legislative Nexus in Brazilian Foreign Policy

1. How does the Brazilian Congress institutional relationship with the Executive Branch affect the formulation and implementation of Brazil’s external relations?

Brazilian foreign policy is often described as an Executive-driven domain. That description, as I told you, is broadly accurate, but incomplete. The National Congress does not ordinarily conduct diplomacy, negotiate agreements or represent Brazil internationally. It nevertheless exercises indispensable constitutional, legislative, budgetary and political functions that can authorize, constrain, redirect or legitimize the international action of the Executive Branch.

Under the Federal Constitution, the President of the Republic is responsible for maintaining relations with foreign States and accrediting their diplomatic representatives. The President also concludes treaties, conventions and other international acts, subject, where constitutionally required, to congressional approval. 

Congress, in turn, has exclusive authority to decide definitively upon treaties, agreements and international acts that entail substantial obligations or commitments for the national patrimony. This architecture establishes neither complete presidential autonomy nor a congressional monopoly, but a system of constitutionally distributed authority. 

Congressional influence operates through several channels.

An additional indicator of Congress’s growing relevance is the increasing frequency with which the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been summoned or invited to appear before congressional committees to explain the government’s foreign-policy positions, including Brazil’s response to the Hamas–Israel war. Equally noteworthy is the unprecedented level of parliamentary scrutiny directed at the Ministry itself. On at least three occasions, motions of repudiation were introduced in response to statements made by a Brazilian diplomat that members of Congress regarded as amounting to hate speech or manifestations of antisemitism. Regardless of one’s assessment of the merits of those motions, their recurrence represents an institutional development without precedent in the history of the Brazilian Parliament, which has traditionally treated Brazil’s diplomatic corps—and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in particular—with exceptional deference and respect. This evolution illustrates that foreign policy, once largely insulated from domestic political contestation, has become increasingly subject to legislative oversight and political accountability.

Fifth, Congress performs a representative and agenda-setting function. Parliament reflects regional, ideological, religious, economic and sectoral interests that may not be fully incorporated into the professional diplomatic bureaucracy. Parliamentary fronts, committee debates, legislative missions, resolutions and public statements can elevate issues that the Executive would otherwise treat as secondary.

The most recent example is the document that was the object of your column this week.  Signed in Brasília on 8 July 2026, a manifesto addressed to the Chairs of the Federal Senate and the Chamber of Deputies, Senator David Alcolumbre and Representative Hugo Motta, as well as to the leaders of Brazil’s Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches, the Brazilian Jewish community, and Brazilian society at large. It was endorsed by the Apostolic House (Casa Apostólica)—a coalition of evangelical Christian leaders representing multiple churches and denominations from eight Brazilian states—and by members of the Evangelical Parliamentary Front of the National Congress (Frente Parlamentar Evangélica do Congresso Nacional). 

The document constitutes a public declaration of historical repentance for past omissions in confronting antisemitism and reaffirms solidarity with the Jewish people following the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023. 

Acknowledging the Holocaust as a defining moral lesson and condemning the resurgence of antisemitism in political, academic, cultural, religious and digital spaces, the signatories ask forgiveness from the Brazilian Jewish community and the State of Israel for their previous silence. 

They reaffirm Israel’s right to exist in peace and security, reject all forms of antisemitism, including when disguised as political or ideological discourse, and advocate a balanced commitment to international law, humanitarian principles, religious freedom, interfaith dialogue and a negotiated and lasting peace in the Middle East.

Beyond its declaration of principles, the manifesto establishes a long-term institutional agenda. It commits churches and affiliated organizations to promoting Holocaust education, combating antisemitism, strengthening cooperation with Jewish institutions, encouraging interreligious dialogue, supporting legislative initiatives against antisemitism and terrorism, fostering academic and cultural exchanges with Israel, and engaging in sustained public advocacy for historical truth, human dignity and religious coexistence. 

Rather........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)