In the view of Washington (and Brazil’s opposition), Lula, Rousseff and the PT remain controversial because their emphasis on multipolarity (which excludes American exceptionalism); support of the BRICS (which is seen to operate against the US and G7 interests); funding for the BRICS New Development Band and Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (which are seen to undermine the power of G7 international multilateral organizations); efforts to overcome income polarization (which is regarded as potentially subversive), Latin American integration (which is perceived as anti-NAFTA) and alternative global Internet regime (which would bypass U.S. control); and a multipolar currency basket (which is seen as an attempt to emasculate the global dominance of the U.S. dollar).For me this piece raises questions about the authenticity of the Zika virus crisis which has received extensive coverage in corporate media. Could this crisis have been manufactured and is being used as another weapon to discourage Americans from attending the Olympics in Brazil? See this, this, and this.
In this narrative, Brazil’s destabilization is strategic and less about the rise of democracy than about an effort to replace it with new authoritarianism.
I've noticed in recent years that whenever the capitalist ruling directorate has an interest in media coverage of an event, no matter for what devious purposes, corporate media will provide extensive coverage. I'm thinking especially of the Mubarak regime change riots in Egypt in 2011 and the revolution in Ukraine in 2014, both of which received widespread TV coverage in the US. The same is true of the Zika virus (always associated with Brazil) in which TV programs have featured many sensational pictures of pin-head infants.
