A recent U.S. decision to label Brazil’s PCC and Comando Vermelho as terrorist organizations has sparked alarmist reactions in the country. These claims suggest the American move poses an immediate threat to national sovereignty, the Brazilian economy, and international legal cooperation. Much of this criticism, however, appears to address hypothetical scenarios without basis in reality.
Cooperation Remains Unaffected
A common argument is that the designation would harm cooperation between Brazilian and American authorities in fighting organized crime. International cooperation between law enforcement agencies did not begin with this decision and does not depend on it. Brazil’s Federal Police, Federal Prosecutor’s Office, the FBI, DEA, and other agencies have maintained permanent relations for decades. These include information sharing, joint investigations, and mutual legal assistance, all based on existing international treaties.
A Global Presence
Another weakness in the criticism is the apparent belief that the U.S. decision was made without prior knowledge of Brazil’s criminal reality. The PCC and Comando Vermelho stopped being purely national phenomena many years ago. Their activities have crossed Brazilian borders, reaching neighboring countries, international drug trafficking routes, and illicit markets across different continents.
Read Also: Brazilian women face regressive tax burden
It is unrealistic to assume U.S. intelligence services did not already have reports, strategic assessments, and monitoring of these organizations before the classification. Such a supposition is incompatible with the global importance attributed to drug trafficking. The U.S. designation does not create new interest; it makes an existing concern explicit.
The Real Issue
Some commentators quickly jump from a legal classification to the hypothesis of military intervention. Recognizing an organization as a terrorist under one country’s domestic law does not eliminate the sovereignty of another state nor create automatic authorization for military operations on foreign soil. International law, legal limits, and diplomatic costs associated with such initiatives still apply. An administrative classification should not be treated as a prelude to military invasion, as that creates more fear than clarity.
The discussion should focus on the merits of the issue. The PCC and Comando Vermelho exercise territorial control in numerous Brazilian communities. They impose parallel norms, expel residents, execute rivals, attack public officials, set buses on fire, shut down cities, threaten authorities, and subject entire populations to a regime of permanent coercion. The debate should address the permanent damage these organizations cause to the Brazilian economy and its people. How much does it cost to have more than 30 million Brazilians under the yoke of criminals imposing terror? How much does it cost to have lost hundreds of thousands of young people in recent years due to the infamous conflicts between such organizations?
