Late last week, Lula da Silva spoke at the Power Our Planet event in Paris. The Brazilian president pledged that ‘by 2030, deforestation of the Amazon will hit zero’, adding that his government ‘will be relentless against anyone who fells even a single tree to grow soya, corn or to raise cattle.’ The Amazon, he continued, ‘is in Brazilian territory, but it also belongs to the whole of humanity, and that is why we will do everything within our power to keep the forest standing.’ Then, to the roar of thousands of people cheering him on like a popstar, he urged young people across Europe to ensure that wealthy countries fund climate reparations for the Global South.

This intervention is typical of Lula’s new international agenda. Since his inauguration in January, he has visited eleven countries and a number of international summits and meetings in the Americas, Asia and Europe. This has made some feel uncomfortable, both inside and outside Brazil. Some of this is because he has dared to discuss topics some people think are none of his business, such as the war in Ukraine. After all, how dare a South American president think he has any say in European affairs?

Last week in Rome, Lula told journalists that the European left needed to find its voice and ‘rebuild utopias’ so that young people would be able to dream of and fight for a better future. The Left, he said, should defend refugees and freedom of movement, avoid timidity in the face of the extreme right, and be aware of their responsibilities in the Global North, before urging diplomacy over militarism and admonishing journalists for not caring about Julian Assange. He also emphasised every nation’s right to self-determination and the need for countries to respect other’s democracies.

These interventions are ruffling feathers. On 21 June, the Financial Times published an article describing the role of the USA in ‘upholding Brazil`s democracy’ by ensuring that Bolsonaro and his military supporters accepted the 2022 election results. No surprises there; I suspect that this expected ‘light meddling’ on the part of Brazil’s northern neighbour was not done out of altruism or respect for democracy but due to its own internal dynamics, given that a successful ‘the election was stolen’ move by Bolsonaro might have given Trump and his supporters renewed—and possibly successful—impetus.

There have also been rumours of American government influence even before the Brazilian general elections. The real question is: since this story had been out for months and covered extensively by publications like Brasilwire, why did the FT release this piece now? The article itself gives us a few hints in its conclusion: the American administration is rather unhappy with Lula’s international performance and ‘lack of gratitude’.

Sure, when Lula is willing to cooperate on environmental issues and expand trade with the USA and European countries on their own terms, things are well and good. But when he oversteps the mark and returns from China with enormous trade deals, declares himself a spokesman for developing countries (including in relation to the war in Ukraine, which he refuses to support), or discusses issues that prove embarrassing to Western leaders—such as the rich world’s debt relationship with the rest of the world or the plight of refugees—then things turn sour.

Even left-wing commentators seem bothered by Lula`s international performance. In Novara, Joana Ramiro ends her downbeat piece on Lula’s environmental performance by stating that to beat the agribusiness caucus in Congress, Lula must curb his internationalist ambitions.

This is a strange conclusion, given that Lula’s environmental success at home is inextricably tied to international pressure for environmental action. If not, how else is he to beat the political backers of agribusiness, which number 300 out of 513 congresspeople, including an all-powerful House Speaker? How is he to deal with an unsupportive media, mutinous security forces, a wave of fake news pushed by Bolsonaro’s operation estimated to be believed by a quarter of Brazil’s population and a Central Bank that is independent of the government and hostile to its left-wing programme?

Not even the political talent that is Lula can do this. This is why he needs international support and funding for environmental and indigenous policies. Good trade deals are needed to counteract the Brazilian economy being sabotaged by Bolsonaro’s central banker. And despite the pessimistic predictions, Brazil’s economy is growing. Employment is up, inflation is down, and Lula has started to reduce deforestation—down by 31 percent compared with this time last year.

Despite the best efforts of the Brazilian Congress at taking power away from environmental minister Marina Silva and indigenous affairs minister Sonia Guajajara, new staff are being hired to bolster these agencies. Deforestation penalties are being applied, Lula has vetoed some of the changes introduced by Congress, and partnerships are being made with other ministries to ensure the policies he envisioned still go ahead.

Unfortunately, the so-called ‘internal crisis’ of Brazilian politics will continue, given the strength of the Right in and out of Congress—a legacy of the coup against President Dilma Rousseff, the rise of the extreme right and Bolsonaro’s administration. This means the current government will have to be consistently inventive to succeed.

However, giving up its international ambitions is not the way forward. Not for Brazil and not for the world. There are no other voices on the political horizon today that are as progressive, reasonable or courageous as Lula’s. He is the only major political figure currently willing to say what needs to be said for a sustainable, progressive future and one seeking genuinely cooperative solutions to the dark and deep issues of our times. Those of us in progressive movements would do well to remember this, as attacks on him will no doubt grow