Category World News

Two years into its war on Gaza, having killed more than 67, 000 people, forced a famine upon countless others and attacked its neighbours repeatedly, Israel stands isolated on the world stage and divided at home, analysts say.

Taking the podium at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in late September, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faced an audience of backs as delegate after delegate walked out in protest over what many call Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

Internationally, Israel is arguably more isolated and more reliant on the absolute support of the United States than ever as allies like the United Kingdom, France and even Germany condemn its war on Gaza.

At home, two years of war have shattered the image of what observers long described as a progressive liberal democracy, replacing it with something much darker, forbidding and extreme.

Fatigued and violent

“Israeli society is in excruciating pain over what it feels is its condemnation at the hands of world opinion”, Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli ambassador and consul general in New York, told Al Jazeera.

“In October 2023, the British Parliament, the Eiffel Tower and the Empire State Building were lit up in white and blue in support of Israel. Now, it’s ostracised”, he said.

“Israel and its politics is still in October 7”, Yossi Mekelberg, a senior consulting fellow at Chatham House, told Al Jazeera.

For two years, the Hamas-led attacks on October 7, 2023, during which 1, 139 people were killed and about 200 were taken captive, have been repeated and amplified across Israeli media.

Analysts described to Al Jazeera how political actors claimed that October 7 should define Israeli society and justify whatever action they choose to take in its name.

“The world has moved on, but Israel is stuck there. … That’s the justification for everything it does and why it still sees everyone in Gaza as complicit in that attack, even as it’s killed more than 65, 000 of them”, Mekelberg said.

Political scientist Ori Goldberg told Al Jazeera that “Israel has become fatigued and more violent at the same time”, adding that people have split into shifting camps, divided between those supporting, opposing or ignoring a war that continues regardless of public opposition.

Goldberg described people in everyday places finding ways to avoid “embarrassing” subjects – such as the captives who remain in Gaza despite 24 months of unrestrained assault by what they were told was one of the most powerful armies in the world.

Equally absent from public conversations is any mention of the escalating death toll in Gaza or of the famine and repeated displacement endured by those who have survived so far.

Meanwhile, the fate of the captives taken two years ago continues to consume their families and supporters, whose mass protests demanding a political deal to free them have persisted throughout the war.

Reinforcing that sense of trauma has been the return of thousands of reservists to their lives and families in Israel. Suicide, domestic abuse and what doctors in Israel have described as an epidemic of post-traumatic stress disorder have been the result.

“The toll of the war is visible everywhere”, Goldberg said.

Drivers on Israel’s roads have stopped using turn signals, oblivious or indifferent to other road users. At the beachside Gordon swimming pool in Tel Aviv, which has operated since 1956, a letter was sent to members in August urging them to “avoid any expression of physical or verbal aggression”.

Fighting for its soul

The sense of dislocation from the slaughter in Gaza is echoed in Israel’s parliament, where resistance to the war from the official opposition has focused only on the details of its prosecution while opposition to the war itself has been relegated to its fringes.

Meanwhile, with National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich now key to sustaining Netanyahu’s coalition, the far right has essentially gained a veto over policy.

“Israeli politics is in a fight for its soul”, Mekelberg said. “This didn’t start with the war, though the war’s accelerated it. It began with the last election and the legitimisation of far-right messianic forces by an opportunistic and cynical prime minister”.

From his re-election in 2022 to the onset of the war, Netanyahu has struggled to build and maintain a coalition to govern Israel.

In part, this has been due to the clash of his own right-wing policies, intended to appeal to the hard right and pro-settler groups. In part, analysts also attributed it to his ongoing trial on multiple corruption charges going back to 2019.

“Netanyahu is lucky in that his opposition is incompetent”, Pinkas said.

“They joined him for limited periods before leaving, which gave him legitimacy”, he said of how figures like opposition leader and Netanyahu’s former rival for prime minister Benny Gantz joined him in the security cabinet after the October 7 attacks.

“All the while, they’re captive to this outdated idea that when the military are fighting, we must all support the government.

” The public can see that’s not true, but it doesn’t really matter. As long as Netanyahu holds these right-wing lunatics close, he can survive, “Pinkas said.

From the destruction of Rafah in May 2024 to the breaking of a ceasefire in March&nbsp, and the ongoing assaults on Gaza City, the views of the extreme right have prevailed over those of the public, the military, the international community and the families of those still held captive in Gaza.

Israel’s messianic right and settler movements see themselves as being on a mission to permanently subvert Israeli democracy – a process the war has helped to advance, Mekelberg explained.

” This is why they want control of the ministries, why they want control over the domestic affairs of the West Bank, “he said, describing a” dark period “in Israel’s history, recovery from which is uncertain.

Pariahs

In recent months, previously stalwart backers such as the UK, Canada, France and Australia, prompted by the mounting death toll in Gaza and violent raids in the occupied West Bank, condemned their ally’s war on Gaza and recognised the State of Palestine.

The European Union, another historical supporter, is considering suspending its trade agreement with Israel and sanctioning its far-right ministers.

Within the UN, 159 of the UNGA’s 192 member states – and four of the five permanent members of the Security Council – now recognise Palestine. Only the US refuses to do so.

” At first, people said it was a misunderstanding or anti-Semitism – all the usual cliches, “Pinkas said.

” Then they said it was a Netanyahu problem, but that doesn’t work. People came to realise that, as far as the world is concerned, a country is its actions. In Israel’s case, over the last two years, that’s been to inflict a humanitarian catastrophe on Gaza, to commit war crimes and to be accused of genocide. “

In 2019, Pinkas recalled, Netanyahu ran an election campaign featuring images of himself alongside Russian President Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi under the banner headline: A different league.

Israel is in a different league now, Pinkas said –” one where it is as reviled internationally as North Korea”.

President Donald Trump has threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, the federal law dating back to 1807, if courts or state officials delay his plans to deploy soldiers to US cities in support of his anti-immigration crackdown.

The threat came as his efforts to deploy the National Guard in Portland, Oregon, were temporarily blocked by a federal judge on Monday, and the Democratic governor of Illinois dubbed troop deployment to the state capital, Chicago, an “invasion”.

The US president has already deployed troops in the federal district of Washington, DC, and the state of California, citing rising crime and the harbouring of undocumented immigrants.

So, why does Trump want to invoke the 19th-century act, and what are the legal hurdles ahead?

Is insurrection happening in Portland?

On Monday, Trump claimed that an insurrection is taking place in Portland, without evidence. “I really think that’s really criminal insurrection”, he said in the White House.

Democratic Oregon Governor Tina Kotek rejected the claim. “There is no insurrection in Portland. No threat to national security”, she said.

An insurrection is when people violently revolt against the government or those in power. But events in Portland do not support Trump’s claim.

Protests against Trump’s mass deportations indeed took place in Portland near an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building over the weekend. The protesters clashed with federal officers, including those affiliated with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Customs and Border Protection.

At least two people were arrested following the clashes on October 4. The police force said the two people were not following orders and were “in aggressive behaviour toward each other in the street”.

What is the Insurrection Act?

The Insurrection Act is a federal law that gives the US president the power to deploy the military or federalise National Guard troops anywhere in the US to restore order during an insurrection.

The National Guard is a branch of the US military that helps with both state and federal tasks. States mostly use it for emergencies, but the president can also send Guard troops on missions abroad. It is typically the governor of a state who can deploy National Guard troops in the respective state.

The Insurrection Act was signed into law in 1807 by then-President Thomas Jefferson. However, it can be traced back to the Militia Acts of 1792, two acts which defined the president’s power to call state militias into federal service during emergencies.

The Insurrection Act works in tandem with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prevents the president from invoking the National Guard. The president can circumvent the Posse Comitatus Act by invoking the Insurrection Act in the event of an insurrection.

On Monday, Trump said he would invoke insurrection if necessary. “We have an Insurrection Act for a reason”, he said. “If people were being killed and courts were holding us up, or governors or mayors were holding us up, sure”, he told reporters in the Oval Office.

Can Trump invoke the Insurrection Act?

Constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein told Al Jazeera that presidential powers under the Act apply only in cases of major rebellion, equivalent to the US Civil War, where normal law enforcement and courts can’t function.

“No underanged person believes a rebellion is under way in Portland”, Fein said.

However, Fein added that it is unclear whether a president’s declaration of insurrection can be challenged in court.

“Congress, however, could impeach and remove Trump for misuse of the Act in Portland”, Fein said, adding that military law obligates personnel to disobey orders that are clearly unlawful.

He said Trump’s use of the Act in Portland would be “clearly illegal” even if it cannot be challenged in court.

How did Trump deploy the National Guard without invoking the Act?

The first time Trump deployed the National Guard was in June, when he deployed 2, 000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles in California.

This was in response to protests in California against ICE arresting people for violating immigration laws in the city. California Governor Gavin Newsom did not agree with Trump’s National Guard deployment in his state back then.

Hence, instead of the Insurrection Act, which would have required Newsom’s approval, Trump invoked a similar federal law, called the Title 10 authority, to deploy the California National Guard without Newsom’s approval.

“Trump’s use of]Title 10] has been challenged in lower courts with mixed success. Will probably be soon decided by SCOTUS]Supreme Court of the United States] with odds in Trump’s favor”, Fein, the constitutional lawyer, said.

In August, he deployed 800 National Guard members to Washington, DC, citing a crime emergency and saying violent crime was out of control.

On Saturday, Trump authorised the deployment of 300 National Guard troops to Chicago, where citizens are protesting against an ICE immigration crackdown.

On Monday, Illinois leaders moved to take legal action against Trump over the deployment. The state of Illinois and city of Chicago filed a lawsuit in the US District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

The lawsuit says “these advances in President Trump’s long-declared ‘ War ‘ on Chicago and Illinois are unlawful and dangerous”.

Democratic Illinois Governor JB Pritzker said a court hearing is scheduled for Thursday.

When was the last time the Insurrection Act was invoked?

The Insurrection Act has been invoked in response to 30 incidents, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

The last time it was invoked was in 1992, in response to riots in Los Angeles by Republican President George HW Bush.

The riots broke out after four police officers were acquitted in the beating of Rodney King, a Black man. After six days of riots, 2, 000 National Guard troops and 1, 500 Marines were deployed. The violence resulted in 63 deaths and widespread looting, assaults and arson.

What is happening in Portland?

On Saturday, Trump used his Title 10 authority to send 200 National Guard troops to Oregon. However, a federal judge temporarily blocked the move. The temporary block lasts until October 18.

Following the court order, Newsom, the California governor, said on Sunday that Trump was sending 300 California National Guard members to Oregon. Washington has not officially made an announcement about this deployment. But Kotek confirmed that the California troops had already arrived in Oregon.

Newsom deemed the deployment a “breathtaking abuse of the law and power”.

French Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu has plunged France further into a political deadlock after he resigned just hours after forming a cabinet as Paris struggles to plug its mounting debt.

Lecornu – whose tenure, which ended on Monday, was the shortest in modern French history – blamed opposition politicians for refusing to cooperate after a key coalition partner pulled support for his cabinet. He joins a growing list of French prime ministers who since last year have taken the job only to resign a short time later.

Opposition parties in the divided French Parliament have increased pressure on President Emmanuel Macron to hold snap elections or even to resign – as have politicians and allies in his own camp. Analysts said Macron now appears to be caught on the back foot since Lecornu was widely seen as his “final bullet” to solve the protracted political crisis.

Here’s what to know about Lecornu’s resignation and why French politics are unstable:

What happened?

Lecornu and his ministers resigned on Monday morning after he had named a new government the previous day.

Lecornu took up his office on September 9 after his predecessor Francois Bayrou stepped down. His tenure lasted 27 days, the shortest since 1958 when France’s Fifth Republic began. He was France’s fifth prime minister since 2022 and its third since Macron called snap elections in June last year. He was formerly the minister of the armed forces from 2022 until last month.

In an emotional television address on Monday morning, Lecornu blamed political leaders from different ideological blocs for refusing to compromise to solve the crisis.

“The conditions were not fulfilled for me to carry out my function as prime minister,” the 39-year-old Macron ally said, adding that things could have worked if some had been “selfless”.

“One must always put one’s country before one’s party,” he said.

Macron, in what appeared to be a final attempt at stability, then asked Lecornu on Monday evening to stay on until Wednesday as the head of a caretaker government and to hold “final negotiations” with political parties in the interests of stability. It’s unclear what exactly these talks might entail or whether Lecornu might still emerge as prime minister at the end of them.

In a statement late on Monday on X, Lecornu said he accepted Macron’s proposal “to hold final discussions with the political forces for the stability of the country”. He added that he will report back to Macron by Wednesday evening and the president can then “draw his own conclusions”.

France expert Jacob Ross of the Hamburg-based German Council on Foreign Relations said the caretaker agreement was a “bizarre” one, even if legal, and underscored Macron’s desperation to project some form of control even as his options appear to be running out.

“For me, this really secures the narrative that Lecornu was Macron’s last bullet” to solve the current crisis, Ross said.

Why did Lecornu quit?

France has a deeply divided parliament that makes consensus difficult. Far-right and left-wing parties together hold more than 320 seats in the 577-seat lower house and abhor each other. Macron’s centrist and conservative bloc, which has tried to win conditional support from the left and right to rule, holds 210. No party has an overall majority.

After forming his government on Sunday, Lecornu immediately lost the support of the right-wing Republicans party (LR), which holds 50 seats, because of his choice for defence minister — former Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire.

LR President Bruno Retailleau, who was set to be interior minister in the government, announced on X on Sunday evening that his party was pulling out of the coalition because it did not “reflect the promised break” from pro-Macron ideologies initially assured by Lecornu. He said later on the broadcaster TF1 that Lecornu did not tell him Le Maire would be part of the government.

Le Maire is seen by many critics as representing Macron’s pro-privatisation economic policies and not the radical shifts that Lecornu promised in the three weeks of negotiations before forming a cabinet. Others, meanwhile, hold Le Maire responsible for overseeing the large public deficit during his term as finance minister from 2017 to 2024.

Lecornu’s exit affected the markets with stocks of prominent French companies dropping sharply by about 2 percent on the CAC 40, France’s benchmark stock index, although it has somewhat recovered since then.

Ministers who were supposed to form the government will now remain as caretakers until further notice. “I despair of this circus where everyone plays their role but no one takes responsibility,” Agnes Pannier-Runacher, who was set to be reappointed as ecology minister, said in a post on X.

Why has France’s politics become unstable?

The issues go back to the snap elections in June 2024, which produced a hung parliament consisting of Macron’s centrist bloc as well as left and far-right blocs. With Macron failing to achieve a majority and with parliament consisting of such an uncomfortable coalition, his government has faced hurdles in passing policies.

Added to the political impasse are Macron’s attempts to push through deeply unpopular austerity measures to close widening deficits that resulted from COVID-19-era spending.

Bayrou, who was prime minister from December to September, proposed budget cuts in July to ease what he called France’s “life-threatening” debt burden and cut public spending by 44 billion euros ($52bn) in 2026. His plans included a freeze on pensions, higher taxes for healthcare and scrapping two holidays to generate economic activity. However, they were met with widespread furore in parliament and on the streets and resulted in waves of protests across France. Parliament eventually rejected Bayrou’s proposals in September, ending his nine-month run.

Lecornu, meanwhile, had abandoned the holiday clause and promised to target lifelong privileges enjoyed by ministers. He had negotiated with each bloc for three weeks, hoping to avoid a vote of no confidence. By Monday, it was clear that his approach had not worked.

Public anger has increasingly also been directed at Macron since he first imposed higher fuel taxes in 2018 – and later scrapped them after large-scale protests. In April 2023, Macron again drew popular anger when he forced through pension reforms that raised the retirement age from 62 to 64. That policy was not reversed despite large protests led by trade unions. At present, the French president’s popularity in opinion polls has sunk to record lows.

“There is a numb anger in the voter base, a sense that politicians are playing around, and a huge part of the French electorate is disgusted,” Ross said. “My fear is that it is a potentially promising starting position to call for new elections but also a referendum on topics like migration and even France staying on in the European Union.”

What’s next for Macron?

Macron, due to be in office until April 2027, is increasingly under pressure. Opposition groups are capitalising on Lecornu’s resignation, and his own allies are publicly distancing themselves from him in a bid to boost their standing in the next elections, analysts said.

The anti-immigrant and anti-EU National Rally (RN) on Monday urged Macron to hold elections or resign. “This raises a question for the president of the republic: Can he continue to resist the legislature dissolution? We have reached the end of the road,” party leader Marine Le Pen told reporters on Monday. “There is no other solution. The only wise course of action in these circumstances is to return to the polls.” The RN is expected to gain more seats if elections are held.

Similar calls came from the left with members of the far-left France Unbowed party asking for Macron’s exit.

The president, who has not made a public statement but was spotted walking alone along the River Seine on Monday, according to the Reuters news agency, is also isolated within his own camp. Gabriel Attal, prime minister from January to September 2024 and head of Macron’s Renaissance party, said on the TF1 television channel that he no longer understood Macron’s decisions and it was “time to try something else”.

Edouard Phillipe, a key ally of Macron and prime minister from 2017 to 2020, also said Macron should appoint a caretaker prime minister and then call for an early presidential election while speaking on France’s RTL Radio. Phillipe, who is running in the 2027 elections under his centrist Horizons party, slammed what he said is a “distressing political game”.

France needs to “emerge in an orderly and dignified manner from a political crisis that is harming the country”, Philippe said. “Another 18 months of this is far too long.”

“People are seriously speculating that he might step down, and his allies are seeing him as political [dead] weight,” Ross said.

Macron, he added, has three options: elect yet another prime minister who might still struggle to gain parliamentary consensus, resign or more likely call for snap parliamentary elections – which could still fail to produce a majority government. All three options would come with their own challenges for the president, he noted. Macron has repeatedly ruled out stepping down.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva asked United States President Donald Trump to lift the 40 percent additional trade tariff imposed by the US government on Brazilian imports, in a phone call on Monday.

The leaders spoke for 30 minutes. During the call, they exchanged phone numbers in order to maintain a direct line of contact, and President Lula reiterated his invitation for Trump to attend the upcoming climate summit in Belem, according to a statement from Lula’s office.

The apparently friendly call may signal a turnaround in relations between the two, which have been strained in recent months, experts say. It also follows Trump’s comment that he had “excellent chemistry” with his Brazilian counterpart after the two had a brief, unscheduled meeting and even exchanged a hug on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York last Tuesday.

“I was surprised indeed,” Lula said about embracing the US president. “I was going to get my papers and leave, then Trump came to my side. A very friendly face, very nice, you know? I think there was some chemistry indeed.”

Since then, both sides have suggested that a formal, in-person meeting between the two could happen later this month.

Trump and Lula have been at loggerheads since July, when the US leader imposed tariffs totalling 50 percent on Brazilian exports (the 40 percent tariff plus a 10 percent standard tariff imposed by the current administration in Washington on all nations). In announcing those tariffs on Brazil, Trump cited what he described as a “fraudulent” prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro, who was recently sentenced to 27 years in prison for attempting to overturn the 2022 presidential election which he lost to Lula.

Why have tensions been building between Trump and Lula?

Although the US has a trading surplus with Brazil – meaning it exports more to Brazil than it imports – Trump nevertheless imposed a total 50 percent tariff on a number of Brazilian exports in July. In general, Trump has said that tariffs imposed on other countries’ exports are designed to redress the balance of a US trading deficit. That is not the case here.

Known as the “Trump of the Tropics”, Bolsonaro, a former army captain, led Brazil for a single term, from 2019 to 2023. Last month, Bolsonaro was sentenced to 27 years in prison for orchestrating an attempted military coup, following his 2022 electoral defeat to Lula.

Trump, who said he had many “shared values” with Bolsonaro, similarly claimed to have lost a “fraudulent” election to Joe Biden in 2020. There is no evidence to support this claim.

In his letter to Brazil to announce the new tariffs in July, Trump wrote: “The way that Brazil has treated…  Bolsonaro, a Highly Respected Leader throughout the World during his term, including by the United States, is an international disgrace.

“This trial should not be taking place,” he added. “It is a Witch Hunt that should end IMMEDIATELY!”

In addition to sky-high tariffs, Trump tried to further pressure Lula to drop the case by hitting supreme court justices with visa bans and slapping financial sanctions on the judge overseeing the case – Alexandre de Moraes.

He also revealed in his tariff letter to Brazil that he had directed US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer to investigate Brazil for unfair practices under the Trade Act of 1974.

Ultimately, however, Brazil went ahead with Bolsonaro’s prosecution, and the former president was convicted.

And even though Trump voiced surprise at Bolsonaro’s verdict – describing him as a “good man” on the day he was sentenced – the US president has since then not escalated further tariffs or other penalties against Brazil.

In mid-September, Lula described Trump’s tariffs in an interview with the BBC as “eminently political”, and told US consumers they would face higher prices for Brazilian goods as a result.

Why might Trump be softening his stance towards Lula now?

In an unplanned exchange on the sidelines of the UNGA in New York last Tuesday, the two presidents spoke in person for the first time. “At least for 39 seconds, we had excellent chemistry,” Trump said after their encounter.

“He seemed like a very nice man, actually,” Trump told reporters. “He liked me, I liked him.” His comments have been interpreted by some analysts as a potential thawing in recent US-Brazil relations.

However, Trump’s softer tone may have been prompted by hard economic realities, according to Pantheon Macroeconomics’ chief Latin America economist, Andres Abadia. The US depends heavily on Brazil for its coffee and meat imports, and both have taken a hit amid the tariff war. The result: Prices have shot up.

Brazil is the largest source of imported coffee for the US – responsible for $1.33bn out of the $7.85bn total coffee imports by the US in 2023, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC). But since the 50 percent tariffs kicked in, Cecafe, Brazil’s council of coffee exporters, said exports to the US fell by 46 percent in August and had dropped 20 percent more by September 19.

Amid that supply crunch, coffee prices in the US rose 21 percent in August compared with a year earlier, even as overall food price inflation hovered at about 3 percent, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

“The prospect of higher coffee prices,” Abadia said, “would be bad for Trump.”

Brazil is also the US’s third-largest source of imported meat, behind Australia and Canada, according to the US Department of Agriculture. “As with coffee, higher beef prices would hit Trump,” Abadia told Al Jazeera.

Beef and veal prices rose by almost 14 percent in August compared with a year earlier, according to the BLS.

By contrast, Brazil appears to have weathered Trump’s tariffs better than the US might have expected: Its overall exports grew in September, compared with a year earlier, as it expanded its offerings to other markets, including China and Argentina.

According to a new survey published on September 29 by The New York Times and Siena University, Trump’s approval ratings have fallen recently, with 58 percent of respondents saying they think the country is headed in the wrong direction.

“Inflation is definitely biting in the US,” says Abadia. “And anything that can be done to ease the pain, especially as we approach the holiday season, would be seen as positive.”

What’s in it for Lula?

Even though Brazil’s exports, on the whole, have not fallen, its declining access to the US – a critical market – could hurt the interests of its export-oriented industries.

Lula, experts say, may at least seek additions from Trump to a long list of Brazilian goods already exempt from tariffs – including civilian aircraft and orange juice. At the moment, meat and coffee are both tariffed at 50 percent.

But the Brazilian president may not be willing to offer the same sorts of one-sided concessions that Japan and the European Union agreed to – such as tariff reductions and investment pledges – to get their own trade deals through, say analysts.

Indeed, for his part, Lula’s feud with Trump has boosted his popularity, and Washington’s interventions in Brazilian politics have put the country’s conservatives on the back foot. Before next year’s presidential election, Lula is currently polling ahead of his top opponents, though the 79-year-old has not formally announced his bid. Lula was also the country’s president from 2003 to 2011.

Still, Abadia believes an opportunity for rapprochement is there. The most fertile area for compromise may lie in rare earth minerals. Brazil has the world’s second-largest reserves behind China. And for now, they remain largely untapped.

“Critical minerals are one area where bilateral interests align,” he said. “The US wants to diversify away from China and play an important role in the Brazilian market.”

Trump has shown a clear interest in rare earths, placing them at the heart of his deal with Ukraine, for instance. Brazil, on its part, wants to emerge as an exporter and supplier of these minerals.