Barral argued that Flávio Bolsonaro's letter to the USTR was commercially ineffective

Brazil's former Secretary of Foreign Trade, Welber Barral, stated that the letter sent by senator and presidential candidate Flávio Bolsonaro to the US Trade Representative (USTR) had no major commercial impact. Barral emphasized that the letter described Brazil's political landscape and the Lula government's approach to China, but had no direct bearing on the technical discussion at the center of the process. He noted that in the process conducted under Section 301 of the US and the upcoming hearing, the agenda consists of technical and legal matters where the details of the presented report are discussed. In this context, he evaluated that the letter was far from containing content that would change the course of the process or provide a technical contribution.

In his assessment, Barral stated that the proposals in Bolsonaro's letter, such as the Pix system and customs duty exemption for US-origin ethanol, were quite vague and dependent on complex processes within Brazil. He noted that recommendations like preventing Pix from moving away from the Western orbit or zeroing ethanol tariffs were not simply applicable proposals due to factors such as the complex negotiations currently being conducted, World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments, and sugar quotas. He expressed that the necessary infrastructure and legal ground for the implementation of such proposals were not indicated in the letter, and therefore they did not gain concreteness in practice.

Barral observed that the reactions of private sector actors to Flávio Bolsonaro's letter have so far been limited and cautious, explaining that the main reason for this was the ambiguity in the letter's content and lack of technical details. It was stated that the letter did not delve into the technical and legal dimensions of the Section 301 investigation being conducted on the US side, and therefore was not perceived as a serious proposal by the business world. It was understood that the letter, containing only a political assessment, could not find a response in the commercial and technical arena, so the reactions remained low-profile.

Barral continued his criticisms by arguing that the letter did not carry the nature of a government policy and raised serious questions regarding applicability considering the election calendar. He emphasized that the text consisted of non-concrete steps taken before winning the election or without a government program, and therefore could not be seen as an action plan. He stated that in a political atmosphere that could change depending on election results, the likelihood of these proposals being implemented in their current form remained very weak and unclear. Consequently, he concluded that the letter could have a limited impact due to both its technical insufficiency and political temporariness.

In conclusion, Welber Barral summarized that the letter in question did not have the weight to change the course of commercial relations between Brazil and the US and remained 'innocuous' in terms of effect. He stated that the letter contained more of a political message, but no practical result would emerge unless this was grounded in commercial and legal terms. Considering the seriousness and technical requirements of the process conducted at the USTR, he expressed that it did not seem possible for such political initiatives to produce a result on their own and change the existing trade balances.