“The Amazon is ours,” then-Brazilian president Jose Sarney defiantly declared before the UN General Assembly in 1989. The slogan’s obvious nationalist force made it a favorite of right-wing politicians, including members of the Brazilian Congress linked to construction companies with stakes in the rainforest’s development. Thirty years later, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro is now leading their ranks and threatening the well-being not only of the Amazon, but also of Brazil and the entire planet.
Bolsonaro argues that Brazil’s claim to the Amazon is in the country’s best interests. The foreign actors who criticize Brazil’s exploitation of the rainforest — from European governments to Pope Francis — are promoting biodiversity only so that they can exploit it in the future.
With characteristic misogyny, Bolsonaro recently declared that “Brazil is like a virgin that every foreign pervert wants.”
However, Bolsonaro does not want to keep the Amazon chaste; he merely wants to be among those exploiting it. His promotion of the rainforest’s development and attacks on environmental regulation have led, for example, to the expansion of agribusiness, particularly cattle ranching and illegal logging.
According to data from Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research, deforestation of Brazil’s portion of the Amazon increased in June by 88 percent year on year.
Given Bolsonaro’s efforts to open up indigenous people’s lands to commercial agriculture and mining, deforestation is likely to accelerate further. During the period from 2000 to 2014, deforestation within indigenous territories progressed by 2 percent, compared with 19 percent for the rest of the Brazilian Amazon.
The implications are dire. The Amazon is the world’s largest rainforest and home to one of the planet’s highest concentrations of biodiversity. Moreover, because the Amazon River is the world’s largest single source of freshwater runoff, the rainforest’s hydrological cycle has a major influence on Earth’s climate, as well as serving as a massive carbon sink, absorbing more carbon dioxide than it releases.
Given the Amazon’s importance to the planet’s health, any effective international regime for climate action will have to account for public policies affecting it. It should be no surprise, then, that the international community is resisting Bolsonaro’s shortsighted approach to the Amazon, including through the recently concluded trade agreement between the EU and the Mercosur bloc of Latin American countries.
Brazil, a Mercosur member, has a clear interest in the trade agreement’s successful implementation. The association’s agreement with the EU promises to galvanize economic sectors on both sides of the Atlantic by creating an integrated market of 780 million consumers. Brazil’s beef industry, for example, is set to benefit considerably.
The problem for Bolsonaro is that the deal imposes high environmental and labor standards on Mercosur exporters. As part of their drive for sustainable development — and under pressure from civil society — EU leaders have made access to their market conditional on enforcement of multilateral rules and commitments, including the International Labour Organization’s fundamental conventions and the 2015 Paris climate agreement.
To be sure, environmental groups have criticized the Mercosur deal, arguing that it does not go far enough to ensure that standards are met.
However, EU leaders emphasize the inclusion of oversight and dispute-settlement mechanisms.
The trade agreement will continue to be scrutinized in the coming years, and not only with regard to the environment. Some have voiced concerns, for example, that it upholds the old division of labor between developing countries, whose economies depend on volatile commodities exports, and developed countries, which export higher-value-added manufactured goods.
Bolsonaro’s resistance to environmental standards makes monitoring and enforcement of the agreement’s terms all the more important. In fact, EU leaders should attempt to establish the EU-Mercosur deal as a transnational mechanism to hold countries accountable for flouting their environmental commitments and even for embracing anti-democratic practices that could affect their trading partners.
Declaring that “the Amazon is ours” might have been politically expedient in 1989, and Bolsonaro’s nationalist rhetoric has gotten him far, but in today’s globalized world, no economy can thrive by itself. Countries can and must hold one another accountable for policies — such as those that destroy the environment on which we all depend — with consequences that extend far beyond national borders.
Danielle Hanna Rached is a professor of international law at the Getulio Vargas Foundation in Rio de Janeiro.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS