“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
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng (何立峰) are expected to meet this month in Paris to prepare for a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). According to media reports, the two sides would discuss issues such as the potential purchase of Boeing aircraft by China, increasing imports of US soybeans and the latest impacts of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. However, recent US military action against Iran has added uncertainty to the Trump-Xi summit. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) called the joint US-Israeli airstrikes and the
RSS