“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 first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has
RSS