Since Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro took office in 2019, the fate of the Amazon and its indigenous peoples has been hanging by a thread. With the executive, legislative and judicial branches having now decimated the environmental agenda, Brazil’s pathways toward a greener future seem bleak.
Last year, deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon reached its highest level since 2006, while illegal mining in the legally protected Yanomami indigenous lands increased by 46 percent. Such gold mining led not only to malaria and mercury exposure, but also to unprecedented violence against indigenous peoples. In 2019, there were 277 registered cases of such violence, including 113 murders, 33 death threats, 16 cases of racist and ethno-cultural discrimination, and 10 instances of sexual violence.
The exploitation and destruction of the world’s largest rainforest relies on well-known methods. For starters, Bolsonaro’s government has neutered agencies created to protect the environment and indigenous peoples. They include the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources, the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation and the National Foundation for the Indigenous.
Bolsonaro’s administration has weakened these agencies in part by not enforcing environmental fines: Since 2019, 98 percent of administrative proceedings dealing with environmental crimes have been paralyzed. Funding to prevent and control forest fires has been slashed by about 38 percent compared with 2018. The government has also intimidated and removed public servants for being proactive in environmental enforcement, and legalized the actions of squatters and land-grabbers on indigenous lands.
Bolsonaro pursues a “take-no-prisoners” approach to reversing hard-won rights. Dismantling the authority of oversight and protection agencies, creating rules to impede environmental sanction processes, and capturing institutions takes time and requires a permissive institutional setting.
Bolsonaro is not quiet about it. He publicly incites invasions of indigenous lands, claiming that they should be occupied for mining, agriculture and cattle rearing. It is no coincidence that invasions, illegal mining and deforestation of indigenous lands have increased sharply – and gone unpunished – since 2019.
The president’s allies occupy key positions in the Brazilian Congress, where landowners and agribusiness are strongly represented (the “rural caucus” controls 245 of the chamber’s 513 seats). Congress is working on a raft of controversial bills that will most likely destroy natural resources and erode institutional safeguards, with dire consequences for the environment and indigenous people’s rights.
For example, bill 2159/21 will abolish environmental licensing. Bills 2633/20 and 510/21 encourage illegal occupation of public land, bill 6299/02 facilitates pesticide approvals and bill 490/07 adopts a timeframe criterion (marco temporal) — Oct. 5, 1988, the date when the Brazilian Federal Constitution was promulgated — as a condition for demarcating indigenous land. Finally, bill 191/20 allows for mining and hydroelectric dams on indigenous lands and has recently been fast-tracked through Congress with little debate or transparency.
For those seeking to preserve Brazil’s invaluable natural resources and to protect its indigenous peoples, the judiciary should be the natural forum of last resort. The Brazilian Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal, or STF) currently must decide seven lawsuits, known as the “green docket,” challenging the government’s environmental record. However, while final decisions are pending, the contrasting initial votes of two justices highlight the obstacles the green docket faces.
On the one hand, Justice Carmen Lucia likened the government’s attacks on the green agenda to a “colony of termites,” emphasizing the assault’s effectiveness in destroying protective mechanisms and, ultimately, democracy itself. However, Lucia went further, declaring that the government’s failure to protect the environment had created an “unconstitutional state of affairs.”
As Cesar Rodriguez-Garavito of New York University said, such a declaration might entail the court instructing “various government agencies to take coordinated actions to protect the entire affected population and not just the specific complainants in the case.”
A decision of this nature invites several challenges, including from critics of judicial activism. However, in the face of a systemic failure deliberately provoked by elected institutions, and an environmental emergency directly affecting Brazilian indigenous groups’ survival, the STF should assume its constitutional role.
Unfortunately, Lucia’s promising decision was suspended by a single justice, Andre Mendonca, a recent Bolsonaro appointee who previously served as his minister of justice. According to STF practice, there is no deadline for reconsidering a suspended lawsuit. Only Mendonca can decide if and when the STF will examine the matter — a mechanism that is widely regarded as a form of veto that harms the court’s legitimacy.
The remaining hope lies in mobilizing Brazilian civil society ahead of presidential and congressional elections in October. During the recent 18th Acampamento Terra Livre, a landmark event for indigenous resistance and the fight for rights, about 8,000 indigenous people from across the country occupied the federal government headquarters in Brasilia. For the first time, indigenous mobilization put institutional politics at the forefront, pre-launching congressional candidates with the slogan Retomando o Brasil: demarcar territorios e aldear a politica (Retaking Brazil: demarcating territories and reshaping politics with the villages).
On April 12, former Brazilian president and current candidate Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva visited the camp, and promised to demarcate indigenous territories and respect International Labour Organization Convention 169 if elected. That promise might not be enough, given the urgent environmental crisis, but bottom-up pressure is all we have.
Bolsonaro’s authoritarianism will make for a highly polarized election. He repeatedly questions the legitimacy of Brazil’s electronic ballots and mimics former US president Donald Trump’s threats not to accept the result if he loses. With deforestation in the Amazon increasing, the world’s hope for climate justice is as endangered as Brazil’s democracy.
Danielle Hanna Rached is professor of international law at the Getulio Vargas Foundation in Rio de Janeiro. Marta Machado, a professor at the Getulio Vargas Foundation Law School in Sao Paulo, is a researcher at the Brazilian Center of Analysis and Planning. Denise Vitale is professor of humanities and international relations at the Federal University of Bahia.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
As the Soviet Union was collapsing in the late 1980s and Russia seemed to be starting the process of democratization, 36-year-old US academic Francis Fukuyama had the audacity to assert that the world was at the “end of history.” Fukuyama claimed that democratic systems would become the norm, and peace would prevail the world over. He published a grandiose essay, “The End of History?” in the summer 1989 edition of the journal National Interest. Overnight, Fukuyama became a famous theorist in the US, western Europe, Japan and even Taiwan. Did the collapse of the Soviet Union mark the end of an era as
During a news conference with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida in Tokyo on Monday, US President Joe Biden for the third time intimated that the US would take direct military action to defend Taiwan should China attack. Responding to a question from a reporter — Would Washington be willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan? — Biden replied with an unequivocal “Yes.” As per Biden’s previous deviations from the script of the US’ longstanding policy of “strategic ambiguity” — maintaining a deliberately nebulous position over whether the US would intervene militarily in the event of a conflagration between Taiwan and
Will the US come to the defense of Taiwan if and when China makes its move? Like most friends of Taiwan, I’ve been saying “yes” for a couple decades. But the truth is that none of us, in or out of government, really know. This is precisely why we all need to show humility in our advice on how Taiwan should prepare itself for such an eventuality. After all, it’s their country, and they have no choice but to live with the consequences. A couple weeks ago the New York Times published an article that put this reality in stark relief. As
US President Joe Biden has done it again — for the third time in the past nine months he has stated that the US will defend Taiwan. And for the third time, his administration officials have rushed to “clarify” that US policy toward Taiwan “has not changed” and Washington still follows its “one China policy.” That is the same scenario that played out with two other presidents. When asked the question posed to Biden in 2001, then-US president George W. Bush said Washington would do “whatever it took” to defend Taiwan against Chinese aggression. In 2020, then-US president Donald Trump
RSS