The Humanitarian Social Network
Internationalization of amazonia forest: for or against?
During a lecture in one USA University, the former governor of Brasilia , Cristovam Buarque, was questioned his thoughts concerning the internationalization of Amazonia forest.
An American student introduced the question saying that he was expecting an answer from one humanist and not from one Brazilian.
What do you think about this controversial answer? For or against?
" In fact, as a Brazilian I would simply talk against the internationalization of Amazonia forest.
However our governors have not the due care with this patrimony, it is ours.
As humanist, feeling the risk of the environmental degradation suffered by the Amazonia region, I can imagine its internationalization, as also the internalization of all the other things which have importance for the humanity.
If Amazonia, under an humanist ethics, must to be internationalized, we will also internationalize the oil reserves around the world. The oil is so important for the welfare of humanity as much as Amazonia for our future. Despite of that, the owners of the oil reserves feel themselves with the right of increase or not its price. In the same way, the financial capital of the rich countries should be internationalized.
If Amazonia is a reserve for all human beings, it cannot be burned by the desire of one owner, or one country. To burn Amazonia forest is as serious as the unemployment provoqued by the arbitrary decisions of the global players. We cannot allow that the financial reserves work for burning entire countries in the voluptuousness of the speculation.
Even before of Amazonia forest, I would like to see the internationalization of all big museuns of the world.
The Louvre must not belong only to France.
Each of the world is a guardian of the most beautiful pieces produced by the human kind.One cannot let this cultural patrimony, as the natural Amazonic patrimony, be manipulated and destroyed by the desire of an owner or of a country. It was not long time ago, that a milionaire Japanese, decided to be buried together with him a picture of a great maester. Before of that, the picture should be made internationalized.
During this meeting, the United Nations are realizing a Forum of the Millenium, but presidents of some countries had difficulties to be present because of embarrassment in the USA frontiers.
Because of that, I think that New York, as the headquarter of United Nations, must to be internationalized. At least Manhattan should belong to the whole humanity. As well as Paris, Veneze, Rome, London, Rio de Janeiro, Brasilia, Recife, each town with its specific beauty, its history of the world, must belong to the entire world.
If the USA want to internationalize Amazonia forest, because of the risk of let it in Brazilians hands, we all will internationalizate the nuclear arsenal of USA. Even because the Americans already demonstrate that they are able to use those weapons, provoquing a destruction thousands of times bigger than the sorrofull forest fires made in Brazilian forests.
In their debates, the actual candidates to the USA presidence have being defending the idea of internationalizate the forest reserves of the world in exchange of the external debit.
We start using this debit to guarantee that each child of the world have possibility to eat and go to school.
We will internationalizate the children, treating them, all of them, does not matter in which country they were born, as a patrimony which deserves care of the entire world.
Even more than what Amazonia forest deserves.
When the managers treat the poor children of the world as an humanity patrimony, they will not allow them to work when they should be studing, that they die when they should live.
As an humanist, I accept to defend the internationalization of the world.
But while the world treat me as Brazilian, I will fight for that Amazonia forest continues to be ours. Only ours!
--------
Comments on this topic
-
Permalink Comment by Elliott Verreault on -
Very interesting approach Bruno. I don't know what to think. Quite a complex question. I'm curious though, what did the governor of Brasilia respond?
-
Permalink Comment by Frederic Dubois on -
Complex question indeed! As far as I think the sovereignty of the states clauses (which is in pretty much every international convention, starting from the Rio Convention to the Biodiversity Convention) is a problem to deal with International issues (such as environmental issues, which are transnational borders issues), it still remains that it protects countries against "tyranny" (what a strong word) of other countries that would want to impose their way of thinking, without considering the cultural complexity of one's country or region. Considering the fact that we all have an history, cultural background and values we want to protect, how to become a International citizen, to accept to put all our problems in one giant humanity melting pot and share, support and cooperate together without imposing one's personal view (that is, of course, if we do not agree on universal values, which deep down I think do exist, now let's find them!). Should policies start locally and then extend to higher political sphere? After all, who understands better the complexity of one's regional environmental than locals? But then again, to have in mind a larger picture of environmental issues wouldn't change one's perception of the problem and affect the way of dealing with one's environment? Tricky topic!!!
-
Permalink Comment by Bruno Aguiar Valadão on
-
Fred, very interesting approach!
Indeed, this is a very complex and controversial issue. This is why I wanted to share with all humanitarians. As a Brazilian, this issue touches me particularly and I needed to know the approaches of people from all over the world.
What is induscutable for me is the fact that Amazon is an universal heritage. I think that nature can not be nationalized.
I wonder how the Amazon might be internationalized while international society is totally anarchic in a legal perspective. Which law would subject the management of Amazon while there is no international law higher than law of states.
And what would worry me the most is seeing all the failures of climate conferences. While there is no consensus on many aspects of climate, should us put the Amazon into the hands of international society? May be Brazilian law would be more beneficial for the protection of the Amazon than eventual international regulation.
SORRY FOR MY ENGLISH!
-
-
Elliot, je me suis peut être mal expliqué. Le texte ci-dessus est la réponse du ministre brésilien suite à la question de l'étudiant américain sur la possibilité d'internationaliser l'Amazonie.
-
Permalink Comment by Elliott Verreault on
-
Désolé Bruno. Ton anglais est super, c'est plutôt moi qui a lu ton introduction trop vite. ;)
-
Permalink Comment by Elliott Verreault on
-
I agree with Fred though. State sovereignty is at the heart of international relations. It's dry interesting. As much as it is helpful for countries to protect their culture or territory, it can also become an obstacle when it comes to the protection of world heritage or global public goods as the academics would say.
I think this is a growing but still fairly young discussion. As much as I like the humanist perspective brought by the governor, in practical terms, I don't see this as possible anytime soon. But I hope future generations will continue to challenge this traditional state perspective. Our problems are global now. Yet we still approach them from a state perspective. Just looking at the UN climate negotiations clearly demonstrates our failure to come together rapidly to solve emergent crises.
I'm not Brazilian but I want the amazon protected too. It's actually in everyone's interest to protect it.
We want to hear from you!
EXPLORE CATEGORIES
Translation
ADS
© 2012 Created by Elliott Verreault.
