Internationalization of the Amazon, Green Politics and Brazil
If there is anything that unites Brazilians of all political persuasions -- right, left or center -- and all ages -- young and old -- it is any suggestion by world politicians or prominent leaders that the Amazon should be subject to some form of international control -- for the good of all mankind, of course. Although this idea might be news to most people in other countries it was very common in Brazil, particularly in the 1980s. And nothing has changed! There is a segment of people in Brazil, mostly on the left, but with great influence in media, politics and the artistic and cultural communities that think the US Government stays awake at night plotting how to take control of the Amazon region away from Brazil. This idea has been fed to the Brazilian public for almost three decades now, sadly, many people believe it.
And it is not just the evil Republicans... notice Bill Clinton in the cartoon, reaching out for the Amazon. The fact is that this idea has been repeated so often by so many people in Brazil that, a la Goebbels, many people actually believe it. Below is a typical text by a certain Antonio Rezk of the so-called Movement Humanismo and Democracia (www.mhd.org) from a site called www.geografiaparatodos.com.br (Geography for everybody) regarding the Amazon:
The AMAZON AND THE GREED OF IMPERIALISM - the Amazon is a South American territorial fact that, coveted as granary of wealth, transposes the limits of the Amazonian Pact (signed June 3 of 1978) and of South America, becoming a geopolitical fact, and a target area for imperialist intromission. (the Columbian crisis and the intervention of U.S.A. do not leave doubts about this.) The main nation to be affected by imperialist greed is Brazil, holder of the biggest part of it. But it is exactly this territorial fact, whose virtual space and economic potentiality can become the basis for the foundation of a power in the southern hemisphere, that is the central element which attracts the strategical interests of the North American imperialism.
Joined by avarice of Western Europe and Japan, in the sweet ilussion that they can divide [among themselves] the Amazonian wealth, as if being superpowers would allow themselves to do something so daring, for beyond the superfluous leftovers [I have no idea what this means!]. (Perhaps it would be more convenient for them that the Amazônia should continue South American and clandestine). But the North American strategy is another one. [ha!] To the U.S.A. it is not convenient to have a possible rival power in the space of Americas; this area [the Americas] has to be exclusively its own [the US]. Clearly, a useless desert is not being disputed. A splendid territory is disputed, whose wealth can prolong the world-wide supremacy of North-America. The energy [potential] that exists in the southern subcontinent is vital to the great brother. The colonial ownership and the territorial fragmentation. This is the strategy of the imperialism for its peripheral areas. The Amazon and South America fit into this terrible logic....
In 1989, then senator and today candidate to the Presidency of USA. [John Kerry?], affirmed solemnly: "the Brazilians think that the Amazon is theirs. It is not. It belongs to all of us." More recently, the same affirmation was made by another [US] senator (Kasten), who adds: "just like the ozone, the rains, oxygen, etc., the Amazon must belong to all." In 83, Margareth Thatcher was more emphatical: "If the underdeveloped countries cannot pay their external debts, they should sell their wealth, their territories and their plants." Also Mitterand, in 89, affirmed: "it is necessary that Brazil accept a relative sovereignty over the Amazônia." Even Gorbatchev, in 1992, felt that it was his right to say: "Brazil must delegate part of its rights over the Amazon to competent international organisms." John Major, then first-minister of England: "the developed nations must extend the domain of the law over that which is common to all the world. The campaigns of the international ecologists which we are watching, past and present, about the Amazon region, are ending the propagandistic phase, to begin the operative phase that can definitively try direct military intervention in the region." More serious however, because it is directly linked to the interests of the United States imperialism, the strategy of which is the "definitive" the colonial incorporation of Latin America into its geopolitical context, are the affirmations of the Gen. Patrick Hugles, head of the Central Information Agency of the North American Armed Forces: "In case that Brazil decides to make use of the Amazônia, putting the United States environment at risk, we have to be ready to interrupt this process immediately." To which Mrs. Madeleine Allbright complements: "when the issue is the environment, borders do not exist." And history teaches us that when powerful State needs an excuse to intervene in another State, any excuse will do. This logic agrees with strategy of the Pentagon, published in The New York Times (10/3/92), which states that the objective is to hinder the rise of any military power outside of NATO. In 1995, the Head of the Joint general staff, the Gen. Collin Powell, recommended to the preservation of the North American military capacity at a level such to discourage any adversary who could defy North American power. He reserved a subordinate position for the Armed Forces of the Latin American countries, and so on bla, bla, bla. And then Gov. GW Bush of Texas declared after a meeting with Saint Peter: "We (the USA) not only want the Amazon, we also want the blood of your children, and most of all we want the secret of Corinthians 50 year winning streak."
Note: The text above is an accurate translation, even if then original is poorly written. This is a screen shot of this site: 
. All remarks between [brackets] above in the text are my clarifications. I tried to check the references and quotes in the text above, but no luck. If anybody can give me some feedback on this I would appreciate it. I added the last statement by GW - made it up because, well, to save Antonio Rezk the work of inventing another quote! Amigo e' pra estas coisas.
The Amazon is Brazil's Problem
Bye bye Amazon, represented by the Brazilian flag.
The basic notion behind this idea is that Brazil, and/or the Brazilians, are not caring for the "lungs of the world" and the Amazon is so important to all people that the United Nations (or the US) should take it away from the naughty Brazilians and put it under international supervision. Of course, this idea cannot happen without some sort of antecedent that causes great concern. The issue (or better, excise) is the deforestation and burning of the Amazon region, with roads being built into virgin forest, which was then burned to clear it for agriculture. Yes, this is bad, but...
It is a problem, a real, serious problem, but it is a Brazilian problem, thank you for your concern. Imagine you are Jose Caboclo (called Ze by his friends) and you have a wife, Maria Aparecida (Cida), and two kids, Jose Mario (known as Zumzum) and Clotilde (Clo), living on 50 acres in Amapa on the edge of "civilization". I would like to known why Green Party people, or anybody else, has the right to tell Ze that he cannot plant corn or mandioca to feed his family. The fact is that addressing issues that are far away, that do not immediately affect you, and that do not cause any pain or hardship to you is easy. Obviously there is a problem here but it is much greater than the Ze's 50 acres. Anyway the Brazilian government is very sensitive about the criticism it received, justly so. Dire projections about the rate of deforestation and burning (known as slash and burn by activists) have painted a picture of the Amazon as one big flaming inferno, which would turn the Amazon into a Sahara by 2020.
The left in Brazil, particularly the radicals, had a field day. The capitalist, imperialist pigs were going to take over the Amazon. Down with American Imperialism. Ianque go home, etc e tal...
American schools teach that the Amazon belongs to the UN
The UN takes over the Amazon It was at this time I was a subscriber to a Yahoo discussion group called CVL, a Portuguese language linguist group (Well, until I got kicked out of it because of my remarks about the stupidity of some CVL papers that were presented at the WSF - World Social Forum). One of the members posted a notice about how the gringos were teaching this idea in their school textbooks, and as definitive proof of this horrible deed, attached a picture of a page from that textbook -- seen by clicking on the icon here.
Here is the full text of the article:
3.5.5 - The former Int'l Reserve of the Amazon Forest.
Since the middle 80's the most important rain forest of the world was passed to the responsibility of the United States and the United Nations. It is named as FINRAF (Former International Reserve of the Amazon Forest) and its foundation was due to the fact that the Amazon is located in South America, one of the poorest regions on earth and surrounded by irresponsible, cruel and authoritarian countries. It was part of eight different and strange countries, which are in the majority of cases, kingdoms of violence, drug trade, illiteracy and an unintelligent and primitive people.
The creation of FINRAF were supported by all nations of G-23 and was really a special mission of our country and a gift of all the world, since the possession of these valuable lands to such primitive countries and peoples should condemn the lungs of the world to disappearance and of destroying in few years.
We can consider that this area has the most biodiversity in the planet, with a vast number of species of all types of animals and plants. The value of this area is unable to calculate, but the planet can be certain that the United States won't let these Latin American countries explorate and destroy this real ownership of all humanity.
FINRAF is like an international park, with very severe rules of exploration.
Damn Yankees, it really makes my blood boil! Stealing the Amazon was bad, and slandering the peoples of South America was absolutely abominable, but murdering the English language and coming up with a stupid, ugly anacronym such as FINRAF is the ultimate evil. I am not making this up. This was posted to the Internet group and some members took it seriously. To their credit, other members pointed out the fact that the text had a few, minor errors in it and it might not be real or that it could even be a joke. Even so maybe they should include a page like that in US textbooks, since so many American kids read and write at that level, or worse. Also, I doubt that even 10% of American Elementary school children can find the Amazon region on a map!
The last blade of Grass... pulled out by some tree-hugging idiot
Man and burnt rainforest.
This picture brings me to a pet peeve - the word "rainforest". I found this picture on the Internet and saved it, without keeping the URL or author. Bad boy! Anyway, the picture had a caption about a man in the rainforest, after a fire, weeping over the last blade of grass with a "dog" at his side. This is really touching art, and makes me want to go out and hug the nearest tree -- except that is a cholla cactus out in the front yard, and that's not a good idea. Anyway, the problem is that the idiot in the picture has yanked out the last blade of grass, instead of leaving in the ground to grow, and the "dog" next to him not a dog but a wolf, and it wouldn't be there next to a human. But then common sense and accuracy are less important than artistic sentiment, I guess. Anyway the picture pretty much sums up the real attitude of much of the so-called environmental movement - sentiment over substance. Oh yes, the trees in the Amazon do not grow like in the picture and 'rainforest' terrain is basically flat, very different from that shown in the picture. Que burrice!
What is a rainforest?
Back to rainforest... I would like to share with you the common definition of "rainforest" and the true definition
According to many dictionaries, the definition of rainforest is: the dense tropical forest that grows in the hot, tropical regions of the world -- where there is always heavy rainfall (www.oxfam.org.uk); or
A dense evergreen forest occupying a tropical region with an annual rainfall of at least 2.5 meters (100 inches). This definition is from Dicionary.com. Of course, other sites will use fancy words like "biome," "biomass," "hygrophilous," and "ecosystem," but I try to keep things simple!
Fortunately I have the true definition: rainforest is a bunch of trees where it rains a lot in a third world country populated by little brown men that need the help of superior, cultured, socially conscience activists in the US and Europe, so that they too can use cute words like biodiversity, multicultural, sustainable development, permaculture and blame everything on the capitalist system.
Actually "rainforest" is a good word, but it has assumed a sacred connotation that transcends leaf and bark. In the same way, the word "jungle" and been banned, condemned to eternal obscurity, because it sounds too dismal. So, rainforest, good, jungle, bad. What happened I guess was in the early 1980s they cut down all the jungles and re-planted them with rainforests, and now the world is much better. I am sorry about the jungles, but they had to go. Hey, life is a rainforest out there. Another problem with "rainforest" is that it does not translate well into Portuguese or Spanish. In Brazil you say "floresta" or "selva", never floresta de chuva or floresta pluvial. Maybe the best they can do is floresta tropical. It don't work. "Selva," the word for "jungle" has been pretty much dropped, for the same reasons. The sad truth is that in Brazil, when referring to thick vegetation of the type we are discussing, ordinary people will almost always use the words mato or mata, not floresta or selva. This would or should drive the "greens" nuts, because these words (mato and mata) have a certain sense of nuisance vegetation, associated with worthless plants.
So who really wants to take control of the Amazon?
Please understand I am a conservationist. I love forests and deserts. I fight urban sprawl in Phoenix. We need to care for our natural resources and use them in a reasonable, balanced manner. Unfortunately so many of the "green" activist organizations care little about nature, but rather use it as a means to attack western democracy and progress. An example of this: 1. I enter "Amazonia" in Google. 2. I choose a link and go to "www.amazonia.org" (). 3. I pick a link (anti-WTO) and then another. 4. Soon I find myself reading stuff like this:
Construindo a socioeconomia popular solidária no Brasil: Os segmentos populares da sociedade civil planetária compostos por contingentes oprimidos, explorados, expropriados, dominados, excluídos e por todos aqueles que lhes são solidários, vêm se organizando internacionalmente não apenas na resistência à globalização capitalista, mas na construção de novas relações sociais, econômicas, políticas e culturais que tenham o potencial de dar origem a uma nova civilização, multicultural e que desejem a liberdade de cada outro em sua diferença.
(by Rosemary Gomes e Euclides André Mance, from www.Facesdobrasil.org.br).
I won't even bother to translate. This is a screen shot of that page: . It is not about trees or the forest, but about radical leftist ideology. This is basic Marxist dogma, no more and no less. So it is, so many of the "green" organizations have links, direct and indirect, to left-wing and Marxist groups that have little or nothing to do with making a better planet, much to the contrary. In fact, does anybody need to be reminded of the Communist countries' record on the environment? What have the leftists or 'greens' ever done to feed people? The fact is that any and all food production increases in the last 4 decades have come from the work of scientists and corporate labs, that have developed new strains of plants as well as better agricultural technology. These have saved hundreds of millions of people from starvation. Of course, these people don't use all the cute words and pretty phrases that the "greens" and environmentalists do.
Another link from the Amazonia.org site takes me to the 1992 UN sponsored report called Amazonia Without Myths. From there I go to another link and I find a paper by Mikael Román called Amazonia as an International Policy Issue: Problems and Opportunities for Institution Building published in 2000 by the Inter-American Development Bank for the United Nations Development Programme, from which I would like to extract a few paragraphs (in italics below):
Summary: This paper seeks to discuss the political dimension of international environmental issues
with a particular focus on Amazonia. What is it that makes international environmental
issues so controversial? To what extent, and in what sense, are they different from other
policy issues? What are the implications when we seek to create new regulatory
institutions for the management of natural resources? What are the conditions for the
specific case of Amazonia? The notion guiding this effort is that that our conception of the
environment to a high extent decides the design of a new regulatory institution - and thus
indirectly its later provision of results! Consequently, there is a need to discuss the
environment from its characteristics as an international policy issue...
To conclude these tasks, the paper elaborates on three issues. First, it establishes a
theoretical apparatus that defines in what ways the environmental agenda differs from
other international policy issues. Second, this framework is thereafter applied on the
specific case of Amazonia in order to pinpoint the political knots of that particular
debate. Finally, through these discussions we are also able to frame some of the critical
aspects in the creation of new regulatory environmental institutions for natural resource
management...
The management of Amazonia has in recent years become one of the most influential
issues in the global environmental debate...
Thus, the transboundary character of both the Amazonian eco-systems and the effects
following from predatory environmental practices in the region has highlighted the need
for international institutions regulating the use and management of the Amazonian natural
resources...
The issue is delicate and truly multi-faceted. Apart from the stricter
environmental concerns other considerations, such as geostrategic concerns and social and
economic aspects, are also involve. Here, one can assume that global, regional, federal,
and local interests may differ substantially...
This overall question of how one perceives of, or frames, the Amazon issue will no doubt
have strong implications on both the design and effectiveness of future regulatory
institutions in the region...
In short, there seems to be a need to address this question at a more general level, i.e.
without any ambitions to point out what is right or wrong. After all, the political process
is basically an arena for conflict resolution between diverging interests...
One important feature of international environmental issues is their markedly
transboundary character. This phenomenon is reflected in numerous ways, but it is most
clearly illustrated by the fact that neither the eco-systems, nor the possible consequences
of environmental destruction, recognize any international borders...
Final Remarks... the high degree of interdependence, the strong tension between
ecological preservation and economic development, the transboundary features of the eco-
system, and its apparent characteristics of a collective good are all components that make
Amazonia an intriguing international policy issue. Finally, this multi-faceted picture of both international in general, and the Amazon issue
in particular, would thus support a more institutionalist approach for the creation of new
regulatory frameworks. The transboundary character of the environment, its appearance as
a collective good, the long time-frames and high degree of uncertainty, the many actors
involved - all seem to indicate that new regulatory institutions have to be flexible and
constantly evolving.
Hummm, sounds a lot like the stuff at the beginning of this page - about people who want to take control over the Amazon away from Brazil and other South American countries. Notice the vague and ambiguous language about this "delicate" issue: "new regulatory institutions," "collective good," "transboundary" and so on. Why don't they just come out and say that they want control over the Amazon, to save it for the "good of all humanity". How about a little honesty? And so we come full circle. This is not the US government, but the UN and all the environmental groups that say they want to save the Amazon. For themselves! So, as far as I'm concerned, leave the Amazon to the Brazilian people and their elected officials. Let Lula and his government do what is best for the people of Brazil, and forget the many "helping" environmental organizations and UN related groups that proclaim their concern with the Amazon. These groups, for the most part, are not to be trusted.
So what is Brazil doing about the problem?
As usual in Brazil, the first thing they will do is make jokes. The cartoonists will have a field day, but this is good. These cartoons illustrate serious points about the situation in the Amazon region. Editorial cartoons (called charges in Brazil) are extremely effective in focusing attention to social, economic and environmental problems. In the first cartoon, the artist is making fun of impotence of President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who boldly says: "Just let them try to take the Amazon." I had to censor the picture - but it was, however, only a small bit of censorship. The next cartoon is about the extinction of animals in the Amazon. The third cartoon depicts some people complaining about the deforestation of the region. The fourth icon is my favorite cartoon. It shows that the Brazilian Government has taken effective steps to protect the Amazon: putting up "Stay off the Grass" signs. Yep, that will take care of the problem!
Actually Brasilia is doing something. Maybe not enough, but there is a consciousness at the Brazilian Federal level that steps have to be taken to protect and preserve the environment. First they have set up a satellite-based monitoring program called Sivam to watch over different aspects of the Amazon region (see first icon). Of course, the left sees it as an American plot to take over the region (second icon). Another thing that Brazil is doing is sponsoring educational programs like this pamphlet (cartilha) by Ibama (see third icon) on the importance of fighting pollution. It may not be enough but at least there is a growing understanding that it is in Brazil's best interests to preserve and rationally use the natural resources of the region. Two important steps that have been taken are to set aside large areas for new Indian reservations and to set up a defense mechanism to protect Amazonia, the indigenous people and the natural riches. The invasion of native, tribal lands by outsiders (prospectors, farmers, drug dealers, lumber companies, etc...) is a big problem. The use of airplanes and Amazon lands to grow coke is such a problem that the Lula Government announced that it would shoot down unidentified planes. Of course, as usual, the cartoonist makes fun of this, pointing out the lack of resources to enforce this action (4th icon, in which kites are used to bring down contraband planes).
Save the Amazon
I am very cynical about this whole thing. I care, and I think the problems relating to the deforestation and devastation in the Amazonas region are grave issues. I have no idea how to make things better, except to have good laws and have them rigously enforced - by the Brazilian government. On the other hand, based upon my knowledge of the elected officials in Brazil, I will not hold my breath while waiting for this to happen.
One thing I also know is that 90% of the "environmental" groups that are out there engaged in saving the Amazon are scams. They do nothing, they help nobody. They are nothing but fancy websites, cute words, overpaid non-profit executives and stupid ideas. This goes for both the big groups (Greenpeace, Amazonia.org, Ran.org, Amazonconservation.org, etc..) and the smaller ones (lifeismagic.com, rainforestconcern.org, rainforest-alliance.org) and so on. I checked out a few of them based upon an Internet search. For the most part I got bad statistics, doubtful science, old and outdated information, phone numbers that didn't work, unrealistic objectives, unverifyable results and lots of requests for money like this to buy a hundred acres of rainforest: ). This is one of many sites, all with the same general information about the Amazon, its resources and its importance to mankind. My favorite statement is that "fact" that since the arrival of the Europeans, over 90% of the original native population has disappeared. Well, unless there are a couple of 505 year old Tupi indians out there, make that 100%. Obviously these people have no idea what it is like to own land in Brazil and work with INCRA, MMA, MDA, FUNAI and other Brazilian Government agencies, or of dealing with documentation, legislation, lawyers, taxes and fees in Brazil. Also, of the people I called, none spoke much Portuguese. You would expect that these brave, altruistic people saving Brazil from the Brazilians would be able to say more than "un poquito" when I asked in Portuguese "Alguem ai fala Portugues?" Oh well. I bet they could do better if I had asked "Where can I send a check?".
Another thing... Once again, 90% of these non-profit "developments" or "save the rainforest" schemes are failures. They are not economically viable and they simply do not work. Period. The only crop they yield is the money given by the fools in the US or Europe that naively want to help. I guess that in one sense, these "green" enterprise do produce green results. The fact is that there are about a thousand non-profit environmental organizations and nature conservatory foundations on the Internet. On these, the "Click here to donate" buttons are only out-numbered by the use of the word "sustainable". Obviously these people believe that if you use the word "sustainable" in every sentence in every page, life will be grand and the planet will be saved, forever. Once again, let me make it clear that, for the most part, these projects are not workable or economically viable, and only will continue as long as donations flow in. I believe that some specialized agriculture, or eco-friendly farms and ranches (such as some 'permaculture' type experiments) can indeed work, but only the most favorable conditions and in specific markets. Most of the time, they cannot compete with commercial enterprises. Sorry, that is the sad truth. I wish it were otherwise.
What to do, then? I don't really know! The answer is not a bunch of cute web pages saying sweet irrelevancies, or filling pages with cute words and pretty pictures. A few good laws and the strenghth and will to back them up would be great.
Update: a tragedy in the Amazon
In February 2005, Dorothy Stang, a 74-year-old American-born nun was shot dead by hired gunmen in the State of Pará, Brazil. She had fought for decades to protect the rainforest and its people from illegal loggers and large ranchers (who often don't even use the land productively!). So little has changed in the 16 years since Chico Mendes, another environmentalist, was murdered. As with Dorothy, his death drew worldwide attention to the problems in the Amazon, then things went back to normal (ie, bad!). I view this horrible event with mixed feelings: first the death of any individual is a tragedy. I am glad that this story is in newspapers and TV reports all over the planet. Maybe something good will come of it; maybe some needed changes will occur. On the other hand, if it had been Jose Caboclo or his wife Maria Aparecida (see story above) who had been killed, for any reason, there would have been no story. This happens everyday, dozens of times, and nobody cares. This whole problem is much greater than the Amazon or the environment; it is about justice and respect for life and the law. Yes, Brazil has a problem!
The Brazilian government said it would dispatch army, air force and police units to Para state - an area twice the size of France, which has Brazil's highest murder rate in land battles. As usual, too little and too late. I have added a few more cartoons that appeared after the poor woman's death. These offer a better and deeper commentary on the issue than I can ever hope to write. They are pretty much self-explanatory. This whole issue is sad, very sad!
Think what you may of this women and her politics, I don't really know enough about her life and work to judge. One thing is certain, however, at least she was there, on the ground, in the Amazon, among the common people, fighting for her beliefs. She was not sitting in some air-conditioned office in New York writing another cute story about some ring-tailed blue feathered monkey species that needs to be saved from extinction, and waiting for people to donate money, of which - on a good day - only about 10% ever gets across the equator, and of that 90% is lost to corrupt officials and worthless activists more interested in personal gain or politics than in nature.
(May 2005)
If there is anything that unites Brazilians of all political persuasions -- right, left or center -- and all ages -- young and old -- it is any suggestion by world politicians or prominent leaders that the Amazon should be subject to some form of international control -- for the good of all mankind, of course. Although this idea might be news to most people in other countries it was very common in Brazil, particularly in the 1980s. And nothing has changed! There is a segment of people in Brazil, mostly on the left, but with great influence in media, politics and the artistic and cultural communities that think the US Government stays awake at night plotting how to take control of the Amazon region away from Brazil. This idea has been fed to the Brazilian public for almost three decades now, sadly, many people believe it.
And it is not just the evil Republicans... notice Bill Clinton in the cartoon, reaching out for the Amazon. The fact is that this idea has been repeated so often by so many people in Brazil that, a la Goebbels, many people actually believe it. Below is a typical text by a certain Antonio Rezk of the so-called Movement Humanismo and Democracia (www.mhd.org) from a site called www.geografiaparatodos.com.br (Geography for everybody) regarding the Amazon:
. All remarks between [brackets] above in the text are my clarifications. I tried to check the references and quotes in the text above, but no luck. If anybody can give me some feedback on this I would appreciate it. I added the last statement by GW - made it up because, well, to save Antonio Rezk the work of inventing another quote! Amigo e' pra estas coisas.
Bye bye Amazon, represented by the Brazilian flag.
The basic notion behind this idea is that Brazil, and/or the Brazilians, are not caring for the "lungs of the world" and the Amazon is so important to all people that the United Nations (or the US) should take it away from the naughty Brazilians and put it under international supervision. Of course, this idea cannot happen without some sort of antecedent that causes great concern. The issue (or better, excise) is the deforestation and burning of the Amazon region, with roads being built into virgin forest, which was then burned to clear it for agriculture. Yes, this is bad, but...
It is a problem, a real, serious problem, but it is a Brazilian problem, thank you for your concern. Imagine you are Jose Caboclo (called Ze by his friends) and you have a wife, Maria Aparecida (Cida), and two kids, Jose Mario (known as Zumzum) and Clotilde (Clo), living on 50 acres in Amapa on the edge of "civilization". I would like to known why Green Party people, or anybody else, has the right to tell Ze that he cannot plant corn or mandioca to feed his family. The fact is that addressing issues that are far away, that do not immediately affect you, and that do not cause any pain or hardship to you is easy. Obviously there is a problem here but it is much greater than the Ze's 50 acres. Anyway the Brazilian government is very sensitive about the criticism it received, justly so. Dire projections about the rate of deforestation and burning (known as slash and burn by activists) have painted a picture of the Amazon as one big flaming inferno, which would turn the Amazon into a Sahara by 2020.
The left in Brazil, particularly the radicals, had a field day. The capitalist, imperialist pigs were going to take over the Amazon. Down with American Imperialism. Ianque go home, etc e tal...
The UN takes over the Amazon It was at this time I was a subscriber to a Yahoo discussion group called CVL, a Portuguese language linguist group (Well, until I got kicked out of it because of my remarks about the stupidity of some CVL papers that were presented at the WSF - World Social Forum). One of the members posted a notice about how the gringos were teaching this idea in their school textbooks, and as definitive proof of this horrible deed, attached a picture of a page from that textbook -- seen by clicking on the icon here.
Here is the full text of the article: 
Man and burnt rainforest.
This picture brings me to a pet peeve - the word "rainforest". I found this picture on the Internet and saved it, without keeping the URL or author. Bad boy! Anyway, the picture had a caption about a man in the rainforest, after a fire, weeping over the last blade of grass with a "dog" at his side. This is really touching art, and makes me want to go out and hug the nearest tree -- except that is a cholla cactus out in the front yard, and that's not a good idea. Anyway, the problem is that the idiot in the picture has yanked out the last blade of grass, instead of leaving in the ground to grow, and the "dog" next to him not a dog but a wolf, and it wouldn't be there next to a human. But then common sense and accuracy are less important than artistic sentiment, I guess. Anyway the picture pretty much sums up the real attitude of much of the so-called environmental movement - sentiment over substance. Oh yes, the trees in the Amazon do not grow like in the picture and 'rainforest' terrain is basically flat, very different from that shown in the picture. Que burrice!
. It is not about trees or the forest, but about radical leftist ideology. This is basic Marxist dogma, no more and no less. So it is, so many of the "green" organizations have links, direct and indirect, to left-wing and Marxist groups that have little or nothing to do with making a better planet, much to the contrary. In fact, does anybody need to be reminded of the Communist countries' record on the environment? What have the leftists or 'greens' ever done to feed people? The fact is that any and all food production increases in the last 4 decades have come from the work of scientists and corporate labs, that have developed new strains of plants as well as better agricultural technology. These have saved hundreds of millions of people from starvation. Of course, these people don't use all the cute words and pretty phrases that the "greens" and environmentalists do.
Another link from the Amazonia.org site takes me to the 1992 UN sponsored report called Amazonia Without Myths. From there I go to another link and I find a paper by Mikael Román called Amazonia as an International Policy Issue: Problems and Opportunities for Institution Building published in 2000 by the Inter-American Development Bank for the United Nations Development Programme, from which I would like to extract a few paragraphs (in italics below):
Summary: This paper seeks to discuss the political dimension of international environmental issues
with a particular focus on Amazonia. What is it that makes international environmental
issues so controversial? To what extent, and in what sense, are they different from other
policy issues? What are the implications when we seek to create new regulatory
institutions for the management of natural resources? What are the conditions for the
specific case of Amazonia? The notion guiding this effort is that that our conception of the
environment to a high extent decides the design of a new regulatory institution - and thus
indirectly its later provision of results! Consequently, there is a need to discuss the
environment from its characteristics as an international policy issue...
To conclude these tasks, the paper elaborates on three issues. First, it establishes a
theoretical apparatus that defines in what ways the environmental agenda differs from
other international policy issues. Second, this framework is thereafter applied on the
specific case of Amazonia in order to pinpoint the political knots of that particular
debate. Finally, through these discussions we are also able to frame some of the critical
aspects in the creation of new regulatory environmental institutions for natural resource
management...
The management of Amazonia has in recent years become one of the most influential
issues in the global environmental debate...
Thus, the transboundary character of both the Amazonian eco-systems and the effects
following from predatory environmental practices in the region has highlighted the need
for international institutions regulating the use and management of the Amazonian natural
resources...
The issue is delicate and truly multi-faceted. Apart from the stricter
environmental concerns other considerations, such as geostrategic concerns and social and
economic aspects, are also involve. Here, one can assume that global, regional, federal,
and local interests may differ substantially...
This overall question of how one perceives of, or frames, the Amazon issue will no doubt
have strong implications on both the design and effectiveness of future regulatory
institutions in the region...
In short, there seems to be a need to address this question at a more general level, i.e.
without any ambitions to point out what is right or wrong. After all, the political process
is basically an arena for conflict resolution between diverging interests...
One important feature of international environmental issues is their markedly
transboundary character. This phenomenon is reflected in numerous ways, but it is most
clearly illustrated by the fact that neither the eco-systems, nor the possible consequences
of environmental destruction, recognize any international borders...
Final Remarks... the high degree of interdependence, the strong tension between
ecological preservation and economic development, the transboundary features of the eco-
system, and its apparent characteristics of a collective good are all components that make
Amazonia an intriguing international policy issue. Finally, this multi-faceted picture of both international in general, and the Amazon issue
in particular, would thus support a more institutionalist approach for the creation of new
regulatory frameworks. The transboundary character of the environment, its appearance as
a collective good, the long time-frames and high degree of uncertainty, the many actors
involved - all seem to indicate that new regulatory institutions have to be flexible and
constantly evolving.
Hummm, sounds a lot like the stuff at the beginning of this page - about people who want to take control over the Amazon away from Brazil and other South American countries. Notice the vague and ambiguous language about this "delicate" issue: "new regulatory institutions," "collective good," "transboundary" and so on. Why don't they just come out and say that they want control over the Amazon, to save it for the "good of all humanity". How about a little honesty? And so we come full circle. This is not the US government, but the UN and all the environmental groups that say they want to save the Amazon. For themselves! So, as far as I'm concerned, leave the Amazon to the Brazilian people and their elected officials. Let Lula and his government do what is best for the people of Brazil, and forget the many "helping" environmental organizations and UN related groups that proclaim their concern with the Amazon. These groups, for the most part, are not to be trusted.
As usual in Brazil, the first thing they will do is make jokes. The cartoonists will have a field day, but this is good. These cartoons illustrate serious points about the situation in the Amazon region. Editorial cartoons (called charges in Brazil) are extremely effective in focusing attention to social, economic and environmental problems. In the first cartoon, the artist is making fun of impotence of President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who boldly says: "Just let them try to take the Amazon." I had to censor the picture - but it was, however, only a small bit of censorship. The next cartoon is about the extinction of animals in the Amazon. The third cartoon depicts some people complaining about the deforestation of the region. The fourth icon is my favorite cartoon. It shows that the Brazilian Government has taken effective steps to protect the Amazon: putting up "Stay off the Grass" signs. Yep, that will take care of the problem!
Actually Brasilia is doing something. Maybe not enough, but there is a consciousness at the Brazilian Federal level that steps have to be taken to protect and preserve the environment. First they have set up a satellite-based monitoring program called Sivam to watch over different aspects of the Amazon region (see first icon). Of course, the left sees it as an American plot to take over the region (second icon). Another thing that Brazil is doing is sponsoring educational programs like this pamphlet (cartilha) by Ibama (see third icon) on the importance of fighting pollution. It may not be enough but at least there is a growing understanding that it is in Brazil's best interests to preserve and rationally use the natural resources of the region. Two important steps that have been taken are to set aside large areas for new Indian reservations and to set up a defense mechanism to protect Amazonia, the indigenous people and the natural riches. The invasion of native, tribal lands by outsiders (prospectors, farmers, drug dealers, lumber companies, etc...) is a big problem. The use of airplanes and Amazon lands to grow coke is such a problem that the Lula Government announced that it would shoot down unidentified planes. Of course, as usual, the cartoonist makes fun of this, pointing out the lack of resources to enforce this action (4th icon, in which kites are used to bring down contraband planes).
). This is one of many sites, all with the same general information about the Amazon, its resources and its importance to mankind. My favorite statement is that "fact" that since the arrival of the Europeans, over 90% of the original native population has disappeared. Well, unless there are a couple of 505 year old Tupi indians out there, make that 100%. Obviously these people have no idea what it is like to own land in Brazil and work with INCRA, MMA, MDA, FUNAI and other Brazilian Government agencies, or of dealing with documentation, legislation, lawyers, taxes and fees in Brazil. Also, of the people I called, none spoke much Portuguese. You would expect that these brave, altruistic people saving Brazil from the Brazilians would be able to say more than "un poquito" when I asked in Portuguese "Alguem ai fala Portugues?" Oh well. I bet they could do better if I had asked "Where can I send a check?".
Another thing... Once again, 90% of these non-profit "developments" or "save the rainforest" schemes are failures. They are not economically viable and they simply do not work. Period. The only crop they yield is the money given by the fools in the US or Europe that naively want to help. I guess that in one sense, these "green" enterprise do produce green results. The fact is that there are about a thousand non-profit environmental organizations and nature conservatory foundations on the Internet. On these, the "Click here to donate" buttons are only out-numbered by the use of the word "sustainable". Obviously these people believe that if you use the word "sustainable" in every sentence in every page, life will be grand and the planet will be saved, forever. Once again, let me make it clear that, for the most part, these projects are not workable or economically viable, and only will continue as long as donations flow in. I believe that some specialized agriculture, or eco-friendly farms and ranches (such as some 'permaculture' type experiments) can indeed work, but only the most favorable conditions and in specific markets. Most of the time, they cannot compete with commercial enterprises. Sorry, that is the sad truth. I wish it were otherwise.
What to do, then? I don't really know! The answer is not a bunch of cute web pages saying sweet irrelevancies, or filling pages with cute words and pretty pictures. A few good laws and the strenghth and will to back them up would be great.
In February 2005, Dorothy Stang, a 74-year-old American-born nun was shot dead by hired gunmen in the State of Pará, Brazil. She had fought for decades to protect the rainforest and its people from illegal loggers and large ranchers (who often don't even use the land productively!). So little has changed in the 16 years since Chico Mendes, another environmentalist, was murdered. As with Dorothy, his death drew worldwide attention to the problems in the Amazon, then things went back to normal (ie, bad!). I view this horrible event with mixed feelings: first the death of any individual is a tragedy. I am glad that this story is in newspapers and TV reports all over the planet. Maybe something good will come of it; maybe some needed changes will occur. On the other hand, if it had been Jose Caboclo or his wife Maria Aparecida (see story above) who had been killed, for any reason, there would have been no story. This happens everyday, dozens of times, and nobody cares. This whole problem is much greater than the Amazon or the environment; it is about justice and respect for life and the law. Yes, Brazil has a problem!
The Brazilian government said it would dispatch army, air force and police units to Para state - an area twice the size of France, which has Brazil's highest murder rate in land battles. As usual, too little and too late. I have added a few more cartoons that appeared after the poor woman's death. These offer a better and deeper commentary on the issue than I can ever hope to write. They are pretty much self-explanatory. This whole issue is sad, very sad!
Think what you may of this women and her politics, I don't really know enough about her life and work to judge. One thing is certain, however, at least she was there, on the ground, in the Amazon, among the common people, fighting for her beliefs. She was not sitting in some air-conditioned office in New York writing another cute story about some ring-tailed blue feathered monkey species that needs to be saved from extinction, and waiting for people to donate money, of which - on a good day - only about 10% ever gets across the equator, and of that 90% is lost to corrupt officials and worthless activists more interested in personal gain or politics than in nature.