---

“What do you think about the internationalization of the Amazon forest?”

I've been asked this question* so many times in my life that I stopped counting. It's a conversation that usually ends up in a heated discussion so I often change the subject as soon as possible to avoid unnecessary conflicts. Living and learning.

Some years ago I received an article by e-mail about it. At first I thought it was a hoax, and didn't care about reading it. After a while I found out it was real and also a great text, that sums up perfectly my opinion about the question.

As you've probably realized, I don't write about controversial subjects on my blogs, though I've thought of doing it a few times due to experiences I had while travelling. I created this blog to have fun, to share my trips and photos with you, so I avoid personal thoughts that may be misunderstood.

However I thought of sharing this particular article with you.

It was written back in 2000 by Cristovam Buarque, a very respected Brazilian politician who is now a Senator.

I found the English version bellow in the internet; it has some mistakes, but it's good enough. The original in Portuguese is available at: http://cristovam.org.br/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=546&Itemid=2


* Don't mean to generalize, but the question usually is made with an arrogant irony tone. Which makes me count at least to ten before answering it.


*************************************************************************************************************


The World for All
By Cristovam Buarque

In a recent debate which took place in the United States, I was asked about my opinion on the internationalization of the Amazon forest. The American young man started the question saying that he expected the answer of a humanist, not a Brazilian. That was the first time a felow debater chose the humanist viewpoint as the starting point of one of my replies.

Truth is that, as a Brazilian, I would indeed just talk against the internationalization of the Amazon forest. Even though our governments show a careless attitude towards this patrimony, it is still ours.

I replied saying that, as a humanist, being aware of the risk of environmental degradation which the Amazon forest is undergoing, I could accept its internationalization as well as the internationalization of everything else that is important to humankind.

If the Amazon forest, under a humanist viewpoint, should be internationalized, let us then internationalize the petroleum reserves of
the whole world. The petroleum is as important to the well-being of humanity as the Amazon forest to our future. However, what we see is the owners of the reserves having the right to increase or decrease the extraction levels and to increase or not it's price according to their financial interests. The rich of the world have the right to burn this huge patrimony of humankind.

In an equal manner, the financial capital of the rich countries should also be internationalized. If the Amazon forest is a reserve for all human beings, it cannot be burned according to the will of a single owner or country. Burning the Amazon is as critical as the massive unemployment caused by arbitrary decisions of global speculators. We cannot let the financial reserves cause the fall of entire countries subjugated by the greed of financial/market speculation.

Before the Amazon forest I would like to see the iternationalization of all the greatest museums of the world. The Louvre should not belong only to France any longer. Each museum of the world is the guardian of the most beautiful pieces produced by the human genius. Such cultural patrimony, as well as the Amazon, cannot be manipulated and destroyed while under the control of a single owner or country. Not a long time ago a japanese millionaire decided to have a great master's painting buried with him­ before that, the piece should have been internationalized.

During the conference where I was asked that question, the United Nations were organising the Millenium Forum, but some of the presidents had problems to attend due to embarrassments at the USA customs/borders. Therefore I suggested that New York, as the official host and HQ of the United Nations, should be internationalized. At least Manhattan should now belong to the whole humankind, as well as Paris, Venice, Rome, London, Rio de Janeiro, Brasilia, Recife. Each city with its own beauty, its own part of the world history, should belong to the world.

If the USA wish to internaltionalize the Amazon forest not to run the risk of letting it in the Brazilian people's hands, let us then internationalize all the nuclear arsenal of the USA. Particularly because they have already proven that they are well able to use those weapons, being responsible for damages infinitely superior to the unfortunate burning and cutting down of trees carried out in Brazilian forests.

During the recent presidential elections debates, the north-american candidates have strongly argued in favor of the internationalization of forestal reserves of the world against the absolution of each country's external debt. Let's start by using such debt to assure that every child of the world has the chance to go to school.

Let's then internationalize the children and treat them all, regardless country of birth, as a patrimony that deserves worldwide care. Even more than the Amazon itself should deserve.

When the world dirigistees [G8]* decide to treat the impoverished children of the world as a humankind patrimony they will not allow them to work while they should be in school or to die when they should live.

As a humanist I accept to argue in favor of the internationalization of the world. But as long as the world treats me as a Brazilian, I will fight for the Amazon to be ours, the Brazilians. Only ours.


*************************************************************************************************************


* The reference to the G8 as dirigistees was not in the original text. It was added by the translator in the lack of a better word, as "dirigistees" is unusual.

---