|
The doctrine of "collective public goods," such as drinking water and forest resources, and their management by the "international community," rather than by the governments of the countries where they are situated, is becoming increasingly popular in international debating circles and may represent the germ of future foreign interference in the Amazon, according to the executive secretary of Brazil's Ministry of Foreign Relations (Itamaraty), Samuel Pinheiro Guimarães.
"Nowadays, a physical presence is not required in order to enjoy the benefits of occupation," Guimarães declared, referring to the Amazon region, in a debate, "The Internationalization of the Amazon: Real Risk or Imaginary Fear," sponsored by the Brazilian Senate.
"I wouldn't claim that there is a threat that the Amazon will be internationalized, but I confess I find it interesting that this concern never goes away."
The diplomat explained that these ideas are still largely confined to seminar debates, although they may be spreading to "ever-widening circles."
And he added that Brazil's chief concern should be to administer the region adequately. "To the extent that the sovereign State administers the natural resources of the Amazon region, all types of threats diminish to the same degree."
At the beginning of this year, the Itamaraty issued a note in response to declarations by the former Trade Commissioner of the European Union, Pascal Lamy.
According to Guimarães, at an Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) debate in Geneva on "global governance," Lamy, who is currently a candidate for the post of director-general of the World Trade Organization (WTO), spoke in favor of "international rules for collective public goods," such as tropical forests (without referring specifically to the Amazon), water, fish, and the ozone layer.
The appropriateness of emitting this note was questioned by the Senators. Guimarães replied that the Itamaraty's statement was "firm," not "exaggerated," and that it was intended to reaffirm that "Brazil is competent to administer its territory."
Agência Brasil
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Do we find it amazing that it is these two organizations that have stood in the way of 'loan forgiveness' for the least developed nations. Why? Simply because under any loan forgiveness program, these two organizations lose their leverage to influence the economies and societies under their thumbs. Is it any wonder that the highest economic priority of most of the developing world is to get as far away from these bloodsuckers as possible. They have no credibility except among their patrons. The misery they bring along with their meager loans is far more damaging than bankruptcy.
It is a 'special day' when a nation releases itself from this 'servitude of debt', just as much as a nation freeing itself from slavery. All nations are justified to celebrate these as special moments. They are just too polite to say why!
Now the WTO attempts 'social engineering' through trade relations. Well, for those who cannot figure it out, not only trade will be on the WTO agenda. Trade will simply be used as the leverage to accept WTO mandates on other issues that are internal and sovereign rights. Better the WTO work for better trade 'fairness', and perhaps consistent worker rights throughout the WTO members, than trying to 'socialize' the natural resources of members through trade policy.
Any nation that bases its trade policy primarily through WTO policy will find itself shackled to the same 'social engineering' practices that they hated in the IMF and World Bank. Regional trade alliances are critically important as a counterweight to dependence on the policies of the New World Order. The higher the percent of trade done exclusively through WTO policies, the higher the degree of influence WTO will have to leverage the national and international policies of its members.
The present dance of the 'super-members', or the G-8 nations, is totally Axis and Alliance driven. That is the primary reason for the present and long-running obstacles to agreement between Brazil, and others, against the WTO. US and EU may agree bilaterally to certain subsidies and fall under WTO guidelines, while holding developing nations to different standards. Now the WTO becomes the mechanism for market domination instead of market regulation, so the US wants FTAA and WTO for enforcement.