redder Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 During a recent panel discussion in the United States, I was asked what I thought about the idea of internationalizing the Amazon Rain Forest. The young man who asked this question began by saying that he wanted me to answer as a humanist and not as a Brazilian. This was the first time that anyone has ever stipulated a humanistic perspective as the point of departure when asking me a question.In point of fact, as a Brazilian I would always argue against the internationalization of the Amazon Rain Forest. Even though our government has not given this patrimony the care that it deserves, it is ours.I replied that, as a humanist who fears the risks posed by the environmental degradation that the Amazon is suffering, I could imagine its internationalization, just as I could imagine the internationalization of everything else of importance to humanity.If, from a humanist perspective, the Amazon must be internationalized, we should also internationalize the entire world's petroleum reserves. Oil is just as important for the well being of humanity as the Amazon is for our future. The owners of the reserves, however, feel that they have the right to increase or decrease the amount of oil production, as well as to increase or lower the price per barrel. The rich of the world feel that they have the right to burn up this immense patrimony of humanity.In much the same way, the wealthy countries' financial capital should be internationalized. Since the Amazon Rain Forest is a reserve for all human beings, an owner or a country must not be allowed to burn it up. The burning of the Amazon is as serious a problem as the unemployment caused by the arbitrary decisions made by global speculators. We cannot permit the use of financial reserves to burn up entire countries in the frenzy of speculation.Before we internationalize the Amazon, I would like to see the internationalization of all the world's great museums. The Louvre should not belong merely to France.The world's museums are guardians of the most beautiful pieces of art produced by the human genius. We cannot let this cultural patrimony, like the natural patrimony of the Amazon, be manipulated and destroyed by the whims of an owner or a country. A short time ago a Japanese millionaire decided to be buried with a painting by a great artist. Before this could happen, that painting should have been internationalized.While I was at the meeting during which I was asked about internationalizing the Amazon Rain Forest, the United Nations convened the Millennium Summit, but some presidents of countries had difficulties in attending due to U.S. border-crossing constraints. Because of this, I said that New York, as the headquarters of the United Nations, should have been internationalized. The city, or at least Manhattan, should belong to all humanity. As should Paris, Venice, Rome, London, Rio de Janeiro, Brasília, Recife—each city, with its unique beauty, its history of the world, should belong to the entire world.If, to minimize the risk of leaving it in the hands of Brazilians, the United States wants to internationalize the Amazon Rain Forest, we should internationalize the United States' nuclear arsenals. If only because the country has already demonstrated that it is capable of using these arms, causing destruction thousands of times greater than the deplorable burnings done in the forests of Brazil.In their debates, the United States presidential candidates have defended the idea of internationalizing the world's forest reserves in exchange for debt relief. We should begin by using this debt to guarantee that each child in the world has the opportunity to go to school. We should internationalize the children, treating them, all of them, no matter their country of birth, as patrimony that deserves to be cared for by the entire world. Even more than the Amazon deserves to be cared for.When the world's leaders begin to treat the poor children of the world as a patrimony of humanity, they will not let children work when they should be studying, die when they should be living.As a humanist, I agree to defend the internationalization of the world. But, as long as the world treats me as a Brazilian, I will fight for the Amazon Rain Forest to remain ours. Ours alone. (Cristovam Buarque) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rupert86 Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 If you're asking for an opinion, I agree with this speech to the extreme. Big countries get itno their minds that they have the duty to do good to others and always end up with devastation and blood.Remember Iraq: They just went there to 'free the people out of the clucthes of Saddam'/ Although I personally agree that Saddam was a brutal dictator (I hate him as much I'd kill him), however it isn't up to USA to get their public out of 'his clucthes'. Most probably public anarchy over the time would have had served that great amount of denouncement that he needed. Now people's hearts have softened towards him which any good person wouldn't like in the least. And there is so much murder & demolition in Iraq nowadays that wasn't even in the days of Saddam. And when I see that many many Iraqi citizens and militants (they're not bad - of course they are defending their country - they're patriots of their corresponding nation) and US military personnel dying everyday, it makes me sad. After both the parties have the same boys like us and they have the same mom & dad and families like us.Also USA is threatening us Pakistan that whenever our nuclear installations etc. would be exposed to the danger of getting into Al-Qadea's hands, they'd takeover them. Why should they? They haven't got the contract of saving the world. And point on both concerned parties here id that USA has caused Hiroshima & Nagasaki - Al-Qaeda has never done that. So who has a badder charge-sheet.Now this may start a flame-war over Al-Qaeda and USA, but beware USA that let Al-Qaeda alone - if you ever agress my country we will just get our knives ready and go out and slaughter every US military personnel we can find (Why spend on bullets huh?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redder Posted January 9, 2005 Author Share Posted January 9, 2005 rupert86: you are completly right, no other country should medle into the affairs of other, in Portugal we had a dictatorship not bloody and not brutal, but it was a dictatorship, anyway we the portuguese took care of it, no one else, and i would not admit any other country invading mine just to "take care of things". The USA should try to solve their own problems, and its amazing how everyone forgets about their military arsenal when they go complain to others about another countrys military arsenal, and diplomatics forget Nagasaki and Hiroshima because it is convenient. I find it amazing that 60 years after the second world war, which was the one that killed more people and 87 years after the bloodiest world war there ever was we still make wars and go after them, I think that people in America do not know what war is, no offense to Americans, you just don't know what it is because you never saw the consequences of the war in your country, actually the consequences of the second world war in the US of A was a better economy that is probably the reason to why they want to go into wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prathapml Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 political views on the forum, please be discreet since its a personal matter...* closed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts