Theoretical Conundrums: The Amazon Rainforest

Think of waterfalls, rare species birds and animals and giant bodies of water that provide about 60% of the world's water reserve and one cannot help but think of the Amazon rainforest. It is mounting and gigantic, somewhere between an Eden and the Earth itself. But the Amazon is also burning. There have been unprecedented wildfires spanning the region, and what is more alarming is that these are intentional fires. Successive governments have been in power and pledged to “save the Amazon” however it has not translated into any concrete steps towards conservation. But first, we must delve deeper into the historical and geographical underpinnings of the Amazon rainforest. 

 Simply said, the Amazon rainforest has continental proportions and that is in the strictest sense of the term. In brief, Amazonia, or often called Amazon rainforest, refers to the vast territory that covers most of the Amazon Basin of South America. Extremely rich in biodiversity, this tropical rainforest spans over five and a half million square kilometres, of which more than 60% lie within Brazilian political boundaries. Almost 40% are part of 8 South American countries including Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana (Ross). The Rainforest is unique in the sense that it is a transnational entity, even though much of the Amazon is concentrated in Brazil. So, in most cases the onus of conservation comes onto the Brazilian government. One might even say that the devastation of the Amazon is a domestic issue rather than an issue of international climate security. 

 However, deforestation and climate change in general is not an isolated threat and demands global attention. It also indicates the aspect of broadening and deepening security issues. As Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen state in ‘The Evolution of the International Security Studies’, “processes of institutionalization, such as the joint organizing of a program on Environmental Security in the 1980s by Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) also worked to situate environmental security as one of the first sectoral expansions of national security beyond the military” (Buzan and Hansen, 2012). According to the authors, if the predicted catastrophic scenarios of climate change or global epidemic are confirmed, these events “will reshuffle the cards with which international security issues has mainly been played since 1945” (Buzan and Hansen, 2012). It seems their predictions were spot-on indeed. Furthermore, we need to consolidate matters of climate security into the broader framework of security issues to understand the possible implications it may have on the Amazon rainforest. In view of the complex chain of interrelated events that exist between the Amazon and all dimensions of human activity and the ecosystem in general, any threat to the survival of the Amazon represents an existential threat to an unlimited variety of referent objects that require protection. Thus, the perception of the existential threat (devastation of the Amazon) against the referent object (the sanctity of the Amazon rainforest and even the larger interests of humanity) (Macedo). 

 After establishing the referent object and the threat object, we can shift our focus to the realist perspectives on international security. For a realist of international security, the main securitising actor becomes the state. Along these lines, the state perceives the international arena to be anarchic. Simply put, it means that the there is no over-arching body of authority to tell states what they can and cannot do. And so, given the anarchic nature of the international system, states become self-interested and strengthen their existing power with internal and external resources. They also protect themselves by balancing their powers externally by making alliances. However, there is always a catch in the realist paradigm. States are perpetually wary of alliances; thus, the security dilemma never really escapes them. If we attempt to juxtapose the climate security question of the Amazon to a realist. The answer comes quite easily to them. In fact, Stephen Walt wrote an article that was titled, “Who Will Save the Amazon and (How)?”. Walt, himself a staunch realist, said it straight. He suggested that “it’s only a matter of time until major powers try to stop climate change by any means necessary […] Brazil isn’t a true great power and threatening it with either economic sanctions or even the use of force if it refused to protect the rainforest might be feasible” (Walt). In a lot of senses, Walt, in true realist fashion relegated the issue of the Amazon to the major powers. He emphasises the fact that smaller, less powerful states (in this case, Brazil) would just become playing fields for major powers to assert their dominance. At the end of the day, this approach indicates how it is solving a problem rather than explaining the issue back to us. 

 Moving along with the theoretical breakdown of analysing the Amazon rainforest, we can also turn to liberal paradigm and attempt to consider how multilateralism may pacify the anarchic nature of the international system. Given how globalisation and liberal institutionalism has spread to inform almost every part of globalised decision-making. It would be worthy to consider the implications of neo-liberal institutionalism in ameliorating conditions of anarchy, especially in the case of the Amazon rainforest. To earn a sense of security mediated by a system, the fact is that there are other levers available to improve Brazil’s (and others) custodianship of the Amazon, and most of them do not entail military force. There needs to be an emphasis on applying significant pressure on Brazil to stay committed to the Paris Agreement and other climate commitments (Abdenur et al.). There is something to be said about the variety of actors involved in this process. Although the state i.e., the Brazilian government is a key actor, there are civil society groups like the Greenpeace and the Conference of Parties (COP) do exist as key influencers in the bid to save the Amazon. This is particularly important in the face of increasingly nationalist discourse from the Brazilian president himself. 

 Moving on, with the theoretical framework, we can now consider how a constructivist would approach this conundrum of saving the Amazon rainforest. For a constructivist, the problem of anarchy is intersubjectively constituted. The problem or issue at hand is what states make of it to be. Since structure is meaningless without some intersubjective set of norms and practices, anarchy, mainstream international relations theory's most crucial structural component, is meaningless. Neither anarchy, that is, the absence of any authority above the state, nor the distribution of capabilities, can "socialize" states to the desiderata of the international system's structure absent some set of meaningful norms and practices (Hopf). Hence, when taking the constructivist standpoint, the actor-specific logic and more importantly human agency is more important. Social constructivism, applied domestically along with Brazil’s foreign policy would make for a distinct position. The combination of analytical tools of social constructivism and foreign policy analysis helps to shed light on the precise location interaction between, domestic political actors and the resulting impact of Brazil's negotiating position in multilateral climate debates (Vieira). 

 In conclusion, it can be said the Amazon rainforest is truly at the brink of devastation. The various theoretical paradigms attempt to explain the reason for the deforestation in the first place and the possible solutions for the same.

                              The Transamazonica Road (BR-230) near Medicilandia in Para State, Brazil. (Source: Getty)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                

List of References 

1. Abdenur, By Adriana Erthal, et al. “Preserving Brazil’s Sovereignty Means Taking Responsibility for the Amazon.” IPI Global Observatory, 2 Oct. 2019, theglobalobservatory.org/2019/09/preserving-brazils-sovereignty-means-taking-responsibility-for-amazon.

2. Buzan, Barry, and Lene Hansen. The Evolution of International Security Studies. Cambridge University Press, 2012.

3. Hopf, Ted. “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory.” International Security, vol. 23, no. 1, 1998, pp. 171–200, https://doi.org/10.1162/isec.23.1.171. 

4. Macedo, Gustavo. “Climate Security, the Amazon, and the Responsibility to Protect.” Brazilian Political Science Review, vol. 15, no. 3, 2021. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-3821202100020007.

5. Ross, Martin. “Amazonia’s Security Dilemma – Why Climate Security Matters.” Climate & Development Knowledge Network, cdkn.org/story/amazonia%25e2%2580%2599s-security-dilemma-%25e2%2580%2593-why-climate-security-matters. Accessed 1 May 2022.

6. Vieira, Marco A. “Brazilian Foreign Policy in the Context of Global Climate Norms.” Foreign Policy Analysis, vol. 9, no. 4, 2012, pp. 369–86. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-8594.2012.00191.x. 

7.Walt, Stephen. “Who Will Save the Amazon (and How)?” Foreign Policy, 23 Aug. 2019, foreignpolicy.com/2019/08/05/who-will-invade-brazil-to-save-the-amazon.