October 6, 1993
As a Brazilian, I don’t believe that first-world countries, like the United States, are primarily interested in preserving the Amazon. I think they have other motives which they hide behind the word “preservation.”
In a political speech, “We must preserve the Amazon” always attracts attention and votes. People may not realize it, but the Amazon elected a lot of politicians.
What first-world countries want is to preserve the economic situation that benefit their pockets.
As an example, Japan buys $70 billion worth of soybean products per year. Currently, the U.S. is responsible for most of this market.
A few years ago, Brazil hoped to have a better connection with the Japanese market. The only way to export products from Brazil to Japan is through the Panama Canal. However, a new idea reduced over 7,000 miles of travel: the construction of a road from the west of Brazil, Acre, to the Peruvian ports in the Pacific.
Acre is situated in the Amazon jungle, bordering on Peru, and is connected to the other parts of Brazil through several roads. All that was needed to make Acre more accessible was a road to connect it to Peru.
Japan wanted to help to finance the road would benefit them with lower prices and allow Brazilians to expand their market.
However, Al Gore (then a senator) began to say that Japan was really only interested in exploiting Brazil’s natural resources, and this road would make everything easier. Due to a lot of pressure by the U.S. and environmental groups, Japan canceled the project.
Although Japan’s first interest may be to take wood out of the Amazon, the road is very important to Brazil to connect it to the Asian market.
The problem should be solved with a stronger environmental policy, not by closing doors to economic development.
The U.S. claimed “preservation,” but the real motive was the loss of $70 billion a year to the Brazilian market. What we must preserve is not only the environment, but also the economy.