Fire fighting is the internal affairs of Brazil or the global “community”

A fire broke out in the Amazon rainforest, and the fire is currently very severe. As the fire broke out in Brazil, Western media, international organizations and some national or government leaders accused the Brazilian government of laziness and questioned the ability and attitude of Brazilian President Bossano. French President Mark Long called the fire an “international crisis” and on Twitter called on the G7 meeting to focus on the fire. Bossonaro “returned” and believed that Mark Long “into the Brazilian internal affairs.”

The Amazon Rainforest is located in the Amazon Basin of South America and spans multiple South American countries, including Brazil. It is rich in biological resources and is of great significance for global biodiversity conservation and global warming. On the other hand, as a developing country, Brazil needs to face the dilemma of environmental protection and domestic development in response to the shortage of land caused by population growth and the need to help people improve their living standards. According to official statistics from Brazil, the Brazilian economy declined for two consecutive years in 2015 and 2016, with GDP falling by 3.77% and 3.59% respectively. The economic growth rate in 2017 is also only 0.98%. After taking office at the beginning of this year, Bossonaro took the development of the economy, rid of poverty and combating corruption as the top priority. He believed that the “Gift” that God gave to Brazil should be fully utilized to speed up the development of the rainforest basin, and human activities will follow. Also increased significantly. According to monitoring data from the National Institute of Brazil, in June 2019, the area of ​​the Amazon rainforest was reduced by 88% year-on-year; since the beginning of 2019, the number of fires in the Amazon forest in Brazil has increased by 83% year-on-year. Bosonaro had earlier responded to the question that “the Amazon fire is normal, not a man-made disaster”, and its persuasiveness seems to be slightly weak.

In the face of climate change, the United Nations has carried out many actions with the countries of the world over the years, the most important of which are the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, two restrictive documents on greenhouse gas emissions from various countries. Before the signing of the Paris Agreement, one of the most difficult issues for countries around the world to agree on was the supply of funds for climate change. The “Climate Change Fund, which is provided by developed countries to developing countries for $100 billion annually”, which was agreed in 2009, promises that the gap between actual funding and targets is still large. The developed countries are screaming about the money. The United States, which should have been the largest supporter, has stopped funding the fund two years ago. The developing countries continue to insist that the developed countries need to be responsible for the historical climate impact they have caused. “The views of both sides are different and it is difficult to make concessions.

The Amazon rainforest fire is related to the safety of global ecological resources and the tension of climate change. On the other hand, its focus or key is to share the cost sharing and corresponding benefit distribution issues of such global environmental problems. Developing countries often accuse the West of shirking its responsibility to weaken the rights of developing countries to develop their economies in the name of environmental protection. In this fire, Western non-governmental organizations and the media are also suspected of speculation and expansion.

According to a joint research report of the Anglo-American University, if the appropriate climate change policy is not adopted, the economy of all regions of the world will be greatly affected. The question of the control and governance of the Amazon rainforest fire is whether it is the internal affairs of Brazil or the “community politics” of the countries of the world. It is necessary for countries to jump out of the circle of their own country’s development and interests, and to think together and work together in the perspective of all mankind. In order to reach an agreement as soon as possible, in response to the call of the UN Climate Conference, actively negotiate the best plan to benefit more countries and regions, and strive to bring better impact to all human beings while bringing the least impact and pressure to developed countries or regions. Eco-environment and less climate change to cope with the burden.

Recently, the White House decided to cancel the original application for freezing the $4 billion foreign aid program, and this motion for a fierce debate in the US ruling and opposition field has come to an end. Trump’s proposal to freeze this aid is actually the balance of the US government’s balance at the end of the current fiscal year (until September 30), for US Agency for International Development’s administrative funding, UN peacekeeping funding, and humanitarian assistance. . In accordance with established practice, it should be carried over to the next fiscal year and Trump proposes to freeze, which is actually the meaning of reduction.

Trump’s reasons are very clear – the current US foreign aid fund waste is serious, and US foreign aid should be attached with more conditions to effectively cooperate with the US’s foreign strategy. Although the White House had to withdraw its motion, it was not the moral value of aid that defeated the utilitarian political considerations, but only because it touched the powerline of Congress and provoked the White House and Congress. Because Congress insists that the Constitution gives it the power to take charge of the “pocket” and does not allow administrative power to intervene and target.

Trump is not losing to the universal value that the United States has always advertised. In this incident, Congress’s debate over Trump’s reduction of aid focused on whether foreign aid can safeguard US national interests, but did not mention the development concept announced in its Foreign Aid Law. As Secretary of State Pompeo said, “The national interests of the United States need to be highlighted in every foreign aid project.” The United States Agency for International Development, the US aid agency, also stood up to endorse leadership decisions. “The President has always considered the size of US foreign aid. Too big, he hopes that aid funds can be used more effectively to safeguard the national interests of the United States.” Opponents such as the House of Representatives Budget Approving Committee Chairman Roy believe that foreign aid is critical to ensuring US global leadership and the safety of the American people. Important, this is a bipartisan consensus. It can be seen that the US foreign aid has become a consensus of the ruling and opposition parties mainly for safeguarding its own interests. The significance of the development of foreign aid has disappeared in the United States.

In fact, at the beginning of the beginning of foreign aid, the United States has taken the fundamental goal of achieving political goals. There are many discussions among American theorists. For example, American realist scholars believe that foreign aid is a tool, the essence is to use bribery to achieve political goals, even humanitarian aid is no exception. And constructivist scholars believe that even if aid donors claim to promote poverty reduction, sustainable development and other aid targets are value-neutral, but only if the recipient country has no geopolitical value or economic value, the aid measures It is possible to neutralize and the expected aid effect can be achieved. Even later, in order to realize national interests, I had to put aid on the moral cloak. The essential attribute of utilitarianism also led to the inability of aid to promote the development of developing countries. It is no wonder that Zambian economists would make Western “assisted death”. comment.

In this case, development issues such as addressing climate change, promoting gender equality and focusing on youth employment cannot be solved with US aid. For developing countries to achieve development, they can only rely on mutual cooperation among developing countries. With the rise of protectionism and unilateralism, US foreign aid has torn off the morale and no longer emphasizes the international consensus on the UN’s 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Then, to promote mutually beneficial and win-win “South-South cooperation” and achieve joint self-improvement It is the only choice and way out for developing countries.