STAIRWAY TO UN INTERVENTION

Yes, there are two paths you can go by, but in the long run there’s still
time to change the road you’re on.”

– Stairway to Heaven, Led Zeppelin (Lyrics which might not make sense
right now but soon, you’ll understand that it forms the heart of this article)

Deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest has increased by multiple folds

every year since Jair Bolsonaro assumed the position of the President of
Brazil. While the statistics for the year 2020 has not been released yet, in
the year 2019, the Deforestation rate increased by 29.5%. A total of 9762
Square Kilometres was estimated to have been cleared in the 2018-2019
period. While President Bolsonaro claims that this is on par with the trends
right from 2012, he denied the fact that the rates ought to have dropped
had President Bolsonaro hadn’t dismantled the IBAMA (Brazillian
Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) and not to
mention, the relaxation on the fines for offences like Illegal Logging,
Clearing and Coal Mining. Moreover, initiatives that were taken by Jair
Bolsonaro in promotion of Agri-business in indigenous areas to be carried
out by non-indigenous corporate entities is indeed a matter of sorrow and
this view of the Cabinet is further affirmed when the Agriculture Minister,
Tereza Cristina and Environment Minister Ricardo Salles, visited an
illegal Soy Plantation which was banned by IBAMA. 

The National Transgenic Legislation of Brazil evidently prohibits the

plantation of the Genetically Modified Crops within the Units of Area that
are under conservation and to see two members of the Cabinet actively
endorse such activity indeed represents the commercial and ignorant
mindset of the government. In October 2019, Bolsonaro passed a decree to
implement new Standard Operating Procedures such that the fines that
were payable in an event of violation, are to be deliberated upon at
“Conciliation Hearings” before imposing them upon the LawBreakers.
Now the most striking part of this procedure is that the commission can
offer discounts or at times completely do away with the fines. The issue
arose when the fines of majority of those offenders were put on hold
owing to the “Conciliation Hearing” factor and not to mention there is a
law in Brazil where the unpaid fines are to be done with if they so get
accumulated for a period of five years or sometimes three years which
evidently makes it clear that the perpetrators called for repeated appeals to
push the proceedings until they no longer remain in effect. Not to mention,
Bolsonaro, in May, passed a decree, giving the armed forces the
responsibility to oversee the operations of the Environmental Agencies
where the autonomy of the agencies were not given a priority. 

With high rates of Deforestation, Illegal Mining and Logging carried out
by criminal networks and the Government assisting these activities, it
indeed is a chaos and this calls for an intervention by the United Nations
with its main function being the maintenance of International Peace and
Security. The Climate Change is obviously causing a huge hindrance to
the lives of people, making Earth inhabitable and thus is a mere threat to
the security of the habitants of this planet as a result of which the UN
intervention is a must in this scenario. Before moving further, I thought it
would be better to clear off that confusion in your head as to how those
lines are a rationale behind me taking it as the main crux of this article.
While there were two paths the UN can go by, that is, respect a state’s
sovereignty and tolerate it’s hazardous activities to the mankind or to
intervene and uphold the sanctity of the International Law, the United
Nations has chosen to act according to the former path while I believe that
there’s still time to change the path the UN is on and intervene into the
matter.

Firstly, it is imperative to note down the fact that Brazil was one of the
signatories to the Paris Agreement on the Climate Change within the
UNFCCC which was framed in an effort to tackle climate change. Article
5 of the Agreement states that,

“Parties should take action to conserve and enhance, as appropriate,

sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases as referred to in Article 4,
paragraph 1 (d), of the Convention, including forests.”

When we look into the wording of this Article, it inevitably talks about
promoting activities which aid conservation of the forests, which
obviously is not the case of Brazil. Not to mention, Brazil in an official
communication to the Secretariat of the UNFCCC via an INDC
(Intentional Nationally Determined Contribution) pertaining to the
agreement had stated that “restoring and reforesting 12 million hectares of
forests by 2030, for multiple purposes” is one of their main goals and it is
indeed ironic to note the fact that Brazil had not even come to a stop with
regards to Deforestation, let alone increase the area of the forest cover and
with regards to the ease on the fines and relaxation with regards to the
Deforestation Laws, this statement of theirs seems far-fetched, not to
mention, it is a breach of an international obligation. 

Even worse is that the Representative of Brazil had inadvertently

mentioned that “strengthening policies and measures with a view to
achieve, in the Brazilian Amazonia, zero illegal deforestation by 2030 and
compensating for greenhouse gas emissions from legal suppression of
vegetation by 2030” and I leave it to you, reader, to comprehend further.
The stance of Brazil on the Agreement as such is rather confusing, for
Bolsonaro stated that he was clearly not interested in the provisions of the
agreement however deciding to remain as a signatory for the same which
doesn’t seem convincing when it comes to the reforestation agenda.
Another claim that supports my view on the reforestation agenda is that,
the activities of Bolsonaro are of the nature of pro-development in the
Amazon which gives me very little to no hope that he will stick to the
obligations of the agreement. This case is further worsened, for, the Paris
Agreement has No clause that talks about its enforceability as a result of
which there won’t be any penalty for a grave violation of an International
Obligation which calls for a revamp of the Agreement. Thus, if the
Brazilian Government decides to go ahead with this trend of
‘development’, there’s nothing the members of the International
Community can do, which leaves us to consider other possibilities.

The United Nations Security Council can invoke Article 42 of the Charter
of United Nations and intervene. Article 42 in Chapter 7 of the Charter
States that,

“Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in

Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may
take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to
maintain or restore international peace and security.Such action may
include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or
land forces of Members of the United Nations”

This evidently makes it clear that the United Nations Security Council can
use force if in case the International Peace and Security of the World is at
stake. The UNSC reaffirmed its claim with regards to the same in its press
release SC/6847 dated 19thApril 2000, wherein it took into consideration
the Unanimous Adoption of Resolution 1296 in the year 2000 and stated
that it “reaffirmed its readiness to adopt appropriate steps to deal with
deliberate attacks on civilian populations and other protected persons, as
well as with widespread violations of international humanitarian law and
of human rights in conflict situations” and even in the past, this provision
of the Charter was invoked to protect people in warzones. While this issue
is not exactly something that involves an Armed Conflict in a Warzone, it
sure does involve grave violations of human rights, thus invoking the
provision. We can use this provision and probably call for UN intervention
along the Amazon Basin in order to prevent all the illegal activities. While
we can raise an argument that it would amount to the sovereignty of a
nation, it is imperative to note that Article 2 Clause 7 of the Charter
invariably states that,

“Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United

Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic
jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such
matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall
not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter
VII”

Even though the thought of application of force seems legitimate under the
rough reading of the provisions of Charter, quoting Led Zeppelin from the
Immigrant Song “For peace and trust can win the day”, it indeed doesn’t
make any sense for the UNSC to intervene, for it only makes the matters
worse and the result is that the act will be faced by the 12th Largest Army
in the World  (With regards to the Budget Allocation as on 2019) and it
would lead to loss of many lives for which the UN will be held
responsible. Further, it is imperative to note that the armed clashes in
themselves have severe repercussions on the Environment and doesn’t
appear to be a viable solution for the UN Intervention in the issue.
Another way of UN intervention without the use of force as mentioned in
the previous paragraph is by imposing Sanctions. Chapter 7, Article 41 of
the Charter of United Nations states that,

“The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use
of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and
it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such
measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of
economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and
other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic
relations.”

The Sanctions are non-violent steps that basically force the Governments
which violate  International Obligations, in order to place a necessity, to
cooperate with the standards of the International Community (for instance,
the sanctions on Iraq). However, sanctions are not bound to succeed and
have a major impact on the humanitarian aspect on the nation to which the
sanctions are imposed which calls for a need to target specific spectra
when it comes to the imposition of such sanctions so that the repercussions
from the humanitarian aspect are pretty less when compared to Generally
Imposed Sanctions. Examples of the imposition of spectra-specific
sanctions refer to UNSC Resolutions 1173 and 1521. In Resolution 1173
of the year 1998, The UNSC targeted the exploitation of the Natural
Resources in Angola by the UNITA. Clause 11 of the Resolution states
that,

“shall require all persons and entities within their own territories holding
such funds and financial resources to freeze them and ensure that they
are not made available directly or indirectly to or for the benefit of
UNITA as an organization or of senior officials of UNITA or adult
members of their immediate families.”

Also, Resolution 1173 placed an obligation such that the Diamonds which
were not sourced from an official certification scheme are to be boycotted
and treated as illegal thereby, preventing the flow of illegal income to
UNITA.
Clause 12 of the Resolution aims “to prohibit the direct or indirect import
from Angola to their territory of all diamonds that are not controlled
through the Certificate of Origin regime of the GURN” which again is of
the nature of a trade sanction in order to resolve the exploitation of the
Angolan Territory. This is akin to the Diamond Sanctions in Sierra Leone
to prevent illicit diamond trade which has a positive effect on the overall
issue.

In the early 2000s when there arose a new conflict revolving around the
trade of timber with regards to the West African Nation of Liberia, the
Resolution 1521 prohibited the import of logs and timber originating in
Liberia which is an example of a specific spectra-oriented sanction. In
both the aforementioned cases, it ought to be noted that the sanctions are
not targeted towards the country as a whole but towards the areas of
problem which proved to be effective and public friendly. Applying the
similar logic over here, the UNSC can impose sanctions on the import of
coal, timber and other products say soy (Remember the illicit Soy
Plantation, the Honorable Agriculture and Environmental Ministers
attended?) from Brazil which is an end result of illicit utilisation of the
Amazon leading to depreciation of the area of forest cover. While the
situation Is similar to that of Liberia and Angola, Brazil in the Current
scenario is much more developed Politically, Economically and in terms of
Military, which still puts me into a dilemma if imposing sanctions would
still work. The stances of the P5 Nations keep changing in response to a
Global Event and the presence of the Veto further worsens it, making the
imposition of Sanctions a difficult affair. 

It is high time that Climate Change is taken seriously before the same
intervenes into the Lives of the International Community. Of course, the
sanctions are severe, but they are at the same time proportionate. The
absence of any other solution to the impending issue very well highlights
another shortcoming of the International Law and the complexity in
imposition of the Sanctions in the United Nations Security Council calls
for a revamp in the Structure of its membership. With this, I am of the
opinion that imposition of Sanctions through the UNSC intervention is the
best way to combat the issue at hand and I really hope the UN intervenes
and saves the Biodiversity Hotspot from exploitation as I hum the lines
of Stairway to Heaven- “And a new day will dawn for those who stand
long, and the forests will echo with laughter.” As I wait for that
day, telling myself it’s not as hard, hard, hard as it seems (Going to
California, Led Zeppelin). You see what I did there?