A Military-Green Biopolitics: The Brazilian Amazon Between Security and Development

Abstract

Since the 1960s, the Brazilian defense policy toward the Amazon has been oriented by the security/development binomen. This was simultaneously a directive for the Brazilian authoritarian regime and for US defense doctrine for the Americas. We argue in this paper that despite the structural influence of US hemispherical security and defense strategy, the formulation of an Amazonian defense strategy by the Brazilian military responded to peculiarities attached to local military historical practices regarding civilizational values, concepts of security and development, and geopolitical targets. We claim that Brazilian defense strategy towards the Amazon is a local manifestation of a biopolitical approach to both the forest and its natural resources and to its population. It is our goal to point out that the local version for the duality security/development has been a manifestation of a set of technologies of government in a biopolitical strategy.

A Amazônia e a relação com as políticas de defesa: o silenciamento dos povos da Amazônia nas políticas de defesa do Brasil

“…Apesar da relativa atenção que recebeu do poder público durante os ciclos econômicos do látex, foi somente a partir de 1950 que a região começou a adentrar o pensamento estratégico e político brasileiro. Destaca-se que, somente em 1953, com a aprovação da Lei nº 1.806, no governo de Getúlio Vargas, foi criada a região que ficou conhecida como Amazônia Legal, cujo objetivo foi o de concentrar esforços para combater o subdesenvolvimento naquela área (Rodrigues and Kalil 2021;Brasil 1953). Hoje, a Amazônia Legal corresponde aos estados do Pará, Amazonas, Acre, Amapá, Rondônia, Roraima e parte dos territórios do Maranhão, Mato Grosso e Tocantins, ou seja uma área de 5.015.067,75 km² que corresponde a cerca de 58,9% do território nacional, segundo o IBGE.…”

“…O subdesenvolvimento e a baixa presença do Estado sempre foram vistos como possíveis obstáculos à soberania estatal, especialmente devido à percepção existente de que havia cobiça internacional pela Amazônia. Isso era percebido como um risco, pois poderia incentivar um processo de internacionalização fomentado por outros países (Souza 2019;Nunes 2005;Rodrigues and Kalil 2021).…”

Environmental defenders suffering death threats and "under protection" in the state of Pará, Eastern Amazonia, Brazil

“…The fallout from these measures has been discussed by Araújo (2020), Thomaz et al (2020), , Menezes & Barbosa Jr. (2021), Rodrigues & Kalil (2021), Rapozo (2021), Pelicice & Castello (2021), Souza et al (2021) and Deutsch & Fletcher (2022). Dismantling of environmental governance in Brazil is not merely a rhetorical and ideological mechanism conducted by a national political group, but a political tactic designed to legitimize the promotion of "total neoextractivism" (Buzogány & Mohamad-Klotzbach, 2021) and the economic and political support of neoextractivist agents for hegemonic political groups.…”

“…With the support and legitimization of the Brazilian state power which has completely changed the Brazilian environmental structure, neoextractivist activity (mining and agribusiness) face less constraints on approvals and activities (Menezes & Barbosa Jr., 2021). For Rodrigues & Kalil (2021), it is the rolling out of an ecological and political and economic approach by the Bolsonaro government. From the ideological point of view, the government expresses climate change denial and argues that environmental destruction is necessary for social development.…”

“…From the ideological point of view, the government expresses climate change denial and argues that environmental destruction is necessary for social development. From a political and economic perspective, it has simply sought to satisfy the agribusiness and mining sector (with its legal and illegal elements) that are important political forces in the Brazilian National Congress (Rodrigues & Kalil, 2021). 15 The effects of Bolsonaro government policy on indigenous peoples 16 were, according to the Indigenist Missionary Council -CIMI 17 (CIMI, 2020), included more cases of conflicts and violence, which almost doubled in the first year of the government (in 2019), compared to 2018.…”