Climate Security, the Amazon, and the Responsibility to Protect*

In this article, I briefly present the multilateral discussion on ‘climate security’ and its relation to the protection of the Amazon. First, the text points out the importance of the Amazon for keeping global climate balance, the drastic change to the environmental agenda of Brazilian diplomacy, and the growing call in international public opinion for an internationally coordinated action to reverse deforestation in the region. Next, it introduces the concept of ‘climate security’, its development within the United Nations Security Council, and its relation to the principle of responsibility to protect (R2P). Finally, based on contextual evidence, I carry out a prospective analysis of the narratives that might be constructed to justify applying this principle to the Brazilian Amazon.

Introduction: the destruction of the Amazon as an existential threat to humanity e cyclically live the collective agony brought by apocalyptic prophecies saying that our lives will be destroyed by catastrophic events. Often, the pre-apocalyptic periods that we have collected over the past few decades have been followed by the announcement of our redemption within the terms of the system that generated the crisis itself. This was the case with the threat of mutual destruction by nuclear weapons during the Cold War, and it is with the Covid-19 pandemic and the environmental cataclysm. Although the climate apocalypse is currently an indisputable fact, it may not be the same for the discourse of environmental justice that occasionally accompanies it. One should understand that modern environmentalism makes use of apocalyptic narratives to diagnose the ecological crisis and puncture discourses of liberal progress with suggestive utopian visions to solve the problem (McNEISH, 2017).
Indeed, the report 'State of the Global Climate 2020' -published in early 2021 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the UN agency responsible for promoting international cooperation in climatology -states that, despite the relative decrease in emissions due to COVID-19 policies, the global climate was still changing at an alarming rate during the first year of the pandemic. From the humanitarian perspective, the situation is concerning. After decades of decline, the number of people suffering from food insecurity has increased due to a combination of factors such as conflicts, economic crisis, climate variability, and extreme environmental conditions. By the end of 2020, approximately 690 million people, or 9% of the world population, suffered from malnutrition, and more than 750 million, or approximately 10% of the population, were exposed to severe levels of food insecurity (that is, without the guarantee of at least three meals a day). In addition, it is estimated that over 50 million people have been doubly affected by environmental disasters such as floods, droughts, and storms. According to the report, the context of insecurity that was already serious before the pandemic tends to get worse when combined with the effects of climate change: "Climaterelated events already pose risks to society through impacts on health, food and water security, as well as human security, livelihoods, economies, Because the Amazon plays a crucial role in absorbing carbon dioxide (the forest absorbs about 2 billion tons of CO2 per year, which is approximately 5% of the planet's annual emissions), the region is at the center of the debate about reversing climate change 1 . However, it is clear today that, in addition to decreasing the gas absorption capacity, deforestation is currently releasing a significant additional amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and, as a result, accelerating the process of global warming (BRANDO et al., 2020).
Moreover, according to climatologist Carlos Nobre, a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we might have already passed the tipping point where the rainforest could turn to savannah. Once this disastrous event occurs, an impressive amount of carbon dioxide will be released into the atmosphere, resulting in a temperature increase in the region, followed by the shrinking of Andean glaciers, the drying of Amazonian rivers, and the impossibility of agricultural production in the Brazilian Cerrado region 2 . Nobre's statement is consistent with the study 'Carbon and Beyond: The Biogeochemistry of Climate in Rapidly Changing Amazon', which suggests that the dynamics of gaseous exchanges between the Amazon Forest and the atmosphere is already negative, that is, we may have already passed the tipping point so that the emission of gases from the forest might have started to accelerate climatic change (COVEY et al., 2021).
The uncontrolled devastation of the Amazon is not an isolated threat when it comes to the global environment. But the fact remains that its destruction is no longer a purely national issue. It is an event with global repercussions and, therefore, it captures the attention of the public.
(2021) 15 (3) e0007 -6/27 international community responsible for a crisis that cannot be tackled by a single developing country.
Although unusual at first glance, the idea of applying the R2P principle has gained momentum and tends to appear on the list of arguments used against Brazil in multilateral talks. That said, to answer the question of whether R2P could be applied to the Brazilian case in order to protect the Amazon, one should know the meaning of climate security and the way in which it relates to the R2P principle, as well as its application by the Security Council. Finally, I will offer a prospective analysis of three possible scenarios for the implementation of R2P in the Brazilian Amazon. In the final section, I offer some contextual evidence on the performance of external agents who promote the securitization of the environment.

Climate security and multilateralism
Unlike other security risks, climate change came to be a collective concern not because of a major event or particular crisis such as a nuclear or terrorist attack.
It became a security issue because of two processes: on the one hand, politicalmilitary efforts were reduced following the development of a more mature relationship between the two superpowers as of the 1970s. On the other hand, the increased access to information and rapid diffusion of public opinion turned climate change into a topic of public debate alongside complementary agendas such as identity, human, and food security. Slowing, or adapting to, global warming is becoming an essential task to reduce the Security Mechanism remains an unfulfilled promise to develop a methodology for assessing climate-related security risks.
As the understanding of the environmental issue improved, it became clear to countries that they were facing a transnational challenge. The issue should thus be discussed as part of the agenda on collective security. The basic assumption of collective security is that "the main threats to international security come not from individual states but from global problems shared by the entire international community: nuclear war, the heavy economic burden of militarism and war, disparities in living standards within and among nations, and global environmental degradation" (PORTER and BROWN, 1991, p. 109). Consequently, it is acknowledged that certain phenomena pose a threat that could destabilize peace and order in the international system and, therefore, should be collectively addressed, even if the threat is located in one or a few states of the system. Amazon and all dimensions of human activity in particular 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. It is precisely for its multifaceted nature that the Amazon is valuable; however, it is not possible to separate its parts without breaking the forest's delicate balance. The image of a devastated Amazon crystallizes the existential threat to humanity, and as such, it should be the focus of attention of the body that, according to the UN Charter, is entrusted with the task of ensuring collective security, that is the Security Council.

As Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen state in 'The
In other words, we could say that the formula contains the 'perception of an existential threat' (devastation of the Amazon) 'against a referent object' (the future of humanity).

Responsibility to protect the environment
An action by the Security Council in the face of an existential threat necessarily involves mobilizing the available discursive resources to justify such an First, although the use of R2P is still restricted to the four crimes of mass atrocities, its scope has been increasingly extended to include a preventive dimension of the norm. In other words, it became part of the language of multilateral security that is used to justify the actions of the Security Council -actions that may deter or discourage those atrocities. Secondly, since 2011, R2P has not been used to authorize the use of force against a member-state.
With respect to the relation between R2P and the securitization of climate change, it should be noted that R2P is a principle that applies to a state -whenever this state is the main responsible for protecting its populations -or to a group of states whose responsibility is shared. Although R2P foresee severe punishment to the state where the atrocity occurs, the same is not true for the states who are involved in the conflict or benefit from it in some way. One should understand that R2P does not apply to a group of states as if they were directly responsible for a massacre. That is to say, if a 'responsibility to protect the Amazon' were to be implemented, it would necessarily apply only to the Amazon countries, exempting other countries that are directly or indirectly benefiting from the exploitation of the forest. For instance, R2P would not be applied to European Union countries or China, regardless of their consumption of food whose production is linked to deforestation in the Amazon.
As previously mentioned, although the connection between R2P and environmental protection is not impossible to be achieved, establishing such a link is unlikely and would require a certain degree of creativity. This is because this principle has never been used in response to environmental threats ( Council has associated R2P to a much more diverse list of atrocities than the four above-mentioned crimes. Over the past ten years, the concept has increasingly been used in discussions about unorthodox global threats such as terrorism, corruption, and the destruction of humanity's cultural and natural heritage 11 . As we will see, the principle underwent a process of adaptation that allowed for it to be used on intervening variables in the relationship between a state's environmental policy and the environmental disaster itself. That said, as a prospective exercise on the issue, we identify three theses that might eventually be used against Brazil in the future if everything else remains the same.

United Nations Security Council
In 2021 certain existing threats to international peace and security" (UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL, 2011b, p.1). Although seemingly unambitious, this was the first time in the 70 years of the Council's existence that the language of environmental security was used.
It is also noteworthy that, on the two occasions in which the issue was  risk management strategies related to environmental factors. These were the first occasions in which the Council recognized a relationship between the effects of climate change and national and regional stability.
Coincidentally, the above-mentioned resolutions refer to three peace operations authorized by the Security Council to resolve local disputes, stabilize the areas, and protect civilians. These resolutions were adopted based on Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which gives the Council the authority to decide on the use of force in international relations. This, however, is not an unprecedented initiative.
Over the years the Council has adopted resolutions that are progressively more comprehensive, permissive, and aggressive, in which non-conventional security language such as 'child protection', 'cultural heritage', and, currently, 'climate security', is frequently used. Although the Security Council is gradually opening up to the agenda on environmental security, this trend should not be overestimated. In what concerns climate change, recent discussions within the Council recognize the need to avoid raising the average global temperature by more than 1.5°C in order to prevent potential humanitarian catastrophes. However, the body's stance on climate security still seems to be a long way from naming the major actors responsible for accelerating climate change and ecological imbalances. Indeed, the Security Council's approach to climate change focuses on its consequences, not its causes.
This was the case for the High-Level Open Debate on Climate and Security held by the Security Council on February 23, 2021. Despite the commonly held idea that the world is facing the 'collapse of everything' 17 , the UK-led meeting focused on topics such as peacebuilding and climate-related conflict drivers but avoided discussing the shared responsibility of member states 18 .

Ecocide
At first glance, protecting the Amazon may sound like protecting the fauna and flora from extermination. This is the 'ecocide' prevention thesis (GREENE, 2019), which refers to when human activity violates the principles of environmental justice by systematically damaging or destroying ecosystems or endangering the health and well-being of a species (including humans). Ecocide is an idea of the 1970s, but it is still not recognized as an international crime by the United Nations (AXWORTHY and ROCK, 2009). To assume that the lives of plants and animals are as sacred as those of humans seems yet a distant reality in the history of diplomacy.
However, an international action based on the R2P principle and on international standards of non-intervention is less likely to be driven by the ecocide thesis. The industrialized countries that currently support an environmental agenda are precisely those that most destroyed their forests during their industrialization process (MARCHAND, 2016). To a large extent, these countries became economic powers as a consequence of wiping out their natural resources or doing so in their former colonies.

Cultural genocide or ethnocide
Cultural genocide or ethnocide is the most recent -and most fragile -thesis in the current context. Cultural genocide or cultural cleansing is not an international crime recognized by international law. It is also terminologically inconsistent since 'genocide' means 'the extermination of the people', with ethnocide being the most appropriate term. Moreover, a consensus has not been reached on the meaning of ______________________________________________________________________________________________ cultural genocide. One of the most adopted definitions is from the Armenian Genocide Museum, which defines it as "acts and measures undertaken to destroy nations 'or ethnic groups' culture... [through] national, spiritual, and cultural destruction" ("THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE MUSEUM" FOUNDATION, 2021).
Nonetheless, since we are conducting here a prospective analysis to identify ideal types of arguments that could be mobilized to justify applying R2P to the Amazon, this thesis should not be promptly discarded. in January 2021, the minister of the environment, Ricardo Salles, announced that the private sector will be allowed to exploit the area. The idea is for the national parks of Anavilhanas and Jaú to be included in the federal government's Investment Partnerships Program 21 . This fact will not go unnoticed by enthusiasts of the cultural genocide strategy.
As previously mentioned, it has been a common practice of the Security Council to use R2P language when referring to other agendas that are indirectly associated with the four crimes of atrocity envisaged at the World ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Summit 2015. Therefore, it is not surprising that Resolution 2347, which is celebrated for expanding the notion of war crimes to include humanity's heritage, directly employs R2P language in its text. The resolution says: [The Security Council] Stresses that Member States have the primary 'responsibility in protecting' their cultural heritage and that efforts to protect cultural heritage in the context of armed conflicts should be in conformity with the Charter, including its purposes and principles, and international law, and should respect the sovereignty of all States;(emphasis added) (UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COOUNCIL, 2017, p. 04).
In other words, the primary responsibility for the protection of cultural resources lies with each state individually. The logical question is: what is understood by cultural and natural heritage of humanity, and who defines it? Also, what should be the consequences for a country that fails to fulfill its 'responsibility to protect its cultural heritage'? Since the Brazilian Amazon is home to more than a hundred indigenous peoples and languages -many of which risk extermination or face cultural and religious persecution -and considering that Brazil has one of the largest and most profitable markets for smuggling wild animals and natural resources (such as wood, seeds, flowers, fruits, and a wide range of biological material), could the country be found in violation of its responsibility to protect its cultural assets?

Genocide and crimes against humanity
Finally, the last thesis -a humanitarian thesis -speaks of the responsibility to protect Brazilians from other Brazilians. That is, to protect native populations from a genocide that has been overlooked or even assisted by parts of the government itself. Equally controversial, this last argument is even more distanced from the traditional ecological agenda than the others, but it is the one most likely to be accepted multilaterally.
This thesis began to take shape in recent years as a result of an intricate In short, this exploratory exercise was not intended to encompass the multiple dimensions of each of these three theses, nor does it affirm that these are the only theses that could be mobilized to justify applying the R2P principle to climate-related risks in general -or to Brazil in particular. A wide range of possibilities exists between the humanitarian and environmental versions of R2P when applying the principle to the Amazon. In the first case, the norm is well established, while in the second, it is still developing.

Securitizing actors in action
Finally, I briefly present some of the main securitizing actors engaged in shaping international public opinion so that the current environmental crisis in the

Conclusions
Since Massive life-threatening events in developing countries usually do not affect public opinion in developed countries, where the public is not concerned with ______________________________________________________________________________________________ armed conflicts, epidemics, or environmental catastrophes in poorer countries unless they are convinced that these events could somehow have an impact on them.
Apparently, the same goes for the destruction of the Amazon and its populations.
Applying R2P to the Amazon also means submitting the region to multilateral tutelage in order to take military action and progressively implement policies of multilateral intervention in the region. In other words, once the issue is captured by R2P terminology, there is no going back.
In this article, I briefly presented the issue of climate security, the Security