Dealing with environmental problems is not that simple<\/p>\n
By Priscilla Hon<\/p>\n
The imperatives of state sovereignty and demands for some
\nlevel of international governance of the environment are two
\nopposing trends at work.<\/p>\n
SINGAPORE: Recently, the haze in South-east Asia has become a
\nregional obsession, second only to the financial crisis. The fires
\nraging in Kalimantan and Sumatra caught international attention.
\nMore importantly, they caught the attention of the governments and
\npeople in South-east Asia.<\/p>\n
Impatience over official inaction, or late reaction to the
\nproblem, reached far greater heights than the previous years when
\nthe first episode of haze reared its ugly head. What we have
\nwitnessed so far are unprecedented public indications to \"do
\nsomething about it\". President Soeharto has apologised twice; his
\nministers have pledged to get tough with logging companies and
\nMalaysia is starting to push for stronger Asean efforts to ensure
\nthat the haze does not recur with such ferocity.<\/p>\n
The recent episode has shown that environmental problems not
\nonly cross borders, they have direct impact on the economy and on
\ndomestic politics. Rising health costs strain government spending
\nand affect the labour force; tourism will fall if South-east Asia
\nis labelled a health hazard; and multi-national corporations will
\nthink twice about allocating more resources to the region. Also,
\nif promises of change are not kept, the protests will grow
\nlouder, and they will not merely be directed at the domestic
\ngovernment.<\/p>\n
Looking back at how governments reacted to the haze, a nervous
\natmosphere was detectable. Cross-border help was gently offered,
\nand provided when requested. Everyone was told to be patient, and
\nspeak softly. That, it has been explained, is the Asean way.<\/p>\n
The Asean way is a product of years of socialising among the
\nmember states. It encompasses reverence for state sovereignty and
\nits territorial integrity, and adherence to the rule of non-
\ninterference in domestic politics that have been among the basic
\nprinciples observed by Asean. It is based on cooperation and
\nconsensus where informality, courtesy and politeness are the
\norder of the day.<\/p>\n
Also, foreign policy is not conducted in full public view,
\nrisking public loss of face, and if a dispute cannot be resolved,
\nit is left for another day, while Asean countries agree to
\ndisagree for the time being. These principles have been the
\norganisation's main strength. Such norms of diplomacy may have
\nworked for economic and political affairs but environmental
\nproblems throw up different challenges and demand new responses.<\/p>\n
It may be asked of the Asean way, that if governments are so
\nfamiliar with each other, then could a little bluntness not be
\naccepted without threatening the organisation? After all,
\ncriticism between friends need not sour the relationship. Is
\nAsean still too fragile to withstand any such test?<\/p>\n
The problem between state power and the politics of the
\nenvironment is not just an Asean dilemma. It is an international
\nissue in a world moving along the \"globalisation\" path, facing
\nglobal problems. In December, a follow-up to the 1992 Rio Earth
\nSummit will take place in Kyoto. Already, there is controversy
\nover the proposed treaty on the reduction of carbon monoxide
\nemissions. The U.S. would not sign unless developing countries do,
\nTokyo wants to exempt China, Brazil and India from the treaty,
\npresumably in exchange for their attendance, and developing
\ncountries are not willing to commit to an environmental plan that
\nmight obstruct their industrialisation process.<\/p>\n
Herein lies the problem -- how do you deal with environmental
\nproblems and seek compensation for damages when states guard
\ntheir sovereignty so jealously? How do you establish some sort of
\ngovernance to lessen the damage to the environment?<\/p>\n
There are two opposing trends at work. First, the global issue
\nof the environment that questions the efficacy of using state-
\ndetermined and state-driven mechanisms to address the topic.
\nEconomic globalisation, powered by free-market economics and
\nmulti-national corporations, has already successfully challenged
\nstate power.<\/p>\n
Should environmental groups push for their participation in
\nenvironmental policies and demand that states accept some level
\nof international governance, the fear within states is that it
\nwould only open them up to greater degrees of interference. At
\nthe other end lies the tenacity of the state as an international
\npolitical unit that fights to retain its sovereignty and power
\nover resources.<\/p>\n
This battle has been ongoing for decades, and while we see
\npressures growing from the environmental front, no end seems to
\nbe in sight.<\/p>\n
If the pre-Kyoto Summit debates are anything to go by, and the
\nRio Summit a historical example, what would emerge are watered-
\ndown agreements with little or no binding power that would
\nfurther consolidate the recalcitrance of the state as a political
\nunit.<\/p>\n
In the meantime, the World Wildlife Fund for Nature's recent
\nreport argues that if nothing is done about the current rate of
\ndeforestation, the lungs of the world will simply die away.<\/p>\n
Priscilla Hon is a Research Associate at the Institute of
\nSoutheast Asian Studies, Singapore.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/dealing-with-environmental-problems-is-not-that-simple-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}