In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

44 3 The Post-Tsunami Indian Ocean Region emerging perspectives on environmental security sanjay chaturvedi On December 26, 2004, an earthquake-induced tsunami disaster struck the coastal regions and communities on the Indian Ocean rim, killing more than 300,000 people and displacing 5 million. The coastal zones accounted for nearly 96 percent of the total human loss and sufferings and about 12 percent of the total economic damage recorded in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, Thailand, Myanmar, the Maldives, and Bangladesh. The fatalities were also reported in the Seychelles, and on the other side of the Indian Ocean in Somalia’s Puntland region, Tanzania, and Kenya. While the then U.S. secretary of state, Colin Powell, compared the impact with a Hiroshima-sized nuclear explosion, the states that were most vocal and visible in offering assistance to tsunami-hit countries were those very powers (such as the U.S.A. and India) that are likely to act as the main military players in and around the Indian Ocean well into the 21st century (Huxley 2005). In what ways has the Indian Ocean tsunami compelled and/or motivated both the national governments in the Indian Ocean Region and the concerned international organizations/NGOs to rethink the notion of “environmental security” with special reference to the mitigation and management of disasters? Is the posttsunami Indian Ocean Region better equipped (both intellectually and institutionally ) to anticipate, manage, and adapt to disasters? If yes, in what ways? If not, why not? Why has environmental justice, both as a concept and movement, not received the attention it deserves in the environmental security/policy discourse in the Indian Ocean Region? “Environmental Security”: Diverse Contexts, Competing Texts, and Contested Readings A systematic investigation of relatively under-researched links between environmental security and devolution of power to the grass roots should begin by acknowledging , at the very outset, that the realm of “environmental security” is marked by remarkably diverse contexts, competing texts, and contested readings. It is no doubt reassuring that vibrant, alternative political voices known as the environmental movements continue to demand environmental justice in different parts of the globe. Yet, there is a long way to go in this regard (Doyle 2000). One of the key challenges lies in turning the critical gaze of such alternative political voices to an understanding of linkages between “natural” disasters and democracy deficit on the one hand, and between “environmental security” and “environmental justice” on the other. The 21st century has been described by some as the “Climate Century” (Glantz 2003). The latest report of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) mentions that the poorest of the poor in the world—and this includes poor people in prosperous societies as well—are going to be the worst hit. Those who are on the socio-economic margins will find it increasingly hard to adapt to climate change. Among the hardest-hit places will be parts of Africa, where arid climates will dry out further, resulting in starvation, and poorer regions of Asia that face threats of rising seas, diminishing freshwater supplies, and more virulent disease. Questions of equity, differential vulnerability within regions, and differing adaptive capacity are significant. The consequences of biophysical impacts can differ for different members of even the same community. Whereas some individuals or groups might perceive an opportunity with change, others might experience a loss, thereby altering group dynamics and making it difficult to arrive at a consensus on how to adapt and how the costs of adaptation should be equitably shared (O’Brien and Leichenko 2003). Whether environmental security is compatible or in conflict with an exclusive focus on the security of the nation-state is a question on which different views have been expressed (Porter 1995, 218). Some analysts would prefer to approach environmental threats within the traditional, state-centric framework of “national” security . They would argue that the military qualifies to be a positive agent of environmental preservation not only because it is well organized but also because it can bring its organizational abilities to bear on local environmental problems (Butts 1994). Others would maintain that a part of the problem cannot be a part of the solution (Finger 1994, 169). There is a good deal of evidence to suggest that the military, implicated in the ideological geopolitics of the Cold War and shielded by the veil of secrecy and realist discourse of national security, continued to pollute at a large scale—both on land and at...

Share