The politics of climate change

By Mustafa Hyder Sayed

The recent announcement by Japan to release over a million tons of radioactive wastewater has created an international controversy and alarmed neighboring countries. Whilst Japan’s two important neighbors: China and South Korea have strongly opposed this move because of environment and public health concerns, the United States has legitimized Japan’s decision by terming it “transparent” and consistent with international best practices by other countries.

The controversy is catapulting climate change, an issue beyond political partisanships, into the realm of partisan geopolitics, that could compromise the international consensus that has been cultivated over the past years, and politicize an issue which is existential for humanity.

At a time when climate change has arguably become an existential crisis facing the human civilization, and President Biden is in the process of hosting a high-level summit with other world leaders to forge a united front, the announcement by Japan could not have come at a worst time. The reaction by the United States to Japan’s announcement also speaks to the blaring inequity in the world’s climate change policy.

The selective application of compliance to environmental standards and climate change protection only wanes the credibility of the United States, just like selective application of human rights to certain states weaponizes a very solemn issue.

It can be interpreted that since Japan is also seen as a counter-weight to China in Asia, the U.S. is reluctant to question the nuclear waste disposal and look the other way. It also shows the desperation of Washington to cling to its allies that it thinks it needs to confront China, particularly in Asia, where Beijing seems to be outdoing Washington in winning friends, thanks to in a large part to the Belt and Road Initiative.

Nevertheless, it remains imperative to keep certain global issues like climate change above the political fray and unblemished as it is all but necessary to maintain and nurture the consensus that has been established to address such challenges.

The sustained dumping of contaminated water into the ocean shall not only harm the oceanic flora and fauna, but also the fishing industry of the surrounding region, calling into question the safety of consuming the fish from the area. As reported by The Guardian, Kanji Tachiya, who heads the local fisheries cooperative in Fukushima, has also opposed the move, citing the environmental fears that may eventually disintegrate the fishery industry of Fukushima. 

Tanks containing radioactive wastewater from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station in Fukushima Prefecture, September 18, 2013. /Getty

Had China made a similar decision to dump wastewater into the ocean, would the U.S.’ have still “thanked” China for “its transparent efforts in its decision to dispose of the treated water,” as was tweeted by Secretary Blinken in the case of Japan?

Apart from the adverse effect to the environment, the violation of human rights by polluting soil used for agriculture, fish that would potentially be consumed by humans, and all other long-term, unintended consequences is remarkably overlooked by Washington. The disposal of nuclear waste in an ocean is not and cannot be a unilateral decision of anyone state, bearing in mind that the ocean is a collective space that transcends traditional boundaries and geography.

According to a statement by climate change NGO, Greenpeace Japan, the waste disposal “completely disregards human rights and interests of the people in Fukushima, wider Japan and the Asia-Pacific region.”

To troubleshoot the situation, Japan can consider the following policy prescriptions: i) call a consultative meeting of neighboring countries to discuss Japan’s plans for waste disposal and address the concerns of the neighbors;

ii) devise a collective strategy to mitigate environmental impact of the waste disposal where the prospective risks to the region are identified and strategies on how to mitigate and minimize them are agreed upon;

iii) develop an institutionalized framework for the way forward of the waste disposal by having an inclusive decision-making process with participation from an official representative from each of the neighboring countries and relevant stakeholders.

The Biden administration, after the faux pas in Alaska, where Secretary Blinken’s unfounded aggression backfired, must correct its policy trajectory from that of petty partisanship to that of global leadership, if it seeks to renew America’s role in key international issues like climate change.

The fact that political interests and geopolitics are blurring objectivity of issues that are purely apolitical, international and collective, like that of climate change, is concerning, and shows a short-sighted, narrow vision that centers upon strengthening strategic partners at all costs.

In its hurry to counter China, it seems that the U.S. will go to any length to strengthen the Quad, and those countries that it deems are strategically aligned with it. The U.S., in its National Security Strategy document, says it shall cooperate, compete and confront China, depending on the domain. Climate change is certainly an area to cooperate.

Mustafa Hyder Sayed is the executive director of the Pakistan-China Institute. The article reflects the author’s opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Cgtn.com