Yesterday, President Obama delivered his much-anticipated Afghan speech. In addition to building the Afghan state and strengthening relations with neighboring countries, the President reiterated that America’s primary goal is to defeat Al Qaeda. To do so, another 30,000 troops have been committed, with a 2011 exit date in place.
My viewpoint on the war in Afghanistan is not informed enough to know if this is the right move. No matter one’s perspective however, it’s obvious that an extended military commitment in the Middle East has inevitable and ongoing implications, including a rising death toll, strained resources and increased costs.
In a UN report released last month, an additional, often overlooked factor of war is considered: the environment. Together, the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) declare that the environment is “the silent victim” of armed conflicts worldwide. This is mainly due to flaws in certain humanitarian, criminal, environmental and human rights laws that are poorly implemented or rarely enforced. In “Protecting the Environment During Armed Conflict,” it is found:
“…armed conflict causes significant harm to the environment and the communities that depend on natural resources. Direct and indirect environmental damage, coupled with the collapse of institutions, lead to environmental risks that can threaten people’s health, livelihoods and security, and ultimately undermine post-conflict peacebuilding.”
Moreover, the degradation of environmental resources isn’t only apparent in the aftermath of war:
“…the exploitation and illegal trade of natural resources frequently fuel and prolong armed conflict, particularly in countries where the laws and institutions have been weakened or have collapsed. As peacebuilding often addresses the allocation, access and ownership of natural resources, there is an urgent need to strengthen their protection during armed conflict.”
Speaking last month on the topic, UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon informed:
“More than thirty years since the massive defoliation campaigns of the Vietnam War, and nearly twenty years since the extensive pollution caused by the destruction of 600 oil wells in Kuwait at the end of the first Gulf War, the environment continues to fall victim to armed conflict worldwide. Decades of protracted conflict in the Gaza Strip, for example, have so severely affected groundwater supplies upon which 1.5 million Palestinians depend for drinking and agriculture that those supplies are in danger of imminent collapse.”
The report closes with twelve ambitious recommendations, the majority of which call for the overhaul of major international legal agreements.
As the Obama Administration embarks upon a revised three-year strategy in Afghanistan, it seems erroneous to contemplate the treatment of the Afghan natural environment, for example, when the most profound cost of war is the lost lives. However, in its assessment of over twenty conflicts, over the past ten years, the UNEP and the ELI make it clear that a goal of lasting peace is unlikely when the resources that sustain livelihood are implicit in the destruction and insecurity caused by war.
