I remember taking a “chicken bus” in 2001 from my hostel in San Juan del Sur, Nicaragua, to a remote surf spot about 20 minutes up a dirt road. The ride is fresh in my memory not for the stunning beauty of the deserted beach I arrived at, but for the endless pile of plastic waste that I saw in a dumping ground that covered a stretch about 500 metres wide and about four kilometres long between the road and the ocean...it was my first experience of ‘recycling’ in the South and it was the spark of questions around overproduction, waste management, education, ecological responsibility and environmental degradation. It was also the beginning of a philosophical question which has yet to be answered in my mind: why does human security prevail over environmental security? Will we ever find a sustainable model of development if we value environmental health less than we do human existence, as is the case today?

Globalization has and will continue to have major impacts on environmental and thus human security. “Increased population densities, lack of context appropriate knowledge, low levels of capital and weak institutional arrangements usually result in sever ecological damage.” (Khagram, et al., 2003, p. 295) Therefore, environmental health must take centre stage in our view of human security, as economic growth, global investments and trade liberalization, along with increase in production and consumption have created strong ripple effects in our global environmental pond. 

Proponents of trade liberalization argue that long term economic growth will improve the institutions that govern environmental reform, while improving the governance structures that support them. (Dauvergne, 2005, p. 382) This argument is based strongly on the environmental Kuznets Curve (below), which suggests that as incomes rise, pollution levels will follow, until a crux is reached at which point global resources and institutions, technologies, regulations and ecological trade markets will ‘catch up’, allowing those countries in the first half of the curve to “tunnel through”, eventually decreasing pollution levels. (Dauvergne, 2005, p. 382)

This idea claims that free trade encourages efficient global production, transfer of technologies from the North to South and will result in higher environmental standards. It has many shortcoming, however, as it doesn’t accurately represent that trade barriers distort prices of natural resources, thus fuelling waste and overconsumption, that some environmental damage is irreversible and that international environmental protection policies need first to be put in place and subsequently followed and monitored in order to be successful.

Environmental Standards and Exploitation

There is evidence that trade can put pressure on corporations with low environmental standards to raise them to gain access to different markets, as was the case when the auto industry in Japan and Germany adjusted emission standards to compete with Californian standards (Dauvergne, 2005). However, on the flip-side restricting trade is sometimes necessary for protection of endangered species or control of use and disposal of chemical and other hazardous waste.

Some transnational corporations (TNC’s) operate at a higher standard than local laws call for a variety of reasons: partly because they have access to “more sophisticated technologies and management techniques; partly because of pressure from states, NGO’s, shareholders and consumers; partly because of internal codes of conduct and risk-management strategies; and partly because the resulting efficiencies can provide a competitive advantage.” (Dauvergne, 2005, p. 383)  However, this is certainly not always the case and double standards are common. TNC’s are widely known to apply lower standards in countries with weaker laws, including General Electric, Ford and GM who operate in Mexico to avoid California’s emission laws, or Union Carbide, the American company responsible for a massive methyl isocyanate leak which caused the greatest chemical disaster in history, all because they were operating at a low standard in India.  During this disaster in 1984, an estimated 2,000-5,000 people died immediately, with aid organizations estimating up to 15,000 died in the weeks following the accident. (Vince, 2009): “This is a tragedy that could so easily have been avoided. If cost-cutting officials at the plant had not shutdown the tank's regulatory pressurisation and refrigeration systems; if the valves had been maintained properly and not allowed to leak water into the gas tank, sparking a catastrophic runaway reaction; if the vapour absorption ("scrubbing") system had been in use, it might never have happened.” (Vince, 2009)

Critics of globalization claim that it distances production from consumption, thus removing the immediate ecological effects of individual actions and that trade can put a downward pressure on environmental standards in a “race to the bottom”.  Free trade also often translates into patterns of exchange that exploit the labour and environments of the South, especially in mining, textiles and electronic factories in Latin America, Africa and the Asia-Pacific. In 2014, computer e-waste being transferred from Vancouver’s port to recycling facilities in Pakistan and Hong Kong was stopped upon arrival for being in violation of the Basel convention. (Pynn, 2014). The Basel convention was adopted in 1989 as “an international law designed to protect human and environmental health from dangerous recycling”. (Pynn, 2014, p.1)

It becomes clear from these examples that the effectiveness of environmental standards is dependent on the breadth and scope of the guidelines and the strength of the state and inter-state policies in place to support them. (Dauvergne, 2005, p. 387)

Technology Transfer, Consumption and Sustainable Use of Resources

In the Kuznets curve model, technology transfer from developed economies is argued to be one of the key tools to lift developing nations out of high pollution levels. However, that argument neglects the trend that overproductions and overconsumption (by the North) may override environmental gains, for example in the race for new computer technologies (and the subsequent tech waste that follows). There has been a fourfold rise in energy consumption since World War II and “the North, with about 15 percent of the global population, accounts for about three-quarters of global consumption” (Dauvergne, 2005, p. 384)

Trade liberalization also does not take into account resource capture which occurs when supply of a resources decreases, thus increasing demand and encouraging “the more powerful groups in a society to exercise more control and even ownership of the scarce resource, thereby enhancing their wealth and power.” (Khagram, et al., 2003, p. 295) Along with enhancing wealth and power, we know that putting resources into the hands of few can have a detrimental impact on the access to resources for the poor which then often spirals into unsustainable use and competition (possibly leading to conflict) over what resources are available. Overconsumption and other unsustainable uses of resources encouraged can lead to irreplaceable damage to biodiversity or species, eruption of mass ecological change, declining of one toxic substance leads to rise of another, and regional shifts that can sometimes mask negative environmental impacts (ex. shifting production offshore).

It is clear that left to insufficient or weakly held checks and balances, globalization and free trade liberalization do not inherently treat the environment as an entity worth protecting in its own right, rather, ecological security will result only from a conscious implementation of a complex interplay of factors: “new consumption patterns, innovative markets, technological advances, corporate ethics, and cooperation [are necessary] to ensure a sustainable global economy.” (Dauvergne, 2005, p. 386) I think Khagram, Clark & Raad said if perfectly: “efforts to protect nature will fail unless they simultaneously advance the cause of human betterment; efforts to better the lives of people will fail if they fail to conserve, if not enhance, essential resources and life support systems.” (Khagram, Clark & Raad, 2003, p. 289) The high rate of compliance with the international ozone regime is proof that multilateral action and global regimes can work, but the jury is still out on the success of collaboration on climate change, deforestation and water health.

A brief but clear overview of the current situation in Libya. As the internationally recognized government flees Tripoli, Fajr Libya, the Islamic militia, claims governance and occupies the capital as they take up arms against ISIS. Food prices are soaring, personal safety is frail and internally displaced peoples are left deprived of basic needs. UN peace talks between opposing sides are ongoing.

Putra & Sukabdri (2013) conducted a study aimed to discover the reasons behind Islamist terrorist actions in Indonesia, the concepts that explain those actions and the specific choice of targets. Forty male participants took place in the study; they were all part of JI or KOMPAK (an Islamic group based in the Sulawesi province linked to providing funding to JI); 27 of the 40 were incarcerated for terrorist activities, including the Bali bombing and the Ambon conflict.

The interviewees involved in the Bali bombing cited dissatisfaction with the Indonesian government, decrease in overall morality, and deteriorating social conditions in Indonesia as central reasons for the attack. They repeatedly refer to Christianization and attacks against their Muslim brothers in Palestine and Afghanistan as reason to combat; they perceive their country to be in a state of war against Muslim ideology, thus justifying Jihad. The activists believed it is forbidden to attack peaceful non-Muslims, but they question the existence of such people. They see their own president as a “representative of evil who supports America and its allies” (Putra & Sukabdri, 2013, p. 87).

The interviewees perceive Islam as under threat and Putra & Sukabdri (2013) argue this has led to fights against injustice and reduced individual compassion. Context is important; Islamic terrorism in Indonesia differs from other regions, such as Palestine or Lebanon, Putra & Sukabdri (2013) argue, partly because such actions are not as substantially supported by Islamic groups and even not always by families of the perpetrators. In addition, there is a weaker link between the described goals of terrorism and the acts put into play. Nasir Abas, a former prominent member of the Islamist group, JI (a group repeatedly linked to terrorism in Indonesia) claimed that a prominent goal of Indonesian terrorism is to establish an Islamic state. But, their actions in targeting civilian and foreign subjects (ex. Australian embassy, western communities in Bali) instead of government officials or institutions make the link between goal and action less clear; this is in stark contrast to the Islamic terrorist actions in Palestine, Egypt and India which Putra & Sukabdri (2013) identify as being more consistently against authority.

The connection, however becomes more clear as those interviewed identified strategic political views: one of the Bali bombers in the study stated the attack was a direct response to “atrocities committed towards Muslims worldwide by the USA and its allies” (Putra & Sukabdi, 2013, p. 88). He believed that America, as a superpower state, currently has the ability to stop the conflict between Palestine and Israel but chooses not to. Activists also believe that America should not interfere with Indonesian national affairs. This begs the question, as posed by Rob in the podcast, as to whether American power creates stability in the west while destabilizing other areas. Clearly, the ideological link for Indonesian extremist activists means that it does, but would an alternative Muslim state be more peaceful, more secure? Arquilla (2013) writes that “50 percent of the experts assert that the American relationship with Israel now hurts US national security more than it helps” (p. 72). Is this the case overseas, as well? The answer is unclear (at least to me)!

Approaching this study of Indonesian Islamist terrorism with the view of identifying a zone of possible agreement – one might ask how we can meet in the ‘ideological’ middle ground. Because such terrorists are willing to sacrifice this life for what they rationalize as justified defense of Islam, the religious, cultural and political counterparts that find such beliefs intolerable (whether it be a Christian community, or democratic nation) have shut down communications and have failed in finding a common ground upon which to move forward. How can we find a way of understanding the root of what others believe in order to find solutions to intractable conflicts?

“We learn how to believe before we learn what to believe. It is what we believe – the second stage – that is at the heart of many our current conflicts. We love and hate because of our beliefs; we make homes for ourselves and drive others out, saying that we have been here forever or were sent because of a vision of goodness or gold, or instructions from our gods; we go wandering, and we go to war. Whether Jew or Arab, Catholic or Protestant, farmer or hunter, black or white, man or woman, we all have stories that hold us in thrall and hold others at bay.” (Chamberlin, 2003, p. 2)

Some say we can’t negotiate with terrorists, but it’s possible we will not find solutions any other way. We negotiate regularly with murderers (something of which I am woefully reminded as Paul Bernardo’s name hits the papers again), despite the fact that we have deemed their actions deplorable by law. We find middle ground in order to move forward and keep society safe. We analyze possible causes and cures and I believe we must continue to delve into the rationalities of terrorist activists in order to find a way out; we must work to find ideological common ground in order to move towards a “zone of possible agreement”, as discussed by Burgess & Burgess (2003).

 “The development of Islamist terror activists’ norms, beliefs, and ideology are rooted in a collective understanding of the Qu’ran verses and as-Sunnah” (P & S, 2013, p. 84). In other words, they are a result of a specific interpretation and application of words within a particular cultural, temporal, religious and political context. They are results of belief. Individuals have deemed certain words more valuable than life itself. And have disregarded the words, stories and songs of others.  Is this unlike what happened in British Columbia during government land claims with the Gitksan in the 1990s? The government deemed the First Nations group did not have rights to the land because there was no written documentation to prove it. The Gitskan asked “if this is your land, where are your stories”. It’s a battle of words, of ideologies, of identity, of home.  And though the pillaging of land from the Gitskan may seem far removed from the taking of life by a suicide bomber, I believe they are closely linked – the conflict arises from interpretations of context. “Stories give meaning and value to the places we call home; they bring us close to the world we live in by taking us into a world of words; they hold us together and at the same time keep us apart” (Chamberlin, 2003, p. 1).

Burgess & Burgess (2003, p.3) articulate three causes of intractable conflicts which can be identified in the case of Islamic terrorism in Indonesia: irreconcilable moral differences (reflected as the defence and expansion of the Islamic state), high stakes distributional issues (the perceived inequality of Muslim vs. Christian livelihood in Indonesia) and domination or pecking order conflicts (the belief that American ideology has taken over national interests in Indonesia, thus disregarding Muslim beliefs and the desire for syariah law to rule).

As Burgess & Burgess (2003) point out, “the enemy [in intractable conflicts] is not the other side, but rather the process of escalation ... [which] pushes them to act in increasingly extreme ways that would not, under other circumstances be considered remotely acceptable” (p. 4). I am inclined to suggest that in order to de-escalate terrorist activities and subsequent responses, we need to have a far greater understanding of the stories and beliefs of both sides so that we may find common ground on which to create new stories.

Arquilla, John. (2013, March 4). State of war. Foreign Policy, 199 (March-April), 72-73.

Burgess, Heidi & Burgess, Guy M. (2003). What are intractable conflicts? Knowledge Base Essay. Beyond Intractability Project, University of Colorado.

Chamberlin, J. (2003). If this is your land, where are your stories?: Finding common ground. Toronto: A.A. Knopf Canada.

Putra, I., & Sukabdi, Z. (2013). Basic concepts and reasons behind the emergence of religious terror activities in Indonesia: An inside view.Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 83-91. Retrieved from Ebsco.