Guest Post: Amy Searight on the Politics of Climate Change in Asia

The Politics of Climate Change in Asia

This is a guest post by Amy Searight, Adjunct Fellow at the Japan Chair of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and Adjunct Professor at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University.

The comparison of climate change politics across Asia’s widely disparate countries has yielded some fascinating insights. Asia-Pacific countries divide roughly into two groups. The first group consists of more ambitious countries, with governments willing and able to take a forward leaning stance on climate change policies, including Korea, Japan, Indonesia, and to some extent Australia under the Labor government. The other group includes those countries facing severe domestic constraints and reluctant to take the lead in climate change policy, such as China, India, and the United States. 

Interestingly, this grouping does not break down along lines of advanced versus emerging market economies or between more and less economically developed countries. The analyses of these scholars highlighted the ways in which countries define their interests differently and uniquely, depending on perception of opportunities at the international level, as well as the domestic political situation faced by governments at home.

One common strategic constraint facing all countries in international collaboration on climate change is the collective action dilemma. No country wants to assume an unfair burden by contributing more than their “fair share” of carbon reductions. This common problem is made more acute by concerns over competitiveness and carbon leakage – the risk that self-imposed limits on carbon emissions will drive up local industrial costs higher than countries (notably China) that insist on less stringent restrictions.  All countries want to avoid a “suckers payoff” in the strategic game of climate change cooperation.

And yet, despite this common strategic dilemma, the politics of climate change policy are playing out quite differently across these countries. Several key Asian governments have sought to use climate change to their domestic and international advantage. Rather than focusing on costs and constraints, these governments are framing the issue as one of opportunities. Korea and Japan, for example, are both seeking to take leading roles in global efforts to mitigate climate change. The current governments in both countries see several advantages to positioning themselves as “green leaders.” First, playing a lead and constructive role in global talks on climate change is an opportunity to boost international stature and augment their “soft power” by being seen as “green powers.” Second, both countries see first-mover advantages in restructuring their economies to promote green technologies. Despite substantial opposition from industry in both countries, the governments of President Lee in Korea and the Prime Minister Hatoyama in Japan are able to frame their ambitious environmental agendas in ways that are sustaining broad public support.

Another comparatively forward leaning country is Indonesia. President Yudhoyono has proposed ambitious unilateral reduction targets for emissions, and has offered even higher reductions with international support. Like Korea, Indonesia sees an opportunity to play a leading role in international climate change discussions as a “bridge” between diverse countries, as a developing country, an oil producer, and an archipelago highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The government is also motivated by the prospect of gaining international financial support, as well as the comparatively low cost of mitigation policies that would come from tackling the problems of deforestation, forest fires and peatland degradation, which contribute more than half of Indonesia’s greenhouse gas emissions.

As these examples illustrate, the comparison of these seven Asia-Pacific countries suggest that variables on both the international and domestic levels are central to explaining national variation in climate change politics. In addition to the international opportunities and constraints discussed above, the key domestic political variables include:

—The government:  how does the current government view climate change policies in terms of partisan electoral considerations?  Are leaders personally involved in and committed to policy outcomes?  Are bureaucratic rivalries shaping policies in positive or negative ways? 

—Opposition:  Are groups opposed to climate change policies organized and coherent, or fragmented?  Is there a strong political party who stands against the government on the issue?  Is the business community unified in opposition to climate change, or is it divided by competing interests?

—The broad public debate over climate change:  Where does public opinion stand on the issue of global warming and climate change?  How much acceptance vs. skepticism of scientific beliefs on climate change is expressed by the public?  Is the question of cost (in monetary terms) clearly defined in public discussion over climate change policies?  To what extent are concerns about competitiveness and carbon leakage the focus of public debate?  How do cultural understandings and environmental features of each country shape the public debate?

Further comparative analysis on these questions will yield additional insights into the likely trajectories of climate change policies in key Asian nations.  These in turn may help identify possible roadblocks to international efforts on climate change, as well as suggest potential areas of cooperation on the global and regional level.

Through the Politics of Climate Change in Asia project, CSIS is looking in-depth at how the Asia-Pacific region can work together to address the challenges of climate change, energy insecurity, and humanitarian crises in the years ahead.  As part of this initiative, CSIS held a roundtable on the Politics of Climate Change in Asia during the brief lull between two major snowstorms that hit Washington D.C. in February.  Scholars drawn from across the Asia-Pacific region braved the blizzard-like travel conditions and gathered at CSIS to discuss papers analyzing the domestic and international politics shaping the emerging perspectives and policies on climate change in their respective countries.  The scholars included Kiyoaki Aburaki (writing on Japan); Malcolm Cook (Australia); Prem Shankar Jha (India); Sarah Ladislaw (the United States); Wonhyuk Lim (Korea); Agus P. Sari (Indonesia); and Zhu Feng (China), along with CSIS scholars and a range of other experts on climate change and regional politics.  To learn more, visit the CSIS Asian Regionalism page. 

Posted by Matthew Shannon Stumpf on March 17, 2010. Respond »

Research Tools: Literature Reviews on Internal Conflicts in India and Indonesia

The HD Centre and its partners have released two literature reviews in support of their project “Comparative Perspectives on Conflict Management in Asia.” Both are available on the web site of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore.

A review of material on conflict management in India, conducted in partnership with the Delhi Policy Group, focuses on conflicts in Kashmir and Manipur, as well as on the Naxalites. Read it here.

A review of material on conflict management in Indonesia, conducted in partnership with the Peace-Building Institute (Institut Titian Perdamaian) and the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), focuses on Papua, Poso, Maluku and Indonesia more broadly. Read it here.

Posted by Matthew Shannon Stumpf on March 4, 2010. Respond »

To Jaw-Jaw:  Next India, Pakistan Talk in Islamabad or New York?

After the lackluster meeting between the Foreign Secretaries of India and Pakistan in late February, the buzz is now about another round of informal handshakes (may be more than that ) between Heads of the State which are expected sometime in April 2010. This would take place perhaps on the sidelines of a scheduled United Nations conference on nuclear security in New York. While the exact schedule of the forthcoming meeting is not known yet it is expected that Indian and Pakistani leaders may have a one-to-one meeting in New York.

Last week’s meeting in New Delhi produced nothing, except of course setting the atmosphere for future meetings.

Another buzz doing the rounds is that India’s foreign secretary Nirupama Rao might meet her Pakistani counterpart, Salman Bashir in Islamabad sometime this month. Though the schedule is not certain and the structure of the engagement is not properly laid out, the trends are quite encouraging.  At least there are rumors around regarding future parleys between the warring neighbours.

Now interestingly, political leaders of both countries are lamenting that they are victims of cross border terrorism and blaming each other for fueling terrorism. While India pointing towards the 40 odd terrorist camps in Pakistan administered Kashmir, Pakistan pointed towards India’s hand in Balochistan insurgency.

Winston Churchill once said (at the White House on June 26, 1954) “To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.” He was optimistic like most of us. But is it a good idea to pretend to be an optimist always, especially in this (Indo-Pak) case? 

Posted by Animesh Roul on March 2, 2010. Respond »

India Looks West and East

Two new Asia Security Initiative-supported reports have been published offering commentary on and ideas for India’s foreign policy. 

The Centre for Policy Research in Delhi offers a Policy Brief, “Steering Its Own Path in Afghanistan: India’s Options after the London Conference.” Read it here.

The George Washington University in Washington has issued a Policy Commentary, “Indo-ASEAN Agreement Boosts India’s Image.” Read it here.

Posted by Matthew Shannon Stumpf on February 24, 2010. Respond »

India and Bangladesh: Treating Disease Together!

For the very first time, two countries in South Asia (India and Bangladesh) have joined forces to fight common infectious diseases through mutual cooperation. The health ministers of both countries even agreed to sign a memorandum of understanding in near future for working together on different aspects in health sector. This is undoubtedly a welcome development and only with this kind of bilateral initiative countries can mitigate and contain cross-border transmission of emerging and reemerging infectious diseases (ERIDs).

However, this development (call it ‘initiative’) ironically went unnoticed by the large section of print and web media here in the region.  So I am flagging it here for the ASI Blog readers for further discussion.

Bangladesh, India to prepare MoU in health sector, New Nation, February 15, 2010

“Dhaka, Delhi agree to cut infectious diseases”, Daily Star, February 15, 2010.

“Dhaka, New Delhi to cooperate on curbing infectious diseases”, IANS, February 15, 2010

Posted by Animesh Roul on February 16, 2010. Respond »