Reframing The Global South: An International Environmental Politics Perspective

Reframing the Global South: An International Environmental Politics Perspective

Sinanian, Michael ESPM 169 (O’Neill/Bullock) September 29, 2009

In the two articles concerning the relationship between the global North and the global South, both authors Najam and Karlsson seek to address the various differences between these regions and how said differences have shaped international agreements concerning the environment. While Najam discusses the “shared identity and common purpose” of the global South as one that is primarily characterized by essentially an inferiority complex, Karlsson provides depth to that analysis by presenting specific instances in which these points of inferiority are in fact true and accurate. (Najam 2005: 225) However, while the articles explore these ‘disadvantages’ encountered by the South, they at times fail to realize that the era of an economically weak and politically dependent South is nearly over. (Najam 2005: 226) It can thus be argued that although Najam and Karlsson are mostly correct in their analysis, they do not chart a trajectory for the South that incorporates several recent technological and socioeconomic developments and radical new ideas that are to have a tremendous impact on the region, and subsequently, on the international agreements this region chooses to accept. Najam correctly prescribes several steps the South should take to ensure far more productive international negotiations. He boldly states that the South should, “Stop feeling angry at the North and sorry for [itself].” (Najam 2005: 234) He also argues that it should, “focus on interests … cultivate its own power; be hard on issues, not on people … organize itself … [and] clean up its own.” (Najam 2005: 234) These are all valid suggestions, but it forces us to see the North-South dichotomy as one framed in terms of a competition in which there are winners and losers. However, this need not be the case. Although the article states that, “…good agreements are more important than ‘winning,’” it can be argued that there are in fact no clear winners or

losers to begin with. The South is now uniquely poised to take advantage of certain technological and societal developments that will not ‘win’ them anything, but rather, will eventually bring them to equal footing with the developed world. That parity is utterly essential to productive and fruitful international environmental negotiations, which would lack animosity or covetousness between global regions. As Najam himself states, sustainable development has been a key aspect of several international agreements to date, and for good reason, too: it is a crucial piece in the South’s long-term development, but one in which they are uniquely suited to adapt and use for deploying new technologies and infrastructure on scales that would never be feasible or practical in a comparably ‘developed’ nation. For example, retrofitting existing energy, transportation, or other resource infrastructure in the U.S. would be cost prohibitive on a number of levels, and would take much longer and cost much more to complete than a similar nation-wide deployment in a sub-Saharan African nation. That nation on the other hand, would start with no initial infrastructure to repair or modify, nor would it deal with a lengthy bureaucratic process that would undoubtedly prolong deployment. To further illustrate this advantage of the South, the cost of building additional coal-fired power plants or retrofitting or expanding existing ones in a developed country would be a far greater task than to build new, green, sustainable energy sources in a Southern nation. Moving outside an example such as energy and into other sectors, the extent to which Southern nations are uniquely suited to adopt sustainable practices becomes far more visible when we consider innovative new developments taking place in the financial, telecom, and agricultural sectors. The recent “mobile money” revolution unfolding in Africa is an example of how online

banks and lenders are taking advantage of the freshly widespread (near ubiquitous) adoption of mobile phones in the region, using them as a platform to lend digital money and IOUs that are especially effective in many African cultures that rely on non-Western transaction practices. (“Economist” 2009) This is one arena in which both the service economy of the South is growing at a phenomenal rate while maintaining environmentally sustainable practices (via the elimination of paper banking and the environmental degradation that ensues) on a level above and beyond what most developed nations could boast about. Additionally, studies and innovations in wireless telecommunications technologies have unearthed the potential of deploying WiFi signals in television frequencies that could provide Internet access to hundreds of millions, but potentially accomplish far more. For example, these new “WhiteFi” protocols allow for incredibly efficient automated irrigation systems that have the potential to “reduce water use on farms by 30 to 60 percent.” (Anderson 2009) The fact that Southern nations are only now beginning to pick amongst various telecommunications options to deploy across their countries gives them the unique advantage of harnessing these cutting-edge technologies that, as with the abovementioned cases, developed countries could only hope to achieve within 10 to 20 years. Developments like WhiteFi are more likely to emerge in the global South than anywhere else, allowing the region to fully maximize the comparative advantage offered by the technology, placing them on par with developed nations in international agreements and alleviating the inferiority complex both Najam and Karlsson implicitly discuss. Despite the uniquely advantageous situation the South increasingly finds itself in, there are inherent shortcomings they continue to face that Karlsson is keen to point out. The scientific community is undoubtedly far smaller in the global South, producing far less empirical studies that would typically shed light on local problems that are truly relevant to the region. (Karlsson

2002: 2) Information on certain pollutants that affect the South far greater than the North is missing, and one would be correct to ask how any sort of global agreement on the environment could be reached if the data those agreements are based off of is incomplete. (Karlsson 2002: 35) Moreover, issues such as “health, shelter, and food availability” are of more concern to the South than members of the North, and these widely differing priorities also contribute to distorted international agreements. (Karlsson 2002: 6) In all these respects, Karlsson is absolutely correct. The knowledge divide is real and has real consequences. However, when considering the new frame in which the South should be cast in, the frame in which it asserts itself and takes advantage of its unique developmental position, it is not a stretch to imagine the South not as a point of growing divide from the rest of the world, but rather, as a new hotspot of truly endogenous growth the likes of which the developed world has not experienced in nearly half a century. It is merely a matter of a society-wide embracement of out-of-the-box entrepreneurship and ingenuity. In short, the global South must embrace the differences, but not the divide. While the global South may feel proud in securing terms such as “Common but Differentiated Responsibility” or the “Polluter Pays Principle,” it should not actively cherish such concessions. (Najam 2005: 237-238) It is time for the region to assert itself, shedding the deeply ingrained beliefs of dependency and inferiority, vestiges of its colonial past that are no longer relevant in an increasingly globalized and equal world. Southern frustrations should not come from perceived failings in international politics and agreements, but rather, from their own failure to adopt standards, regulations, technologies, and innovations as rapidly and extensively as possible.

Works Cited

Anderson, Nate. " "WhiteFi" could be worth $15bn a year—and fix climate change." Ars Technica. 25 Sep. 2009. Ars Technica, Web. 30 Sep 2009. .

Telecoms: The power of mobile money." The Economist 24 Sep. 2009: n. pag. Web. 30 Sep 2009. .

Karlsson, Sylvia. "The North-South Knowledge Divide: Consequences for Global Environmental Governance." Global Environmental Governance: Options and Opportunities. Eds. Daniel C. Esty and Maria H. Ivanova. New Haven: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, (2002): 1-24. Print.

Najam, Adil. "The View from the South: Developing Countries in Global Environmental Politics." The Global Environment: Institutions, Law and Policy. Eds. Regina S. Axelrod, David Leonard Downie and Norman J. Vig. Washington: CQ Press, (2005): 225-243. Print.