Dear Editor,
Old dancing partners, with new faces, are making well-coordinated steps across the countries of Africa and Latin America. In the face of the global financial recession these partners are moving lightly across the geopolitical spectrum to the increasingly sweet sound of south-south cooperation. Russia, China, India and Iran are all examining business prospects, and in some cases making heavy investments in the south. Many reasons can be advanced for this shift including the global financial meltdown, which sent many corporations reeling into bankruptcy, America’s lack of attention to Latin America because of international events, especially the war on terror, and the demand for raw materials by China and India. This cooperation is very visible between Asia and Latin America.
It is not that trading between Asia and Latin America is new, it is that the huge scale and almost overnight investments that are connected to China and India are new. In fact, the current level of trading between Latin America and Asia has made China and India very significant actors in Latin America because they have the scope to influence the politics and level of development of the countries involved.
As it now stands, China is Brazil’s largest single export market. This is so because of the negative global financial situation and the fact that Brazil can meet the demand. About five months ago, talks between Brazil President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and the President of China Hu Jintao resulted in an agreement by which the Chinese Development Bank and Sinopec will lend Petrobras (the state-owned Brazilian oil company) $10B. This will permit a return of about 200,000 barrels of crude oil a day for ten years from that country.
Again, Chinese corporations and companies have made significant investments in oil in Ecuador and Venezuela. They are also looking at stakes in Argentina. It is possible that Chinese companies have become the biggest foreign investors in Ecuador’s oil industry.
But for Latin America one pertinent question remains: how will this cooperation affect the health of the natural environment? It is clear, that the impact of the demand for raw materials by China and India, has ratcheted up world prices for various commodities, which is good for the economies of developing countries. However, sometimes, this is at the expense of the health of the environment, in terms of deforestation, the pollution of waterways or the destruction of biodiversity. These affect the traditions, cultures and values of communities. Therefore, such ‘development’ has the potential to disrupt entire local communities and the lives of people.
Many developing countries are attempting to put in place the appropriate environmental laws and relevant supporting institutions to ensure good environmental governance. However, in some cases, even where these are in place, governments are willing to flex to multinational corporations to encourage development, because they can then use it as a justification to hold on to the reins of political power. For example, there is much speculation by Earth Rights International that Total and Chevron are propping up Burma’s military government by gas projects in that country. In such circumstances governments become more concerned with representing the interest of large corporations than the welfare and well-being of the people who have entrusted them with power. This constitutes a democratic deficit.
The thing is ordinary citizens are too busy scraping out a living to spare the time or energy to worry about the business of governments. Therefore, many governments and corporations get away with polices and activities that destroy the environment. Add to that, the lack of financial and other resources for poor countries to even begin to think about addressing environmental problems. These countries need development any way and everywhere. Therefore, they settle for anything.
Then, what about the environmental laws and rules of India and China? In many areas these countries are pressing against challenges to develop alternative sources of energy. China, in particular, is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. There are terrifying concerns about environmental degradation in China and India and there is the ongoing problem of pollution. Also, the industry of importing dangerous e-waste (derelict computers and other electronic waste) continues to increase in Guizhou, China, despite laws that are in place to shut the trade down.
Monitoring the environmental activities and stewardship of corporations is tedious in these countries let alone in developing nations. It is highly possible that such companies would feel no obligation to maintain standards that would protect the health of the natural environment in poor and developing countries. In India, pollution is frightening in many parts. This is not to say that corporations working out of developed countries in the north do not commit similar environmental transgressions, but they have a greater level of accountability. Recently, Brazil returned a large shipment of waste to the United Kingdom. The waste was shipped to that country under the guise of recyclable plastic. Since that incident three persons have been arrested in connection with it.
Therefore, the countries involved need to examine whether this cooperation will really help or retard growth in the south. Looking at the wider picture it may appear to be improving the economics of Latin America but it could also just be assisting the prosperity of some countries in the south, while keeping others in poverty for generations. Unless this south-south cooperation can set the framework for good environmental governance it would not be able to sustain real development in Latin America.
Yours faithfully,
Royston King
Executive Director
Environmental Community Health
Organization
