Latest comments posted about Toward sustainable security on ChinaDialogue en-gb http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/2700-Toward-sustainable-security http://staging.chinadialogue.net/images/cdlogo.gif http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/2700-Toward-sustainable-security First, thanks to the authors for a very constructive and insightful article. The authors are certainly both experts in security, but there may be something that I want to point out when it comes to climate change. 1. a common mistake. There is almost no Asian countries that have not yet signed the Kyoto Protocol, unless the authors are talking about countries like Afghanistan, Iraq or Palestinian Authority that have a tiny climate change contribution. There is a difference between signing and ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. The former is optional, indicating an intention to ratify the Protocol and the latter means you are committed to the target. The United States signed but never ratified, and we hope President Obama also intends to change this too. If the authors are actually talking about ratification, all Asian countries that signed the Kyoto Protocol did ratify it except Kazakhstan. China ratified in August 2002 and so did India. Also, although I am sure the authors didn't mean it, but by saying "The United States and other developed countries must negotiate a fair post-Kyoto agreement" it seems like the negotiation is only among developed countries. Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:03:32 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2700#comment-8226 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2700#comment-8226 negotiation is only among developed countries, and developing countries should just accept whatever comes out for them. 2. The contrasting responses between New Zealand and Indian government seems unfair if one just simply compared the population size between Tuvalu and Bangladesh (11,000 against 158,665,000) as well as the population density between New Zealand and India (14.9 against 336 per sq km). And most important of all, New Zealand is an annex 1 country among which has the majority of responsibility for climate change, while India is among developing countries that will bear the disproportionate share of the consequences. Of course same as China, India itself is becoming a major contributor to climate change too, so they should take their due responsibility too in a future cliamte agreement. 3. I agree with the rationale of sustainable security, but "fighting the symptoms" and “cure the disease” are both important element to realise regional and global security. Take one thing over another will not succeed, nor be accepted, it is similar to that we have focus on both mitigation as well as adaptation in tackling climate change. Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:23:23 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2700#comment-8227 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2700#comment-8227 4. Either the regional security architecture or a sustainable security framework for Asia and Australasia has to respect their history and culture, rather than just being imposed on based on whoever else's previous experience. It is also better leave them to construct it by themselves and for themselves, without much external support, especially support with a purpose. Insecurity usually comes not because of lack of interests, but too much interests. 5. This links to the previous point, I am not sure that the current security discourse in Asia is dominated by the so called“control paradigm” or "intervene paradigm". The “war on terror” is not by the Asia but on the Asia, and the most insured area in Asia is not the those applied the “control paradigm” but those WERE applied with the “control paradigm”. 6. I am a total layman in the security discussion, but maybe Shanghai Cooperation Organization could have a chance to play as the regional security architecture or a facilitate the sustainable security framework you are talking about? Tao Wang Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:25:26 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2700#comment-8228 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2700#comment-8228 "Fighting the symptoms" and "curing the disease" are not new concepts in China, but how many diseases can really be cured? Although the concept is a good one, it is not easily realised. Current conditions and the narrowness of our leaders' views are all dependent factors, especially the latter. If they overly value national security and undervalue global security or you could say, future security, they will not expend the effort required to treat environmental problems at their root. Thu, 22 Jan 2009 03:08:37 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2700#comment-8222 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2700#comment-8222 I agree with comment 1. I think that environmental problems and other related problems depend to a large extent on the viewpoint of countries. If every country aimed to seize the resources and profits of their own territories, they naturally wouldn't want to give up their piece of cake for other more 'immaterial' things. But this is actually very short sighted. They only care about seizing the small piece of land -- or cake -- but forget the whole! An eye for an eye, and the world will soon be blind. Thu, 22 Jan 2009 03:24:07 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2700#comment-8225 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2700#comment-8225 I agree with comment 3. At the moment, the majority of people and government officials are behind the times, they are far from keeping up with the speed at which environmental problems are escalating. First we have to make people understand environmental problems conceptually, and only then can we make them give true importance to environmental problems and make appropriate efforts to solve them. This is something which urgently needs to be done. Thu, 22 Jan 2009 03:18:34 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2700#comment-8224 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2700#comment-8224 With the degradation of the environment, notably scarcity of resources and rising sea levels, conflict between countries will increase. There are many Far Eastern countries with complex relations, and varying cultural perspectives. If contradictions arise between countries which are hostile towards one another I'm afraid that they will be very difficult to resolve. In light of this, making these countries now agree on tackling climate change together isn't easy either. I fear that relying on them to manage between themselves will not work either. Who can take the lead? The UN, or America, or another country? It seems that there isn't an obvious answer yet. Thu, 22 Jan 2009 03:14:58 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2700#comment-8223 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2700#comment-8223 This is much like the 'supply chain' theory: if each individual part pursues its' own interests, the result for the whole will not be the best. You can say that the climate issue works like this too: local efforts are useless. But how can we make every citizen view the issue through an understanding of 'the whole'? Are we expecting some powerful and neutral country to emerge and solve all the problems? This is like the supply chain's 'core industy'. However, depending on the core industry to keep order is the supply chain's organisational pattern, so when talking about environmental problems - can't the way that local order takes shape help us to consider other patterns? Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:59:57 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2700#comment-8217 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2700#comment-8217 As the comment one mentioned supply chain, it makes me come up with the "push–pull strategy",a business term originated in the logistic and supply chain management. It is the same with environment protection. Would it be pushed by acts of governments or by the actual needs of people around the world? I think it is high time to appeal more close eye on global climate issues, especailly in China. Actions such as battery recycling and water or elctricity saving are far from enough. The environment security is a global issue that needs the masses to renew their concept of it and keep pace with the times. Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:11:15 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2700#comment-8219 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2700#comment-8219