Posted By Aditya Dasgupta Share

Small island nations have been one of history's consistent political losers. Precisely because they are so small, they lack the power to resist domination by larger powers.

After seizing the Marshall Islands from Japan during World War II, the United States proceeded to use the the islands as a site for over 100 atmospheric nuclear tests. Decades of litigation resulted in only paltry compensation for the disposessed islanders.

The British expelled thousands of Chagos islanders from their homeland in the 1960s to make way for a military base and recently refused them the right to return to their tiny island in the Indian Ocean. The grounds? It would be too expensive to relocate them.

Nowadays, it is through pollution and global warming that world powers most threaten small island nations. If current trends hold, many inhabited islands will be submerged completely due to rising sea levels. Assuming large states are unwilling to reverse this trend by implementing drastic pollution controls, we have to ask: Will they compensate islanders for eliminating their territories altogether, and how?

Mathias Risse, a political philosopher at Harvard, supports a radical proposition made by Anote Tong, president of the island nation of Kiribati:

[S]catter his people of about 100,000 through the nations of the world as rising sea levels swallow up their native island.

Risse justifies this solution by invoking the 17th-century ideas of Hugo Grotius, who argued that the Earth should be viewed as owned collectively by humanity. If we take this view, states are obligated to accept immigrants whose ownership rights have been infringed upon because their home territories no longer exist. This raises the further question: Are states that contribute more to global warming more obligated to accept the resulting refugees?

This is all abstract, normative philosophy that rests on a contestable assumption; Risse theorizes about about what governments should think and do rather than what they in reality do think and do. But these issues might end up in court. Such philosophical arguments would then play an important role in determining the fate of the many islanders soon-to-be made homeless by global warming.

Photo: TORSTEN BLACKWOOD/AFP/Getty Images, Wikipedia

 

AMUNDY

1:29 PM ET

October 28, 2008

I'm surprised that you seem

I'm surprised that you seem to not put much weight into the "should" of foreign policy. While it is important to try and predict how states and actors will perform, I can't imagine that you would consider that your primary concern. FP and other policy publications do prove to be sometimes quite accurate crystal balls, but is this what foreign policy analysis is about? To me, it seems like the "should" of policy is the single most important science in the world, because it is the projection of theoretical philosophical ethics into practical terms that affect everyone.

When something happens in the world, it is useful to think about how states will react, but isn't it better foreign policy analysis to puzzle out how the should act?

 

ADITYA DASGUPTA

12:34 PM ET

October 30, 2008

I agree

It is critical to puzzle out how states should act. But from whose perspective? What islanders believe should happen will differ from what politicans in large states believe, because they have different interests. A court or a neutral site of arbitration, however, might decide what happens according to fairness - and that might be closer to the islander's perspective

 

JGARZIK

10:50 PM ET

October 28, 2008

Dealing with global warming

It really frosts me whenever I see a "stop global warming" bumper sticker, for an uncommon reason:

I feel such hyperbole distracts politicians from dealing with short-term realities, such as handling displaced populations, agricultural changes (easier or harder to grow regional crops), water resource scarcities, opening of new trade routes through the north, etc.

It is highly unlikely (impossible?) that we will stop global warming. Isn't it time polticians and environmentalists admit this, and move on to solveable problems associated with global warming?

Jeff @ http://fparmchair.blogspot.com/

 

ADITYA DASGUPTA

12:38 PM ET

October 30, 2008

Good point

But maybe it's worth taking a two-pronged strategy: try to slow global warming as far as it is politically feasible while also focusing on immediately solveable problems.

The problem with relying solely on short-term fixes is that it fails to tackle a root cause that is sure to lead to future, and possibly greater, problems.

 

Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.

Read More