Gross abuses and environmental degradation in
the former Soviet Union—with a correspondingly
reduced average life expectancy, myriad health prob-
lems, and a loss of natural resources—became widely
known. The catastrophic collapse of the Aral Sea
became an international symbol of the profound hu-
man, environmental, and economic consequences
of ecosystem abuse. Domestic abuses by the United
States government spawned negative publicity and
public reactions as well. The federal government and
defense establishment no longer had an unsuspecting
public or an automatic acceptance of their programs
and policies. Scholars and policy analysts critically
examined environmental damages, including con-
tamination from the Department of Energy’s nuclear
weapons facilities as well as the long-term destruction
associated with armed conflict. One frequently cited
example of long-term ecological damage was the con-
sequences of the United States use of toxic chemicals,
such as Agent Orange and DDT, in Vietnam. Another
manifestation of growing concern and criticism was
the international movement against the use of land
mines. Environmental damages caused by the U.S.
and USSR military and defense establishments are
well documented (e.g., Funke 1993, 1994 and 2005).
Internationally, nations no longer felt constrained
to align with one of the superpowers. The Bhopal, In-
dia, explosion at a Union Carbide India Limited plant
in 1984 reinforced the importance of environmental
protection, as part of economic as well as political pol-
icy. With the demise of the bi-polar world, leaders in
developing nations had greater freedom to shape their
natural resource policies.
Challenges posed by various environmental
threats gained increasing international political atten-
sharon
(sharon)
#1