War is no environmental peace

The intersection of armed conflict and environmental degradation represents one of the most overlooked crises of our time. While the world focuses on immediate humanitarian consequences of wars in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, and Myanmar, the silent ecological catastrophe unfolding alongside receives scant attention. This issue traces back to the Vietnam War, where Agent Orange devastated 3.1 million hectares of forests, and the 1991 Gulf War, where Iraqi forces set ablaze 700 Kuwaiti oil wells, releasing 133 million tonnes of CO2 — more than the annual emissions of many nations. These historical precedents established that warfare is inherently anti-ecological, yet the international community has failed to create binding accountability mechanisms. Today, the stakes are exponentially higher. The Ukraine conflict has contaminated 687,000 tonnes of petroleum products into soil and water, while the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam in June 2023 released 18 cubic kilometres of water, flooding 620 square kilometres and decimating protected wetlands. In Gaza, UNEP estimates 39 million tonnes of debris contaminated with asbestos, heavy metals, and unexploded ordnance will take decades to remediate. Sudan's conflict threatens the Sudd wetlands — Africa's largest freshwater ecosystem — while Myanmar's civil war drives illegal logging in biodiversity hotspots like the Hukaung Valley Tiger Reserve. Key stakeholders form a complex web. Warring states — Russia, Israel, Sudan's RSF and SAF, Myanmar's Tatmadaw — prioritize military objectives over environmental law. The UN Security Council remains paralyzed by veto powers; Resolution 2730 (2024) on Gaza environmental damage was watered down. UNEP documents damage but lacks enforcement power. The International Criminal Court's Rome Statute recognizes "widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment" as a war crime (Article 8(2)(b)(iv)), but the threshold is nearly impossible to meet — no prosecution has ever succeeded. Meanwhile, military emissions — estimated at 5.5% of global CO2 by Scientists for Global Responsibility — remain exempt from UNFCCC reporting under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol's military exemption, carried forward into the Paris Agreement. For India, this crisis carries profound implications. As a climate-vulnerable nation with 7,500 km coastline, Himalayan glaciers, and monsoon-dependent agriculture, India cannot afford global climate goals to be undermined by unaccounted military emissions. India's defence budget (₹6.2 lakh crore in 2024-25) and growing military modernization necessitate domestic greening of defence operations — the Indian Army's "Green Initiatives" include solar power at forward posts and ecological restoration in Ladakh. Constitutionally, Article 48A mandates the State to "protect and improve the environment," while Article 51A(g) makes it a fundamental duty of citizens. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and Biological Diversity Act, 2002, provide domestic legal frameworks, but their extraterritorial application during conflicts remains untested. Geopolitically, India's strategic autonomy requires navigating carefully. As a Quad member and Global South leader, India advocates for "common but differentiated responsibilities" (CBDR) at UNFCCC — a principle undermined when major powers ignore environmental obligations during wars. India's push for UNSC reform gains moral weight when permanent members breach environmental norms with impunity. Economically, conflict-driven supply chain disruptions (rare earths, energy) accelerate India's green transition — the National Green Hydrogen Mission (₹19,744 crore) and 500 GW renewable target by 2030 gain urgency. Future implications are stark. Without a "Green Geneva Convention" — a binding treaty criminalizing environmental warfare with universal jurisdiction — the cycle will repeat. The 2022 UN General Assembly resolution on "Protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts" (A/RES/77/104) adopted the International Law Commission's 27 PERAC principles, but they remain non-binding. Climate change itself becomes a conflict multiplier — the IPCC AR6 warns of 3.2 billion people in water-scarce regions by 2050. For UPSC aspirants, this topic epitomizes the convergence of environment (GS-III), international relations (GS-II), security (GS-III), and ethics (GS-IV) — demanding integrated analysis rather than siloed preparation.