The Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) strongly disagrees with the position of the Earth Island Institute. You have stated in your letter that the US Endangered Species Act is one of the strongest pieces of environmental legislation in the world. It might well be, but it is a US law and cannot be imposed on the rest of the world. How can a US legislation govern other countries? Even to expect this would be extremely unfair and undemocratic and amounts to naked power-mongering. It is highly deplorable for an NGO to push a legislation which is a product of domestic concerns and pressures, as a global solution.
If the US is going to dictate environmental policies to other countries, then you as an environmental NGO, should also fight for a law that allows Indians and Bangladeshis to force Americans out of their cars and thus reduce the threat of global warming. But this obviously cannot be done. We know that US political, economic and military power would not allow such a reverse coercion to take place. And, pray we as, what trading power do India and Bangladesh have to discipline the US?
One possible way of dealing with this issue of turtles is the negotiation
of a Multilateral Environmental Agreement (MEA) which will subject Indians,
Americans and others to the same law. Just as we do not support your stand,
we do not support the Indian government either. We are not a pro-government
organisation and we strongly believe that the Indian government is a bad
manager of the environment. The government should have done everything
possible under its own law to protect the turtles form shrimp trawlers.
It has shown consistent inability to manage its biodiversity resources
and continues to do so even after the ban has come into place. Despite
all this, we do not believe that US laws can be applied to India. While
the Indian government is morally wrong, the US government's ban is procedurally
incorrect. If the US ban had come through an MEA, then the procedure would
not have been objectionable.