The Environment: Another Victim of Imperialism?

PHOTO: Napalm bombing in South Vietnam of Viet Cong structures during the US invasion of Vietnam, Unknown Author on Wikimedia Commons

Global warming is perhaps the greatest challenge of our time. A rapidly warming world is a reality all of humanity will have to contend with soon unless the environmental situation drastically improves. 

However, most people across the world are already struggling as the unequal impacts of climate change have begun to wreak havoc. The distinction between those affected and those protected from the environmental realities caused by global warming seems to follow a broad pattern; states with more resources in the Global North are able to mitigate the impacts of climate change better than states with fewer resources in the Global South. Although the effects of climate change are starting to be felt with increasing frequency in the Global North too – with events like heatwaves and fires in France and Spain happening during the hottest recorded June in Europe – the Global South has been more heavily affected by the impacts of climate change. 

The wealth of Global North countries, the unequal impacts of climate change and the resulting vulnerability of Global South countries is the direct result of imperialism. Taking many forms, imperialism is a political strategy that consists of using military, economic or political power to extend control over other territories. The use of these strategies against countries in the Global South has led to an unequal distribution of wealth and the destruction of the environment to fund the safety, wealth and development of countries in the Global North. 

IMAGE: Countries that have signed and ratified, signed or withdrawn from the Paris Agreement as of January 2026, created by Rahma Al Haj Kasem on mapchart.net 

Race to 1.5°C

The Paris Agreement is an internationally binding agreement signed by 194 states as of January 2026 to limit global temperature increases to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. 

But why?

The Paris Agreement identifies a 1.5°C temperature increase as the best-case scenario because it limits global warming to well below 2°C. This is commonly referred to by climate scientists as the point at which climate change reaches catastrophic levels, where the Earth may not be able to sustain conditions that support human society to the extent that it does so now. For example, dramatic changes in weather patterns have long been recognised to have significant impacts on agriculture and food security.

Global warming reaching 2°C is characterised by extreme weather events increasing in severity and frequency, unpredictable weather and generally shifting climate patterns, such as rainfall and ocean currents. The Emissions Gap Report, released yearly by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), tracks the progress on yearly goals of each signatory nation and the likelihood of the Paris Agreement’s success. The Emissions Gap Report 2025 emphasises that continued collective inaction of signatories to the Paris Agreement is resulting in increasingly off-target progress on international climate goals. The Report calls on nations to make drastic improvements to their nationally determined contributions to emissions reductions, as well as to increase support to developing nations.

The most concerning finding of the 2025 Report? If current policies continue over the next 75 years, the likelihood of achieving a below 2°C future by the end of the 21st century is merely 8 per cent. 

PHOTO: Israeli airstrike on buildings in the Gaza Strip, Jaber Jehad Badwan on Wikimedia Commons

Shifting perspectives: Gaza, Iran and the climate 

The Emissions Gap Report 2025 mentions one important factor a handful of times in its consideration of the likelihood of states achieving their emissions targets: geopolitics.

In the geopolitical context of our world today, with conflicts and tensions escalating to levels not seen since World War II, climate targets are moving further out of reach. The incompatibility between participation in global conflict and the achievement of crucial emissions targets is made clear when considering the environmental cost of global conflict. As of March 2026, the ongoing conflict in Gaza has released over 1.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions alone, with total emissions from the conflict exceeding 33 million tonnes. The emissions created by this conflict coincide also with the systemic destruction of agriculture and the environment in Gaza. 

Characterised by some as ecocide, the destruction of Gaza’s urban and arable land represents a crucial source of emissions projected to release more carbon dioxide than entire countries. The trend of environmental degradation and climate destruction at a particularly sensitive period in global emissions concern is reinforced when examining the ongoing conflict between the US and Iran. Although waning in an age of multipolarity, a similar strategy of imperialism by violent coercion is being enacted in Iran. 

Following strikes on oil facilities in Tehran on 7 March 2026, black rain fell across the city. Reminiscent of the toxic rain that fell on Hiroshima in August 1945, the rainfall over Tehran carried harmful carcinogens, greenhouse gases and pollutants. The destruction of oil infrastructure in an era of heightened climate concern reinforces the UNEP report’s warning that geopolitical conflicts push global targets further out of reach. The pollutants that accompany any strikes (but especially those on oil infrastructure) are particularly unsustainable and dangerous in an era of exacerbated climate concern. 

Vietnam and Korea: Imperialism through intervention 

IMAGE: Map of East Asia showing Vietnam (orange), North Korea (dark green) and South Korea (light green) highlighted, Samsattet001 on Wikimedia Commons

From the end of World War II in 1945 until the dissolution of the Soviet Union  in 1991, the US and the Soviet Union engaged in a series of proxy wars, providing support of varying degrees to their ideological agents. The Soviet Union supported local Communist forces, while the US typically backed nationalist, pro-capitalist militias. 

Both the Korean War (1950-1953) and the Vietnam War (1954-1975) were frontiers of the larger Cold War. Owing to the prevalence of the domino theory, the belief that once a state ‘fell’ to communism its neighbours would follow, the US engaged in prolonged invasions of both Korea and Vietnam to prevent them from joining the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence (though both Korean and Vietnamese Communist governments would exercise independence from the Soviet Union). 

Some historical scholars characterise the Cold War as the ”logical culmination” of imperialism. In its interventions in Korea and Vietnam, the US enacted military and political power over the two nations to control their internal political affairs. It is sensible then to extend the logic of the Cold War’s characterisation as imperialism to the US’ actions in the Korean and Vietnam Wars. 

PHOTO: US helicopter spraying Agent Orange over Vietnam. US Army on Wikimedia Commons

During the efforts to stop Korea and Vietnam from ‘falling’ to communism, the US and its allies caused significant environmental degradation to both countries. Made infamous during the Vietnam War, Rainbow Herbicides, most notably Agent Orange, were used to clear vegetation in areas suspected of providing shelter to Vietnamese guerilla fighters. In Vietnam alone, Agent Orange destroyed roughly 2.9 million hectares of jungle and farmland. Estimates vary; however the affected forest cover ranges from 14 to 44 per cent of Vietnam’s total forest, with the most severe impact being on coastal mangrove forests. The impact on the mangroves was especially dangerous for Vietnam, as the coastal mangrove forests serve as a buffer between the sea and coastline, controlling storm surges and acting as a filter for storm water. 

The US military also sprayed Agent Orange in the Korean Demilitarised Zone (DMZ) to limit cover for potential invading North Korean forces. The use of Agent Orange in both Korea and Vietnam did more than act as a simple defoliant. Agent Orange contains 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD). This is the most toxic dioxin, and is a known human carcinogen. Released through the spraying of Agent Orange, TCDD was absorbed by tree and shrub leaves. These fell onto the ground within hours of initial contact, leaving the dioxin to be absorbed by the soil organic matter. Surface runoff (due to the frequent cyclical flooding of Vietnam, exacerbated by climate change) then led to TCDD clinging to sediment particles in wetlands, rivers and lakes, which was then eaten by small fish and shrimp – a staple of Vietnamese cuisine. The impacts of TCDD entering the food chain have been disastrous. Studies conducted between 2012 and 2015 showed traces of dioxin from Agent Orange and other herbicide use in the breast milk and blood of South Vietnamese people. 

The use of Rainbow Herbicides by US forces and their allies in the Korean and Vietnam War demonstrates the ecological cost of imperialism. In the mission to keep the states away from Communism, the US and its allies exerted ideological, political and military power to expand their own spheres of influence, reshaping the Korean and Vietnamese environment in the process.  

The price is still being paid by the Korean and Vietnamese people and families of veterans. 

Nauru and Australia: Imperialism through extraction

IMAGE: Map of the Pacific Islands, highlighting Nauru (red circle), TUBS on Wikimedia Commons

Imperialism isn’t limited to warfare, however. Rather, imperialism can take on a more modern form: neocolonialism. Neocolonialism involves the continued influence of powerful states over former colonies through economic dependence, political leverage and unequal trade relationships. Neocolonialism functions as a softer form of imperialism, typically avoiding the explicit military control generally afforded by imperialism. Instead of seizing control, neocolonialism exploits the structural weaknesses of a newly-sovereign, de jure post-colonial state. Nauru’s relationship with Australia is a clear example of this dynamic, as economic dependence and resource extraction replaced outright colonial rule. 

At the beginning of the 20th century, agriculture in both Australia and New Zealand was experiencing a significant decline in productivity. This was due to the low level of fertility of the soil in both countries. Although conducive for native plant growth, the soil in Australia has a very low phosphorus content. Phosphate is the primary ingredient in phosphorus fertilisers, which drastically improve the fertility of soil. Phosphate extracted from Nauru enabled Australia and New Zealand to expand their agricultural capacity significantly. Some scholars have argued that without the extraction of phosphate from Nauru, neither country would have advanced to the economic and social position they occupy currently.

However, the rapid development of two of today’s Global North countries came at the cost of Nauru’s economy, people and future. 

Nauru, a south-western Pacific island nation, held extensive stores of the crucial mineral. Prior to its extraction, phosphate once covered four-fifths of the island. Following its discovery, it became the source of Nauru’s wealth, setting the island nation on what analysts have called the ‘resource curse’. This refers to the long-term consequences of a country rich in natural resources failing to develop other industries such that the economy becomes dependent on a single volatile resource. 

Following the discovery of Nauru’s phosphate reserves in the early 20th century, Australia, New Zealand and Britain jointly administered Nauru’s phosphate under a mandate from first the League of Nations and then the United Nations, forming the British Phosphate Commission (BPC). Under the BPC, Nauru was strip-mined of almost all of its phosphate. This process resulted in the devastation of the landscape, leaving most of Nauru’s Topside nothing more than karst pinnacles. The brutal transformation of the land has made most of Nauru’s land non-arable and inhospitable, with its rehabilitation too expensive to be feasible. 

PHOTO: Nauru phosphate mining site, Lorrie Graham/AusAID on Wikimedia Commons

Phosphate mining has devastated over 80 per cent of Nauru, leaving it unsuitable for development. This has meant that Nauruans must import most basic necessities, including food and water, in order to survive on their land. Nauru has therefore been left in a vulnerable position; its government is likely to accept whatever sources of revenue it can. Currently, the Australian government is Nauru’s biggest sponsor. Outside of humanitarian relief and out-of-court settlement fees, Australia is on track to pay Nauru AU$2.5 billion to continue hosting its Regional Processing Centres (RPCs) for refugees seeking resettlement in Australia. In 2023, the High Court ruled in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration that asylum seekers in Australia without any real prospect of removal in the foreseeable future could not be lawfully kept in indefinite detention. The first ramifications of this ruling came into effect in October 2025. The Australian government increased its payments to Nauru, from the AU$140 million agreed to under the 2024 Australia-Nauru treaty, to AU$2.5 billion to resettle over 350 people from the NZYQ cohort in Nauru. 

This is but the most recent development in Australia’s exploitatory relationship with Nauru. The signing of the Nauru-Australia Treaty in 2024 confirmed the continuation of RPC operations on Nauru. Critics highlighted the unequal benefits reaped by Australia in the treaty, reflecting the unequal power dynamic of the two countries. The economic dependence of Nauru on Australia however made it difficult for Nauru to refuse incursions on its sovereignty or strike a better deal. Following reports of Nauru locals’ resistance to the resettlement of the refugees Australia is attempting to resettle, it is clear that the Nauruan government remains unable to negotiate terms more favourable to its citizens. The vulnerable position that the Nauran government is in is a direct result of the destruction of Nauru’s environment for Australia’s agricultural — thereby economic — gain. 

The price humanity pays

Whether by direct military force, or by indirect economic influence, imperialism has had a disastrous and sustained impact on the environment. Agent Orange in Vietnam and Korea, phosphate strip-mining in Nauru, millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide released through bombs in Gaza and Iran; all these examples demonstrate the impact that the pursuit of economic and political power by Global North governments has had on the environments and people of Global South countries. 

If imperialism and ensuing environmental destruction are the price humanity must pay to ensure some states’ economic and ideological security, it is one that humanity can no longer afford. 

The world is on track towards overshooting its emissions targets. Geopolitical conflict is at its highest since World War II. 

The margin of error is ever-slimming.