by Subhan Yusuf, M.A., observer on geopolitics and public policy

Forest and land fires (karhutla) have once again posed serious challenges to the public. Haze impairs public health, disrupts economic activities, forces schools to adjust their operations, and leaves affected communities facing deep uncertainty. In such situations, the protection of fundamental human rights is non-negotiable. The rights to health, safety, education, food, water, and a healthy environment must remain a priority for the state and all elements of society.

For this reason, I agree with the core principle championed by Amnesty International: disaster-affected communities must receive protection and the fulfillment of their basic rights.

However, I take issue with how this matter is framed. My objection is not against human rights, nor is it against criticizing the government. The issue arises when an ongoing disaster is used prematurely as an entry point to construct a narrative of structural failure, state breakdown, or political culpability, while response efforts on the ground are still active and the causal link between each impact and the actions or omissions of specific actors has not been adequately proven.

For me, this marks the crucial boundary we must maintain: between the necessity of human rights advocacy as a bare-minimum duty during natural disasters, and the mere tendency to pass premature judgment on unfolding events.

Disaster Impacts Do Not Automatically Constitute Human Rights Violations

There is a simple principle that must be preserved when reading this issue: the existence of human suffering or loss during a natural disaster---in whatever form---cannot automatically be viewed as a space for human rights violations. To treat it as such paints a grim picture of our shared humanity.

Haze pollution undeniably causes health issues. Under certain conditions, communities must be evacuated, schools may close, economic activities can be disrupted, and vulnerable groups require special protection. These are real consequences that must be addressed immediately. In the case of these recent fires, as far as I have observed, various rapid tactical measures have been deployed---including the direct deployment of military personnel to hotspots to contain the spread.

Yet, from the fact that an individual suffers health problems due to smoke, we cannot jump to the conclusion that a human rights violation has occurred, let alone one committed by the state.

We must carefully distinguish between environmental harm, human impact, state failure, and human-rights violation. This distinction is not a matter of semantics; it dictates the required standard of proof.

An impaired environment produces harm, and harm can infringe upon human rights. However, to classify a situation as a human rights violation, one must demonstrate the relevant legal obligation, an accountable act or omission, the breached standard, and an adequate causal link.

The UN General Assembly recognized the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment as a human right through Resolution 76/300 in 2022. However, this recognition does not imply that every ecological disaster is automatically the result of negligence amounting to a human rights violation. Rather, recognizing environmental rights demands that we carefully differentiate between an environmental hazard and a state's failure to fulfill its protective duties.

Therefore, a more precise formulation in this context is that disasters can create conditions that threaten the enjoyment of human rights, whereas state responsibility must be assessed based on its actions, capacity, obligations, and response to those risks.

Eliminate All Risk? Didn't make any sense

In managing forest fires, we must avoid applying unrealistic standards. The state cannot guarantee that no single person will be exposed to smoke. No disaster management system can guarantee zero harm. Even states with exceptionally high disaster-response capabilities face residual risk when dealing with natural phenomena, extreme weather, and large-scale fires. A more reasonable state obligation is to take reasonable and proportionate action based on available information, capacity, technology, and resources.

If such actions are being carried out and continuously scaled up, the continued presence of victims or ongoing impacts does not in itself constitute proof that the state has violated human rights. Bad outcomes are not always synonymous with governance failure.

In Emergencies, Survival Rights Must Take Priority

This is precisely where I hope human rights organizations like Amnesty can play a more constructive role. During an active disaster, the primary question should not merely be "who is to blame?", but "what must be done to keep people safe?" The right to health should translate into access to medical services. The right to life should translate into protection from avoidable risks. The right to education need not mean forcing children to remain in classrooms when air quality endangers their health. The rights to food, water, shelter, and safety must be prioritized for impacted communities.

Framed this way, a human rights approach functions as a concrete protective instrument. Rights organizations can call on the government to guarantee healthcare access, clean water, food, protection for vulnerable groups, transparent air quality monitoring, evacuation mechanisms, worker protections, and adaptive education policies---all of which should be primary concerns, given that emergency responders operate under standard protocols for crisis management.

This represents the form of human rights advocacy most needed during a disaster: ensuring that people do not become secondary victims after the disaster itself.

Linking Karhutla to Structural Economic Models?

I also urge caution when local fire events are immediately linked to broader issues such as industrial agriculture, large-scale palm oil plantations, or the phase-out of fossil fuels. While these issues are relevant to climate change discourses and sustainability---and may indeed hold indirect connections to long-term fire risks---such broad connections must be distinguished from the specific causes of a given fire event.

Simply put, there are several distinct causal chains at play. El Nio conditions and dry weather increase vulnerability to fires. Specific land-use practices elevate fire risk. Illegal land-burning acts as an ignition source. Peatland degradation prolongs and intensifies fires. These fires then generate haze and particulate matter that impact public health.

Meanwhile, fossil fuel consumption drives greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change through long-term global mechanisms.

While these variables interact, interaction does not mean they carry equal causal weight for every specific fire event. Therefore, calling for a global energy transition in response to a specific forest fire episode is a legitimate policy position to advocate, but it must not be conflated with an empirical conclusion regarding the direct cause of that specific event.

Demanding Proportion, Not Rejecting Criticism

Ultimately, my critique of this framing is not a critique of the existence of human rights organizations. On the contrary, I view human rights organizations as playing a vital role in ensuring that people do not forfeit their rights during disasters.

However, the strength of human rights organizations rests on their credibility. The broader the claim made, the higher the standard of evidence required to support it. When a community faces a crisis, human rights organizations can remind decision-makers that human safety comes first. If violations are suspected, they can call for investigations. If negligence is uncovered, they can demand accountability. If structural flaws exist, they can push for reform. Yet, these four functions carry distinct stages and standards of proof.

The immediate need for relief must not be overshadowed by debates over who bears the blame.

Human Rights as Protection, Not Just a Verdict