Should environmental issues be securitised? more

Critical Security Studies Should environmental issues be securitised? Environmental issues The variables that have defined national security for the most part of the World¶s history have largely been military in nature. Security was primarily made up of the physical defence of the country, its people and whatever they possessed. Profound factors outside the traditional area of military operations have been realised that could affect the securities of many countries. It is within this background that environmental issues have raised to importance, and the term µEnvironmental Security¶ has entered the language of environmentalists, policy makers and security planners. With the ending of the cold war, the usual concepts of the nature of national security and the methods to achieve it have changed. The global powers at the time were engaged in military containment of each other, as in the case of America and the Soviet Union containment of each other. 1 Instances of Climate Change, water pollution and increasingly human-induced natural disasters, for example, have been on the rise and pose major threats to the security of individuals, especially those in less developed countries. The lack of state capacity to address these catastrophes only serves to perpetuate a vicious cycle of poverty and other non-traditional security threats. Moreover, the depletion of the Ozone layer, deforestation, severe soil erosion, acid rain, drought, pollution of the environment had led to concern that these environmental changes and events were putting severe pressures on livelihood security and were possibly adding to violent conflict around the world. In this essay I will argue that despite the wide view of the concept of µenvironmental security¶, I believe environmental issues should be securitised as it has had a positive and helpful role to fulfil. It has highlighted potential issues which could radically affect nation states and their security. It gives a strong drive to address these issues and find ways to resolve them from another approach. Environmental Issues The understanding of security has evolved over time. It has been recognised that environmental factors have an impact on conflicts and levels of stability. Even though the causes of conflict and insecurity are often complex, evidence suggests that environmental degradation and resource depletion are a source of tension in many regions of the world. For instance, land degradation, climate change, water quality and quantity, and the management and distribution of natural resources (e.g. oil, forests, minerals) are factors that can contribute directly to conflict or be linked to them by exacerbating other causes such as poverty, migration, infectious diseases, poor governance and declining economic productivity. Thus, environmental problems can threaten human livelihoods and contribute to social and economic inequalities. Security issues were reviewed after the end of the cold war. Environmental concerns and the impacts that they would pose on individual livelihoods and on the relationship within countries began to be debated. The point of view from an environmental security perception began from the following key observations. One concern was that environmental threats could cause catastrophic results. Secondly the traditional thinking on security did not prepare countries to deal with these threats properly and finally that these threats are not confined by national boundaries. 2 As mentioned earlier, global warming, ozone depletion and scarcity of fresh water; degradation of land, deforestation and over fishing, the climatic change and the rising sea are some of the examples of these new threats. 3 The definition of security had radically expanded to incorporate a far wider range of threats to peace; this included the notion of environmental security. There is now a strong belief that political disputes and violent conflicts have been influenced by environmental factors.4 The Concept of Environmental Security The degradation of the environment would lead to environmentally based political instability as argued by the early work on environmental security. It is argued that there is a potential that environmental decline may lead directly to violent conflict, but the focus is more oriented towards the notion that the impacts of environmental degradation on nations security is felt in the downward pull on economic performance and, therefore, on political stability. 5 Environmental security moves sharply away from the traditional notion of national security. Violent conflict resulting from environmental degradation becomes a security issue and would appear to be consistent with the traditional notion of national security. 6 Proponents of environmental security put environmental threats within a structure of national security; others connecting environmental problems to non-traditional security concerns encourage the need for a open and all encompassing approach to local, regional and global environmental problems that threatens the livelihood of people. Dabelko argued that economic potential and human well being usually turns into conflict when degradation of the environment takes place. 7 The academic Lester Brown in the early 1970s wanted to redefine or try to broaden national security to incorporate the environmental concept. He argued that environmental threats resulting from such issues as overpopulation and resource scarcity should be included in national security definitions. Five major areas of environmental security were studied by him (climate change, insecurity caused by food shortage, energy, biological systems, and economic threats to security). 8 In an article by Richard Ullman (Redefining Security), he proposed that nations should focus away from a definition of national security which relies from militaristic aspects alone. 9 Others such as Thomas Homer-Dixon, observes different practical approaches to testing hypotheses of essential links between environmental scarcity and social conflict. 10 I will state the two main arguments that are usually presented in favour of rethinking security. The first argues that there other threats other than conventional military ones to national security. Environmental degradation as a result of toxic contamination, the abuse of human rights, and scarcity of resources, serious health problems and the spread of infectious disease are some of the non-conventional threats. Deforestation, global warming, population explosion, the depletion of the Ozone layer, Sea level rises, loss of biodiversity, Land degradation, and water pollution are some of the others. The second argument suggests that µstate¶ security in itself is a difficult concept that needs to be changed quickly. 11 International Cooperation International cooperation would be required as serious environmental issues would often have global and trans-border impacts. Countries that would want to act alone would not be able to cope or provide any adequate environmental security. The capabilities to address the threats by International organisations are limited. The concern for the environment has grown and the need to join together environmental policies into security measures has therefore been and continues to be a priority. It can be said that the scarcity of renewable resources and the crossborder character of environmental issues have led the international community to take an active role in initiating environmental projects. The definition of environmental security has been incorporated in only few countries. The official definition that includes planning and action by some of the countries are as follows: America, Russia, China, and Australia. 12 The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) has made environmental security as very important to its list of priorities. 13 The worldwide concerns on environmental security have different priorities. The developing countries, with their low economic growth and their day to day hurdles, will usually tend to be concerned with issues of local and regional environmental problems as this affects their basic living conditions. On the contrary the Developed countries are more likely to be concerned about environment and security in terms of worldwide changes or instability caused in regions of strategic importance. 14 Discussion of the links between environment and security has then extended far beyond an academic debate and has affected the understanding of security in this context. The American (Bush Administration) was one of the first to accept that environmental security has genuine concerns and hence incorporated as part of overall American National Security. 15 Furthermore, in the national security document (1994), the American government adopted the concept of environmental security. 16 Environmental uncertainties In many countries the abundance of natural resources have contributed to conflict, by attracting various groups to control the resources or to use them to fund any wars. Familiar examples include Afghanistan, Chechnya, Sierra Leone, Angola, Sudan (Darfur) and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Another example case of environmental security is in Post 1988 Brazil. Following a combination of severe international pressure (occurring in the wake of global environmental awareness) over Brazil¶s destructive deforestation policy of the Amazonian rainforest (logging was actually cast as an essential elements of Brazil¶s National Security Strategy), coupled with the onset of democratisation in 1985, the Brazilian government changed its hitherto destructive policy towards deforestation, and in 1988 incorporated notions of environmental security into its National Security Strategy. 17 Moreover, shared water resources typify the dilemmas surrounding common pool resources, whose use by one party diminishes the potential benefits to others. Rivers are particularly subject to these conflicts in terms of upper or mid-stream pollution, abstraction or impoundment, which may reduce the quality and quantity of water available to downstream users. For instance, in the case of an international river like the Nile or the Jordan River Basin, the incongruence between hydro-ecological and political boundaries leads to conflicts between the principle of sovereignty as opposed to common resource issues of ownership, allocation, security and environmental degradation. Given the extent to which its riparian states depend upon say the Jordan River basin for basic needs, and the uneven distribution of its resources and potential, the development of the Nile or Jordan River Basin represents a truly regional environmental security issue for the region in terms of scope and complexity. The Jordan River is shared by Jordan, Israel, Syria and Lebanon. The point of tension between Israel and its neighbours is the accessibility of adequate fresh water supplies. The situation has become so extreme that the threats of war were made by the former King Hussein of Jordan to Israel. 18 Israel and its neighbouring States have long held the view that the limited water was essential to their survival and prosperity. Thus on numerous occasions have these parties feuded over access to the waters of Jordan River basin. 19 An additional example of environmental issue that could possibly lead to conflict on an international scale is maritime fisheries. International conflicts over fishing grounds have been common in recent decades. 20 A good example in facing environment threats without using military forces is the worldwide cooperation in the global warming problems. Kyoto Protocol is a legally binding agreement between signed-up countries to meet emissions reduction targets of all greenhouse gases by 2012 relative to 1990 levels. The Kyoto Protocol was signed by many countries around the world in 1997 within the Framework Convention on Climate Change. 21 However, academics such as Spillmann held the view that social, political, and economic factors play major contributory roles and the environment is generally not a sufficient cause for conflict. By this he argued that environment degradation is usually just an indirect cause on violent domestic conflict. However, the relationship between environment and violence is seen or observed in many cases. 22 Nonetheless, those actions that demean the benefit of the marginal groups who are highly dependent on natural resources for survival could trigger a civil war at any time, such as the 1993 violence in the Kenyan Rift Valley. 23 In favour of securitisation Mathews in the article µRedefining Security¶ argued that not only should environment be an international security issue but it should be the highest priority of all nations since not only does it threaten the existence of states, but also the survival of all people on the planet. Since serious environmental issues would cover many countries as the effects are trans-border, hence environmental issues could be resolved successfully if prioritised as security threat to nations and to the populations all over the world. 24 Myers also agreed with Mathews and has also emphasised the threats from environmental degradation. The rapid environmental change and growing ecological interdependence are major international threats he argued. Myers asserts that the environmental aspect should be integrated in every security strategy and he has chosen environmental security as the µultimate security¶. 25 on the other hand, his suggestion to deal with the environmental issues, throughout increase of foreign aid and reducing debt of the countries in the developing world are seen as idealistic. 26 Furthermore, Thomas Homer-Dixon explored the likelihood of a link between resource exhaustion and military conflict. For him environmental scarcities contribute significantly to conflicts between developing states: for example, the Government of Turkey had put indirect pressure on the Syrian Government to withdraw its support for the Kurdish insurgency in Eastern Turkey by having greater control and access over the headwaters of the Euphrates from the East Turkey region. A similar response was also done by the Egyptian government, who had threatened war with Ethiopia when the latter had suggested the building of dams on the upper river Nile in 1978. The river Nile is the life source of Egypt and the countries agriculture and livelihood centre. 27 Homer-Dixon states that environmental scarcity does not lead to conflict directly but it does cause social unrest that may later turn to an violent conflicts. Another scholar, Sara Parkin argues that environmental degradation poses more threat to national security than military invasion. 28 Thus, the above mentioned are some of the supporters for securitisation of environmental issues. Criticism Most environmental security critics dispute that this issue is mainly of national character. The critics tend to look at the issues from state level and not from global perspective. Daniel Deudney and Levy base their understanding of traditional national security, for them security threats are defined as, µsituation(s) in which some of the nation¶s most important values are drastically degraded by external action. 29 They both agree that the arguments of the proponents of a link between environment and security are worth bearing in mind, however, he argues, µthat this position has no basis except as a rhetorical devise aimed at drumming up greater support for measures to protect the environment.¶ 30 Daniel Deudney is seen to be the key proponent against the securitisation of the concept of environmental security. He gives for main differences between the environmental degradation and traditional security concerns. (1) He argues that there are different kinds of threats. He points out that accidents, ageing and illness also kill human beings but they are not approaching close to being identified as security threats. (2) In traditional national security, there is always an intention to threat or disrupt but there is no intention in environmental threats. Security threats of violence are planned; organised and are clearly intentional, while, in contrast, natural threats are largely unintentional. (3) He further elaborates on the organisations that protect the societies against violence, that they are significantly different from those that are responsible for environmental protection. (4) And finally he concludes that environmental threats are not usually purely national. 31 Supporters of environmental security believe that a link to µhigh politics¶ would make threats to the environment seem more serious and important, however Deudney believes that securitising the environment will not increase the possibility of finding appropriate political solutions to environmental problems. He further argues that on the contrary if environmental issues will be µsecuritised¶, then environmental degradation of one country might be seen from other countries as a national security threat which could trigger various types of intervention and imperialism. It could enable or give excuse to certain countries to invade or attack another country under pretext of environmental issue. 32 Conclusion The existing international relations theories have increasingly come under challenge due to unprecedented global events or issues, among which environmental security is one of the most widely known and discussed. The conventional theories and approaches are inadequate to deal with environmental security, because it involves multiple actors, transcends national borders, requires interstate collaboration, and needs alternative theoretical explanations. The increasing significance of environmental security is evident in the proliferation of related international conventions and organizations, research and academic institutions, and theoretical approaches and models. In more practical terms, the worsening forms of environmental degradation and catastrophe make environmental security a crucial human concern. On the balance, it has been argued that there is a strong link between environment, conflict and security. And to a large extent, environment is a dense issue of and national and international importance on security. Overall, those academics that are against the idea of securitising environmental security argue along the following lines: y y the threats to well-being are essentially different from military threats; Overly wide definitions of security make the term useless; Environmental security is merely another tactic used by developed countries to force their values on developing countries and violate upon their sovereignty; y there is a fundamental divergence between the means required for sustainable development--marked by transparency, collaboration and public partaking--and the conflict direction of security institutions; Environmental security expression encourages thinking that could lead nations to undertake military intervention in the name of protecting µglobal¶ resources; y Experimental findings that environmental scarcities contribute to violent conflicts are questionable, as environmental factors are at best tangentially related to conflict and in any case are overshadowed by more significant socio-political and economic variables. 33 Overall, security issues have traditionally been defined in military terms, yet the postCold War security landscape contains many non-military challenges to security. Environmental threats stem from overpopulation, deforestation and pollution, global warming, unregulated population movements, transnational crime, virulent new strains of infectious diseases and other issues not previously associated with international security. In addition, the global competition for dwindling renewable resources is already a very real risk to regional stability around the world. It calls for partnerships between governments and nongovernmental organizations as well as between nations and between regions, and for a strategically focused, long term policy for emerging environmental risks. The concept of environmental security can be argued as being useful as it has highlighted the environmental issues that could cause instability in the various regions of the world. All in all, I think that the environmental issues should be securitised. Reference 1. Alan Collins, Contemporary security Studies, Oxford University Press, 2007, p183; 2. Ibid 3. Paul Rogers, http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/JA00109.pdf pg. 10; 4. Richard H.Shultz, Roy Godson, George H. Quester, Security Studies for the 21st Century, Brassey¶s , 1997, p258; 5. http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2003/20031000_cru_working_paper_24.pdf 09; Pg 6. Charles W. Kegley, Eugene R. Wittkopf, World politics ± Trends and Transformation, St.Martin¶s Press Inc, 1997, p316; 7. http://www.pikpotsdam.de/research/publications/pikreports/.files/pr80.pdf Pg. 194; 8. http://www.unesco.org/securipax/whatagenda.pdf, 2007, Pg 186; 9. Alan Collins, Contemporary security Studies, Oxford University Press, 2007; Pg 188; 10. Alan Collins, op cit:189; 11. http://www.stormingmedia.us/16/1683/A168324.html Pg. 3; 12. Millennium Project Website- Environmental Security Study - http://www.millenniumproject.org/millennium/es-5pol.html 13. Ibid 14. Paul Rogers, http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/JA00109.pdf Pg. 11; 15. Michael Sheeham, International Security ± An Analytical Survey, Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc, 2005, p100 16. Alan Collins, Contemporary security Studies, Oxford University Press, 2007, p18 17. Barry Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap de Wilde. Security: A New Framework for Analysis, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1998, p 21 18. Paul Rogers, Losing Control, Global Security in the Twenty-First Century, PLUTO PRESS 345 Archway Road, London N6 5AA. www.plutobooks.com , 2000-2002, Pg. 88; 19. Ibid Pg. 89; 20. Sean Kay, Global Security in the Twenty- First Century, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2006, p326 21. Peter Hough, Understanding Global Security, Routledge, 2004, p146 22. Richard H.Shultz, Roy Godson, George H. Quester, Security Studies for the 21st Century, Brassey¶s , 1997, p26023. Ibid 24. Jessica Tuchman Mathews, µRedefining Security¶. Foreign Affairs; Spring 1989; 68:2, pp. 162-177) 25. Norman Myers, µEnvironment and Security¶, Foreign Policy, Spring 1989; Issue 74, pp. 23-41) 26. Marc A. Levy, µIs the Environment a National Security Issue¶, International Security, Vol. 20: No. (Autumn, 1995) pp. 35-62) 27. Michael Sheehan, µInternational Security: An Analytical Survey¶, 2005, pp. 109-111) 28. Sara Parkin, in Fara Patricia, et al. (1996) ± µEnvironmental Security: The Changing World¶, p. 132; 29. Marc A. Levy, µIs the Environment a National Security Issue¶, International Security, Vol. 20: No. (Autumn, 1995) pp. 35-62 ) 30. Ibid 31. Daniel Deudney, µEnvironmental Security: Muddled Thinking¶, 1991, p. 24; 32. Ibid 33. Peter Hough, op cit:151 Bibliography Alan Collins, Contemporary security Studies, Oxford University Press, 2007. Barry Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap de Wilde. Security: A New Framework for Analysis, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1998. Charles W. Kegley, Eugene R. Wittkopf, World politics ± Trends and Transformation, St.Martin¶s Press Inc, 1997 Daniel Deudney, µEnvironmental Security: Muddled Thinking¶, 1991. Jessica Tuchman Mathews, µRedefining Security¶. Foreign Affairs¶, 1989.Marc A. Levy, µIs the Environment a National Security Issue¶, International Security, Vol. 20, 1995. Michael Sheeham, International Security ± An Analytical Survey, Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc, 2005 Millennium Project Website- Environmental Security Study - http://www.millenniumproject.org/millennium/es-5pol.htmlNorman Myers, µEnvironment and Security¶, Foreign Policy, Spring 1989. peter Hough, Understanding Global Security, Routledge, 2004 Philippe Le Billon, Fuelling War: Natural Resources and armed conflict, Routledge, 2005 Richard H.Shultz, Roy Godson, George H. Quester, Security Studies for the 21st Century, Brassey¶s , 1997 Sara Parkin, in Fara Patricia, µEnvironmental Security: The Changing World¶, 1996. Sean Kay, Global Security in the Twenty- First Century, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2006 Terry Terriff, Stuart Croft, Lucy James, Patrick M. Morgan, Security Studies Today, Polity Press, 1999 http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4/media/media_briefs/Media_Briefs_GEO4_Executive_Summary.pdf http://www.rusi.org/go.php?structureID=articles_journal&keywords=CONFLICT%20AND%20 PEACE%20THE%20EARLY&ref=J40c1f78c862fc http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/JA00109.pdf John Barry and E. Gene Frankland, International Encyclopedia of Environmental Politics, Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE, 2002.