Environmental Security: how environmental problems will shape diplomatic and military international relations in the future
“Your science teaches you that true perfection has the greatest sense of pleasure – hence, the greatest sense of pain.”
(Dante – The Divine Comedy; Inferno, Canto 6)
Introduction
Ever since the scientific revolution mankind has tried to unveil the mysteries of life. Mapping the laws of Nature, trying to understand and control its caprices, scientists have achieved levels of technology that improved life for some of us. Science has provided us with utilities we take for granted now. Science is always moving toward a better understanding. The scientist embodies a certain childlike naivete, an open and investigative mindset that all too often becomes convoluted by the demanding needs of controlling and maintaining our current unequal economic system. In that sense, science is utilized to contribute to the increase of the existing gap between the developed world and the developing world. The developed world pays a high price for this “balance of power” currently existing between rich and poor countries.
In the middle of the eighties scientists discovered a hole in the Antarctic ozone layer. For the first time it dawned upon us that our way of living has serious environmental consequences. While the world was approaching its final Cold War years, international security analysts and poignant politicians became aware of the fact that the threats to security started to become more complicated by environmental issues like the depletion of the ozone layer and global warming. These issues will become even more threatening when population growth is taken into account. The presented problems are unusual – no history book exists on climate change or the depletion of the ozone layer. This may require an unconventional approach.
In this paper I will seek to build a constructive ground for the challenging debate that environmental issues can no longer be considered peripheral to the field of International Security. In the next decades, the complexity and interconnectedness of environmental problems will shape diplomatic and military international relations. It may be that instead of being vigilant and ready for confrontation, we have to get used to the idea of and prepare for cooperation.
Environmental Security is a mouthful – How to define Security?
A great nation must at all times be prepared to use military force in order to defend its sovereignty and its access to foreign sources of raw materials. This is not something new. It has been like this since human beings started to habituate this planet. Consider the Romans, the great engineers of the past, who extended their empire far beyond their initial borders. But even before the Roman Empire, the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Vikings, the Celts and more recent, the Ottoman Empire and the Europeans. All of them had one thing in common: the urge to grow, the desire to expand and the need for natural resources. Once land was conquered, resources needed to be secured and protected from hostile external forces or locals claiming their lands back. Security was defined in military terms only and always pertained to competition in the international landscape. The developed countries do not seem to be as aggressive when it comes to clear-cut conquering new lands. This, however, is misleading. Wars are now fought over trade-issues and 'clean' wars are fought from offices on Wall street.
So, methods have changed over time. Defining security has become more complicated than just ensuring a state’s sovereignty and maintaining a ‘worthy’ position in the world. According to Norman Myers it is easier to recognize ‘insecurity’, just as disease is easier to describe than health. It is essential to obtain a clear concept of what it means to feel secure, on all levels of our society; it is at a personal level that the need to feel secure becomes evident. The next step would be to determine what is needed to maintain security.
Traditionally, the notion of security is defined in terms of political and military threats to national sovereignty. The concept of national security has acquired a strong military character since the Second World War. Threats can come from other nations, arising from ethnic, economic or resource-use conflicts. However, security can also become subjected to internal hostile factors, usually leading to civil wars. “A 1984 CIA study, ‘Population, Resources and Politics in the Third World,’ is reported to anticipate conflict because of tensions over water, extreme population pressure, immigration, and resource depletion. It predicts an increase in the number of authoritarian governments and expects conflicts to become more frequent, particularly in the Third World.”
Nations develop individually while simultaneously they hinge on the globalization of the economic system speeded up by the ‘illimitable’ possibilities of the Internet. This constant process “led to the evolution of new concepts of security over the last two decades. Examples of such concepts are balance of power, deterrence, peaceful coexistence, and collective security (UN 1986)”
The Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security developed ‘common security.’ This more genuine concept of security encompasses non-military fields (economic, social and ecological aspects) and can only be obtained through cooperation and coordination among all states – including rogue states. This idea sheds a whole new light on the definition of traditional security. In 1987 the Final Document of the International Conference on the Relationship between Disarmament and Development emphasized it as follows: “Security is an overriding priority for all nations. It is also fundamental for both disarmament and development. Security consists of not only military, but also political, economic, social, humanitarian, human rights and ecological aspects. Enhanced security can, on the one hand, create conditions conducive to disarmament and, on the other, provide the environment and confidence for the successful pursuit of development. The development process, by overcoming non-military threats to security and contributing to a more stable and international system, can enhance security and thereby promote arms reduction and disarmament. Disarmament would enhance security both directly and indirectly. A process of disarmament that provides for undiminished security at progressively lower levels of armaments could allow additional resources to be devoted to addressing non-military challenges to security, and thus result in enhanced overall security. This broader concept of security represents all elements: political security (freedom of speech, participatory democracy), military security (on a purely defensive and non-provocative stance), economic security (good quality of life for everybody) and personal security (equity, equality, respect, safeguarding of life and property). The environment as a basic component of this comprehensive concept of security is determined by and depends on shared responsibility of the entire international community.
International Relations Theory and Security
International Relations is a social science that came into being in the 20th century. Its main focus is conflict among nation-states, systemized by concepts of security and the attempts to create and maintain peace. It is based on the democratic paradigm, in particular according the American approach. The actors in the international arena are nation-states who have one thing in common, democracies or not; protecting their sovereignty or ‘state-identity.’
Realism, Pluralism and Structuralism are schools of thought within the theory of International Relations. They are a reaction to the events that shaped the first half of this century. According to Mark Imber they do no longer suffice to explain the current issues that the world is facing. “So long as the international relations community defines itself in terms of studying primarily military-security questions, the ‘eyes’ of the discipline simply will not ‘see’ environmental causes of profound stability in the international system. How has this situation arisen? Each of the mainstream approaches to international relations (realism, pluralism and structuralism) is in truth only ‘partially sighted’ with respect to environmental issues.
Realism focuses on the protection of sovereignty and the survival of the state. Environmental issues rank relatively low on the scale of threats to national security, if acknowledged at all. The military plays an important role in maintaining and improving a state's international status. Pluralism recognizes international organizations and international law as effective mechanisms to manage disputes between states. A pluralist view acknowledges environmental issues. For the pluralist, the existing multilateral environmental treaties between the states are proof that the international system is aware of this new challenge and that change is imminent. The structuralist standpoint regards environmental degradation as a logical and inevitable consequence of the capitalist market system. Four hundred years of imperialism, colonialism and now neo-colonialism have created an unstable and unequal world in which poverty, racism and environmental degradation are both created and reinforced.
Obviously matters of security have, more than ever, become entangled with other issues like democracy, development, disarmament, and the environment. Theorists have tried to combine them realizing that improving one will positively effect the other. Organizations like the UN, as we saw earlier, have linked disarmament and development to the environment. “The connection between environmental matters and the abiding concerns of International Relations can be traced most explicitly in the current debate over whether traditional concepts of national security, involving armed threats, should be expanded to comprehend a ‘new’ range of environmental threats to human well-being.”
The study of International Relations is subjected to a rapidly changing political agenda caused by constant fluctuations in the world. The Realist principle is no longer sufficient to explain current issues. While doing research, I noticed that there is extensive literature on the subject of environmental security. It has acquired attention of the Department of Defense (DOD), as we shall see later.
The theory of environmental security is as complicated as it suggests. In fact, it is victim to multiple approaches, which becomes clear by looking at Figure 1
Fig. 1 Linkage between Armaments and War and the Environment
XXXX
Clearly, there is a need to be more specific. “Westing has divided, what he calls, ‘comprehensive security’ into two main components: political security (with military, economic, and social subcomponents) and environmental security.”
Although this distinction is reasonable and clear, it perpetuates the separation of the environment from political, economic and social issues. If policies are designed based on this concept, it may contribute to evasive behavior of nation-states and impede implementation of environmental legislation. We have to realize that our policies and our current market system bear consequences to the environment and to social discourses. As Imber argues: “Poverty kills Third World children at the rate of an Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing every three days” and “such avoidable casualties in the struggle for development focuses the western mind to reconsider just what is understood by both the terms security and environmental quality, and how the two might be linked.” And later: “Child-mortality rates, the net transfer of capital from the poor to the rich, the declining military security of many Third World societies and the inadequacies of current UN structures constitute the islands of comprehension which this study seeks to connect together.”
We can assert that International Relations theory has begun to lean toward a redefinition of the concept of security. Military means, though still deployed in acute conflicts worldwide, are insufficient to protect the nation-state from external environmental threats. In other words, the most advanced technological weaponry would not be able to protect us from the hole in the ozone layer or the rising water levels due to global warming. Renner once said: “Pursuing military security at the cost of social, economic and environmental well-being is akin to dismantling a house to salvage materials in order to erect a fence around it.”
Security embraces safety and equality. The unbalanced economic situation the world currently finds itself in will continue to put forth strive (ethnic conflicts, border wars, resource disputes, and terrorism). The global economic system has lead us to speak of ‘globalization.’ The time may soon be ripe to argue over our semantics and refer to ‘global environment’ and ‘environmentalization.’ Personal well being, social justice and ecological stability are rights that respect life of all forms and guarantee long term sustainability. Before this concept of security finds its way in policy making, it may be the task of political scientists, international relations theorists and natural scientists to cause a certain level of awareness. According to Beth Chalecki of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security it will take severe shortages in natural resources before a consciousness sets in that puts forth a change in people’s ways of thinking. She perceives the environment as a generator of conflict but also as a tool to create an overall understanding that natural resources are exhaustible. Phillip Lammi, Director of the Air Force Center of Environmental Excellence, claims that the military has a philosophy. “If things are going well economically, which is tied in to environmental considerations, the less chance of war. We are more than happy to share our technology with Russia. Why are we helping a former enemy? The idea is, you want them to be happy economically, have decent lives so there is less chance of aggression and so forth.” Both see the causal relationship between the environment, economics and politics. However, their approaches are quite different. Ms. Chaleski would be a structuralist whereas Mr. Lammi would be a realist.
A Global Reality
"Civilization began with the destruction of the forest ."
(Takeshi Umehara)
In the foreseeable future, according to Homer-Dixon, in the next 50 years, “the human population is likely to exceed nine billion, and global economic output may increase sharply.” He argues that scientists have warned for this prospect for several decades – the degradation of aquifers, rivers and other bodies of water, the decline of oceans, stratospheric ozone loss and climate change – but the debate is muffled by lack of carefully compiled evidence, or so it seems.
Scarcity of natural resources contributes to violent conflict. Conflicts of that kind are already occurring in many developing countries. Before elaborating on this matter, it is important to note that the environment is only one variable in a series of political, economic and social factors that can give rise to conflict. However, they are interrelated and can not be seen separately as we have seen earlier.
The economic, environmental and political health of the developed countries is closely related to the economic, environmental and political condition of developing countries and vice versa. Myers argues that “developing-world poverty has become a luxury we can no longer afford.” If we value our affluent economy, it is important to the security interests of the international community to develop a sustainable climate in the Third World and set the examples since we can afford that. It would be more profitable in the long run to revise our approach of the current economic system. A somewhat positive, yet extremely paradoxical, comes from British Petroleum CEO John Browne: "The problem won't be solved by denying or restricting the economic expectations of the people of Asia or Africa or Latin America. Nor will it be resolved by destroying the living standards of the world's developed economies. The first would be immoral, the second unrealistic.....If we start to take action now, the issue can be managed without disrupting economic development. If we fail, then the danger of disruption at some later point becomes a serious
risk."
Population growth and poverty do not benefit to sustainable development. Yet, it is not the developing world that is responsible for extensive use of resources but us. As I heard Mark Hurtsgart say on NPR some weeks ago: “Poverty is our biggest problem and wealth our biggest burden.” Poverty, especially linked to resource shrinkages in the developing countries, is a key ingredient that triggers mass migrations across borders resulting into ethnic conflict. In the long run this may lead to an influx of economic or environmental refugees to the developed world.
One of the most discussed environmental threats to international security is global climate change. In the last 100 years the temperature of the earth’s surface has risen between 0.3∞ and 0.6∞C; over the next hundred years the average temperature will increase between 1∞ and 5∞C. This view is shared by most of the scientific community, including the National Academy of Sciences and the science working group of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who stated in 1990: “We are certain of the following: …..emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrous oxide. These increases will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in additional warming of the Earth’s surface.” It is difficult to predict the outcome since there is no historical evidence available. Widely accepted is the fact that sea levels are going to rise. This will have an immediate impact on one-third of the world’s population who live within 40 miles of the seas where the soil is fertile. The IPCC also warns for "the degradation of agriculture, forests, grasslands, marine and coastal environments, as well as a reduction of freshwater supplies and damage to coastal structures."
Another side effect of global warming is that the scarce water situation will become even more problematic through precipitation, evaporation, flooding, drought and the agricultural demand for water. This should be seen as a serious threat to economic security for the U.S., the costs of adaptation efforts within the U.S. are estimated between $300 and $400 billion. Also, tens of millions of refugees are expected to move due to this flooding and related side effects. Existing conflicts may worsen or new conflicts may arise. It is certain that international relations will undergo a dramatic shift.
Another hard-pressing environmental threat to International Security is the depletion of the ozone layer. The Rio Summit of 1992 contributed widely to this concern and is regarded as a semi success story in the realm of multilateral treaties. Through the pressure of the scientific community, international action took place. The effects of a hole in the ozone layer shocked the world; excessive solar radiation exposure has serious consequences for human and ecological health; millions of cases of skin cancer, diminishing agricultural yields and tremendous damage to aquatic life.
Developed countries have mostly phased out ozone depleting substances (ODCs). The bad news is that developing countries are increasing the levels of ODCs. The Montreal Protocol of 1997 required that all industrial countries can no longer use chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), a serious ozone depleter. In most of the industrial world this process went relatively smooth, except in the former Soviet Union and some parts of Eastern Europe; Belarus, Bulgaria, Poland and the Ukraine. Those states had to ask for an extension. Devastated economies and political chaos do not encourage environmental compliance. In other words: environmentally sound measurements are a luxury that developing countries can not afford if they want to compete with the current global economic trend. The situation gets even more disturbing; Russia, China and India have a thriving black market in CFCs.
Scientists have conveyed that if all countries comply with the amendments to the Montreal Protocol, the concentrations in the ozone layer will peak around the year 2000. Then the ozone layer will mend gradually; a full recovery will not be noticeable until 2050. This long-term prospect for improvement contributes to ignorance; why even make an effort if we probably will not even be around to benefit from this?
A severe compounding factor to the environmental problems discussed above, is population growth. Many scientists claim that population growth may soon exceed 'carrying capacity.' In other words, the planet's resources supplies may no longer be able to support people in the future. Linking this to the degradation of the environment, we can conclude that the picture does not look bright at all. In fact, according to Myers. "Environmental impact refers especially to two of the biggest problems of all, ozone-layer depletion and global warming; impacts that reflect (in part at least) the continuing population growth of the developing nations. Governments and NGOs worldwide have a tendency to blame developing countries for their growing populations. It is a fact that the developed world consumes at least three times more than developing countries. It is obvious that the problem lies more on our side and that we need to change our consumption habits. Population growth is not beneficiary to sustainable living and should be a main concern to international security management and practices.
The Military and Environmental Security
It seems an oxymoron for the military to play a role in securing the environment. On the one hand this is true. As Beth Chalecki states; the military is a business like any other business with a human resources department and a payroll, etc. Environmental awareness can only take place on a day-to-day operational basis like the recycling of paper. The ultimate objective is to win wars and thus to break the rules if necessary. Environmental concern of the military has a publicity value. Phillip Lammi argues that the military has the biggest budget and the best science can offer. "We buy the talent, if a solution needs to be found technologically, we can do it but it has to be politically acceptable. The engineers that work here are 'environmental' engineers, they are de creme-de-la-creme, they come as 'green' as they come." According to Mr. Lammi, the military will be able to make its operations environmentally friendly; jets, weaponry and other military equipment will be environmentally sound within the next ten years.
The Department of Defense (DOD) does consider environmental protection a key issue to national security, apparently. It has an elaborate, though controversial, view on the subject:
The DOD is involved in several international environmental projects. For example; it implements the Montreal Protocol and brings defense environmental leadership to NATO's Committee for Challenges to a Modern Society (CCMS) and it is involved in sending teams to the former USSR and Warsaw Pact countries to assist in addressing environmental problems through the U.S. European Command's 'Military-to-Military' program. Many bilateral, trilateral and multilateral initiatives have been undertaken such as NATO Pilot Study on Environmental Aspects of Re-using Former Military Lands and on Environmental Security in an international context, on broad environment and national security issues.
It is key for any security institution to have a good understanding of the dynamics and the links between environmental, resource and social problems to determine and anticipate international behavior. One example, that will be discussed in more detail later on, is that stability in the Middle East region is important to the U.S. to secure the oil supplies. It may proof to be remarkably worthwhile to help find solutions to the pressing water shortage issues in that region. Most serious environmental threats to a nation's sovereignty are long-term in nature but once they become real, it may be too late to take actions. Because these threats are not immediate in nature, they should find a prominent place within international security policy making and thus appear on the Agenda of the Security Council instead of waiting until they have become acute.
An insecure element of environmental threats is that they are less clearly defined than military threats. It is extremely complicated to anticipate the exact impact of, for example, global warming. "A temperature rise of 4.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit may not sound like much but let us recall that when there was a temperature shift only a little larger in the other direction a few thousand years ago, it made the difference, as Vice-President Al Gore put it, between having a nice day and having a mile-thick layer of ice around."
It is in the nature of science to be objective and non-political, yet policymakers and transnational corporations often use this ambivalence to serve their short-term economic goals. As mentioned earlier, it is impossible to consider the environmental problems separately. Examples that illustrate this clearly are El Salvador and Mexico; both polluted over-populated countries with problems of resource and land distribution. Fundamental causes are environmental, political and social.
Security issues need to go hand in hand with sustainable development abroad. In order to succeed, the developed countries need to set an example. Our current model of economic growth is ill suited to do this. Jacques Cousteau once said that "the market system, as we are living it today, is doing tremendous damage to the planet because everything has a price, but nothing has value." We can not afford to sit still and enjoy our luxuries or we will not enjoy them later. In the following case studies I will take a closer look at critical situations in the Middle East and Central America.
The Middle East
The late King Hussein once said that the only reason he would wage a war against Israel would be because of water issues related to the Jordan River. In the region where oil flows, water is scarce. The greater Middle East region (Ethiopia, Egypt, Israel, the Palestinians, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey) is an area of high security concerns.
Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute notes that "not all water resources disputes will lead to violent conflict; indeed most lead to negotiations, discussions, and non-violent resolutions." However, "there is growing evidence that existing international water law may be unable to handle the strains of ongoing and future problems."
The Jordan River, the Yarmuk and the Litani are the water sources shared by Israel, the Palestinians, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. The implications of this water dispute become clear when one realizes that the Jordan River and its tributaries occupies only 3 percent of Israel's pre-1967 territories. Yet, Israel gains 60 percent of its water from this river. Mekorot, the Israeli water company, has drilled additional wells for new settlers but Arabs are not permitted to drill new wells for their agriculture. As a result of this, Arab agriculture suffered and many Palestinians have left the agricultural sector. Experts believe that the region's stability will be affected. In 1967, during the Arab-Israeli war, water concerns contributed to the tensions. Current Middle East peace talks take account of multilateral meetings over water rights. Given the Israeli military power, acute water wars seem unlikely. However, in the context of the social and political disputes in the region, water tensions will increase and contribute to civil disorder, ethnic intolerance and changes in regimes.
Jordan gains 75 percent of its water from the river and is planning on taking more in the future to boost its agriculture. With Jordan's rapid population growth this is clearly going to create a problem. Jordan is building a dam, known as the Unity Dam, on its border with Syria in order to gain more water from the Yarmuk. It plans on diverting 40 percent of the river's flow, which will have severe consequences for the farthest downstream country, Israel. Israel has threatened that if Jordan builds this dam, it will destroy it.
Turkey, Syria and Iraq are dependent on the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. The rivers rise in Turkey before they flow into Syria and Iraq. These two countries use the rivers for their irrigation and electricity purposes but when Turkey finishes its Grand Anatolia Hydroelectric project, the water supply for Syria and Iraq will become jeopardized. Iraq already faces problems as the salinity of the Euphrates put an end to farming around Basra. Also, Turkey has frequently threatened with a "water weapon" to interfere with the Euphrates' flows into Syria in retaliation for the country's support to Kurdish separatists within Turkey's borders.
Iraq, being the downstream consumer of the Euphrates would suffer tremendously if Syria executes its irrigation plans. The two countries almost engaged in a war in 1975 over the Ath-Thawrah Dam built in Syria. If Syria continues its ambitious plans for another dam, Iraq would have to shut down four of its power plants which would mean a cut of 40 percent of the country's electricity supply.
Egypt plays a fairly influential role in Arab politics. However, the country can not escape the dispute with its neighboring countries evolving around the Nile River. Egypt used to be able to be agricultural self-sufficient but due to salinization, and thus a decline of soil fertility, the country has to import big part of its grains from other countries. The growing population rate is a problem too as the Aswan Dam can not keep up with growing energy needs.
Other nations within the river basin, especially Sudan and Ethiopia (which controls the Blue Nile tributary), together with Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Zaire, Kenya and Tanzania, want to benefit from the river's waters to irrigate their farmlands. Ethiopia has never agreed with Egypt in regulating the Nile's waters. In fact, time after time it makes sure that Egypt is aware of the fact that it can do as it pleases with this natural resource since it is a sovereign state. This alarms Egypt. Anwar Sadat once stated that "if Ethiopia takes any action to block our right to the Nile waters, there will be no alternative for us but to use force because it is a matter of life and death." Butros Ghali was more blunt: "We depend on the Nile one hundred percent. The next war in our region will be over the waters of the Nile, not over politics. Washington does not take this seriously, because everything for the U.S. relates to Israel, oil and the Middle East." According to Joyce Starr, a specialist in Middle East and water security issues: "Water security will soon rank with military security in the war rooms of defense ministries."
Figure 2. Water Disputes of the Middle East of varying intensity, Eighties and Nineties
XXXX
El Salvador and Mexico
The most populated country of Central America, El Salvador, faces severe environmental problems. Deforestation practices have left only 2 percent of the forest and even that is shrinking due to the fact that rural households rely on wood for cooking. This process has caused desertification of large tracts creating water shortages and raising temperature in some areas. Hurricane Mitch, ravaging the country last fall, compounded the problem tremendously. On top of that, 90 percent of the country's rivers are contaminated. "Environmental experts warn that continued degradation of natural resources - especially drinking water in rural areas, where only 13 percent of households have access to piped, clean water - could spark social unrest unless action is taken soon." Kovaleski finds that in the northern states residents have sabotaged pipes that siphon underground water to the capital, San Salvador.
The twelve years of civil war have not helped; El Salvador has endured the most violence, both politically and military, than any other country in the region. Problems that are actual are all interconnected in a web of disparities of wealth, or lack of it, and income; inequitable land-tenure systems and a repressive government. This intensifies the unsound situation even more. According to Homer-Dixon the short but devastating 'Soccer War' of 1969 between El Salvador and Honduras resulted from poverty that stems from these severe disparities. "A natural population growth rate of 3.5 percent further reduced land availability, and as a result many people moved to neighboring Honduras. Their eventual expulsion from Honduras precipitated a war in which several thousands were killed in a few days. William H. Durham of Stanford University notes that the competition for land in El Salvador leading to this conflict was not addressed in the war's aftermath and that it powerfully contributed to the country's subsequent, decade-long civil war."
Henry Kissinger once said that "if the United States can not manage in Central America, it will be impossible to convince certain nations in the Persian Gulf and other places that we know how to manage global equilibrium."
The U.S. security interests in the region become clear when we look at the military spending record; in the peak year 1986, the Reagan administration supplied El Salvador with $122 million. This is six times more that the U.S. spent on environmental measures for the whole of Latin America. The irony in this case is that El Salvador will to continue to experience economic and social problems in its environmentally impoverished state leading to more political upheavals. El Salvador illustrates that conventional military support will not contain this, on the contrary, it pays lip service to the root of the problem; poverty.
Mexico
The picture in Mexico is not looking much better. Here also, problems of desertification, deforestation and soil erosion are undermining the country's ability to feed itself. Mexico has to import one quarter of its grain. This does not have a positive impact on the country's efforts to revive its economy. To illustrate the problem of deforestation a bit more: "the deforestation rate means that all forests will disappear in twenty years even if the rate does not increase. The loss of the forests' sponge effects disrupts river flows; and in two-thirds of arable lands, water supplies are the main limitation on agriculture. Because of failing water supplies together with soil erosion, at least 400 square miles of farmlands are abandoned each year." This perpetuates the increasing demand for imported grain and thus continues to drain the economy, which likely leads to conflict.
Political and social factors make the situation even worse. Unequal land distribution of fertile lands is a day-to-day practice as large farmers buy out small farmers. Peasants have no other option than to overwork the croplands which reduces the lands' fertility and leads to severe erosion. According to Renner the rebels of the Zapatista National Liberation Army (Ejército Zapatista de Liberaccion Nacional, or EZLN) started their rebellion in Chiapas because of economic inequalities demanding land reform and democracy. "Even though Chiapas provides half of Mexico's hydroelectric power, only one in three households is hooked up to the electricity grid. The state is a leading producer of beef, yet fewer than half of the people there regularly eat meat. In 1990, only 58 percent of households had running water, compared with 79 percent in all of Mexico; literacy was at 70 percent compared with 87 percent nationwide. Chiapas also lags behind in household income and education, and has above average rates in infant mortality."
Chiapas emphasizes the problems of Mexico. It gives way to the question what the price should be for world market integration coming at the expense of the majority of Mexico's population. The EZLN started their bloody upheaval on the day NAFTA came into force: January 1, 1994. About seven weeks later President Ernesto Zedillo started peace talks with the Zapatistas. This had no immediate results. The country was tortured by a severe new financial crisis and foreign investors considered the Zapatistas to be a threat to their interests. The military recaptured some of the rebels' strongholds in the jungle, but had no effect on the political stamina of the Zapatistas. New negotiations resulted in a limited autonomy of 7 million indigenous communities throughout Mexico. However, fair land distribution remains an issue in limbo.
Though on opposite sides of the world, the above examples have one thing in common; environmental decline is related to population growth and poverty, economic inequalities bolstered by the free market-system and the lack of capable governments (both in the developed and developing countries). The situation has become so complex that it is hard to analyze its causality. "We share the conviction that social development and social justice are indispensable for the achievement and maintenance of peace and security within and among nations. In turn, social development and social justice can not be attained in the absence of peace and security or in the absence of respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms."
The Middle East, El Salvador and Mexico represent the problems that many developing countries face as well. The developed countries will have no impact on these problems if they adhere to a symptomatic approach. In order to avoid a breakdown like the one in Chiapas, a number of factors need to be taken into account. It is not enough to procure arms and deploy military troops to unstable regions. Policies should focus on strengthening the social and environmental fabric of societies. The international community will eventually benefit more from an approach that strengthens civil societies everywhere; economically, socially, politically and environmentally.
Conclusion
The subject matter of this paper yields to 'idealism.' I both defy and agree with accusations of that kind. It is the conventional view of security, described in military terms, that obstructs the exact goals it is willing to fight for. Human security can not be safeguarded by an institution that ultimately destroys life in all its forms. Yet, in the short-term strategic approach of the military this is often the case, and more so, it seems plausible.
The pursuit of military might is a costly endeavor and takes away from other resources that are required to meet human needs like food, housing, education and healthcare. Military means can never contribute to achieving environmental security, neither can it assure long-term economic, social and political security. High-tech warfare generates large-scale environmental destruction. In times of war it would be considered irrational to save a forest if the enemy is hiding in it. And while this is true, in the broader sense, the military is helpless when erosion shows its ugly face and when oxygen has become a commodity. A forest is an essential resource enabling our very existence on this planet. It can take decades or even centuries for the environment to 'heal' from the consequences of warfare, making it uninhabitable for people and other living species; landmines being just one disturbing example.
In times of peace, the military's operations - production and testing of weapons, the conduct of maneuvers, and the generation of hazardous military waste materials - have a tremendous environmental impact causing problems to human health. There can indeed be no 'green' military. This is one reality of the world we have shaped, a reality that identifies itself with the human nature. If the world population would be truly realistic (which literally means 'true to life') to catch on to what 'true security' entails, it is likely not going to have a military. It would consume less and it would respect life in all its forms. Ignorance provides still plenty of 'bliss' on this side of the globe. However, the misery on the other side can one day bring our 'ostrich approach' to security to an end, maybe not in ways we like it.
For privacy reasons, the names of the interviewees haven been removed.
Appendix A
X, Director of Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence at the Western regional office, San Francisco, California, interview, San Francisco, California, (April 9, 1999). Telephone: xxx
Mr. X has worked with environmental issues since 1966. He describes himself as 'a man with many hats.' According to Mr. X, the Bay area is an environmental universe and he finds it challenging to work with environmental organizations like "Save the Bay." He also belongs to the California Military Environmental Coordination Committee (CEMAC) which is responsible for smooth transitions in the clean-up process of military bases.
X, Research Associate at the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, Oakland, California, telephone interview, San Francisco, California, (April 22, 1999). Telephone: xxx
Ms.X is a Reseach Associate at the Institute. She is currently working on Water Resources Sectoral Chapter of the National Assessment on Climate Change. Her areas of interest include: environmental security issues, energy production and pollution, environment-trade linkages at international level. She worked with Environment Canada, authoring the Extraterritorial Issues chapter of the Canadian Country Study: Climate Impacts and Adaptation; the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Brookings Institution. She holds a MS in Environmental Geography from the University of Toronto and an MA in International Relations of Boston University.
Bibliography
Books
Bryner, Gary C., From Promises to Performance; Achieving Global and Environmental Goals. (New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1997).
Cranna, Michael, ed., The True Cost of Conflict: Seven Recent Wars and their Effects on Society. (London: Earthscan Publications Limited, 1994).
Dycus, Stephen, National Defense and the Environment. (Hanover, London: University Press of New England, 1996).
Fromm, Joseph, Defining National Security; The Non-military Aspects. (The Council of Foreign Relations, Inc., 1993)
Gleditsch, Nils Petter, ed., Conversion and the Environment; Proceedings of a Seminar in Perm, Russia, 24-27 November, 1991. (Oslo, International Peace Research Institute, 1992)
Imber, Mark, Environment, Security and UN Reform. (New York: St. Martin's Press, Inc., 1994)
Myers, Norman, Ultimate Security; the Environmental Basis of Political Stability. (New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1993)
Renner, Micheal, Fighting for Survival; Environmental Decline, Social Conflict, and the new age of Insecurity. (New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company, the Worldwatch Institute, 1996)
Starke, Linda, ed., Vital Signs 1997; the Environmental Trends that are Shaping our Future. (London, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, the Worldwatch Institute, 1997)
Tolba, Mostafa K. and El-Kholy, Osama A., The World Environment 1972-1992; Two Decades of Challenge. (London: Chapman & Hall, United Nations Environment Programme, 1992)
Vogler, John and Imber, Mark F., ed., The Environment & International Relations. (London, New York: Routledge, 1996)
Articles
Browne, John, Climate Change is Real, New Perspectives Quarterly, (Special Issue, 1999), Vol. 16 (2): pp. 32-33.
Cousteau, Jacques, Consumer Society is the Enemy, New Perspectives Quarterly, (Special Issue, 1999), Vol. 16 (2): pp. 36-39.
Homer-Dixon, Thomas F.and Boutwell, Jeffrey H. and Rathjens, George W., Environmental Change and Violent Conflict; Growing scarcities of renewable resources can contribute to social instability and civil strife, Scientific American, (February 1993): 38-45.
Homer-Dixon, Thomas F., On the Threshold; Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict, International Security, Vol.16 (2), (Fall 1991): 76-116.
Kovaleski, Serge F., Salvador's River of Poison, Washington Post Foreign Service, (March 18, 1999): A15.
Lambright, Henry W. and Gerben, Agnes and Cervency, Lee, The Army and Chemical Weapons Destruction; Implementation in a Changing Context, Policy Studies Journal, Vol.26 (4): 703-718.
Lipschutz, Ronnie O. and Holdren, John P., Crossing Borders; Resource Flows, the Global Environment and International Security, Bulletin of Peace Proposals, Vol. 21 (2), (1990): 121-133.
Websites
Committee for Challenges to a Modern Society (CCMS): http://www.nato.int/CCMS/, (Date accessed: March 3, 1999)
Department of Defense, Environmental Security: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/nov1996/ b112096_bt650_97.html, (Date accessed: March 3, 1999)
http://www.lib.lsu.edu/cgi-bin/search.cgi (Date accessed: March 3, 1999.
Appendix B
Bryner, Gary C., From Promises to Performance; Achieving Global and Environmental Goals -
A broad analysis of international environmental problems and their possible solutions. Bryner demonstrates the often existing gap between global environmental agreements and policy choices made by governments.
Gary C. Bryner is a Professor of Political Science and Director of the Public Policy Program at Brigham Young University.
Cranna, Michael, ed., The True Cost of Conflict: Seven Recent Wars and their Effects on Society -
The Council For A Liveable World, Human Rights Watch, The Netherlands Organization for International Development Cooperation (NOVIB), Oxfam, World Vision International led by Saferworld in cooperation with an international Task Force collaborated in an extensive research on the cost of war by focussing on economic damage, social and developmental damage and environmental damage. The conflicts it examines are: Gulf War, Indonesia-East Timor Conflict, Civil War in Mozanmbique, Civil War in Sudan, Guerrilla War in Peru, Independence War in Kashmir and the war in Bosnia.
Editor Michael Cranna, a New Zealand native, was coordinator of this Safer World's project. He lives and works in London.
Dycys, Stephen, National Defense and the Environment -
This book presents a framework for determining where environmental sacrifices are necessary to protect us from sovereign aggression or terrorism, as well as for assessing the implications of proposed changes in the environmental laws. It illustrates the relationship between defense and environmental issues.
Dycus is a Professor of Law at Vermont Law School and co-author of National Security Law (1990).
Fromm, Joseph, Defining National Security; the Non-military Aspects
Fromm links economic, political and environmental issues together in order to proof that it is no longer appropriate to consider the environmental issues separate.
Gleditsch, Nils Petter, ed., Conversion and the Environment; Proceedings of a Seminar in Perm, Russia, 24-27 November, 1991 -
A selection of articles about causes of violence and conflict resolution, presented at Perm, Russia, as part of a wider program on Environmental Security under joint sponsorship of UNEP. The contributors are researchers, international civil servants, politicians, NGO's, diplomats, media and military. PRIO is an independent institution that focuses on studies in environmental security, conflict theory and the study of ethnic conflicts.
Editor Gleditsch is a Senior Research Fellow at the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo.
Imber, Mark F., Environment, Security and UN Reform -
An in-depth study on environmental diplomacy and the relationships between environmental degradation and Third World debt. Imber argues that environmental questions and UN reform are important. Security questions can not be understood without adopting an environmental perspective.
Imber is a Lecturer in International Relations at University of St. Andrews.
Myers, Norman, Ultimate Security; the Environmental Basis of Political Stability -
A readable account on the complex nature of environmental security. Myers addresses population growth, ozone-layer depletion, global warming, mass extinction of species, environmental refugees and connects them together. The author offers solutions to the reader that demonstrates the environment is everybody's responsibility.
Renner, Michael, Fighting for Survival; Environmental Decline, Social Conflict, and the new age of Insecurity
Renner continues the already established idea by Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute that a nation's security depends on the health of its economy, its national resource base, and its people rather than on its military preparedness. There are still wars to be won but the battlefields are different. Renner explores the increasing stress over resources and points to the need to re-describe security as we enter the 21st century.
Renner is a writer working at the Worldwatch Institute in D.C.
Starke, Linda, ed., Vital Signs 1997; the Environmental Trends that are Shaping our Future -
The Worldwatch Institute's 1997 edition that tracks key indicators that show economic, social, and environmental progress or the lack of it in graphic form. Data has been distilled from documents obtained from government, industry, science, and international organizations.
Linda Starke is the series editor at the Worldwatch Institute.
Tolba, Mostafa K. and El-Kholy, Osama A.; The World Environment 1972-1992: Two decades of Challenge -
An extensive report by United Nations Environment Programme that explores whether progress has been made in two decades. It looks at environmental issues related to social, economic and political situations worldwide.
Tolba is a researcher at UNEP in Nairobi, Kenya and El-Kholy is Emeritus Professor at Cairo University in Egypt.
Vogler, John and Imber, Mark F.; The Environment & International Relations -
A presentation of a comprehensive survey of the current treatment of environmental issues in International Relations. The authors analyze theoretical approaches and their relevance in today's current affairs.
Vogler is Professor of International Relations at John Moores University in Liverpool and convenor of the ESRC International Relations of Global Environmental Change Group.
Imber (see above)
This paper was written by Yolande van der Deijl for Professor Andrew Hanami's class of International Security in april 1999 (©)
“Your science teaches you that true perfection has the greatest sense of pleasure – hence, the greatest sense of pain.”
(Dante – The Divine Comedy; Inferno, Canto 6)
Introduction
Ever since the scientific revolution mankind has tried to unveil the mysteries of life. Mapping the laws of Nature, trying to understand and control its caprices, scientists have achieved levels of technology that improved life for some of us. Science has provided us with utilities we take for granted now. Science is always moving toward a better understanding. The scientist embodies a certain childlike naivete, an open and investigative mindset that all too often becomes convoluted by the demanding needs of controlling and maintaining our current unequal economic system. In that sense, science is utilized to contribute to the increase of the existing gap between the developed world and the developing world. The developed world pays a high price for this “balance of power” currently existing between rich and poor countries.
In the middle of the eighties scientists discovered a hole in the Antarctic ozone layer. For the first time it dawned upon us that our way of living has serious environmental consequences. While the world was approaching its final Cold War years, international security analysts and poignant politicians became aware of the fact that the threats to security started to become more complicated by environmental issues like the depletion of the ozone layer and global warming. These issues will become even more threatening when population growth is taken into account. The presented problems are unusual – no history book exists on climate change or the depletion of the ozone layer. This may require an unconventional approach.
In this paper I will seek to build a constructive ground for the challenging debate that environmental issues can no longer be considered peripheral to the field of International Security. In the next decades, the complexity and interconnectedness of environmental problems will shape diplomatic and military international relations. It may be that instead of being vigilant and ready for confrontation, we have to get used to the idea of and prepare for cooperation.
Environmental Security is a mouthful – How to define Security?
A great nation must at all times be prepared to use military force in order to defend its sovereignty and its access to foreign sources of raw materials. This is not something new. It has been like this since human beings started to habituate this planet. Consider the Romans, the great engineers of the past, who extended their empire far beyond their initial borders. But even before the Roman Empire, the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Vikings, the Celts and more recent, the Ottoman Empire and the Europeans. All of them had one thing in common: the urge to grow, the desire to expand and the need for natural resources. Once land was conquered, resources needed to be secured and protected from hostile external forces or locals claiming their lands back. Security was defined in military terms only and always pertained to competition in the international landscape. The developed countries do not seem to be as aggressive when it comes to clear-cut conquering new lands. This, however, is misleading. Wars are now fought over trade-issues and 'clean' wars are fought from offices on Wall street.
So, methods have changed over time. Defining security has become more complicated than just ensuring a state’s sovereignty and maintaining a ‘worthy’ position in the world. According to Norman Myers it is easier to recognize ‘insecurity’, just as disease is easier to describe than health. It is essential to obtain a clear concept of what it means to feel secure, on all levels of our society; it is at a personal level that the need to feel secure becomes evident. The next step would be to determine what is needed to maintain security.
Traditionally, the notion of security is defined in terms of political and military threats to national sovereignty. The concept of national security has acquired a strong military character since the Second World War. Threats can come from other nations, arising from ethnic, economic or resource-use conflicts. However, security can also become subjected to internal hostile factors, usually leading to civil wars. “A 1984 CIA study, ‘Population, Resources and Politics in the Third World,’ is reported to anticipate conflict because of tensions over water, extreme population pressure, immigration, and resource depletion. It predicts an increase in the number of authoritarian governments and expects conflicts to become more frequent, particularly in the Third World.”
Nations develop individually while simultaneously they hinge on the globalization of the economic system speeded up by the ‘illimitable’ possibilities of the Internet. This constant process “led to the evolution of new concepts of security over the last two decades. Examples of such concepts are balance of power, deterrence, peaceful coexistence, and collective security (UN 1986)”
The Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security developed ‘common security.’ This more genuine concept of security encompasses non-military fields (economic, social and ecological aspects) and can only be obtained through cooperation and coordination among all states – including rogue states. This idea sheds a whole new light on the definition of traditional security. In 1987 the Final Document of the International Conference on the Relationship between Disarmament and Development emphasized it as follows: “Security is an overriding priority for all nations. It is also fundamental for both disarmament and development. Security consists of not only military, but also political, economic, social, humanitarian, human rights and ecological aspects. Enhanced security can, on the one hand, create conditions conducive to disarmament and, on the other, provide the environment and confidence for the successful pursuit of development. The development process, by overcoming non-military threats to security and contributing to a more stable and international system, can enhance security and thereby promote arms reduction and disarmament. Disarmament would enhance security both directly and indirectly. A process of disarmament that provides for undiminished security at progressively lower levels of armaments could allow additional resources to be devoted to addressing non-military challenges to security, and thus result in enhanced overall security. This broader concept of security represents all elements: political security (freedom of speech, participatory democracy), military security (on a purely defensive and non-provocative stance), economic security (good quality of life for everybody) and personal security (equity, equality, respect, safeguarding of life and property). The environment as a basic component of this comprehensive concept of security is determined by and depends on shared responsibility of the entire international community.
International Relations Theory and Security
International Relations is a social science that came into being in the 20th century. Its main focus is conflict among nation-states, systemized by concepts of security and the attempts to create and maintain peace. It is based on the democratic paradigm, in particular according the American approach. The actors in the international arena are nation-states who have one thing in common, democracies or not; protecting their sovereignty or ‘state-identity.’
Realism, Pluralism and Structuralism are schools of thought within the theory of International Relations. They are a reaction to the events that shaped the first half of this century. According to Mark Imber they do no longer suffice to explain the current issues that the world is facing. “So long as the international relations community defines itself in terms of studying primarily military-security questions, the ‘eyes’ of the discipline simply will not ‘see’ environmental causes of profound stability in the international system. How has this situation arisen? Each of the mainstream approaches to international relations (realism, pluralism and structuralism) is in truth only ‘partially sighted’ with respect to environmental issues.
Realism focuses on the protection of sovereignty and the survival of the state. Environmental issues rank relatively low on the scale of threats to national security, if acknowledged at all. The military plays an important role in maintaining and improving a state's international status. Pluralism recognizes international organizations and international law as effective mechanisms to manage disputes between states. A pluralist view acknowledges environmental issues. For the pluralist, the existing multilateral environmental treaties between the states are proof that the international system is aware of this new challenge and that change is imminent. The structuralist standpoint regards environmental degradation as a logical and inevitable consequence of the capitalist market system. Four hundred years of imperialism, colonialism and now neo-colonialism have created an unstable and unequal world in which poverty, racism and environmental degradation are both created and reinforced.
Obviously matters of security have, more than ever, become entangled with other issues like democracy, development, disarmament, and the environment. Theorists have tried to combine them realizing that improving one will positively effect the other. Organizations like the UN, as we saw earlier, have linked disarmament and development to the environment. “The connection between environmental matters and the abiding concerns of International Relations can be traced most explicitly in the current debate over whether traditional concepts of national security, involving armed threats, should be expanded to comprehend a ‘new’ range of environmental threats to human well-being.”
The study of International Relations is subjected to a rapidly changing political agenda caused by constant fluctuations in the world. The Realist principle is no longer sufficient to explain current issues. While doing research, I noticed that there is extensive literature on the subject of environmental security. It has acquired attention of the Department of Defense (DOD), as we shall see later.
The theory of environmental security is as complicated as it suggests. In fact, it is victim to multiple approaches, which becomes clear by looking at Figure 1
Fig. 1 Linkage between Armaments and War and the Environment
XXXX
Clearly, there is a need to be more specific. “Westing has divided, what he calls, ‘comprehensive security’ into two main components: political security (with military, economic, and social subcomponents) and environmental security.”
Although this distinction is reasonable and clear, it perpetuates the separation of the environment from political, economic and social issues. If policies are designed based on this concept, it may contribute to evasive behavior of nation-states and impede implementation of environmental legislation. We have to realize that our policies and our current market system bear consequences to the environment and to social discourses. As Imber argues: “Poverty kills Third World children at the rate of an Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing every three days” and “such avoidable casualties in the struggle for development focuses the western mind to reconsider just what is understood by both the terms security and environmental quality, and how the two might be linked.” And later: “Child-mortality rates, the net transfer of capital from the poor to the rich, the declining military security of many Third World societies and the inadequacies of current UN structures constitute the islands of comprehension which this study seeks to connect together.”
We can assert that International Relations theory has begun to lean toward a redefinition of the concept of security. Military means, though still deployed in acute conflicts worldwide, are insufficient to protect the nation-state from external environmental threats. In other words, the most advanced technological weaponry would not be able to protect us from the hole in the ozone layer or the rising water levels due to global warming. Renner once said: “Pursuing military security at the cost of social, economic and environmental well-being is akin to dismantling a house to salvage materials in order to erect a fence around it.”
Security embraces safety and equality. The unbalanced economic situation the world currently finds itself in will continue to put forth strive (ethnic conflicts, border wars, resource disputes, and terrorism). The global economic system has lead us to speak of ‘globalization.’ The time may soon be ripe to argue over our semantics and refer to ‘global environment’ and ‘environmentalization.’ Personal well being, social justice and ecological stability are rights that respect life of all forms and guarantee long term sustainability. Before this concept of security finds its way in policy making, it may be the task of political scientists, international relations theorists and natural scientists to cause a certain level of awareness. According to Beth Chalecki of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security it will take severe shortages in natural resources before a consciousness sets in that puts forth a change in people’s ways of thinking. She perceives the environment as a generator of conflict but also as a tool to create an overall understanding that natural resources are exhaustible. Phillip Lammi, Director of the Air Force Center of Environmental Excellence, claims that the military has a philosophy. “If things are going well economically, which is tied in to environmental considerations, the less chance of war. We are more than happy to share our technology with Russia. Why are we helping a former enemy? The idea is, you want them to be happy economically, have decent lives so there is less chance of aggression and so forth.” Both see the causal relationship between the environment, economics and politics. However, their approaches are quite different. Ms. Chaleski would be a structuralist whereas Mr. Lammi would be a realist.
A Global Reality
"Civilization began with the destruction of the forest ."
(Takeshi Umehara)
In the foreseeable future, according to Homer-Dixon, in the next 50 years, “the human population is likely to exceed nine billion, and global economic output may increase sharply.” He argues that scientists have warned for this prospect for several decades – the degradation of aquifers, rivers and other bodies of water, the decline of oceans, stratospheric ozone loss and climate change – but the debate is muffled by lack of carefully compiled evidence, or so it seems.
Scarcity of natural resources contributes to violent conflict. Conflicts of that kind are already occurring in many developing countries. Before elaborating on this matter, it is important to note that the environment is only one variable in a series of political, economic and social factors that can give rise to conflict. However, they are interrelated and can not be seen separately as we have seen earlier.
The economic, environmental and political health of the developed countries is closely related to the economic, environmental and political condition of developing countries and vice versa. Myers argues that “developing-world poverty has become a luxury we can no longer afford.” If we value our affluent economy, it is important to the security interests of the international community to develop a sustainable climate in the Third World and set the examples since we can afford that. It would be more profitable in the long run to revise our approach of the current economic system. A somewhat positive, yet extremely paradoxical, comes from British Petroleum CEO John Browne: "The problem won't be solved by denying or restricting the economic expectations of the people of Asia or Africa or Latin America. Nor will it be resolved by destroying the living standards of the world's developed economies. The first would be immoral, the second unrealistic.....If we start to take action now, the issue can be managed without disrupting economic development. If we fail, then the danger of disruption at some later point becomes a serious
risk."
Population growth and poverty do not benefit to sustainable development. Yet, it is not the developing world that is responsible for extensive use of resources but us. As I heard Mark Hurtsgart say on NPR some weeks ago: “Poverty is our biggest problem and wealth our biggest burden.” Poverty, especially linked to resource shrinkages in the developing countries, is a key ingredient that triggers mass migrations across borders resulting into ethnic conflict. In the long run this may lead to an influx of economic or environmental refugees to the developed world.
One of the most discussed environmental threats to international security is global climate change. In the last 100 years the temperature of the earth’s surface has risen between 0.3∞ and 0.6∞C; over the next hundred years the average temperature will increase between 1∞ and 5∞C. This view is shared by most of the scientific community, including the National Academy of Sciences and the science working group of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who stated in 1990: “We are certain of the following: …..emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrous oxide. These increases will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in additional warming of the Earth’s surface.” It is difficult to predict the outcome since there is no historical evidence available. Widely accepted is the fact that sea levels are going to rise. This will have an immediate impact on one-third of the world’s population who live within 40 miles of the seas where the soil is fertile. The IPCC also warns for "the degradation of agriculture, forests, grasslands, marine and coastal environments, as well as a reduction of freshwater supplies and damage to coastal structures."
Another side effect of global warming is that the scarce water situation will become even more problematic through precipitation, evaporation, flooding, drought and the agricultural demand for water. This should be seen as a serious threat to economic security for the U.S., the costs of adaptation efforts within the U.S. are estimated between $300 and $400 billion. Also, tens of millions of refugees are expected to move due to this flooding and related side effects. Existing conflicts may worsen or new conflicts may arise. It is certain that international relations will undergo a dramatic shift.
Another hard-pressing environmental threat to International Security is the depletion of the ozone layer. The Rio Summit of 1992 contributed widely to this concern and is regarded as a semi success story in the realm of multilateral treaties. Through the pressure of the scientific community, international action took place. The effects of a hole in the ozone layer shocked the world; excessive solar radiation exposure has serious consequences for human and ecological health; millions of cases of skin cancer, diminishing agricultural yields and tremendous damage to aquatic life.
Developed countries have mostly phased out ozone depleting substances (ODCs). The bad news is that developing countries are increasing the levels of ODCs. The Montreal Protocol of 1997 required that all industrial countries can no longer use chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), a serious ozone depleter. In most of the industrial world this process went relatively smooth, except in the former Soviet Union and some parts of Eastern Europe; Belarus, Bulgaria, Poland and the Ukraine. Those states had to ask for an extension. Devastated economies and political chaos do not encourage environmental compliance. In other words: environmentally sound measurements are a luxury that developing countries can not afford if they want to compete with the current global economic trend. The situation gets even more disturbing; Russia, China and India have a thriving black market in CFCs.
Scientists have conveyed that if all countries comply with the amendments to the Montreal Protocol, the concentrations in the ozone layer will peak around the year 2000. Then the ozone layer will mend gradually; a full recovery will not be noticeable until 2050. This long-term prospect for improvement contributes to ignorance; why even make an effort if we probably will not even be around to benefit from this?
A severe compounding factor to the environmental problems discussed above, is population growth. Many scientists claim that population growth may soon exceed 'carrying capacity.' In other words, the planet's resources supplies may no longer be able to support people in the future. Linking this to the degradation of the environment, we can conclude that the picture does not look bright at all. In fact, according to Myers. "Environmental impact refers especially to two of the biggest problems of all, ozone-layer depletion and global warming; impacts that reflect (in part at least) the continuing population growth of the developing nations. Governments and NGOs worldwide have a tendency to blame developing countries for their growing populations. It is a fact that the developed world consumes at least three times more than developing countries. It is obvious that the problem lies more on our side and that we need to change our consumption habits. Population growth is not beneficiary to sustainable living and should be a main concern to international security management and practices.
The Military and Environmental Security
It seems an oxymoron for the military to play a role in securing the environment. On the one hand this is true. As Beth Chalecki states; the military is a business like any other business with a human resources department and a payroll, etc. Environmental awareness can only take place on a day-to-day operational basis like the recycling of paper. The ultimate objective is to win wars and thus to break the rules if necessary. Environmental concern of the military has a publicity value. Phillip Lammi argues that the military has the biggest budget and the best science can offer. "We buy the talent, if a solution needs to be found technologically, we can do it but it has to be politically acceptable. The engineers that work here are 'environmental' engineers, they are de creme-de-la-creme, they come as 'green' as they come." According to Mr. Lammi, the military will be able to make its operations environmentally friendly; jets, weaponry and other military equipment will be environmentally sound within the next ten years.
The Department of Defense (DOD) does consider environmental protection a key issue to national security, apparently. It has an elaborate, though controversial, view on the subject:
- Ensuring environmentally responsible action by military units wherever they may be.
- Ensuring adequate access to land, air and water to conduct a defense mission.
- Protecting DODs war fighting assets (people, equipment and facilities).
- Understanding where environmental conditions contribute to instability and where the environment fits into the war and peace equation.
- Bringing defense-related environmental concerns to the development of national security.
- Studying how defense components can be used as instruments of U.S. global environmental policy.
The DOD is involved in several international environmental projects. For example; it implements the Montreal Protocol and brings defense environmental leadership to NATO's Committee for Challenges to a Modern Society (CCMS) and it is involved in sending teams to the former USSR and Warsaw Pact countries to assist in addressing environmental problems through the U.S. European Command's 'Military-to-Military' program. Many bilateral, trilateral and multilateral initiatives have been undertaken such as NATO Pilot Study on Environmental Aspects of Re-using Former Military Lands and on Environmental Security in an international context, on broad environment and national security issues.
It is key for any security institution to have a good understanding of the dynamics and the links between environmental, resource and social problems to determine and anticipate international behavior. One example, that will be discussed in more detail later on, is that stability in the Middle East region is important to the U.S. to secure the oil supplies. It may proof to be remarkably worthwhile to help find solutions to the pressing water shortage issues in that region. Most serious environmental threats to a nation's sovereignty are long-term in nature but once they become real, it may be too late to take actions. Because these threats are not immediate in nature, they should find a prominent place within international security policy making and thus appear on the Agenda of the Security Council instead of waiting until they have become acute.
An insecure element of environmental threats is that they are less clearly defined than military threats. It is extremely complicated to anticipate the exact impact of, for example, global warming. "A temperature rise of 4.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit may not sound like much but let us recall that when there was a temperature shift only a little larger in the other direction a few thousand years ago, it made the difference, as Vice-President Al Gore put it, between having a nice day and having a mile-thick layer of ice around."
It is in the nature of science to be objective and non-political, yet policymakers and transnational corporations often use this ambivalence to serve their short-term economic goals. As mentioned earlier, it is impossible to consider the environmental problems separately. Examples that illustrate this clearly are El Salvador and Mexico; both polluted over-populated countries with problems of resource and land distribution. Fundamental causes are environmental, political and social.
Security issues need to go hand in hand with sustainable development abroad. In order to succeed, the developed countries need to set an example. Our current model of economic growth is ill suited to do this. Jacques Cousteau once said that "the market system, as we are living it today, is doing tremendous damage to the planet because everything has a price, but nothing has value." We can not afford to sit still and enjoy our luxuries or we will not enjoy them later. In the following case studies I will take a closer look at critical situations in the Middle East and Central America.
The Middle East
The late King Hussein once said that the only reason he would wage a war against Israel would be because of water issues related to the Jordan River. In the region where oil flows, water is scarce. The greater Middle East region (Ethiopia, Egypt, Israel, the Palestinians, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey) is an area of high security concerns.
Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute notes that "not all water resources disputes will lead to violent conflict; indeed most lead to negotiations, discussions, and non-violent resolutions." However, "there is growing evidence that existing international water law may be unable to handle the strains of ongoing and future problems."
The Jordan River, the Yarmuk and the Litani are the water sources shared by Israel, the Palestinians, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. The implications of this water dispute become clear when one realizes that the Jordan River and its tributaries occupies only 3 percent of Israel's pre-1967 territories. Yet, Israel gains 60 percent of its water from this river. Mekorot, the Israeli water company, has drilled additional wells for new settlers but Arabs are not permitted to drill new wells for their agriculture. As a result of this, Arab agriculture suffered and many Palestinians have left the agricultural sector. Experts believe that the region's stability will be affected. In 1967, during the Arab-Israeli war, water concerns contributed to the tensions. Current Middle East peace talks take account of multilateral meetings over water rights. Given the Israeli military power, acute water wars seem unlikely. However, in the context of the social and political disputes in the region, water tensions will increase and contribute to civil disorder, ethnic intolerance and changes in regimes.
Jordan gains 75 percent of its water from the river and is planning on taking more in the future to boost its agriculture. With Jordan's rapid population growth this is clearly going to create a problem. Jordan is building a dam, known as the Unity Dam, on its border with Syria in order to gain more water from the Yarmuk. It plans on diverting 40 percent of the river's flow, which will have severe consequences for the farthest downstream country, Israel. Israel has threatened that if Jordan builds this dam, it will destroy it.
Turkey, Syria and Iraq are dependent on the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. The rivers rise in Turkey before they flow into Syria and Iraq. These two countries use the rivers for their irrigation and electricity purposes but when Turkey finishes its Grand Anatolia Hydroelectric project, the water supply for Syria and Iraq will become jeopardized. Iraq already faces problems as the salinity of the Euphrates put an end to farming around Basra. Also, Turkey has frequently threatened with a "water weapon" to interfere with the Euphrates' flows into Syria in retaliation for the country's support to Kurdish separatists within Turkey's borders.
Iraq, being the downstream consumer of the Euphrates would suffer tremendously if Syria executes its irrigation plans. The two countries almost engaged in a war in 1975 over the Ath-Thawrah Dam built in Syria. If Syria continues its ambitious plans for another dam, Iraq would have to shut down four of its power plants which would mean a cut of 40 percent of the country's electricity supply.
Egypt plays a fairly influential role in Arab politics. However, the country can not escape the dispute with its neighboring countries evolving around the Nile River. Egypt used to be able to be agricultural self-sufficient but due to salinization, and thus a decline of soil fertility, the country has to import big part of its grains from other countries. The growing population rate is a problem too as the Aswan Dam can not keep up with growing energy needs.
Other nations within the river basin, especially Sudan and Ethiopia (which controls the Blue Nile tributary), together with Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Zaire, Kenya and Tanzania, want to benefit from the river's waters to irrigate their farmlands. Ethiopia has never agreed with Egypt in regulating the Nile's waters. In fact, time after time it makes sure that Egypt is aware of the fact that it can do as it pleases with this natural resource since it is a sovereign state. This alarms Egypt. Anwar Sadat once stated that "if Ethiopia takes any action to block our right to the Nile waters, there will be no alternative for us but to use force because it is a matter of life and death." Butros Ghali was more blunt: "We depend on the Nile one hundred percent. The next war in our region will be over the waters of the Nile, not over politics. Washington does not take this seriously, because everything for the U.S. relates to Israel, oil and the Middle East." According to Joyce Starr, a specialist in Middle East and water security issues: "Water security will soon rank with military security in the war rooms of defense ministries."
Figure 2. Water Disputes of the Middle East of varying intensity, Eighties and Nineties
XXXX
El Salvador and Mexico
The most populated country of Central America, El Salvador, faces severe environmental problems. Deforestation practices have left only 2 percent of the forest and even that is shrinking due to the fact that rural households rely on wood for cooking. This process has caused desertification of large tracts creating water shortages and raising temperature in some areas. Hurricane Mitch, ravaging the country last fall, compounded the problem tremendously. On top of that, 90 percent of the country's rivers are contaminated. "Environmental experts warn that continued degradation of natural resources - especially drinking water in rural areas, where only 13 percent of households have access to piped, clean water - could spark social unrest unless action is taken soon." Kovaleski finds that in the northern states residents have sabotaged pipes that siphon underground water to the capital, San Salvador.
The twelve years of civil war have not helped; El Salvador has endured the most violence, both politically and military, than any other country in the region. Problems that are actual are all interconnected in a web of disparities of wealth, or lack of it, and income; inequitable land-tenure systems and a repressive government. This intensifies the unsound situation even more. According to Homer-Dixon the short but devastating 'Soccer War' of 1969 between El Salvador and Honduras resulted from poverty that stems from these severe disparities. "A natural population growth rate of 3.5 percent further reduced land availability, and as a result many people moved to neighboring Honduras. Their eventual expulsion from Honduras precipitated a war in which several thousands were killed in a few days. William H. Durham of Stanford University notes that the competition for land in El Salvador leading to this conflict was not addressed in the war's aftermath and that it powerfully contributed to the country's subsequent, decade-long civil war."
Henry Kissinger once said that "if the United States can not manage in Central America, it will be impossible to convince certain nations in the Persian Gulf and other places that we know how to manage global equilibrium."
The U.S. security interests in the region become clear when we look at the military spending record; in the peak year 1986, the Reagan administration supplied El Salvador with $122 million. This is six times more that the U.S. spent on environmental measures for the whole of Latin America. The irony in this case is that El Salvador will to continue to experience economic and social problems in its environmentally impoverished state leading to more political upheavals. El Salvador illustrates that conventional military support will not contain this, on the contrary, it pays lip service to the root of the problem; poverty.
Mexico
The picture in Mexico is not looking much better. Here also, problems of desertification, deforestation and soil erosion are undermining the country's ability to feed itself. Mexico has to import one quarter of its grain. This does not have a positive impact on the country's efforts to revive its economy. To illustrate the problem of deforestation a bit more: "the deforestation rate means that all forests will disappear in twenty years even if the rate does not increase. The loss of the forests' sponge effects disrupts river flows; and in two-thirds of arable lands, water supplies are the main limitation on agriculture. Because of failing water supplies together with soil erosion, at least 400 square miles of farmlands are abandoned each year." This perpetuates the increasing demand for imported grain and thus continues to drain the economy, which likely leads to conflict.
Political and social factors make the situation even worse. Unequal land distribution of fertile lands is a day-to-day practice as large farmers buy out small farmers. Peasants have no other option than to overwork the croplands which reduces the lands' fertility and leads to severe erosion. According to Renner the rebels of the Zapatista National Liberation Army (Ejército Zapatista de Liberaccion Nacional, or EZLN) started their rebellion in Chiapas because of economic inequalities demanding land reform and democracy. "Even though Chiapas provides half of Mexico's hydroelectric power, only one in three households is hooked up to the electricity grid. The state is a leading producer of beef, yet fewer than half of the people there regularly eat meat. In 1990, only 58 percent of households had running water, compared with 79 percent in all of Mexico; literacy was at 70 percent compared with 87 percent nationwide. Chiapas also lags behind in household income and education, and has above average rates in infant mortality."
Chiapas emphasizes the problems of Mexico. It gives way to the question what the price should be for world market integration coming at the expense of the majority of Mexico's population. The EZLN started their bloody upheaval on the day NAFTA came into force: January 1, 1994. About seven weeks later President Ernesto Zedillo started peace talks with the Zapatistas. This had no immediate results. The country was tortured by a severe new financial crisis and foreign investors considered the Zapatistas to be a threat to their interests. The military recaptured some of the rebels' strongholds in the jungle, but had no effect on the political stamina of the Zapatistas. New negotiations resulted in a limited autonomy of 7 million indigenous communities throughout Mexico. However, fair land distribution remains an issue in limbo.
Though on opposite sides of the world, the above examples have one thing in common; environmental decline is related to population growth and poverty, economic inequalities bolstered by the free market-system and the lack of capable governments (both in the developed and developing countries). The situation has become so complex that it is hard to analyze its causality. "We share the conviction that social development and social justice are indispensable for the achievement and maintenance of peace and security within and among nations. In turn, social development and social justice can not be attained in the absence of peace and security or in the absence of respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms."
The Middle East, El Salvador and Mexico represent the problems that many developing countries face as well. The developed countries will have no impact on these problems if they adhere to a symptomatic approach. In order to avoid a breakdown like the one in Chiapas, a number of factors need to be taken into account. It is not enough to procure arms and deploy military troops to unstable regions. Policies should focus on strengthening the social and environmental fabric of societies. The international community will eventually benefit more from an approach that strengthens civil societies everywhere; economically, socially, politically and environmentally.
Conclusion
The subject matter of this paper yields to 'idealism.' I both defy and agree with accusations of that kind. It is the conventional view of security, described in military terms, that obstructs the exact goals it is willing to fight for. Human security can not be safeguarded by an institution that ultimately destroys life in all its forms. Yet, in the short-term strategic approach of the military this is often the case, and more so, it seems plausible.
The pursuit of military might is a costly endeavor and takes away from other resources that are required to meet human needs like food, housing, education and healthcare. Military means can never contribute to achieving environmental security, neither can it assure long-term economic, social and political security. High-tech warfare generates large-scale environmental destruction. In times of war it would be considered irrational to save a forest if the enemy is hiding in it. And while this is true, in the broader sense, the military is helpless when erosion shows its ugly face and when oxygen has become a commodity. A forest is an essential resource enabling our very existence on this planet. It can take decades or even centuries for the environment to 'heal' from the consequences of warfare, making it uninhabitable for people and other living species; landmines being just one disturbing example.
In times of peace, the military's operations - production and testing of weapons, the conduct of maneuvers, and the generation of hazardous military waste materials - have a tremendous environmental impact causing problems to human health. There can indeed be no 'green' military. This is one reality of the world we have shaped, a reality that identifies itself with the human nature. If the world population would be truly realistic (which literally means 'true to life') to catch on to what 'true security' entails, it is likely not going to have a military. It would consume less and it would respect life in all its forms. Ignorance provides still plenty of 'bliss' on this side of the globe. However, the misery on the other side can one day bring our 'ostrich approach' to security to an end, maybe not in ways we like it.
For privacy reasons, the names of the interviewees haven been removed.
Appendix A
X, Director of Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence at the Western regional office, San Francisco, California, interview, San Francisco, California, (April 9, 1999). Telephone: xxx
Mr. X has worked with environmental issues since 1966. He describes himself as 'a man with many hats.' According to Mr. X, the Bay area is an environmental universe and he finds it challenging to work with environmental organizations like "Save the Bay." He also belongs to the California Military Environmental Coordination Committee (CEMAC) which is responsible for smooth transitions in the clean-up process of military bases.
X, Research Associate at the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, Oakland, California, telephone interview, San Francisco, California, (April 22, 1999). Telephone: xxx
Ms.X is a Reseach Associate at the Institute. She is currently working on Water Resources Sectoral Chapter of the National Assessment on Climate Change. Her areas of interest include: environmental security issues, energy production and pollution, environment-trade linkages at international level. She worked with Environment Canada, authoring the Extraterritorial Issues chapter of the Canadian Country Study: Climate Impacts and Adaptation; the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Brookings Institution. She holds a MS in Environmental Geography from the University of Toronto and an MA in International Relations of Boston University.
Bibliography
Books
Bryner, Gary C., From Promises to Performance; Achieving Global and Environmental Goals. (New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1997).
Cranna, Michael, ed., The True Cost of Conflict: Seven Recent Wars and their Effects on Society. (London: Earthscan Publications Limited, 1994).
Dycus, Stephen, National Defense and the Environment. (Hanover, London: University Press of New England, 1996).
Fromm, Joseph, Defining National Security; The Non-military Aspects. (The Council of Foreign Relations, Inc., 1993)
Gleditsch, Nils Petter, ed., Conversion and the Environment; Proceedings of a Seminar in Perm, Russia, 24-27 November, 1991. (Oslo, International Peace Research Institute, 1992)
Imber, Mark, Environment, Security and UN Reform. (New York: St. Martin's Press, Inc., 1994)
Myers, Norman, Ultimate Security; the Environmental Basis of Political Stability. (New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1993)
Renner, Micheal, Fighting for Survival; Environmental Decline, Social Conflict, and the new age of Insecurity. (New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company, the Worldwatch Institute, 1996)
Starke, Linda, ed., Vital Signs 1997; the Environmental Trends that are Shaping our Future. (London, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, the Worldwatch Institute, 1997)
Tolba, Mostafa K. and El-Kholy, Osama A., The World Environment 1972-1992; Two Decades of Challenge. (London: Chapman & Hall, United Nations Environment Programme, 1992)
Vogler, John and Imber, Mark F., ed., The Environment & International Relations. (London, New York: Routledge, 1996)
Articles
Browne, John, Climate Change is Real, New Perspectives Quarterly, (Special Issue, 1999), Vol. 16 (2): pp. 32-33.
Cousteau, Jacques, Consumer Society is the Enemy, New Perspectives Quarterly, (Special Issue, 1999), Vol. 16 (2): pp. 36-39.
Homer-Dixon, Thomas F.and Boutwell, Jeffrey H. and Rathjens, George W., Environmental Change and Violent Conflict; Growing scarcities of renewable resources can contribute to social instability and civil strife, Scientific American, (February 1993): 38-45.
Homer-Dixon, Thomas F., On the Threshold; Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict, International Security, Vol.16 (2), (Fall 1991): 76-116.
Kovaleski, Serge F., Salvador's River of Poison, Washington Post Foreign Service, (March 18, 1999): A15.
Lambright, Henry W. and Gerben, Agnes and Cervency, Lee, The Army and Chemical Weapons Destruction; Implementation in a Changing Context, Policy Studies Journal, Vol.26 (4): 703-718.
Lipschutz, Ronnie O. and Holdren, John P., Crossing Borders; Resource Flows, the Global Environment and International Security, Bulletin of Peace Proposals, Vol. 21 (2), (1990): 121-133.
Websites
Committee for Challenges to a Modern Society (CCMS): http://www.nato.int/CCMS/, (Date accessed: March 3, 1999)
Department of Defense, Environmental Security: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/nov1996/ b112096_bt650_97.html, (Date accessed: March 3, 1999)
http://www.lib.lsu.edu/cgi-bin/search.cgi (Date accessed: March 3, 1999.
Appendix B
Bryner, Gary C., From Promises to Performance; Achieving Global and Environmental Goals -
A broad analysis of international environmental problems and their possible solutions. Bryner demonstrates the often existing gap between global environmental agreements and policy choices made by governments.
Gary C. Bryner is a Professor of Political Science and Director of the Public Policy Program at Brigham Young University.
Cranna, Michael, ed., The True Cost of Conflict: Seven Recent Wars and their Effects on Society -
The Council For A Liveable World, Human Rights Watch, The Netherlands Organization for International Development Cooperation (NOVIB), Oxfam, World Vision International led by Saferworld in cooperation with an international Task Force collaborated in an extensive research on the cost of war by focussing on economic damage, social and developmental damage and environmental damage. The conflicts it examines are: Gulf War, Indonesia-East Timor Conflict, Civil War in Mozanmbique, Civil War in Sudan, Guerrilla War in Peru, Independence War in Kashmir and the war in Bosnia.
Editor Michael Cranna, a New Zealand native, was coordinator of this Safer World's project. He lives and works in London.
Dycys, Stephen, National Defense and the Environment -
This book presents a framework for determining where environmental sacrifices are necessary to protect us from sovereign aggression or terrorism, as well as for assessing the implications of proposed changes in the environmental laws. It illustrates the relationship between defense and environmental issues.
Dycus is a Professor of Law at Vermont Law School and co-author of National Security Law (1990).
Fromm, Joseph, Defining National Security; the Non-military Aspects
Fromm links economic, political and environmental issues together in order to proof that it is no longer appropriate to consider the environmental issues separate.
Gleditsch, Nils Petter, ed., Conversion and the Environment; Proceedings of a Seminar in Perm, Russia, 24-27 November, 1991 -
A selection of articles about causes of violence and conflict resolution, presented at Perm, Russia, as part of a wider program on Environmental Security under joint sponsorship of UNEP. The contributors are researchers, international civil servants, politicians, NGO's, diplomats, media and military. PRIO is an independent institution that focuses on studies in environmental security, conflict theory and the study of ethnic conflicts.
Editor Gleditsch is a Senior Research Fellow at the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo.
Imber, Mark F., Environment, Security and UN Reform -
An in-depth study on environmental diplomacy and the relationships between environmental degradation and Third World debt. Imber argues that environmental questions and UN reform are important. Security questions can not be understood without adopting an environmental perspective.
Imber is a Lecturer in International Relations at University of St. Andrews.
Myers, Norman, Ultimate Security; the Environmental Basis of Political Stability -
A readable account on the complex nature of environmental security. Myers addresses population growth, ozone-layer depletion, global warming, mass extinction of species, environmental refugees and connects them together. The author offers solutions to the reader that demonstrates the environment is everybody's responsibility.
Renner, Michael, Fighting for Survival; Environmental Decline, Social Conflict, and the new age of Insecurity
Renner continues the already established idea by Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute that a nation's security depends on the health of its economy, its national resource base, and its people rather than on its military preparedness. There are still wars to be won but the battlefields are different. Renner explores the increasing stress over resources and points to the need to re-describe security as we enter the 21st century.
Renner is a writer working at the Worldwatch Institute in D.C.
Starke, Linda, ed., Vital Signs 1997; the Environmental Trends that are Shaping our Future -
The Worldwatch Institute's 1997 edition that tracks key indicators that show economic, social, and environmental progress or the lack of it in graphic form. Data has been distilled from documents obtained from government, industry, science, and international organizations.
Linda Starke is the series editor at the Worldwatch Institute.
Tolba, Mostafa K. and El-Kholy, Osama A.; The World Environment 1972-1992: Two decades of Challenge -
An extensive report by United Nations Environment Programme that explores whether progress has been made in two decades. It looks at environmental issues related to social, economic and political situations worldwide.
Tolba is a researcher at UNEP in Nairobi, Kenya and El-Kholy is Emeritus Professor at Cairo University in Egypt.
Vogler, John and Imber, Mark F.; The Environment & International Relations -
A presentation of a comprehensive survey of the current treatment of environmental issues in International Relations. The authors analyze theoretical approaches and their relevance in today's current affairs.
Vogler is Professor of International Relations at John Moores University in Liverpool and convenor of the ESRC International Relations of Global Environmental Change Group.
Imber (see above)
This paper was written by Yolande van der Deijl for Professor Andrew Hanami's class of International Security in april 1999 (©)