-Written by AJ Reibel, MIR program, New Zealand
Environmental security is a highly malleable term that has been used to describe a variety of threats, some of them to man and others to the flora and fauna of a specific region. At first glance environmental security describes a threat to the survival of the ecological environment, an amorphous arena consisting of the animals, plants, insects, bacteria, and non-living organic objects that surround us. Some science-fiction writers, with a little inspiration from astronomers and physicists, have also introduced the idea of an extra-terrestrial threat to the planet, often depicted as the ‘doomsday comet’. However, this glancing definition of environment is too limited in scope as the term includes ecological factors amongst others.
To policymakers, environmental security refers to a long-term threat or danger posed to a state’s human environs. As a result, environmental security is directly tied to human security, and encompasses the following: the health of the flora and fauna in an area of human habitation; the social fabric of a community, nation, or state; the economic livelihood of a collective group of people; people’s access to clean drinking water and food; and the general ability to sustain a human population in a specific location. Certain places on earth do not naturally offer some of the above-listed characteristics and can be described as environmentally insecure. Antarctica, the Utah Salt Flats, and deep-sea locations come to mind.
Although statesmen and policymakers think primarily of the implications of an unfit environment for humans, they focus largely on their state’s citizens. When they seek ways to safeguard against environmental factors that may inhibit human occupation, their citizen-centric idea of environment is rather limiting.
The idea of environment is a self-interested one that includes traces of neo-realist philosophical influences. In the neo-realist framework, a state concerned with maximising its power with respect to that of its neighbours desires a safe internal and peripheral environment that will give it an advantage over a rival. The United States may rest easy that despite ecological disasters, such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill and the fiasco at Love Canal, it is not haunted by the fallout of Chernobyl. Washington is also likely to be confident that although its industries emit carbon-monoxide and dioxide, they do not risk poisoning the American population as much as China’s industry threatens the health of its public. It is for this reason that academics and policymakers, such as Lester Brown, have sought to redefine “…national security in order to incorporate environmental [and, more specifically, ecological] concerns.”[1]
In an increasingly interconnected world the ecological environment, the health of countries’ populations, and the physical and material security of states’ inhabitants should eclipse ‘traditional’ threats. Western state policymakers classically downgrade the importance of the three aforementioned threats and entrust select institutional or professional groupings with recommending security solutions. Instead, Western security strategists have typically focused on traditional threats. China, however, has taken a different security approach by establishing a broad security framework – the New Security Concept[2]. Chinese security strategists, such as Yan Xuetong, have identified terrorism, secessionism, environmental destruction, and pandemics as key risks.
In the Western mind-set, however, ecological degradation has been thought of as an issue for the scientific community; the existence of abject poverty and the spread of disease to altruistic NGOs; and, crime and lawlessness to internal policing organisations.[3] Unfortunately, as transmigration becomes easier, the global state of ecology deteriorates, and the world’s population soars, non-traditional security threats loom ever more dangerous.
The cost to human life and lost economic productivity is threatened more by non-traditional environmental threats than by ‘international security’ threats. The WHO estimated that the Avian Flu could kill between 2 and 7.9 million people around the world[4] – possibly more deaths than suffered by the Vietnamese populace during the French and, later, American-led wars. Between 2002 and 2003, the SARS epidemic cost the economies of the affected countries roughly $30 billion[5]; economists predict that this is roughly equivalent to the amount that the US can expect to spend on after-service care for its Iraq War veterans.[6]
In addition to the high cost of epidemics, economic marginalisation and competition for scarce resources pose a more immediate danger to international security. Wars are fought over precious natural resources – including timber, minerals, and hydrocarbons – in some of the most remote corners of the world. The DRC is an example of a country wracked by a prolonged civil war, largely fed by a volatile mix of poverty and the soaring demand for resources.
In actuality, environmental security can be synonymous with ‘human security’. Menaces to the human environs are often man-made and endanger many more human lives than neo-realist state-system threats, and jeopardise the popular liberal economic model. The idea that an economy will continually grow is an unsustainable concept. Ironically, development economists use ‘sustainable development’ to promote the idea of economic growth that will benefit a population and its natural environment. Unfortunately, a key law of nature is the idea of a ceiling beyond which growth is unsustainable.
The Corner House, a UK-based organisation that organises social and environmental justice programs, put out a study in which it referred to the earth’s “carrying capacity” and its relationship to humanitarian and social threats. The report stated that “…if ‘carrying capacity’ is exceeded… then population can be said to be "objectively" excessive relative to land, consumption and technology,”[7] thereby limiting population growth. If population growth is limited, given the finite nature of earth’s resources, then there is also a limit to states’ economic growth.
Since the idea of limits poses a real challenge to the present economic, social, and security models, environmental security may require the creation of a new IR framework. A more relevant theory must downplay the state-centric system and recognise transnational threats and trends, while also incorporating neo-realism’s emphasis on international anarchy and self-help. In his article, entitled “Ecological Metaphors of Security: World Politics in the Biosphere,” Simon Dalby presents a possible fourth IR debate.[8] This one, he claims, will be centred on security and the environment, and challenges the present International Security paradigm.
Although Dalby concentrates on the ecological component of environmental security, he does point to the transnational nature of threats. He refers to the exportation of ecological threats from the developed world to developing states, and sites Madhav Gadgil’s explanation of “resource exploitation activities and… waste disposal concerns.”[9] Dalby explains that technology sold to consumers in the developed world is made from natural resources extracted from developing states.[10] During the extraction and production process, the under-developed world suffers immense social and ecological exploitation. When the products outlive their usefulness in the developed world, they often return to the developing world as waste – again imperilling the environment in developing states. For this reason, he states that one of the major considerations of the new debate is how “…environmental politics [are based on] the ‘siting decisions’ of global resource flows and industrial production.”[11]
What is clear from the emerging idea of environmental security is that it is intertwined with human security and transnational trade concerns. Despite having major political implications, threats to the physical environs are largely objective and should be tackled through depoliticised means. This broad ‘human security’ IR construct will likely mirror China’s paradigm-altering security and economic policy in the sense that it will stress the need for multilateral cooperation in the face of transnational threats, but still emphasise Westphalian sovereignty.[12]
____________
1 Paul Trenell, “The (Im)possibility of ‘Environmental Security’,” University of Wales, 2006, part 1.1, 11.
2 Mark Leonard, What Does China Think? (London: Fourth Estate, 2008), 100.
3 Susan E. Rice, “The Threat of Global Poverty,” The National Interest (Spring, 2006): 79.
4 Ibid., 80.
5 Ibid.
6 Jamie Wilson, “Iraq War Could Cost US Over $2 trillion, Says Nobel Prize-Winning Economist,” The Guardian UK online, January 7, 2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/07/usa.iraq [viewed 26/08/08].
7 Nicholas Hildyard, Sarah Sexton and Larry Lohmann, “‘Carrying Capacity’, ‘Overpopulation’ and Environmental Degradation,” The Corner House, 1993, http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/item.shtml?x=52014#index-01-00-00-00 [viewed 12/08/08].
8 Simon Dalby, “Ecological Metaphors of Security; World Politics in the Biosphere,” Alternatives, Vol. 23, No. 3 (1998).
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
12 Idea of a Chinese-directed paradigm shift comes from: Leonard, What Does China Think?, 117.
To policymakers, environmental security refers to a long-term threat or danger posed to a state’s human environs. As a result, environmental security is directly tied to human security, and encompasses the following: the health of the flora and fauna in an area of human habitation; the social fabric of a community, nation, or state; the economic livelihood of a collective group of people; people’s access to clean drinking water and food; and the general ability to sustain a human population in a specific location. Certain places on earth do not naturally offer some of the above-listed characteristics and can be described as environmentally insecure. Antarctica, the Utah Salt Flats, and deep-sea locations come to mind.
Although statesmen and policymakers think primarily of the implications of an unfit environment for humans, they focus largely on their state’s citizens. When they seek ways to safeguard against environmental factors that may inhibit human occupation, their citizen-centric idea of environment is rather limiting.
The idea of environment is a self-interested one that includes traces of neo-realist philosophical influences. In the neo-realist framework, a state concerned with maximising its power with respect to that of its neighbours desires a safe internal and peripheral environment that will give it an advantage over a rival. The United States may rest easy that despite ecological disasters, such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill and the fiasco at Love Canal, it is not haunted by the fallout of Chernobyl. Washington is also likely to be confident that although its industries emit carbon-monoxide and dioxide, they do not risk poisoning the American population as much as China’s industry threatens the health of its public. It is for this reason that academics and policymakers, such as Lester Brown, have sought to redefine “…national security in order to incorporate environmental [and, more specifically, ecological] concerns.”[1]
In an increasingly interconnected world the ecological environment, the health of countries’ populations, and the physical and material security of states’ inhabitants should eclipse ‘traditional’ threats. Western state policymakers classically downgrade the importance of the three aforementioned threats and entrust select institutional or professional groupings with recommending security solutions. Instead, Western security strategists have typically focused on traditional threats. China, however, has taken a different security approach by establishing a broad security framework – the New Security Concept[2]. Chinese security strategists, such as Yan Xuetong, have identified terrorism, secessionism, environmental destruction, and pandemics as key risks.
In the Western mind-set, however, ecological degradation has been thought of as an issue for the scientific community; the existence of abject poverty and the spread of disease to altruistic NGOs; and, crime and lawlessness to internal policing organisations.[3] Unfortunately, as transmigration becomes easier, the global state of ecology deteriorates, and the world’s population soars, non-traditional security threats loom ever more dangerous.
The cost to human life and lost economic productivity is threatened more by non-traditional environmental threats than by ‘international security’ threats. The WHO estimated that the Avian Flu could kill between 2 and 7.9 million people around the world[4] – possibly more deaths than suffered by the Vietnamese populace during the French and, later, American-led wars. Between 2002 and 2003, the SARS epidemic cost the economies of the affected countries roughly $30 billion[5]; economists predict that this is roughly equivalent to the amount that the US can expect to spend on after-service care for its Iraq War veterans.[6]
In addition to the high cost of epidemics, economic marginalisation and competition for scarce resources pose a more immediate danger to international security. Wars are fought over precious natural resources – including timber, minerals, and hydrocarbons – in some of the most remote corners of the world. The DRC is an example of a country wracked by a prolonged civil war, largely fed by a volatile mix of poverty and the soaring demand for resources.
In actuality, environmental security can be synonymous with ‘human security’. Menaces to the human environs are often man-made and endanger many more human lives than neo-realist state-system threats, and jeopardise the popular liberal economic model. The idea that an economy will continually grow is an unsustainable concept. Ironically, development economists use ‘sustainable development’ to promote the idea of economic growth that will benefit a population and its natural environment. Unfortunately, a key law of nature is the idea of a ceiling beyond which growth is unsustainable.
The Corner House, a UK-based organisation that organises social and environmental justice programs, put out a study in which it referred to the earth’s “carrying capacity” and its relationship to humanitarian and social threats. The report stated that “…if ‘carrying capacity’ is exceeded… then population can be said to be "objectively" excessive relative to land, consumption and technology,”[7] thereby limiting population growth. If population growth is limited, given the finite nature of earth’s resources, then there is also a limit to states’ economic growth.
Since the idea of limits poses a real challenge to the present economic, social, and security models, environmental security may require the creation of a new IR framework. A more relevant theory must downplay the state-centric system and recognise transnational threats and trends, while also incorporating neo-realism’s emphasis on international anarchy and self-help. In his article, entitled “Ecological Metaphors of Security: World Politics in the Biosphere,” Simon Dalby presents a possible fourth IR debate.[8] This one, he claims, will be centred on security and the environment, and challenges the present International Security paradigm.
Although Dalby concentrates on the ecological component of environmental security, he does point to the transnational nature of threats. He refers to the exportation of ecological threats from the developed world to developing states, and sites Madhav Gadgil’s explanation of “resource exploitation activities and… waste disposal concerns.”[9] Dalby explains that technology sold to consumers in the developed world is made from natural resources extracted from developing states.[10] During the extraction and production process, the under-developed world suffers immense social and ecological exploitation. When the products outlive their usefulness in the developed world, they often return to the developing world as waste – again imperilling the environment in developing states. For this reason, he states that one of the major considerations of the new debate is how “…environmental politics [are based on] the ‘siting decisions’ of global resource flows and industrial production.”[11]
What is clear from the emerging idea of environmental security is that it is intertwined with human security and transnational trade concerns. Despite having major political implications, threats to the physical environs are largely objective and should be tackled through depoliticised means. This broad ‘human security’ IR construct will likely mirror China’s paradigm-altering security and economic policy in the sense that it will stress the need for multilateral cooperation in the face of transnational threats, but still emphasise Westphalian sovereignty.[12]
____________
1 Paul Trenell, “The (Im)possibility of ‘Environmental Security’,” University of Wales, 2006, part 1.1, 11.
2 Mark Leonard, What Does China Think? (London: Fourth Estate, 2008), 100.
3 Susan E. Rice, “The Threat of Global Poverty,” The National Interest (Spring, 2006): 79.
4 Ibid., 80.
5 Ibid.
6 Jamie Wilson, “Iraq War Could Cost US Over $2 trillion, Says Nobel Prize-Winning Economist,” The Guardian UK online, January 7, 2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/07/usa.iraq [viewed 26/08/08].
7 Nicholas Hildyard, Sarah Sexton and Larry Lohmann, “‘Carrying Capacity’, ‘Overpopulation’ and Environmental Degradation,” The Corner House, 1993, http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/item.shtml?x=52014#index-01-00-00-00 [viewed 12/08/08].
8 Simon Dalby, “Ecological Metaphors of Security; World Politics in the Biosphere,” Alternatives, Vol. 23, No. 3 (1998).
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
12 Idea of a Chinese-directed paradigm shift comes from: Leonard, What Does China Think?, 117.
Posts
