Traditional notions of what ‘security’ is and what it ought to be centres on the state, its borders, its institutions, its people and its values, whilst the state reserves the right to use military force in order to maintain its primacy over those components. So if, for instance, a threat is posed to any of these components by a state or non-state actor(s), whether justified or otherwise, then the application of military force will be utilized to re-assert its authority and dominance within its defined borders. With the states' propagandists then working overtime to mobilize support for the use of extreme violence.
Which is why the supposed fight against ‘terrorism’ appears to be highly justified in the psyche of the general public. After all ‘they’ want to kill ‘us’ so lets get them first! Right?
So what about other menaces that pose a threat to global, national and human security?
I would argue the single greatest threat to man today, aside from American imperialist ambitions, is that of climate change. Compounded with increasing population growth coinciding with the depletion of vital natural resources, conflict emanating from such realities threatens to further destabilize political orders throughout the world.
For instance, Israel, Jordan and the West Bank border the Dead Sea, in the Middle East, the sea is supplied by the River Jordan, but Israel and Jordan divert 90% of its flow. However, the sea could disappear in the next 50 years if water diversion is not reduced and as many of these states are dependent upon the access to clean water for economic and population growth, the scarcity of this resource has the potential of exacerbating historical conflict. Ariel Sharon, in his 2001 autobiography, goes as far as to reveal that the 1967 Six-Day War with its Arab neighbours actually began more than two years before when it decided to act against the diversion of the River Jordan as the matter of water diversion was “a stark issue of life and death”.[1]
The Middle East is another perfect example of how the access to vital natural energy resources can lead to an invasion of a sovereign state against the norms and values of international law and its protocols.
The earthquake induced Tsunami that struck the countries around the Indian Ocean without warning on the 26th December 2004 killed 300,000 people, Although I don’t want to appear to be insensitive, the fact remains that the impact of the Tsunami was a thousand times more devastating than the atrocities committed on September 11th 2001.
Moreover, what is frightening here is that the colossal amount of human casualties that this natural disaster claimed in a relative short amount of time is not unprecedented. The Tangshan earthquake in China had killed hundreds of thousands in 1976, and cyclones killed more than 300,000 people in Bangladesh in 1970 and 138,000 in 1991[2]. This highlights that a single environmental catastrophe can be just as devastating as any prolonged case of armed conflict, not just to human life but it can also damage the structures and apparatus of political governance of which a state depends upon.
The human ‘cost’ of the Tsunami on Sri Lanka was 37,000 deaths, however, ‘only’ 4,000 people have been killed over the preceding twelve months in the armed struggle between the Tamil Tigers and the Sri Lankan government[3]. Emphasizing the devastating impact that non-military threats can have.
This is why it should be a matter of urgency to upgrade the environment from a peripheral issue in domestic and foreign policy planning to an issue that should be at the very core of policy-making. As this will induce multilateral action among states on an issue that has no regard for territorial boundaries, religious or ethnic difference.
One of the worst arguments I have ever heard against the case of climate change was argued by a colleague when I used to work for Apple. My colleague genuinely believed that climate change was merely a “theory” and cannot be proved. However, I counter argued that as climate change appears to be a gradual process over a period of decades as oppose to the immediate and visual impact that the Tsunami or an earthquake, as the recent one in Haiti can have, many tend to be dismissive of its importance as an issue, but nonetheless, the importance of climate change cannot be understated.
We are pumping tens of millions of cubic tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this will continue to grow due to the unrestricted burning of fossil fuels and unless the worst polluting nations in the world curtail their actions then generations to come will have to deal with the receding rivers in densely populated areas and rising water levels due to the melting ice glaciers. Sir David King, Tony Blair’s once chief scientific advisor commented that; “Greenland’s [ice glaciers] melting will cause us to re-draw the map of the world”.
Indeed, climate change is having the same impact on human suffering as a conventional war would traditionally have had. Tens of thousands of lives are being lost every year due to erratic weather patterns and mass displacement is disrupting the lives of millions across the globe. This has been witnessed in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in the summer of 2006, which had also caused billions of dollars worth of damage. It is also worth noting that due to the sheer size and capacity of the United States military, only the environment is capable of committing damage of this magnitude on American soil. So surely it would be essential for the United States to accept that the environment poses a legitimate security threat to its national interests?
However, due to the American economy being tied to its automobile and aviation industry ‘fears’ of China taking control of American dominated markets action on climate change may not become a reality due to heavy lobbying by groups with enormous financial muscle.
But what if the environment, climate change and resource scarcity was seen to be a genuine security threat by the international community?
I would argue that multilateral action throughout the world would become a reality, as many states would work together to tackle a common problem.
This was seen in the wake of the Tsunami crisis, when many states pledged financial and/or emergency assistance. Financial pledges rose to more than $2.7 billion dollars in what became the most impressive international response ever to a natural disaster, only to be eclipsed by the response to the devastation unfolding in Haiti.
Multilateral action could become the norm if the security field were to undertake an overhaul. Instead of focusing on issues that may have had greater resonance in a bygone era, the theorists within the security field should accept that in the modern world non-military threats, such as climate change and resource scarcity, may pose a greater danger to population centres around the globe.
[1] Sharon, Ariel. Warrior. (New York, Simon & Schuster: 2001) pp: 182.
[2] Huxley, Tim. ‘The Tsunami and Security: Asia’s 9/11?’ Survival. Vol. 47. No. 1 (2005) pp: 123.
[3] Ramesh, Randeep. ‘Between Troops and Tigers: Refugees caught in Sri Lanka’s bloody crossfire’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2046084,00.html
Although that resource scarcity and environmental issues are key to the future of the earth, the notion alone that countries will come to the table and agree on a set of legally binding rules is doubtful. A solution is years away for one, and even with it becoming a priority for governments, financial issues will hold it back once again. The continued security threat from states vs states, states vs terrorism, terrorists vs states and more, takes precedence over other issues. The idea that we all live happily together with no issues is an idealistic view, but from a realists view this will not happen.
ReplyDeleteYour American so called Imperialist Ambition is not a threat similiar on the lines as climate change, as that threat simply does not exist. The threat lies within politicians beyond the US and their inability to act as a combined will. Partly this lies within their own interests for their own country, but also because the financial situation to achieve change is precarious.
The biggest threat to mankind today, is not your called American Imperialist Ambition or Climate Change, but countries continued growing debts