The environment is a security threat by its own right and for its potential for it to cause violence and conflict. While new national security threats, such as mass migration, are caused by and will continue to be caused by climate change, the focus here is why it is a threat in its own right and why Daniel Deudney argument to not associate climate change with security makes generalizing, and frankly, under researched assumptions. (1) (If there is any question as to if climate change can actually cause security threats, one only need to take a quick peek at Tuvalu and the first climate change refugees). (2)
The argument becomes more complicated when one tries to argue that it should be considered a threat to national security, particularly if it is going to be given funding from the national defense budget. However, I argue that this is a national security threat to developing nations in particular because climate change is a man made phenomena. It is a threat that has been created and defended by countries in the Global North while states in the Global South, most of which have contributed far less to climate change are facing the most disastrous consequences of this global disaster. Policies of government regarding the abuse of the environment by corporations for the past century have permitted and protected the right of transnational, profiting Global North Corporations to abuse the environment for profit.
While I acknowledge that not all threats to human life can be considered security threats, for the potential of having the word lose all meaning, however, threats that are created by people that intentionally abuse and exploit other people are national security threats to the states being abused. So, in the example of climate change, the United States will not experience a direct national security threat until its policies have threatened and destroyed several other states, but it will eventually experience a threat from climate change, even though it may be perpetrated by its own policies, and not necessarily the policies of another state.
Deudney attempts to defend is argument in “The Case Against Linking Environmental Degradation and Security” by stating that the environment is not a threat perpetrated on one state by another state. However, I would argue that a collective of states are perpetrating this threat onto another collective of states. This immediately negates his argument because both World Wars were security threats perpetrated by a collective of states and no one is going to argue that those wars were not national security threats.
Also, the conception that security threats only come from states is completely outdated since the end of the Cold War. If Deudney intends to argue that, because current “defense” is only able to protect citizens from threats originating from states, then this is not an issue of the environment not “fitting” into what is categorized as “national security,” but rather that “national security” can no longer respond to relevant and modern threats. This is true in more cases than just the environment. For example, the most relevant threat terrorism poses to the United States is in the case of homegrown terror, where U.S. citizens perpetrate attacks on their fellow citizens in the name of a terrorist organization. Even though this is the security concern we are facing most directly, the defense department has little to no plans to avoid the cultivation of these homegrown terrorists and instead is “fighting terror” by dropping bombs via drones on innocent civilians in Syria despite statistics that indicate that the most common reason for terrorist activity is foreign occupation.(3) This example is to indicate that saying the environment doesn’t fit our current definition of “national security” should not be used as a justification to not consider the environment a national security issue. Rather, it should be used as a justification to adapt our modern definition of “national security” to one that includes relevant threats.
Deudney next argument is that the environment should not be considered a national security threat because it is largely unintentional. I agree that this may have been the case in the early stages of industrial development, but it is far from the reality today. Abusive policies have been intentionally committed, even when the effects of climate change were known. Actions are taken and regulations are negotiated and avoided every day to ensure that transnational corporations can abuse the environment for profit. Studies are recently being brought to light that Exxon had scientists on staff in the 1970’s that knew about climate change and the disastrous effects Exxon’s business model was having on the environment.(4) Instead of changing their business model to avoid this abuse, they continued to profit off of it as the world became increasingly dependent on oil and gas. To this day, representatives from transnational corporations are permitted to sit at negotiating tables along with world diplomats to negotiate approaches to combatting the global climate change crisis. Representatives that have to prioritize profit from BP, Shell, Exxon and others sit at the same table as diplomats who are responsible for protecting their citizens from the disastrous effects of climate change. (5) These examples are all to rebuke Dewdney's claim that this abuse is not intentional because it is clearly quite intentional as is even being used for profit. For these reasons and others, the environment should be considered a security issue by its own right.
- Daniel Deudney, "The Case Against Linking Environmental Degradation and National Security," in Green Planet Blues, Westview Press: 2010.
- Cole Mellino, “Meet the World’s First Climate Change Refugees,” EcoWatch, January 5, 2016, http://www.ecowatch.com/meet-the-worlds-first-climate-refugees-1882143026.html.
- Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan, “Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict,” International Security, Vol. 33, No. 1, Summer 2008.
- “Uncovered: Fossil Fuel Industry has back-door access to UN Climate talks,” Corporate Accountability International, November 1, 2016, https://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/blog/uncovered-fossil-fuel-industry-has-back-door-access-un-climate-talks. (See image above).
There are ways that 'national security' has been stretched beyond state threats of course (think terrorism). So would you like to simply do away with national security as a concept? And if so, do you think that environmental problems can get the funding that they need without the link the national security?
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's realistic to completely eliminate the concept of "national security" at this point, simply because of the prevalence of the term in dealing with threatening situations throughout history. However, I don't think it is necessary to completely eliminate national/state security or human security. There is no reason why these concepts can't complement each other, so long as they are equally valued, funded, and prioritized. However, as the situation currently exists, I think it is important to label the environment and climate change as national security, because of the reasons I've outlined and in order for it to receive the funding it needs.
DeleteAlthough I completely agree that environmental issues are a problem that need to be addressed, I do not agree with your argument that it is should be considered national security. Deudney argues that there is a definition of national security and including the environment in that would change the definition and I agree with that. Modern times have caused a need to address the environment and it's causes, however that does not mean it is harming national security or should even be considered under that definition.
ReplyDeleteYes, intentionality is a problem as well. Exxon's work has destroyed our environment and so have many other corporations but is it largely intentional? You are giving us some examples but people drive cars. Is this an example of intentional environmental damage? Many people also eat meat. This adds a large emission of carbon dioxide into our environment, but is this intentional? These everyday actions cause harm to our environment, and as you mentioned in your argument it is people who cause these issues, but does that make it national security?
Therefore I agree that the environment is being harmed and we are being harmed because of this but I do not agree with your arguments made suggesting that it be considered national security.
I have to sick with my argument that it is national security because of intentionality. Yes, people eat meat and drive cars to suit their personal needs on a regular basis and this does negatively impact the environment. However, people do this to meet their basic needs-- to get to work and get enough protein in their diet. But most people do not have access to alternative options (say eco-friendly cars or mass transit or consuming meat in sustainable, controlled ways) because it is either very expensive to do so or these people don't have the agency to make these changes, generally. However, this is much different than Exxon making billions of dollars off a business that they knew was harmful while they had all the agency to change their practices. It is obviously also not on the same scope as individual decisions. Considering the environment a national security issue will perhaps enable governments to hold these corporations accountable for their deliberate abuse and get environmental action the funding it desperately needs.
DeleteI would have to argue that climate change could best be approached from the human security perspective. I think many governmental leaders would not pay much attention or direct much focus to the climate change issues because there are many other threats that are visible and can happen at any instance. For instance, a picture of a terrorist attack has more of an impact on voters than a boring chart with numbers and figures over a hundred year span. Only a few questions were raised about the polices of Clinton and Trump during the three presidential debates. One of the limited questions was asked by Ken Bone where the internet responded more to his appearance than his question or the candidates' responses. If slowing climate change was directed by the National government, some state leaders may either campaign to remove or decrease funding or argue that climate change is not as a pressing issue as terrorism or economic loss. If limiting climate change was a national security's task it may inhibit NGO's to act and raise support because they would look to the government to be the leading voice but if the government lacks funding it cannot be much of a leader.
ReplyDeleteI would like to indicate that I don't believe that the environment has to exist solely as a national security issue, particularly because of the reasons you point out. This is a matter of human security as well. However, these two forms of security can work together to achieve what is necessary for climate change, and governments and NGOs can do the same. This is not a question of one or the other, because security exists on a continuum, but instead makes an argument for why, in the current state of security, it would be helpful to consider this a national security threat in order for it to receive necessary attention and funding.
Delete