Environmental Security

After reading the assignments for this week, I could have a better interpretation of political ecology that consists of different dynamics and adaptation of climate change as a new topic for international peace building to resolve both violent and non-violent conflicts. Along with Watts’ and Mass’ arguments, Parenti’s reading about a climate change that is currently occurring in the world and its reference to economic, political and social consequences enabled me to link it with the conceptual and theoretical analysis by other authors.

Watts presents two central arguments: the components and dynamics of the political ecology and new perspective of biopower in modern security issue. Watts addresses three different regimes—regime of accumulation, regime of truth, and regime of hegemony that might compose the political ecology. He believes that rather than just focusing on the Marxist analysis of social class and capita in production, there should be a more emphasis on a transformational adaptation in viewing the climate change and political ecology. In second part of his arguments, Watts relates the neoliberalism to the concept of biopolitics. The security is maintained when there are contingency and transformation.

Similar points have made in Parenti’s reading that mitigation and adaptations are the most important elements of transformation. Parenti discusses different types of adaptation—technical and political adaptations. Technical adaptation refers to a transformation that enables us to live following the nature while political adaptation is rather an internal change within our human society.

Mass also agrees that the transformation is essential in environmental security. His argument focuses more on the political adaptation where the environment takes role in peace building—resolving conflict through cooperation and active communication. Also, he states that even though the environmental peace building is neither a theoretical school nor a practice, it is still considered as political, not necessarily being neutral.

All these three authors agree that the environmental security in modern world cannot be apart from the transformation whether it is in political, technical or in other form. Before reading the analysis, it was not really clear to me in terms of roles of environment in security issue. Also, how the international institutions and local governments deal with the environmental security issue was another question I had before the reading. I now understand that the traditional concept of security is mostly limited to the military and terrorism and that the environmental security is considered not only as an ecological, political issue, but also as an economic and social issue that influences our globalized society in diverse ways, including conflicts and peace keeping cooperation.

Watts argues that political ecology is one of the approaches to thinking about the political economy of the environment, which caused the degradation of our environment based on the ideas of  power dynamics in the state and capitalism. He asserts that Capitalist economy has triggered the economic marginalization of the certain class in society – who became more vulnerable – through its contribution to the unequal distribution of resources. These aspects of his arguments made me to think about the possibility that the government uses this climate change, one of the factors causing human insecurity, as a tool to control and threaten people.

Maas’ arguments of environmental peacebuilding, built upon the South Caucasus case and aimed to create “durable peace”, were relatively realistic to me. He asserts that peace-building would not work if the two parties are not willing to participate due to their incompatible views while admitting that environmental problems cannot inevitably become apolitical or neutral issues. He believes that in order to achieve environmental peacebuilding, “awareness and an authentic interest” towards the environment, which could be expressed through emphasizing and focusing on long-term issues and structural causes of conflict such as environmental degradation, are required.

All of this week’s reading assignments mainly concentrate on global climate change. Through these readings, my ideas and beliefs about climate change, such as its catastrophic effects to the planet and its direct consequences to human beings, are strengthened. Although I had expected their lacking movements and functions prior to the readings, I was little depressed when the authors actually touch the realities in which security industry, such as states and organizations, is not prepared to face their approach to threats and hesitant to accept the consequences created from their activities and moreover state-driven cooperation might be inadequate to work on conflicts. Overall, I felt once again the importance of cooperative and collaborative actions between states and individuals to achieve the human security and environmental security against the global climate change, so that everyone’s interests can be protected.

This week’s readings dealt with very similar overarching topics. Some of the major themes included neoliberalism and its role on security, the consequences of the Cold War on the climate, the current state we are in, and the future ahead of us.

Floyd and Mathews introduced the idea of a society living in harmony with its environment and linked environmental with Marxist communism. In a communist state small farmers are exploited and destroy their land as a strategy to establish property, ultimately ensuring social reproduction in the event of a price squeeze (pg. 88). I had never thought about how democracy can also impact the way in which we treat our climate. In fact, I might even switch democracy out for capitalism, which is far worse and the effects are seen heavily in the US and globally.   Floyd and Mathews examined the relation of identity and the environment and the responsibility surrounding governing nature (environ-mentality). This brought me back to my 6-month adventure abroad to New Zealand last semester. Before European settlers, New Zealand was first home to the Maori people. Maori culture is largely based on respect and guardianship with the natural environment. In 1991, the Resource Management Act was passed, ensuring that resources will be used sustainably (however neglecting the rights of several Maori tribes). New Zealand is a country that will be hit hard in the future because of its eroding coasts and access to resources. The discussion of the Maori people of NZ gives rise to the idea of governance to the environment vs the government. How can one truly govern the environment? I have trouble understanding how one can claim ownership to the natural world. I believe that placing ownership is to accept blame. For example, if the United States decided to go through with geoengineering, it must be prepared to accept blame for if and when something goes wrong. In Parenti’s first few chapters we examined how climate change is leading to violence. I enjoyed how Parenti began the book by forcing the reader to form explanation and cause to Ekaru’s death. The idea of resiliency comes into play when talking about the chaos associated with climate change. As Floyd and Mathews noted, the poor will be tested as the impacts of climate change manifest.  Resiliency has become a “litmus test” to the right to survive, according to Floyd and Mathews.

The beginning of the Buxton and Hayes introduction seemed to be tailored for individuals who were not keeping up with climate science and political news. While I admired the background information, I felt like it was too broad of a topic to try to summarize. They mentioned geo engineering, corporations, Blueprint, the CIA, climate refugees, and even different ideologies. While I believe this was an informative read, I believe that this is a good starter pack to understanding the complexities involved with talking about environmental security.

I appreciated the sense of hopelessness they alluded to. Buxton and Hayes described their view as dystopian, and I agree that talking about climate change is difficult. I remember taking a class by Michael Klare and reading his book, A Race for What’s Left; I left every class feeling like I there was nothing I could control. Often when I think of how to “handle” climate change and its consequences, I am quickly overwhelmed. Simply because there are too many parts, too many people involved, to many regulations to be placed and too many sub-disciplines. How then are we able to handle the grave threat that is upon us?  I also appreciated the unapologetic exposure of large corporations such as Pepsi and Shell on their motives behind going “greener”. I found it alarming also because as an aspiring geologist about to enter the big real world, I am looking to these companies for jobs and even funding. It is funny in a way that my last research project at the Colorado School of Mines was funded by Exxon Mobil and dealt heavily with the topic of climate change.

I was far more engaged this week by the readings, as they address the topic that drove me to take this seminar: Just how doomed are we, and what can everyone do about it? Buxton & Hayes argue against using corporate approaches and military force to work against the increasingly drastic effects of climate change. They instead suggest a “bottom-up” alternative that incorporates social and political movements at every level to combat injustice, thereby eliminating the “security” lens that draws the toxic influence of the military and corporations.

Likewise, Watts outlines the theoretical basis for how “security” has come to be such a hegemonic, all-encompassing term. He further points out that the concept of “political ecology,” which helps tie environmental issues to “security” is itself an evolving, amorphous school of thought. However, he asserts that we are living in a “world of catastrophic events, thresholds of survival, and maladaptation,” and that a nebulous idea of how politics affects the environment which affects conflict (or any other possible order of those) is all we can hope for at this stage as neoliberalism and our planet crumble before our eyes.

More concretely, Parenti offers historical examples of how the military and defense consultants have turned the response to climate change into a “dirty war forever.” From Vietnam to Haiti, the American military has been using its might in the name of assistance or improvement with disastrous results. As global shifts in the environment increasingly link to violent events, the Pentagon and other powerful foreign defense forces are now prepared to fight climate change using established tactics, setting the stage for global militarized adaptation.

In contrast, Maas focuses on how adaptation to or combat against climate change can potentially serve as a unifying factor in peace-building efforts. He cites the example of struggling cooperation in the Caucasus region to argue that “sustainable development is a viable precondition for a durable peace only where interest and necessary commitment from the conflicting parties exists.” In other words, states must be motivated and flexible enough to cooperate in order for efforts to alleviate the effects of climate change to act as catalysts of peace making.

Part of what drew me to these readings was how closely they relate to my experiences abroad. While studying in Geneva, I was fortunate enough to take a course on Political Geography, which also discussed elements of geopolitics, political ecology, and biopolitics. During this course, one lecture was given by a high-profile researcher (whose name escapes me) in the field of conflict in the Caucasus region. His conclusions did not address the issue of peacekeeping through sustainable development as much as Maas’ do– I recall that our lecturer’s research was related to ethnic control of regional resources, and how fights over those resources have exacerbated and deepened ethnic tensions in the Caucasus.

Another element of my experience abroad was an internship in the communication department of the International Organization for Migration, during which I was able to witness tragedies involving the current refugee crises received and reported to the public in real-time. Much of the events I helped the organization report concerned refugees fleeing areas of drought, famine, or economic and political instablitiy brought on at least in part by these factors. Many of those refugees were from North, West, and Central Africa. So when I noticed that Watts uses the Sahel region of West Africa as an example in his chapter, and that Parenti’s book addresses the “tropic of chaos” –the region between the tropics of Capricorn and Cancer – and that Buxton & Hayes use the refugee crisis to underline the severe impact of climate change on international defense strategies, I was called back to my days in the IOM office. Before working there, I knew little about climate refugees, and I am still learning more. But as far as I can tell, it seems (not to be too simplistic or callous) that if there is to be a climate-induced apocalypse, ground zero will be in North or West Africa. I had no idea that I had been such a direct witness.

The apocalypse may in fact be nigh.

This week’s readings have made me question my original stance on framing environmental issues as security. It is clear to me that the security industry is not ready to change their approach to threats that are external, internal and sometimes invisible. The author’s for this week have moved past Malthusian beliefs and have delved into the history of the Global South to make a case for cooperation and collaboration in the face of environmental insecurity.

Watts presents Political Ecology as a possible explanation for the condition that the Global South countries have been left in. Political Ecology highlights how powers that have taken over Global South countries have contributed to the unequal distribution of resources that marginalizes people. According to Watts, the disproportionate effects are to be accredited to capitalism. Watts goes further to say that the condition poor people are in gives rise to bio-power: modern rule. It is a pessimistic way of looking at environmental security. Governments will only use climate change as a way to regulate peoples’ lives more. Watt’s explanation becomes more convincing after reading Buxton and Hayes and Piranti.

Buxton and Hayes make a strong argument for not reframing environmental issues as security issues. Since the September 2011 terrorist attack the “war on terror” has served as an excuse to use extreme force against people. Who is to say that environmental security will not be another excuse to increase military budget or intervention in other countries? Buxton and Hayes state that allowing the elite to find solutions for climate change is too dangerous. I cannot help but to agree. Time and time again we see that policies created are often benefiting corporate America instead of the marginalized few. Since environmental policies do not benefit economic growth they are difficult to get passed. Though more recently being “green” has become a marketing strategy among big companies like Pepsi Co who has privatized water in water scarce countries. Pepsi Co’s privatization of water is an example of how conflict can occur and made worse if the water is nonexistent for one group. This is a prime example of how a country with unstable institutions can fall into conflict over water. Framing environmental issues, as security, will ignore the reason conflict arises in Global South countries. Historically military interventions have been a ploy for economic gain.

Parenti in his analysis of who killed Ekaru Loruman made it evident that military intervention in environmental issues might not be the best approach. Through his analysis, he suggests the Global North sees an opportunity to take advantage of the Global south. Parenti calls on historical examples of military interventions in Global South countries, which left the countries with a corrupt government and criminals that result in a failed state. It is difficult to trust an entity aiding your country when instead of helping you it leaves more problems behind than you had in the beginning. These outcomes permanently marginalize the Global South. Militarizing the environment will only worsen conflicts in those countries. Prior to reading Parenti, I strongly believed framing environmental issues, as a security problem would be helpful in mobilizing powerful nations in preventing further damage to the environment. However, it seems like there are better ways of approaching environmental threats than with weapons and waiting for technology to solve the issues.

Maas et al. give a possible approach to the environmental conflict, which they call peace building. The South Caucus is used as a case study for peace-building initiatives. The intriguing part about peace-building is that it recognizes that the conflicts in the Global South stem from a different place other than the environment while also recognizing that sometimes peace-building just does not work if the two parties do not want to participate. This approach seems more realistic than the approaches of last week’s reading. The parties involved need to be willing to cooperate with one another. It would be a mistake to assume everyone is going to play nice in times of crisis. Especially when resources are exploited for economic gain. This is where the peace-building framework is weak. In order for it to be sustainable everyone first needs to care about the environment, not economic gain.

In sum Watts, Buxton and Hayes, Parenti and Maas et. al. have made it evident that the reason why the Global South will not be able to cope with environmental threats is due to the Global North’s self-interested interventions. If I had to choose a research topic for this week it would be how the legacy of well-intended Global North interventions in the Global South has made it so that third-world nations remain poor and inept to face environmental threats.

Ecology, peace-building, and human security

Parenti’s piece was by far the most engaging of the weekly readings. The format and way he wrote about history was appealing. Buxton and Hayes explore four arguments about why there has been no taken action with the threat of climate change. These four include: 1) Climate change as a “wicked problem,” (Rittel and Webber), 2) the production system which humans extract fossil fuels leading to more issues than just the emission of gases, 3) the fact there is prevention of investment and state intervention from trade policies, austerity and deregulation in governments and political states, (Klein), and 4) the development of neoliberalism, with the reinforcement of corporate power, and international post-democracy that has led to ignoring the huge issue of climate change. Similarly, in Chapter Five, Maas et al. identify three dimensions on how stakeholders can participate in the debate of environmental peace-building. These three 1) addressing environmental causes of conflict, 2) Environmental cooperation as a platform for dialogue and 3) Sustainable development as contribution to durable peace, all lead to how nations can cooperate while advocating for the environment. Watts explores political ecology and what it has to offer in the larger debate. He points out there is overlapping of human security, global environmental change and environmental security. Parenti in Part I dives into the merging of violence, poverty, and climate change as it contributes to catastrophic occurrences. His approach is to examine some of the prehistories of the current climate disaster in hopes to explain why the world is currently such a mess.

Due to the fact there is a collision of the political world, economic world, and all environmental disasters, which makes environmental security a hard concept to grasp. I am concerned with how the IPCC can be improved upon so it is more approachable for all. I am also wondering how can the Global North’s use and abuse of the Global South can be discontinued now and in the future. I want to explore more about how environmental climate change can be understood by everyone, and for everyone to understand the underlying issues. There needs to be a rethinking of climate change in order for to the government to provide support in changing the current system. For a paper topic to focus on would be to explore more into Parenti’s work regarding Haiti and the environmental security issues that surround that nation.

The questions that traverse this week’s reading are: who is causing climate change and who is affected by it? Ultimately, this exposes the question not only of which areas of our international and national political and economic systems need to be reformed so as to curtail the possibly violent outcome of environmental change, but also that of whose responsibility it is to do so. Buxton & Hayes suggest that the main actors in the creation and even the promotion of climate-driven conflicts are corporations and nation-states, citing some surprising and daunting facts about empty promises made by these actors to “go green”. From this arises the uncomfortable question of who profits from environmental insecurity. The power vacuum now occupied by military and corporate actors in the fight against environmental change must then be filled by… whom? Civil society? International organisations? National governments? I find this interesting as ecological campaigns over the last few years have mainly aimed at raising awareness and instilling a sense of individual responsibility towards the environment, rather than proposing multilateral solutions that involve state actors, civil society and corporations.

Political ecology, as explained by Watts, theorizes environmental conflict through the lens of marxist political economy: the present situation of inequality of natural resources and technology is a direct result of the integration of previously colonized regions into a global capitalist economy, marginalizing the peasant class and leading to social disintegration. I largely agree with this, although it is unclear what solutions political ecologists then propose as a concrete alternative.

Parenti focuses on the shift in types of conflict in recent decades away from traditional war and towards guerrilla warfare as, he argues, resource scarcity, refugees, and natural/man-made catastrophes drive states to engage in total warfare in which entire populations are framed as “the enemy”. He warns that this type of warfare will become or perhaps already is the norm due to environmental change. I find this interesting in that his point of view – that this is slowly becoming the norm – seems to me to effectively sidestep the historical realities of colonization and the types of conflicts that it involved. In fact, I would argue that it could already be considered a historical norm in many parts of the world, including the US (I refer here to the long tradition of militias engaged in fighting and/or extinguishing Native American nations).

This colonial inheritance pertains not only to modes of conflict generated in the Global South, but also in the Global North. A long history of colonialism and imperialism has left a powerful sense in Northern politics of what constitutes a morally acceptable motive for conflict: a right to land, a right to resources, and a right to security. It is important to note that these fundamental rights constitute some of the foundations of democratic thought, and although the spectrum of subjects of these rights is currently ever-expanding (now including women, minorities, etc. at least to some extent), we persistently conceptualize international politics in terms of “Us and Them”.

In this sense, the most alarming possible outcome of framing environmental issues as security issues is that each nation-state will begin land- and resource-grabbing, as many commentators have remarked is already happening in Africa for example by Chinese national companies, which will only exacerbate the problem and render dialogue impossible.

In contrast, Maas et al. argue that environmental security can act as a powerful catalyst for peace-building in countries torn apart by nationalist conflict, such as the South Caucasus. They do however foresee the possibility that the involvement of third parties could lead to an escalation of the conflict and/or resistance to international peace-building efforts.

If I were to write a paper based on these themes, I would focus on a particular region to identify the intersection of cultural practices and attitudes towards the environment, social and colonial history, the dominant political ideology, economic system, international relations and prevalent environmental risks to assess the possible role of environmental talks in peace-building efforts as well as proposing strategies.