Yemen’s struggles with terrorism and political instability appeared on American radar screens with the bombing of the Navy destroyer USS Cole in 2000. The small country’s notoriety increased in 2008, following attacks against the U.S. Embassy, and again last Christmas, when a would-be terrorist trained in Yemen attempted to bomb a Northwest Airlines flight. Since then, Yemen has again slipped out of the headlines. But the deeply embedded problems the country faces deserve more sustained attention, as I argue in a new case study of Yemen’s demography.

Youth represent three-quarters of Yemen’s population, which has the youngest age structure outside sub-Saharan Africa. Population Action International has found that countries with age structures like Yemen’s are the most likely to experience internal strife and autocratic governance. Between 1970 and 2007, 80 percent of outbreaks of civil conflict occurred in countries in which 60 percent or more of the population was younger than age 30. During that time, an average of more than 75 percent of these countries had undemocratic governments.

While students of security, stability, and foreign policy may focus on the role of male-dominated terrorist and rebel groups, demographic dynamics in Yemen and the status of women may be a better indicator of broader challenges. A country’s demographic picture is driven primarily by its fertility trends. Women in Yemen average six children each, a rate that would lead the population to double in fewer than 25 years.

Unfortunately, many women in Yemen lack access to the health care that would allow them to determine their own family size. A 2003 survey found that 51 percent of married Yemeni women would like to prevent or delay their next pregnancy but are not using contraception, the highest measured rate of unmet need for family planning in the world.

Yemen has also received the lowest rating in the world in a survey of gender equity, based on women’s professional, political, and educational achievements relative to men. Unfortunately, this inequality is not surprising, given many of the structural barriers in place in Yemeni society. Only 41 percent of women are literate, compared to 77 percent of men, and there is a strong link between girls’ education and fertility later in life. Girls can legally be married at age 15, and pregnancies that occur too soon and too frequently are in part responsible for the country’s maternal mortality ratio, which is 39 times greater than that of the United States.

The key to a country’s future–at the political, economic and the social levels–is the young people who comprise the next generation. Youth in Yemen continue to face barriers to economic opportunity and democratic political engagement. With the size of the labor force growing faster than the number of jobs each year, youth unemployment could reach 40 percent in a decade. The demographic foundation to such economic pressures can combine with political marginalization to create an environment conducive to instability.

Yet at the social level, there is perhaps more promise. Literacy rates among young people 15 to 29 exceeded 90 percent in a recent survey, and youth also display more flexible and equitable attitudes in gender issues. Nearly three-quarters of young people report unconditional approval of contraception, a major determinant in whether Yemen’s high unmet need for family planning, and thus its very young age structure, are likely to change.

Although these issues may be rarely addressed in the political dialogue, it is critical that the efforts of Yemen’s government and its partners to promote peace and stability also incorporate policies that promote the legal rights and economic opportunities for women, together with access to reproductive health services.

Three new case studies from Population Action International on Haiti, Yemen, and Uganda examine the challenges specific to countries with very young age structures and recommend policy solutions.

Elizabeth Leahy Madsen is a senior research associate at Population Action International (PAI). She is the primary author of the 2007 PAI report The Shape of Things to Come: Why Age Structure Matters to a Safer, More Equitable World.

Photo: Yemeni youth. Courtesy Flickr user kebnekaise.

Can demobilized ex-combatants help improve water resources in post-conflict countries? Last fall, the Global Water Institute (GWI) held a symposium in Brussels to find out.

Seventy representatives from the African Union, the United Nations, civil society, research institutes, and EU water policy advisors discussed ways in which former soldiers could be employed in the water sector to create peace dividends, bridge divided societies, and improve water security in countries recovering from conflict.

GWI, which is headquartered in Brussels and led by Valerie Ndaruzaniye, formerly of the Institute of Multi-Track Diplomacy’s Global Water Program, hopes to use the water sector development to meet multiple objectives in post-conflict reconstruction, such as:

• increasing environmental security,
• reducing the likelihood of future conflict over water,
• enhancing security and stability, and
• employing demobilized ex-combatants to create peace dividends.

“The GWI’s suggested strategy is to exploit the enormous potential of demobilized forces who had made war,” said Ndaruzaniye at the symposium. “GWI proposes to re-channel this potential force for development of water programs and protection of the environment.” While this is a tall order for even the most established of organizations, GWI is already ahead of the game by recognizing the synergies between these issues.

While disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR), is a fairly new process in post-conflict settings (the first program took place only 15 years ago), it has progressed rapidly in recent years, moving from a primarily military exercise to one focused on reintegration. Reintegration has also shifted from its exclusive focus on the ex-combatants, which often caused resentment in conflict-affected communities, to include women, children, youth, and the elderly and disabled, as well as the affected communities.

Reintegration is still the most difficult stage of any DDR program, not only for budgetary and political reasons, but also due to the processes of transitional justice and reconciliation. Through experience in the field, practitioners have realized that such programs are not simply technical exercises and must be better linked to wider recovery efforts and development programs for more sustainable results.

By supporting sustainable development in the water sector, and simultaneously contributing to reconciliation and peace dividends by involving ex-combatants in community development work, GWI can offer a substantial contribution to the reintegration process.

“Making the link between water management and DDR is a novel idea. GWI is a good example of integration of policy areas in order to build peace in some countries,” said Catherine Woolard, the director of the European Peacebuilding Liaison office.

Adrienne Stork is currently working on natural resource management and disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration programs jointly with the UNDP Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery and the UNEP Disasters and Conflicts Unit in Geneva, Switzerland.

Photo Credits: Flickr User ISAFMEDIA, 080816-N-8726C-019

As record-breaking snowstorms blanketed Washington, D.C. this winter, I took advantage of the citywide freeze to read Cleo Paskal’s new book, Global Warring: How Environmental, Economic, and Political Crises Will Redraw the World Map. In it, Paskal makes a compelling case for why the West should care about the geopolitical shifts—already underway—that will be exacerbated by climate change.

Paskal eloquently explains the science behind climate change in layman’s terms, breaking down incredibly complex issues and drawing connections across seemingly disparate challenges, such as rising food prices, degrading energy infrastructure, and growing water scarcity. She is a skilled storyteller, using memorable vignettes (and at times even humor) to effectively illustrate these climate-related complexities.

“You can’t just mention [population] in passing…If you’re going to talk about it, [students] will probably be interested in it, and you have to give it a really serious treatment,” cautioned Jennifer Sciubba, Mellon Environmental Fellow and professor at Rhodes College, during a panel discussion on science and policy in the classroom at the 2010 International Studies Association Conference.

Drawing on her experience as a practitioner of population studies, both within the Beltway and in the classroom, Sciubba shared techniques for bridging the gaps that exist between the study of political science and issues of population and environment. “I don’t think there’s that much of a difference between policy makers and students in some ways. They want to know the solutions, and they want you to break it down for them,” she said.

Bringing demography into the classroom should not start with population, recommended Sciubba. Rather, population and environment should be thought of as elements that shape and facilitate understanding of each topic covered in International Relations theory, from issues of conflict, war, and cooperation, to economics and development.

“It’s possible,” she concluded, “to put these things in any course–they’re part of the discipline. If we go back to some of the roots of international relations, this is how people thought of it to begin with and it’s very interesting to get back to that.”

Jennifer Sciubba is the author of a forthcoming book on demography and security, The Future Faces of War: Population and National Security, Praeger International Security Press, 2010

“The Department of Defense is not the U.S. government lead for climate change, but we certainly can show leadership in this area,” Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy Amanda Dory recently told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center. “That’s true of energy as well.”

Having recently returned from Washington, where I shared a platform at the Woodrow Wilson Center with Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Amanda Dory, I am struck by how similar UK and U.S. thinking is on the national security implications of climate change. Our defense departments agree that the impact of climate change is likely to be most severe in areas where it coincides with other stresses, such as poverty, demographic growth, and resource shortages: areas through which much of the world’s trade already passes. We are also in agreement that climate change will accelerate global instability and that it is likely to shape our future missions and tasks. In particular we can expect to receive more frequent requests for assistance after extreme weather events.

So if we recognize the threats, what can we do about them? In the United Kingdom we believe that the approach is two-fold. First, we need to address the problem that we have already caused, the damage that we have done to the climate out to about 2030, through adaptation and planning for potential scenarios. But to limit the threat to our security, we must also address the underlying causes.

Key to achieving this is limiting temperature rises to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, when compared with pre-industrial times, since beyond that, the risks will increase greatly. This will be no easy task and will require us to start cutting our emissions now, taking action by being more efficient and investing in low-carbon technology. The United Kingdom has the world’s first legally binding emissions reduction targets, and is investing in a variety of technologies, including wind, nuclear, and carbon capture and storage. These measures will not only contribute to our long-term security by reducing damaging carbon emissions, but they will also insulate us against fossil fuel price fluctuations and thereby increase our energy security.

It is the job of any responsible military to plan not just for the national security challenges that face us currently, but for those that might appear on our horizon in the future. Sometimes new challenges appear from newly destabilized areas of the world. Sometimes they arise from new methods of warfare, or new trends in science and technology. Often, they stem from changes in the conditions under which our militaries operate. Just as we are alive to geopolitical trends in every continent, and technical advances made by both our allies and those who seek to harm our interests, our militaries must proactively anticipate the environmental changes that will impact our national security in the coming years. Current military operations will, rightly, always be our highest priority, but we must also find time to address future threats, including climate change.

Indeed, in some countries climate change is already impacting on the work of the military. When I talk to colleagues from Africa and Southeast Asia it is apparent that they are already taking into account the consequences of climate change when determining their priorities.

The United States and United Kingdom can work together to establish a greater understanding of the security implications of climate change and how they will affect our missions and tasks. We cannot afford to be caught unprepared when climate-related conflicts challenge our ability to deliver our core mission of providing national security – a risk that we must avoid.

Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti is an active duty officer in the British Royal Navy and is the United Kingdom’s Climate Security Envoy

Environmental problems that amplify regional security issues are often multifaceted, especially across national boundaries. Obtaining a comprehensive understanding of the natural resource, energy, and security issues facing a region is not fast or easy.

Fortunately, the Environment and Security Initiative (ENVSEC) has created highly informative, easy-to-understand maps depicting environmental, health, population, and security issues in critical regions.

Published with assistance from the United Nations GRID-Arendal, these maps offer policymakers and the public a snapshot of the complex topography of environmental security hotspots in Central Asia, Eastern Europe, Southeastern Europe, and the Southern Caucasus.

“National security often means cyber security, it means energy security, it means homeland security, and more and more…it means environmental security,” says retired U.S. Army Captain James Morin in the Pew Project on National Security, Energy and Climate’s recently released video short, “Climate Patriots.”