Showing posts from category security.
-
Walker’s World: From Warming to Warring: A Review of Cleo Paskal’s New Book
›January 15, 2010 // By Wilson Center StaffWilson Center Senior Scholar Martin Walker recently reviewed Global Warring: How Environmental, Economic, and Political Crises Will Redraw the World Map by Cleo Paskal, for his UPI column, “Walker’s World.”
Excerpts:
The Copenhagen summit showed that climate change is as much about geopolitics and power as it is about the weather. China‘s blunt refusal to accept any binding limits on its carbon emissions, despite the agonized pleas of small island governments facing extinction, demonstrated that this new aspect of the game of nations is going to be played as hardball.
And yet, as Cleo Paskal argues in her pioneering new book “Global Warring,” China is also powering ahead on every aspect of climate change. While protecting its right to pollute (because it depends heavily on coal as its main homegrown energy source), China is using state subsidies to seize the lead in solar power manufacturing….But perhaps Paskal’s most striking story is the way that China is also seeking to become a major player in the arctic. China has acquired an icebreaker, a seat with observer status on the Arctic Council and its own arctic research base at Svalbard. (China also has two research bases in the Antarctic.) …
Paskal’s book is full of such vignettes, illustrating the way that climate change and the intensifying competition for resources is starting to change the nature of power politics. Paskal, a Canadian who is a fellow of London’s prestigious Chatham House think tank and a consultant for the U.S. Department of Energy, has been a pioneering scholar of the new terrain where climate change confronts national security, where geopolitics, geoeconomics and global warming all collide. It is not just rivalry for oil and gas supplies and water, but also for fishing rights and undersea mining and mineral rights that may well be up for grabs when some of the lowest-lying Pacific island countries disappear under the rising waves. …
“We need to start thinking about the legal and economic implications of these developments now, before we have to start tackling them in the middle of a crisis or a humanitarian emergency,” Paskal told a seminar at Washington’s Woodrow Wilson Center Friday. …
Paskal sees China and Russia taking these issues more seriously that the United States and Europe, and her book is not just a wakeup call for Western leaders but is also an arresting and original work on climate change, probably the most important book on the environment to be published this year.
“As pressure is put on food, water supplies and national boundaries, famine and war may become more frequent,” Paskal concludes. “This instability may make populations more tolerant of autocratic governments, especially nationalistic capitalist ones where the political, economic and military sectors combine to protect existing resources and aggressively try to secure new ones. China and Russia already have a head start on this model.” -
Welcome Back, Family Planning
›January 8, 2010 // By Gib Clarke
“When women and girls have the tools to stay healthy and the opportunity to contribute to their families’ well-being, they flourish and so do the people around them,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared today in a speech renewing U.S. support for universal access to reproductive health services and supplies around the world. “Investing in the health of women, adolescents, and girls is not only the right thing to do; it is also the smart thing to do.”
Introduced by Melanne Verveer, the first ever ambassador-at-large for global women’s issues, Clinton’s much anticipated statement marked the 15th anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) and reconfirmed a U.S. commitment to meeting Millennium Development Goals 4 (reducing child mortality) and 5 (reducing maternal mortality and increasing the proportion of births attended by skilled health personnel). Reproductive health and development luminaries Nafis Sadik, UN Foundation President and former Senator Tim Wirth, and newly installed USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah were also in attendance.
Clinton began with a look back to the ICPD—which she called the “first ever global forum that recognized the connection between women’s health, the quality of women’s lives, and human progress on a broader scale”—and the progress since. Declaring that “we have made measurable progress since 1994 in improving the health and the lives of women and children, especially girls,” she cited a number of improvements, including higher child survival rates, use of modern contraceptives, and female education enrollment.
Switching from the past to the present, Clinton described how women and girls continue to bear the brunt of a variety of social ills: they have higher rates of poverty, illiteracy, and malnutrition, and are the most adversely affected by conflict, “from the Congo to Bosnia to Burma.”
After reciting the data on unsafe abortions, STDs and HIV/AIDS, fistulas, and female genital cutting, she declared that “these numbers are not only grim…they are intolerable.” She added, “We can not accept it morally, politically, socially, economically.”
But Clinton’s remarks were not solely focused on health and family planning issues. Echoing arguments made by Nicholas Kristof and others, Clinton described how women’s health and women’s rights directly and significantly impact most major problems in the world, including economics, natural resource conflicts, and national security.
These challenges will require sustained effort and funding, said Clinton, adding that the Obama Administration’s $63 billion Global Health Initiative would address the health challenges of HIV/AIDS and maternal and reproductive health in an integrated manner. All of the administration’s programs would seek to help countries strengthen their own health systems to meet their unique needs—both of their women and girls, but also their populations in general. In all of these efforts, she said including men and boys as “advocates and allies” remains important.
Praise for the speech has been swift—a letter of commendation from a number of foundations was sent to the secretary immediately afterwards.
Maternal and reproductive health have experienced elevated and perhaps unprecedented funding and attention in recent years, especially over the last few months. Secretary Clinton’s impassioned speech is almost certain to keep this momentum alive.
Photo: Courtesy SEIU International -
Climate Combat? Security Impacts of Climate Change Discussed in Copenhagen
›Leaders from the African Union,the European Union, NATO, and the United Nations have agreed unanimously that climate change threatens international peace and security, and urged that the time for action is now.
In Copenhagen Tuesday, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the secretary-general of NATO; Jean Ping, the chairperson of the Commission of the African Union; and Helen Clark, the administrator of the UN Development Programme, were joined by Carl Bildt and Per Stig Møller, foreign ministers of Sweden and Denmark respectively, to take part in a remarkable public panel discussion organized by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The leaders agreed climate change could hold serious implications for international security, both as a “threat multiplier” of existing problems and as the cause of conflict, under certain conditions.
Møller suggested there is evidence that higher temperatures in Africa could be directly linked to increases in conflict. Ping emphasized that African emissions make up only 3.8 per cent of the climate problem, though Africa will likely suffer some of its most serious impacts. Fogh Rasmussen warned of the dangers of territorial disputes over the Arctic as the sea ice recedes. “We need to stop the worst from happening,” said Clark.
While there was broad agreement on the seriousness of the challenge, the participants differed on what should be done. Responding to a question from the audience, Bildt argued that Europe should not necessarily throw open its doors to climate migrants, but that the bloc needed to help countries deal with climate change so people can stay at home. Clark argued that enlightened migration policy could meet two sets of needs: reversing declining populations in the North while providing a destination for unemployed workers from the South.
Fogh Rasmussen said militaries can do much to reduce their use of fossil fuels. He noted that 170 casualties in Afghanistan in 2009 have been associated with the delivery of fuel. There is no contradiction, he argued, between military efficiency and energy efficiency.
However, the real significance of the climate-security event lay not in what these leaders said, but that they were there to say it at all. Not many issues can gather the heads of the AU, NATO, and the UNDP on the same platform, alongside the foreign ministers of Sweden and Denmark. This event proved that climate change has become a core concern of international policymakers.
The only way to tackle global problems, as Ping argued, is to find global solutions. And a clear understanding of the potentially devastating security implications of climate change might be one way to bring about those global solutions.
“We are all in the same ship, and if that ship sinks, we will all drown,” said Ping.
Oli Brown is senior researcher and program manager at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). Read more of IISD’s postings on its blog.
Photo: Courtesy United Nations Photo. -
The Ambivalent Security Agenda in Copenhagen
›To communicate a sense of urgency, the security paradigm is being used to push for self-sufficiency in energy, and hence “national security,” at COP-15. Such a connection, if configured with carbon-free energy sources, could provide a win-win outcome for many.
This argument has been embraced both by the left and the right of the political spectrum in the United States. But compelling as it may be politically, there is a discomforting insularity and isolationism embedded in this approach, as emphasized by the delegations from some countries that export fuels (e.g., OPEC members, emergent oil and gas economies, and uranium exporters such as Namibia and Niger).
The Canadian delegation, which was targeted by activists with a “fossil of the day” award, used the security argument to show how it could send relatively “conflict-free” fuels to the United States by developing its oil, uranium, and bituminous tar sands.
Australia played a similar security card behind the scenes. The former Environment Minister Robert Hill also served as defense minister and is now head of Australia’s Carbon Trust–connections which he suggested were very valuable in an onsite interview with journalist Giles Parkinson.
Nuclear energy was prominently discussed as a solution by numerous delegations. At a side event organized by the Danish Federation of Industries, Energy Secretary and Nobel physicist Steven Chu indicated that his biggest concern about nuclear energy was not the waste problem but rather, the potential dangers to national security from the proliferation of radioactive materials.
The other security connection that environmentalists like to make–but is empirically more tenuous–concerns the increased pressures on existing strife in resource-scarce communities potentially inflicted by climate change. I attended a presentation by an OECD research team that empirically considered the impact of climate change on the security of the vulnerable states of the African Sahel. While generally rejecting the direct linkage between climate change and the threat of violent conflict, the OECD study, launched with UK Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti, identified three hotspots where existing resource scarcity and population pressure could be exacerbated by climate change, especially agropastoralist communities, who are highly sensitive to any climatic fluctuations.
So far, the rather meandering encounter with the security agenda I’ve witnessed here in Copenhagen could greatly benefit from further integrative work such as that offered by the Wilson Center.
Saleem H. Ali is associate professor of environmental planning at the University of Vermont and the author most recently of Treasures of the Earth: Need, Greed and a Sustainable Future. -
Development Seeking its Place Among the Three “Ds”
›December 15, 2009 // By Dan Asin“By one count, there are now over 140 goals and priorities for U.S. foreign assistance,” Senator John Kerry said during the nomination hearing for USAID Administrator-designate Rajiv Shah. If Shah is confirmed, his principal tasks will be moving development out from the shadow of defense and diplomacy and bringing definition to USAID’s mission.
“USAID needs to have a strong capacity to develop and place and deploy our civilian expertise in national security areas,” Shah said at his nomination hearing. USAID “has a responsibility to step up and offer very clear, visible, and understood strategic leadership,” as well as clarify “the goals and objectives of resources that are more oriented around stability goals than long-term development goals.”
A difficult task—and whether Shah wants it or not, he’ll get plenty of help from State, the Obama Administration, and Congress.
State Department Reviews Diplomacy and Development
The State Department’s Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR)—launched in July by Shah’s impending boss, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton—will certainly inform his USAID vision. Modeled after the Defense Department’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the QDDR is designed to enhance coordination between USAID and State.
Anne-Marie Slaughter, director of policy planning at the State Department and co-leader of the review process, laid out the QDDR’s specific goals at a recent event hosted by the Center for American Progress:- Greater capacity for, and emphasis on, developing bilateral relationships with emerging nations, working within multilateral institutions, and working with non-state actors
- Capability to lead “whole-of-government” solutions to international challenges
- More effective coordination between top-down (diplomatic) and bottom-up (development) strategies for strengthening societies
- Greater capacity to launch on-the-ground civilian responses to prevent and respond to crises
- Flexible human resource policies regarding the hiring and deployment of contractors, foreign service officers, and development professionals
Obama Administration, Congress Also Join In
Details on the Presidential Study Directive (PSD) on Global Development Policy—outside its broad mandate for a government-wide review of U.S. development policy—are similarly sparse. The directive’s fuzzy parameters leave open the potential for its intrusion into the QDDR’s stated objectives.
But from what little is available, both the QDDR and PSD appear to be part of complementary efforts by the Obama administration to elevate development’s role in U.S. foreign policy, using whole-of-government approaches.
Lest Congress be left out, each chamber is working on its own development legislation. Senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar’s Foreign Assistance Revitalization and Accountability Act of 2009 (S. 1524) seeks “to strengthen the capacity, transparency, and accountability of United States foreign assistance programs to effectively adapt and respond to new challenges.” The act would reinforce USAID by naming a new Assistant Administrator for Policy and Strategic Planning, granting it greater oversight over global U.S. government assistance efforts, and strengthening its control over hiring and other human resource systems.
Congressmen Howard Berman and Mark Kirk’s Initiating Foreign Assistance Reform Act of 2009 (H.R.2139) would require the president to create and implement a comprehensive global development strategy and bring greater monitoring and transparency to U.S. foreign assistance programs.
Successful legislation in the Senate and House could pave the way for the reformulation of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, whose message has been rendered complicated and sometimes contradictory by decades of amendments.
And all these ambitious efforts are complicated by the involvement of 25 independent government agencies in U.S. foreign assistance—a formidable challenge to any administrator.
Photo: Courtesy of the USDA. -
Climate Reporting Awards Live From COP; Revkin To Quit NYT
›It’s a good news/bad news day for climate-media watchers. The Earth Journalism Awards honor some of the best climate coverage from around the world, while arguably the world’s most respected climate reporter announces he’s leaving journalism.
Earth Journalism Awards
Tune in now to watch the Internews Earth Journalism Awards webcast live from Copenhagen. The spectacularly impressive winning entries span the globe from Kenya, Brazil, Pakistan, and Papua New Guinea.
Two top-notch stories illustrate how nuanced, in-depth reporting can compellingly and accurately portray climate-security links: Lisa Friedman’s 5-part series on Bangladesh for ClimateWire untangles the knotty problem of climate-induced migration, while William Wheeler writes in GOOD Magazine about the increasingly difficult role of Indus Water Treaty in mitigating conflict between India and Pakistan.
The 15 winners are blogging from the summit, as well 40 reporters from 26 developing nations, as part of the Climate Change Media Partnership.
Revkin Frustrated With Journalism; Will Leave NYT
On the bad news side, Yale Forum on Climate Change and Media announced this morning that Andrew Revkin, the NYT’s climate reporter, will leave the paper on December 21. He cites “frustration with journalism,” but will continue writing his popular DotEarth blog.
Maybe Revkin’s frustration is with the disintegration of environmental coverage in the mainstream media? The Internews winners demonstrate the high quality of climate coverage at niche publications like ClimateWire or funded by non-profits like the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting.
Let’s hope Revkin finds a more comfortable home and continues his pioneering work on DotEarth, specifically his efforts to cover population, poverty, consumption, and development connections to climate. -
Climate and Security Hopes
›December 11, 2009 // By Geoffrey D. DabelkoThe Copenhagen climate negotiations have something for everyone. These mega-conferences attract all types, and the topical diversity of the side events is dizzying. We at the Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program are focused specifically on the climate and security discussions highlighted in an earlier New Security Beat post.
While I’m not able to join the 400+ participants expected at next week’s climate and security events, I do have some specific hopes for those discussions. And perhaps more importantly, I have hopes for steps after all the delegates go home. I try to capture my holiday wish list in this short video. -
Nobel Pursuits: Linking Climate Efforts With Development, Natural Resources, and Stability
›December 11, 2009 // By Geoffrey D. DabelkoThe only mention of climate change in President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech falls squarely in the climate and security context. He introduces the climate imperative by highlighting natural resources and development connections to stability and human well-being.
In these two paragraphs, the President identifies the key communities that must come together, first in dialogue and then in cooperation, but who so commonly don’t: development, natural resources, health, climate, peacebuilding, and security.It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. It does not exist where children can’t aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.
Photo: President Barack Obama looks at the Nobel Peace Prize medal at the Norwegian Nobel Institute in Oslo, Norway, Dec. 10, 2009 (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).
And that’s why helping farmers feed their own people — or nations educate their children and care for the sick — is not mere charity. It’s also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement — all of which will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and environmental activists who call for swift and forceful action — it’s military leaders in my own country and others who understand our common security hangs in the balance.
“When women and girls have the tools to stay healthy and the opportunity to contribute to their families’ well-being, they flourish and so do the people around them,” Secretary of State 
Leaders from the African Union,
