compass By JamesKemp Peace & Security Today SUSTAINABLE DIRECTION FORTHE DEMOCRATIC LEFT

Oxford Research Group , thinkpieces compasscontents

Sustainable Peace & Security

Introduction Trust in security The dominant approach to security Integrating policy Global threats in the 21st century Climate change Marginalisation of the majority world Resource competition Global militarisation A window of opportunity

“Following the price hikes of 1973-74, Pentagon planners prioritised the development of a capability to deploy military forces to maintain control over the Persian Gulf region to secure the supply of oil and deny competitors control or influence in the region”.

Compass publications are intended to create real debate and discussion around the key issues facing the democratic left - however the views expressed in this publication are not a statement of Compass policy. compass

Sustainable Peace and Security Today By James Kemp, Oxford Research Group, November 2006 Compass Thinkpiece 18

Introduction This Thinkpiece outlines how and why a security strategy fit for the 21st century would differ from the approach that dominates today. The dominant approach is pre-occupied with maintaining key elements of the status quo and controlling pressure for change.This approach to security is not only failing, it is also incapable of effectively tackling some of the most important threats we face today.

Another security strategy, one that stands a greater chance of securing international and therefore UK peace and security, would begin by reassessing threats. Instead of focusing almost exclusively countering immediate threats, it would attend to the drivers of insecurity and conflict too.What we are talking about is the right balance between countering and defending against imminent threats on the one hand, tackling the causes of conflict and insecurity on the other, and the most effective means for achieving these ends.Today’s dominant approach to security focuses almost exclusively on the former with little consideration to how foreign and security policies impact over time on the latter.

A more effective approach - a sustainable security strategy – would be based on cooperative means and long-term planning to tackle imminent threats alongside the root causes of conflict and insecurity. Unless the root causes are tackled, our only option is to try to control their results. In an increasingly integrated world it is unrealistic to believe that a US-led political elite can rely on military measures and the prism of the ‘war on terror’ to keep global threats at bay for much longer.

Trust in security It is essential for the legitimacy of UK foreign policy that a consensus exists between Government, the public and military about the role of the armed forces in the 21st century. If this consensus were to breakdown, UK security would suffer; today it is showing signs of stress. Recent statements from current and retired senior military officers reveal that the relationship between the armed forces and Government is under pressure. 1 Public support for the UK’s military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan is weak. 2 There is confusion about what the armed forces are for and what they need to do it. 3

A security strategy fit for the 21st century would work to achieve four objectives:

• address imminent threats and respond to crises;

• identify and respond to trends and changes in the international security environment;

• strengthen trends and institutions that sustain peace and security; and

• strengthen trust - the world’s primary security currency.

Trusts is often overlooked in discussions about security, or rejected as an irrelevance.This is a mistake. As any diplomat or politician who has tried to negotiate a treaty, peace process or arms control measure will testify, trust building is essential.Without trust, negotiations fail, agreements and treaties breakdown, misunderstanding is more likely, and coercion, sometimes violent, appears a more reliable means for protecting interests and reducing vulnerabilities.The problem is that coercion cannot secure cooperation over the timeframes we need to start thinking in.

1 For example see www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/14/nirq214.xml 2 See Guardian / ICM poll, Oct. 24 2006. http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329608463-117700,00.html 3 For example, does the UK need nuclear weapons?

Sustainable Peace and Security Today www.compassonline.org.uk PAGE 1 compass

The dominant approach to security

“We meet here during a crucial period in the history of our nation, and of the civilized world. Part of that history was written by others; the rest will be written by us.”

This statement by President George Bush (2003)4 encapsulates a rather evangelical form of the dominant approach to security. Its goal of which is indeed to ‘write history’: to embed into the status quo the military, economic and political advantages presently enjoyed by the USA.5 To achieve this, US strategy aims to (1) control access to fossil fuels, (2) maintain US global military supremacy, (3) protect US domination of international financial institutions, and (4) the military advantages enjoyed by key regional allies.This approach to security is known as the ‘control paradigm’ because broadly speaking, it seeks to keep threats to the status quo under control.

The control paradigm is, by its own standards, failing. Democracy is ephemeral in the . Support for radical Islamic terrorism is significant, especially in Jordan and ,6 and home grown radical Islamic terrorism is a problem in the UK and elsewhere.7 Competition over energy supplies is increasingly unstable.8 The 2006 Israeli war with Hezbollah in Lebanon exposed the limits of Israeli power, and strategic competitors to US dominance are emerging elsewhere. Iraq is in a state of bloody chaos, and the Taliban are re-emerging as a powerful force in Afghanistan.

The recent US midterm elections and likely appointment of Robert Gates to replace Donald Rumsfeld will not bring about the kind of re-assessment that is needed.Tactics for dealing with , for instance, may change, but the basic objectives will remain the same. Given the extent to which the US influences the international security agenda, the control paradigm will continue to define security and defence policies in the UK and across much of the world.

Integrating policy To be effective, a sustainable security strategy would require integrated policy making across Whitehall. Efforts to integrate UK conflict prevention and reduction policies, for example, have made considerable progress. Cross-departmental units have been established for global conflict prevention, a programme for African conflict prevention, and Post Conflict Reconstruction, for example. Other structures have been created for counter-terrorism, intelligence and some other security issues.

Many of these initiatives have been quite successful.There are, as expected, problems with management and leadership, funding, communication between departments and competition. But the main problem, from the security strategy perspective, is the absence of an over-arching strategic direction and the extent to which the post-9/11 US-led ‘war on terror’ has distorted security priorities. These obstacles prevent the UK from developing the coherent strategies for dealing with the most pressing threats to peace, security and prosperity that would constitute a sustainable security strategy.

Given the interconnected nature of security challenges today, policy integration must cross international boundaries, including the EU, NATO, UN,World Bank, OECD, etc. as-well as between states. In 2003 the EU published the European Security Strategy (ESS)9, intended to set parameters for Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). It was drafted to act as a “global strategic concept, a sort of general philosophy for the Union’s action in the world”.10 It is probably the most sustainable security strategy in operation today.

Progress towards realising the CFSP’s goals is slow and in no way guaranteed. UK defence planning assumptions must refer to the most likely scenarios and facts on the ground today. A pivotal MoD planning assumption is that participation in peace support operations and military interventions will “generally be in coalition with other countries and large-scale intervention operations are unlikely to be conducted without the US.” 11

4 See www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,904086,00.html for text of full speech. 5 The Project for a New American Century “Statement of Principles” is widely regarded as an early expression of this aim. Signatories to this statement include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Zalmay Khalizad and Jeb Bush. For more details, see http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm 6 See,“Islamic Extremism: common concern for Muslim and Western publics”. Pew Global Attitudes Project. July 2005. 7 See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5306580.stm. 8 For example Javier Solana, the EU High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, said during a energy conference on 20th November that:“Sitting on huge reserves of oil and gas gives some difficult regimes a trump card.They can use energy revenues for purposes which we may find problematic… And it shields them from external pressure.Thus, our energy needs may well limit our ability to push wider foreign policy objectives, not least in the area of conflict resolution, human rights and good governance.” http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-20/0611202872164432.htm 9 See, www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/78367.pdf

PAGE 2 www.compassonline.org.uk Sustainable Peace and Security Today compass

Like their predecessors,Tony Blair and MoD officials mainly look to the US when making decisions with long-term security consequences, such as which type of aircraft carriers to build and what type of operations are most likely in the future.The USA’s singular power does not make this direction inevitable or desirable. Other factors determine the merit of a security strategy.

Global threats in the 21st century The most important challenges to international peace and security come in the form of trends containing the causes of global and regional insecurity and conflict.This applies today, and will apply even more so in the coming years. As outlined in a recent briefing,12 Oxford Research Group has identified the following as the most important trends:

1. climate change; 2. competition over resources; 3. marginalisation of the majority world; and 4. global militarisation.

Climate change Our understanding of the likely affects climate change will have on eco-systems, whether patterns and societies is growing fast, and scientific opinion is more united (and worried) than ever.The recently published “Stern Review” is a particularly valuable contribution because it tackles the economic “costs of the impact of climate change and the costs and benefits of action to reduce the emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)”.13 Yet most politicians, members of the public and businesses are failing to face up to the challenge climate change presents.

Climate change may not be a direct cause of conflict, but will “contribute to the risk of internal or interstate conflict” and “exacerbate existing tensions.”14 For example, global warming could cause widespread food insecurity.The evidence indicates a shift towards rain falling more on the oceans and polar regions and less on tropical landmasses.15 A significant reduction in rainfall throughout these fertile lands would cause a drop in the food production capacity where most of the world’s food is grown and most of the world’s population live.16

With food insecurity comes competition for scarce essential resources. Destabilising mass migration out of the tropics towards Europe, the US and other industrialised regions will increase, potentially inflaming social and racial tensions. Directly affected countries will struggle to maintain legitimacy and authority and may be forced into competition with neighbouring states for resources, particularly water.17 Such competition exacerbates the risk of internecine and regional conflicts.

The capacity of states to deal with climate change depends upon the extent to which they can adapt, and the severity of local changes.The richer the state, the more resources it will have at its disposal to manage change. Many of the states in the Tropics are poor, indebted and unable to provide opportunities to their increasingly well informed but socially and economically marginalised populations. Other states such as Pakistan are weak, but strategically important. If water became seriously scarce due to melting glaciers then there would be the risk of a failing nuclear weapons state in which radical Islamic paramilitaries and sympathisers are powerful.

Marginalisation of the majority world Overall, global economic wealth has increased over recent decades, but its distribution has been grossly unequal. If efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals18 are not redoubled, the UN has been predicted that by 2015 there will be 380 million more people living on less than $1 a day than there are today. 19 At present, more than one billion people try to survive on less than this amount. The communications revolution has raised awareness of this inequality and its causes.

As the perceived drivers of globalisation the USA and Europe are for many people in Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East, seen as the main cause of marginalisation and prime beneficiary of the status quo. Under these circumstances, the USA and European nations become targets of frustration and hatred.The combination of current demographic and economic trends indicates that this perception of marginalisation is likely to increase:

18 For more details, see http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ 19 “Human Development Report 2005” United Nations Development Programme. 2005 20 Strategic Trends. P.1-18 21 The International Energy Agency predicts that under a business as usual scenario world energy demand will be more than 50% higher in 2030 than today, with most of this growth in demand coming from developing countries. See, http://www.iea.org/textbase/papers/2006/birol.pdf 22 “Securing our Future”. Gordon Brown MP Chancellor of the Exchequer, at Royal United Services Institute, 13th February 2006.

Sustainable Peace and Security Today www.compassonline.org.uk PAGE 3 compass

“Overall, the developing world will not significantly close the gap with the developed world.The extent of the disparity will become ever clearer through the global media, potentially exacerbating internal tensions, and encouraging dissatisfaction, resentment, migration and even terrorism.”20

Whatever their philosophies, the power of paramilitary organisations and terrorists depends in large measure upon the support of those whom they claim to represent and the resources these organisations are able to muster.The success of groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian Territories is in part due to the fact that they are able to provide a range of welfare services to people who would otherwise be most vulnerable. It is a sad fact that if talented and educated people are faced with oppression and lack of opportunity it creates a sense of marginalisation that may make some people more likely to turn to radical and violent movements.

Resource competition Current trends in global consumption and production of fossil fuels point unequivocally towards intensified competition for supplies, particularly between the US and .Talk of reducing dependency on oil and natural gas from the Persian Gulf is increasingly common, and renewable energy and nuclear power are frequently put forward as partial solutions to this problem. But given the scale and accessibility of the resources found in the Persian Gulf compared to other regions, combined with projections of global energy use,21 it will not be possible to reduce reliance on those exporting states for the dangers associated with resource competition to be reduced to a tolerable level unless radical action is taken.

Attempting to reduce reliance on fossil fuels by investing in a new round of nuclear power stations is a particularly dangerous step, and one that illustrates the problems of failing to integrate policies. Gordon Brown recently said:“security issues dominate decisions in transport, energy, immigration and extend to social security and health”. 22As far as nuclear power is concerned, it appears that the integrated approach described by here faltered because the UK energy policy includes a new round of nuclear power plants.

International efforts to control the spread of material and know-how for nuclear weapons programmes need strengthening. A civil nuclear renaissance, as the proposed global new build is known, would make these efforts much harder. 23It would also increase the risk of nuclear terrorism.24

Following the price hikes of 1973-74, Pentagon planners prioritised the development of a capability to deploy military forces to maintain control over the Persian Gulf region to secure the supply of oil and deny competitors control or influence in the region. One problem with this posture is that it provokes states such as Iran, Russia and China, and offers a causus bellum to radical Islamic paramilitaries. For the al-Qaida movement the United States’ occupation of Iraq has been a remarkably positive development for two quite different reasons. Firstly because the widespread coverage of civilian casualties on satellite TV news channels acts as a powerful recruiting tool, and secondly because Iraq is starting to provide a combat training zone in urban guerrilla warfare for radical paramilitaries and terrorist from outside Iraq.

Global militarisation Relying to such a high degree on applying, or threatening to apply military force, to exercise control accelerates global militarisation. By lower the threshold for engaging militarily – as the US and UK in particular have done since 9/11 – political elites have weakened a raft of tried and tested conflict prevention mechanisms, including arms control treaties, the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, the UN, and peace negotiations (such as those between and Palestine). But it is not only ‘mechanisms’ that have suffered, so too has trust – a fundamental and fragile currency.

Two aspects of the trend towards global militarisation are most worrying. Firstly, the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation; secondly, the prospect of the full-scale weaponisation of space. As far as the former is concerned, France, China and Russia are engaging, or look likely to engage, in nuclear weapons modernisation programmes. Israel maintains a nuclear force; Pakistan and are vigorously developing their smaller forces; North Korea has a small stock; and Iran is developing a civil nuclear programme with which Iran could develop a nuclear weapons programme. Meanwhile, the USA is revising its nuclear posture so that its arsenal is useable in the post- Cold War security environment.

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have stated that they believe the UK should retain nuclear weapons beyond the lifetime of our current system (Trident).The argument in favour of retention is that the future is uncertain and so it is prudent to retain the ultimate deterrent to protect vital British interests. If this argument is sufficient justification for the UK, why not for other states too?25

By applying double standards (on this scale) the UK makes it much harder to limit the spread of nuclear weapons and move towards sustainable security. Instead, the UK could revisit the justification for nuclear weapons as part of a comprehensive security review. Such

PAGE 4 www.compassonline.org.uk Sustainable Peace and Security Today compass

a review has not been conducted since the Cold War.The most recent defence review was in 1998, but it did not seek to give a detailed analysis of the strategic relevance of the UK nuclear deterrent.25 Regarding space weaponisation, the USA has plans to base lasers in space as part of a ballistic missile defence shield intended to reduce the vulnerability of the USA and her allies to long-range missiles. Neither China nor Russia would accept a situation in which the USA enjoyed superior offensive nuclear forces and defensive systems, as this would constitute a near revolution in warfare and geopolitics. An enhanced and renewed arms race is one probable outcome, combined with the uncontrolled weaponisation of space.

A window of opportunity We have a window of opportunity over the next ten years to strengthen countervailing trends.The Treasury will soon conduct the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007.This process presents an ideal opportunity to develop and implement integrated strategies and establish mechanisms and processes required to tackle these threats effectively, and enable the UK to lead the global shift towards sustainable security.

A handful of key policy decisions will be taken during this Parliament, including the Climate Change Bill, Energy Review and the future of our nuclear deterrent.The UK leads global efforts to meet the Millennium Development Goals, to tackle climate change and, as a member of the EU and UN Security Council, UK diplomats and politicians can influence change at the regional and international levels.Without an integrated security strategy, however, progress in one area will be offset by degeneration in another.

The challenge facing those of us who advocate sustainable security is to identify those measures and policies which are most likely to gain traction with political leaders. Blue-sky thinking has its place, but what are really needed now are focused and practical policy recommendations.To begin with, the UK could:

• Set a target of 80% reduction in UK CO2 emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. • Provide investment and assistance for a radical increase of renewable energy’s share of UK energy market. • Strengthen the scrutinising powers of Parliamentary Select Committees and reform the Royal Prerogative. • Take a lead in efforts to revive progress towards a WMD Free Zone in the Middle East. • Reverse the decision to facilitate a new round of nuclear power stations in the UK. • Continue to push for reform of the system of global trade and aid rules to make sure the UN Millennium Development Goals are reached in time. • Increase UK foreign aid to 0.7%GDP by 2008.

We also need a frank and public debate about where the UK has independent influence, where we have effective multilateral influence, how effective UK polices can be without tacit or active US support, and where multilateral cooperation is essential.These questions would help focus attention on the nature of the UK’s role on the international stage and where we want to be in the near future. Presently, our role seems to many to be a junior and loyal partner to the USA on many issues. Defenders of this role claim that the UK can bring influence to bear in situations that affect UK interests, and without the we would find ourselves on the margins of key decisions. Evidence in support of this claim is difficult to find. It is even harder to believe that as the US’s attention turns more to the Asia-Pacific and away from Europe, the UK will be able to maintain what ever influence we have today. As the UK becomes less important to securing US interests, what further compromises would be acceptable to maintain influence?

We will only succeed, however, if civil society faces these challenges too. Political parties, NGOs and charities, schools, businesses, churches and citizens will need to help to raise awareness, educate and promote action we can all take to strengthen those trends that would lead to more peace and less insecurity. One place to begin is to move away from notions that such an approach to security somehow idealistic. It is not. It is the only approach to international peace and security that stands a chance of succeeding because it is realistic about threats to humanity in the 21st century.

James Kemp Researcher, Oxford Research Group

23 The recent announcement that six Arab state wish to develop civil nuclear power has been widely interpreted as a move towards a Middle Eastern arms race. See, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C3-2436948%2C00.html 24 See evidence submitted by Oxford Research Group to the Environmental Audit Select Committee for discussion of security implications of civil nuclear power. www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk 25 See recent announcement regarding the desire of six Arab states to develop civil nuclear power, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C3-2436948%2C00.html 26 http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/65F3D7AC-4340-4119-93A2-20825848E50E/0/sdr1998_complete.pdf

Sustainable Peace and Security Today www.compassonline.org.uk PAGE 5

Compass is the democratic left pressure group, whose goal is to debate “ and develop the ideas for a more equal “ and democratic world, then campaign and organise to help ensure they become reality.

Join today and you can help change the world of tomorrow - www.compassonline.org.uk/join.asp

compass

Southbank House, Black Prince Road, London SE1 7SJ T: +44 (0) 207 463 0633 M: +44 (0) 7900 195591 [email protected] www.compassonline.org.uk