ECSP Report 3
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FOREWORD by P.J . Simmons, Editor ust over two years ago, then U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Madeleine K. Albright Jargued that “environmental degradation is not simply an irritation, but a real threat to our national security.” As Secretary of State, Ms. Albright has already indicated that she intends to build upon the pathbreaking initia- tive of her predecessor, Warren Christopher, to make environmental issues “part of the mainstream of American foreign policy.” On Earth Day 1997, Albright issued the State Department’s first annual report on “Environmen- tal Diplomacy: the Environment and U.S. Foreign Policy.” In it, Secretary Albright asserted that global environ- mental damage “threatens the health of the American people and the future of our economy” and that “environ- mental problems are often at the heart of the political and economic challenges we face around the world.” Noting that “we have moved beyond the Cold War definition of the United States’ strategic interests,” Vice President Gore argued the Department’s report “documents an important turning point in U.S. foreign policy— a change the President and I strongly support.” Similar sentiments expressed by officials in the United States and abroad indicate the growing interest in the interactions among environmental degradation, natural re- source scarcities, population dynamics, national interests and security.* The breadth and diversity of views and initiatives represented in this issue of the Environmental Change and Security Project Report reflect the advances in research, contentious political debates and expanding parameters of this important field of academic and policy inquiry. As a neutral forum for discussion, the Report includes articles asserting strong connections between environment and security as well as more skeptical analyses. In this issue, Kenneth Keller cautions against defining national security (and the term, “environment”) too broadly. Recognizing the importance of population variables for the environmental problematique, Robert Engelman and Dennis Pirages explore crucial demographic dynamics and assumptions while laying the groundwork for more detailed population-environment discussions in future issues. Katrina Rogers advocates closer examina- tion of cooperative as well as conflictual responses to environmental degradation and depletion, then turns to the role of an often neglected actor in the environment and security realm: the private sector. And finally, Canadian scholar Franklyn Griffiths offers an outside observer’s assessment of the U.S. environment and secu- rity discourse while proposing to put the environmental security concept to the test in the “Missing Arctic Waters.” Let me highlight several new features in this third issue of the Report. To help bring the latest academic research to the policy community, we include a series of “Special Reports” on research findings as well as de- tailed rapporteurs’ reports from several U.S. and international conferences. The updated bibliography of rel- evant literature has a new section on population-environment-security dynamics. And as always, the Report includes: excerpts from statements by U.S. public officials and institutions; reviews and descriptions of recently published articles and books; summaries of Wilson Center meetings; an expanded list of related internet sites; and details about many U.S. and international scholarly, NGO and government initiatives. We have listed con- tact information to facilitate links among individuals and groups engaged in complementary endeavors. As the listings and information are not fully comprehensive, we would greatly appreciate your continued submissions of relevant information and additions for future issues. We hope you find the issue helpful and look forward to receiving your comments and contributions. * See the “Official Statements” section on pages 110-125 for excerpts from remarks by Albright, Christopher, Gore and others. See the Spring 1996 edition for details on the Christopher initiative. The complete text of the State Department’s “Environmental Diplomacy” report is available on the Internet at: http://www.state.gov/www/global/oes/envir.html. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS FEATURES UNPACKAGING THE ENVIRONMENT Kenneth H. Keller 5 ENVIRONMENT IN THE U.S. SECURITY DEBATE: THE CASE OF THE MISSING ARCTIC WATERS Franklyn Griffiths 15 ECOLOGICAL SECURITY AND MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS Katrina S. Rogers 29 DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE AND ECOLOGICAL SECURITY Dennis Pirages 37 HUMAN POPULATION PROSPECTS: IMPLICATIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY Robert Engelman 47 SPECIAL REPORTS NATO CCMS PILOT STUDY: ENVIRONMENT AND SECURITY IN AN INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT Alexander Carius, Sebastian Oberthür, Melanie Kemper, Detlef Sprinz Ecologic - Centre for International and European Environmental Research, Berlin 55 INFECTIOUS DISEASE AS A GLOBAL SECURITY THREAT Rohit Burman, Kelly Kirschner, Elissa McCarter School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University 66 REPORTS ON APPLYING MILITARY AND SECURITY ASSETS TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS Nathan Ruff, Robert Chamberlain, Alexandra Cousteau School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University 82 WATER SCARCITY IN RIVER BASINS AS A SECURITY PROBLEM Sophie Chou, Ross Bezark, Anne Wilson School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University 96 U.S.-MEXICO CASE STUDY ON DESERTIFICATION AND MIGRATION Michelle Leighton Schwartz and Heather Hanson Natural Heritage Institute 106 2 IN EACH ISSUE OFFICIAL STATEMENTS AND DOCUMENTS Environment and U.S. National 150 Security Interests: People’s Republic of China William J. Clinton 110 Jack Goldstone Albert Gore, Jr. 110 Ronald Montaperto Madeleine K. Albright 111 Stanley Roth Warren Christopher 112 William J. Perry 112 Strengthening Compliance with International 156 John Deutch 113 Environmental Agreements Strobe Talbott 115 Harold K. Jacobson Timothy E. Wirth 117 Edith Brown Weiss Sherri Wasserman Goodman 119 Eileen B. Claussen 121 The DoD-DoE-EPA Environmental 162 John Gibbons 121 Security Plan Mark Hambley 122 Abraham Haspel Alan Hecht DoD-DoE-EPA Memorandum of Understanding 124 Gary Vest NEW PUBLICATIONS U.S. Environmental Priorities and 167 National Interests in China, Eastern Europe Book Reviews and the Newly Independent States Fighting for Survival 126 Robert Kaiser Building Bridges 127 The Environmental Trap 127 Genetic Resources, National Interests 174 The Betrayal of Science and Reason 128 and Security National Defense and the Environment 130 Thomas E. Lovejoy George M. Milne What’s New in Periodicals 132 Environmental and Health Problems 180 in the Former Soviet Union: Do They Matter WILSON CENTER MEETINGS to the United States? Murray Feshbach Environment and U.S. National 136 Security Interests: Newly Independent States The Environment in U.S. Foreign Policy 186 and Central and Eastern Europe The Honorable Warren Christopher Zbigniew Brzezinski Thomas E. Lovejoy Stephen Flanagan Robert Hutchings UPDATE SECTION William Nitze David Sandalow Non-Governmental Activities 194 Governmental Activities 206 Environmental Warfare: 145 Academic and Professional Meetings 214 Manipulating the Environment for Hostile Rapporteurs’ Reports 220 Purposes Internet Sites and Resources 229 Arthur Westing Bibliographic Guide to the Literature 234 3 4 Unpackaging the Environment by Kenneth H. Keller he time has come to unpackage the environment. In the three and a half decades since environmental problems first began to command public attention, they have moved from the periphery to stage center. T No longer discussed only at gatherings of the converted, environmental issues are part of centrist politi- cal campaigns, the subject of major international conferences, a factor in trade negotiations and an element in the strategic plans of multinational corporations. While this attention has led to some notable successes, actions have fallen well short of needs. The question now is how to transform spotty progress and modest steps into a more consistent pattern of political support for environmental concerns, how to move from the wide recogni- tion that a problem exists to a public consensus that it is important. It is this question that now dominates discussions among environmentalists. The strategies proposed appear increasingly to have two elements: first, to give even more visibility to the environment per se by creating national and international institutions devoted exclusively to studying and promoting its health; second, to identify environmental interests with other inter- ests—as an aspect of national security, for example. I would argue that the term itself has become too broad and overburdened to be useful in setting policy or in guiding specific governmental action. There is even a question about whether “the environment” continues to be an effective umbrella for scientific investigation. The argument here rests on the notion that the strategy for drawing attention to a problem may actually be counterproductive when it comes to finding solutions to it. Moreover, the unbounded expansion of the concept of national security to include all threats to the well- being of a nation’s people renders the term meaningless in an operational sense. There is certainly room for reformulating the concept, but that reformulation should not be cast as a broad expansion of what “security” is taken to mean. Instead, it should focus on identifying those environmental threats that may lead to traditional security problems and those that can be responded to most effectively by military organizations.