The securitisation of climate change A discourse analysis of the NATO and its member states Master Thesis Political Science | International Relations Name: Elze van Langen Student ID: 10786201 Supervisor: Dr. L. W. Fransen Second reader: Dr. F. Boussaid Date: 11 August 2016 Word count: 19.371 Abstract Although the representation of environmental concerns in the security agenda is increasingly recognised, the securitisation of climate change remains a topic of contestation. This thesis elaborates on the question how the visions of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and its member states correspond regarding the securitisation of climate change. This research draws on the analytical framework of Diez et al. (2016) and presents a comparative analysis of discourses on climate security. The discourses of the US, Germany and the Netherlands are analysed and complemented with the discourse of the NATO, which touches upon the lack of attention that has been given to climate security discourses within international organisations (IOs). This thesis argues that NATO generally constructs climate change as a territorial danger, which corresponds most with the discourse of the US. Although the leadership role of the US within NATO can be a plausible explanation for the similarity, it is argued that NATO’s vision may best be explained by its traditional identity of a military alliance. Despite expressions of fear for the militarisation of climate change, this thesis suggests that the short-term political implications of NATO’s vision are limited, since its mandate and policies concerning climate change are largely vague and undecided. Cover photo by Isaac Cordal The cement sculpture is created by street artist Isaac Cordal and belongs to a larger installation called ‘Follow the Leaders’. The artwork serves as a metaphor for power-mad businessmen who run our capitalist global order. However, after a picture went viral online, this sculpture was renamed by social media users as ‘Politicians talking about climate change’ (Cordal 2011; Sullivan 2014). 2 Preface Since several years, I am fascinated by the global issue of climate change. When I started to read more about this topic for my MA thesis project, I discovered an article by George Marshall (2014). In an attempt to explain the difficulties for our global society to find a collective response to climate change, Marshall found the answer in something we all share: our human brain. The exceptionally amorphous problem of climate change provides us with so many uncertainties that our human brain is incapable to fully address the issue. It touches upon our cognitive blind spots, fear of death and perception of threats. This made me realise that climate change is largely socially constructed, and that the way and to what extent it is perceived as a security threat can have great political implications. I decided to write my thesis about the securitisation of climate change, in which I analysed the discourse of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), an IO which traditionally is not involved with climate change. While I was still writing my thesis, I applied for an internship at the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Within two weeks I was hired as an intern at the ambassador for international organisations. Hence, I will continue to work with the NATO and many other interesting institutions. I am looking forward to the career that lies ahead of me, and I uphold the ambition to work with climate issues in the future. Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisor dr. Luc Fransen for his valuable guidance and advice, and dr. Farid Boussaid for taking the time to read my thesis as a second reader. I would also like to thank Ariane Berends for her support as a study advisor and involvement throughout the process. Subsequently, I would like to acknowledge the interview respondents, who provided me with new insights and information: Rob de Rave (HCSS), Louise van Schaik (Clingendael Institute), Michel van Winden (Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs) and Wilbert van der Zeijden (PAX for Peace). Lastly, I would like to thank the people who are close to me and have been of great support throughout my study. 3 Table of contents List of tables and figures 6 Abbreviations 7 1. Introduction 8 1.1. Research topic 8 1.2. Researchstructure 9 2. Research design 10 2.1. Research question 10 2.2. Analytical framework: Analysing climate security discourses 11 2.3. Research design: Comparative design 11 2.4. Relevance 14 2.5. Outlook: the argument 14 3. Theoretical framework: The securitisation of climate change 16 3.1. The climate-security nexus 16 3.2. The theory of securitisation (Copenhagen School) 19 3.3. The influx of risk into the field of security 21 3.4. Differentiating securitisation: threat or risk? 24 3.5. Analytical framework of climate security discourses 25 3.6. Normative implications of securitising climate change 27 4. The United States and Germany: Territorial versus individual climate security 30 4.1. United States: Climate change as a territorial danger 30 4.1.1.The US and the NATO 30 4.1.2.The general climate debate 30 4.1.3.The securitisation of climate change 32 4.1.4.Political consequences 34 4.1.5.Conclusion 34 4.2. Germany: Climate change as an individual insecurity 35 4.2.1.Germany and the NATO 35 4.2.2.The general climate debate 35 4.2.3.The securitisation of climate change 37 4.2.4.Political consequences 38 4.2.5.Conclusion 39 4.3. Conclusion: Territorial versus individual climate security 39 5. The Netherlands: Climate change as a planetary insecurity 40 5.1. Introduction 40 5.2. The Netherlands and the NATO 41 5.3. The general climate debate 41 5.4. The securitisation of climate change 44 5.5. Political consequences 49 5.6. Conclusion 50 6. The NATO: Climate change and territorial defence 51 6.1. Introduction 51 6.2. A short history of the NATO 51 6.3. The securitisation of climate change 53 4 6.4. Political consequences 58 6.5. Conclusion 59 7. Conclusions 60 7.1. Research question: a comparative analysis 60 7.2. Normative implications 61 7.3. Limitations and recommendations for further research 62 References 63 Appendix I: Interviews 70 5 List of tables and figures Figure 1.1: Research structure 9 Figure 2.1: Hierarchical comparative design 13 Table 3.1: Important keywords distinguishing between the danger and risk dimension 26 Figure 3.1: The space of politics and security 26 Table 3.2: A typology of climate security discourses 27 6 Abbreviations CCMS Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society CCPI Climate Change Performance Index COP Conference of the Parties DOD US Department of Defence DPCR NATO Defence Planning Capability Review EC European Commission EU European Union GHG Greenhouse Gases IO International organisation IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change KNMI Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch Instituut LPF Lijst Pim Fortuyn NAS Dutch National Adaptation Strategy NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation NCA US National Climate Assessment NGO Non-governmental organisation NMP Nationaal Milieubeleidsplan PA NATO Parliamentary Assembly PBL Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving RIVM Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu STC NATO Science and Technology Committee UN United Nations UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNSC United Nations Security Council US United States VROM Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer 7 1. Introduction 1.1. Research topic The changing climate has already started to reshape our world. Droughts, floods, rising sea levels and water scarcity have made climate change an issue of security policies. The climate- security nexus is part of the larger context of broadening the definition of security, a development that has taken place since the 1980s (Diez et al. 2016: ch.1, 1.1)1. The intensification of the environmental debate and the changing strategic environment has even brought the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) as an intergovernmental military alliance into the realm of environmental politics (Depledge & Feakin 2012: 80). The most recent Strategic Concept of 2010 revealed NATO’s concern about the future impact of climate change on areas of interest to the alliance (NATO 2010: 13). In the run-up to the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris (COP21) in 2015, NATO’s Parliamentary Assembly (PA) urged the allied governments to support an ambitious legally-binding global agreement (NATO PA 2015). While all NATO member countries agree on the likely impacts of climate change on international security, every single state has a different opinion on how much and which impacts it might have, as well as to what extent climate change should be integrated in foreign and security policies (Vitel 2015: 6). There are many possibilities to frame climate change as a security issue. In other words, the way in which the securitisation of climate change develops, can have many different outcomes. The reason for this is because climate security discourses can be important for the legitimisation of certain policies or actions, which normally would not have been approved when there was no recognition of climate change at all (Diez et al. 2016: ch.1, 1.2). Hence, the recognition of climate change by a military alliance that traditionally does not focus on environmental issues and which conception of security lies within the traditional state-centric approach, is an interesting but controversial development. The way the NATO as an international organisation (IO) and its individual members construct climate change as a security issue, can have normative implications. It can give climate change more prominence within the political agenda, but it can also expand the military’s policy reach (idem: ch.1, 1.4). 1 References of Diez et al.