Presentation on theme: "Sustainable security and its implications for politicians and people April 2009 Dr. John Sloboda, Executive Director."— Presentation transcript:
Sustainable security and its implications for politicians and people April 2009 Dr. John Sloboda, Executive Director
Acknowledgments Paul Rogers, Chris Abbott (ORG) The late Janet Bloomfield Greenpeace International Ford Foundation of America Network for Social Change Fundacion para las Relaciones Internationales y el Dialogo Exteriores (FRIDE) And all our core funders (individual and organisational)
Structure of presentation 1. Two approaches to security 2. Global threats 3. The failure of the control paradigm 4. Promoting sustainable security
Key differences Both approaches acknowledge a comparable range of threats Their differences are more in (a) the relative priorities placed on threats (b) the responses selected to deal with them (c) the degree to which separate problems are dealt with in “silos” or joined up
The control paradigm Attempts to control or suppress the manifestations of insecurity, primarily through the use (or the threat of use) of military force. It sees armed groups with hostile intent as the paramout source of threat. It deals with threats singly. Examples include - Cold War deterrence - the post 9-11 “War on Terror”
The sustainable security view Attempts to address the long-term drivers of insecurity, primarily through the reduction or removal of underlying root causes of violence. It sees human use of resources as the paramount source of threat. It takes a comprehensive approach. Partial examples include - Marshall Plan in Post-war Europe - Improvement of the conditions for Catholics in Northern Ireland.
Background Initial report based on work commissioned by Greenpeace International, published in English (June 2006) and Spanish (October 2006)
Beyond Terror Book published by Rider Press (April 2007), and now translated into 4 languages (Portuguese, Dutch, German, Spanish).
Examples of impact President Zapatero quoted from it during policy speeches in 2006 the German Parliament requested copies for the MP's library, and ORG was invited to address a group of senior German MPs in the German Parliamentary Green Party John Ashton (Margaret Beckett’s special representative on Climate Change) ordered 40 copies to distribute during the UNSC debate on Climate Change and Security in April 2007. In November 2007 ORG was invited to address the Australian Police Federation, and was the first to analyse the impact of climate change on policing. The threats identified in the UK National Security Strategy of April 2008 (and much of the conceptual language) are similar (and in some cases identical)
Follow-up work An Uncertain Future: Law Enforcement, National Security & Climate Change (2008)
Identifying trends Climate change Competition over resources Marginalisation of the ‘majority world’ Global militarisation fundamental threats – four interconnected trends:
Deaths from climate change “In my view, climate change is the most severe problem we are facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism…" “… based on the number of fatalities that have already occurred… global warming has already killed more people than terrorism.” Sir David King, UK Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, 2004 (editorial in “Science” journal)
Key threats from Climate change Coastal effects – rising sea levels Rainfall effects – drought & desertification Mass migration Food and water shortages
UK implications? Main effects in “global south” European implications could include - Civil unrest and eco-terrorism - Intercommunal violence (e.g. against immigrants) - international instability (redrawing of world map and potential for conflict)
Climate change – remedies Drastically reduce dependence on CO 2 emitting fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) in the next 10 years Energy conservation Renewables (wind, wave, solar, tidal and biomass) The nuclear dilemma – the power-weapon link
Sign of hope 1 – Individual leadership Obama has reaffirmed his campaign vow to reduce CO2 emissions by 80 percent by 2050, and invest $150 billion in new energy- saving technologies. UK Climate Change Act is the first in the world. Commits to 20% reduction by 2020 and 80% by 2050. China is considering a firm target for carbon emissions for the first time (April 2009).
New Ecomonics Foundation “ For everyone to live at the current European average level of (energy) consumption, we would need to more than double the biocapacity available – the equivalent of 2.1 planet earths – to sustain us……. ………If everyone consumed at the US rate, we would require nearly five.” (January 2006)
Competition over resources World’s major economies are net importers of oil Growth in demand from USA and China is rising rapidly 5 Persian gulf countries contain two-thirds of all oil reserves: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, UAE
US Military posture CENTCOM – primary purpose is to maintain control of Gulf region’s oil Permanent bases in Iraq are close to oilfields Complete military withdrawal from Iraq is an unlikely option for the USA
Oil wars UK government's former chief scientific adviser says Iraq war was about oil, not weapons of mass destruction – and warns there will be more 'resource wars' to come (David King, Guardian, Feb 12 2009)
Peak oil (www.oildecline.com) Oil is now being consumed four times faster than it is being discovered, and the situation is becoming critical.
Water Politics One in five people (1.1 billion) have no access to safe drinking water (UN Report, “Water and Development” March 2006) Population of Nile basin will double over 25 years Israel and Palestine share same declining water resource.
Water Politics Real risk of “water wars” Avoiding conflict requires strict observance of water laws and robust multilateral approaches to water management
Sign of hope 2 – China’s ecological city Dongtan (near Shanghai), being built from scratch to house 800,000 people Carbon-free, energy from renewables (inc. rice husks) All buildings collect rainwater Work and residential areas in walking distance No petrol or diesel allowed within the city
Marginalisation of the majority world Global wealth dividend is not being shared equitably The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, both within and between countries
Ecomonic factors One in five people survive on less than $1 a day MDG goals far from achievement International trade and aid rules prevent poorer countries developing their own economies Western corporations plunder the natural resources of poor countries, with little local benefit
Social instability and armed conflict have been associated with rising income inequality and growing resource scarcity. Indonesia. mobs have burned factories and cars to protest grievances ranging from land disputes to pollution from shrimp ponds. Philippines, Muslim rebels are most active in western Mindanao, where the wealth gap between that region and the capital Manila is greatest. Peru. There is a close correlation between the stronghold areas of the guerrilla movement and the areas suffering greatest poverty. Mexico. The Zapatista rebellion in the southern Mexican state of Chiapas is largely attributable to grossly inequitable patterns of land tenure and the inability of peasant farmers to subsist on their small, degraded land holdings.
Social factors Internal persecution of 1 billion people from ethnic, religious, or linguistic groups Political marginalisation of such groups. Organised crime, social disorder, and cultural tensions Fuels support for political violence and terrorism
Communication factors Education can lead to increased expectations of opportunity Global communications technology adds to perceptions and understandings of injustice IT allows new and difficult to control forms networking between those with frustrated expectations
Sign of hope 3 – G20 Declaration “We are determined not only to restore growth but to lay the foundation for a fair and sustainable world economy. We recognise that the current crisis has a disproportionate impact on the vulnerable in the poorest countries and recognise our collective responsibility to mitigate the social impact of the crisis to minimise long-lasting damage to global potential”
The cold war Cold war military investment at the expense of civil programmes, supposedly to “keep the peace” Conflicts worldwide from 1945-2000 killed 25 million people The idea that the Cold War was a period in which nuclear weapons kept the peace is a myth
Post cold-war In the 1990s there was some nuclear disarmament A Chemical Weapons Convention was ratified US developed “global reach” to fight limited wars at a distance (high-tech, low human engagement – military might rather than “hearts and minds”)
The Bush administration Rejected multilateralism (CTBT, ABMT) Refused to strengthen Biological and Toxins Weapons Treaty (BTWT) Worked to develop “usable” nuclear weapons (B61-11 “bunker busters”) By aggression, and the threat of aggression, encouraged nuclear proliferation in vulnerable states
A new arms race India, Pakistan, and China are engaged in an uncontrolled action-reaction arms buildup This is unconstrained by any arms control architecture such as was present in the cold war
Controlling global militarisation Promote the rule of law and the diplomatic resolution of international disputes Reconfigure military forces to a non-provocative defensive posture, focusing on peacekeeping and humanitarian missions Ensure control of both nuclear and biological weapons (through BTWC and NPT) and halt the development of new nuclear weapons or the upgrading of current systems.
Sign of hope 4 – the Obama-Biden plan Move Toward a Nuclear Free World: Obama and Biden will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. They will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate- range missiles so that the agreement is global.
Limits of militarism External military approaches complicate and prolong internal strife (Iraq, Afghanistan) Efforts of international actors disable internal actors and defer real political development (the above, also former Yugoslavia) Civilians killed by US/UK/Israeli forces create bitterness and “cycles of violence”
Summary Violent military responses exacerbate local grievances which bring more recruits to terror Addressing grievances and rectifying global wealth disparities are the only long-term solutions This requires engagement with the politically violent (cf Northern Ireland)
Sustainable Security A sustainable approach attempts to: – Police immediate dangers while resolving the root causes of long-term threats – Coordinate a cooperative approach through a reformed United Nations Preventative approach addressing likely causes of conflict well ahead, rather than attempting to control the crisis once underway
Meeting 5 key principles Focuses on ordinary people and their needs (“human security” rather than “state security”) Addresses the most serious threats Prioritises preventive approaches (remove threats rather than control consequences) Promotes a comprehensive approach Promotes inclusivity in dialogue and diplomacy
Officials increasingly share our analysis of threats – United Nations High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges & Change – UK Ministry of Defence DCDC, Strategic Trends – US intelligence agencies National Intelligence Estimate
UK National Security Strategy March 2008 – goes some way We need to be able to tackle the underlying drivers of conflict and instability ---- in particular: Poverty, inequality and poor governance …focusing on areas where poverty breeds conflict… Climate change and competition for natural resources - …a new global fund.. in the areas most under stress and therefore most likely to suffer instability as well as humanitarian disaster; Disease and global pandemics.. increase global vaccine supplies... (Gordon Brown to Parliament 19 th March 2008)
But not a root-and branch rethink! “The most serious and urgent remains the threat from international terrorism” “the foundation of our approach Is to maintain strong, balanced, flexible and deployable armed forces”
The job half done “The plans are more of an assessment of the threats to Britain rather than a strategy for tackling them.” Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat leader
Estonia - Are Estonia’s current security policies sustainable? - What posture towards Russia and the Russians is likely to deliver long-term sustainable security for the Estonian people?
The “Moving Towards Sustainable Security Project 2008-9” Overall aim: To develop and promote sustainable responses to major threats. All materials and publications free on http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/work/global_security/sustain able_security.php
Specific objectives To ensure that voices from the global south play a central role in the development of the sustainable security concept with the input of non-Western analysis. To explore and define specific sustainable security national policies, for example for the UK context, which will also act as concrete examples for promotion of the concept at the international level. To promote the sustainable security concept to as wide an international audience as possible.
Specific Activities a) International Advisory Group on Sustainable Security b) Regional sustainable security consultations c) UK Policy Group for Sustainable Security
Advisory Group The group will build contacts with international public figures who could act as ‘ambassadors’ for the work with key governments around the world, and identify key policy initiatives to take forward.
Advisory Group Professor Amitav Acharya, Director of the Centre for Governance and International Affairs at the University of Bristol (India/UK) Dr. Mariano Aguirre, Co-director of the Fundación para las Relaciones Internacionales y el Diálogo Exterior (Spain) Dr. Carolina Hernandez, Chair of the Institute for Strategic and Development Studies (Philippines) Isabel Hilton, senior journalist with the BBC and The Guardian and editor of China Dialogue (UK) Dr. Bassma Kodmani, Executive Director of the Arab Reform Initiative and Senior Research Associate at the Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches Internationales (Syria/France) Laurie Nathan, Research Fellow in the Environmental & Geographical Science Department of the University of Cape Town and former member of the African Union mediation team for Darfur (South Africa) Michael Renner, Director of the Global Security Project at the Worldwatch Institute (USA) Jürgen Trittin, former Federal Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (Germany)
Key advisory group steer EQUITY is a key concept: Achieving the security of all people. Our security cannot be achieved at the expense of others’ security.
Six Regional Consultations To explore the regional implications of each of the fundamental threats to security ORG has identified and draw upon non-Western analysis in the development of policy solutions.
Five Regional Consultations The host partner organisations are: Singapore Institute of International Affairs, Singapore (Asia and Australasia) Singapore Institute of International Affairs Institute for Peace Studies, Egypt (Middle East and North Africa) Institute for Peace Studies Institute for Security Studies, South Africa (sub-Saharan Africa) Institute for Security Studies UN Mandated University for Peace, Costa Rica (Latin America and the Caribbean) UN Mandated University for Peace Institute for Policy Studies, USA (North America) Institute for Policy Studies FAFO / Heinrich Boll Foundation, Norway/Georgia (Europe and Eurasia)
Asia and Australasia Consultation Participants: academics, think-tankers and former members of government (including the former Chinese Ambassador to the United Kingdom). Countries represented included: Australia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Vietnam, China, Cambodia, Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Burma, Singapore. Reports now published: Asia and Australasia (Nov 2008) Middle East and North Africa (March 2009)
Asia and Australasia Consultation Drivers of insecurity identified: Challenges to state integrity (internal – separatist movements; external – territorial disputes) Regional Power Shift (China, Japan, India) Environmental and humanitarian disasters
Asia and Australasia Consultation Blockages to change identified: Regional focus on sovereignty and non- interference Lack of inclusive and effective regional security architecture Absence of powerful but “neutral” country to take the lead
Asia and Australasia Consultation Recommendations: Balanced and fair agreements on emissions reduction (China, India, USA) Regional institution-building (to tackle territorial disputes, arms race, environmental refugees) US/China engagement focussing on trade, environmental protection and transparency, rather than military balance of power High-level “panel of elders” to promote alternatives (in the absence of strong civil society)
Middle-East & North Africa Consultation Participants: academics, think-tankers and former and current members of government (including a member of the Shura Council (Upper House in the Egyptian Parliament), the Secretary General of the Arab Parliament and the Jordanian Ambassador to Egypt Countries represented: Egypt, Yemen, Morocco, Jordan, Israel, Syria, UAE, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia.
Middle-East & North Africa Consultation Drivers of insecurity identified: Conflict and occupation Resource management (oil, water, food) Social exclusion (women, political exclusion, marginalisation)
Middle-East & North Africa Consultation Blockages to change: Al Qaida and other fundamentalist movements The Israel-Palestine Conflict External interference in the region
Middle-East & North Africa Consultation Recommendations: Democratic reform from within the region Comprehensive peace process (based on Arab Peace Initiative) Regional integration (Arab League + 3, to include Israel, Iran, Turkey) International institutions to improve Middle East representation (e.g. UNSC, IMF, WB)
Sub-Saharan Africa Consultation Participants: academics, think-tankers and former members of government (included the former Head of Mobutu’s security services (now working for ICG) as well as government workers from Ethiopia and DRC). Countries represented: South Africa, Cameroon, Kenya, Ethiopia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Botswana, Nigeria, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Burundi.
Sub-Saharan Africa Consultation Drivers of insecurity: The nature of the state: post colonial legacy, weak institutions, role of donors) Legacies of war: conflict, militarism Management of resources: role of foreign interests (e.g. diamonds, rare metals)
Sub-Saharan Africa Consultation Blockages to change: Weak leadership : governance and corruption Role, perception and treatment of Africa (“sick continent” discourse) Regional coherence / identity
Sub-Saharan Africa Consultation Recommendations: Democratic reform Increased regional integration (and trade) Actual and cultural demilitarisation Education – Youth-driven change
Shared themes The extent to which both colonialism and ‘the West’ are blamed for causing insecurity, with less acknowledgement of local responsibilities (such as poor governance and corruption). The belief that climate change, if it exists at all, has been caused by others and is therefore up to others to solve (even though they will be the ones hardest hit by climatic changes). The primary importance of regional institutions in addressing security threats, and the high regard in which the EU is held in this respect (seen as a potential model for Asia in particular). The almost complete agreement with the need for an integrated approach to threats and a preventative approach to responses (as opposed to short-term control measures).
UK Policy Group To specifically address the policy implications for the UK of the sustainable security analysis. This group will develop the sustainable security analysis into workable policies.
UK Policy Group Philippa Drew, former Director of Global Issues in the Foreign & Commonwealth Office Nick Mabey, Chief Executive of E3G and former Senior Adviser in the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit Sir David Omand, Visiting Professor at King's College London and former Permanent Secretary Home Office and UK Security and Intelligence Coordinator in the Cabinet Office Lord King of Bridgwater, former Secretary of State for the Environment, Northern Ireland and Defence, Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and Deputy Chair of the Conservative Party's National and International Security Policy Group Rear Admiral Chris Parry, former Director General of the Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre in the Ministry of Defence Malcolm Savidge, former Labour MP and Convenor of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global Security and Non-proliferation Lord Wallace of Saltair, Liberal Democrat Spokesperson on Foreign Affairs in the House of Lords and Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics Professor Malcolm Chalmers, Professorial Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, Professor of International Politics at the University of Bradford, and former Special Adviser to Foreign Secretaries Jack Straw MP and Margaret Beckett MP
Challenges for western governments Public disillusionment with politicians and politics Public belief that government serves corporate before public interest Lack of clear avenues for meaningful democratic participation Easy attraction of political extremes, right, left and anarchistic
Challenges for civil society and NGOs Difficult for governments to think long term Don’t like to promote policies which curb “growth” Citizens acting individually and collectively can improve links between the: – Peace movement – Environment movement – Development movement
Thank you! www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk firstname.lastname@example.org www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk Dr. John Sloboda, Executive Director
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.