sustainable security and its implications for politicians and people

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 security2. Global threats3. The failure of the control paradigm 4. Promoting sustainable security

1. Two approaches to security

Two approaches to 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.

2. Global Threats

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:

Climate Change

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)

Deaths from climate change

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 CO2 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

Remedies – nuclear/renewable?

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).

Competition over Resources

3/6

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

China’s oil consumption

World oil reserves – end 2004

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

Remedies – oil grab / “frugality”

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’

4/6

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

Remedies –“securitisation” /development

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”

Global Militarisation

5/6

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

Remedies – CP / NP

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.

3. The failure of the control paradigm

6/6

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)

Promoting Sustainable Security

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

A systemic and integrated approach

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 StrategyMarch 2008 – goes some way

We need to be able to tackle the underlying drivers of conflictand 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 19th 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 armedforces”

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/sustainable_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)

Institute for Peace Studies, Egypt (Middle East and North Africa)

Institute for Security Studies, South Africa (sub-Saharan Africa)

UN Mandated University for Peace, Costa Rica (Latin America and the Caribbean)

Institute for Policy Studies, USA (North America) 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

john.sloboda@oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk

Dr. John Sloboda,Executive Director