Overview of the Environmental Security Debate - Essay Example

I. Overview of the Environmental Security Debate One of the greatest achievements of environmental health in the contemporary period is the inclusion of the notion of environmental security to national security policies hence improving the wellbeing of the environment. However, initially, it is important to discuss and take into analysis the struggle of the environmental security concept to be acknowledged in the limelight of national policies. The weakening significance of superpower conflict in the past decade has provided an impetus to the emergence of flexibility in the notions of national security. Previously constricted to a set of external military dangers, the concept nowadays frequently emphasizes the importance of concerns such as environmental protection, economic progress and global sustainability. The expression ‘environmental security’ is gradually more finding goodwill within both ordinary practices as well as governmental regulations (Wagner 1997). Environmental security is labelled as a relevant subject matter in international affairs and it is being exploited to define the motives of countries under an array of contexts. For instance, the Kyoto agreement which curtails global greenhouse gases has been disputed (Ashcroft 1998) and defended (Goodman 1998) on the basis of its influence on America’s national security. Warren Christopher, the former Secretary of State, proclaimed in his 1996 speech at Stanford University the resolution of the Clinton administration “to put environmental issues where they belong: in the mainstream of American foreign policy” (Matthew 1996, 39). Subsequently, President Clinton has branded environmental security as one of the many concerns that America will be confronting in the contemporary times (Broda-Bahm 1999). The fundamental concept of environmental security signifies an attempt to put more emphasis on the issues of environmental degradation through openly fastening them to previous military notions of security. According to Lester Brown (1986), the new sources of hazards occur from depletion, soil erosion, inappropriate land use, deforestation, worsening conditions of grasslands and drastic climate changes (195). Moreover, Brown maintains that these dangers not merely threaten the national economic and political security but also the equilibrium in the globalized economy thereof. The advocates of the environment-security relationship strongly upheld the belief that the perils of environmental degradation are at least ruthless as the military menaces which most apparently are integrated under the security coverage and the materialization of these fresh threats would make people reflect on the concept of national security. Hence, Norman Myers (1995) argues that national security is no longer a matter of combat and military hardware alone; it relates progressively more to “watersheds, croplands, forests, genetic resources, climate and other factors” (258) which are seldom measured by military specialists and political heads, yet needs considerable attention in order to produce an effective combination of equally crucial securities, environmental and military. The argument for environmental security can either be explained in the assertion that environmental dreadful conditions may result in security threats, such as conflicts and hostilities, or in the declaration that environmental degradation practically represents a security hazard. Nevertheless, in both arguments, advocates call for enhanced attention to the national and international significance of eco-system wellbeing, yet the second circumstance holds singular interest for students of argument because it embodies an effort to elevate the relevance of a conventionally ignored sector through definition-association with reinforced traditional importance; the environment is positioned on the schema through classification with the customary state intentions in security (Broda-Bahm 1999). This point of classification propelled the argument for an environment-security relationship through its critics. Several intellectuals writing within the umbrella of peace research perspective have roughly criticized attempts to bind environmental objectives to the notions of national security. Daniel Duedney (1991) claims that the nationalist attitude and the war structure have a time-honoured feature that are expected to resist any “rhetorically conjured redirection toward benign ends” (28). Moreover, he asserted that the objective of the environmentalists and their core values will be obstructed once they coat their agendas and programmes in the ruthless dimensions of the war system. Also, as a supplementary to these philosophical discrepancies, adversaries also view practical predicaments with the venture. Richard Matthew (1996) asserts that environmental concerns have a deficient charisma that appeals to the majority of the members of the security, intelligence and political societies. Environmental setbacks are inclined to materialize gradually through the intricate communication of economic, political, demographic and scientific inconsistencies. Contrasting from the fixations of overseas policy, with regard to war and trade, they usually are unable to find solutions through greater force or the ratification of an agreement, and they infrequently provide an immediate or concrete compensation to legislators. On the other hand, the conflict between those who would take advantage of or prevent an environment-security relationship is primarily fraction not an argument over the actuality or the magnitude of environmental hazards. Neither plane in this argument refutes the fundamental claim that intimidates to the habitability of the planet are analogous to military perils in their consequence. To a certain extent, the argument has focused on the weight of a redefinition of security. The concern is whether the advantages of elevated consideration for environmental issues to be acquired through alliance with security deserve given the damages caused by inexactness and downbeat interpretation and effect. This is an argument with strategy repercussions as well as implications for the way people reflect upon the definitions and modifications in definitions. II. Conclusion If the debate over the suitability of environmental security persists, critics would be counselled to direct their arguments toward the issue of political demand and deviated from stagnant and immobile perceptions of meaning. Those who support an environment-security linkage should protect its rhetorical influence in supplementing significance to environmental issues and should also respond to the allegation that security discussions brings about pessimistic connotations and traditions of application which will overpower these advantages. Those who oppose an environment security relationship should equally be anticipated to concentrate on political effectiveness and to expound on the reason why an effort to change people’s reactions toward security is a disaster-prone enterprise. In summary, the concern of environmental security has been deliberated too frequently as a matter of fact when it should be discussed as a concern of policy. Therefore, the pressing question regarding this subject matter is, “Should individuals, who are meaning-producers, integrate environmental concerns within the paradigm of security?” Works Cited Ashcroft, J. “Forget Saddam, well fight the weather”. Washington Times, A17, 1998. Broda_Bahm, K.T. “Finding Protection in Definitions: The Quest for Environmental Security”, Argumentation and Advocacy, 35 (4), 1999. Brown, L.R. “Redefining national security”, In Linda Starke (Ed.), State of the World 1986: A Worldwatch Institute report on progress toward a sustainable society (pp. 195-211), New York: W. W. Norton, 1986. Duedney, D. “Environment and security: Muddled thinking”. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 47(3): pp. 22-28, 1991. Goodman, S.W. Kyoto treaty doesnt compromise our national security. Washington Times, p. C12, 1998. Matthew, R.A. “The greening of U.S. foreign policy”. Issues in Science and Technology, 13(1): 39-47, 1996. Myers, N. “Environmental security and how it works”, In Ken Conca, Michael Alberty, and Georffrey Dalbeto, Green Planet Blues: Environmental politics from Stockholm to Rio, Boulder, CO: Westview, 1995. Wagner, B. Slow the population growth. Detroit Free Press, p. 10, 1997. Read More