Anne Hamilton

Globalization & Security

Dr. Park Seo-Hyun

2 July 2015

Security: A Human & Environmental Perspective

Roland Paris discusses the evolution of security outside of the traditional military defense of state

interests and territory in his 2001 article, Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air. Paris describes

human security as a neologism, similar to – common security, global security, cooperative security, and

comprehensive security. He states that these neologisms encourage policymakers and scholars to think

about international security as something more than the standard military defense.

Paris asserts that human security is like “sustainable development” – everyone is for it, but few

people have a clear idea of what it means. The middle powers of the world such as Canada, Norway,

Finland and Sweden have spearheaded this concept of transforming how global powers address

international security issues. The first major statement concerning human security in the public arena

appeared in the 1994 Human Development Report which is an annual publication of the United Nations

Development Programme (UNDP). It claims the “concept of security has for too long been interpreted

narrowly: as security of territory from external aggression, or as protection of national interests in foreign

policy or as global security from the threat of a nuclear holocaust…forgotten were the legitimate concerns

of ordinary people who sought security in their daily lives” (Paris, 89).

Today the UNDP’s 1994 definition of human security remains the most widely cited and most

authoritative formulation on the term, although different members of the human security coalition have

customized the definition to suit their own particular agendas. Luckily the human security network –

(Canada, Norway, Japan, several other states and an assortment of NGOs) has committed itself to the goal

of “strengthening human security with a view to creating a more humane world where people can live in

security and dignity, free from want or fear, and with equal opportunities to develop their human potential

to the full” (Paris, 91). Though Paris seems to think that the idea of all humans and natural realms are

fundamentally interrelated is a truism, I must respectfully disagree. Humans have co-existed on this

planet for millions of years. If the foundation of our education system focused on instilling in future

generations the importance of co-existing with the natural world— then we would be able to secure a

future that is significantly more stable with an opportunity for all to thrive. The current forecast for our

immediate future is dire and requires sustainable solutions to be proposed, implemented and enforced as

soon as possible. Otherwise, the availability of clean water for many nations, even the elites- will be

nonexistent.

In defining the core values of human security it may be difficult not only because there is so little

agreement on the meaning of the term, but because for some the ambiguity serves a particular purpose: It

unites a diverse and sometimes fractious coalition of states and organizations that “see an opportunity to

capture some of the more substantial political interests and superior financial resources” (Paris, 95).

Given these circumstances, they are unlikely to support outside calls for greater specificity in the

definition of human security, because definitional narrowing would likely highlight and aggravate

differences among them, perhaps even to the point of alienating particular members and weakening the

coalition as a whole.

Human security has been described as many different things: a rallying cry, a political campaign,

a set of beliefs about the sources of violent conflict, a new conceptualization of security, and a guide for

policymakers and academic researchers. Efforts to sharpen the definition of human security are a step in

the right direction, but they are likely to encounter resistance from actors who believe the concept’s

strength lies in its holism and inclusiveness. This is where the power of research and a review of the

history of collapses of nations directly caused by natural resource depletion can assist in defining the

process and reinforcing the urgency to find effective solutions.

Thomas Homer-Dixon’s article Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict: Evidence from

Cases goes into great detail concerning the impact of environmental scarcity on national and international

security. Coming generations will see the widespread depletion and degradation of water aquifers, rivers,

and other water resources; the decline of many fisheries; and possibly significant climate change. If such

environmental scarcities become severe, they could precipitate violent civil or international conflict in the

foreseeable future. Environmental scarcities are already contributing to violent conflicts in many parts of

the world. These conflicts will likely be the early signs of an upsurge of violence in the coming decades

that will be induced or aggravated by scarcity. From these pressures the chance of states fragmenting or

becoming more authoritarian increases by the day (Dixon, 6).

Vast populations in the developing world are already suffering from shortages of good land,

water, forests, and fish; in contrast, the social effects of climate change and ozone depletion will probably

not be an immediate cause for concern until well into the next century. “Environmental change” refers to

human-induced decline in the quantity or quality of a renewable resource that occurs faster than it is

renewed by natural processes. Environmental change is one of three main sources scarcity of renewable

resources; the others are population growth and unequal social distribution of resources. The concept of

“environmental scarcity” encompasses all three concerns.

A fall in the quality or quantity of renewable resources can combine with population growth to

encourage powerful groups within a society to shift resource distribution in their favor. We call this type

of interaction “resource capture”. Unequal resources can combine with population growth to cause

migrations to regions that are ecologically fragile. High population densities in these areas, combined

with lack of knowledge and capital to protect local resources, causes severe environmental damage and

chronic poverty. This process if often called “ecological marginalization” (Dixon, 11). Examples used in

the Dixon’s article are the Senegal River Valley conflict of 1989 and the water shortage of the occupied

West Bank on the Jordan River. Both are glaring examples of the results of ecological marginalization

causally related to environmental scarcity.

Ecological marginalization occurs with striking regularity around the planet, affecting hundreds

of millions of people in places as diverse as the Himalayas, Indonesia, Costa Rica, Brazil and Sahel.

Population growth, rising average resource consumption, and persistent inequalities in access to resources

ensure that scarcities will affect many environmentally sensitive regions with a severity, speed and scale

unprecedented in history. Dixon suggests through market and other institutional innovations, that our

social ingenuity may be the only solution to the very dire and persistent problem of resource scarcity.

I agree with Dixon on presuppose that social ingenuity may be our only hope for resolution.

Possible long-term sustainable solutions could be: integrating permaculture within the secondary

educational system across the globe. Teaching our future generations how to grow their own food, how to

sustainably farm and co-exist in the natural world with hopes of reversing the last 100 years of light speed

destruction that humans have imposed on this planet. Something not discussed in either of these papers is

the fact that industrial agriculture accounts for 70% of the world’s total clean water usage, regular

industrial use (ie: manufacturing) accounts for 22% of the world’s clean water usage and domestic water

usage only accounts for 8% of the world’s total clean water usage (UNWater.org). See image below

If our policymakers would have enough backbone to recognize this consumption rate as unsustainable

and implement and enforce strict regulations on industrial use, it would be a gigantic step in the right

direction and away from environmental insecurity.

Dixon goes on to improve his hypothesis on environmental security in relation to violent conflict

later in his article stating, “I narrowed the range of environmental problems that were hypothesized to

cause conflict, so as to deemphasize atmospheric problems and focus instead on… water, fisheries and

especially cropland…expanding the scope of the independent variable to include scarcity caused by

population growth and resource maldistribution as well as that caused by degradation and depletion”

(Dixon, 18). Resource wars have been at the heart of conflict since the beginning of the state system.

However, more violent conflict arises from nonrenewable resource scarcity than renewable resource

scarcity. Since petroleum and mineral resources can be more directly converted into state power than can

agricultural land, fish and forests.

Resource degradation and depletion often affect economic productivity and can be costly to the

state powers in terms of funding and legitimate support from its citizenry. Resource loss can reduce

incomes of elites directly dependent on resource extraction; since these elites usually turn to the state for

compensation. Scarcity also expands marginal groups that need help from government by producing rural

poverty and by displacing people into cities where they demand food, shelter, transport, energy and

employment. In response to swelling urban populations, governments introduce subsidies that drain

revenues, distort prices, and cause misallocations of capital, which in turn hinders economic productivity.

Such large-scale intervention in the marketplace can concentrate political and economic power in

the hands of a small number of cronies and monopolistic interests, at the expense of other elite segments

and rural agriculture populations. Simultaneously, if resource scarcity affects the economy’s general

productivity, revenues to local and national governments will decline. Such a widening gap between state

capacity and demands on the state arising from environmental scarcity aggravates popular and elite

grievances, increases rivalry between elite factions, and erodes the state’s legitimacy (Dixon, 25).

Environmental scarcity has insidious and cumulative social impacts, such as population

movement, economic decline, and the weakening of states. These can contribute to diffuse and persistent

sub-national violence. The rate and extent of such conflicts will increase as scarcities worsen. It will have

serious repercussions for the security interests of both the developed and developing worlds. The risk of

large powerful democratic states to shift to becoming “hard” authoritarian regimes intolerant of

opposition is very likely as a result of resource scarcity. As a result, such regimes are more likely to

launch military attacks against neighboring countries to avert attention from internal grievances.

A state’s ability to become a hard regime in response to environmentally induced turmoil depends

on two factors: sufficient remaining capacity (resources) and enough surplus wealth in the countries

ecological-economic system to allow the state, once it seizes this wealth, to pursue its authoritarian

course. Most experts neglect the dangers posed by resource scarcities. Dixon quotes a researcher by the

name of Jack Goldstone in his closing arguments. “There is not sufficient land, nor sufficient water, to

provide for the additional hundreds of millions that will be born in the next decades” (Dixon, 38).

Dixon’s research shows that environmental scarcity causes violent conflict. This conflict tends to

be persistent, diffuse, and subnational. He goes on to assert how its frequency will probably jump sharply

in the next decades as scarcities rapidly worsen in many parts of the world. The social impacts of

environmental scarcity therefore deserve immediate attention from security scholars across the globe.

Without pressure from the citizens of every great nation on this planet the mega powers will continue to

focus their energy and resources on accumulating greater wealth no matter if it is at the expense of our

planet or even the lowly humans that are not members in their elite boys club.

As many great leaders have said before and now I will say it again, “We have not inherited this

earth from our parents to do with it what we will. We have borrowed it from our children and we must be

careful to use it in their interests as well as our own. Anyone who fails to recognize the basic validity of

the proposition put in different ways by increasing numbers of writers, from Malthus to The Club of

Rome, is either ignorant, a fool, or evil”.

Works Cited:

Paris, Roland. "Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?" International Security 26.2 (2001): 87-102. Print.

Homer-Dixon, Thomas F. "Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict: Evidence from Cases." International Security 19.1 (1994): 5-40. Print.