Showing posts from category conflict.
-
Water Causing Tension in Central Asia
›December 7, 2007 // By Rachel Weisshaar“The water crisis in Central Asia is due to the way water has been allocated and managed; it is not a crisis of quantity but of distribution,” asserts Jeremy Allouche, a visiting fellow at the MIT Center for International Studies, in “The governance of Central Asian waters: national interests versus regional cooperation,” available in the latest issue of the UN Institute for Disarmament Research’s Disarmament Forum.
The shrinking of the Aral Sea, which began in the 1960s, first drew international attention to the region’s water issues. The Aral Sea has been an ecological disaster, but Central Asia now has another, equally serious hydrological problem: how to divide the region’s limited water among competing countries that need it for irrigation, hydropower, and other uses. Kazakstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Krygystan have had largely hostile relations over water distribution since they achieved independence in 1992, and these tensions could boil over into violent conflict unless the countries can implement a functional regional water agreement.
Allouche offers a concise, lucid overview of the challenges of the region’s post-independence water governance system, including analyses of how the water policies of Central Asia’s major players (which also include Afghanistan, China, and Russia) affect regional tensions over water. -
Environmental Peacemaking in the Golan Heights?
›November 26, 2007 // By Rachel WeisshaarThe United States and Israel could garner more meaningful engagement from Syria in the Middle East peace process by proposing the creation of a peace park in the disputed Golan Heights area, say University of Vermont Associate Professor Saleem Ali, a recent speaker at the Wilson Center, and Rabbi Michael Cohen of the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies in Israel in “Salvaging Peace with Syria,” available on the Carnegie Council’s “Policy Innovations” website. Noting that transboundary conservation areas have helped resolve past conflicts—as with the Cordillera del Cóndor Transboundary Protected Area, established between Peru and Ecuador in 1995—the authors argue that a Golan Heights peace park should be on the agenda at tomorrow’s Middle East peace conference in Annapolis. -
Green Helmets for Gorillas? Weighing the Case for Ecological Intervention
›November 25, 2007 // By Thomas RenardCan environmental destruction justify military intervention? Robyn Eckersley, a professor of environmental politics at the University of Melbourne, Australia, explores the morality, legality, and legitimacy of such involvement in “Ecological Intervention: Prospects and Limits,” which appears in the latest issue of Ethics and International Affairs.
Eckersley argues that the United Nations—particularly the Security Council—possesses the authority to assume a larger role in protecting the environment. This idea is not original, however: Klaus Töpfer, former head of the UN Environment Programme, and Mikhail Gorbachev have both called for the creation of a “green helmets” force to respond to environmental crises.
Eckersley identifies three categories of environmental harm that could justify an ecological intervention—which she defines as “the threat or use of force by a state or coalition of states within the territory of another state and without the consent of that state in order to prevent grave environmental damage”—or the launch of an ecological defense—which she defines as “the preventive use of force in response to the threat of serious and immediate environmental harm flowing into the territory of a ‘victim’ state.”- A major environmental emergency with transboundary spillover effects. As an illustration, Eckersley hypothesizes a Chernobyl-like nuclear accident in a country that lacks the capacity to cope with the catastrophe but refuses foreign assistance. She argues that the notion of “territorial integrity” inscribed in the UN Charter can readily be interpreted to include “ecosystem integrity”—and therefore justify an intervention by an affected state. Currently, a country affected by another country’s nuclear accident can only hope for monetary reparations.
- An ecocide—the result of intentional, systematic acts that cause widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the environment—involving serious human rights violations. Saddam Hussein’s decimation of the marsh region that was home to the Madan, or Marsh Arabs, is a case in point. Eckersley’s legal argument here relies on an expansive interpretation of the UN Charter’s notion of “threat to the peace.”
- An ecocide involving no serious harm to human beings. An illustration of this situation would be the deployment of troops in the Great Lakes to protect the mountain gorillas. Contending that biodiversity is a “common concern of humankind,” Eckersley argues that states have a responsibility to other states to protect their environment, as the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development suggests.
Eckersley’s proposition, though interesting, suffers from a number of pitfalls. One major problem is that her argument could open the door to an extremely wide range of military interventions. For instance, her call for interventions to protect endangered species is extremely impractical—if not impossible—given the prediction that climate change will threaten the existences of millions of species will be at risk by 2050. One option—though not without serious problems of its own—would be to establish a list of “indispensable” species.
Another weakness of Eckersley’s article is that it neglects the role of incentives, focusing instead on the use of force, even though governments are often more receptive to the former. The army is probably not the organization best-suited to protecting coral or chimpanzees. Troop deployments are both financially and morally costly: Developing countries might view an increasing number of interventions by the Security Council as a violation of their sovereignty or a new form of colonization. Furthermore, it will take far more than military interventions to ensure the health of the environment.
Additional flaws in Eckersley’s argument include her attempt to build the case for ecological interventions on that of still-controversial humanitarian interventions, and her wish to saddle the United Nations with additional responsibilities.
Ecological intervention and ecological defense are interesting concepts, anticipating the future importance of the environment in foreign policy. However, Eckersley’s argument goes too far. Few countries would send troops into hostile territory solely to protect the local environment or wildlife. The necessary intermediate step is to continue studying the links between conflict and the environment, biodiversity, and climate change. That research will make possible the development of pragmatic, environment-centered conflict-prevention and conflict-resolution strategies. -
Discovery of Oil Destabilizing Great Lakes Region
›November 16, 2007 // By Rachel WeisshaarThe unearthing of significant oil reserves in 100-mile long Lake Albert—shared by Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)—has already led to violence, and the conflict could easily escalate further. Tullow Oil and Heritage Oil Corporation, which have drilled wells in the lake, recently estimated that it contains at least 1 billion barrels of oil. Uganda and the DRC both want the lion’s share of this treasure, and their competing ambitions have ignited violence in parts of the disputed Uganda-DRC border.
Uganda and the DRC deployed troops in the area once the discovery of oil was reported, and on August 3, 2007, Congolese soldiers attacked one of Heritage Oil’s exploratory oil barges, killing a British contractor working for the company. The Ugandan army retaliated, killing a Congolese soldier. Following the incident, Congolese President Joseph Kabila and Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni met in Tanzania and agreed to pull back their troops. But later in September, an incident between the two sides resulted in the deaths of six civilians.
The discovery of oil is causing outright violence in the region, but it is also harming local communities’ health and livelihoods. Rukwanzi Island, located in Lake Albert and claimed by both countries, was partially evacuated earlier this week by DRC authorities due to a cholera outbreak. Oil-related security concerns prevented health workers from treating patients effectively, so DRC police evacuated children and the elderly—two particularly vulnerable populations.
Congolese and Ugandan fishermen who depend on Lake Albert for their livelihoods have been caught up in the hostilities. A Ugandan fisherman told Reuters, “Congolese soldiers have started arresting us, saying we are in their waters. It’s not safe to fish anymore.” Congolese soldiers arrest Ugandan fishermen, and Ugandan police retaliate by arresting Congolese fishermen, making fishing a dangerous and less-profitable enterprise.
The discovery of oil—and the destabilization it can bring—could also involve other Great Lakes countries. Vangold Resources Ltd. recently signed an agreement with the Rwandan government to conduct an extensive geophysical study of a portion of Rwanda’s East Kivu Graben basin, which, structurally, is the southern extension of the Albertine basin. The survey will be completed—and its results released—within 18 months.
Africa’s Great Lakes region—particularly the DRC—has a history of natural resource-driven conflict. Trade out of the DRC in gold, diamonds, copper, cobalt, coltan (used in cell phones), and timber has contributed to devastating internal violence, corruption, and poverty, as well as conflict with other countries. We can only hope that the discovery of oil in Lake Albert does not follow the same path. -
Public Health Bonanza
›November 7, 2007 // By Gib ClarkeLast month, George Washington University’s School of Public Health hosted its annual “Mini-University”, a day-long conference showcasing novel approaches to improving global health.
The conference featured seventy presentations on topics including child marriage, monitoring and evaluation, fistula, urban health (with Wilson Center Global Health Initiative Senior Advisor Vic Barbiero), contraceptive security, male circumcision, XDR TB, nutrition, water and sanitation, gender, and the effects of the brain drain.
A few of the presentations looked at the relationships between conflict and health. One notable presentation (see #12) looked at the transition from relief to development in post-conflict states, examining best practices for strengthening health systems in these settings. Drawing on examples from Liberia, Afghanistan, and Sudan, the presenters discussed what the health priorities should be, how to execute them, and acknowledged the difficulty in accomplishing these tasks in such difficult environments.
The population, health, and environment (PHE) field was on display as well. Along with Johns Hopkins Ph.D. student Yung-Ting Kung, I (ECSP Program Associate Gib Clarke) presented “Is the whole better than the sum of its parts? Operations research design and initial evidence from integrated population and environment projects.” I offered background on integrated PHE programs, as well as a PHE case-study from the Philippines, I-POPCoRM. Kung’s presentation reported findings from statistical analysis of the Madagascar Environmental Health Project, with the goal of determining whether family planning and conservation outcomes are significantly better when services are delivered in an integrated PHE program than when they are delivered in isolation.
Though the conference sought to inform graduate students of the variety of new approaches being developed, the number of seasoned professionals present indicated that many members of the public health field recognize the importance of innovation. That monitoring and evaluation was emphasized throughout the day, and that many time-tested programs were on display as well, however, showed that in many cases new energy and commitment—not new technology or strategies—is what is needed. -
New Climate Change-Security Report Looks Into Three Troubling Futures
›November 5, 2007 // By Miles BrundageToday marked the release of The Age of Consequences: The Foreign Policy and National Security Implications of Global Climate Change, a report by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). This morning’s launch of the report featured commentary by a few of the report’s many high-profile contributors, including John Podesta, who served as former President Clinton’s chief of staff, Leon Fuerth, who served as former Vice President Gore’s national security adviser, and James Woolsey, the former director of the CIA.
The Age of Consequences analyzes the effects three different climate scenarios could have on foreign policy and national security: an expected scenario (based on a 1.3ºC average global temperature increase by 2040); a severe scenario (a 2.6ºC increase by 2040); and a catastrophic scenario (a 5.6ºC increase by 2100). Leaders and policymakers must strive to understand and plan for the potential geopolitical impacts of climate change, said the report’s authors, despite inherent uncertainty regarding the precise severity and timing of those impacts.
Podesta described the expected scenario—which is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) medium-range scenario—as the “best we can hope for, the least we should be prepared for.” This least-dramatic scenario still anticipates a plethora of effects stemming from climate change, including a sharp rise in internal and international migration, the spread of infectious diseases, and growing tensions over the distribution of dwindling natural resources. Podesta emphasized that leaders must prepare for climate impacts to interact with one another and cause cascading geopolitical implications. For better or worse, he said, the United States is already viewed as the world’s first responder to natural disasters, and even under the mildest climate scenario, the American military’s disaster response role can be expected to grow.
While presenting the severe climate scenario, Fuerth reminded the Washington policymaker audience that extreme nonlinear environmental changes will likely generate dramatic institutional changes with far-reaching geopolitical implications—but that the trigger point for these changes is always hard to predict. He also argued that the United States and other wealthy countries have a responsibility to take action to mitigate climate change’s harmful global effects. Inaction by the United States over the next 30 years in the face of severe climate change impacts in the developing world would be akin to “kicking people away from the lifeboats,” he said. The report emphasizes that poorer countries will be disproportionally affected by climate change under all scenarios, in part because they lack the resources to cope with changing conditions. However, even for developed countries, says the report’s Executive Summary, the “collapse and chaos associated with extreme climate change futures would destabilize virtually every aspect of modern life.”
Woolsey emphasized that a catastrophic climate scenario would seriously threaten both ecosystems and infrastructure systems. The debate should not become mired in whether catastrophic climate events may occur in 2050 or 2100, said Woolsey—just as it is useless for a heavy smoker to debate whether he will contract lung cancer at age 49 or 53. As a society, he argued, we are effectively “smoking six packs a day.”
Woolsey stressed that both the “treehugger” interested only in reducing carbon emissions and the “hawk” interested only in security vulnerabilities want many of the same things. For instance, they both wish to move away from a carbon-based economy—the treehugger to mitigate climate change, and the hawk to reduce the nation’s dependency on unstable overseas regimes and its energy infrastructure’s vulnerability to terrorist attack. Woolsey will expand on this coincidence of interests with a future publication featuring an imagined conversation between the ghosts of “treehugger” John Muir and “hawk” General George Patton.
ECSP Director Geoff Dabelko, who attended this morning’s briefing, noted, “The Age of Consequences is an important report that brings together a wide range of experts and succeeds at bolstering the significance of climate change as a serious long-term security concern.” Dabelko believes the next steps are “deriving specific action items for a range of actors from this report” and from similar reports, including the April 2007 CNA Military Advisory Board report, the forthcoming Council on Foreign Relations report by Joshua Busby, and the National Intelligence Council’s National Intelligence Estimate, which is expected in early 2008.
ECSP Director Geoff Dabelko contributed to this report. -
Lieberman-Warner Bill Includes Climate and Conflict Provisions
›November 2, 2007 // By Geoffrey D. DabelkoYesterday, Senators Lieberman and Warner teamed up to move the America’s Climate Security Act (S. 2191) to the full Committee on Environment and Public Works. The act would go beyond recent legislation mandating that the intelligence community assess climate-security linkages and would create more formal institutional structures and resources for addressing climate-conflict connections.
Hill Heat summarizes the provisions for a new Climate Change and National Security Council as:The Secretary of State is the Council’s chair, and the EPA Administrator, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of National Intelligence are the Council’s other members.
Some environmentalists don’t care for the provisions. They are wary of national security discretion for some adaptation resources and find the strings reminiscent of Cold War conditionality, when foreign assistance went to those who stood with the U.S. against the Communist menace. We will be watching the progress of this bill with interest; check back in this space for the latest developments.
The Council makes an annual report to the President and the Congress on how global climate change affects instability and conflict, and recommends spending to mitigate global warming impacts and conflict.
Up to five percent of auction proceeds, at the President’s discretion, may be used to carry out the report recommendations. -
UNEP Releases 4th Global Environmental Assessment
›November 2, 2007 // By Rachel Weisshaar
Major environmental challenges—including land degradation and desertification, pollution, and climate change—demand swift, concerted global action, say the authors of Global Environmental Outlook: Environment for Development (GEO-4), which was recently published by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). Assessing the state of the Earth’s atmosphere, land, water, and biodiversity, the 572-page report finds that as the global population grows and consumes increasing amounts of natural resources, it threatens the health of essential ecological assets ranging from fish stocks to fertile land to freshwater. GEO-4 identifies the most pressing environmental issues confronting each region of the world, and offers policymakers specific recommendations for responding to these challenges.
For the first time, the assessment includes explicit analysis of the linkages between the environment and conflict. ECSP Director Geoff Dabelko served as one of the lead authors of Chapter 7, “Vulnerability of People and the Environment: Challenges and Opportunities,” which explores the relationship between environmental change and security using the concept of human vulnerability. The authors emphasize that the poor are the most susceptible to the stresses caused by degraded environments, and suffer disproportionately from land degradation, water contamination and scarcity, and increasingly frequent and severe natural disasters.
“A combination of environmental change, resource capture and population growth decreases the per capita availability of natural resources, and can threaten well-being for large segments of societies, particularly the poorest who depend on these natural resources for survival. The resulting social effects—migration, intensified unsustainable behavior and social sub-grouping—strain the state’s ability to meet its citizens’ demands, and can contribute to violent outcomes,” write the authors. They recommend reducing people’s vulnerability to environmental and socio-economic changes by bolstering the resource rights of local people; promoting sustainable livelihoods; improving communities’ natural disaster coping capabilities; and empowering women and other historically disadvantaged groups. They also urge the integration of environmental considerations into broader development activities, so that development will be sustainable and will help, not harm, a country’s poorest members.
UNEP has spearheaded a range of efforts analyzing environment, conflict, and security connections. Its Post-Conflict and Disaster Management Branch (PCDMB) conducts scientific assessments of environmental conditions in conflict and post-conflict settings. The Woodrow Wilson Center recently hosted the U.S. launch of PCDMB’s June 2007 Sudan Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment. In 2003, UNEP’s Division of Early Warning and Assessment (DEWA) took a broader look at the links between environment and conflict with the publication of Understanding Environment, Conflict, and Cooperation.
Major environmental challenges—including land degradation and desertification, pollution, and climate change—demand swift, concerted global action, say the authors of 
