Securing the Environment, Securing the State

From the realist perspective of scholars such as Hans Morgenthau, the utmost goal of the state is survival. Like humankind, the state is willing to adapt, to evolve, and to respond to situations of crisis which threaten the perpetuation of the state, and the physical security of the state is of absolute importance. With this in mind, the concept of environmental degradation as a threat to national security is entirely legitimate, as the absence of a secure physical environment within a state would surely hinder the ability of the state to continue. Though various critiques of this link between environmental and national security exist within the academic community, I believe that there exists an inherent relationship between the degree to which a state’s environment is endangered and the state’s security.

While skeptics such as Daniel Deudney may claim there is little relevance or cause for linkage between environmental degradation and national security on the basis of “interstate violence having little in common with either environmental problems or solutions,” (Deudney, 1990) the very premise of national security – involving the physical continuation of the state – depends on resource access and reliability. Though I think Deudney makes a valid point in his assertion that the definition of national security is trivialized when scholars seek to incorporate too many elements which threaten the security of a state, I would contest that the environment is not one of these superfluous variables. Another critique which was vocalized in seminar revolved around the idea that the environment itself does not fundamentally result in conflict, it is citizens’ reactions to the environment which result in conflict and ultimately pose a threat to state security.

This critique, while well-founded and worth exploring, oversimplifies the scope of cases in which the environmental factors of a state influence the perceived national security. It could be argued that there exists a global spectrum in which some states are directly threatened by the environmental and climatic changes themselves, while others face security threats based upon the reaction of humans to the drastic changes in the environment. For example, a primary case in which environmental degradation influences the well-being of the state is that of Kiribati. This state, on the brink of disappearing entirely due to rising sea-levels, faces a direct physical threat to the security of the nation. Scientists expect the sea levels to engulf the island state before the end of this century, and as political officials scramble to relocate the citizens of the state it is clear that the externalities of global warming have posed endangered the ability of the state of Kiribati to continue. While this may be an extreme case in our current times, it acts as a wary beacon of the salience of this issue in the future.

Though our generation may not directly encounter states which face such evident threats to national security and ultimately the ability to continue, the inclusion of environmental degradation as a threat to security could also help prevent future generations from facing such a bleak fate. While little evidence today exists of environmental degradation and resource scarcity erupting into inter-state conflict, as humankind continues to expand and extend in size and numbers, it can safely be assumed that these issues will become pressing. Deudney berates the association of environmental vulnerability with national security on the grounds that, “it is not a claim about fact, but a rhetorical device designed to stimulate action,” (Deudney, 1990) meaning that this is merely re-definition for the purpose of incentivizing citizens. While this may be a residual effect, and that extending the definition of national security threats to include environmental qualms would be appropriate on factual grounds, this externality of the re-definition is not a malicious. In essence, the re-definition could help to curb the degradation of environment and ultimately minimize the risk to national security a state may face.

It comes as no surprise that the very definition of a word raises such heated debate in the international arena, as policy stems from the interpretation of what a concept encompasses. The idea of national security is one that is not to be taken lightly, but from the standpoint of the state’s security being contingent upon the ability of the state to physically continue to exist, the environmental threats which a state faces are valid components of the national security. Extending the definition of national security to include the threat of environmental degradation would not only enable state leaders to comprehend the salience of the environment to a greater degree, but also encourage policy makers to take necessary measures to protect the environment and ultimately the security of the state for years to come.