In the security landscape of the 21st century the idea that security is synonymous with traditional military security and that our security can be ensured by guarding against conventional threats seems no longer plausible. There are more issues than simply “security” – climate change. Limiting security to interstate warfare and the threat of military violence in a world where one is more likely to become a victim of cybercrime as well as pollution, ice caps melting and further harms worldwide, “Climate change is also likely to undermine the capacity of states to provide the opportunities and services that help people to sustain their livelihoods” (Jon Barnett and W. Neil Adger, ‘Climate Change, Human Security and Violent Conflict’). This is greater than a casualty of war, where millions more are actually gradually dying from starvation, disease and inhabitable circumstances than ever could from hypothetical bombs, where it is highly certain that the whole of humanity lie at the mercy of climate change, appears not only inadequate but dangerous. Thus the idea of confining security to only issues directly relating to military conflict seems on the surface understandably obsolete. Questions have thus arisen as to what actually constitutes a security issue in today’s environment and how the concept of security can retain its theoretical utility in the midst of 21st century concerns. This has led to the securitisation of a plethora of non-conventional issues stemming from debates over the rightful object of security and the role of the state. Issues such as poverty, immigration, disease and climate change have permeated security discourse, thus becoming cloaked in the language of security. Yet, many see this as merely dressing up non-security issues in a linguistic dressage that should only be reserved for conventional security concerns. In doing so this can be seen as counterproductive to addressing these issues in their own right, whilst others believe that securitisation is the only way through which these pressing threats to human life can be effectively tackled. This essay will, therefore, assess the benefits of and problems with the securitisation of non-conventional security issues, specifically in the area of climate change, health and poverty.
Jon Barnett alongside W. Neil Adger describe “larger scale processes that shape people’s entitlements to natural, economic and social capital … vulnerable to climate change”. They describe this, through belief that climate change impacts more than just the environment. “In contrast to many industrialised countries where agriculture represents 1-2% of the workforce, in East Timor some 85% of the population are dependent on agriculture as their sole or main source of income, and the majority of the population are engaged in subsistence farming so that 46%”. In East Timor there have been numerous event of extreme floods as well as eruptions which Abilio da Fonseca describe “climate change can impact directly on industry in coastal areas including physical infrastructure through erosion or flooding” (https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/staring-down-climate-change-in-east-timor). Thus leading to natural disasters limiting the locals ability to even make a living from what their primary source of income is. Barnett and Neil Adger emphasise ‘human insecurity leading to increase the risk of violent conflict.’ Due to the fact of people having to result to physical abuse as they literally have to fight to survive and beat each other to land as well as fish and other natural resource which are unfortunately scarce for them. These views are underlined by a tone of realism, in the sense that each state (as well as citizen within a state) fight for the security of themselves to make themselves stronger than a rivalry state, in this case being neighbouring Indonesian cities of the likes of West Timor, Viqueque and countries such as Papua New Guinea. Which has lead to climate change being emphasised as relevant issue of 21st century politics rather than a “weaker” issue.
Furthermore, “The AIACC project is revealing that the most potentially devastating impacts of climate change arise from a combination of multiple stresses acting in concert of which climate stresses are but one, and which also include ecosystem degradation, failed governance systems, and economic decline (Leary et al., 2006)” Jon Barnett and W. Neil Adger. This highlights the significance of this article as it further proves how climate change is not only an impact on the environment. Moreover, an impact on a country's economic growth, well being as well as support of government,. Due to the fact that citizens will not be happy in their country when the governments do not have any methods in controlling the drastic changes in climate change thus leading to a poorer population and lower happiness level. This is evident in the World Happiness Report which shows Europe at the top and Asia, Africa and Oceania at the bottom (https://s3.amazonaws.com/happiness-report/2018/WHR_web.pdf), simply due to the fact that their governments have developed methods or even do not have the financial ability to tackle climate change in the manner that western countries can. In addition this creates further division between western and eastern countries leading to worse living standards in particular countries as well as less trade and lower growth levels. Which is supported by p.649 “the degree to which households and communities rely on these resources to meet their needs and values, and the capacity of social systems to adapt to changes in the temporal distribution and abundance of these resources so that households’ and communities’ needs and values can continue to be satisfied.”
Additionally we can in the article it states “multiple and overlapping institutions operating at various scales that are and will be directly and indirectly involved in exacerbating or alleviating the adverse effects of climate change… make decisions and implement policies that directly (e.g., the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), and indirectly (e.g., development agencies) affect capacity to adapt to climate change. (p. 650 Jon Barnett,W. Neil Adge). Ergo we can deduce that the article also includes a liberal aspect to it as it alludes to a sense of equality as well as inter-democratic help towards less fortunate nations. Through the UN and other organisation which are set out to improve the equality of people and countries across the globe. Thus highlighting the significance of climate change and the separation it makes in society and worldwide.
The other article was The Global Politics of Climate Change: Challenge for Political Science by Robert O. Keohane, which also includes a realist perspective on climate change.” The IPCC’s recent report states that “In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans”. This proves that it is not only the eastern countries (underdeveloped economies) that are suffering from climate change that it is an international issue. Ergo stressing that it is a topic which is necessary to be tackled especially as it is forever evolving impacting the whole world. This is evident from the immense pollution that is caused worldwide, predominantly from: China, U.S.A, India and Russia. Leading to a higher temperature worldwide as well as disbalances in nature due to the various chemicals being emitted. Furthermore this issue is definitely not only affecting agriculture dominated countries as the likes of Italy are affected too. Water levels have risen in Venice by1.0 ± 0.3 mm per year since 1871 . Putting lives at risk as well as making life in Venice more difficult for locals alongside desensitising tourists to visit the city, which damages it’s economy.
It is further argued that “Framing the issue as one of adaptation, within a national or subnational context, therefore generates a much more productive politics than framing it as one of mitigation” ( O. Keohane, Robert, Challenge for Political Science). Here O Keohane, emphasises the severity of climate change as in issue, rather then briefly overseeing it as something that does not highly effect the world. Thus the major threats to human life are elevated into the realm of ‘high politics’ and thus addressed with the same rigour, as would be traditional military threats to the nation state. Which, however, can be an issue. “Rather than focusing on well- established measures for protecting the lives and health of Americans, policymakers have recently embraced an approach that views public health policy through the prism of national security and law enforcement” (Annas et al., 2008, p. 5). With the securitisation of non- security issues, tackling those issues can then come to resemble the tactics and methods used against traditional threats. An example being Huang (2014), the US securitised the Ebola outbreak in this way. Tighter border security was called for, and in Sierra Leone the defence rather than health minister was put in charge of plans. Huang argues that such utilisation of security apparatus to deal with viruses can have negative consequences. Whilst true that raising the profile of Ebola and likewise the avian flu produced combined and elevated efforts in creating vaccines and strengthening disease response capabilities, securitisation efforts can often be disproportionate to the threat.
However, it is to be debated whether Realists ever abided by such a restrained moreso limited idea of security. Defense security in the traditional sense (army) could itself be more encompassing than originally thought thus possibly false to believe security being ‘confined’ to military security if non-conventional issues are not encompassed. Through reading Jon Barnett and W. Neil Adger’s article we can deduce that “climate change undermines human security in the present day, and will increasingly do so in the future. It does this by reducing people’s access to natural resources that are important to sustain their livelihoods.” Ergo a “normal” or even hygienique standard of living which in the 21st century is heinous to think that it does not exist worldwide, is truly a vital part not only of society but more so a global issue. Underlining why Climate change is such a prominent issue in today’s politics. The two reading also allow for the concept of the role climate change has on the economic development of a country. Meaning how it is necessary to be resolved in order for countries to grow and be able to trade with other countries let alone now 85% of a country or city depending on natural resources which are near non existent due to mostly man made climate issues.
In conclusion, it is argued that climate change and its effect on the people of a country as well the economic state and physical state of a country are highly emphasized in both articles. Alongside a realist perspective, which is well suited in this scenario as it is the unoftuante case, where citizens have to compete for who will have clean water or a patch of land to harvest on, with non-polluted food. However one may argue that a liberal perspective is necessary as this is what leads to organisations such as UN offering a ‘helping-hand” to the less fortunate countries, which Jon Barnett and W. Neil Adger highlight.