Louie
SaraJClimate Change and War (well... security)
April 20th 2007 01:36
This week the UN Security Council held a debate on the impact of Climate Change on world peace and security. The topic was raised by Britain, who indicated that as this was an issue which would affect water, food production and land use; it was of a nature which could threaten peace.
As said by Margeret Beckett, the British foreign secretary (who coincidentally previously held the position of Britain’s negotiator on Climate Change) these threats to security will come from flooding, disease and famine leading to unprecedented migration; drought and crop failure intensifying competition for food, water and energy; and the potential for economic disruption on a scale not seen since World War II. [The “economic disruption” is a direct reference to the Stern Review, which I have discussed earlier in the Blog series in the Post "Climate Change reference materials". The Review predicts the effect of Climate Change on world GDP as being somewhere in the order of 90 billion: far outweighing the cost of responding to the threat of it, and akin to the effects of War.]
Regardless of dissent from China and Russia, who consider that the discussion of Climate Change encroaches on other areas of UN responsibility (and therefore was not a matter for the Security Council), General Ban Ki-moon, the UN Security General supported the notion that this was an important issue. He noted that Kofi Annan warned that "environmental degradation has the potential to destabilize already conflict-prone regions" and went on to say members should encourage ways to live sustainably within the planets means.
Climate Change will, without a doubt lead to increased competition on resources which will become increasingly strained (I don’t even want to think how much the price of my favourite wines will increase… back to the serious stuff). Resources and Politics have always been inextricably linked – today in Australia the Murray Darling Basin is in the spotlight as farmers are told they will not be able to irrigate their farms if it does not rain in the next 5 weeks.
But what about Resources and War? I am no history buff, by all means, but the winners in World War II were definitely those with access to one particular resource: Oil. Germany and Japan both lack domestic Oil fields. Germany looked to the Middle East and Russia for supply while Japan looked to the West Indies. Meanwhile, France and England were also shy of Oil, but managed to cosy up the US. Many military attacks were linked to supply of oil - in the first 5 months of WW II, 55 Oil tankers were sunk by U boats. Also, I have heard (but not sure about the validity of the comment) that the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour was a strategic strike on US warships whose mission was to stop Japanese ships reaching Indonesia (thereby restricting the Japanese access to Oil).
Yes, interesting... but whats my point you ask? I guess my point is: is it appropriate for the UN Security Council to be considering this topic? [I note that they have previously considered HIV/Aids, and the impact on security] Is it that unbelievable that Climate Change, leading to shortages of food and water, could place enough pressure on the world to threaten security? Although Oil wasn’t the cause of WW II, it was definitely a factor. I imagine shortly we may see strategic alliances of nations securing supply of food and water… will it follow that this may lead to competition and eventually conflict? This remains to be seen I guess, but I dont consider it to be that much of a stretch of the imaginiation and am glad to see the UN Security Council being somewhat proactive in considering the issue.
As said by Margeret Beckett, the British foreign secretary (who coincidentally previously held the position of Britain’s negotiator on Climate Change) these threats to security will come from flooding, disease and famine leading to unprecedented migration; drought and crop failure intensifying competition for food, water and energy; and the potential for economic disruption on a scale not seen since World War II. [The “economic disruption” is a direct reference to the Stern Review, which I have discussed earlier in the Blog series in the Post "Climate Change reference materials". The Review predicts the effect of Climate Change on world GDP as being somewhere in the order of 90 billion: far outweighing the cost of responding to the threat of it, and akin to the effects of War.]
Regardless of dissent from China and Russia, who consider that the discussion of Climate Change encroaches on other areas of UN responsibility (and therefore was not a matter for the Security Council), General Ban Ki-moon, the UN Security General supported the notion that this was an important issue. He noted that Kofi Annan warned that "environmental degradation has the potential to destabilize already conflict-prone regions" and went on to say members should encourage ways to live sustainably within the planets means.
Climate Change will, without a doubt lead to increased competition on resources which will become increasingly strained (I don’t even want to think how much the price of my favourite wines will increase… back to the serious stuff). Resources and Politics have always been inextricably linked – today in Australia the Murray Darling Basin is in the spotlight as farmers are told they will not be able to irrigate their farms if it does not rain in the next 5 weeks.
But what about Resources and War? I am no history buff, by all means, but the winners in World War II were definitely those with access to one particular resource: Oil. Germany and Japan both lack domestic Oil fields. Germany looked to the Middle East and Russia for supply while Japan looked to the West Indies. Meanwhile, France and England were also shy of Oil, but managed to cosy up the US. Many military attacks were linked to supply of oil - in the first 5 months of WW II, 55 Oil tankers were sunk by U boats. Also, I have heard (but not sure about the validity of the comment) that the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour was a strategic strike on US warships whose mission was to stop Japanese ships reaching Indonesia (thereby restricting the Japanese access to Oil).
Yes, interesting... but whats my point you ask? I guess my point is: is it appropriate for the UN Security Council to be considering this topic? [I note that they have previously considered HIV/Aids, and the impact on security] Is it that unbelievable that Climate Change, leading to shortages of food and water, could place enough pressure on the world to threaten security? Although Oil wasn’t the cause of WW II, it was definitely a factor. I imagine shortly we may see strategic alliances of nations securing supply of food and water… will it follow that this may lead to competition and eventually conflict? This remains to be seen I guess, but I dont consider it to be that much of a stretch of the imaginiation and am glad to see the UN Security Council being somewhat proactive in considering the issue.
| 47 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
