21 September 2016, American Security Project, White House Takes Steps to Address the National Security impacts of Climate Change. This week, President Obama signed a new Presidential Memorandum directing that the impacts of climate change must be considered in the development of all national security-related doctrine, policies, or plans. National Security Adviser Susan Rice wrote a blog post detailing the plan. The directive will create a new Federal Climate and National Security Working Group tasked with sharing climate science across government and determining research and policy priorities to address these threats. It also directs agencies to make “Implementation Plans” that take into account the impacts climate change will have on human mobility (including migration and displacement), global water and food security, nutrition, public health, and infrastructure. It is important that the threat of climate change is addressed in this way, because climate change is not simply an issue that can be addressed on its own. It is an issue that affects all other national security threats. We know that there are many threats to America’s national security, from terrorism to nuclear proliferation, Russia to China, or even economic stagnation. But the truth is that climate change affects all these other threats as well. Unchecked, even the moderate warming that we’ve seen so far has had significant impacts on water, food, and energy security in certain regions around the world. It has begun to change disease patterns. It is beginning to drive migration. These changes, in turn, could affect state stability and cause collapse of governance in entire regions. Read More here
Category Archives: Security & Conflict
14 September 2016, Reuters, Climate change ‘significant and direct’ threat to U.S. military: reports. The effects of climate change endanger U.S. military operations and could increase the danger of international conflict, according to three new documents endorsed by retired top U.S. military officers and former national security officials. “There are few easy answers, but one thing is clear: the current trajectory of climatic change presents a strategically-significant risk to U.S. national security, and inaction is not a viable option,” said a statement published on Wednesday by the Center for Climate and Security, a Washington-based think tank. It was signed by more than a dozen former senior military and national security officials, including retired General Anthony Zinni, former commander of the U.S. Central Command, and retired Admiral Samuel Locklear, head of the Pacific Command until last year. They called on the next U.S. president to create a cabinet level position to deal with climate change and its impact on national security. A separate report by a panel of retired military officials, also published on Wednesday by the Center for Climate and Security, said more frequent extreme weather is a threat to U.S. coastal military installations. “The complex relationship between sea level rise, storm surge and global readiness and responsiveness must be explored down to the operational level, across the Services and Joint forces, and up to a strategic level as well,” the report said. Earlier this year, another report said faster sea level rises in the second half of this century could make tidal flooding a daily occurrence for some installations. Francesco Femia, co-founder and president of the Center for Climate and Security, said the reports show bipartisan national security and military officials think the existing U.S. response to climate change “is not commensurate to the threat”. Read More here
9 September 2016, The Conversation, He may have insulted Obama, but Duterte held up a long-hidden looking glass to the US. This article is part of the Democracy Futures series, a joint global initiative with the Sydney Democracy Network. The project aims to stimulate fresh thinking about the many challenges facing democracies in the 21st century. Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has taken his “bad manners” – having gained global notoriety with his election campaign insults earlier this year – to a new level. At a press conference at Davao International Airport on Monday, on his way to meet US President Barack Obama and other leaders attending the ASEAN summit, Duterte muttered a few short words in tagalog at the end of a lengthy and irritated reply to a local journalist. With those words, he again made international headlines. If that were all there was to it, we could rightly roll our eyes and move on. After all, Duterte’s language is vulgar; his slander of people and groups is liable to incite violence; and his determination to kill drug pushers (to fight “crime with crime”) an abuse of power. He should not be defended for any of this.But as someone who has spent a long time studying US-Philippine relations, I think there’s something more for us to see here. And if we want to judge the Philippine president (and, by default, the nation for electing him) from high moral ground, I think we have a responsibility to pay attention to it. Restoring an invisible history “Who is he to question me about human rights and extrajudicial killings?” So asked Duterte on Monday. It’s actually a very good question, and one long overdue from a Philippine president. The extent to which the violence of US relations with the Philippines has been made invisible by a history written predominantly by Americans themselves cannot be overstated. It began with a three-year war (1899-1902) that most Americans have never heard of. The war overthrew a newly independent Philippine republic and cost between 250,000 and a million Filipino lives – only to be called “a great misunderstanding” by American colonial writers. Read More here
7 September 2016, The Conversation, Pacific pariah: how Australia’s love of coal has left it out in the diplomatic cold. Australia’s Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull will have some explaining to do when he attends the Pacific Islands Forum leaders’ meeting in Pohnpei, Micronesia, this week. Australia’s continued determination to dig up coal, while refusing to dig deep to tackle climate change, has put it increasingly at odds with world opinion. Nowhere is this more evident than when Australian politicians meet with their Pacific island counterparts. It is widely acknowledged that Pacific island states are at the front line of climate change. It is perhaps less well known that, for a quarter of a century, Australia has attempted to undermine their demands in climate negotiations at the United Nations. The Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) – organised around an annual meeting between island leaders and their counterparts from Australia and New Zealand – is the Pacific region’s premier political forum. But island nations have been denied the chance to use it to press hard for their shared climate goals, because Australia has used the PIF to weaken the regional declarations put forward by Pacific nations at each key milestone in the global climate negotiation process. In the run-up to the 1997 UN Kyoto climate summit, Pacific island leaders lobbied internationally for new binding targets to reduce emissions. However, that year’s PIF leaders’ statement was toned down, simply calling for “recognition of climate change impacts”. Likewise, in the lead-up to the 2009 Copenhagen talks, Pacific island countries called for states to reduce emissions by 95% by 2050. But at that year’s PIF meeting in Cairns, the then prime minister, Kevin Rudd, convinced leaders to scale back the proposed target to 50%. Pacific media branded the outcome “a death warrant for Pacific Islanders”. Ahead of last year’s Paris summit, Australia again exercised its “veto power” over Pacific climate diplomacy. Over the preceding years Pacific island leaders had made their climate positions quite clear, both at UN discussions in New York and in a string of declarations including the Melanesian Spearhead Group Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change, the Polynesian Leaders’ Declaration on Climate Change, and the Suva Declaration on Climate Change. Read More here