NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

THESIS
RECONCILING ENVIRONMENTAL
DEGRADATION
AND U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY

Scott C. Kraverath

December, 1994

Thesis Advisor: Rodney Kennedy-Minott

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE I
Form Approved OMB N O . 0 7 ~ - 0 1 8 8
I
Public reporting burden for this collection of information I S estimated to average i hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction. searching exlsiin& data
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the coiiecrlon of mformatlon Send comments regarding ihis burden estimate or any oiher
aspect of thls collection of information. ~ncludingsuggestrons for reduclng rhis burden, to Washington Headquarrers Services. Direcrorare for Information Operations and
Reports. 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1201. Arlington. VA 22202 4302, and ro the Office of Managemenr and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Projecr (0704-
0188)Washington DC 20503.

1. .AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2.REPORT DATE 3.REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
December 1994 Master's Thesis
4. T ~ ANDE SUBT~TLE RECONCILING ENVIRONMENTAL 5.FUNDING &UMBERS
DEGRADATION AND U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY
1
6. 4UTHOR(S) Kraverath. Scott C .
- --

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

Naval Postgraduate School
I REPORT NUMBER
Monterey CA 93943-5000
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10 . SPONSORING/MONITORING
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

11. SUPPLEMENTARYNOTES The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the
official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.
12a. DISTRIBUnON/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b . DISTRIBUTION CODE
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
13 . ABSTRACT (mardmum 200 words)
Although environmental concerns are nothing new, it has been only recently that environmental issues
have been considered as having national security implications. Along with increased environmental
awareness, the end of the cold war has allowed security planners to now include nonmilitary concerns,
including the environment, into what has traditionally been a military-oriented policy. Though beginning to
take place, this transition or "broadening" of national security policy to include these issues is proving slow
and controversial. The nature of environmental issues is such that their inclusion into a national security
framework is not an easy one. Because of the current and potential national security threats embodied in
environmental degradation, however, a coherent environmental security policy needs to be formulated.
Because of the scope, complexity, and unknown nature of environmental issues this has not yet been
accomplished. By defining issues, setting criteria and looking at individual cases of environmental
degradation in the Western Hemisphere and case studies from Brazil and Mexico, this thesis attempts to
reconcile environmental degradation as a US national security issue; to provide greater depth of
understanding of environmental security issues and how we may begin solving them.
14. SUBJECT m s National Security, Environmental Security, Environmental 1s. NUMBER OF
Degradation
16 . PRICE CODE
17 . SECUWrY CLASSIFICA- 18. SECURlTY CLASSIFI- 19 . SECURlTY CLASSIRCA- 20. LIMlTATION OF
TION OF REPORT CATION OF THIS PAGE TION OF ABSTRACT ABSTRACT
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UL'
jN 7540-01-280-5500 ' Standar d Form 298 (Rev. 2-89
Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18 298-102

i
 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

RECONCILING ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION

AND
US NATIONAL SECURITY

by

Scott C. Kraver.ath
Lieutenant, United States Navy
B.A., Miami University, 1989

Submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS IN NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS

from th e

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

December 1994

Author:
Scott C. Kraverath

Approved by:

B o b e r t E. Looney, Second d r

Department of National Security Affairs

 ABSTRACT

Although environmental concerns are nothing new, it has been only recently
that environmental issues have been considered a s having national security
implications. Along with increased environmental awareness, the end of the cold
war has allowed security planners to now include nonmilitary concerns, including
the environment, into what has traditionally been a military-oriented policy.
Though beginning to take place, this transition or "broadening" of national
security policy to include these issues is proving slow and controversial. The
nature of environmental issues is such that their inclusion into a national security
framework is not an easy one. Because of the current and potential national
security threats embodied in environmental degradation, however, a coherent
environmental security policy needs to be formulated. Because of the scope,
complexity, and unknown nature of environmental issues this has not yet been
accomplished. By defining issues, setting criteria and looking a t individual cases
of environmental degradation in the Western Hemisphere and case studies £rom
Brazil and Mexico, this thesis attempts to reconcile environmental degradation a s
a US national security issue; to provide greater depth of understanding of
environmental security issues and how we may begin solving them.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I1. ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION AS A U.S.

NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

A. THE PROBLEMS WITH ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY . 9

B. A DICHOTOMY OF VIEWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

1. Consensus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2 . Controversy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

C . THE BROADENING OF US NATIONAL

SECURITY STRATEGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

1. The Security Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

2 . Why a National Security Perspective ? . . . . . . . . . . . 32

3 . The Security Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4 . Issues and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

I11 . ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY THREATS TO THE
UNITED STATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
A . TRANSNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL OR
RESOURCE PROBLEMS THAT THREATEN US
SECURITY IN A TRADITIONAL SENSE . . . . . . . . . . 45
1. Border Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2 . Water Quality and Scarcity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3 . Ocean Degradation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
B . TRANSNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL OR
RESOURCE PROBLEMS THAT THREATEN US
SECURITY IN A BROAD SENSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

vii
 1 . Global Warming / Atmospheric and Climatic Modifications . . . . 53

2 . Loss of Genetic Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

3 . Deforestation. Soil Erosion and Desertification . . . . . . . . . 58

4 . Population Growth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
C . SOCIAI, EFFECTS O F ENVIRONMENTAL
DEGRADATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

1. Environmental Refugees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

2 . Agricultural a n d Economic Decline . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

D . ASSESSING ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION
AS NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERNS . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

IV . ACHIEVING ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY . . . . . . . . . . 71

A. ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
1. The Case of Brazil. . . . . . . . . 76. .
a . The Amazon . . . . . . . . . . 79. .
b . Other Environmental Issues . 85
c . The Military Connection .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
d . Lessons From Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B . ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
96

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Mexico an d t h e North American
Free Trade Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
a . Sovereignty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
b . Mexico's Environmental Response to NAFTA . . . . . . . . . . 102
c . Mexico's Environmental Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

V. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

. . . . . . . . . .
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST . . . . . . 125
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Although environmental concerns are nothing new, the issue of environmental

degradation has only recently become recognized as having serious national security
implications. In the last twenty years the growth of environmental interest groups, and oil
crisis, and a host of environmental disasters have pushed ecological and resource concerns
to the front of the American consciousness. It was the end of the cold war, however, which
finally provided the opportunity for the re-evaluation of US national security policy to
include environmental issues. Indeed, the end of the "threat of communist expansionu- the
overridmg national security concern of the previous half century- has allowed security
planners to now consider many threats, incluhng those from environmental degradation,
which had previously been overshadowed by the bipolar struggle. At the same time,
however, environmental concern's rapid progression from a sideline domestic issue to a
legitimate national security threat has been plagued by incomplete science, speculation,
conflicting interests and clashing perspectives. Subsequently, though the general principle
of environmental security has become accepted, the specific national security implications
of various ecological and resource matters, what they are and how to combat them, remains
mostly unknown. It should be noted, however, that the concept of environmental security is
still in its earliest stages of development. Though taking discernible form in recent national
security and Department of Defense literature, a t present it lacks the definition,
consistency and sophistication of more mature notions of national security. Together with
its highly controversial nature, the fact that not all cases of environmental degradation pose
threats to US national security, and no generally accepted criteria for making such a
determination currently exists, has meant that resolving which environmental threats
constitute legitimate national security threats and prioritizing them is a difficult
undertaking. The central objective of this thesis, therefore, centers around easing this
problem.

Although environmental security has gained wide currency in recent years, its
complicated parameters are only now beginning to emerge. This study attempts to lend
organization to this tangled concept by defining issues, establishing security criteria to
evaluate environmental issues, and examining which specific cases of environmental
degradation in the Western Hemisphere constitute national security threats. How to
resolve these threats is also examined with special significance given to the role played by
environmental politics and interstate trade.
Although US national security strategy continues to evolve to embrace a still
uncertain post-cold war world, defense strategists remain primarily focused on what can be
considered traditional interests and objectives and the strategic concepts for achieving them.
Though the mere inclusion of environmental issues in the national security strategy
represents a huge advancement in the recognition of environmental security as a legitimate
concept, the implications of environmental degradation on national security are still not
widely understood. This is apparent in the fact that any detailed dscussion on how or where
specific environmental issues actually impact US security is rare. Much of the &fficulty here
stems primarily from two factors: first, there is a lack of specific knowledge about many of
the interdependent variables involved in environmental degradation. Our limited ability to
draw clear causal ties between sustainable levels of natural resource use, and disastrous
overuse, has meant that environmental degradation's implications on the biosphere has not
yet been determined in most cases- a t least not to the precision required to immehately place
them as national security priorities. This fact contributes to a second problem: namely, there
is a dire need for an adequate understandmg of specifically how environmental degradation
actually conhtions human behavior. In other words, where environmental stresses provoke
regional instability, violence, environmental refugees or other actions which impact US
national security. Unlike military threats, environmental threats normally develop gradually
over several years. Humans can adapt but sometimes slowly evolving threats do not force us
to confront the failure of our current thinking and to reorient ourselves. Because we lack an
adequate understandmg of the importance of environmental factors to US national security,
establishing criteria for assessing the threats in a realistic and politically viable manner has
not been accomplished. We accept that threats exist but the nature of environmental security
has resisted attempts a t implementing clear solutions. What remains particularly l E c u l t is
assimilating environmental issues within a national security framework when many of the
threats remain nearly impossible to scientifically evaluate with the kind of certainty that
fosters immehate action- without a dsaster. These factors make environmental degradation
one of the most complex and controversial of new national security issues.
 Despite a tumultuous time for US foreign policy, current environmental threats that
are well known and already echoed in current strategy need to begin to be addressed in more
than a merely conceptual manner. This thesis is an effort to assist in establishing this
strategy. By looking at some specific cases of environmental degradation this thesis shows
how environmental issues can be framed for acceptance as national security concerns. In
order to ameliorate these threats, however, requires that an understanding of what constitutes
environmental security be followed by what can realistically be done to confront the threats
given their unique character. Any basic environmental framework must be flexible enough to
allow for a pro-conservation opinion to adopt more realistic and logically scientific points of
view while the environmental skeptics are availed of the non-provable, esoteric,
interdependent aspects of environmental security. Though controversy will never completely
depart these issues, to speed the response to the environmental threats already acquiesced in
the current national security . strategy and those revealed in this thesis requires that inaction
or a lack of planning based purely on an inability to define, prioritize, or frame the threats be
overcome.
If they truly ever were, today's national security considerations are neither
immaculate nor rigid and dominated by both military as well as nonmilitary threats. Such a
watershed was the end of the cold war, however, that little consensus on the overarching
nature of a new security strategy currently exists. Lacking these guidelines, if no broadly
accepted strategy can be referenced then a long-term perspective will always lose out to
short term answers. Since many environmental threats are particularly time-critical, this
lack of a coherent security policy includmg environmental issues is especially risky. Simply,
environmental elements of our national security strategy must be established. As well as
correspondmg to tradtional tenets of US security and foreign policy objectives, they must
also include new notions of quality of life for which Americans have become accustomed.
Through the efforts of correctly framing environmental degradation as national security
risks, the combined forces of the military, &plomacy, economic assistance and trade can all
work towards achieving environmental security goals.
xii
 1.INTRODUCTION
Diplomat and scholar George F. Kennan noted in the Winter 1985-86 issue of
Foreign Affairs tha t the "world's environmental a s well a s its nuclear crises must
receive priority if we are to succeed in 'averting these two overriding dangers,' both of
which ar e 'urgent,' 'relatively new,' an d for which 'past experience affords Little
guidance."" Although we can take comfort i n the fact tha t the threat of global
thermonuclear annihilation has diminished with the end of the cold war, what is still
troublesome and less clear is to what extent the environmental "crisis" has received the
same attention so urged by Kennan.
Environmental concerns are nothing new. As a national security issue,
however, environmental degradation ha s only become recognized a s having serious
implications within the last twenty years. During t h a t time the growth of environmental
interest groups (fueled by a n expanded awareness of the transnational reach of
environmental degradation), a n oil crisis, and a host of environmental disasters have
pushed ecological a n d resource concerns to the front of the American consciousness. I t
was the end of th e cold war, however, which finally provided th e opportunity for the re-
evaluation of US national security policy to include environmental issues. Indeed, th e
end of th e "threat of communist expansion" - the overriding national security concern of
the previous half century- ha s allowed security planners to now consider many threats
which had previously been overshadowed by the bipolar struggle. As Kent Butts of the
Army War College points out, "the end of th e Cold War brought with it a situation in
which regional conflict h a s been exacerbated an d variables tha t contribute to political
instability an d regional conflicts are now seen as important issues of foreign p ~ l i c y .
"Today,~ environmental degradation is recognized a s among the

'Andrew Maguire an d Jane t Welsh Brown, Bordering on Trouble: Resources &

Politics in Latin America (Bethesda: Adler & Adler, 1986), vii.
2Kent H. Butts, Environmental Security: DOD Partnership for Peace
(Washington D.C.:U.S. Government Printing Office, 1994)) v.
most important of these new variables."
At the same time, however, environmental concern's rapid progression from a
sideline domestic issue to a legitimate national security threat has been plagued by
incomplete science, speculation, conflicting interests and clashing perspectives.
Subsequently, though the general principle of environmental security has become
accepted, the specific national security implications of various ecological and resource
matters, what they are and how to combat them, remains mostly unknown. In addition,
though the 1994 National Security Strategy specifically lists environmental degradation a
s a national security issue, the idea that environmental concerns should constitute a n
integral part of US national security policy remains highly controversial. This
controversy stems from skepticism about the scientific certainty of many widely-quoted
environmental threats, difficulty encountered in framing environmental matters to fit
within current notions of national security and, a reluctance to bow to what is sometimes
seen a s environmental extremism. This controversy is a main reason why there are
currently few specific plans regarding how to address even seemingly well understood
environmental security threats.

I t should be noted that the concept of environmental security is still in its earliest
stages of development. Though beginning to take discernible form in recent national
security and Department of Defense literature, a t present it lacks the definition,
consistency and sophistication of more mature notions of national security. Together
with its highly controversial nature, the fact that not all cases of environmental
degradation pose threats to US national security, and no generally accepted criteria for
making such a determination currently exists, has meant that resolving which
environmental threats constitute legitimate national

3For a listing of the scholars asserting t h a t large-scale human-induced

environmental pressures may seriously affect national and international security see,
Thomas F. Homer-Dixon, "On the Threshold: Environmental Changes a s Causes of
Acute Conflict," International Security, Fall 1991, 76.
security threats and prioritizing them is difficult.'' The central objective of this thesis,
therefore, revolves around easing this problem.
Because of the tremendous scope and complexity involved with these issues,
however, I a m limiting my discussion to three principle concerns. First, and
fundamentally, does environmental degradation pose a US national security risk?
Though I have stated tha t this is a generally accepted notion, the why and how
components of this idea have yet to be adequately answered. Lacking this, planning to
address the threats is difficult and calls for widespread environmental protection make
for a weak argument. Merely accepting tha t environmental risks exist ha s not meant tha
t we truly understand the threats or know how to combat them.

Next, is environmental security appropriately dealt with from a US national

security perspective? Though it seems obvious tha t if the first concern is true, and
national security risks ar e apparent from environmental degradation, then their inclusion
in US national security planning should be automatic. I n reality, however, controversy
borne of deficient scientific proof, a lack of a clear understanding of the human
dimensions of environmental degradation, an d difficulty broadening the parameters of
national security have combined to complicate matters and, i n many respects, to deny
this obvious development.
Finally, the last concern regards the appropriate measures with which to achieve
environmental security. Although military capabilities will invariably play a role, it is
my assumption t h a t efficient environmental politics as well a s economic means
(especially trade) a r e th e most appropriate and efficient ways to realize
environmental security. There are, however, no panaceas. Achieving environmental
security is a long, difficult, and complicated process.
Although environmental security h a s gained wide currency i n recent years, its
complicated parameters ar e only now beginning to emerge. This study will attempt to
lend organization to this tangled concept. Structurally, this thesis

*Butts, "Environmental Security," 7.

begins with a chapter dedicated to the concept of environmental degradation as a
national security issue. Since the principle thrust of this inquiry is aimed a t reconciling
environmental degradation as a national security issue, what exactly these notions entail
needs scrutiny. Also, the broadening of US national security policy required to include
environmental issues, and the consensus and controversy surrounding them, are
explored to develop the level of understanding necessary to reveal criteria from which
to evaluate and prioritize environmental issues. As well a s establishing these criteria,
reconciling these issues will help foster an appreciation of the pitfalls a s well a s
necessities of pursuing an environmental security strategy.

This is followed by a chapter concerned with broadly identifying specifically

which of the many current ecological and resource issues actually fit a s US national
security concerns based on the definitions and criteria established. Though global in
character, the sheer scope and nature of the problem also dictates that analysis focuses
on the proximate threats - those mainly incurred from the Western Hemisphere and
especially Latin America. Despite this limited scope, lessons learned should be
universally applicable.
Although representing a variety of issues a s well a s foreign policy goals, national
security is still often thought of a s being limited to a policy to provide defense of the
physical territory of a nation andlor to prevent adversaries from using force in preventing
the nation's pursuit of its national interest^.^ Although certainly quite important aspects
of national security, the US h a s been uniquely blessed with secure borders, abundant
resources, and has not generally faced resource scarcities or the destabilizing effects of
environmental degradation. This has, in most cases, allowed the US to ignore
environmental a s well a s other new nonmilitary threats and retain a dated national
security orientation and strategies long beyond their effective or appropriate service.
Mthough contemporary

5Sam C. Sarkesian, U.S. National Security: Policymakers, Processes, and

Politics (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1989), 8.
definitions of national security are slowly broadening to accept new security threats,
older notions largely remain and, for the foreseeable future, will persist a s the
predominant national security orientation. Although this thesis will help provide criteria
for determining environmental security risks, in the short term a t least it is unlikely t h a
t any environmental threats will provoke any use of force against the US prompting a n
American military retaliation. To many, therefore, basic conceptions of national security
are simply not threatened by environmental degradation. Several countries in the
Americas, however, are far less lucky t h a n the US in terms of resource availability,
dependence upon natural resources, or ability to substitute degraded resources. As well a
s impacting quality of life for US citizens, environmental degradation and resource
limitations in these nations can lead directly to regional instability, violent conflict,
ecosystem collapse or other traumas t h a t are threatening to US national security. I n
order to adequately address these threats requires t h a t what constitutes US national
security be widened to include th e nonmilitary origins of these threats such a s those
posed by environmental degradation. Part of this broadening dictates tha t new tactics an
d methods are also adopted to combat these new risks. Although in some cases military
means ar e adequate to confront some types of environmental degradation, in many
situations these tools will be found wholly inappropriate or ineffective. I n these cases,
environmental politics and the economic power of interstate trade emerge a s important
implements of US national security.

The final analytical chapter of this thesis builds on the understanding developed i n
th e previous two chapters and explores what is involved in achieving environmental
security. Though the usefulness of a military role will be addressed, this thesis will argue
tha t politics an d interstate trade represent the two most important factors i n mitigating
environmental degradation and achieving US environmental security. Not only can trade
represent a great cause of environmental degradation itself but, it offers a potent
nonmilitary means to check or solve the problems a s well. Like the military, trade h a s
offensive and defensive teeth and widespread use of trade or economic embargoes a s a
tool of US

5
international interests has already been used for many years. Short of war, trade
represents one of the most effective instruments of US foreign policy. Where trade is not a
s important or beyond US influence, however, the environmental politics involved with
such things a s development aid, treaties, and international law also become important
environmental security tools. Efficient environmental politics, therefore, also needs to be
developed. Despite their great 'potential, however, the use of environmental politics and
trade to establish environmental security h a s many limitations and h a s thu s far met
with only limited success. Issues of national pride, sovereignty, cultural a n d
developmental philosophy have sometimes combined to deny environmental efforts. By
examining th e cases of Brazil and Mexico, some of these failures a n d limitations of
these approaches ar e shown a s well as positive lessons for future efforts.

Environmental degradation, in th e words of journalist Robert Kaplan is, "the

national-security issue of th e early 2 1st c e n t ~ r y . "Although~ environmental security
may not yet mesh with a clear a n d unlfylng grand policy, like containment, its growing
recognition as a legitimate threat demands t h a t i t s national security implications be well
understood. As th e US continues free trade with Canada and Mexico under The North
American Free Trade Agreement, a n d considers expanding it to the rest of th e Western
Hemisphere, it is also crucial to be able to assess to what extent these closer political and
economic ties can either exacerbate environmental degradation or can be used to stop it-
an d i n t h e process help or hinder environmental security i n t h e US.

'Robert Kaplan, "The Coming Anarchy: A Preview of th e Savagery, Tribalism an d

Warfare t h a t Lie Ahead," Sun Francisco Chronicle, March 13, 1994. (Reprinted
from the Atlantic Monthly, February 1994, 7.)
 11. ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION AS A US NATIONAL
SECURITY ISSUE

Although the US National Security Strategy (NSS) continues to evolve to

embrace a still uncertain post-cold war world, defense strategists remain primarily
focused on what can be considered traditional national interests and objectives and the
strategic concepts for achieving them.7 For instance, in elaborating "a new national
security strategy for [a] new era," the July 1994 NSS lists as its central goals:

To credibly sustain our security with military forces that are ready to fight
To bolster America's economic revitalization
To promote democracy abroad

It should be apparent that these broad goals are all traditional US foreign policy
objectives. And, national security recognized in terms of threats arising which demand
a military response maintain their position as the initial consideration. This is true
despite the end of the cold war and huge cuts in defense spending beginning in the late
1980s. Though transnational environmental issues are subsequently listed in the NSS a
s factors "increasingly affecting international stability and consequently will present
new challenges to US strategy," these threats constitute a peripheral concern.

Although the mere inclusion of environmental issues in the national security

strategy represents a huge advancement in the recognition of environmental security a s a
legitimate concept, the implications of environmental degradation on national security
are still not widely understood. This is apparent in the fact that in the NSS any detailed
discussion on how or where specific environmental issues actually impact US security is
missing. In fact, precisely how current US strategy is directly challenged or what new
security strate$es are needed to combat the environmental problems is noticeably absent
except for the repeated mention of a potential impact on regional stability or
"international

'Butts "Environmental Security," 2.

frictions". Though the connection is neither always readily apparent nor spelled out, the
correlation between environmental issues, regional stability and US national security is
treated a s a n underlying assumption. A serious problem remains that in order for
environmental issues to be treated a s legitimate national security threats the underlying
connections with regional instability, a s well a s any other security implications
surrounding environmental degradation, must be clearly demonstrated. Unless clear
causal ties can be established, effective stratepes to combat the environmental threats will
simply not follow.
Additionally, of the examples cited in the NSS dealing with those environmental
threats considered "serious enough to jeopardize international stability," a wide range of
diverse issues are listed.' Included are massive population flight from man-made or
natural catastrophes, such a s Chernobyl or the East Ahican drought, large scale industrial
pollution, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, ozone depletion, and global climate change.
Though this list embodies many of the widely-quoted environmental security threats,
another immediate problem lies in the notion that by grouping these same threats i
I

together, some with questionable national security implications, the same uncertain risk
level can be mistakenly attributed to all of these disparate issues. Issues like Chernobyl
and drought are two wholly different concerns representing vastly different threats and I
I
I
demanding completely different solutions. Grouping them all together as "environmental !
I
threats" denies the fact that they speak to different types and levels of risk. Combined 1

with valid questions regarding where and exactly how regional stability is undermined
and where the specific causal linkages between the environmental degradation, stability,
and US national security lie, any sense of urgency for any particular threat is easily lost
amidst the lesser, more controversial, or merely unknown concerns. The lack of definition
for the threats, scientific understanding, and criteria for determining which are

'The White House, , ANational Security Strategy of Engagement and

Enlargement (Washington D.C.:US Government Printing Office, July 1994), 15.
legitimate environmental threats has had the effect of clouding the issue and expanding
its scope into a n unwieldy size. A consequence of the way environmental degradation
has been defined and th e threat framed up to now is that the notion tha t
environmental security ha s not yet coalesced into a n easily understandable notion.
Hence, validity a s a national security concept has been undermined.

Though this is a daunting beginning, one must understand that no formal

definition of national security ha s ever been generally agreed upon. I t is a fluid concept
with few absolutes and continually subject to change. Since, however, over the past
decade environmental issues a s contributing factors in regional stabihty and national
"well being" ha s become accepted, this provides a sound conceptual framework from
which to begin addressing some of these issues.' The key remains breaking
environmental security out of a ill-defined, poorly understood, though paradoxically
widely accepted, level and into the realm of legitimate national security consideration -
with its own strategies and goals. I n order to accomplish this, exactly which types of
environmental issues represent a realistic and defensible threats, why, and how to
combat them needs to be clanfled. Here lies th e truly controversial an d confusing
aspects of this issue t h a t have combined to slow or prevent acting on th e threats.

A. THE PROBLEMS WITH ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY

Much of the reason for the difficulty fully assimilating environmental issues
within US national security stems primarily from two factors. The first revolves around a
lack of specific knowledge about many of th e interdependent variables

'The environment became a n element of th e NSS an d a recognized objective

supporting US interests in 1991. This followed UN, AID, an d CIA reports an d
numerous published articles echoing the notion t h a t "ecological stresses constitute real
and immanent threats to the future well-being of all people and nations". Joseph J .
Romm, Defining National Security: The Nonmilitary Aspects (New York: Council
on Foreign Relations Press, 1993), 25-27. a n d Kent Hughes Butts,
Environmental Security, 7.
involved in environmental degradation. Our limited ability to draw clear causal ties
between sustainable levels of natura l resource use, disastrous overuse, and its
implications on the biosphere (the part of the world where life can exist) have not yet been
determined in most cases- a t least not to the precision required to immediately place them
a s national security priorities. This is especially true when it comes to seemingly
limitless, globally shared resources such a s th e atmosphere and the oceans. Although the
study of "global change" - including climate change, ozone depletion, resource use and
biodiversity- h a s revolutionized the eart h sciences and the combined effort of a loose
collaboration on these issues is expected to represent the largest research project i n
history by th e year 2000, today any comprehensive, predictive model of the physical,
chemical an d biological processes t h a t regulate the earth does not exist.'' And because
of th e vast number of interdependent variables involved, there is little reason to be
confident t h a t any future predictions will be any more accurate t h a n those currently
being employed. This fact contributes to a second problem: namely, there is a dire need for
a n adequate understanding of specifically how environmental degradation actually
conditions huma n behavior. I n other words, where environmental stresses provoke
regional instability, violence, environmental refugees or other actions which can impact
US national security. Unlike military threats, environmental threats normally develop
gradually. Human s can adapt but sometimes, "slow growing threats do not force u s to
confront t h e failure of our current thinking an d to reorient ourselves. A Pearl Harbor, a
Sputnik, even a n unexpected hole i n th e ozone layer- those can inspire drastic change.
But a slow erosion of our standard of living or a slow increase i n our planet's
temperature- these bring shrugs an d yawns."11 It is this "slow erosion," however, which
we ar e beginning to understand

""A Problem as Big a s a Planet," The Economist, 5 November 1994, 83.

''Joseph J. Romm, The Once and Future Superpower: How to Restore America's
Economic, Energy, and Environmental Security (New York: William Morrow an d
Company, 1992), 15 1.
pose equally grave threats to the nation.
Because we lack an adequate understanding of the importance of environmental
factors to US national security, establishing criteria for assessing the threats in a realistic
and politically viable manner has not been accomplished. We accept that threats exist but
the nature of environmental security has resisted attempts at implementing clear
solutions. We have proposed laws, negotiated treaties and attended many conferences on
environmental concerns but, we still lack a comprehensive plan to address the national
security threats inherent in environmental degradation. Though the concept of national
security itself is a contemptuous term, generally what are its most important elements are
not difficult to agree upon. That these elements can be compared to a set of clearly
defined environmental issues (even without a complete understanding of the intricacies
of environmental systems) to determine roughly where environmental issues constitute
national security concerns can be accomplished. It is this process that is absolutely
crucial to achieving environmental security. Merely accepting that the environment can
pose a threat to the US is not enough. I n order to be prepared to counter current
environmental security threats, or actively preempt future threats, security planners must
be able to demonstrate precisely how environmental degradation threatens the nation and
be able to create a logical and realistic plan to stop it. This seems fundamental and
simple. However, the lack of scientific certainty, controversy and differing points of view
surrounding the effects of environmental degradation make a logical, realistic and simple
plan difficult to create.

Creating such a n understanding and criteria is, as I have stated previously, not a s
easy a process a s it fist may seem. The reasons for this begin with scientific uncertainty
but are exacerbated by the notion that our understanding of even seemingly simple
environmental issues is often confused. Consider this quote:

So-called nonrenewable resources- such as coal, oil and minerals- are in fact
inexhaustible, while so-called renewable resources can be finite. As a
 nonrenewable resource becomes scarce and more expensive, demand falls, and
substitutes and alternative technologies appear. For that reason we will never
pump the last barrel of oil or anything close to it. On the other hand, a fishery
fished beyond a certain point will not recover, a species driven to extinction will
not reappear, and eroded topsoil cannot be replaced (except over geological time).
There are, thus, threshold effects for renewable resources that belie the name
given them, with unfortunate consequences for policy. l2

Though semantically questionable, this is indicative of the confusing way in which

environmental issues are often framed. Many natural resources, such as the air and water,
seem limitless and throughout our history have been treated as if incorruptible. And with
programs like forest replanting and fishery management, national security classification
for the environment can seem over-cautious. Often, however, environmental systems can
become degraded past their sustainable threshold without immediate repercussions or
even our knowledge. The long-term consequences of which we barely understand. We
must keep in mind that with respect to military threats to national security we routinely
plan for worst case scenarios or contingencies. For instance, military strategies
surrounding the cold war always involved worst case planning. The threats embodied in
nuclear proliferation also demand that we address the potentiality of a detonation. With
scientists predicting that the destruction of the ozone layer may result in the additional
skin cancer deaths of 200,000 people in the US alone over the next 50 years, for example,
or the threat of massive environmental refugees pouring in from Mexico, the Caribbean
and Central and South America, prudence dictates that environmental issues also a t least
be considered in "worst-case" planning.13

What remains particularly difficult, however, is assimilating environmental issues

within a national security framework when many of the threats remain nearly impossible
to scientifically evaluate with the kind of certainty that fosters

Jessica Tuchman Mathews, "Redefining Security," Foreign Affairs, Spring

12

1989, 164.

13Romm, Defining National Security: The Nonmilitary Aspects, 19.

immediate action- without a disaster. Additional difficulties lie in how US national
security strategy develops and how complicated and time consuming a process it is for
it to accept new, and especially nonmilitary, threats. All of these factors make
environmental degradation one of the most complex and controversial of new national
security issues.
Given the level of acceptance of environmental security threats as embodied in the
current national security strategy and other literature, it is time that understanding about
how to counter them begins to form. Though still fraught with controversy,
environmental issues are clearly moving up on the security agenda and their continued
rise is all but assured. Despite a tumultuous time for US foreign policy, current
environmental threats that are well known and already echoed in current strategy need to
begin to be addressed in more than a merely conceptual manner. A pioneer in
environmental security, Thomas F. Homer-Dixon reminds us however that "the
environment-security theme encompasses a n almost unmanageable array of sub-issues
especially if we define 'security' broadly to include human physical, social, and economic
well-being."" This complexity is indeed disconcerting and is prime contributing factor in
why this process has not yet begun. To overcome this, environmental security must be
framed in such a way that it gains specific meaning a s a distinct area of concentration.
Therefore, the scope of this problem needs to be narrowed to a workable and
unambiguous level. This requires that any all-inclusive level of analysis be avoided
because of the extreme complexity involved. This also requires eliminating the highly
controversial, currently unknown environmental issues from the known, defensible
threats. Though addressing environmental issues in a piecemeal fashion often fails to
address crucial linkages between various issues and is rightly criticized, given the limited
resources currently available, the high levels of scientific uncertainty, the current lack of
a coherent policy, and the demand to act quickly on several environmental fronts then
realistically it is only the presently known

14Homer-Dixon, "On the Threshold," 76-77.

threats that we can hope to begin to counter. From a US national security perspective, it
must be understood that only clearly demonstratable threats will prompt action. This
view must coincide with the notion that there will be gaps in protecting the seamless web
that is the biosphere which will need to be addressed by other agendas. Agendas which
will need to step in to handle environmental issues which do not yet constitute US
national security threats. Though holistic environmental answers may eventually exist,
the current security framework requires that we begin with a limited scope of individual
cases of environmental degradation. If, as it is often quoted, long-lead-time
environmental systems are nearing or have reached their thresholds and are approaching
collapse, then the lack of a n appropriate beginning and basic strategy to commence
dealing with environmental threats could have disastrous future repercussion^.'^

This thesis is and effort to assist in establishing this strategy. By looking

a t some specific cases of US environmental security threats in the Americas I hope
to show how environmental issues can be framed for acceptance a s national
security concerns. In order to achieve success, however, requires that a n
understanding of what constitutes environmental security be followed by what can
realistically be done to confront the threats given their unique character. This is
attempted in the last chapter of this thesis. Before we can get to that, however,
some of the issues surrounding environmental security need to be explored
further. In this light, the next sections examine some of the consensus and
controversy surrounding environmental issues that contribute to the difficulty
encountered framing them a s national security priorities. This is followed by a n
examination of some of the problems found in broadening national security policy
to include non-traditional threats. Finally, since criteria for defining
environmental security threats are needed, its basic elements are explored.

15Butts, Environmental Security, 6.

14
B. A DICHOTOMY OF VIEWS
A common mistake for environmental advocates is merely citing the ever growing
number of transnational environmental concerns without specifically and logically
defining those threats within a larger context. Pundits often call for environmental issues
to be included in traditional strategic and economic planning without adequately
assessing th e new and often emotional aspects of environmental degradation, its
sometimes dubious scientific backing, or the overall economic or social cost benefit of
reversing the degradation. As stated previously, this is due to the fact that, though broadly
perceived a s a threat, there is a n unfortunate lack of any distinct understanding of how
to address certain environmental threats relating to national security; "specifically th e
links between environmental and resource problems an d international behavior."16 Also,
since the social or economic costs of environmental degradation are difficult to
understand and quantify, controversies t h a t erupt surrounding the issues are seldom
resolved and the issue often falls from serious consideration. For example, though the
1973 oil crisis poignantly demonstrated the security vulnerability of limited resource
availability, a n d prompted many alternative plans, in most cases we have resumed
previous patterns an d many of the alternative schemes have faded from memory. The
"crisis" over, people have resumed their wasteful ways. Although oil is still plentiful,
other resources are rapidly being degraded without adequate forethought a s to th e future
repercussions of th e degradation. The planet seems such a huge a n d limitless place tha t
its natural resources are difficult to envision a s being limited or corruptible. Even despite
sometimes clear scientific understanding of t h e threats involved with environmental
destruction, serious problems remain i n breaking what ar e legitimate environmental
security concerns out of the realm of wishful thinking, or environmental extremism, and
into more active and preemptive views of national security.

16Peter H. Gleick, "Environment an d Security: The Clear Connections," Bulletin of

the Atomic Scientists, April 1991, 17.
 Though, disastrous oil spills or nuclear contamination are easily framed a s threats
and quickly acted upon, once cleaned up the threat is deemed over. When issues of global
warming or biodiversity are examined, the legitimacy of the threat is often immediately
questioned. This frame of mind was apparent a t the 1992 Rio de Janeiro "Earth Summit"
when former President Bush insisted tha t more proof is needed to show t h a t the
warming of th e eart h is not part of a normal climactic cycle an d he flatly balked a t a
biodiversity treaty.17 Immediacy of the threat being difficult to prove, security planners
still find i t difficult to accept the fact tha t immediacy is apparent; it is, however, not in a
form t h a t is consistent with traditional notions of national security. Thus, although
environmental issues in a broad sense have been recognized a s having a role i n post-cold
war national security strategy, specifically which of the many diverse environmental
threats pose legitimate an d immediate national security threats, an d specifically how to
deal with them, remains undetermined. Though par t of th e reason for this is explained by
th e difficulties involved i n broadening national security policy to include environmental
security (which will be explored in th e next section), th e major reason lies i n t h e
controversy underlying t h e identification of specific threats and the extreme difficulty
found in altering "the basic patterns of huma n activity t h a t cause environmental
degradation- from our reproductive behavior to our dependence on fossil fuel^."'^

1. Consensus
Environmental issues presents security planners with a tremendously interactive
and interdependent set of variables. A s Lawrence E. Susskind points out, "because of th
e complexity of natural systems, scientists have great difficulty sorting out which actions
account for which outcomes. We ar e only just beginning to understand global ecological
interactions well enough to know exactly how

"Ronnie Wacker, "Earth Summit Wrap-up," Display, Summer 1992, 58.

18Maguire an d Brown, "Bordering on Trouble," 21.

1
seriously to take some of the threats tha t currently loom large."lg Consequently, outlook
regarding environmental matters is still largely determined by wealth, personal ecological
1
philosophy or first-hand experience with environmental matters- and seldom involves a
clearly understood scientific or even rational basis. This in large part ha s resulted in a
sharp dichotomy existing between what ha s sometimes been called a "consensus" view
on th e environment and a more skeptical view which relies more closely on what can be
scientifically defended based on available information or logic.

Of these two views it is the consensus t h a t makes the headlines. I t provides

I better copy and h a s generally predicted doom a n d gloom for the planet for years in the
popular and scientific press. The consensus view is composed of good science, bad
science, speculation, and a host of values an d emotions tied to what mankind is doing to
his environment. Books like The Doomsday Syndrome (Maddox, 1972),

The Limits to Growth (Club of Rome, 1972), a n d The Global

I President (Clawson, 198I), which all predict impending environmental collapse if

current trends continue, have a n irresistible dramatic appeal and are highly convincing t
h a t now is the time to act to save th e environment and mankind.20 I n large part due to
this kind of literature an d the press reports surrounding these findings, the consensus
view h a s grown numerically large. For example, a Lou Harris poll found t h a t in
I 1993, 82% of Americans believe tha t more needs to be done to protect the e n v i r ~ n
m e n t . ~ 'Numbers like these, however, can be deceiving. Though this seems a large an
d politically powerful group, and in many respects it is, a n unwitting problem remains t
h e fact t h a t environmental issues

lgLawrence E. Susskind, Environmental Diplomacy: Negotiating More Effective

Global Agreements (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 12.
''For a deeper discussion of the "dichotomy' i n environmental literature, see Hugh
W. Ellasesser ed., Global 2000 Revisited: Mankind's Impact on Spaceship Earth
i (New York: Paragon House, 1992).

i 'Xnvironmental Groups: As Green Turns to Brown," The Economist, 5 March

21
1994, 27.
are still a s much subjective emotional matters a s they are objective scientific realities.
Seriously lacking in quantitative scientific proof or cost-benefit analysis, environmental
matters are easily pushed aside by other, more easily definable concerns. In addressing
quality of life a s much a s life itself, environmental concerns exist in a realm where even
good scientific evidence to the contrary does little to persuade environmental advocates.
Of course, nor do emotional appeals to protect the environment normally provoke the
desired response from skeptics.22

2. Controversy
This lack of specific proof, the emotional linkages, and a drive for continued
economic development helped foster the growth of environmental skepticism. The
skeptics generally view man's resourcefulness and ingenuity a s great enough to overcome
any ecological situation created. By always looking a t "worst case" scenarios, often based
on wrong assumptions, they see environmentally concerned scientists and the press a s not
to be taken a t face value. Books like Half Truths About the Future (Dubois, 1981))
Globalony 2000 (Kahn and Schneider, 1981) and Cy Adler's 1973 satirical Ecological
Fantasies: Death From Falling Watermelons,
all take on the "eco-doomsters" and make a good case that perhaps impending
environmental disasters are more hype than reality. Citing the general inability of
scientists to logically and irrefutably link such things a s deforestation or climactic
changes to widespread health risks, the skeptics have raised concern over the spending
of millions of dollars on what they see a s unneeded environmental protection and the
unwarranted subjection of the public to fear about such things. Anti-environmental
activism arguing for "free market

22Toadd to the confusion, experts in environmental studies now commonly use the
labels "cornucopian" for optimistic outlooks seen in what I call the environmental
skeptics and "neo-Malthusian" for pessimists like many environmental scientists and the
press in the consensus view. These terms, however, are generally. used to describe
outlooks on market driven resources and are not all-encompassing.
environmentalism" (the abolition of all existing environmental laws and the
deregulation of industry) have found close ties in resource industries and in
government.23 Despite small numbers, environmental skepticism h a s proven very
powerful. This has resulted in th e fact tha t even recent scientific evidence
supporting the legitimacy and dire consequences of environmental degradation is
often seriously challenged and sometimes discounted. Amid th e context of this
dichotomy of views, the widely-accepted notion tha t environmental concerns
represent US national security threats comes face to face with serious challenges;
both from scientific a s well a s more emotional points of view. This is especially
true when it comes to diverting funds to combat environmental degradation and
acting on nonmilitary threats when military threats remain. Despite its huge
numerical advantage, the consensus view does not imply a n inordinately powerful ,
position.
Despite skepticism holding back many initiatives, ecological awareness h a s
continued to grow: pushed along by th e strength of th e environmental lobby; th e
occasional environmental disaster an d better and more persuasive scientific
evidence on the current an d future effects of environmental degradation.
Especially in the last ten years there h a s been a shift i n expert's perceptions of
global environmental concerns. Where scientists used to perceive th e biosphere a s
a relatively stable and hardy entity t h a t would change only gradually i n response to
human affronts, now they believe t h a t the behavior of environmental systems ar e
often quite unpredictable an d unstable.24 Of particular note is th e idea t h a t

23The war against greens h a s won support from a side range of conservative policy-
makers i n government an d from several powerful newspapers. According to one article,
this played a key role i n the Senate's unexpected failure to rat& the U.N. Biodiversity
treaty i n October, th e defeat of th e re-authorization of the Clean Water Act and reform
of th e Superfund cleanup. From David Helvarg, "The War on Greens: The anti-enviro
movement is growing- and getting uglier," The Nation,
28 November 1994, 648-649.
24Thomas F. Homer-Dixon, "Environmental Scarcity an d Global Security"
Headline Series, (New York: Foreign Policy Association, Fall 1993)) 10.
"constant pressure may not have a noticeable effect for a long period. But sooner or later
the system's resilience or buffering capacity is gone and even a small additional pressure
nudges it across a critical t h r e ~ h o l d . "That~~ critical thresholds are near or have
been reached, however, remains difficult to prove. The growing acceptance of this
assumption, however, combined with new evidence of the continued spectacular growth
in world population (pointed out in the recent UN Cairo summit), and the consequential
accelerating demand for resources, are some of the reasons why levels of environmental
concern continue to mount. As newer understanding of the effects of biodiversity lost and
global warming have reinforced perceptions of the fragile interconnectedness of the
biosphere, a more and better informed consensus opinion is emerging- one better able to
counter the skeptics.

Despite this progression of environmental concern, the legacy of skepticism

remains deeply entrenched. This is especially true in the developing nations of Latin
America where other economic and domestic matters retain a much greater importance
and environmental concerns take a back seat to development. In most of Latin America,
to a much greater extent than in the US, the resolution of environmental concerns is set
aside if no "crisis" or disaster can be clearly proven. Also, in the developing nations of the
Western Hemisphere, environmental issues are still considered a rich world prerogative-
problems to be addressed when development goals have been reached. And, any pressure
to amend development policies from the outside quickly turns into a n issue of national
sovereignty. Unfortunately, the consequences of environmental degradation are
particularly acute in Latin America. The extractive nature of most latin economies, their
continued rapid population growth, and the nature of their tropical soils are but a few of
the reasons t h a t the costs of environmental degradation are greater there than in the US
or Canada.

When former Brazilian President Collor de Mello told a gathering of

businessmen i n London that, "let us not forget tha t there is no worse pollution tha n
poverty. Huma n rights and environmental concerns are meaningless in the absence of a
global development strategy." He implied that development an d environmental concerns
are independent notions, and tha t development can precede environmental concerns. He
was essentially sighting the path the industrialized, developed world took many decades
ago; under different environmental circumstance and in a world lacking in environmental
concerns. Such a statement is understandable coming from a ma n who represents a
nation desperate to break out of the third world mold and emerge a s a developed one.
What is becoming increasingly clear, however, is t h a t de Mello's ideas were only
marginally true for the developed world, a s it struggles with its own environmental
nightmares, and totally unsound for a tropical developing world faced with a burgeoning
population and exhibiting a n unprecedented ability to cut down, burn out, sell off, and
pollute its land. I n many developing nations, environmentally sound "sustainable"
development is actually the key to their economic success rather tha n a burden to it-
here lies their comparative advantage. Much of the developed world was simply lucky.
The nature of its resource base, climate, soils and a moderate technology to pollute its
own land allowed it, in addition to the great wealth it amassed, to develop non-extractive
based industries i n time to tur n its environmentally unsound practices around.
Concurrently, its political culture finally, although begrudgingly and still skeptically,
accepted environmental consciousness as valid and important which allowed adoption
widespread notions of quality of life and environmental awareness. These ideas
embraced environmental protection over development at any cost. The evidence pouring
in from around th e developing world indicates tha t sort of luck will not be repeated
there. The hope tha t development will bring with it a holy grad of sound environmental
practices seems to deny th e historical record, current evidence and political culture of
those regions.

Though absolutes are hard to find, it is reasonably apparent t h a t th e continued

level of environmental degradation seen t h u s far is not a s tolerable as it

21
once was even just 20 years ago. The world's capacity to destroy its environment
continually increases in conjunction with growing world population- demanding more
land and resources- and the increased technological ability to accelerate degradation and
resource depletion continues a t a rate unheard of just a few decades ago. In much of
Latin America, even potentially sustainable resources such as timber and fish are being
depleted a t such a rate and manner that permanent ecosystem damage is risked. But,
because of lingering uncertainty about where and when critical environmental thresholds
might be crossed, resource dependency, debt problems, and a drive for development,
definitive action to prevent the loss of sustainable levels is difficult to provoke. Nearly
universally accepted by scientists and forward-looking defense planners, however, is the
fact that in the future there will be no shortage of ominous signals from our environment.
Even if no thresholds are breached and no dramatic environmental disasters occur in the
near future we can be sure that environmental problems will remain a s prominent issues
on scientific, policy and public agendas.26

In sum, although intuitively the US seems ready to accept the security

dimensions of environmental degradation, what combination of immediacy and proof
is needed to impel widespread action is difficult to determine. That this combination
can be found and addressed before sustainable levels of destruction have been passed
is the ultimate environmental security goal.
The call for environmental issues to be faced not merely from a rich world quality
of life issue, a s they customarily have, but rather from a legitimate US national security
perspective is now hardly radical. Especially since it has become obvious that the rate of
traditionally quoted environmental degradation (deforestation, pollution etc.) a s well a s
the number of new emerging threats continues to increase. Also, although understanding
the dimensions of the world's environmental problems has, in a sense, been under way for
more than two decades, understanding environmental threats and acting to stop or slow it
are
two entirely different matters. Changing human behavior is a difficult and slow process.
We cannot deny t h a t many environmental threats first echoed twenty years ago remain
and in many cases continue to mount. Adding fuel to the skeptics fire, however, is th e
fact tha t the kind of widespread environmental devastation many pundits warned ha s
not yet been seen despite staggering jumps in energy consumption, carbon emissions,
water consumption, fish consumption, land degradation and deforestation. "While the
last decades have seen increasing environmental damage around the globe, for the most
part this change ha s progressed slowly, one small change a t a time."27I n a few cases
this slow progression ha s allowed the world to move to alternate sources a s scarcities
have emerged but, mostly in the developing world it ha s also allowed nations to exploit
some of their last remaining resources. Despite this, t h a t same slow sequential
progression is often used a s a testament to the validity of th e skeptics view and the
questionable legitimacy of many quoted threats.

Many questions remain unanswered regarding the extent to which we have

already gone beyond sustainable ecological levels, without knowing it, and to what
extent continuing to deny preventative action will impact security i n the future.
Establishing when thresholds will or have been exceeded an d determining where
instability of environmental systems will emerge i n response to human inputs and what
the resultant huma n response might be is still nearly impossible to predict. The future of
environmental neglect are questions only answerable by efforts which are still grasping
to understand environmental interactions. Today, it seems, environmental security is one
of the few legitimate security concerns where intuition ha s a t least a s much t o offer a s
scientific proof. The catch remains tha t when sufficient levels of proof an d immediacy
are finally apparent, sustainable ecosystems have often been destroyed. Since national
security must plan for worst-case scenarios, i n many cases we are overdue i n planning
to stop environmental degradation.
 Finally, the tenacity and determination of long-established or, in some cases, vested
interests in resisting change in the national security arena makes controversy and conflict
over environmental issues a fundamental fact of existence. It must be understood,
however, that a conflicting set of interests and perceptions is not altogether bad. The track
records of the skeptics and the consensus view are equally poor and misinformed. The
success of a truly balanced environmental policy may well rest in no small part on the
contradictions and tensions produced by these conflicting orientations. Any basic
environmental framework must be flexible enough to allow for the consensus opinion to
adopt more realistic and logically scientific points of view while the skeptics are availed
of the non-provable, esoteric, interdependent aspects of environmental security. Though
controversy will never completely depart these issues, to speed the response to the
environmental threats already acquiesced in the current national security strategy and
other literature requires that inaction or a lack of planning based on nothing more than a n
inability to define, prioritize or frame the threats be overcome. In order to do this,
however, our national security framework must be broadened.

C. THE BROADENING OF US NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY

Though the term "national security" is a widely used phrase, the concept itself is
a particularly difficult one to examine or identify with precision. Already in this
discussion we have seen that it encompasses physical defense of territory a s well a s
foreign policy goals of economic revitalization and the promotion of democracy. We
have also seen that it needs to be broadened further to easily accept new nonmilitary
threats. Though "weakly conceptualized" and " ambiguously defined", national security
is nonetheless a politically powerful concept .28

"As Joseph Romm suggests, "any term t h a t encompasses tools a s diverse a s

nuclear bombs and educational policy . . . begs for a better definition" Romm, Once and
Future Superpower, 52.
I
In its most basic form, Sam Sarkesian considers security a "state of mind" and
i
national security "is the way people feel about themselves and the confidence they have
I

I
in their leaders and the political system."29 From this perception a s well a s the
1
ambiguous nature of the issue it is understandable tha t the disputes and wide-ranging
levels of confidence surrounding US leadership and the American political system have
I

and will continue to evoke disagreements about national security specifics. This is
i especially true since the end of the cold war removed the singular national security focus
I

of th e prior half century. Prior to 1989, the unprecedented dedication to th e policy of

containment of the Soviet Union was strong enough tha t persistent disagreements did
little to alter the basic national security framework. I t was also during t h a t time tha t
the phrase "national security" became inextricably associated with military security. This
was primarily because "the principle 'external' threats to the American way of life-tha t is,
to our security- quickly came to be seen a s the spread of communism and the growing
military capability of communist c o ~ n t r i e s . " So~~ strong was th e concept an d so
unsure are we now of th e future t h a t in many ways our traditional military security
framework remains today.

Sarkesian adds tha t traditionally, "US policymakers. . . tend to equate the ideals
of American democracy with the realities of th e existing international security

I environment" and," they tend to analyze US national security posture in terms t h a t

assume and demand immaculate behavior and a n immaculate system, while often
1
glossing over the realities of th e world."31 He regards American national security

I policy a s zero-sum game oriented. Issues are either black or white, moral or immoral,
good or evil. Long term solutions are often rejected in favor of "quick-fix, short-term,
do-able frameworks. Tha t is, we tend to see a n

29Sarkesian, U.S. National Security, ix.

I 30Romm, The Once and Future Superpower. 42.

31Sarkesian, US National Security, ix.

issue only after it becomes a national security problem and to respond to that particular
problem in a traditional fashion: identify it, find the best solutions, apply them and 'fix
it,' all according to conventional notions and expectation^."^^
National security strategy during the four decades of the cold war solidified these
notions. The clear threat embodied in the American "state of mind" by the Soviet Union
was dealt with by the psychoIogically rigid, "can-do" national security strategy of
containment. As John Lewis Gaddis points out, "to a remarkable degree, containment has
been the product, not so much of what the Russians have done, or of what h a s happened
elsewhere in the world, but of internal forces operating within the United States. Given
this 'inner-directed' character, it has, for all its contradictions, mutations, and
irrationalities, been a surprisingly successful strategy"33 So successful and pervasive
was this mindset that these traditional military tenets of US national security strategy
remain predominant today despite the end of the cold war. And yet, while successful in
checking "Soviet expansion," in many regards this military oriented national security
policy failed to adequately anticipate and act on other problems now recognized a s
principle factors leading to other national security risks.34 In recent years the recognition
of new, multidimensional threats have brought with them renewed attention to the global
perspective of security. "That is, the whole idea of

a global commons, with international politics being viewed a s not a zero-sum game among
states, but rather a s a collective-sum game involving all of h ~ m a n k i n d . " ~ ~

33John Lewis Gaddis, Strategies of Containment (New York: Oxford University

Press, 1982), 357.

3 4 B ~ t t sEnvironmental, Security, 2.
35John Holdren, Thomas Homer-Dixon, Elizabeth Kirk,Ronnie Lipshutz, a n
Thomas Naff,"Environmental Dimensions of Security," Proceedings from a AAAS
Annual Meeting Symposium 9 February 1992, (Washington D.C.: American
Association for the Advancement of Science, 1992), iii.
 This perspective was large largely absent from national security thinking prior to the
end of the cold war.
I

The end of the policy of containment functionally ended the suitability of a

traditional, rigid national security orientation. If they truly ever were, today's national
security considerations are neither immaculate nor rigid and dominated by both mditary
a s well a s nonmilitary threats. Through forty plus years of containment, however, US
strategists and to some extent th e public became accustomed to associating national
security to a great, unifying, and ultimately successful theme. This is partially why, half
a decade after th e end of the cold war, the call for a new national security strategy t h a t
adequately addresses a "new world order" can still be heard. Indeed, because of th e
difficulties and uncertainties involved in establishing a new strategy some still believe
tha t the US will lack a new strategy until a containment-like focus can be found.36
Such a watershed was the end of th e cold war tha t little consensus on th e overarching
I
nature of the new security strategy currently exists. I n th e words of Professor Kenneth
Jowitt, we have "left a world of well-defined, structural boundaries for a world of ill-
defined frontier^."^^

The demand for a new strategy is great, however, an d "based on far more tha n
a desire for tidiness: without a n accepted set of guidelines governing US foreign
political and economic policy and US military strategy, coherent and effective
responses to future challenges will be all but impossible to devise and im~lernent .
"~'Lacking these guidelines, if no broadly accepted strategy exists then a long term
perspective will always lose out to short term answers. Since

36Norman D. Levin, Prisms and Policy: US Security Strategy After the Cold
War (Santa Monica: RAND, 1994), 15.
37Kenneth Jowitt, "Disintegration" a lecture given at t h e US Naval Postgraduate
School, Monterey, Ca, August 1993. Taken from Ambassador Rodney Kennedy-Minott,
"Environmental Degradation as a National Security Problem: Armed Forces" , p. 1.
many environmental threats are particularly time-critical, this lack of a coherent
security policy including environmental issues is especially risky.
Most environmental concerns, except in rare cases such as the Chernobyl accident
or the Exxon Valdez oil spill, seldom appear as immediate threats subject to "quick-fix,
short-term" solutions. Transnational environmental degradation normally stems from
long-term economic practices where villains are seldom clear and the system is far from
immaculate. And, threats resulting from years of degradation are rarely subject to a quick
fix. The difficulty in expressing these slowly-evolving environmental concerns within our
current traditional military national security structure hampers greatly our ability to deal
with them. This is precisely why national security must be broadened to allow
environmental threats to be easily understood as national security issues.

I have already discussed how skepticism and controversy are large factors in why
environmental issues currently lack adequate definition as threats. This controversy and
difficulty framing environmental threats are why many of the widely-divergent
environmental issues are still generally grouped together a s if they represent the same
type of threat. Although grouping is a n easy way to acknowledge environmental
concerns, while sidestepping controversy, it does little to address the issues. We cannot
hope to solve all environmental threats. We must recognize that only a few constitute US
national security concerns that we will be willing or capable of solving. It must also be
underscored that all environmental issues are not created equal. Though all are housed
within a interconnected system called the biosphere, they are not all security threats and
each demands a n individual assessment. Since fundamentally a n environmental security
strategy must be clear, rational and workable into a parsimonious plan, to do so we must
recognize that specific emphasis on a few particular threats can, and indeed has to exist
within the broad and interconnected context of environmental systems. The extreme
complexity of the systems themselves ought not be a barrier to addressing some of the
clear threats. It is important to avoid slipping into "environmental determinism", or t h a t
human nature is impossible to
 change and that environmental degradation is a n inescapable and inevitable thing.39
Here the skeptics point of view that man can alter his environment for the better a s well
a s for the worse must be accepted. Despite the dire outlook often encountered,
1 ~I environmental systems are quite adaptable if a timely effort is undertaken to reverse the
degradation. Since, however, most environmental issues must represent a clearly
demonstratable and immediate threat before they are acted upon, the real and most time-
i critical threats must be cleared out of the controversial whole and displayed. The catch
I

is exposing the threats a s immediate and arresting the environmental degradation before
it is too late for sustainable use to be continued. Immediacy in this sense means more
than just a threat today, rather, it includes the notion that if nothing is done soon
I permanent
1 damage will result.
In a national security sense we are continually confronted with the problem that
I
"The less apparent a security threat may be- whether military or nonmilitary- the more
that preparations to meet it are likely to be the subject of political controversy."40
Therefore, before the US can hope to begin adequately addressing environmental
security requires that specifically which of the many environmental threats fit national
security criteria, and why and how they are threatening, must be established and
logically demonstrated. Grouping threats must give way to individual treatment, and
their links to US goals, or fears, needs to be established.

1. The Security Framework

The foundation of environmental security strategy for the US must begin with
the accepted systemic changes that have recently occurred in international relations.
I
This is the notion that national security interests have fundame*tally

39Homer-Dixon,"EnvironmentalScarcity and Global Security," 13.

40Ri~hardH. Ullman, "Redefining Security," International Security, Summer

1993, 135.
split from one dominant threat to a number of threats arising from multiple sources. For
example, though there still exists a very real threat of a resumption of hostilities with
Russia, the growing potential for weapons of mass destruction falling into th e hands of
ambitious countries, or groups seeking hegemonic leadership via these weapons, is a
relatively new but very real threat. Also, a still new but largely accepted threat stems from
illicit drugs streaming in from abroad. Although quite different from one-another, what
these examples share is t h e fact tha t in th e American psyche they have been framed i n a
way tha t they appear as immediate threats. To combat them traditional national security
tactics, including intelligence an d military forces, have been mobilized. A rational
workable strategy, i n essence, now exists for these issues. The broadening of US national
security strategy required to include them was relatively uncomplicated because of the
ease i n tieing them to traditional national security perceptions an d solutions. Regional
stability undermined by t h e growing world imbalance i n population an d development
between th e "rich" north an d th e "poor" south is another new threat, however, where
immediacy is more difficult to prove and a traditional solution is not as appropriate- and
hence few strategies currently exist. The very real threa t from th e deterioration of the
earth's environment shares this dubious position. The national security broadening
required to include these issues demands a liberal acceptance of new types of nonmilitary
threats a s well a s the adoption of non-traditional tools an d approaches.

As stated previously, environmental concerns ar e difficult to introduce into a

broadening national security policy because of th e many overlapping, interactive and
unknown forces at work i n t h e biosphere. Though understandable, due to the lack of
knowledge surrounding some specific issues, this is precisely why grouping a large
number of environmental threats together under th e same heading is so troublesome.
While the specific interactions leading to many of th e environmental issues cited remain
a mystery, t h e impact of others is more clear. It is these threats, already manifest, t h a t
mus t be singled out, evaluated, a n d specifically enumerated i n security policy. Since
too many environmental issues have
unknown interactions, and thu s invite controversy and inaction, a t present most of these
must be deleted so t h a t the few remaining threats can be given the attention they
demand. Unfortunately, this line of thinking is often seen a s tantamount to waiting until a
n environmental disaster strikes before acting - a traditional tenet of US national security
planning. The problem remains tha t what constitutes and environmental disaster, besides
a n oil spill or nuclear meltdown, h a s yet to find a definitive definition. Since many feel
tha t we are already ignoring many disastrous environmental situations, then narrowing
our scope only means prioritizing existing crises. This approach, however, must be
understood to only represent a beginning. As I have eluded earlier, "The real challenge is
to go beyond viewing environmental issues as discrete problems, and begin moving to
the basic economic and social reforms tha t are needed if we ar e to save the planet."41
Though a n economic an d social focus is the eventual goal, this does not mean tha t
environmental issues a r e not national security concerns. They ar e merely nonmilitary
concerns demanding non-traditional security solutions. We need a functional way i n
which to start addressing environmental threats by cutting through the controversy
surrounding the unknown nature of many of the quoted threats and the difficulty i n
placing them within the national security strategy. This priority limiting procedure is also
a necessity i n financially difficult times. Some long term perspectives must,
unfortunately, wait until the process of dealing with the immediate threats gives security
planners the tools to address the long-term issues. By establishing a rational beginning, th
e US can begin to move from conceptualizing th e threats an d responding to disasters to
finally shaping a more holistic an d environmentally healthy policy. "The environment
can then move to the center of economic decision making, where it belongs."42

41Lester R. Brown, Christopher Flavin an d Sandra Postel, Saving the Planet:

How to Shape an Environmentally Sustainable Global Economy (New York: W.W.
Norton & Company, 1991), 13.

421bid., 11.
 2. Why a National Security Perspective ?
At this point it may seem strange to even ask this question since the assumption
all along h a s been tha t environmental degradation does indeed pose a US national
security threat . I t still does. However, given th e previous discussion on the dichotomy
of views regarding the environment, the necessary limitations of
a security perspective, an d th e difficulty involved in broadening US national
security policy, we mus t re-visit this question.
Despite the supposition t h a t environmental security is a widely accepted notion,
the mere mention of environmental issues as national security concerns continues to elicit
strong criticism even from some who consider themselves environmentalists. For
example, Daniel Deudney feels t h a t environmental security imbues "cycles of alarm a n
d complacency [that] ar e not likely to establish permanent patterns of environmentally
sound behavior, an d 'crash' solutions ar e often bad ones"43 Consequently, h e appraises
national security strategy a s a negative way to address environmental issues. I n a similar
vein, Ronnie D.
Lipshutz of th e University of California a t Sant a Cruz feels t h a t by treating
environmental degradation an d its consequences as a problem of security- and, more
specifically, national security- will create more problems tha n are solved because of the
way t h e problems ar e framed.44Framing environmental degradation a s a national
security issue may, i n his view, imply the use of a particular set of tools (namely the
military) t h a t a r e entirely inappropriate to the task a t hand. Though this criticism may
a t first seem valid, since national security strategy appears predisposed to only respond to
disasters an d a military approach is indeed an d improper way to confront many
environmental issues, these critics miss the fundamental necessity of addressing certain
environmental issues from a security perspective. This understanding is crucial to t h e
environmental security

43Daniel Deudney, "Environment an d Security: Muddled Thinking," The

Bulletin o f the Atomic Scientists, April 1991.
44Holdrenet. al., Environmental Dimensions of Security, 1.
debate.
US national security strategy is set up to represent "both Americas interests and
our values."45 Though some have argued t h a t following a dated and rigid strategy is
precisely why America faces some of its most serious problems today, and tha t it can
only deal with short term problems which environmental issues are not, this debate is
shortsighted. The scope and nature of transnational environmental degradation demands
tha t it becomes a n issues of US foreign policy and international negotiations. I t is
issues of national sovereignty, international law and interstate trade t h a t put
transnational environmental issues squarely i n this light. They ar e immediately foreign
policy concerns representing new, unique, and complicated issues. Solutions, however,
need not always be framed in a military light. Indeed, other tools ar e demanded and, in
fact, must take precedence to address environmental issues. Transnational environmental
threats demand a new agenda tha t is sensitive to th e unique needs posed by
environmental degradation. If other means fail, however, worst case national security
planning demands tha t we be prepared to protect our environmental security by an y
means at our disposal. This could involve military action. This is also not to say t h a t
some military applications ar e not a n appropriate way to address many environmental
problems - i n many cases such a s maritime monitoring an d sample gathering they
represent th e best way.46

At this point we must also be careful not to confuse transnational environmental

threats with other environmental concerns t h a t can be effectively dealt with by
education, legislation an d a n evolving value system tha t appreciates environmental
protection. This is precisely why domestic environmental issues do

*White House, National Security Strategy.

46Fora n excellent look a t the US Navy's capabilities i n the environmental

security arena see, National Security Planning Associates, "The Environment &
National Security: The U.S. Navy's Capabilities an d Requirements," A study
submitted to The Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Logistics) and The defense
Nuclear Agency, September 1993.
not represent US national security threats even though they may fit the same criteria and
pose some of the same risks. Compared to purely domestic environmental degradation,
transnational environmental degradation is simply not subject to the same solutions and
requires different tactics. This is a subtle yet important distinction that points to why
transnational environmental issues fall under the rubric of US security policy while
domestic degradation does not. Also, we must not forget that "economic revitalization" is
a principle goal under the national security strategy. Economic emphasis is, by definition,
a security consideration but one which today has only a small military component. The
economic components of environmental degradation will be discussed later in this paper.

Though demanding nonmilitary tools to counter, this simply does not mean that
environmental issues do not constitute national security threats. Though economic and
political considerations must eventually be the driving force in environmental protection
we must not forget that national security encompasses a wide range of tools each of which
can play a large and pivotal role. Environmental security is a marriage between national
security goals and foreign policy and, because of its diversity, complexity and scope, will
require a variety of means and tactics be employed to achieve it. Though economic and
social elements will eventually overshadow our current military security orientation, and
indeed the two perspectives are intertwined, all these perspectives currently lack a
comprehensive understanding of how to achieve environmental security. There is no
reason to think, however, that diplomatic action, military capacity and economic pressure
cannot all be used in conjunction in a coherent policy.

When, for instance diplomatic efforts fail to break through issues of

sovereignty, or the limited usefulness of the military leaves the economic tool a s the
primary means of securing environmental security then that tool must be used. We can
surmise, however, t h a t left on its own only when economic development cannot
proceed without environmental protection (either due to legislation or scarcities) will the
economic perspective fully assert itself. Naturally
occurring, this is quite a way off. The economic and social cost advantage of
environmental security are notions only beginning to be realized and the ties between
environmental protection an d economic prosperity are a long way from being
understood on a global level. Forcing environmental degradation into a national security
light can help speed up this process. Economic pressure then can be used a s the needed
element to force the environmental issue. And, where economic pressure does not work
political and, if needed, military pressure might. To deny any one of these elements risks
undermining our capability to achieve environmental security.

If the National Security Strategy represents predominant interests and values

(despite its still evolving character) then it remains a n appropriate framework from
which to confront transnational environmental degradation. Though its traditional
structure may slow progressive thinking, it is a governmental reality. National security
strategy will continue to evolve to accept nonmilitary threats but probably not in a
revolutionary way- a t least concerning th e environment. Like it or not, this political
reality must be understood by those concerned with environmental protection. Despite
this, if transnational environmental issues fit national security criteria then placing them
there offers the best hope for immediate action. Reconciling them a s national security
priorities is the only way to speed up policy evolution to where enough resources and
pressure can be brought to bear to influence other nation states. This will include
military, economic a n d political measures. Furthermore, labeling a problem a "national
security threat" h a s in the past implied t h a t it takes precedence over other problems a
n d allows political leaders to marshal the "full capabilities of the American
System."47And, since tactically a national security vocabulary may be more conducive
to alerting and fund raising purposes, then

47Romm, The Once and Future Superpower, 56.

35
framing environmental threats as national security issue is appropriate.48
A final point to note is that even in a traditional sense, the US national security
strategy has faced long-term threats. "The doctrine of containment, and the idea of the
Cold War, were themselves based on the notion that US national security depended on
victory in a long-term struggle with the soviet^."^^ It was former Secretary of State
Dean Acheson in 1947 who stated: "We are in a period now I think of the formulation of
mood. The country is getting serious. It is getting impressed by the fact that the business
of dealing with the Russians is a long, long job.050 Since the nature of transnational
environmental degradation demands that it be dealt with as a long-term security
objective, that policy simply needs to be careful to avoid "cycles of alarm" and focus on
the "long, long job" ahead. This means that environmental threats need to be framed as
permanent threats to US national security; not subject to quick solution but rather
focusing on a continuous effort.

3. The Security Criteria

Although the concept of national security is vague and subject to many
interpretations, some general guidelines are still easily found. For instance, it follows
from the preceding discussions that in order to establish working criteria from which to
evaluate transnational environmental threats the standing and traditional aspects of
national security must be accepted. Since environmental issues have now entered into
the security calculus, to address them they must be framed in such a way a s to reflect
these traditional and widely-acceptable concerns. To avoid further delays means that
immediacy must be proven and, to appease the public, some measurable return should
be apparent. In terms of the

*01av Schram Stokke, "Western Environmental Interests in the Arctic,"

Centrepiece, Number Twenty-one, Winter 1991-92, 1.
49Romm,Defining National Security, p. 99 n80.
three central goals of the July 1994 National Security Strategy discusses earlier,
environmental security aspects should tie into a t least one, if not all, of these goals. For
example, the military can and, if appropriate, should be involved in some capacity.
Economic revitalization either in increased trade, protected markets or increased
efficiency should be demonstrated, and democracy can be promoted if regional stability
is enhanced. Indeed, promoting regional stability remains the cornerstone in all three of
these traditional goals. Simply, environmental elements must be clearly shown to
correspond to traditional tenets of US security and foreign policy objectives.

As Peter Gleick of the Global Environmental Program a t the Pacific Institute

accurately points out, "What is required is not a redefinition of international or national
security, a s some have called for, but a better understanding of th e nature of certain
threats to security . . . "51 Environmental security must not be seen as a n anomaly to
traditional national security missions. It is apparent t h a t environmental concerns a r e
here to stay and will only grow i n importance. Their inclusion in national security
planning is, therefore, a natural evolution. But, a s I have pointed out, this is a very slow
and controversial. I n order to clarify issues, limit controversy an d help foster more
immediate action, environmental concern's direct ties to these traditional goals needs to
be clearly shown.

Beyond this, however, forward thinking into a n unknown arena demands tha t
new notions of security are not neglected t o help define and evaluate th e threats. As
previously stated, regional instability is a primary consideration. Expressed i n th e NSS
and other reports, th e problem with instability is t h a t with all its "permutations an d
variations" a concise definition or instability is nearly impossible to create.52
Environmental degradation a s a primary or contributing

511bid., 33.

, 5%inott, "Environmental Degradation As A National Security Problem," 2.

37
factor here needs to be made clear. Additionally, although Richard Ullman is among
those who believes that defining national security in traditional terms "conveys a
profoundly false image of reality," his "re-definition" of security is still helpful in terms
of broadening without necessarily re-defining policy.53 For example, he suggests that a
national security threat is an action or sequence of events that:

1) Threatens drastically and over a brief span of time to degrade the quality of
life for the inhabitants of a state, or 2) threatens significantly to narrow the range
of policy choices available tovthegovernment of a state or to private
nongovernmental entities (persons, groups, corporations) within the state.

Ullman's definition has been widely quoted a s a model to show a new

direction that a post-cold war policy, including environmental security, should .
follow. This view accepts the traditional demand of immediacy - "over a brief
span of time"- but introduces a new notion in "quality of life for the inhabitants
of a state." National security focusing on a n individual or regional "quality of life"
perspective, rather than a n all-encompassing territorial or population wide perspective, is
a n element which has important environmental security implications. As regional conflict
and instability have been emphasized with the end of the cold war, the notion that threats
to the US may impact only one region's quality of life rather than the nation a s a whole
needs to be included in the security equation. This is especially important regarding
environmental threats since, though often global in character, certain border regions
usually face the brunt of the impact.

Though Ullman's is not the only attempt to expand national security to include
new global realities, his is the most widely-accepted representative of the

53Ullman, "Redefining Security," 129.

38
recent attempts." What they all share is the demand that security considerations that are
felt aesthetically a s well a s explicitly, (like quality of life or national well-being) are
included in new security calculations. Although these notions have in the past paled in
comparison with many traditional military notions of national security, new global
realities including the environment are demanding new security considerations.

While these basic criteria are necessarily rough, some characteristics remain clear
while others will depend on specific circumstances. Additionally, since the number or
ratio or elements which need to be applied to evaluate environmental threats is difficult
or impossible to establish, since there are so many unknowns, then the issues resulting
from this most basic analysis will require a much deeper examination in the future.
Although immediacy of a threat within a fairly short time parameter must be
demonstrated, a wide range of other factors attributable to important regional differences
can be included in the consideration. Therefore, these criteria are also fully open to
expansion to fit regional needs.

What has been presented thus far are some of the issues surrounding
environmental degradation which provide the basic understanding needed to form a
framework for environmental security. It is to these basic tenets that other perceptions of
environmental security can be tied. Also from this discussion seven basic criteria have
emerged with which to evaluate issues. They are: 1. effect on regional instability 2. the
required demonstration of immediacy, 3. linkages to threats arising which demand a US
military retaliation, 4. linkages to America's

54Anyonetrying to define environmental security is, in'essence, trying ta push open

the framework of national security. For instance, The Institute for Word Economy and
International Relations and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution conclude:
Environmental security is the reasonable assurance o f protection against threats
to national well-being or the common interests o f the international community
associated with environmental damage. Also, a good survey of many other attempts
a t re-defining national security can be found in Romm, The Once and Future
Superpower, 54.
economic revitalization, 5. the ability to promote democracy, 6. effects on quality of life
or national well-being, and 7. influence on limiting the range of policy choices available
to the government or private non-governmental entities within the state. Though
overlapping, interconnected and in some sense all-encompassing, it is in tieing these
basic national security criteria to specific environmental issues which will determine
whether or not those issues constitute US national security threats. And, it is to these
criteria that environmental degradation issues must be compared and clear causal ties
drawn. Before we can begin to look a t individual concerns, however, some issues and
definitions must first be made clear.

4. Issues and Definitions

The issues t h a t I chose to evaluate represent the widely-quoted environmental
themes listed in the literature surrounding environmental security or expanded notions of
US national security. Most have been brought up in the previous discussion and all afford
potential threats to the United States. Since the interdependence and underlying causes
are diverse and often still unknown, general themes are a necessary beginning. Of course,
because most issues interrelate, attacking one or several causes may also solve other
effects. The key remains stopping endless cycles of environmental degradation so that
unforeseen, and potentially devastating repercussions are avoided. Unfortunately, the
amount of understanding surrounding the carry-over effect of solving environmental
problems is even less well known than the effects of continued degradation.

Though environmental degradation is a worldwide phenomenon, the vast majority

of the environmental security implications for the US stem from our own Hemisphere.
Also, many problems associated with environmental degradation are not recognized well
i n a global setting and the greater number of countries involved makes global agreements
more difficult to achieve. Because of this, consideration of threats is limited to only those
inherent to the Americas. Limiting the scope in this manner both enables a more precise
evaluation of the
impact of environmental degradation on the US and allows for more tangible ways to
address th e degradation where US hegemony is the greatest.
Though a holistic systematic approach is the ultimate environmental security goal,
it is imperative that we begin to solve some of these issues before sustainable use and
crucial ecosystem integrity is lost. Therefore, the most important of these issues demands
individual attention until the interrelations manifest themselves and the resultant effects
of trying to solve the degradation are understood. As previously stated, grouping th e
diverse threats together, despite their interconnectedness, precludes th e specific national
security implications of individual threats from emerging clearly and the vast scope of
such groping lends a deterministic air to the project. My purpose here, therefore, extends
to only those individual issues which represent priorities under current national security
realities tha t can effectively be dealt with today. Though to some extent environmental
degradation happens whenever man enters or influences a n environmental system, for
this kind of analysis we must also be careful how we use some terms.

For this study, I use Thomas Homer-Dixon's definition of environmental

degradation as t h a t man-caused damage to th e basic natural resources necessary for
survival. Though basic survival is indeed often threatened by environmental
degradation, new notions of security make it appropriate to widen th e term "survival"
to include both length and quality of life for which Americans have become
accustomed. Though "quality of life" is itself vague term with far-ranging connotations,
i n this case I limit it to objective notions of health and safety rather t h a n subjective
longings for a pristine environment. This definition essentially means t h a t a
sustainable, non-polluting level of resource use does not constitute environmental
degradation. Soils, water or forests, for instance, remaining substantially undamaged so
t h a t they can continually provide produce, fish, timber an d recreation for generations
ar e considered examples of sustainable use. When, however, environmental systems or
natura l resources are depleted or misused to th e point t h a t sustainable use has or risks
becoming impossible, then
it constitutes environmental degradation. If that environmental degradation also impacts
one or more of the national security criteria previously described then that
environmental issue can be considered a US national security threat.
Although environmental "accidents", like large oil spills or nuclear contamination,
easily fit a s "man-caused damage to natural resources necessary for survival," and
certainly can degrade quality of life, I hesitate to include them a s environmental
degradation. Polluting and transportation industries need to be regulated to avoid
accidents- this has already been widely accepted. If that is done effectively then accidents
cannot be treated a s national security concerns. Though stricter regulations in these areas
may be needed, the force of a national security framework is not needed. This unless the
resultant effects are endemic, and then by definition are not accidents, then they are
excluded from this discussion. So, though environmentally destructive accidents are a
great cause for concern they do not generally constitute national security threats. This
thesis is more interested in the elusive, controversial and often overlooked everyday
practices which contribute to environmental degradation and which constitute national
security threats. In any event, environmental accidents should be considered a "special
case" of environmental degradation.

What follows is a brief description of the primary environmental issues which

have been considered threatening to the United States. For ease of discussion, the issues
are broken up into three categories. For the first two I follow Joseph Romm's
differentiation of transnational environmental or resource problems that threaten US
security i n a traditional sense followed by those that threaten the US more broadly. By
traditional, I mean those issues which seem to threaten US territorial integrity, natural
resources, or which pose a dire short term threat to a significant portion of the
population. The second or broader category concerns itself with quality of life issues and
generally looks a t longer-term threats. Finally, since primary causes of environmental
degradation represent only part of the environmental security story, I also look at some of
the social effects of environmental degradation and apply the same criteria.
 111. ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY THREATS TO THE UNITED STATES
Among the more established, and often doubted, environmental threats to
US national security are the much touted trans-global dangers posed by global warming,
the hole in the ozone layer, acid rain, loss of genetic biodiversity, and air pollution.
Increasingly, however, new and more regional environmental threats have intruded on
the national consciousness. Within the context of a post-cold war world, it is these
threats, no less dangerous than the others but appearing more immediate, that have
helped push the environment a s a security concern past the veil put up by the skeptics
and which seem to demand consideration now. Among these new threats we find the
increasing potential conflicts over limited fresh water supplies, border pollution,
environmental refugees, environmental terrorism and the threat of peasant uprising with
environmentally driven causes.. As the world is becoming increasingly interdependent
both environmentally a s well a s economically, the number of transnational
environmental concerns continues to mount.

Although to some degree or another all of these environmental issues threaten the
United States, it is the latter concerns which come closest to traditional security threats.
For instance, acid rain has destroyed plant and animal ecosystems in the US for many
years and has done untold damages. Though widely reported, acid rain concerns are
miner compared with the concern put toward resolving the current immigration crisis. If
a clear environmental link between the Haitian exodus, for example, can be found and
the same trends risk spreading to other Caribbean and Latin American nations, the notion
that this type of environmental threat demands a security consideration appears more
immediate than acid rain. Illegal immigration is a n issue that has been fcamed in such a
way that its immediate security implications have been examined and, a s opposed to
issues like acid rain, accepted. If environmental degradation can be shown to be a clear
culprit in this emigration, then its security implications will gain legitimacy. Whether or
not the environmental link to emigration is a strong one, however, still has yet to be
determined. This example shows us that how the
threats are framed is vitally important, and by showing clear causal ties to accepted
national security concerns legitimacy for environmental threats can be gained.

Recently, in Chiapas Mexico a peasant uprising emerged from one of the most
economically and environmentally eroded parts of Mexico. That rebellion gathered
surprising strength and support throughout ~ e x i d oand, though now mostly defused,
risks coming alive a t any time. The potential of hordes of refugees swarming over the
border from Mexico in the wake of a full scale civil war, with environmental degradation
a s a contributing factor, is another example of an environmental security issue
demanding evaluation. Both of these examples hint a t what may be the most pressing of
all the environmental security concerns facing the United States. As soil is depleted and
either deteriorates or leaches away, water supplies fail and forests and grasslands are
consumed, developing world economies can begin to falter and decline. Since already
more than 40 percent of US exports go to the developing world, this process can have
serious consequences for the future of the US economy.55 In addition, payment of the
billions of dollars i n outstanding loans made to the developing world by U.S. banks
depend largely upon the continually improving economic performance of the debtor
countries.56

Thus far I have provided broad strokes in terms of what needs to be considered
when evaluating environmental concerns. We can see quickly that environmental ties to
what can be considered security concerns cover a wide range of diverse issues. These
include a broad context from primary sources of environmental degradation to social
effects and from more traditional to newer security considerations. Many of the effects, i
n turn, can provide the source for additional degradation i n a destructive cycle. What
may begin merely a s a quality

"Norman Myers, "Environment and Security," Foreign Policy, Spring 1989, 24.
of life issue can become a traditional national security threat if degradation progresses
to the point where social upheaval or mass migration takes place. The
interconnectedness of the environmental systems a s well a s human responses to
ecological pressures cannot be overemphasized.
We have also seen tha t to avoid controversy surrounding the specific an d poorly
understood environmental threats, while still admitting the importance of the entire
phenomenon, the temptation to group all environmental threats into one category is
great. By framing environmental security concerns too broadly, however, we limit the
influence the term conveys to a particular problem an d our ability to confront the issue.
Since I argue that we need to focus on specific areas if we hope to begin engaging
environmental problems, then we must narrow our scope to only those problems which
fit specific criteria and represent defensible threats. To t h a t end, the next section w d
examine several environmental issues to demonstrate how only certain problems can be
expressed a s national security threats.

A. TRANSNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL OR RESOURCE PROBLEMS

THAT THREATEN US SECURITY IN A TRADITIONAL SENSE

I begin with a few examples of threats t h a t ar e more acute and often regionally
focused. These issues primarily involve resources which can be claimed directly by th e
US or, whose effects directly threaten US citizens. I t must be noted tha t some
seemingly obvious issues which would be included in this category ar e omitted. These
include the environmental consequences of warfare and eco-terrorism. Though some
authors consider th e environmental effects of warfare a separate an d distinct category, I
feel that thi s only confuses the issue and these threats should not be considered separate
from th e threat imposed by the cdnflict itself.57 War is by definition a national security
concern, its plethora of security

57Agood example is found in Susan D. Lanier-Graham, The Ecology of War:

Environmental Impacts of Weaponry and Warfare (New York: Walker an d
threats do not need further differentiation. Although the military itself and mobilization
for war can represent tremendously polluting activities, and hence fit the definition of
environmental degradation, these are best considered domestic concerns until war erupts-
and then are by definition national security threats. In
a similar manner, nor does eco-terrorism fit the focus that I have established. Eco-
terrorism is terrorism. It is by definition a national security threat.
The following discussion's main concern is on issues which have had a more
difficult time establishing themselves a s national security threats. These are the hidden,
insidious threats; the long-term by-products of short-term thinking and poor economic
planning rather than overt acts of aggression. In order to be accepted a s national security
threats, however, these issues must be presented in such a way that clear causal links to
national goals and values are established. Although this brief examination will require
much more in-depth analysis later, I am merely looking to show how environmental ties
to the basic national security criteria can be demonstrated. This in order to get a feel for
the true extent and nature of environmental security.

1. Border Pollution
Pollution is certainly a world wide phenomenon. The range of discussion
possible surrounding its implications on the US in general are so vast that a n in-depth
analysis will require a massive effort. In terms of identifying some basic environmental
security implications of pollution, however, some general impressions can easily be
found. First, without getting into the debate about how much of the problem can be
linked to US owned industries in Mexico or the Caribbean which cause much of the
pollution (a subject which will certainly blur the focus of this argument) we must
concentrate instead on where heavy metals, chemicals, radioactive materials, mineral
tars, petroleum chemicals, refined petroleum, manufactured fertilizers and other
polluting products enter or impact

Company, 1993).
 the US which threaten its security under the criteria established. Or, more clearly, are
there instances where pollutants entering or effecting the US can be clearly shown to
threaten the US and which are not subject to domestic control.
I

Though a comprehensive evaluation of this question will eventually need to be

undertaken, a few examples stand out.
Though many airborne and seaborne contaminants pose serious risks to the
health and quality of life in th e US, the border regions between the US and
Mexico provides the clearest examples of a pollution-related environmental threat.
Border rivers are a n especially important case. The Rio Grande, the largest of the
rivers shared by the US an d Mexico, is a good example of a river currently under
, siege by pollution. Dissolved metals, including mercury and aluminum, are
routinely found in large quantities in the river water. Due to discharge of
I
untreated sewage in Nuevo Laredo, the river is unsafe for 25 miles downstream
where fecal contamination levels often exceed, sometimes by a factor of a hundred,
standards established to protect public health.58 Since th e Rio Grande provides the
primary source of the drinking water used in large areas surrounding the river,
these contaminants present a serious health threat to residents- either through
ingestion, contact with polluted water, or respiration of volatile chemicals a s they
e ~ a p o r a t e . ~In' the Brownsville area, unexpectedly high rate s of spina bifida and
other related birth defects have been noted with pollution a s th e primary culprit.
However, "Like most medical problems attributed to pollution, the causes of the
t birth defects in Brownsville ar e almost impossible to document; there are too may
factors to i~olate . "~In' addition to the health risk associated with drinking water,

58John Cavanagh, John Gershman, Karen Baker an d Gretchen Helmke, '

Trading Freedom: How Free Trade Affects Our Lives, Work, and Environment,
(Montpelier, Vermont: Capital City Press, 1992), 68.
 'Wichael Parfit, "Troubled Waters Run Deep," National Geographic, Vol. 184, No.
5A, 1993, 82.
contaminated water is routinely taken from th e river to irrigate crops. This subsequently
poses a health threat to both agricultural workers and consumers of agricultural products
harvested from those fields.
In addition to the Rio Grande, the Rio NuevoINew River flowing from
Mexicali Mexico is another environmental catastrophe. Known today a s "the US'S
dirtiest river, perhaps the most polluted stretch of river in all of North America,"
the New River crosses into the US a t Calesico, California and flows all the way
through the Imperial Valley to the Salton Sea, California's largest lake.61 With
pollution so bad th e people are advised not even to go near the river i n some
places, the river water contains "every disease known i n the Western
Hemisphere", an d over a hundred toxic pollutants have been detected in the
waters including PCB's, vinyl chloride, an d other chemicals tha t are either acutely*
toxic to human s or a r e known carcinogen^.^^ Including the Tijuana River, which is
also now considered unfit for an y use an d which h a s been implicated in th e
contamination of S a n Diego beaches, these all represent a n immediate and acute
threat to US citizens living along or near their banks of these rivers or who
consume agricultural products irrigated with river waters. Additionally, an y
large-scale outbreak of disease stemming from these rivers on either side of th e
border could migrate into much larger areas of t h e US. The national security
demand to address th e cleanup of these rivers primarily surrounds the immediate
threat to the safety a n d quality of life for border residents.
Looking at other criteria, though specific instances where regional stability was
clearly undermined by pollution are difficult to find, the notion t h a t pollution is a
factor i n regional disagreements within other Western Hemispheric countries can clearly
be seen i n th e large metropolitan area s around Mexico City, Rio de Janero an d Sao
Paulo. Although pollution alone does not currently pose an y

'lcavanough, "Trading Freedom," 69.

'?Ibid.
48
immediate stability threat in the Americas, its contributing nature a s a regional
destabilizing effect must be taken seriously.
In terms of the overall security threats to the US stemming from transnational
pollution, this depends upon how broadly national security policy is willing to extend to
accept a limited area an d limited number of people. As untreated waste from border
rivers threatens US citizens and toxic fumes from copper smelters in Cananea and
Nacozari Mexico continue to ride the wind into parts of California, Texas, and Arizona,
the immediacy there seems apparent. From a nation-wide perspective, however, the
threat is still limited. The bottom line remains t h a t immediacy for a definable
population of US citizens is reasonably apparent.

2. Water Quality and Scarcity

Exacerbated by pollution, fresh water represents a clear US national security
concern. Although recent floods seem to question the issue of water scarcity, it is
important to note tha t "If All earth's Water fit in a gallon jug, available fresh water would
equal just over a tablespoon- less tha n half of one percent of th e t0ta1.l'~~Although
aggregate water figures seem to imply t h a t fresh water is abundant in North America,
there ar e great differences between specific regions- especially i n the American West an
d parts of Mexico. And, by the year 2000 some feel t h a t water will outstrip oil as the
world's most precious commodity. I n international relations, the talk of th e era of "water
geopolitics" h a s begun.
The strategic importance of water supplies and their national security
implications i n North America is not a new concept. For instance, Peter H. Gleick notes
t h a t i n th e 1940's when the US an d Mexico were negotiating a treaty on water rights
surrounding the Colorado River, both sides expressed great concern over th e security
implications of the resource. At t h a t time Mexican officials described access to the
river as "a national interest superior to any other, an d

63MichaelParfit, "Sharing th e Wealth of Water," 24.

Californians serving on the treaty committee warned tha t the treaty would 'strike a
deadly blow a t the country's national security by taking water away from southern
California's coastal plain."64(emphasisin original) Since the US is obliged under treaty to
supply a quantity of the Colorado River's water to Mexico, any reduction or degradation
of th e river's flow due to climactic changes or increased pollution could have immediate
national security r a m i f i ~ a t i o n s . ~ ~ Although currently many see boundary water
management between th e US and Mexico a s a successful case in conflict resolution,
increasing demands on tha t water would certainly exacerbate tensions.66 For the mean
time, however, immediacy of the threat is contingent upon other factors such a s climactic
changes or increased water degradation before it becomes a problem.

In terms of other regional stability aspects of fresh water, however, the security
implications are much more dire. I n fact, Thomas Homer-Dixon feels t h a t it is even
possible to pinpoint certain regions where water crises a r e a virtual certainty by the year
2025. Although particular concern is given to th e scarce water supplies in the Middle Eas
t a n d i n certain parts of Africa, where populations are growing rapidly a n d where
water ha s long been a source of argument between certain groups a n d societies, this
does not deny th e potential destabilizing effect of water scarcities i n th e Western H e m
i~phere.~~
I n addition to supply, water quality is also a n important question. According to
the Interparliamentary Conference on the Global Environment from 1990, in' Latin
America a n d th e Caribbean over 59 million urban residents are

64PeterH. Gleick, "The Effects of Future Climatic Changes on International

Water Resources: The Colorado River, th e United States, and Mexico," Policy
Sciences, vol. 2 1 (1988), 23-39.
65Romrn, Once and Future Superpower, 96.

66BruceMichael Bagley a n d Sergio Quezada ed,, Mexico: In Search Of Security,

(New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1993), 2 17.

67Homer-Dixon, "Environmental Scarcity an d Global Security," 27.

currently without access to acceptable sanitation services.68 This ha s the effect of
creating fertile conditions for the breeding of water-borne parasitic organisms which
prey upon the urban populace and which can easily spread or be carried northward into
the US. As dams, deforestation, global climactic changes and pollution continue to
threaten both the quality and supply of fresh water in the Americas, the future
destabilizing effects of the loss of abundant and clean fresh water should not be
understated.

3. Ocean Degradation
Covering over seventy percent of our planet, the oceans are a complex and highly
vulnerable resource. I n fact, ocean resource concerns have existed since the 1890's
when "a new an d melancholy discipline, fishery science" began to reach some sobering
conclusions about certain commercial stocks of fish in the North Sea.69 Despite
recognition of fishery decline over a hundred years ago, the ever increasing demands pu
t on fisheries everywhere have reduced many of the most important ones well below
sustainable levels. The fishery example shows how mere recognition of a threat, even if
quite early, is inadequate unless the recognition corresponds with fundamentally altered
attitudes an d policies surrounding the degradation. Also, a s the fishery example
suggests, unless a firm commitment to stopping th e degradation occurs before
"sustainable levels" are protected then permanent damage with unknown future
consequences can occur.
Currently, the U N Food a n d Agriculture Agency (FAO) places the annual
sustainable yield of th e world's ocean and freshwater fisheries a t 100 million metric
tons. Although t h e 100 million ton threshold figure is only a n estimate,

68TheInterparliamentary Conference on the Global Environment: Final

Proceedings, (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1990).
69DouglasM. Johnston, "Vulnerable Coastal an d Marine Areas: A Framework for
the Planning of Environmental Security Zones i n th e Ocean," Ocean
Development and Intei-national Law, Vol. 24, 63.
this figure combined with other evidence eludes to the fact that fish stocks are on the
verge of collapsing. "Between 1950 and 1988, the quantity of fish brought ashore
increased fivefold, from 20 million to 98 million tons."70 In 1987, the F A 0
commented:
The time of spectacular and sustained increases in fisheries catches is over.
. . Almost all important stocks. . . are either fully exploited or overfished. Many
of the stocks of more highly values species are depleted. Reef stocks and those of
estarinellittoral zones are under special threat from illegal fishing and
environmental p~llution . ~'

By the year 2000, world demand for fish is predicted to rise to 120 mdlion tons
with annual requirements reaching 160 million tons by 2025. Although some of
this demand could be met by expanding use of aquaculture, as the thresholds or
levels of sustainability are passed, especially in poor countries in Central America
and the Caribbean, peasant and small-scale fishermen will be hurt a s a key source
of protein and currency becomes scarce.72 The case for regional instability being
aggravated by fishery depletion in these countries is high.
Additionally, in the Bearing Sea and adjacent North Pacific fisheries, US
and Russian enforcement of their 200-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) has
driven several international fleets onto the high seas straddling the EEZ's and
forced them into using very long, and arbitrarily destructive, driftnets and
10nglines.~~As a result, areas of the high seas just outside US, Canadian and
Russian jurisdiction continue to be fished toward depletion and there are continual

70Homer-Dixon,Environmental Scarcity, 27.

73 Due to the increasing pressure, many Asian fleets have begun using long driftnets
and longlines using thousands of baited hooks. These are implicated in the "incidental"
losses of nontargeted fish species, seabirds, and protected marine turtles and mammals.
James M. Broadus and Raphael V. Vartanov, "The Oceans and Environmental Security,"
Oceanus, Summer 1991, 16.
debates over illegal taking of Russian, Canadian and American salmon by all sides. As
domestic pressure to protect the dwindling American fisheries continues, a willingness to
extend the EEZ and more aggressively protect these fisheries may arise naturally or be
forced by other nations.
Although the fishing issue is a poignant security issue, we must not forget tha t
the oceans are crucial to this planets's life support system and a vast variety of life live i
n or depend on the oceans for food, trade, recreation and commerce.
Though it is the huge seaborne accidents t h a t focus world attention, th e coastal seas
around the US have for decades served a s a convenient place for waste disposal. The
effects in terms of restricted fishing an d shellfishing a s well as disruption of food
chains and disrupted recreation can all be construed a s national security threats.

B. TRANSNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL OR RESOURCE PROBLEMS

THAT THREATEN US SECURITY IN A BROAD SENSE

I n addition to regional threats with fairly distinct security ramifications, there

exist other environmental issues which pose widespread risks to larger US populations
but with more diluted, incremental or more difficult to identify immediacy. Though
some specific issues i n this category, like acid rain, are omitted because primary
responsibility rests within the US itself, there ar e several other "broad" transnational
environmental threats tha t demand national security consideration.

1. Global Warming / Atmospheric and Climatic

Modifications

The issue of global climate change a n d atmospheric modification h a s received

a huge amount of attention i n recent years. Its growing importance was especially
highlighted in th e 1980's by t h e discovery of a hole over Antarctica i n the ozone
layer, which protects th e eart h from th e suns ultraviolet rays, i n 1985.
Also, the seven hottest years of the century all occurred in that one decade.'" Since then,
national and international scientific communities have reached broad consensus on
global warming and atmospheric degradation and have forwarded many dire
predictions. This culminated in a UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) statement which offered:
We are certain of the following: . . . emissions resulting from human activities are
substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases:
carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFC'c) and nitrous oxide. These
increases will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in additional
warming of the Earth's surface.75

Though the actual consequence of global warming cannot be known for certain, since
there is no historical basis for determining the outcome, the physics of greenhouse effects
are certain. It is the naturally occurring greenhouse gases such a s water vapor and carbon
dioxide which keep earth approximately 30 degree C warmer than it would be without
their presence. And observations of the atmospheres and temperatures on other planets
confirm the theory. 76 Though because of the uncertainties of the roles played by many
components of the climate system, we do not know the exact rate a t which climate
changes from a n enhanced greenhouse effect will occur.77 Best predictions of the impacts
to be expected from global warming tell us that, in addition to warmer global-averaged
temperature, many physical and biological systems will be effected. This could include
increased evaporation from the oceans and increased precipitation- although the timing
and distribution of rainfall is apt to be quite different than currently seen. Also, due to
thermal expansion of ocean water a s it warms and melting glacial ice,

74Romm,Defining National Security, 16.

751bid., 17.

76hterparliamentaryConference Proceedings, 87.

771bid.
54
 global warming is likely to increase world sea levels by approximately one foot.78
Since one third of the world's people live within 40 miles of th e sea, "where the soil is
the richest and the land the lowest," a s sea levels rise the implications
I
could be e n o r m o ~ s . ' ~Flooding forcing environmental refugees, saltwater intrusion
on freshwater supplies, degradation of agriculture, forests, grassland and
disruption of marine and coastal environments may all occur so rapidly tha t it
may preclude our abilities to adapt fast enough to stop widespread suffering.
In a worst-case scenario, the earth's temperature would increase by 5
degrees over the next 100 years.80This would invariably cause a drastic shock to
the ecosystem: perhaps causing significant melting of t h e Antarctic Ice sheet;
radically changed major ocean currents leading to altered weather patterns; or a
runaway greenhouse effect if initial warming melts the high-latitude tundra
causing a sudden release of methane gas." If realized, t h e security ramFfications
of this kind of ecological catastrophe would be huge. Widespread drought,
desertification, starvation, flooding and environmental refugees could overwhelm
our capacity to deal with these problems. The economic costs a s well a s quality of
life effects are, however, impossible to envision with an y reasonable accuracy.
I n addition to global warming, recent research suggests t h a t a 1 percent

''A one foot rise is i n th e middle of the expected range although projections
about how much, an d how rapidly it will occur ar e still very speculative.

79Romm,Defining National Security, 24.

''Over the last few years a number of experts have reached a rough consensus on
global warming. Assuming no major changes i n t h e trend of huma n emission of
greenhouse gases, t h e eart h will warm a n average of nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit by
2025 an d 5 degrees by 2100. Though this might not seem like much, the earth h a s
warmed only approximately 9 degrees since the coldest period of the last ice age.
Moreover, th e predicted rate of increase during the next 100 years will be over .5
degrees per decade, which is fa r faster t h a n an y climate change in recorded history.
Thomas F. Homer-Dixon, "Environmental Scarcity,"
20-21.

81Romm,Defining National Security, 19.

decrease in stratospheric ozone produces about a 2 percent increase in the incidence of
cancer-causing ultraviolet radiation on the surface of the earth. This, in turn produces
about a 3 percent increase in nonmelanoma skin-cancer rates.82 Though this immediate
threat clearly impacts quality of life for Americans, the harmful effects of increased
ultraviolet radiation on crops, forest, ocean phytoplankton (which form the basis of the
ocean food chain) and the health of livestock may have even greater security
implication^.^^ The extent to which, however, is impossible to predict. Perhaps with the
only exception of promoting democracy, all seven national security criteria are impacted
by this kind of environmental degradation. What is happening to the atmosphere today is
no accident. We know that the ramifications of atmospheric degradation could be huge,
and yet, for reasons previously discussed, a comprehensive national security mandate for
atmospheric degradation has not yet been formulated.

2. Loss of Genetic Biodiversity

Another widely-quoted environmental issue concerns the threats associated with
the loss of the diverse range of plant and animal species on the planet. The concept of
biodiversity encompasses virtually all life on the earth. And, altering the make-up of any
level in this interconnected chain could have dramatic effects on other biological links
including humans. Although we are dependent upon biological diversity for our basic
survival, the concept of "biodependence" is far from a guiding principle in the modern
world and the importance of genetic biodiversity is usually discussed from a strictly
utilitarian ~ t a n d p o i n t . ~ ~
Though global in scope, in the Western Hemisphere this biodiversity threat has
been most associated with tropical rain forests where it is generally

82Homer-Dixon,"Environmental Scarcity and Global Security," 22.

831bid., 23.

841nterparliamentaryConference, Final Proceedings, 103.

56
acknowledged the majority of plant and animal species, and more importantly their
genetic information, reside. Although this genetic information is a priceless resource,
objectively qualifying its US national security threat level is very difficult. When we
consider tha t scientists conservatively estimate t h a t between 4,000 and 6,000 species
a year are lost due to tropical-forest degradation, a rate 10,000 times greater than the
natural rate of extinction prior to the appearance of man, then the sheer scope of the
loss seems to immediately imply a security threat.85 As alarming a s the numbers of
species lost are, however, i n terms of th e US security criteria the impact is difficult to
trace. Though regional stability is threatened a s the economic viability of certain regions is
reduced along with their biodiversity, most of the species reduction is related to loss of
habitat associated with development practices. Though th e potential for huge economic
gains i n medicines and other specialized plant products is great for the regions which
contain this tremendous biological diversity, an d goes mostly unrealized, generally these
rainforests are currently exploited only for their more limited value a s timber, farmland or
grazing lands. I n other words, th e net economic advantage i n those countries which can
be tied to th e US economy is negligible.86 Although th e national security implication in
those countries which contain the diversity is clear, along th e lines of their own economic
revitalization, in terms of th e US threat th e risk is low. The simple fact remains t h a t
although genetic biodiversity is a fundamental part of our existence, we have learned to
thrive while only using a fraction of th e biological potential on th e planet. Of th e a t least
75,000 edible

8"f one adds th e effects of climate change, a n estimated 25 percent loss of planetary
biodiversity lost in th e next 100 years is quite realistic. Paul R. Ehrlich and Edward 0.
Wilson, "Biodiversity Studies: Science and Policy," Science, 16 August, 1991, 760. and
Mathews, "Redefining Security," 165.
86Asone 1989 study explained: "A country could exhaust its mineral resources, cut
down its forests, erode its soils, pollute its aquifers, and hunt its wildlife an d fisheries to
extinction, but measured income would not be affected as these assets disappeared."
Robert Repetto e t al., Wasting Assets, (Washington D.C.:World Resources Institute,
Jun e 1989), 2.
plant species that exist in the world, humans rely heavily on a mere 20 species,
including wheat, rye millet, and rice.87As long as crop genetic diversity is
maintained then large-scale threats to food supplies will be low.
Though mass extinctions are deplorable for their senseless waste of huge
potential to help mankind, they do not immediately threaten the US to the degree that
demands their inclusion a s a national security priority. Only when biodiversity lost
threatens crucial food chain links in what we depend on in the US will a national
security level priority be reached. Again, however, since we do not know all the crucial
linkages between levels of biodiversity in other parts of the world and our own
environmental systems, the national security implications of biodiversity lost is
impossible to determine. Species diversity and larger ecosystems are integrated networks
and the parts need to be conserved to conserve the whole. The quandary over the demand
to demonstrate immediacy versus the unknown status of this threat looms large.
Biodiversity lost is a huge global problem. It needs to be dealt with a s a high priority in
both the remaining rainforests as well a s oceans where food chains are not well
understood. Its US national security implications are, however, currently obscured by a
lack of clear causal ties to our own economic or social well-being.

3. Deforestation, Soil Erosion and Desertification

Most estimates of forest degradation vary widely since there are many different
kinds and degrees of damage. Mso, in some cases forests can recover through replanting
and natural regeneration, which tends to obscure category boundaries. Furthermore,
satellite imagery to detect the extent of deforestation is far less useful than commonly
thought and images normally must be supported by further detailed ground inspections.

Despite these problems in chronicalling the extent of the damage, it is clear

"Romm, Once and Future Superpower, 163.

58
by the current evidence t h a t forest depletion continues a t a n alarming rate.88In
terms of security threats, deforestation aggravates global warming by destroying plants
that otherwise would have removed carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Additionally, when forests ar e burned or clearcut and allowed to decay, carbon dioxide
is released into th e atmosphere.89 Especially in the tropics, where the greatest amount
of deforestation is taking place, fragile ecosystems are beginning to unravel. In these
delicate tropical soils, the removal of forest cover interrupts crucial nutrient cycling
above and below the soil. Leaching of the poor soils strips its fertility and plant a n d
animal species lose their habitats. Without the cover provided by the trees, th e
remaining soils are often washed in to rivers causing siltation and flooding. As a result,
expensive irrigation and hydro-electric systems are often rendered useless. According to
Jessica Tuchman Mathews of the World Resources Institute, "Traced through its effects
on agriculture, energy supply and water resources, tropical deforestation impoverishes
about a billion people. This pattern is endemic throughout Central America, much of
Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and South Ameri~a . "~ '

Exacerbated by deforestation, soil degradation is another major cause for

concern. Both a s source of decline in itself and its effects on other types of
environmental degradation, soil erosion or damage is causing reduced agricultural
productivity on nearly 15 percent of the earth's land area.g1 Since nearly all the world's
best farmland is already under cultivation, what is left is either less fertile, not
sufficiently rain fed, infested with pests, harder to plant and, most importantly, more
susceptible to damage from misuse. The combination of

88Each year area t h e size of Austria is deforested, Romm, Defining National

Security, 20.

'OMathews, "Redefining Security," 165.

deforestation, overcultivation, overgrazing, erosion, compacting, and salinization of
agricultural lands contribute to desertification which includes wind erosion and changes
in soil moisture due to climactic changes. Irreversible desertification annually claims a n
estimated 6 million hectares worldwide, and a n additional 2 1 million hectares annually
becomes so impoverished a s to be unprofitable to farm or graze.92All told, the planet
will lose about 100 million hectares of arable land between 1985 and 2000.93 Such huge
losses in land will mean reduced economic potential and will demand restructured land
tenure in many nations. Dwindling amounts of cultivatable land demanding land reform,
however, is among the most difficult of all political tasks and often leads directly to
conflict.

4. Population Growth
One of the underlying causes of all the preceding environmental problems,
population size is a key variable driving environmental degradation. Though not a direct
cause of environmental degradation itself, population growth exacerbates patterns of
consumption which lead to degradation. It can be said that "population growth lies a t the
core of most environmental trends."94
Although estimates vary dramatically, world population is expected to grow to 6.2
billion people by the year 2000 and perhaps 8.5 billion in the year 2025. Population
growth means more land is cleared for housing and agriculture, and more energy is
needed. Although population based environmental damage is often difticult to recognize
because it tends to manifest itself locally, the daily quest for food, fodder, fuelwood and
water, especially i n poor rural areas, can bring with it destruction on local ecosystems
very rapidly and perhaps irreversibly. Thereby contributing to deforestation, global
warming and other kinds of environmental

921nterparliamentaryConference, Final Proceedings, 97.

93Homer-Dixon,"Environmental Scarcity and Global Security," 25.

94Mathews, "Redefining Security," 163.

60
degradation. Though much of the world's population growth rates have declined in many
nations during the last twenty years, in some of the world's most crowded countries this
rate is not declining. Especially in equatorial regions where environmental consequences
are the greatest, the developing world will see the majority of the earth's population
increase.
I n Mexico, shifts in agricultural production and population growth led to the
country reverting to net importation of food in 1 9 8 6 . ~By~ the year 2000 their
population will have reached 110 million an d by 2025, 150 million. Although simple
Malthusian explanations of population growth and environmental decline have been
heavily criticized, several Mexican scholars have begun to include population growth a s
one of Mexico's major problems.96 With current population growth rates between two
and four percent, th e demands of local population on resources doubles every twenty
years. Without appreciable increases i n standard of living an d a re-directed economy
away from a n agrarian or extractive basis, these resource pressures increase competition
for land, water, and will continue to exacerbate poverty and social unrest.97

C. SOCIAL EFFECTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION

I n addition to the explicit causes of environmental degradation, there ar e
resultant social effects which also pose environmental security risks. Although the
relationship between causes of environmental degradation and environmental security
may, at first glance, seem much more urgent tha n the social effects, several effects are
themselves major causes of environmental concern. Though root causes need to be
addressed, by understanding the social effects we can better understand what causes
cycles of degradation and, hence, how to stop it. This

95Romm, Defining National Security, 24.

96Liverman, "Environment an d Security i n Mexico," in Bagley, Mexico: I n

Search of Security, 227.
thesis argues tha t the social effects of environmental degradation ar e also
intrinsically and inevitably linked to questions of US environmental security.

1. Environmental Refugees
I t is sometimes claimed t h a t environmental degradation can be a n element in
the production of vast numbers of environmental refugees an d t h a t those refugees pose
a potential US national security risk. The fears most commonly cited are the vast exodus
following a sea level rise due to global warming driving people back from coastal areas.
Also, the Haitian example of a n environmentally destroyed land becoming unable to
sustain its people, in both a qualitative and quantitative way, is also often used with dire
predictions for t h e same trends being repeated in Mexico an d th e rest of the Caribbean.
The term "environmental refugee" can be misleading, however, since it implies t h a t
environmental degradation is the direct a n d sole cause of th e refugee flows.98 Usually,
however, environmental degradation is only one of a multitude of "interacting physical
and social factors tha t may together force people from their horn el and^."^' I n this
light we must be careful how we categorize migrants who a r e motivated primarily by
other factors other t h a n environmental degradation from those environmental refugees
motivated solely by it. Though lines between th e groups a r e blurry, the distinction is a
valid one for national security consideration. Since strictly environmental reasons cannot
be attributed to most refugees currently trying to enter the US illegally, we cannot
consider them pure environmental refugees. This is not to say, however, t h a t
environmental factors a r e not important- they are. However, currently political
motivations an d a quest for a higher standard of living are the primary motivating factors.

I n Mexico, environmental degradation is playing a greater role i n tha t

"Homer Dixon, "On th e Threshold." 40.

countries economic problems which is a contributing factor in illegal immigration. If one
takes a liberal interpretation of the term, hundreds of environmental refugees enter the
US every day. Pure environmental refugees, however, are surly a thing of the future if
environmental degradation continues its course in much of Latin America.

2. Agricultural and Economic Decline

As we can see in the previous issues, a n important effect of environmental
degradation is the agricultural and economic decline it can cause. Although, climactic
changes and other cases of environmental degradation can have tremendous
repercussions for agricultural productivity i n th e US, because of its economic diversity
dramatic effects in the short term of environmental degradation directly on the US
economy ar e probably limited. Especially hard hit, however, are already poor economies
which ar e undiversified a n d hence unable to recover from environmental degradation
of this sort. Particularly i n the developing countries in the Western Hemisphere, wealth
is often directly affected by lower food output and population movements caused by
environmental degradation.'OO
Although measuring the actual amount of economic decline due to environmental
degradation on agriculture is not easy because current state GNP seldom counts many of
th e resources being degraded, th e long-term effects on state's economies a r e t r e m e n
d o ~ s . ' ~For' instance, since agriculture is the source of a large share of th e wealth
generated by many poor societies i n our hemisphere, soil degradation or climactic
changes affecting soil moisture could have a devastating effect on these nations. Though
short-term economic gains can be

'OOHomer-Dixon,"Environmental. Scarcity an d Global Security," 37.

'''Robert Repetto of th e World Resources Institute notes: " A nation could
exhaust its mineral reserves, cut down its forests, erode its soils, pollute its
aquifers and h u n t its wildlife to extinction- all without affecting measured
income."
achieved from logging the forests in Central and South America, the increased runoff
can destroy roads bridges and other valuable infrastructure. Siltation may destroy rivers
and important spawning grounds as well as the capacity of hydroelectric or other use. As
wood becomes scarcer and more expensive, it takes more of the household budget for
poor families to provide fuel for cooking.
In addition to the impaired ability of these nations to improve their economic
condition for trade purposes with the US, the potential for regional conflict brought about
by economic decline is great. Economic decline corrodes confidence in national purpose
and undermines financial, legal and political institutions.lo2 Environmental degradation
of this sort raises the financial and political demands on governments. For example, it
often requires that huge sums be spent on dams and irrigation systems to compensate for
water scarcity or reforestation programs to compensate for soil lost to
deforestation.lo3The loss of sustainable resources, from fish and fertile land to forests,
can reduce tax revenues to local and national governments and further reduce the
capacity of the governments to address environmental problems.

Particularly in the developing countries of the Western Hemisphere, agriculture is

still the key to their economic security. Widespread soil erosion, water scarcity, loss of
biodiversity, pollution and unequal distribution of productive resources diminish the
sustainability of rural and urban life. Greenhouse warming and climate change may
also affect agricultural production a s rainfall patterns and soil moisture levels are
changed. While it is true that climactic alterations may actually benefit some
agricultural regions, others will sufferespecially in poor nations where change may
occur too fast to allow for timely adaptation. Of particular security implication to the
US, Mexico is extremely vulnerable to changes effecting agricultural production. For
example,

lo21bid.,42.

lo3Homer-Dixon, "Environmental Scarcity and Global Security," 36.

64
recently large numbers of people have been leaving the state of Oaxaca because of
drought and soil erosion.lo4 In the future, global warming could produce a decrease of 40
percent in Mexican rain-fed agriculture, which, in combination with subsequent losses in
free trade could bring great suffering and national conflict.lo5

D. ASSESSING ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION AS NATIONAL

SECURITY CONCERNS

Although the number and range of issues surrounding the impact of

environmental degradation on humanity is immense, tha t certain issues can pose
legitimate national security threats should be clear. However, cases of environmental
degradation which should be considered national security threats exist, an d coexist
with many other issues which do not need to be framed in such
a manner. Some are not yet threats but could easily become threatening i n th e future on
their own while others depend upon yet unknown factors to become threats. It is
important to realize t h a t although vaguely understood a n d controversial, by properly
defining environmental issues and weighing them against clear criteria a n assessment of
which threats represent national security concerns today can be established. Though we
cannot hope to solve all of them, what ar e th e most important can be addressed and, in
doing so, we ar e both mitigating carry-over effects to other threats an d learning about
environmental interactions. Though by no means a comprehensive review of
environmental degradation, what the preceding chapters have tried to provide is a
process by which environmental threats can be identified, better understood, an d some
of the difficulties involved with environmental security explained. Not necessarily a
prescription for environmental security but, rather, this study is a demonstration of t h e
procedures which must be applied to establish a n environmental security

1°Wne of Mexico's principle trade advantages is water-intensive fruits an d

vegetables.
strategy. Although such a cursory look can a t best provide only a basic qualitative
analysis, some general conclusions can be made.
For instance, pollution is a n example of environmental degradation posing a n
immediate threat to th e quality of life of a significant portion of the US population. And,
national security significance can be easily demonstrated along the border with Mexico.
Governmental choice there is limited because of the causes and nature of transnational
pollution and, although a military role could have a nominal impact, diplomatic effort
and economic pressure is our best hope to alleviate the degradation. I n th e case of
limited fresh water, immediacy is not as critical since adequate supplies ar e currently
available an d generally controlled by the US. Should these tenuous supplies dwindle,
however, the national security implications would be immediate; both from a quality of
life an d economic perspective in the Western state s an d in a threat from Mexico which
depends heavily upon US-fed water. Effort, therefore, needs to focus on preventing water
supply degradation. Ou r national security focus here lies i n resource planning,
stockpiling and efforts to deny a n y large-scale climactic alterations.

Besides its still largely unknown impact on global climactic and other crucial
environmental linkages, ocean degradation poses a n immediate national security threat
especially i n t h e form of valuable fisheries; their economic impact and the threats
associated with multiple states claiming th e rights to ocean resources. If current trends
continue, this is also one of th e few threats where a clear military role is apparent. I n
addition to economic a n d political pressure, naval monitoring an d d a t a collection
within the coastal fisheries is a n appropriate response. Again, however, t h e economic
importance an d highly political nature of this issue demands more t h a n a purely
military response.
Although th e immediacy of atmospheric and climactic changes is wideiy
questioned, its potential ramifications ar e so great t h a t preemptive measures are
simply demanded. Here we mus t not wait until th e security implications are readily
apparent or t h e damage will be too severe to easily counteract. Although much effort h
a s been undertaken to address atmospheric a n d climactic changes

66
already, a national security framework is necessary in order t o muster enough
resources to remove this threat. Here again, education, political maneuvering,
economic pressure, an d military assistance are all appropriate and needed.
Unlike the previous cases, transnational deforestation broadly effects other
environmental concerns but, because of its small economic component, currently ha s
only a small direct effect on US security.- And, since the US itself cut down nearly all of
its forest cover in its history, efforts to halt other world-wide deforestation lack a
demonstration effect from the developed world and political effort smacks of hypocrisy.
Intricately linked with deforestation in the Western Hemisphere, biodiversity lost in and
of itself lacks the demonstratable tie to US national security. Of course, the risks of these
issues are still largely unknown and we cannot wait until they reveal themselves or it will
be too late to reverse the trend. Also, ramifications of deforestation do constitute threats
if significant agricultural an d economic decline resulting from th e deforestation- a
particular risk i n tropical soils. Preventing t h a t agricultural a n d economic decline
is where we must focus our national security strategy. With a current minimal direct
security tie, emphasis needs to focus on education a n d sound economic practices to
limit the extent of deforestation abroad and emphasizing sustainable use of th e forests.
As th e case study from Brazil in th e next chapter will demonstrate, however,
influencing state's behavior to protect their environment can prove very tricky.

The population issue is perhaps the most difficult of all to influence. Since it
exacerbates all forms of environmental degradation it is, therefore, a national security
threat. Again, however, education a n d economic incentives or pressure are the only
appropriate means for the US to influence external population growth. It again comes
down to politics and economics. Closely tied to overpopulation, environmental refugees
only pose a threat to the US if their numbers increase significantly. A preemptive
strategy, therefore, is needed. A comprehensive refugee strategy must, therefore, cut
across many environmental issues but again settles on economic advancement i n
developing nations and
political efforts for those nations to limit emigration. Education and agricultural
assistance should therefore become national security tactics as well a s other
efforts aimed a t improving the economic status of the emigree nations. This along
with developmental assistance and aid aimed a t environmentally sound
development.
Agricultural decline must be addressed since it risks both regional
instability and, ultimately, US economic revitalization. Although the security
implications for the US of inadequate growth in the developing world directly
impact US economic revitalization, the ramifications of agricultural decline in the
developing nations of the Western Hemisphere also extend beyond the loss of
markets and investment. "When economic growth slows or stops, social strains
emerge and political systems can become destabilized. Often the result is civil -

unrest and outright violence, either within a country or with its neighbors"lo6 In
the Western Hemisphere this process is of particular security interest due to both
the dependence on agriculture and refugee potential that has only been hinted a t
with the Haitian and Chiapas examples. As former Secretary of State George
Shultz stated in 1984: "In our world today, there can be no enduring economic
prosperity for the United States without sustained economic growth in the Third
World. Security and peace for Americans are contingent upon stability and peace
in the developing world."lo7
The United States, by making environmental security a priority, not only
helps itself in terms of quality of life for border regions, continued debt servicing,
and increased trade but, by helping developing nations to solve some of their
environmental problems we may be contributing to regional stability a s well. In

'06Myers, " E n ~ o n m e nandt Security," 24. Also, for a n interesting evaluation

of the plurality of social conditions that can cause peasant uprisings see chapter 6
of, Timothy P. Wickhan-Crowley, Guerrillas & Revolution in Latin America: A
Cornparat ive Study of Insurgents and Regimes Since 1956, (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1992).
doing so, the United States will not only protect itself and its markets but, will help
forestall the spiral of environmental degradation from severed environmental linkages
and climactic changes t h a t threaten the planet a s a whole.
I t is apparent tha t achieving environmental security will require tha t other tha n
military tactics assume paramount importance. Environmental degradation is felt
aesthetically, scientifically but, above all, economically. Though military use, education
and developmental assistance must coincide with political pressure, what is most apparent
is t h a t economic security is most threatened. By extension, assistance and pressure there
will achieve the most widespread results. Also, though preventing deforestation an d
biodiversity lost ought not be national security priorities per se, since agricultural decline
and pollution ar e inextricably linked to these issues they will become a part of the overall
scheme. I t is in preventing agricultural decline, pollution, atmospheric degradation an d
fishery depletion where we must focus national security efforts. By setting priorities such
as these, national security interests a r e best served. Such prioritizing allows for the most
cost-effective tactics to be formulated an d applied. Additionally, having such a
framework allows for prioritizing as new environmental issues emerge or standing issues
worsen.

Although environmental degradation poses many global, transnational security threats,

it is also apparent t h a t of primary consideration to the United States lies in our own
hemisphere a n d especially along our southern border with Mexico. It is here tha t issues of
pollution, fresh water scarcities, agricultural decline, deforestation, biodiversity, a n d
potential for environmental refugees are most acute. Though environmental lessons can be
carried over to many other nations and regions outside of th e hemisphere, the most effective
an d lasting contributions toward achieving US environmental security should be felt by
concentrating here. And since t h e national security goal of economic revitalization is t h e
primary target, where environmental degradation impacts th e economy most should be our
primary focus. Here again, our own hemisphere is our largest trading partner. I t is to
achieving environmental security t h a t we now shift our focus.

69
 IV.ACHIEVING ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY
Environmental security is clearly a n issue whose solution will require a wide host
of techniques and approaches to achieve. Tactics will include treaties aimed a t
mitigating many types of environmental destruction, a restructuring of the US foreign
aid program aimed a t slowing environmental degradation while promoting sustainable
development (and away from purely military assistance), and in environmentally sound
technology transfer to provide the impetus for economic development but, with lower
environmental impacts tha n could be attained otherwise. Additional pressure needs to be
applied on international aid institutions such as th e World Bank in giving special
consideration to the financing of sustainable, environmentally sound development
schemes. Also, "debt-for-nature swaps" where foreign dept is forgiven i n return for
environmental preservation have shown themselves to be appropriate conservation
techniques. Achieving environmental security requires t h a t a multitude of tools and
tactics be employed t h a t one does not normally think of when considering national
security.
This is not to say, however, t h a t the military will not play a large role i n
achieving environmental security. Currently a Defence Department environmental
security program is working to respond to th e difficult challenges wrought by
environmental degradation and the environmental consequences of a new world order.
Though currently focusing on domestic environmental issues associated with the military
an d defense buildup i n t h e past, subsequent downsizing, an d i n managing its existing
assets in a n environmentally sound manner, the national security implications of
environmental degradation now have a strong platform from which t o be examined.lo8
As of May 1993, t h e position of Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Environmental
Security was created to oversee thi s effort. There is no reason to think t h a t the
enormous assets available from the Department of Defense could not be used to help
achieve environmental security.

108
Sherri Wasserman Goodman, "Vision for Environmental Security," Defense
94, Issue 3, 25-39.
This could include, but is not limited to, intelligence and logistic equipment an d the
skills necessary to address such things a s poaching a s well a s global monitoring an d
treaty enforcement. The use of naval monitoring and sample gathering is especially
useful because of their "long geographic reach an d flexible uses to which ships can be
put."log I n addition, the US Army Corps of Engineer's construction and infrastructure
building capacity may well be some of th e most cost-effective means to help achieve
environmental security. Of course, identifying the threats an d potential tools to address
those threats is only the beginning step in achieving environmental security. Applying
these tools brings up a host of new problems.

The first two chapters of this study identified environmental national security
threats as transnational environmental degradation primarily stemming from th e
developing nations of Latin America. Also, revitalizing the US economy was identified as
th e principle national security goal to be achieved along with quality of life especially i n
border regions. I n addition to the limited military roles already discussed, in this chapter
we will examine two of the most important nonmilitary means of achieving environmental
security. By examining case studies of Brazil an d Mexico, the impact of environmental
politics an d environmental economics can be examined i n practice. I n order to allow a n
y of the tools spoken about above to be applied, t h e recipient nations must welcome th e
advance. For this to be achieved efficient politics an d economics play a large a n d
pivotal role.

The next section explores th e politics of environmental protection as it h a s

typically been played with respect to Latin America. Housing the greatest environmental
wealth and potential destruction i n th e hemisphere, Brazil is also the largest a n d most
important economy i n Latin America. It is still a deveioping

Io91n fact, i n coming years fishery protection should become a boom industry. P.
McLaren, "Navies & The Global Environment," Navy International, JanuaryIFebruary,
1993. 12.
nation, however, and plagued by environmental problems but intensively nationalistic and
proud of its environmental standing. International environmental politics examined with
regards to Brazil should give us a basic understanding of how environmental politics have
been used in the past which will also help us understand how it needs to be used for the
rest of the hemisphere in the future.

A. ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS
As Steven Sanderson points out, even a partial list of those involved in
trying to effect environmental protection is quite impressive:
The World Bank puts environmental limits on the economic development
projects it supports, trying to strike a balance between environment and
development. The U.N. Conference on Trade and Development has developed
a n International Timber Agreement, a 44-nation International Tropical Timber
Organization (ITTO), and a putative commitment to sustainable forest use. The
European Parliament has declared its intention to tax timber exports from
tropical countries that do not exploit their forest resources in 'sustainable ways.'
The heads of the United Nations, the IMF, and the World Bank have met with
the World Commission on national actors concerned with the environment and
Development in Norway in the first summit of transnational actors concerned
with the environment. To great fanfare, the Paris Economic Summit of 1989
was declared 'Green.' The 1972 Stockholm
conference was commemorated with the 1992 global conference on
environment and development in Brazil. 'lo

Evident in all these admirable attempts, however, is the troubling fact that "policymakers
proceed with programs in the absence of convincing evidence that what they are
proposing either makes sense or makes a difference, or, in fact, is based on a convincing
set of assumptions about human behavior.""' For example, both the World Bank and the
rest of the OECD community encourage increased trade to foster development, relieve
poverty and solve their debt. Many exp'erts,

Steven E. Sanderson, The Politics of Trade in Latin American Development

'lo
(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992)) 7 1.

111 Ibid., 74.

however, argue tha t increased trade based on specialization is particularly damaging to
the e n v i r o n m e n t . l l V h e anecdotal evidence seems endless a s unintended
consequences of the myriad of initiatives trying to effect environmental protection ar e
revealed to have been useless, or worse, resulted in additional destruction.

Despite the confusing, controversial and divisive nature of environmental issues,

the scope of their political power is growing. Though seriously lacking currently, a n
environmental political understanding with appropriate and definitive policy
recommendations is a necessary precursor to achieving environmental security. Despite
th e inherent political character of th e environmental issues, the absence of political
analysis in conservation and development literature is striking. I t seems t h a t few
groups focus on th e intrinsically political nature of t h e issues or, bring th e tools of
political science to bear on the questions of th e e n v i r ~ n m e n t . " ~This fact alone
is largely why so many environmental proposals go unrealized an d result i n continued
environmental degradation.

I n the strictly political sense, which group or side of th e debate is actually correct
matters little if even experts cannot agree on many of th e most important environmental
issues. The study of environmental politics as a crucial conduit toward environmental
protection yields, in addition to persuasive techniques, a way to gauge which view
predominates or, at least, which opinion is more compelling a t a particular time. Though
this seems a n inefficient a n d tedious way to achieve and monitor environmental
protection --through politics-- as we have seen it is still the only way to achieve a national
security orientation an d thu s appropriate action. Since environmental protection rarely
occurs without governmental pressure, it must, therefore, undergo a political filter. The
nature of
the issue demands such a process and yet, inexplicably, many environmental advocates
still deny the political aspect of the environmental issues. The study of environmental
politics not only contributes to a general understanding of a new component of interstate
relations but, if applied correctly, can also help speed up the process of environmental
reform a s new important evidence emerges or, when environmental issues ar e finally
fully admitted a s legitimate and not anti-development or alarmist political issues. Until
tha t happens one thing is clear, consensus or not, denying the political aspects of the
environmental movement is to deny success in environmental protection.

Environmental politics concerns itself more with power and capacity for
environmental protection rathe r t h a n the right, wrong, or morality of the issue. I n this
sense it is amoral an d non-scientific, just political, waiting i n its own unique way for the
certainty an d strength of the debate to impel action. The lack of political concern an d
analysis on th e environmental issue is blatant, this amid a huge amount of effort on t h e
scientific aspects of the environmental issues. This is primarily due to th e extremely
divisive nature of th e topic, th e mixed agendas of th e groups trying to implement
change and, the general apolitical aspirations of many environment advocates. Since
politics play a n intricate an d necessary role in the environmental protection issue,
however, their inclusion i n the environmental picture is essential.

Specifically, the potential consequences of environmental politics for Latin

America ar e enormous. Since t h e linkages between trade, external stabilization,
domestic structural adjustment an d poverty alleviation have all been shown a s culprits
in one way or another to natural resource destruction and, all are important political
issues i n Latin America, the importance of environmental political analysis there is
particularly relevant. Furthermore, recently The World Commission on Environment a n
d Development (Brundtland Commission) revealed that, i n their opinion, debt is the
most critical international pressure point forcing overexploitation of natural resources i
n high debt countries and,
 suggests debt reduction a s the first priority of the international system."' Since debt is
one of the greatest political issues facing Latin America, it combines with the other
factors to exacerbate the political environmental debate. Since Latin America also
contains much of the last remaining, and most important, environmental reserves, it is
no wonder that the environmental looking glass has squarely focused there. Such a
unique combination of factors is also why Latin America is the perfect vantage point
from which to examine environmental politics.

1. The Case of Brazil

Though environmental issues a t first seem relatively new to the political
discourse in Brazil, gaining considerable force only in the last 25 years, in reality natural
resource issues have shaped Brazilian policy in large degree since colonial times. What is
interesting and new, however, is t h a t traditional environmental issues including mining,
forestry and territory settlement have reinvented themselves and "reappeared on the
center stage a s materia prima for politicians and international economic experts seeking
to reform Latin A~nerica.""~I n a relatively brief span of time many of Brazil's
previously accepted development practices became totally unacceptable to the developed
world. Brazil's settlement of its vast interior and subsequent dislocation or destruction of
the native peoples there, its exploitation of its natural resources and the resulting sacrifice
of biological diversity (practices endemic to most developed nations in their own
ascendance to prosperity), a s if overnight became overriding domestic and international political issues.
Indeed, the speed to which these internationally widespread development practices wrought condemnation upon
Brazil by virtually every institution with a perceived mandate there was striking.
 The forcefulness by which environmental pressure came to bear on Brazil
underscores the importance of new-found environmental concerns but, also calls
into question some of the evidence an d motives behind the indictments and
spurred a great deal of political maneuvering. Especially considering the fact t h a t
many foreign nations doing the finger-pointing had themselves used many of these
same practices while developing and often continue to do so. This fact is
particularly troublesome in Brazil since their lust for achieving first world statu s
is great while, simultaneously, their concern an d respect for their environment ar e
inwardly perceived a s quite high. When compared with the concern other nations
showed for their environment when developing and, the level of pollution th e
I developed world still creates, the Brazilians generally feel tha t they are doing a
good or a t least adequate job considering their situation. Brazilians frequently say
i tha t the industrialized nations do not have t h e moral authority to criticize Brazil
for the claimed destruction of th e Amazon since they have already destroyed most
of their own forest cover. Though th e governments of the industrialized nations
, reply t h a t they have learned from past mistakes, an d so have a lesson to teach
I Brazil, this line of reasoning falls on deaf ear s i n Brazil. Add to this situation a
I

I
series of conflicting and often contradictory reports by scientists investigating t h e
environmental condition of Brazil and, a military paranoia about its vast a n d
mostly undefended border deep in th e Amazon, then th e scope and complexity of
environmental politics in Brazil becomes evident. Simply, Brazil cannot fathom
I the international uproar about its environment, just a s the developed world feels
compelled to keep the issue a t th e fore. Meanwhile, despite the uproar, th e
I

environmental picture continues to worsen.

This is th e troubling story of environmental politics in Brazil. As a nation
they simply can1t.deny the power or resolve of t h e environmental front, a s political
issues of trade and debt reduction now come with environmental strings attached.
Also, they can't seem to stop nor even condemn those forces tha t motivated th e
destruction i n the first place. Furthermore, since international pressure h a s
galvanized internal interest an d concern for their environment, the indigenous
debate is now a permanent political element in Brazil. And yet, equally powerful internal
forces always emerge to counter each domestic advance. As discussed previously,
politics is power and environmental politics have grown hardy enough to influence
where, just a few years prior, they were powerless. Influence yes, but environmental
politics are still a far way away from changing the entire course of politics in Brazil.

Despite what inaccuracies the consensus opinion may hold, it is impossible to

deny that the environmental concerns facing Brazil today are huge. Pollution,
deforestation, watershed destruction, declining agricultural production and a lack of
clean air and water are but a few of the many environmental problems they face. As the
repository for fully one third of the world's remaining tropical rain forest, however,
Brazil carries a n additional burden of possessing a n environmentally important region
unsurpassed in the rest of the world. A treasure that Brazil increasingly sees a s one that
a developed world with a new found guilty environmental conscience looks upon with
coveting eyes. I t is primarily because of the Amazon t h a t Brazil is on the front lines of
the environmental political debate. For analysis, however, Brazil's environmental
situation is the ideal place to discuss the newly emerging world of environmental
politics; displaying both its confusing and often contradictory nature, divisive potential
and worldwide importance of this new political phenomenon.

Brazil's domestic pride and desire to protect its environment is perhaps only
overshadowed by its willingness to destroy its ecological purity in the name of
development. In a similar paradox, many international institutions and governments
claiming responsibility for environment, development, and economic stability in Brazil
have emitted confusing and contradictory signals, often encouraging them to trade more
to relieve poverty while a t the same time protecting the environment -normally a n
unrealistic prop~sition . "~This is no better displayed than in the raging political debates
facing Brazil's vast Amazon
wilderness.
a. The Amazon
I t is indicative of the political nature of environmental issues today tha t
the Amazon h a s received the lion's share of debate, and emerged a s the leading case to
which environmental political pressure h a s rallied. The Amazon focuses a clear
protective mandate for a wide range of scientific a s well a s emotional reasons. For
simplicity, however, t h a t i t is the world's greatest single source of bio-diversity, t h a t
it embodies worldwide fears about deforestation and climactic changes, and t h a t it is
still largely intact ar e the primary reasons sighted why the world needs to be concerned
about it s preservation. Although no one calls for wholesale destruction in the name of
development, t h a t is exactly what environmentalists fear continues to happen despite th
e widespread outrage, concern and the herculean efforts of scientists to document an d
mitigate the extent and nature of the damage there. The additional environmental aspects
involving indigenous peoples rights, th e greenhouse gases issue (C02 production due to
burning the forest) a n d potential pharmaceutical an d other potential locked i n the
forest only serve to fuel th e fire of th e already great international motivation to do
something to protect the region. And yet, t h e destruction continues. Why, if common
sense and science have convinced so many people tha t clear cutting the rain forest is
wrong, stupid and contributes little or nothing to long term development, does it
continue? The answer lies i n th e environmental politics of the Amazon. Deficient
environmental politics a n d efficient development politics a s well a s long entrenched
notions of nationalism, sovereignty and security reveal the answers to why so few can
deny th e efforts of so many to protect the forest. A survey of some of th e most important
environmental issues involving th e Amazon will show their inherent political nature and,
how t h a t political character h a s been used, misused or forgotten a s a policy tool.

Migration to t h e Amazon region began primarily i n the 1950's with

gaGchos who felt limited by their minifundios i n Rio Grand do S u l and left to seek
their fortunes in th e forest. By th e end of th e 19701s,th e debate over use of the
Amazon had already grown fierce. An aerial survey, carried out with the use of the
Landsat satellite, by the Brazilian Forestry Institute (IBDF), and the National Space
Research Institute (INPE), showed that, by the end of 1978, 7.7 million
hectares of forest land had been cleared.''' Though this represents only 1.5 percent
of the region, the evidence provides grist to the mill of both sides'
arguments and shows how seemingly clear scientific evidence can first fuel, then lose a
political debate. From the outset, the Landsat observations did not appear to support the
scientists' claim that more of the original rain forest had been destroyed than was
generally believed and thus, the pro-development observers claimed that the scientists had
overstated the destruction. However, the satellite pictures gave a deceptive impression;
"Areas of the forest which showed up quite clearly in the 1976 pictures a s clearings
reappeared a s "virgin forest" in the 1978 pictures. " 118 It seems the clearings were soon
covered over by a thin shrub-like vegetation, called quigaga, which shows up i n the
photographs a s virgin forest. The land, though, had lost its protective cover of tropical
forest and had already been exhausted. Ten years later, those in Brazil favoring the rapid
economic exploitation of the Amazon still cited the old Landsat photographs to argue t h a
t deforestation was insignificant, and claimed t h a t the ecologists greatly exaggerated the
dangers. In the next ten years environmental pressure continued to mount, causing
authorities in Brazil and neighboring countries, a s well a s concerned local and
international experts, to begin a study aimed a t establishing "minimal critical area(s)" of
forest. Those i n Brazil favoring rapid economic exploitation of the region, however, still
successfully argued that deforestation was insignificant based on decade old evidence.'''
Ironically, it was the scientists own survey, aimed a t proving the extent of the damage,
that was used effectively to

Dispute," Latin American Regional Reports

'I7 "Satellite stirs up Amazon
Brazil RB-80-03, 14 March 1980, 3.
 combat the notion tha t the Amazon was swiftly being obliterated. I t provided the pro-
development coalition a 10+ year excuse to continue operations and, to a large degree,
nullified many attempts to halt the dire consequences for the region which had been
called for in the mainstream press an d in books like; The Amazon Jungle: from Green
Hell to Red Desert? by Robert Goodland and Howard Irwin.
Environmental consensus finally tasted victory, however, when in the
I
summer of 1988, Brazil's constituent assembly finally voted, by 450 votes out of
559, amendments in the Constitution related to environmental p r o t e c t i ~ n . 'The~~
unveiling of th e ecological package, Nossa Natureza (Our Nature), by President
Sarney, followed mounting domestic an d international pressure specifically against
I

I the annual burning of the forest for th e clearing of land before cultivation. "At
long last th e environment ha s acquired a political dimension," commented federal
I deputy Fabio Feldmann, the "green" who spearheaded the battle in the
constitutional assembly.121 Although this clearly reflected rising environmental
awareness i n Brazilian politics, powerful resistance was already "built in" as,
according to a report published by th e Washington-based World Resources
Institute, th e extensive deforestation could be traced directly to government
financed programs and s ~ b s i d i e s . 'Tha~~ t t h e new laws would often challenge
local interests, an d might either "languish or be difficult to enforce," is easily
understood a s official incentives are themselves blamed for the clearing of much of
the forest land for cattle pasture, for th e establishment of farms, and for th e
setting up of facilities for the industrialization of wood. Another political blow
came when, as reported by the daily Jornal do Brasil, the country's leading land
developer filed a complaint with th e national defense council against a conspiracy
aimed a t t h e "internationalization" of t h e Amazonian region. So began th e

120 RB-88-06, p.3.

121 RB-88- 10, p.3

122 RB-88-06, p.3.

onslaught of the powerful pro-development elite to frustrate the new amendments.
Additionally, it was widely and critically disseminated that President Sarney had been
"greatly influenced by international organizations," such a s the World Bank, in taking
measures which are "fatal for the development and integration of the Brazilian
territory."'23 Environmental politics had pressured the environmental vote in the assembly
but, the resident political culture, official incentives, and the political power of the
influential land developers were sufficient to literally derail years of effort by
environmentalists and, undermine'much of the progress revealed by the vote.

The successful political maneuvering of President Sarney became evident,

however, a s the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) announced that
'

it had resumed disbursement on two loans, totaling $580 million, that had been
suspended the previous year under environmental pressure.'24 The release of the money
was in response to "hopeful signs that the Brazilian government is responding positively
to the international uproar over the destruction of the Amazonian rain forest."'25 IDB
president Enrique Iglesias happily commented that the entire process had been a n
"educational experience [ . . . 1 imperfect, of course, but a first step regardless." Little
did he know just how blunt and environmental political tool the loan guarantees were or,
how keen the domestic political forces were to foil the effort.

President Sarney went on several months later to tell the United Nations
General Assembly t h a t the industrialized countries bear the greatest responsibility
for pollution of the environment and, that "Brazil is doing its part."126 He also
pointed out t h a t developing countries, especially Brazil, insist
that the environment should not become another source of "conditionality" for access
to development assistance. But, "the issue was not a major point of disagreement, with
both the developing and industrial countries acknowledging the need for
environmentally sustainable projects."127 The thread of consensus, nationalistic
rhetoric, international pressure and then the sidestepping of policy are all classic
environmental political elements combined in Amazonian policy. Traditional political
maneuvering succeeded fully; Sarney had done what he needed to do to secure the
needed loans. Environmental politics succeeded too, but only partially, finally gaining
a political dimension but, in reality, achieving little where it mattered in the forests.

The political debate in the Amazonian forest was also particularly savage
regarding the building of roads into the region. As a tool to speed up the development of
Amazonia, many massive road building projects were planned and begun in the 70's and
early 80's. The most impressive of these, and most controversial, was the 1,450 km, BR-
364 project connecting the capitals of Rond6nia and Mato Grosso.12' Since the paving
of the segment of BR-364 that links Cuiabh with Porto Velho was concluded, Northwest
Brazil was embroiled in heated local, national and international dispute.12' The origin of
the conflict was the ambitious development project to open the unexplored Amazon rain
forest in the state of Rond6nia to agricultural colonization. While promoting a large
resettlement program, it was designed to populate the sparsely inhabited frontier through
distribution of land parcels of 100 hectares to poor landless families and to relieve the
increasing pressure for land reform.130 The paving of BR-364

12'
RB-89-09) p.3.
12' RB-84-09, p.3,
129 "Brazil a t Center of Controversy Over Rapid Amazon Development," Info
Brazil, January 1989, 5.
Ibid.
concluded in 1984 with a $432-million loan from the World Bank and immediately
resulted in a n unexpected and unceasing rush of desperate land-starved peasants to the
region a s well a s many squatters and companies seeking to take advantage of tax breaks
and attractive loans made a ~ a i 1 a b l e . l1989~~ data indicated that, since the opening
up of the region, 20% of R o n d h i a , a n area the size of Denmark, had been deforested
and was responsible for no less than 5 percent of all the carbon dioxide released into the
earth's atmosphere in 1988.132
Environmental groups and scholars in the United States and Europe were
fast to condemn the road building and resettlement programs, pointing out that the
resulting deforestation for cultivation was not economically sustainable in the soil and
climactic conditions of the rain forest. Furthermore, it leads to "greater deforestation a s
more land is cleared to compensate for the decimation of the soil's nutrient base."133
Faced with tremendous pressure from international environmental groups, the multilateral
development banks finally used this massive destruction a s evidence to review their
development aid policies. This episode, however, revealed perhaps the most a1'arming
deficiency of environmental politics. Time is the factor that most often conspires to
undermine and frustrate environmental protective practices. In the previous case, the
extent and speed of the deforestation accompanying the road building was not foreseen by
the Brazilian government. Once realized, however, the environmental political mechanism
necessary to stop the destruction was not powerful enough to work quickly to halt
widespread deforestation.

The damming of Brazilian rivers is another major area of contention

between the pro-development and conservation forces. For example, the Tucurui project,
in the state of Para, was long presented by the Brazilian government a s

13' Ibid.

'32 Ibid.

133 INFOBRMIInI JANUARY 1989

"the springboard for the industrialization of th e whole Amazon region."134 Hydropower,
though, is a complex environmental issue since it is a sustainable source of wealth created
in a relatively efficient way. Using the environmentalists own words, like "sustainable",
the pro-development advocates were able to push hydropower to the extreme. Because of
this, despite the possible environmental consequences later cited, "it is unlikely t h a t
international indignation will be enough to persuade Brazilian engineers to abandon their
plans," for other hydroelectric projects. 135 The government was quick to point out t h a t
th e project would help development by providing power to big industrial companies
which had avoided th e region because of the lack of electric energy. I t was, however,
very slow to assess its likely effects on th e environment, though it was clear from the
beginning t h a t a 7-km dam, together with th e 216,000 h a reservoir, would
undoubtably alter life in the region.136 Strong currents, created as erosion of upstream
river banks increases, th e very real possibility of dam breaks, an d th e penetration of sea
water into th e river with t h e reduced outflow were later revealed as foreseeable
environmental costs. These would certainly upset th e whole ecology of the region and, as
a result, fishing, farming, and the general life of th e local inhabitants would all suffer.137

b. Other Environmental Issues

Although deforestation, road building an d damming of rivers represent a
few of the larger environmental issues facing Brazil, there ar e countless others in which
environmental politics ar e at work but to a lesser or more regional degree and, to
varying degrees of success. For example, Brazil introduced its positive first phase of air
pollution controls (caused by cars) only a s

INFOBRAZILI MAY 1989, p. 3.

late a s 1988.13' While, on a more negative note, the uncontrolled poaching of protected
animals (especially crocodile and alligator for hides) continues, threatening the
extinction of crocodiles in the Amazon and endangering other species a s well. 13'
Environmental pressure on mining, however, sometimes mitigates widespread
environmental destruction and environmental politics even resulted in a ban on th e
hunting of Minke whales i n Brazil for the first time in thirty years. Though some less
dramatic tha n others, these concerns all contribute to the huge score of environmental
issues t h a t successive Brazilian governments have had to deal with over the years.
Though forced to some degree or another to acquiesce, there h a s been a limit to which
pride an d issues of national sovereignty prevent further environmental action.

For example, i n August 1988, the Brazilian Federal Police filed charges
of "violating a law that forbids foreigners from interfering i n Brazilian domestic
affairs," against Dr. Darrel Posey, a n American ethnobotanist who had accompanied
and served as interpreter for two Kaiap6 Indians on a trip to
W a ~ h i n g t o n . ' ~Although~ t h e charges reflected some government official's fears
t h a t a proposed World Bank loan might be withheld because of Indian complaints made
during the visit to Washington, this action also hints at th e limits of official tolerance the
Brazilian government was willing to p u t up with. Also, Posey's case illustrates how
sensitive Brazilians ar e to foreign criticism of their Amazon policies.141 The Nossa
Natureza program is another case i n point. Ariosto d a Riva, the head of Indeco S.A.
(Integration, Development a n d Colonization, Inc.), th e largest private colonization
concern i n the country, denounced th e plan a s a sell out to "internationalists" who want
to t u r n over t h e development of the

140 I N F O B M I L / JANUARY 1989, p.6.

Amazon's potentially immense resources to international organizations. Riva and others
contended t h a t the "ecological package" put forward by President Sarney, "actually
constitute a boycott of Brazilian development strategies, which although conscious of
the inevitable environmental costs involved i n th e process of occupying the Amazon
have correctly addressed the necessity of developing the region."142

Brazilian officials are adamant tha t they not only recognize and
understand the international concern over the Amazon but t h a t they also know what is
best for Brazil's future. For example, a 1989 New York Times editorial, calling for
debt-for-nature swaps, was met with these blunt words: "Brazil will not become the
ecological reserve of the rest of humanity . . . our greatest commitment is to economic d
e ~ e l o p r n e n t . " 'Marcilo~~ Marques Moreira, the Brazilian Ambassador to th e
U.S. a t t h a t time, also echoed these words adding tha t the final responsibility for the
conservation of the Brazilian Amazon lies with Brazil alone: "If there is a n Amazon to
conserve, it is because Brazil was able to conserve the largest tropical rain forest in the
world. We do want advice and genuine cooperation from th e international community,
but it is Brazil which h a s the responsibility to conserve the A m a ~ o n . "
'Ambassador~~ Moreira also emphasized tha t Brazil h a s undergone massive changes i
n th e last 40 years, including great population growth, transformation from a n
agricultural to a n industrial economy, a n d a major demographic shift from t h e
countryside to the cities, making some type of Amazon development imperative for
Brazil. "We are
not going to destroy the Amazon. We are going to conserve it, but not in a n
immobile way. We will conserve it by changing it i n a n orderly way."145 What

l* INFOBMILIJANUARY 1989, p. 6.

143 INFOBR.AZIL/MARCH 1989, p. 1.

144 Ibid.

Ibid..
Ambassador Moreira and the other pro-development pundits all fail to realize though, is
that underlying the Amazon's robust appearance is a generally poor soil. Nutrients are
stored not in the topsoil, but in the trees themselves. When they are felled and burned, the
nutrients are soon lost through leaching, leaving a barren landscape. To conserve it in
another than "immobile way" therefore, is a contradiction in terms.

In promoting development many Brazilian authorities are either skeptical of

the ecological realities or think t h a t development is worth the sacrifice that the
destruction represents. By making it appear a s a n "us versus them" issue, that is such a n
indelible part of the Brazilian political culture, they are able to lessen the environmental
political pressure with their own equally persuasive techniques. This is repeated on a
micro scale a s Amazon settlers, many of which had not yet received title to their land,
"knock down trees with tractors just to prove to the government that they own the
land."146 Another embodiment of this spirit is the notion that development of the Amazon
region is a s much a matter of national sovereignty a s it is economic hope. There is
widespread fear that "as long a s the vast region lay largely empty and unexploited, foreign
powers would intervene and occupy the region -1ntegrar para n i o entregar, (integrate
Amazonia with the rest of Brazil to avoid its being taken over by foreign interests),
became the battle cry."14'

When, a s a major effort to save the Amazon, the Five-year Rain forest
Project a s commissioned by the G-7 a t its 1990 meeting in Houston, it was seen a s full
of ulterior motives in Brazil where there was mounting resentment of international
pressure.14' Pro-development forces condemned the project a s one more effort by
outsiders to interfere in domestic affairs and dictate policies for the
country's rain forests. When presidents Mikhail Gorbachev and Franqois Mitterrand
publicly advanced the notion that Brazil should be recognized a s having only "relative
sovereignty" over Amazonia, it was not difficult to see that the Brazilian people seem
justified in their fears. 14' Such a statement by powerful political leaders points out that
ignorance on how to accomplish environmental goals through politics is not limited to
environmental scientists or World Bank presidents.

c. The Military Connection

The idea that environmental protection is a s much emotional a s
substantive issue also finds great support in Brazdian military aspirations and their own
notions of national security. Especially following the mllitary return to power
succeeding the 1964 ouster of President Joao Goulart, vast development schemes were
hatched by the military regime to turn Brazil into a first-class power. A flurry of hastily-
designed road building and other schemes followed, including declaring Manaus a free
port, subsidizing cattle raising, hydroelectric development and development of the
largest iron ore deposits in the w0r1d . l~~
Although the military hoped that economic development could be achieved
via crash Amazonian development, especially late in the 70's with the "Brazilian Miracle"
on the tips of many tongues, it was the military's long focus on the Amazon region, in its
concerns for national security, that have had the most lasting environmental political
impact. Since the environmental movement started in Brazil and, lasting to today,
environmental protection of the Amazon region was used a s a "rallying-point for military
hardliners, who have claimed that, with a n eye on the region, foreign governments are
conspiring with local ecological groups to have it
'internati~nalized'."'~'The military in Brazil has

'41 Ibid.

lS0 INFOBRAZIL/MAY 1989, p.3.

15' RB-92-03, p. 1.
continually rejected suggestions t h a t an y international bodies with supranational
powers be allowed to dictate Brazilian developmental practices. Harping on evidence
like the Gorbachev, Mitterrand "relative sovereignty" comments, they have been quite
successful i n gaining support against th e envisaged "internationalization."

Additionally, t h e military h a s always been afraid t h a t its mostly

undefended borders in th e Amazon were susceptible to many forms of intrusion by
guerilla groups and drug smugglers. Development of th e region was touted a s a way for
the military to establish footholds and maintain a clear presence there against the
perceived threats to security. Highway BR-364, aptly named after Marshal Rondon, the
military chief who "tamed" the Amazon by setting up the first telegraph lines a n d
making the first contacts with th e Indians, was a crucial program in tha t regard.152 Soon
after its completion, t h e Air Force quickly inaugurated two air bases a n d th e army set
up more units a n d increased the statu s of th e existing ones i n th e surrounding region.
More recently, t h e Brazilian military h a s joined with th e government to
reassert the state's presence i n th e area following t h e widely reported massacre of
Yanomami Indians i n August 1993. Besides conducting a survey of th e Amazon, which
will divide it into economic an d ecological zones, th e Brazilian military recently
conducted th e largest war games ever i n t h e region replete with
th e transfer of several battalions from th e South of t h e country to the A r n a ~ 0 n . l ~ ~
Also, despite severe economic problems, th e military h a s taken action on SWAM,
or th e System for th e Surveillance of t h e Amazon, a plan t o install a massive network
of radar, communication systems an d dat a processing centers so tha t th e military can
monitor air traffic a n d collect dat a on illegal activities i n Amazonia. One element
underlying t h e military's new uneasiness is t h e question t h a t Brazil's
security is being challenged. This is especially acute in light of new US.military
actions in Guyana. Though no one in Brazil actually envisions a n American,
invasion of the country, the encroachments on Brazilian sovereignty under the
auspices of environmentalism or drug interdiction are seen a s seriously
threatening to the Brazilian military.154
While the areas most in question by the military contains, a t least on
paper, vast stretches of national parks and ecological preserves, no adequate
infrastructure currently exists or has been provided to make them a reality. Though the
military presence could ostensibly provide that, "construction of infrastructure in the
Amazon has also tended to pave the way for environmental degradation and for the sort
of population clashes which led to the murder of the Y a n ~ r n a m i . " ' Therefore,~~
while the massacre has refocused national and international attention on the
environmental problems in the region, the proposed solutions may indeed prove
environmentally costly. This is another case where environmental politics lose when
faced with traditional political ideals.
d. Lessons From Brazil
On December 22 (1989) the forest lost its most determined defender.
Because of his firm fight against the eviction of rubber tappers from their land
and the destruction of the Acre rain forest, Francisco Mendes Filho, the rubber-
tapper leader who helped save a t least 1.5 million hectares of forest from
destruction, was shot and killed by a n unidentified gunman on his back porch.
Although under police protection a t the time, Mendes is thought to have been
assassinated under orders from a local cattle rancher. His death mirrored the
increasing violence in the Amazon and sharply focused world attention on
Brazil's development policies in the region.156

There can be no question that environmental politics are full of the same sorts of risks
and uncertainties t h a t are inherent in the rest of the political arena. Environmental
politics are unique because of their recent and breakneck entrance

154 INFOBRAZILNOVEMBER 1993, p.8.

155 INFOBRAZILNOVEMBER 1993, p.8.

156 INFOBRAZILIJANUARY 1989, p.5.

91
onto the political scene, their dependence on timely action and their emotional
elements but, they are rapidly becoming a standard political issue with standard
political problems requiring standard political tactics. Since its arrival on the
scene, skepticism and doubt have continually questioned the validity of the
environmentalist claims but environmental concern has not vanished nor will it.
Environmental issues are here to stay and environmental politics must adapt .to
their new role a s a resident political notion if they hope to increase their power.
The environmental political issues brought up here represent only a
handful of a vast number of environmental concerns that have besieged Brazil in
the last 25 years. They do, however, provide a glimpse into the scope and the
importance of environmental issues in modern Brazil and reveal their political
dimension. Many of these same issues to differing degrees can also be seen in .

other Latin American nations and many of the conclusions remain valid for other
nations a s well. What is important is what can be learned from this broad ,

perspective that can assist and further the environmental effort or, help the
environmental and pro-developmental forces to better work out a solution t h a t
appeals to both perspectives. Of course there will be winners and losers but, by studying
the unique aspects of environmental politics, its emotional a s well a s scientific nature
and its dependence on timely action, both the environmentalist and the development
advocates can better navigate the issues to reap the greatest amount of benefit to the
country in a long term perspective.
So, we must now turn our attention to what environmental political study
yields in terms of practices and policy suggestions that make sense in a modern Latin
America and in terms of what can be learned toward forwarding environmental security in
the rest of the hemisphere. It is clear that if the mistakes of the past are not to be repeated,
a modified approach to development is urgently needed. To begin with, to best serve the
environmental a s well a s nationalistic and developmental necessities, a consensus must
be forwarded based on the fundamental premise that environmental protection is
economically sound. In Brazil's case, the region's greatest value to clearly lies within the
untouched
Amazon forest itself. The Amazon "contains ten percent or more of the world's plant and
animal species, many not yet studied for their potential utility to human health, nutrition,
and well being," which h a s far greater significance and potential wealth tha n a few head
of cattle or a cut of lumber.15' In order to preserve the forest a s well a s utilize it, a
developmental necessity tha t the environmentalists must acknowledge, a policy
framework t h a t is sustainable and balances the stress caused by some current activities
with steps to ease the pressure on th e basin for the longer term must be adopted. The
example of Chico Mendes an d th e rubber tappers of Acre must be expanded to fish,
Brazil nuts and other resources on a wide scale. Other widely held environmental
initiatives suggest t h a t development, such as uncontrolled gold mining an d industrial
plants tha t rely heavily on wood supplies from the forest put undue stress on the
ecosystem and must be abandoned. Other projects, however, such a s mining operations, a
r e more justified since they are mainly confined to small contained areas. With proper
environmental-control laws and their rigorous enforcement, some mining activities can
bring Brazil and other latin nations badly-needed foreign exchange while causing
relatively little harm. If tradeoffs ar e required, many can be found i n this sector.

I n addition, land reform measures ar e needed to make it possible for more

Brazilians to stay home rathe r t h a n seek out a living i n the Amazon. An emphasis on
scientific research, to discover an d analyze the biological riches t h a t remain hidden
within the forest, "might i n th e long r u n be the best way to move toward ecologically-
sensitive utilization of th e region and help realize th e nation's longstanding Amazonian
dream."15' Of course, none of these suggestions ar e new an d reflect but a few of the
many long term, environmentally sound proposals t h a t have been touted for years.
Where more emphasis needs to be placed, however, is

15'
INFOBRAZILIMAY 1989, p.3.
15' INFOBRAZIL/MAY 1989, p.3.
in the political mechanisms with which to implement them. To do this, environmental
demagoguery must be abandoned for a more enlightened approach. The World Bank, a s
well a s all the other institutions that are pushing for environmental reform, must treat
Brazil more as a partner in these efforts rather than an adversary. By encouraging
partnerships with Brazilian institutions the collaboration will help to educate the
indigenous peoples from within, a crucial aspect of the learning process. Recognizing
Brazil's singular sovereignty over the Amazon basin is another natural first step, followed
by offers of help rather than demands for action. Demands have shown themselves to be
counterproductive, contributing to the adversarial and skeptical attitudes displayed by so
many of the Brazihan powerful. Brazilians can be shown that the environment left
untouched is more productive than one cut down. However, Brazilians can't be brow
beaten into believing it. Brazilian Hispanic political culture is one that defies authority
and, as we have seen, to prove a point the Brazilians can defy common sense.
Additionally, the international community must set and maintain high environmental
quality standards themselves: a good example is much more persuasive to Brazil than the
bullying that has predominated. The industrialized nations do not necessarily have to
"have their house in order" to request that Brazil follow strict environmental standards,
but, they must a t least be as willing to adopt and follow the same rules in their own
countries that they wish Brazil to follow. This includes positively addressing the Brazilian
government's view that, "as the biggest oil consumers and the principal polluters, the
industrialized nations should make the largest contributions to the proposed fund, which
would benefit poorer countries that do not have the means and access to state-of-the-art
technologies to protect the e n ~ i r o n m e n t . " ' Though~~ to what extent "state-of-the-
art" equipment is needed, and how the industrialized nations will pay needs some
interpretation, the crux of the issue is valid and needs to be addressed. The much touted
"debt for nature" swaps and other debt relief mechanisms are another area
where environmental political pressure needs to focus since they have shown a positive
means to both relieve Brazil's domestic financial strains a s well a s protect its most
abused resource.
Finally, the new world order is one in which environmental issues will find
themselves on center stage. It is also one in which bi-polar notions of security are rapidly
expanding into mini spheres of influence and mini power struggles. Brazil, a s the
largest, most powerful nation i n Latin America, will undoubtably experience pressure to
establish itself i n this new order. Since nationalism, sovereignty and security issues have
all shown t h a t they can precipitate environmental destruction, care must be taken not to
provoke Brazil into taking drastic steps to protect these sometimes vague and always
controversial notions. I n t h a t light, since Brazil h a s just emerged from teetering on
the perilous edge of a military takeover after its latest corruption scandal an d continued
hyper-inflation. The world, and especially th e United States, must pledge support and
assistance to keep Brazil economically sound, democratic an d to prevent it from sliding
back into a military regime. Though the recovering economy will probably prevent it, if
the military were to assume control again, its development schemes an d questionable
SNAM program might again breathe new, and environmentally destructive, life.

Although its size and Amazon make it unique, the lessons learned
surrounding environmental politics in Brazil a r e valid throughout much of the Western
Hemisphere an d indeed i n much of th e developing world. Environmental politics are a
critical element of environmental security an d these lessons must be taken to heart.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS
In the Environmental Economic Revolution, Michael Silverstein states, "For better
or worse, attempts to grapple with man-made environmental upheavals spawned in this
century will play an extraordinarily important role in shaping events during the next
hundred years of human history. " 160 In the field of economics, this greening effect is
already noticeable as many of the world's leading economists are already actively
addressing the economic/environmental interplay and achieving the environmental
restructuring of economic institutions. In the US, environment linked factors are
fundamentally altering the manner in which we value assets, the way products are made,
the material that goes into their manufacture, the kinds of things people buy, and the way
in which managers and planners function. This "greening" represents a set of changes so
profound that some economist feel that they can "literally be said to constitute a second
stage of the Industrial Revol~tion . "'~~This "second stage," however, is still largely a
first world reality. Though beginning to be realized in parts of Latin America,
environmentally unsound practices are still the rule.

Although the specific ways in which the US economy is being environmentally

restructured involves a large variety of business sectors altering the manner in which
goods are made, packaged and sold, this greening also extends to the way these goods
are bought and sold to foreign countries. Since trade represents one of the crucial links
to US economic revitalization and is the key to economic development in much of the
developing world, the greening of trade is a n important topic due to its potential for
influencing environmental protection and the resultant consequences for environmental
security.
This section is a n examination of environmental economics and how politics

lGOMichaelSilverstein, The Environmental Economic Revolution: How Business

will Thrive and the Earth Survive in Years to Come, (New York: St. Martin's
Press, 1993)) 1.
and the use of trade can be used to both increase prosperity for Mexico and the US a s
well as forward environmental security aims. In this regard The North American Free
Trade Agreement provides a ready-made case. Since so many instances of environmental
degradation in this study underscored the economic components of environmental
security, it is worthwhile to examine further the economic connection between
environmental degradation and environmental security. Since the economic and
environmental interactions are great between the US and Mexico and a n unprecedented
trade agreement has just been achieved, the Mexican case is especially appropriate.

1. Mexico and The North American Free Trade Agreement

On June 30, 1993 a n American Federal judge ruled that, since negotiations have
failed to address the treaty's effects on the environment, the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) violates the National Environmental Policy Though unclear then
just how important that ruling would be (it was subsequently overturned), it underscores
the significance of U.S. environmental concerns in new legislation. This ruling is also a
typical reaction to the present and future commitment in the United States to
environmental protection and its responsiveness to environmental interest groups.
Regarding NAFTA, this judgment occurred despite the fact that the environmental
legislation in the agreement is unprecedented in any prior international treaty.'63 Indeed,
environmental concerns were pushed into the spotlight a s negotiations on NAFTA's
supplementary agreements, which address other specific environmental aspects of
NAFTA, stalled. The US, under extreme pressure from environmental interest groups,
refused to modlfy its position that the agreement's environmental conditions must
incorporate "the right to punish recidivists who violate their own

162 Mexico and NAFTA Report, "Problems with judges and side agreements,"
Latin American Regional Reports, 15 July 1993.

'63Mexico and NAFTA Report, "The Environment," Latin American Regional

Reports, 14 J a n 1993.
laws."164As a result, much of the pessimism regarding NAFTA's ratification hinged
upon environmental issues. This sticking point, the environment, on a trade agreement
that by most accounts ensures increased prosperity to all three major players,
represents a recent but increasingly important facet of economics and politics today. It
is a question especially important when looking a t U.S. relations with Latin America.

This section investigates environmental economics in North America and the

interplay between trade and environmental security. My evaluation follows the previous
assumption that environmental security is primarily dependent upon economic realities
so, accordingly, this section will primarily focus on the significant economic factors
underlying environmental security. This section also underscores additional political
links between trade and environmental security.
a. Sovereignty
On August 12, 1993 The New York Times published a curious statement by
the Mexican Government regarding the U.S. demand for the right to sue for non-
compliance with proposed environmental safeguards in the NAFTA treaty. The
government concluded that the American position "attacks the concept of sovereignty and
is, a s such, inadmissible." This stance, on a side agreement that Mexico knew was a
crucial one for American interests, is puzzling. Why was Mexico unwilling to concede
further on environmental issues when they were willing to acquiesce to nearly all the
other prior stipulations; including many regarding the environment? Did they really see it
a s a n issue of national sovereignty? To explain this puzzle we first need to understand
what drives the Mexican economic and political perspective since NAFTA and its
questions on the environment stem fundamentally from this.

Besides the obvious and profound effects of the vast differences in

personal wealth and standard of living between the US and Mexico, which

' 6 4 M e ~ i and~o NAFTA Report, "The negotiating pace quickens but major
setback," Latin American Regional Reports, 10 June 1993.
certainly play a n important role, two less obvious implications are also important. First,
Mexico's boom and bust economy, 20th century revolution, and subsequent late start in
developing have left the Mexican people two or three generations behind the U.S. in
terms of the social and philosophical internalization associated with a modern
industrialized nation. In other words, a s a n industrialized nation Mexico is in a very
young stage compared to the United States. Though obvious, relevance here lies in the
fact that the United States has lived through a century and a half of heavy industrial
development. This coupled with a high standard of living has resulted in the formation, in
the current generation, of a less industrialized economy and adoption of what is
sometimes referred to as "post industrial values." Emphasizing quality of life and
education over material wealth, postmaterial Americans are concerned with their
environment. The manifestations of this concern can be seen everywhere from the
recycling bins in virtually every community to the strength and influence environmental
interest groups exert in congress. This movement transcends mere preaching about the
environment and is a developmental understanding i n a vast portion of the U.S.
population. The shared understanding includes a vague but important notion that
environmentally sound economic policy is just the right thing to do. This philosophy is
assisted, but not driven, by the long term economic advantage created by putting the
environment a t the forefront of economic planning; a n idea, though not discussed here,
that is gaining momentum.

It follows t h a t a large portion of Mexican society, lacking not only money

but also this mindset, is unable to fully understand or comprehend the U.S. position on
the environment. Mexicans still see growth first with perhaps environmental concerns
coming later - .when they can afford the luxury of thinking about them. For example, it is
difficult to explain to a Mexican how the loss of nearly all U.S. old growth forest is a
national tragedy when logging helped the U.S. to grow into the economic powerhouse of
the world. If mainstream Mexico had a developmental philosophy - indeed many
Mexicans are not aware of such a thing- they would view the loss of their biodiversity
and pollution a s a n
unfortunate but inevitable result of development. If i t will increase their standard of
living and if it happened in the developed world then a deterministic outlook says t h a t i t
will happen to them. I t is acceptable if it will achieve th e same results t h a t were seen in
the U.S.
Simply, the majority of Mexican people are not environmentally educated or
infused with ecological values sufficiently for them to be deeply committed on a
widespread basis to environmental preservation. They a r e too concerned with getting by
and getting ahead to be worried about it on a large scale. Postmaterial Americans don't feel
this way. Not having lived through the Mexican economic roller-coaster, manifest poverty,
and never realized prosperity, North Americans see the environment through well-
intentioned but, i n latin respects, unrealistic eyes. Furthermore, postmaterial Americans
feel it their obligation and responsibility to educate th e world, pointing out t h a t
environmental destruction is not a n acceptable result of a higher standard of living. They
feel compelled i n some way to stop other countries from making the same mistakes the
U.S. made.

This fundamental misunderstanding which exists between th e United States

a n d Mexico is rooted deeply i n a psychology wrought by their respective histories. It
was inevitable within thi s context, t h a t a trade agreement t h a t contained vague
environmental verbiage would be both too soft for U.S. sensibilities and too hard for t h e
Mexicans to abide. The stricter side agreements, which went fa r i n satisfymg U.S.
environmental interest groups were, not surprisingly, virtually unacceptable to even highly
determined Mexican officials.

A second problem related to Mexican economic history, t h a t also bodes

poorly for th e environmental aspects of NAFTA, ties i n with th e earlier mentioned, and
seemingly puzzling, statement by .the Mexican government regarding their sovereignty.
Americans, i n general, have a vague notion of what national sovereignty really means. I n
t h e U.S.,the term is hidden by t h e fact t h a t through th e last century, an d
especially since t h e second world war, they have had
the luxury of being the world's pre-eminent power. Possessing a Calvinist sense of moral
right, the United States h a s forced many nations to define their sovereignty while they
themselves have seldom had i t questioned. Mexico's notion of sovereignty, on the other
hand, is very strong. Challenged in the past by British economic domination, French
invasion, and most recently, United States economic influence and now environmental
demands, Mexico survived it all and grew impressively for quite awhile i n spite of what
they saw a s continuing foreign manipulation.

Indeed, Latin America i n general, and Mexico i n particular, is painfully

aware of the issue of sovereignty. The term itself is used so frequently in Latin American
press t h a t it tends to lose some of its journalistic impact. It is, however, a living,
breathing reality i n Mexico. Domination by foreign interests
h a s hindered, i n their view, th e ability of Mexico to handle its own affairs from early
times until recently. As with land reform tha t sparked development, The Mexican
Revolution is especially significant because it partially removed, at least in the mindset
of the populous, much of t h a t heavy cloak of domination. Impressively, Mexico
emerged from t h a t devastating war surging foreword on a n economic wave pushed by
strengthening national sovereignty. Nationalization of th e oil industry by President
Cardenas i n 1938 was a particularly important event. Again, a natural by-product of this
wave was overt resentment toward foreign intervention and growing xenophobia.
Though history shows t h a t foreign investment never really departed Mexico, i n th e
minds of the people, the economic "miracle" and industrialization seen i n the decades
following th e Revolution were Mexico's alone (indeed, mostly they were).

Since success an d national sovereignty worked hand i n hand with 20th

century Mexican development, they have no reason to give it u p today. The debt crisis of
1982 was just another painful reminder of how foreign influence can arrest success and
infringe on their sovereignty. It is easy to forget that industrialization was largely
underwritten by foreign capital. Mexicans ar e eager t o continue the successes of th e
past. Mexican sovereignty which was a key player
in that success will not be forgotten as well a s the foreign influences that gave birth to
the debt crisis. As a result, foreign powers, especially the United States, are not
welcome to tell Mexico how they can or cannot handle their own affairs.
In varying degrees, Mexico's lower standard of living, lack of post-material
values and strong national sovereignty are all obstacles in the path of the NAFTA's
environmental considerations. However, because of the NAFTA's importance to Mexican
economic re-emergence, the Mexican Government has, for the most part, subdued them
and made great strides in their environmental program; such is the magnitude of the treaty.
Indeed, the extent to which they have gone is fairly remarkable with respect to
environmental controls present prior to the agreement and gives great hope for the potential
of trade a s a tool for establishing US environmental security in Mexico a s well a s other
parts of Latin ' America. Impressive a s they may be to a casual observer, however, it is in
implementation of the environmental controls where the obstacles begin to show
themselves.

b. Mexico's Environmental Response to NAFTA

Unfortunately, Mexico's impressive environmental awakening are revealed
a s mostly window dressing. Mexico's commitment to the environment is mainly
concerned with how that commitment, or perceived commitment, will help pacdy the
United States in the hope of expanding trade. Greatly strengthened environmental
legislation was viewed early on a s needed to assist NAFTA's ratification in North
America and result in the boost they envisioned in their own economy. Consequently, the
environment has been a t the fore of Mexican policy and great strides have been made.
When continuing environmental issues proposed by the U.S. approach questions of
national sovereignty, however, the whole issue can at times be too much for even
motivated Mexican officials to deal with. While they withdraw to evaluate, sovereignty
becomes a white towel thrown in the ring.

To Mexico's credit, they realize that gross environmental conditions do exist

in their country and that action needed to be taken. They are not blind to
 the horrendous pollution in their cities or the destruction of their forests. They are, in
fact, sympathetic to the environmentalist cause t h u s providing a familiar consensus
opinion regarding the environment despite the afore-mentioned predisposition to
address environmental issues only after development goals have been reached.
Resolving this issue becomes clear when we look a t the problem in terms of degree.

To be aware is one thing, however, to be motivated enough to act

decisively takes commitment and sacrifice. Mexicans can understand the problems, talk
to negotiate and even agree with th e environmental platform but widespread impact will
not be realized soon. Mere understanding, sympathy an d a token effort will not
I overshadow the fact t h a t no widespread motivation or conviction is rooted in the
populous. That lack of conviction combined with a shortage of funds necessary to do the
I
I
job correctly to enforce their own progressive laws leaves their environmental program
impotent. This, coupled with increasingly stringent side agreements, which bring
questions of national sovereignty into th e equation, and the impasse becomes clear. The
dilemma is exemplified when we examine current Mexican environmental legislation.
I

Regarding the environment, the Mexican Government has, not surprisingly,

two sides. The efficient side, a s evidenced by their skillful maneuvering with the U.S.
government on t h e NAFTA issue, is noteworthy. So too, is the impressive way in which
efficient environmental legislation ha s emerged from th e Mexican Government when a
clear demand for it arose. Mexico's General Ecology Law, effective in 1988, is one such
case. Designed to further environmental protection and natural resource conservation, the
environmental protection provisions address air, water, hazardous waste pollution,
pesticides an d toxic substances as well a s establish a framework for making appraisals
of environmental impact.16' The General Ecology Law is, in my

165Reportto t h e Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science and

Transportation, U.S. Senate"U.S. Mexico Trade, assessment of Mexico's
opinion, a n efficient and progressive law especially coming from a developing nation.
Impressive yes, it also contains loopholes and other provisions t h a t allow the law to fall
prey to the "dark side" of Mexican politics: namely corruption, elitism an d the historical
and revolutionary legacies of paternalism an d legalism. Lofty goals t h a t intended to
allow only ecologically sound activities to pass, while not accepting investments tha t ar e
harmful to th e environment, get mired down in practice. An August, 1992 report to th e U
S . Senate intended to "identify Mexico's efforts to strengthen its environmental protection
program" unwittingly uncovered some of these realities.

First, of the six new maquiladora plants investigated by th e committee tha

t were established i n Mexico between May 1990 an d J u n e 1991, none had prepared
environmental impact assessments (EIA's) or ha d obtained letters stating t h a t a n EIA
was not required.166 Certainly a powerful tool if used correctly, EIA's non-enforcement
provides a glimpse into the weakness of t h e Mexican environmental protection plan.
Though six maquiladoras ar e not significant, the statement in th e report t h a t non-
compliance with EIA requirements is widespread, an d not confined solely to new U.S.
majority-owned maquiladoras, is significant. I n addition, though the budget an d staffing
for th e new Secretariat of Social Development (SEDESOL), which includes all
environmental functions, h a s increased significantly since 1989, its net effectiveness,
outside of being a powerful legitimizing tool, remains i n doubt. The fact t h a t all levels
of government from federal to local have delineated responsibility for evaluating EIA's
and, that in practice, few do a n y evaluating, is telling about the de-centralized natur e of
th e program. A lengthy paper trail beginning with a "Informe Preventivo" ( a standard
form filled out by th e company itself to access its own assessment of environmental
impact) to th e " ~ i c t a m l nde

Environmental Controls for New Companies", August 1992.

166EIA's ar e th e cornerstone of Mexico's new environmental protection strategy

104
viabilidad" (which must be filled out if the company feels it will , in fact, have a
significant environmental impact), to final evaluation and risk study leaves open a great
possibility for slow movement, payoffs and simple non-compliance.
The Senate committee sighted specific guidance "to the companies
themselves" in preparing the EIA's a s a way to improve the system, along with a n
undefined need to improve enforcement. No mention a t all occurs about the Mexican
system's predisposition to be weak on enforcement, given the general lack of
commitment to the environment, or its propensity for corruption. Furthermore, no clear
autonomous disconnection between SEDESOL and other elements of the government is
ever made clear; a n absolutely essential element to a non-biased organization.

Following up on the 1992 Senate committee results, a s late a s 16 August

1993, little h a s changed. On t h a t date, The New York Times published the second of
two articles chronicalling th e sorry state of Mexico's huge environmental problem.
Sighting a complete lack of equipment for any testing and, a n unexplained stoppage of
pay in the last five months for the environmental enforcers, the articles echoed the Senate
committee suggestions for more rigorous inspection. Concluding a lengthy discussion of
the staggering proportions of Mexico's environmental problems, th e last article finishes
by mentioning a hopeful 1991 study by two Princeton University economists. That study
concluded tha t "economic growth tends to alleviate pollution problems once a country's
per capita income reaches about $4,000 to $5,000"-Mexico's level now. Said to often be
quoted by Mexican officials, th e study is sighted to prove the environmental benefits to
be gained from NAFTA. Though, "smacking of wishful thinking," it is correct i n
pointing out t h a t environmental protection is most directly assisted by money in the
pockets of th e people. Tha t NAFTA can provide the needed resources to truly begin
environmental protection provides the first, and in my opinion only, real hope t h a t
Mexico's environmental problems can be solved. And, consequently, America's
environmental security goals forwarded. To think tha t the problems will go away by
merely ratiEylng NAFTA is, however, shortsighted.
 The fact tha t my assessment of the Mexican environmental program draws
heavily upon historical values and political culture means tha t any changes must involve
evolutionary a s well a s revolutionary techniques and results. For the sake of NAFTA,
merely hiding the end results of their current environmental programs behind a plethora of
statistics chronicling the Salinas Government's battle for the environment won't make the
problems go away. Despite my contention tha t the NAFTA provides hope for Mexico's
environmental future in the long run, I criticize those tha t feel tha t Mexico's current
environmental program is sufficient to make quick strides or, tha t prosperity under
NAFTA will make i t so. A reversal of Mexico's environmental woes will, indeed, star t
with increased prosperity but, continuation will require a national commitment borne of
steady, controlled economic growth leading to long-lasting prosperity: the kind of
prosperity tha t leads to post-industrial values an d adoption of quality of life goals. These
values ar e self learned and internalized, they are not absorbed by "punishing recidivists
who violate their own laws," nor can they be pushed down th e throats of the Mexican
people by well-intentioned U.S. environmental interest groups. As well, it must be
understood t h a t should economic history repeat itself, tha t is continue on a boom to
bust pattern i n Mexico, then the environmental commitment will be among th e first
casualties.

Environmental protection, in t h a t sense, is indeed a product of those t h a t

can afford it. So, the obvious question remains, will NAFTA be the vehicle by which
Mexico can embark on a sustained path of prosperity? Tha t question, truly th e most
important one with regards to th e Mexican environment, is generally beyond th e scope
of this assessment an d lives i n the theoretical world for th e time being. I can only make
some generalizations about th e document itself and its
prospects.
Though tempting, it is too simple to relegate NAFTA an d environmental
politics to th e simple question of prosperity equals success or vice versa. Economic
programs seldom result i n black an d white outcomes but, rather, something in
between. I n this sense, NAFTA h a s another important role
by mitigating environmental impacts in economic down periods or following
prosperous periods with more rigorous environmental protection. To evaluate this
element of NAFTA we must now turn to the document itself.
There is little doubt tha t on 17 December 1992, when the United States,
Canada and Mexico signed the North American Free Trade Agreement, they were
signing the most comprehensive free trade pact ever negotiated between regional trading
partners and the first between a developing country and industrialized nations. That
aside, the environmental issue ha s stood out not only because it was among the initial
critiques, but also, because of its tenacity to solve and novelty a s a major trade issue.

Not only did the environmental issue plague President Bush in his dealings
with the NAFTA, but it was also one of President Clinton's "five unilateral measures tha
t the United States should enact in the context of NAFTA implementing legislation." I n
addition, a n Environmental Protection Commission, headed by Vice President Gore, was
put foreword a s one of three additional side agreements. Though President Salinas
reacted positively to these proposals, th e environmental issues were the last and most
difficult to be resolved. This is extraordinary, again, a s we ar e reminded by Clyde
Hufbauer and Jefferey Schott in their definitive book NAFTA: An Assessment, tha t the
NAFTA "stands a s a landmark accord for handling environmental issues in a trade
agreement." Environmental concerns, it seems, ar e growing a t a rate tha t even
progressive legislation h a s trouble keeping abreast. If the Bush administration's
solutions fell behind the rising curve of environmental concerns, necessitating the
Clinton administration to take up the slack, then how does the North American Free
Trade Agreement itself deal with the rising curve of environmental concerns?

Here I defer to Hufbauer an d Schott's assessment of NAFTA because it

provides the most complete picture. They point out t h a t "NAFTA attempts to ensure t
h a t existing standards ar e maintained, but th e NAFTA does not contain provisions to
upgrade the enforcement of existing standards or to adopt enhanced standards." Though
they also go on to chronicle the number of environmental

107
 inspectors added in recent years and the sevenfold increase in the country's
environmental budget, they also point out that, "after years of neglect, Mexico's
environmental problems are deep rooted and will require sustained long-term attention."
Given my assessment earlier that, although strong and progressive, Mexican
environmental laws a s they stand will not do much for the environment, and tha t new
provisions to upgrade enforcement of existing standards do not exist in the NAFTA, I a
m critical of the Legislation a s i t stands.
Hufbauer and Schott spend much effort listing what "should" be done to
ensure t h a t progressive environmental standards tha t will do some good in the long r u
n are met. Through new enforcement, joint design of environmental product and process
standards and implementation of the "polluter pays" principle, they go far i n describing
what NAFTA could do to remain a "landmark" treaty. Consequently, I feel t h a t although
NAFTA could be very useful in enabling Mexico to begin alleviating its environmental
problems, a s it stands, it is weak. However, even if the problems in the verbiage of the
treaty ar e worked out, the obstacles an d environmental predisposition t h a t I laid out
earlier will still loom large.

Despite these problems, what th e trade agreement did accomplish an d can

accomplish in th e future are encouraging signs for the power of trade agreements in
achieving environmental security. Even though the NAFTA a s i t currently stands may
do little to clean up th e Mexican environment i n the short term, an d t h u s does little to
address th e quality of life issues on the UsMexican border, th e larger notion of
economic revitalization for Mexico and its eventual positive environmental
consequences may be helped. I n the process, the security impact on environmental
refugees an d regional stability may be greatly bolstered.
.. c. Mexico's Environmental Future
Clearly, Mexico's economy an d its environment ar e inextricably
linked. Unfortunately, though t h e course of economic growth will determine
Mexico's environmental future, few of those i n a position to make policy ar e
discussing th e impact North American Free Trade will have on the Mexico's
environment. "The architects of Mexico's impending wholesale integration into the world
economy rarely speak out about environmental protection."167Present realities and a n
ideology linked to the future has led free traders and fiscal reformers to ignore the
environmental question and treat it as a non-issue, despite the apparent importance the
Salinas government has attributed to the environmental agreements. The question
remains, what does the environmental future of Mexico look like, does the NAFTA make
a difference in the long run?
As I have previously stated, ~ e x i c a n ares aware and perceptive to the
environmental problem in their country but, lack a resident commitment or political
mechanism to act on that understanding. That money, over time, will develop a devotion
to the environment that will alter the country's sorry record of past abuse is yet to be
demonstrated. I feel, however, confident that this formula is sound and indeed, Mexico's
only hope. Unfortunately, time may prove itself a destructive conspirator to the
ecological preservation of Mexico.
Though the environmental and economic reforms the Mexican
government have undertaken are welcome and needed to eliminate distortions that
allowed and even encouraged past environmental abuses, Mexico still faces
a n enormous environmental challenge in the future. Putting the economy and the
environment into perspective with one another is often not a s simple a s it may seem. If,
for instance, the new economic strategy displaces poor farmers from their lands, it must
ensure that their alternatives will not translate into greater environmental hazards in the
future. If they are making room for more intensive "modern" agriculture then the impact
of chemical fertilizers and pesticides must also enter the equation. If poor farmers are
displaced to hillsides, that are doubly susceptible to erosion, while a t the same time
chemicals from the modern agriculture de-oxygenate local lakes, then the marginal net
economic gains become

16'Steven E. Sanderson, "Mexico's Environmental Future," Current History,

February 1993, 73.
~ o r t h 1 e s s . lIndustrial~~ development holds the same problems. If Mexico grows
further industrially, it must think of the environmental costs or risks "becoming part of
a Dickensian landscape of factories serving consumers in cleaner environments
elsewhere."
The point is, Mexican economic reforms can lead to increasing
environmental destruction which will completely undermine the lofty environmental
concerns the economic reforms hoped to solve. With the environmental clock ticking,
the idea that Mexico could end up looking like a n industrialized Haiti is not beyond
the realm of comprehension.
As we have seen in the United States, the environment is very expensive to
clean up and, biodiversity lost is forever. The dilemma facing the NAFTA about the
environment remains; will the economic growth hoped for create additional costly, and
often unforeseen, ecological damage or, will it provide the needed resources to back up
and enforce the environmental laws already in place?
Will a better standard of living instill a n environmental commitment in the populous
and remove the peasants from the hillsides or, will the lopsided division of wealth remain,
keeping the peasants where they are but adding more hydrocarbon emissions to the
atmosphere as the new wealth is translated into new cars? Will the NAFTA accelerate
environmental destruction towards a n unescapable spiral to complete destruction of the
environment or will wealth provide a foundation from which to climb out? History and
common sense dictate that Mexico will take a long time to internalize a commitment to
the environment. Is the environmental destruction continuing a t such a pace that total
destruction will coincide with the development of that commitment?

These questions are so important that we can be both encouraged by the

fact that they are finally being brought up in agreements such a s the NAFTA

' T h i s is, of course, ascribing a cost to the environmental degradation- a

process only recently beginning to occur.
"j9Sanderson, " ~ e x i c o ' sEnvironmental Future," 77.
and, a t the same time, there is the disheartening fact that many American politicians and
Mexican officials have downplayed their significance. It is true tha t the environment
has tremendous powers to heal itself but, because the environment is so woven together
with subtle interdependencies, unintended damage can occur from unlikely sources.
Thus, protection and preservation defies even "unprecedented" solutions like the
NAFTA unless they are also progressive and flexible. Unfortunately, politics by
definition, Mexican history and questions of sovereignty have all conspired to limit the
progressiveness of the environmental legislation in the NAFTA. Is the environment
better off with a n agreement tha t finally brings many of the important questions to light
or, is its ineffectualness then even more destructive following economic progress?
We should feel confident t h a t the answer is not beyond the ability of
rational people to solve. The NAFTA is a positive step because i t brings environmental
issues to the fore but, by issuing vague and ineffectual legislation regarding the
environment, it risks doing more harm tha n good. I t tha t sense, the agreement needs to
be evolutionary a s well a s revolutionary to break down destructive trends before they
accelerates under economic progress and population increases. The NAFTA must never
be put on a shelf and admired a s a n accomplishment but, rather, needs to be a n ongoing
project evolving with every unforeseen repercussion. The NAFTA, in my opinion,
represents freedom, progress and the chance for very different cultures to learn from one
another-things tha t should only be encouraged. That freedom and progress though,
cannot be left unchecked or th e environmental effects will multiply.

Is Mexico or other nations in Latin America capable of adopting a post-

material mindset strong enough and i n time to save their environment? I think the
answer is yes but, not without help, realistic support, and understanding focused on their
priorities as a society. This coupled with increased wealth i n the developing world holds
the answer to environmental security for America. Can trade issues like th e NAFTA help
provide these things? - Only time will tell but their importance a s a potential tool in this
regard are great and

111
should not be discounted despite its poor initial record.
 V. CONCLUSION
Though the environmental bandwagon has grown tremendously in both power and
scope in recent years, specific insight into how environmental degradation posses a viable
US national security concern remains fragmentary and poorly focused. Starting with the
oil embargo and oil price increases of 1973 which were the first issues to change US
-

perceptions of national security to include natural resource vulnerabilities- national

security strategy h a s slowly been forced to accept resource and environmental realities.
The growth and increasing power of environmental interest groups, a s well a s ecological
disasters such a s the oil spill a t Prince William Sound and the Chernobyl nuclear plant
accident, have helped galvanize world attention on environmental issues. They have
added a greater sense of urgency and legitimacy to those voices who, since the late 70's
and early 80's, have been calling for environmental issues to join in a broadening
definition of what constitutes US national security.170 Despite all this, skepticism and
difficulty in identifying specific threats continue to combine to limit preventative action.

By stating i n its first paragraph t h a t "large scale environmental degradation. . .

threatens to undermine political stability in many countries and regions," the July 1994
National Security Strategy of Engagement of Enlargement shows how deeply
environmental concern's have finally penetrated thinking on new national security
strategy.l7l The appointment last year of the first Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Environmental Security further underscores this point. And yet, although certain
environmental catastrophes appear serious enough to jeopardize international stability
and easily fit a s national security

170Holdren, Eavironmental Dimensions of Security, iii. Also, see Joseph J .

Romm, Defining National Security: The Nonmilitary Aspects, 25-29. for a n in-depth
look a t early published notification on environmental issues and regional stresses and
conflicts.

l7lThe White House, A National Security Strategy of Engagement and

Enlargement.
113
 concerns, it is the less spectacular, but even more widespread, ecosystem damage caused
by deforestation, loss of biodiversity, ozone depletion, and climactic changes, for
example, that still lack a clear understanding in terms of their national security
implications. It is especially these unclear issues that fall prey to the skeptics. It is also
these threats, the result of modernization, development, population growth, trade and a
myriad unknown interactions, that simply defy classic definition as security risks under
traditional perceptions of national security. Although there are encouraging signs that
views about the environment are beginning to change, even among the most skeptical,
governmental policy is also notoriously difficult to revise. By definition things move
very slowly. This is especially true in the security arena.

This thesis attempted to reconcile environmental degradation a s a national

security concern by examining the complicated framework of environmental security, its
controversial nature and difficulty being framed a s national security concerns, and by
showing how clear definitions and criteria can reveal national security priorities. Also,
since environmental threats are fundamentally different fiom traditional military or
ideological threats faced by the US, to effectively counter they require development of
non-traditional thinking. In part, however, this demands that long-established security
notions be either entirely set aside or fundamentally altered. This is particularly difficult
to accomplish when remnants of traditional threats remain. Mere acceptance of the
security ramifications of environmental degradation, in other words, cannot immediately
be transferred into policy unless the previous security framework changes or broadens to
accept nonmilitary, and hence, non-traditional threats.

Although I have stipulated that.to some degree this process has begun in a t least a
conceptual way, it cannot be overstated that the US security posture, like a societies
consciousness, "changes only gradually- usually with the change of generation^.""^ For
this reason, despite the end of the cold war, it is U e l y that

17'Richard H. Ullman, "Redefining Security," 153.

114
for the foreseeable future American national security strategy will continue to be more
willing to expend its limited resources on traditional military measures then to prevent
or ameliorate the effects of environmental degradation.lT3 In the mean time, however,
the world's population continues to increase by nearly 90 million people annually and
tropical forest cover the area of New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont and
New Hampshire combined is lost each year. The US security implications of these and
many other environmental problems must be evaluated and plans to counter these
threats made. But, according to some workable criteria and within a realistic framework
tha t accepts the limited ability of current national security policy to adapt quickly. From
this understanding, adequate plans to combat the degradation can be created and put into
effect.
As the US formulates its security strategy, it is not only current issues but the
potential threats posed by environmental thresholds being reached and unleashing
tremendous security repercussions which simply cannot be ignored. Conceptually, a t
least, we are beginning to realize this. However, by citing the environmental problems
without a n adequate understanding of why they are threats in the first place hurt s our
ability to formulate a strategy to address them and does little to prepare the US to handle
threats a s they arise. Assessing the wide number of issues to a few tha t clearly fit under
national security criteria, and which can be dealt with an d learned from is, therefore, in
order. Accordingly, concerns need to be limited to current threats t h a t can be clearly
defined and which fit current national priorities. It is my assessment tha t because of the
lack of a n adequate understanding of th e parameters of environmental degradation and
the lack of criteria far for specifically defining environmental security threats, then
intimidation over the scope of the problem an d skepticism remains a powerful and
action-limiting factor. I n this manner controversy continues to be powerful enough to
counter or deflate the importance of much of the environmental security outcry As long a
s a commitment and financially feasible
 means to address the threats can be proven, environmental degradation addressed from a
national security perspective provides the only real hope for timely action.
I t was also revealed tha t if environmental issues fit security criteria then it is
there tha t they must be placed and only there where they will receive the required
resources to solve them- but only if the country gets serious. Environmental security
must be seen a s a permanent mission under national security strategy. We should
remember t h a t it took over four decades to win the cold war, I t is therefore inconsistent
to argue tha t environmental threats facing the US are not legitimate security threats

merely because they ar e long-term dangers t h a t require long-term tactic^.""^

specifically defining th e individual, legitimate, and immediate threats within a clear and
permanent national security strategy, a n alarmist, quick-fix mentality can be avoided and
a great deal of controversy quelled.

Armed with a n understanding of th e complexities of environmental degradation,

basic definitions and national security criteria, chapter three broadly identified the
transnational environmental security threats faced by the US. By narrowing the focus an d
immediacy of various issues it was revealed t h a t quality of life for border regions of the
US an d the economic threats caused by environmental degradation in th e developing
world pose the greatest US environmental security threats. I n order to combat these
threats a wide variety of tools, some traditional some not, were deemed appropriate. To
see results, however, the use of efficient environmental politics, trade and, in a few cases,
the military ar e needed.

Implementation of environmental security is not a n easy process. Dealing with

developing nations; trying to influence them into actions which are neither widely
understood nor accepted, brings up a score of difficult issues including national
sovereignty, culture, an d development philosophy. Though environmental politics and
environmental economics a r e very new concepts, the case studies of
Brazil and Mexico along with the North American Free Trade Agreement highlighted
some of these problems a s well a s showed some lessons for future negotiations and
hope for future environmental progress. Though the road to
environmental security is a tricky one, it is one t h a t must be taken. By understanding and
identifying the risks, addressing the criticism and realistically
countering the threats it can be achieved.
 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bagley, Bruce M. & Sergio Aguayo Quezada. Mexico: In Search o f Security.

New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. 1993.

Barry, Tom, Harry Browne & Beth Sims. The Great Divide: The Challenge o f US-
Mexico Relations in the 1990's. New York: Grove Press, 1994.
Broadus, James M. and Raphael V. Vartanov. "The Oceans and Environmental
Security." Oceanus. Summer 199 1, 14-19,

Brown, Lester R., Christopher Flavin, Sandra Postel. Saving the Planet: How to
Shape an Environmentally Sustainable Global Economy. New York: W.W
Norton & Company, 1991.

Butler, Alison. "Environmental Protection and Free Trade: Are They Mutually
Exclusive?." Federal Reserve Bank of ST. Louis. MaylJune 1992, 3-16.

Butts, Kent H . '%nvironmental Security: A DOD Partnership for Peace." Strategic

Studies Institute Special Report. Washington D.C.: U . S . Government Printing
Office, 1994.

Caldwell, Lynton K. Between TWOWorlds: Science, the Environmental Movement,

and Policy Choice. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Cavanagh, John, John Gershman, Karen Baker and Gretchen Helrnke. Trading
Freedom: How Free Trade Affects Our Lives, Work, and Environment.
Montpelier, Vermont: Capital City Press, 1992.

Congressional Budget Office, A Budgetary and Economic Analysis of the North

American Free Trade Agreement. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1993.

Deudney, Daniel. "Environment and Security: Muddled T h i n i g . " The Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists. April 1991.

The Economist. "A Problem a s Big a s a Planet." 5 November 1994, 83.

. "Environmental Groups: As Green Turns to Brown." 5 March 1994, 27.

Ehrlich, Paul R. and Edward 0. Wilson. "Biodiversity Studies: Science and Policy."
Science. 16 August 1991.
Ellsaesser, Hugh W. ed. Global 2000 Revisited: Mankir~d'sImpact on Spaceship
Earth. New York: Paragon House, 1987.

Field, Barry C. Environmental Economics: An Introduction. New York: McGraw-

Hill, Inc., 1994.

French, Hilary F. Costly Tradeoffs:Reconciling Trade and the Environment.

Washington D.C.: Worldwatch Institute, 1993.

Gaddis, John L. Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of Postwar

American National Security Policy. New York: Oxford University Press,
1982.

Gleick, Peter H. "Environment and Security: The Clear Connections." Bulletin o f the
Atomic Scientists, April 1991, 17.

. "The Effects of Future Climactic Changes on International Water

Resources: The Colorado River, The United States, and Mexico." Policy
Sciences. 21, 1988, 23-39.

Goodman, Sherri W. "Vision for Environmental Security." Defense 94. 3 (1994) :

25-39.

Grayson, George W. The North American Free Trade Agreement. Headline Series:
Foreign Policy Association, 1993.

Helvarg, David. "The War on Greens: The Anti-Enviro Movement is Growing- And
Getting Uglier." The Nation, 28 November 1994, 646-651.

Holdren, John, Thomas Homer-Dixon, Elizabeth Kirk, Ronnie Lipschutz and Thomas
Naff. "Environmental Dimensions of Security." In Proceedings from a AAAS
Annual Meeting Symposium 9 February 1992. Washington D.C.: American
Association for the Advancement of Science, 1992.

Homer-Dixon, Thomas F. Environmental Scarcity and Global Security. New York:

Foreign Policy Association, 1993.

. "On the Threshold: Environmental Changes a s Causes of Acute Conflict."

Internatiortal Security. Fall 1991, 76-116.

INFOBRZIL . "Brazil a t Center of Controversy Over Rapid Amazon

Development," January 1989, 5.
 The Interparliamentary Conference on the Global Environment: Final Proceedings.
Washington D.C.: US Government Printing Office, 1990.
I
I Johnston, Douglas M. "Vulnerable Coastal and Marine Areas: A Framework for the
Planning of Environmental Security Zones in the Oceans." Ocean
Development and International Law. 24. 1993, 63-79.

Kaplan, Robert. "The Coming Anarchy: A Preview of the Savagery, Tribalism and
Warfare .That Lie Ahead." The Atlantic Monthly. 273 n2, February 1994.

Lanier-Graham, Susan D. The Ecology of War. New York: Walker and Company,
1993.

Latin American Regional Reports: Brazil. "Satellite Stirs Up Amazon Dispute."

RB-80-03, 3.

. "Rondonia Chooses Labor" RB-82-09, 4.

. "Alarm Over Amazon Deforestation: Study Suggests 'Minimal Areas of

Conservation."' RB-86-09, 5.

. "Safeguards Approved by the Assembly." RB-88-06, 3.

I
. "Sarney Acts on the Environment." RB-88-10, 12.
I
I
I
. "Loans Linked to Destruction of Rainforest." RB-89-07, 10.

, . "Capitol Hill: Sarney Wants Shared Responsibility for the

Environment." RB-89-09, 19.

. "Road to Amazon Ready at Last" RB-84-09, 3.

. "Tucurui: the cost of development." RB-82-03, 5.
. "In Brief: Pollution." RB-85-09, 18.
I . "Environment: Concern over marshland Alligators." RB-86-10, 5.
I . " 'Internationalisation' of Amazonia rallying-point for military
hardliners." RB-92-03, 1.

. "Defender of Amazon rainforest fired." RB-92-04, 4.

I
r
Latin American Regional Reports: Mexico and *VAFTAReport. "Problems with
judges and side agreements." 15 July 1993.

. "The Environment." 14 January 1993.

. " The negotiating pace quickens but major setback." 10 J u n e 1993.

Levin, Norman D. Prisms & Policy: U.S. Security Strategy After. the Cold War.
Sant a Monica: RAND. 1994.

Maguire, Andrew and Jane t Welsh Brown ed. Bordering on Trouble: Resource &
Politics in Latin America. Bethesda: Adler & Adler, 1986.

Mathews, Jessica T. "Redefining Security." Foreign Affairs. Spring 1989, 162-177.

McLaren, P. "Navies & The Global Environment." Navy International,

Januarypebruar y 1993, 12.

Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L. Meadows, Jorgen Randers. Beyond The Limits:
Confronting Global Collapse, Envisioning a Sustainable Future. Post Mills,
Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing, 1992.

Minott, Rodney K. "Environmental Degradation As A National Security Problem:

Armed Forces." U.S. Naval Postgraduate School. Spring 1993.

Muiioz, Heraldo and Robin Rosenberg. Difficult Liaison: Trade and the
Environment in the Americas. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers,
1993.

Myers, Norman. "Environment an d Security." Foreign Policy. Spring 1989, 23-41.

National Security Planning Associates, "The Environment & National Security: The U.S.
Navy's Capabilities an d Requirements." A Study Submitted to The Deputy Chief
of Naval Operations (Logistics) an d The Defense Nuclear Agency, September
1993.

Parfit, Michael. "Troubled Waters Run Deep." National Geographic. 184 n5A,
1993, 82.

Pontecorvo, Giulio ed. The New Order of the Oceans. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1986.

Repetto, Robert ed. Wasting Assets. Washington D.C.: World Resources Institute. I

1989.
Report to the Chairman, Commit fee on Commerce, Science and Transportation,
U.S. Senate. "U . S .Mexico Trade: Assessment of Mexico's Environmental
Controls for new Companies." August 1992.

Romm, Joseph J. The Once and Future Superpower. New York: William Morrow
and Company. 1992.

. Defining National Security: The Nonmilitary Aspects. New York:

Council on Foreign Relations Press, 1993.

Runge, C. Ford. Freer Trade, Protected Environment: Balancing Trade

Liberalization and Environmental Interests. New York: Council on Foreign
Relations Press, 1994.

Sanderson, Steven E. The Politics o f Trade in Latin American Development.

Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992.

. "Mexico's Environmental Future." Current History. February 1993, 73. .

Sarkesian, Sam C. U.S. National Security: Policymakers, Processes, and Politics.
Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1989.

Shrybman, Steven. "The Costs of Economic Integration." World Policy Journal.

Winter 1991-92, 93-109.

Silverstein, Michael. The Environmental Economic Revolution: How Business Will

Thrive and the Earth Survive in Years to Come. New York: St. Martin's
Press, 1993.

Stokke, Olav S . Western Environmental Interests in the Arctic. Aberdeen Scotland:

Centre for Defence Studies, 1992.

Susskind, Lawrence E. Environmental Diplomacy: Negotiating More Effective

Global Agreements. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Ullman, Richard H. "Redefining Security." International Security. 8 n l Summer
1983, 129-153.

Wacker, Ronnie. 'Earth Summit Wrap-up." Display, Summer 1992, 58.

The White House. A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement.

Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1994.
Wickham-Crowley, Timothy P. Guerrillas & Reuolutior~in Latin America: A
Comprehensive Study of Insurgents and Regimes Since 1956. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1992.

Zaelke, Durwood, P a u l Orbuch a n d Robert Housman. Trade and the Enuironment:

Law, Economics, and Policy. Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1993.
 INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST

Defense Technical Information Center . . . . . . .2

Cameron, Station
Alexandria, Va 22304-6 145

Library, Code 52 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Naval Postgraduate School
Monterey, CA 93943-5101

Dr. Thomas C. Bruneau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Chairman, National Security

Affairs (NSIBn)

Naval Postgraduate School

Monterey, CA 93943-5000

Dr. Rodney Kennedy-Minott. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Dept. of National Security Affairs
Naval Postgraduate School
Monterey, CA 93943-5000

Dr. Robert E . Looney . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dept. of National Security Affairs (NSLx)
Naval Postgraduate School
Monterey, CA 93943-5000

Sherri Wasserman-Goodman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Deputy Under Secretary

of Defense for Environmental Security Pentagon

3400 Defense Pentagon

Washington D.C. 2030 1-3400

Leon S . Fuerth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 National Security Advisor for th

e Vice President
Old Executive Office Building, Rm. 294 Corner
of 17th St., NW & Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Washington D.C. 20501

Danielle Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Bureau of Intelligence &

Research

Main Stat e Department Building

2201 C. Street
N. W. Washington D.C. 20520-65 10
9. Lt. Scott C. Kraverath
1204 Scotch Pine
Edmond, Ok 73034