Global Security Challenges: Climate, Drugs, and Cyber Warfare
Climate Change as a Threat Multiplier
Alan Dupont (2008) argues that climate change is a major threat of the 21st century, acting as both a threat multiplier and a serious danger to America’s national security. Policymakers worldwide now accept sufficient scientific data concluding that the speed and magnitude of climate change will be unprecedented, posing daunting challenges. While state weakness and destabilizing internal conflicts are more likely outcomes than inter-state war, climate change stresses all societies. Surprisingly, little has been done to research, address, or even conceptualize the potential security implications of climate change internationally, despite the observable evidence.
Jan Selby and Mike Hulme (2015) question the direct link between climate change and the Syrian Civil War. Figures like Prince Charles, Obama, and Al Gore have suggested this connection, with Bernie Sanders arguing that climate change is “directly related to the growth of terrorism.” The argument is that resource scarcity caused by climate change fueled the conflict. However, Selby and Hulme argue that there’s little real evidence for this. They point to the overnight elimination of fertilizer and diesel subsidies as the primary factor crippling Syrian farmers, forcing relocation.
The Complexities of Human Security
G. John Ikenberry (2006) critiques the concept of “human security,” arguing that it has become too broad to be effective. While intended to shift the focus from state-centered security to the protection of individuals, its actual impact on state policies is limited. The term may be stretched to include so much that it’s meaningless. New thinking about security hasn’t been matched with a global consensus on how to achieve it.
Roland Paris (2001) echoes Ikenberry’s concerns, stating that the definition of human security is too broad, making it difficult to address specific issues. He identifies two key problems: the concept lacks a precise definition, and its backers have intentionally kept it expansive and vague. This makes it difficult for policymakers to prioritize and allocate resources, and for academics to determine what to study. A remedy would be to redefine and narrow the concept, creating a clear measure to assess factors that influence human security.
The Impact of China on Cybersecurity
Jon R. Lindsay (2014/15) discusses the impact of China on cybersecurity, emphasizing the distinction between cyber espionage and cyber warfare. In a podcast with Dr. Lucas Kello and Dr. Sean Lynn-Jones (2013), Kello argues that cyber warfare should involve loss of life, while cyber espionage should consist of stealing secrets, *not* sabotage like Stuxnet. Most national security officials consider cyber threats more pertinent than conventional terrorism. Offense generally holds the advantage due to:
- Numerous weaknesses unknown to the defender.
- The ability to covertly infiltrate systems.
- Private industries controlling much of the infrastructure, leading to insecurity.
- Globally produced computer systems with components vulnerable to tampering.
Military Primacy and Economic Benefit
Daniel W. Drezner argues that military primacy alone does not ensure security; it must be coupled with economic primacy. He challenges the argument that U.S. military dominance results in significant economic benefits. Military primacy is defined as a distribution of military capabilities where one country faces no current or emergent peers. Drezner’s findings suggest that military primacy doesn’t significantly attract trade or investment, although it does correlate with an open global economy. Economic growth is the strongest driver for growth in defense spending. He examines several theories:
- Geo-economics: Trade with countries leads to protection by a more powerful one (Drezner gives this little weight).
- Geopolitical: A strong military allows a country to protect its economic interests.
- Public goods: A military power provides international security, allowing other actors to continue their activities (e.g., maintaining a stable environment).
The War on Drugs and International Security
Musa Al-Gharbi (2014) contends that Mexican drug cartels pose a greater danger to the U.S. than ISIL, despite media portrayals. The decades-long “War on Drugs” has been ineffective, with the global drug trade persisting and associated crime growing. Current drug policies have led to mass incarceration, disproportionate targeting of minorities, human rights violations, and lost opportunity costs. He highlights more liberal policies in Portugal, Uruguay, and Canada. Portugal decriminalized all drug possession, reducing drug-related deaths. Canada has implemented a treatment-based system. Al-Gharbi cites a UN report estimating nearly 9,000 civilian deaths and 17,386 wounded in Iraq in 2014, with many more likely in Syria due to ISIL. However, in 2013, drug cartels murdered over 16,000 people in Mexico alone, and another 60,000 from 2006 to 2012. The Mexican government is known to deflate the actual death toll. Cartels also carry out beheadings, mutilate corpses, terrorize the public, target women and children, use social media to post graphic images, and silence the Mexican media. Cartels have religious/ritualistic aspects.
Benoit Gomis (2014) argues that current drug policies are failing, creating significant problems for international security. These problems include deaths related to trafficking and consumption, organized crime, and corruption. The drug control system is ineffective in preventing new drugs and routes. Negative consequences include a large increase in the illegal underground market, leading to more violence. Crop-eradication efforts have destroyed livelihoods, particularly in Afghanistan. Persistent political challenges exist:
- Latin America: Disagreements on controlling supply and law enforcement in a regulated market.
- Russia: Concerns over drug flows from Afghanistan.
- West Africa: Struggles with challenges linked to the growing trade, including corruption and addiction.
International drug policy failures include an inability to reduce demand, trafficking, and production, as well as price and purity. Innovative smuggling methods include smaller vessels, submarines, drones, mules, and catapults, along with online black markets. Successes include a decrease in opiate use, a decrease in poppy cultivation in the Golden Triangle, a drop in Colombian cocaine production, and increased international cooperation.
The Challenges of Humanitarian Aid
Annie Sparrow (2016) argues that humanitarian aid often fails due to government abuse and the need for cooperation to gain access. She outlines four key humanitarian principles:
- Humanity: Emphasis on relieving suffering.
- Impartiality: Prioritizing those in greatest need.
- Neutrality: Not taking sides in a conflict.
- Independence: Aid separate from the government.
OHCA’s good relations with the Syrian government raise concerns about impartiality, as the Syrian government reviewed and edited the response plan. Sparrow questions the evidence of WHO’s subservience to Damascus and its credibility, citing instances where WHO covered up outbreaks. In situations like civil wars, providing humanitarian aid is highly complicated.
Laurie Garrett (2012) discusses the impact of the economic crisis on global health initiatives. Due to decreased international funding, the burden falls on the “two Washingtons” – the Gates Foundation in Seattle and Washington D.C. The WHO is no longer dominant. Successes against malaria and tuberculosis may be reversed if funding continues to decrease. Only GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations, founded by Bill and Melinda Gates) continues to be successful.