International Security and the Liberal World Order--Fall '23

Climate change is an obvious international issue with solutions presented by professionals but somehow misses the cooperations of the international community due to group interests. As we progress with technological advancements, cultural development, etc… global climate issues become more and more prominent. As traumatizing as Covid-19 was, it allowed for the global community to cooperate in finding containment solutions. So why is this not the case for climate changes for third world countries experiencing drought?

The US has held global hegemonic power in influencing global politics and aiding its allies but fails to aid neighboring countries suffering drought. It is disheartening to see US amplifying its border policies to countries whom they’ve enjoyed their goods. These countries have experiences development struggles but due to climate change are experiencing it plummeting at a faster rate than expected. Most of the citizens of the countries see the “American Dream” as an opportunity to start over and help their families back home.

Although it is easier to place a lot of blame on the US, we have to hold responsibility for these countries leaders and spreading educational resources on emergency preparedness. Organizations such as CDRO help educate its citizens on how to successfully farm despite weather conditions. Least developed countries should continue to work on their relationship with its citizens and seek help internationally if climate change continues to persist. Developed countries should be able to respond to developing nations concerns since they are benefiting from the labor of their fruits..

As the COP 28 climate talks continue in Dubai, it seems appropriate to do my blog post on the phenomenon of climate change. Climate change affects everyone, especially those who live in an agrarian society. However, I do not believe that climate change is a new phenomenon. The Earth has seen drastic changes in its climate since the development of life on our planet. I understand that climate change is a pressing issue and I do agree that human beings have accelerated the process of climate change, but this change in climate has always been inevitable. The article that stuck out to me was Jonathan Blitzer’s piece from “The New Yorker” claiming that climate change is the reason for the U.S. border crisis. Although I agree with his statement that it is a factor, I also believe that claiming that all human migration is a result of climate change is a far-reaching stretch. I’m sure that many of the individuals coming from Latin America are fleeing from climate related issue, especially those of an agricultural orientation, but many others are migrating due to other factors. These factors include but are not limited to failing economies, gang violence, political oppression, or crippling poverty. In general, people also migrate due to wars, genocide, and persecution. I may be wrong, but I do not view climate change to be the world’s number one issue at the moment. In fact, I believe that the issue of climate change should be low on the priority list of things that need to be address. I know that is a controversial statement, but the threat of global conflict is something I fear more in today’s day and age. However, I do not think the issue should be ignored entirely. I believe the West has been doing a decent job trying to cut carbon emissions, but more needs to be done by countries like India and China who produce the most pollution and do not seem to mind doing so. I will point out however that China has made many strides in cutting their carbon footprint in the decades since the 1990s. So, kudos to them!

An article that caught my attention this week was “How Climate Change Is Fuelling the U.S. Border Crisis”. What struck me about the article was that “U.S. immigration policy has sought to be more deterrent in managing the border, but it has underestimated the impact of climate change as a root cause of regional mass migration”. It’s clear that the climate change crisis is getting worse, but the response from the U.S. and other countries is still very weak. The threat of climate change is growing so rapidly that the IEP, an international think tank, predicts that 1.2 billion people worldwide could be displaced by climate change and natural disasters by 2050. While climate change is not the only reason for refugees, it creates many social problems, including soaring food prices, and in the worst cases, conflicts that trigger refugee crises.

Therefore, it is crucial that the world recognizes the problem of climate migration now. President Biden’s call to raise awareness of climate migration is a good first step, but there is still a long way to go. It is needed sustained strategies, not just a short-term assistance plan. A holistic and collaborative approach involving governments, communities, and the international community is needed, including working with local communities to implement climate-resilient projects, working to secure climate financing from international financial institutions, and establishing a U.S. government working group on climate migration. “No policy, wall, strengthening of a frontier, of border controls is really going to address the underlying issue,” said UNICEF’s Carerra, and it’s time for a more fundamental and realistic policy on climate refugees and borders.

This week’s readings examine the complex intersection of climate change and global security. Dumanie and Mintzer’s exploration sheds light on countries’ diverse perspectives regarding climate change, emphasizing the need to move beyond individual viewpoints and embrace a collective stance. They advocate for an integrated approach that transcends disciplinary boundaries, fostering various perspectives within national and international organizations and recognizing the interconnectedness of natural and human-made systems, including the broader implications of biogeophysical changes, extended beyond environmental concerns to encompass a broader spectrum of economics and international relations. 

Throughout the discussion, the authors emphasize the challenge of shifting traditional perceptions of security, which have been associated with warfare, conflicts, and military considerations. This perspective has hindered the recognition of environmental issues as integral to security concerns, contributing to a delayed acknowledgment of the gravity of climate change. Nordhaus’s reading echoes this sentiment and points out how the Ukranie war has redirected global attention and urgency toward renewable energy.

This shift underscores the intricate connections between renewable energy solutions and countries striving to redefine the world order. It prompts us to question the intricate entanglement of our global economy, where reliance on unsustainable climate practices often stems from the existing structure. While the justification for these practices lies in the current framework of our economy, recognizing the immediate threats posed by climate change on multiple scales and finding sustainable solutions requires paradigm shifts in established systems, challenging conventional perspectives at individual, state, organizational, and institutional levels. However, when considering our inherent interdependence across borders, these challenges represent just one piece of the puzzle.

We must understand that in a state the environmental issues are responsible for social, economic, political, and even military conditions. We must stabilize population growth and stop famine because they cause tension, war, and terrorism in the global arena. Some security measurements of global climate change are:

1.Resources scarcity and competition for water, food, and land security. There are some of the biggest challenges that we must compete for land, water, and food; 2. Infrastructure vulnerabilities like sea-level rise and coastal infrastructure. The infrastructure deteriorates when sea levels rise. National Security Implications, like military bases and operations, rising sea levels and extreme weather can threaten military bases and affect defense; 3. Technological and Environmental Security impact on critical infrastructure. Climate change can pose risks to critical infrastructures, including energy grids and communication networks; 4. Economic impacts like disruption of economies. Economic Crisis are causing global setbacks and difficult recoveries; 5. Migration and climate refugees. In the last decade we saw large migrations of people around the world. This will cause future problems; 6. Health and Pandemic. The risk of disease, like the COVID 19 pandemic spread; 7. Extreme weather events like natural disasters affect all areas in the world; and lastly 8. Global Governance Challenges like international cooperation: Addressing the security dimensions of climate change requires global cooperation. Failure to do so can strain diplomatic relations.

The security measurements of global climate change involve a combination of alleviation strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to promote international cooperation to build resilience and prevent conflict.

For this week I will be analyzing the New York Times article, “W.H.O. members agree to begin talks on a global pandemic treaty.”  In the 21^st century climate change has become at the forefront of political and economic decisions including being a key issue among presidential candidate decisions.

It appears the World Health Organization is taking the charge to address the growing climate change worries in the near future.  Their goal is to create a legally binding treaty of all 194 members of the World Health Organization to hold accountability in their effort for a cleaner future.  The United States is against the legal action the W.H.O. presents but in favor of an established committee seeking a cleaner world.  This could be because as of 2021, the United States is second behind China in global carbon emissions.  Although the United States is pushing for cleaner energy with electric vehicle policy and tax breaks, it may not be able to reduce its emissions without an effect on production and their economy.  The European Union and Britain also pushed for legal ramifications, but that could because they do not compare to other emission giants such as China, the United States and India.  This falls along the lines with discussions we have had in class about sovereignty.  The more multilateral organizations/treaties a country joins,  the les sovereign they become.

The problem with climate change is once country can’t commit to be cleaner, while others do not.  This push by the World Health Organization, if accepted by all countries, could make significant progress in global climate change.  The biggest factor in all of this is China.  According to a study in 2021, China lead the world in carbon emissions as of 2021 by double the next country.  Like many other multilateral organizations there are legal repercussions stated, but not enforced.  Unless China agrees to abide and adheres to the legal ramifications set by the W.H.O., the treaty will have minimal impact.

It is an interesting exercise reading the McInnes and Roemer-Mahler article today, in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic. Of course, hindsight is 20/20 and I do not want to fault an article for not being able to prdict the future. Especially because I think the authors raise some very important points. Firstly, they indicate that the adoption of a rational/scientific approach to global public health might be as politically biased as a professedly political point of view. Secondly, they state that planning should not focus exclusively (or majorly) on the consequences of health problems, without taking into account their likelihood. It is true that many health problems that kill millions of people all over the world (such as tropical diseases, traffic accidents, issues related of obesity) are somewhat overlooked, because their consequences seem lees dire than those of a global pandemic.
Having said that, I think that their choice of case analysis was unfortunate. As the authors themselves say, despite its gruesome symptoms, Ebola has never been an ideal candidate for culprit in a global pandemic (unless it were to undergo radical mutations). It is much less transmissible than airborne diseases. Furthermore, the symptoms develop so fast (short incubation period), and kill the infected individual also so fast (on average) that there is not a lot of opportunity for the host to widely spread the disease.
The Covid-19 pandemic showed other flaws in their rationale. In a very interconnected world, the speed with which a highly transmissible disease spreads is much higher than many previous projections indicated. The difficulty of containing it is, therefore, also much higher.
Moreover, as our unfortunate recent experience indicates, the consequences of a global pandemic are not restricted to the millions of direct victims of the disease. The economic and logistical crash caused by the pandemic jeopardized the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people, and will have severe health impacts in the coming years (caused by malnutrition, lack of access to medication), yet to be fully accounted for.