environmental change and security program report 3: official statements and new publications

7/31/2019 Environmental Change and Security Program Report 3: Official Statements and New Publications

1/26


2/261

Official Statements

STATEMENTS BYMADELEINE K. ALBRIGHTSECRETARY OF STATES

Excerpts from Secretary of State Albrights Letter inthe U.S. Department of States first annual report onthe environment and foreign policy, EnvironmentalDiplomacy: The Environment and U.S. Foreign Policy,April 1997

Just over one year ago, then-Secretary of State Christo-pher announced that the State Department wouldspearhead a government-wide effort to meet theworlds environmental challenges. He said, TheUnited States is providing the leadership to promoteglobal peace and prosperity. Wemust also lead in safe-guarding the global environmentuponwhich that pros-perity and peace ultimately depend.

This report is an outgrowth of that initiative. It will bereleased every year on Earth Day. Its purpose is toupdate global environmental challenges and policydevelopments and to set our priorities for the comingyear.

Not so long ago,many believed that the pursuit of cleanair, cleanwater, and healthy forestswas a worthy goal,but not part of our national security. Today environ-mental issues are part of the mainstream of Americanforeign policy.

We are building on three basic premises.

First,we know that damage to the global environment,

whether it is overfishing of the oceans, the build-up ofgreenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the release ofchemical pollutants, or the destruction of tropical for-ests, threatens the health of the American people andthe future of our economy. We know that rapid popu-lation growth exacerbates these problems andhas con-sequences that transcend national borders. And weknow that the global environment can be protectedmost effectively if nations act together. For these rea-sons, this effort must be a central concern ofAmericanforeign policy.

Second, environmental problems are often at the heart

of the political and economic challengeswe face aroundthe world. In Russia and central Europe, environmen-tal disasters left over from the Soviet era shorten livesand impede reform. In central Africa, rapid popula-tion growth combined with the competition for scarceresources fuels conflict and misery. We would not bedoingour jobs aspeacemakersand asdemocracy-build-ers, if we were not also good stewards of the globalenvironment.

Third,webelieve, asdid President Kennedy, that prob-

lems created by man can be solved by man. The envi-ronmental problems we face are not the result of natu-ral forces or the hidden hand of chaos; they are causedby human beings. These problems can be solved ifAmerica works in partnership with governments,NGOs, and businesses that share our commitment to acleaner and healthier world.

To meet this challenge, the State Department is chang-ing the way we do business. Four years ago, we ap-pointed an Under Secretary for Global Affairs. Ourembassies and bureaus are developing regional envi-ronmental policies that advance our larger nationalinterests. To help coordinate these policies, we areopening regional environmentalhubs at our embassiesinCosta Rica, Uzbekistan, Ethiopia,Nepal, Jordan, andThailand. We have made environmental cooperationan important part of our relationships with countrieslike Japan, India, Brazil, and China.

Globally, we are pursuing five environmental priori-ties: the problems of climate change, toxic chemicals,species extinction, deforestation, andmarine degrada-tion. We have mademany important advances, includ-ing agreements to phase out the remaining substancesthat damage the stratospheric ozone layer and to banocean dumping of low-level radioactive waste.

We have many opportunities this year tomake furtherprogress. At the conference on the UN FrameworkConvention on Climate Change, which will be held inKyoto, Japan this December, we will be pressing for asubstantive agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emis-

sions. The United Nations will hold a special sessionthis year to commemorate the fifth anniversary of theRio Earth Summit. There will also be an importantmeeting of the Convention on the International Tradein Endangered Species.

Environmental diplomacy is a work in progress. Thedepletion of our fisheries, the increase in the level ofgreenhouse gases, and the destruction of habitats andspecies did not occur overnight and cannot be reversedovernight. We must work with the Congress and theAmerican people to obtain the resources we need tosupport our diplomacy in this area, as in all others.

We have made a good beginning. Our nation and ourfriends and partners around the world have the tools,the commitment, and the know-how to get the job done.As Secretary of State, I am committed to this effort andoptimistic that we will succeed.


3/26112

Official Statements

STATEMENTS BYWARREN CHRISTOPHERSecretary of State

Secretary Christophers Remarks to the WoodrowWilson International Center for Scholars,14 January 1997The Environment in U.S. Foreign Policysee page 186 of this Report

Secretary Christophers Remarks to Council of theAmericas, Washington, D.C.Excerpts from Council of the Americas: SupportingEconomic Growth and Democracy6 May 1996

. . .Wewill advance our hemispheric efforts tohelp pre-serve the environment when the SummitsConferenceon Sustainable Developmentmeets in Bolivia later thisyear. At StanfordUniversity threeweeksago, I stressedthe importanceof integratingenvironmental issues intothemainstream of foreign policy. Whether in confront-ing the costs of climate change or the impact of defor-estation on the consolidation of democracy in Haiti,addressing these issues is squarely inAmericas inter-est. That includeshelpingAmerican companies expandtheir commanding share of a $400-billion market forenvironmental technologies. We all need to recognizethat pitting economic growth against environmentalprotection is what President Clinton calls a falsechoice.

STATEMENTS BYWILLIAM J. PERRYSecretary of Defense

Excerpts from Secretary Perrys Remarks toTheSociety ofAmerican Engineers ,Washington,D.C.20 November 1996

Last month, I visited the Little Star Shipyard in Arch-angel, Russia. . . .Iwent there to observe the dismantle-ment of a nuclear submarine. A few years ago, thatsubmarine was out on patrol, carrying enough nuclearmissiles to destroy dozens of American cities. Now itis being dismantled by some of the same Russian work-ers who built it, using equipment provided by theUnited States Department of Defense.

The waters around the Little Star Shipyard are packedwith old Russian nuclear submarines. These subma-rines no longer threaten the worldwith a nuclear holo-caust; however, they are still a major environmentalhazard to the Arctic region. By helping Russia dis-mantle these subs, we are creating a win-win-win situ-ation.

Its a win for Americathe submarine we saw beingdismantled will never again threaten American cities.

Its a win for the Russiansthe workers doing the dis-mantlement were previously unemployed because ofthe decrease in orders for nuclear submarines. Andits awin for the environmentthe submarinesnuclearfuel will be disposed of safely; and the subs compo-nents are being recycled intomaterials that can be usedto produce commercial products. To use defense re-sources to destroy weapons that once threatened us

makes good sense on its face. Indeed, thats why wecall it defense by other means. But to use defenseresources to protect andpreserve the environment mayseem counter-intuitive.

Each year, Congress gives theDoD environmental bud-get a special working-over. The critics wonder whywe are spending scarce defense resources on whatseems to be a non-defense activity. They say, Focuson a strong defense and leave the environment to oth-ers. They are wrong. I say that a strong environmen-tal program is an integral component of a strong de-fenseand a strong Department of Defense. The De-fense Department must have an environmental pro-gram that protects our troops and families; that man-ages our training and living areas carefully; that ful-fills our obligation to be good citizens to the commu-nity in which we live; and that sets a good example toother militaries around the world. Let me take theseone at a time.

First, lets be clear that defense environmental protec-tion is critical tomilitary readiness and tomilitary qual-ity of life. Our military personnel live, train, and workin the same locationin the same environment. We

must not expose our forces, their families and militarycommunities to environmental health and safety haz-ards. Sowe take care to limit their exposure to hazard-ous materials in the workplace. And we take great careto keep our base communities informed of what weare doing on base, and involve local citizens inmakingenvironmental clean-up decisions. These are peoplewho work on our bases; who support our troops; andwho are key members of our effort to maintain a qual-ity force.

A second point is that defense environmental protec-tion is good management, because as any good busi-

ness manager knows, if you pollute today you pay to-morrow. We are paying the price right now, becauseyears ago the Defense Department, like many indus-trial organizations, did not invest enough attention orresources in environmental protection. As a result, to-dayourmilitary installations contain about 10,000 con-taminated sites. Thats landwe cannot use for trainingand operation. And on baseswere closing, thats landwemust restore at great cost, beforewe can turn it overto local communities for reuse. Cleaning up these sitesis costing us more than $2billiona year,which is nearly


4/261

Official Statements

half of our overall defense environmental budget. Wedont want to make these mistakes again.

A third reason for an emphasis on environment is thattaking care of the environment is good citizenship. TheDefenseDepartment is the steward for over 25millionacres of public land. These lands include some ofAmericas most pristine landscapes and precious re-

sources; including rare and endangered species, na-tional historic places andNativeAmericanburial sites.Many of our bases are part of civilian communities inclose proximity to residential neighborhoods andschools. Military activities can have a significant im-pact on the quality of the land, air, and water that weall use. We protect a beautiful nation, andwe must doour part to keep it beautiful. For all these reasons, en-vironmental protection is a key task for everymilitarymanager. But it is also a fact that defense environmen-tal protection is not an option. We in the defense de-partment face the same local, state, and federal envi-ronmental laws and regulations that apply to everyorganization and institution in this country.

We take these laws and regulations seriously. . . .Thatis why, three years ago, we created the Office of Envi-ronmental Security at the Pentagon, and appointedSherri Goodman to coordinate and lead our efforts atthe highest levels. That is why the Services have eachappointed a flag officer to lead environmental, safetyand occupational health activities in the ranks. That iswhy, over the past several years, wehaveworked hardto reduce our damage to the environment. And it ispaying off. From 1986 to 1992, we cut our hazardous

waste in half. Our goal is to cut it in half again by 1999.Cutting waste not only improves environmental qual-ity, it also quite obviously reduces disposal costs. Pol-lution prevention is a good classic investment. And itsaves money that can be used for other defense pro-grams.

All of this sounds like a good ideawhose time has come.But over the longer term, we must deal with the prob-lem of environmental pollution at its source. Sowe aredesigning environmental responsibility into our newweapons systems; by reducing hazardous emissions inthe building of new systems; and by reducing the need

for hazardous materials in the operation and mainte-nance of these systems.

. . .The U.S. military has a wealth of experience andexpertise that it can share with the militaries of othernations. Our defense environmental programs are be-coming another important tool in which to engage themilitaries of new democracies. In doing so, we canmake a small contribution to a better global environ-ment; and have a positive influence on their approachto defense and the way they manage resources.

We are doing this, for example, with the Russians inthe Arctic. Just two months ago, I signed a uniqueagreement with Russia and Norway inwhich our forceswill work together to ensure that their military activi-ties do not harm the Arctic environment. . . . Geographi-cally, the Arctic is the closest route between the UnitedStates and Russia. So it is fitting that in preserving thisroute, webring our nations closer together. We are also

working with the Russians to use our intelligence ca-pabilities to map out environmental contamination.Earlier this year, Vice President Gore and Russian PrimeMinister Chernomyrdin exchanged maps that vividlydepictedenvironmental conditionsoverEglinAir ForceBase in Florida and Yeysk Air Base in Russia. This ex-changewas unique because theUnited States producedthe map of the Russian base, and the Russiansproducedthe map of the American base. These bilateral ex-changes not only provide us with important environ-mental science data; they are also another way of over-coming a half century of mistrust by working closelytogether on common pursuits.

All over the world, theU.S.military is helping to spreadthe word on how armed forces can protect the envi-ronment. . . .

. . .There is a great benefit when militaries of the worlddo their part to protect and preserve their environ-ments. There is a greater benefit when they do this byworking together. Not only are we making the worlda cleaner and safer place; we are also bridging oldchasms and building new security relationships basedon trust, cooperation and warmth. That makes the

world a more peaceful place. Thomas Jefferson oncesaid, The Earth is given as a common stock forman tolabor and live on. All nations own shares of that com-mon stock. And all nations share a common obliga-tion to preserve it so that our common stock providesthe capital for the labor and lives of future generations.I am proud that the U.S. military is playing a positiverole; and you all should be proud too of the role thatyoure playing to make the U.S. military a leader inenvironmental security in the world.

STATEMENTS BY JOHNDEUTCHDirector of Central Intelligence

Director Deutchs Remarks to the World AffairsCouncil, Los Angeles, CaliforniaExcerpts from The Environment on the IntelligenceAgenda25 July 1996

. . .Environmental trends, both natural and man-made,are among the underlying forces that affect a nationseconomy, its social stability, its behavior inworld mar-kets, and its attitude toward neighbors.


5/26114

Official Statements

I emphasize that environment is one factor. It wouldbe foolish, for example, to attribute conflicts in Soma-lia, Ethiopia, or Haiti to environmental causes alone.It would be foolhardy, however, not to take into con-sideration that the land in each of these states is ex-ploited in a manner that can no longer support grow-ing populations.

Environmental degradation, encroaching deserts, ero-sion, and over-farming destroy vast tracts of arableland. This forces people from their homes and createstensions between ethnic and political groups as com-petition for scarce resources increases. There is an es-sential connectionbetween environmentaldegradation,population growth, and poverty that regional analystsmust take into account.

National reconnaissance systems that track the move-ment of tanks through the desert, can, at the same time,track the movement of the desert itself, see the sandclosing in on formerlyproductive fields or hillsides laidbare by deforestation and erosion. Satellite systemsallow us to quickly assess the magnitude and severityof damage. Adding this environmental dimension totraditional political, economic, and military analysisenhances our ability to alert policymakers to potentialinstability, conflict, or human disaster and to identifysituations whichmay draw inAmerican involvement.

Some events have already dictated that environmentalissues be included in our intelligence agenda. WhenMoscow initially issuedmisleading information aboutthe accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear PowerPlant,U.S.

leaders turned to the Intelligence Community to as-sess the damage and its impact on the former SovietUnion and neighboring countries.

During the GulfWar,when Saddam Husseinused eco-logical destruction as a weapon, policymakers and themilitary called on the Intelligence Community to trackthe movement of smoke from burning oil fields andthe flow of oil released into the gulf. They askedwhether damage to Iraqs Tuwaitha nuclear complexposed a danger to troops and local population.

In each of these cases, our answer to these questions

was not and could not be, the environment is not anintelligence issue. Our answers were classic intelli-gence analysis based on our data from collection sys-tems and open sources. We were able to assess themagnitude of the Chernobyl accident; wewere able totell U.S. troops how to avoid lethal hydrogen sulfidefrom oil fires; and we were able to tell military plan-ners that damage to the reactor was not a threat.

I would like to emphasize that the environment is nota new issue for the Intelligence Community. For years

we have devoted resources to understanding environ-mental issues. Much of the work that now falls underthe environmental label used to be done under othernamesgeography, resource issues, or research. Forexample, we have long used satellite imagery to esti-mate crop size in North Korea and elsewhere. This al-lowed us to forecast shortages thatmight lead to insta-bilityand to determinethe amount of agricultural prod-

ucts a nationwould need to importinformation valu-able to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and toAmericas farmers. We have also trackedworld avail-ability of natural resources, such as oil, gas, and miner-als.

We have for many years provided the military withinformation on terrain and local resources. As ourforces embark onmilitary, peacekeeping, and humani-tarian operations in remote and unfamiliar territory,they will need even better informationon environmen-tal factors that could affect their health and safety andtheir ability to conduct operations.

. . .Environmental intelligencewill also be a part of oursupport to economicpolicymakers. They need to know,for example, whether or not foreign competitors aregaining a competitive advantage over American busi-ness by ignoring environmental regulations. Intelli-gence can provide valuable information.

In short, the demand on the Intelligence Communityfor information on environmental issues will grow. Asthe world population expands and resources such ascleanwater and arable land becomemore scarce, itwill

become increasingly likely that activities of one coun-try will have an environmental impact that goes be-yond its borders. U.S. policymakers will need warn-ing on issues that are likely to affect U.S. interests andregional stability.

Maintaining a capability for environmental intelligencewill allow us to answer important questions that arelikely to come from our consumers in the future. Forexample, Chinas rapidly growing population andbooming economywill translate into a tremendous in-crease in demand for the worlds natural resources,including oil and food. What impact will this have on

world markets? As in the past, we must be preparedto answer such questions.

We should also be willing to provide data from ourcollection systems to help experts answer less tradi-tional questions, for example: what impact will in-creased burning of fossil fuel have on the global envi-ronment?

. . .In 1991, then-Senator Gore urged the IntelligenceCommunity to create a task force to explore ways that


6/261

Official Statements

tantly, it will greatly enhance their ability to providestrategic warning of potentially catastrophic threats tothe health and welfare of our citizens.

. . .I would like to make one more key point about ourwork on environmental issuesthe costs are small andthe potential benefits enormous. The resources allo-cated to environmental intelligence are modest, per-

haps one tenth of a percent of the intelligence budgetfor collection and analysis. We are using intelligencecapabilities that are already in place. This importantwork requires no new capital investments.

. . .I think it would be short-sighted for us to ignoreenvironmental issues as we seek to understand andforecast developments in thepost-ColdWarworld andidentify threats to our national welfare. Just as Secre-tary Christopher promised to put environmental is-sues in the mainstream of American foreign policy, Iintend to make sure that Environmental Intelligenceremains in the mainstream of U.S. intelligence activi-ties. Even in times of declining budgets we will sup-port policymakers and the military as they addressthese important environmental issues.

STATEMENTS BY STROBE TALBOTTDeputy Secretary of State

Excerpts from Deputy Secretary Talbotts Remarksat the Environmental Issues in American Foreign

intelligence assets could be tapped to support environ-mental research. That initiative led to a partnershipbetween the Intelligence and scientific communitiesthat has proven to be extraordinarily productive forboth parties.

TheEnvironmental TaskForce foundthat data collectedby the IntelligenceCommunityfrom satellitesandother

means can fill critical information gaps for the envi-ronmental science community. Furthermore, this datacan be handed over for study without revealing infor-mation about sources and methods.

For example, imagery from the earliest intelligence sat-elliteswhich were launched long before commercialsystemscan show scientists how desert boundaries,vegetation, and polar ice have changed over time.These historical images, which have now been declas-sified, provide valuable indicators of regional and glo-bal climate change.

Some of the scientistswho participated in the Environ-mental Task forcenowmake up a group calledMEDEA.MEDEAworkswith the Intelligence Community to es-tablish what we call the Global Fiducials Program.Under this initiative, during the next decade we willperiodically image selected sites of environmental sig-nificance. This will give scientists an ongoing recordof changes in the earth that will improve their under-standing of environmental processes. More impor-

STATEMENTS BY SECRETARY OF STATEMADELEINE K. ALBRIGHTas United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations

Excerpts from Ambassador Albrights Keynote Address to the 1994 Symposium for the EnvironmentalDefense Fund on the Global Environment: International Issues and InstitutionsApril 21, 1994

. . . Its no secret that the ClintonAdministration has a fundamentally different philosophy than its prede-cessors. We believe that America should be the worlds environmental leader, not foot-dragger. We believeenvironmental awareness is a prerequisite to, not an obstacle to, economic growth. We believe that environ-mental degradation is not simply an irritation, but a real threat to our national security.

During the ColdWar, wemobilized against the risk of nuclear Armageddon. The environmental risk is not

as spectacular or as sudden. It does not focus the publics mind in quite the same way. But left unad-dressed, it could become a kind of creeping Armageddon. It is both a product of, and a cause of, socialdisintegration. It is making uninhabitable increasing chunks of our planet. And it could, in time, threatenour very survival. . .

International cooperation on the environment is no longer an option; it is an imperative. The lineswe drawon maps matter less and less. The forces that now shape our lives are global and interlocking. That is whysustainable development is not an economic policy or an environmental policy or an education policy or ahealth policyit is all of those things and more.


7/26116

sure from atmospheric pollution. The economic andhuman toll of these conditions hinders Russias at-tempts to move forward with reform.

The challenge for us is to help the Russiansand theother peoples in the post-Communist worldbuildsystems and societies that treat natural resources andpublic health as core elements of their national inter-

ests. Thats why theGore-ChernomyrdinCommissionincludes an Environmental Committee that uses clas-sified data from both sides to help scientists and gov-ernment plannersaddress ecological problems. Mean-while, the Environmental Protection Agency is help-ing Russia clean up its drinking water, and the Depart-ment of Energy ishelpingUkraine safeguard its nuclearreactors.

Environmental issues are equally important in theMiddle East and the Gulf, a region of the world thathas been especially on our minds of late. We focus onsurface-to-air missiles, tanks and artillery, which are adangerous mix with ancient hatreds and aggressiveambitions. But we mustnt overlook the more mun-dane ingredient of water, which has immense poten-tial both for good and, in its scarcity, for ill. In no otherregion of the world are waterways and internationalpolitics so intertwined. Iraq, Syria and Turkey sharethe Euphrates River Basin; Israelis, Jordanians, Pales-tinians, Lebanese and Syrians all rely on the resourcesof the Jordan River Basin. Thats why theMiddle Eastpeace process includes a multilateral working groupon water resources.

In this connection, last month Secretary Christopherannounced that our embassy in Amman, Jordan, willbe among the first of 10 Environmental Hubs thatwill, by the year 2000, be located in all regions of theworld. Thesehubs are an innovativedeparture for ourDepartment, because they are designedas an additionalinducement to our diplomats in a particular post, asthey act locally, to think regionally.

In Central America, we have designated our embassyin San Jose, Costa Rica, as another environmental hub.In that neighborhoodwhich is, of course, our ownIve spent some time working with two countries that

Id like to mention. One is Panama. We will, as youknow, return the Panama Canal to the Panamaniangovernment and people at the end of 1999. But thepath between the seas itself faces a potentially lethalecologicaland economicthreat. Various forms ofenvironmental degradation could close the locks. Weare committed toworking in partnershipwith theGov-ernment of Panama to ensure that the Canals protec-tive buffer zones are managed in a way that guardsagainst deforestation, erosion and the buildup of silt.Another country, even closer to the U.S., where Ive

Official Statements

Policy Seminar, National Foreign AffairsTraining Center, Arlington, Virginia10 September 1996

. . .This past February, on a tour of LatinAmerica, Sec-retary Christopher visited Manaus and personally in-spected the Brazilian rainforest....[The outing] under-scored a strong, consistent, personal commitment to

making environmental activism part of theday-in, day-out work of the Department of State. The rationale fordoing so is simple: its because the health and welfareofAmericansare bound up with the quality of the land,air, and water everywhere in the world; the extinctionof species in the tropics, the spread of pollutantsthrough acid rain, the decline of stocks of fish in ouroceans. All these are apparent in tangible, troublesomeways here at home. But struggles over land, water, andother natural resources affect our national interestsoverseas as well, since they can lead to instability inregions of critical importance to the United States.

Because threats to the environment are so often inter-national in scope, no nation can, on its own, achievelasting solutions. In the past 25 years, the United Stateshas made important progress toward putting its ownenvironmental house in order, but even our best effortswill be insufficient if our neighbors do not or cannotdo the same. The State Department, as the agency oftheU.S.government responsiblefor relationswithothercountries, obviously has a crucial role to play.

. . .Let me now refer to some specific areas of theworldand how environmental concerns obtrude on our po-

litical, economic and security interestsand shouldobtrude more on both our analysis of what is happen-ing there and on our diplomatic efforts to shape eventsin a way that will serve our interests.

Ill start, predictably perhaps, with the former SovietUnion. When Reactor Number Four at the Chernobylnuclear power plant blew its top 10 years ago, it wasmore than an isolated accident; it marked the begin-ning of the meltdown of the USSR. That one disasterhelped catalyze the policy of glasnost in Moscow andthe independence movement inUkraine. The deathmore accurately, the murderof the Aral Sea and the

befouling of Lake Baikal fanned grass-roots outrageagainst the obtuseness of Kremlin rule. In short, So-viet ecocide was, to an extent few of us realized at thetime, the beginning of the end of the Soviet regime, theSoviet system and the entire Soviet empire.

Today, in addition to all the other challenges they face,the people in that vast part of the world have to cleanup the mess they inherited from the Communists. Halfof Russias water is undrinkable even after treatment.The health crisis in that country stems in large mea-


8/261

spent a lot of time, including in recent weeks, is Haiti.We all know about the legacy of the Duvaliers and theTon-TonMacoutes. Political violence is part of thegrue-some background to the troubles besetting that coun-try as it tries to consolidate a fledgling democracy. Buttheres another legacy that is just as hard to overcomeand eventually expunge. Deforestation, soil erosion,and water shortageshave combined to leave thousands

without a livelihood and without much hope for thefuture.

. . .It was in this spirit that Secretary Christopher, in hisStanford speech, called for a New Partnership for En-vironment and Foreign Policy designed to forge newrelationshipsbetween experts whomightnot otherwisesee the common interests they share. Let me stress whatthe Secretarys Initiative is not. Its not about creatinga new, separate, self-contained, and therefore by defi-nition self-marginalized bureaucracy thatwill be off ina corner somewhereworryingabout the fate of the earthwhile the rest of the foreign-policy machinery grindson doing its traditional thing. Rather, its an attemptto integrate a concern for and a can-do attitude toward-environmental issues into the way we approach virtu-ally every major task.

. . .The well-recognized problems and solutions thatarise in the interaction of nation-states are still verymuch with us, and they will be so for a very long time.History, the last time any of us checked, has not ended.But we are beginning to understand, perhaps for thefirst time,the sometimesdevastating, sometimesprom-ising, always complicating interaction betweenhuman

history and natural history.

. . .Understandingand actingonthe importanceandinteraction of global issues is an imperative for diplo-mats aswell. The institutionhosting this conferencethe Foreign Service Instituteis to be congratulated,as it (like some of the rest of us baby-boomers) cel-ebrates its 50th birthday, for integrating environmen-tal issues into its core curriculum, from the junior of-ficer orientation course to the Senior Seminar. A nine-month economics course now includes segments onclimate change, trade and environment, biodiversity,and sustainable development.

But we as an institution and as a profession need to domore; weneed todo it across a broader front and reachmore deeply into the system, so that we continue toadvance our national security while doing a better jobon issues that know no boundaries, from environmen-tal damage to international crime.

As a follow-up on his Stanford speech and his envi-ronmental initiative, the Secretary has asked me to usethis occasion to affirm and amplify on an important

principle: the foreign service officer of the 21st centurymust have significant experience in global issues. Thiscan be accomplished in many ways, from working inMexico Cityonborder pollution, or inBeijingonpopu-lation or energy matters, or here in Washington in abureau that deals with international crime, terrorism,environment, refugee affairs, or the promotion of de-mocracy and human rights.

. . .To everyone here, whether youre part of the gov-ernment or the NGO sector, Id make a final appeal. Ithas to do with money. We dont have enough. . . .As Isay, the Congress has tried to put American foreignpolicy on a starvation diet. And precisely because glo-bal issues in general and environmental issues in par-ticular represent a new agenda, a non-traditional en-terprise, they are among the most vulnerable targetsfor financial squeezing and cutting.

Just a few examples:We havent been able to come upwith the seed funding for a project that would helpreduce CFCs worldwide; The United States is the big-gest debtor in the Global Environmental Facility, theprincipal international funding mechanism for the ac-tivities called for by the Climate Change Convention.Were currently in arrears to the tune of $100 million;Ourenvironmental assistance to theNew IndependentStates of the former SovietUnion has fallen fromnearly$75 million in FY95 to less than $10 million in FY97, adramatic retreat on a crucial front.

. . .We also need to persuade Congress that the interna-tional-affairs budget is a modest and prudent invest-

ment in our long-term safety and prosperity. And thatmeans we need to persuade the American people onthat score.

Part of Secretary Christophers environmental initia-tive is a determination to raise public awareness of theimportance of environmental issues to our nationalinterest. Wewill do a better job of educating the publicon this subject if we better educate ourselves. Thatsexactly what you are doing in this seminar today. Forthat I thank youand I wish you well.

STATEMENTS BY TIMOTHY E . WIRTH

Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs

Under Secretary Wirths Remarks at the Center forNational PolicyExcerpts from Population Pressure and the Crisis in the Great Lakes Region of Africa18 December 1996

. . .Im pleased to lead off this discussion of the longterm causes of conflict in the Great Lakes region of Af-ricaa subject I began focusing my attention on in July

Official Statements


9/26118

1994, when twomillion refugeespoured out ofRwandainto neighboring countries. Secretary of State WarrenChristopher had asked me to travel to the region, totake stock of what was shapingup to be one of the great-est humanitarian disasters of our time. One of the firstthings I noticed, as my flight entered Rwanda, werethe terraced farms in the hills surrounding Kigali. Itstruck me as unusual that in the midst of Africas vast-

ness, farmers in Rwanda had managed to till everyavailable meter of land, right up to the peaks of thehills in the countryside. Farmers homes normally siton the peaks of those hillsthe only bit of land that isnot used for farming. I didnt know then, that prior tothe tragic events of spring and summer1994, Rwandas7.6 million people were living on 25,338 square kilo-meters of land, a population densityof about 290 peopleper square kilometer, among the highest inAfrica. Bycomparison, at that time, the overall average for sub-Saharan Africa was 23, and most neighboring coun-tries were all well below 100 people per square kilo-meter.

Why was Rwandas population density so high? Be-cause Rwanda was producing a lot of new citizens. In1983, the total fertility rate for Rwanda stood at 8.5 chil-dren per woman. As John May, a demographer at TheFutures Group will point out in a forthcoming article,evenwith a highmortality rate for childrenunder five,Rwandas population continued to expand at alarm-ing rates because the population had become accus-tomed to rapid growth, because Rwandan ethnicgroups had come to think of population growth as anasset, and because of an aversion to modern methods

of contraception. In the 43 years from 1950 through1993, the worlds population grew from 2.2 billion tomore than five billionslightly more than doublingwhile during that same period, Rwandas populationquadrupled. It seemed to me that in Rwanda, as inother parts of the world I have seen, there were simplytoomany people competing for too few resources. Thisis particularly true in Rwanda, where patterns of landuse have increasingly become problematic, especiallysince independence in 1962. Rwandan societyhad, forat least several generations, reliedupon subdivision ofland among male heirs. In a country with a rapidlyexpanding population, this created many small plots,

some too small to sustain even a small family.

It would be helpful here to review a bit of history. In1963, the new Rwandan government developed a re-settlement policy to deal with land scarcity, which in-volved transporting people to areaswhere arable landwas available for cultivation. However, the plan wasdropped shortly afterward because the number ofpeople ready to relocate quickly outpaced the avail-able plots. There were also strict controls in place onrural-urban migration. The government tried a sec-

ond effort to find additional arable land for Rwandasrapidly growing population in 1965,but this effort alsofailed because the available land was quickly ex-hausted. In fact, by the late 1980s, Rwandas agricul-tural output was beginning to sag. From its positionas one of sub-SaharanAfricas top three performers inthe early 1980s, Rwandas per capita output fell bynearly 20 percent in the early 1990s. Much otherwise

arable land fell into disuse because of civil conflict andmine laying. Profound food shortages began emerg-ing, particularly in the southern and western parts ofthe country. Asmore and more land came under culti-vation in Rwanda, the agricultural frontier continuedto close. Few people chose to remain in the rural areaswhere theywere raised; but because theywere not per-mitted tomove to a townwithout having a job inhand,many moved into ecologically fragile upland and aridareas that yielded little new production.

Meanwhile, other eventswere taking shape in Rwandathat would change the course of the countrys history,and would intensify into an enormous humanitariantragedy....However, the genocide of 1994 is only oneexample of large-scale interethnic killing that haswracked not only Rwanda, but also neighboringBurundi, since the late 1950s. . . .

. . .In trying to explain these cycles of killing, exile, andrevenge killing that have characterized much of therecent history of these lands, I frequently return to thereality of competition for scarce resources that under-lies the tension. At the same time, there is a danger ofassuming that scarce resources alone, such as land in

Rwanda, cause conflict. As demographer NicholasEberstadt has pointed out, the problemsof sub-SaharanAfricamight occur (givenunderlying societal tensions)even if the population levels of these nations were sta-tionary. But is it possible to rule out the enormouspopulation change inRwanda during the past 40 yearsas a critical factor in its recent ethnic turmoil? I believenot.

Population growth and extreme population move-ments certainly have a negative affect on political sta-bility. When they happen in concert with environmen-tal degradation, stalled economic development, weak

governmental structuresand ethnicrivalries,they serveas a powder keg into which a match can easily betossed. Demographics alone do not cause or predictconflict, but the fierce competition for resources thatpopulation density creates compounds any effort toreconcile pre-existing historicaland cultural differences.Had the security of resources and demographic dis-ruption not been present in Rwanda, I am convincedthat its society would have been more resilient, andless susceptible to the depravity of genocide.

Official Statements


10/261

. . .Thomas Homer-Dixon, a researcher at the Univer-sity of Toronto, has written that environmental scar-city often encourages powerful groups to capture valu-able environmentalresources and encouragesmarginalgroups tomigrate to ecologically sensitive areas. Thesetwo processes in turn reinforce environmental scarcityand raise the potential for social instability. In casesfrom around the globe, Homer-Dixon has illustrated

how competition over scarce resources, such as land,contributes to conflict. For example, in Haiti, follow-ing the overthrowof theDuvalier regime in 1986,manyfarmerswho were no longer able to raise crops on landthat had become degraded, migrated to urban areassuch as the capital, Port-au-Prince. There, they foundrelatively poor conditions with little infrastructure toabsorb the quantity of new arrivals. During the mili-tary government that followed Duvalier, discontentover the disparity in land, competition for scarce re-sources and dissatisfaction with inequitable incomedistributions between the elites that ran the countryand dispossessed farmers boiled over, and resulted inthe civil strife that led to the intervention of U.S. forcesin 1994.

Are the cases of Rwanda and Haiti unusual? Again, Isuggest not. Each year, the U.S. intelligence commu-nity puts out a list of those nations where there is po-tential for humanitarian crisis. This year, the list in-cluded some 27 countries that were undergoing intenseconflict, simmering conflict, severegovernment repres-sion, cease-fires, political settlements, post-crisismop-up or where there were potentials for new humanitar-ian emergencies. Of those 27, fully two-thirds have

population densities higher than the global average.What this points out, above all, is that the work thatwe have done and continue to do around theworld onpopulation is vitally important. It is critically impor-tant that women in Rwanda, including those return-ing now to theirhomes, have access to information andservices that empower them to determine the number,spacing and timing of their children. We know fromexperience that social investments in womenin theirhealth, education and economic accessyield thehigh-est returns to society. An educated woman is morelikely to have fewer children, and her children in turnare more likely to be healthy and educated.

Naturally, there are other things that the internationalcommunity must do to help Rwandans rebuild theirlives. Wemust help returning refugees reintegrate intoRwandan society. Part of the $145 million that theUnited States recently pledged toward relief operationswill help with just that. . . .

. . .I would like to leave you with a thought: even if itcan never be proven that Rwanda and other troublednations slid into chaos precisely because of the pres-

sure of acute population increases, it is inarguable thata country doubling in population every 20 years,wherewomen bear eight children each, where density is al-ready staggeringly highthese countries are much,much more likely to run full speed into economic, en-vironmental, social and political walls, frequently withdisastrous results. I ask that all of us, and not onlythose who care about the Rwandan people, carefully

think through this challenge as we move into the 21stcentury.

STATEMENTS BY SHERRIWASSERMANGOODMANDeputy Under Secretary of Defense

for Environmental Security

Under Secretary Goodmans Remarks at theNational Defense University, Washington, D.C.Excerpts from The Environment andNational Security8 August 1996

. . .For preventive defense to succeed we must ad-dress the increasingly diverse threats to our security inthe post-ColdWarworld. PresidentClinton in his 1996State of the Union Address described these threats inhis call tomaintainAmericas leadership in the world:The threats we face today as Americans respect nonations borders. Think of them: terrorism, the spreadofweaponsofmass destruction, organized crime, drugtrafficking, ethnic and religious hatred, aggression byrogue states, environmental degradation.

As the President recognized, the underlying causes of

conflict and instability, such as ethnic cleavages andenvironmental degradation,may threaten ournationalinterests in regions of strategic importance. Under-standing the causes of conflict and instability, provid-ing adequate warning of potential crises, and actingwell before a crisis to avoid costly military interven-t ions are a t the heart o f preventive defense .Operationalizing preventive defense will pose whatI believe is a primary challenge to policymakers in theyears ahead. Policymakers arebeginning todelvemoredeeply into the causes and consequences of conflict andinstability in the post-Cold War world. It is increas-ingly clear that environmental degradation and scar-

city play a key role in this complex question. In 1996,for the first time, the National Security Strategy recog-nizes that a number of transnational problems whichonce seemed quite distant, like environmental degra-dation, natural resource depletion, rapid populationgrowth and refugee flows, now pose threats to our pros-perity and have security implications for both presentand long-term American policy. . . .

. . .Environmental scarcities can interact with political,economic, social, and cultural factors to cause instabil-

Official Statements


11/26120

ity and conflict. Particularly in poorer countries, scar-cities can limit economic options and therefore forcethose already impoverished to seek their livelihood inecologically endangered areas such as cities. Themegacities of the South are especially vulnerable. Thedeveloping worlds urban population is expected toincrease 1 billion in 1985 to 4 billionor almost half ofthe worlds populationby 2025. Such areas can be-

come teeming areas for disease, crime, and social de-cay. The multiple effects of environmental scarcity, in-cluding large population movements, economic de-cline, and captureof environmental resources by elites,can weaken the governments capacity to address thedemands of its citizens. If the states legitimacy andcapacity for coercive force are undermined, the condi-tions are ripe for instability and violent conflict. If thestates legitimacy and coercive force capacity remainintact or are bolstered, the regime may turn more au-thoritarian and challenge the trend of democracy andfree markets around the world. Either way, our secu-rity is affected, and U.S. military forces may becomeinvolved, when environmentally linked instabilityspills over to other states in a key region, or when acomplex humanitarian emergency results from envi-ronmentally rooted population movements.

. . .Even where environmental degradation or scarcityis not likely to be a cause of instability or conflict, mili-tary environmental cooperation can help promote de-mocracy trust, and capability to address environmen-tal problems. In this context, defense environmentalcooperation supports one of Secretary Perrys threepremises of preventive defense: that defense estab-

lishments have an important role to play in buildingdemocracy, trust and understanding.

I believe our environmental security challenge nowunder preventive defense is two-fold. One challengeis to understandwhere and underwhat circumstancesenvironmental degradation and scarcity may contrib-ute to instabilityand conflict, and to address those con-ditions early enough tomake a difference. The secondchallenge is to determine where military environmen-tal cooperation can contribute significantly to buildingdemocracy, trust and understanding. These two ele-ments together constitute the environmental security

pillar of preventive defense.

. . .In a speech on the Senate floor on 28 June 1990, Sena-tor Sam Nunn spoke of the need to harness some ofthe resources of thedefense establishmentto confrontthemassiveenvironmental problems facing ournationand the world today. That led to the establishment ofthemultiagency Strategic EnvironmentalResearch andDevelopment Program (SERDP), which plays an im-portant role in developing and analyzing the dataneeded for alerting us to possible security threats.

Through SERDP, whichwas established in 1990, Sena-tor Nunn and then-Senator Gore had the foresight torecognize that the U.S. defense posture had to be ad-justed to meet the challenges of the post-Cold Warworld, challenges that include environmental degra-dation. SERDP has made significant contributions toour understanding of global environmental trends,with key projects including the Joint DoD/Energy De-

partment Atmospheric Remote Sensing and Assess-ment Program, which monitors ozone levels; and theAcoustic Monitoring of the Global Ocean Climate,which measures global ocean temperature and incor-porates these data into climate change models. Thisanalysis is important to developing the types ofwarn-ing systems I believe we need.

Military operators are also paying more attention tohow we can be alert to potential crises. We were cer-tainly surprised that Canada and Spaintwo NATOallieswouldnearly come to blowsover fishing rights.This dispute, which happened just off the U.S. coast,proved that even among developed countries, there isthe potential for fierce resource competition. This inci-dent was a real wake up call to our military operators,who reviewed the origins of the dispute carefully andare now seeking to work with other organizations inimproving international fisheries management. Wehave also begun looking at assessment and warningmechanisms with our NATO partners. Environmentand Security in an International Context, a new pilotstudy launched by NATOs Committee on the Chal-lenges of Modern Society this past March, calls for theNATO representatives to work closely with represen-

tatives of the NorthAtlantic Cooperation Council andthe Partnership for Peace countries. During the courseof the study we will identify and assess security risksposed by environmentalproblems,prioritizethoserisksfor action, and devise an action plan to address themwith a strong emphasis on preventive actions.

Promoting military environmental cooperation thatcontributes significantly to democracy, trust and un-derstanding is the second element of the environmen-tal security pillar of preventive defense. SecretaryPerry himself has acknowledged the unprecedentedopportunity the Defense Department has today to es-

tablish and reinforce key relationships: Our environ-mental efforts are also having a global impact. All overthe world, American forces are sharing the wealth oftheir environmental experiencewith foreignmilitaries,showing them by example and instruction how topro-tect and preserve the air, lands, and waters in theirowncountries. This is one of many forms of military-to-military engagements our forces are conducting to helpAmerica build cooperative relations with new friendsand former foes.

Official Statements


12/261

. . .At the end of the ColdWar our European Command(EUCOM) initiated a military-to-military program inCentral and Eastern Europe to encourage and facili-tate thedemocratization process. Early in that programthe environment emerged as an important area for co-operation as the militaries of these countries becameaware of and sought to address their environmentalresponsibilities. Since the beginning of this mil-to-

mil programwehave engagedmultiple federal agen-cies, state and local governments, non-governmentalorganizations, the public, and themilitary in programsgeared toward meeting environmental challenges. Wehave shown our Central and Eastern European part-ners, through working with representatives of a widearray of organizations, that themilitary can and shouldparticipate easily and effectively in open and coopera-tive processes within a democratic framework.

. . .Cooperation with other key U.S.Government agen-cies is important to designing the most effective formsof environmental cooperation. Recognizing that thewhole is often greater than the sum of its parts, on 3July 1996, Secretary Perry, Secretary OLeary, and Ad-ministrator Browner signeda MemorandumofUnder-standing calling for cooperation among the DoD, theEnergy Department, and the EPA, to jointly addresscritical environmental concerns. Cooperative activitiesunder the MOUwill focus on enhancing other nationsabilities to identify andmanage environmental threats,as well as on addressing the environmental conse-quences of both the military and civilian ColdWar de-fense activities, and on strengthening ties with devel-oping and democratizing nations. Methods of coop-

erationwill include information exchange, researchanddevelopment,monitoring, risk assessment, technologydemonstration and transfer, emergency response train-ing, regulatory reform, and environmental manage-ment. We plan to engage the other key U.S. Govern-ment departments and agencies in ourMOU activities.In fact, we already are: last week, at DoDs invitation,we hosted a Polish delegation from the Ministries ofDefense and Environment to develop bilateral,multiagency environmental cooperation involving theEnvironmental ProtectionAgency andDepartments ofState, Energy, and Commerce. By the end of the week,the Polish delegation had proposed five areas for de-

fense environmental cooperation, the heart ofwhich ismaking American environmental technology and ser-vicesavailable to assist Polish environmental problems,both in the military and the commercial sector. . . .

STATEMENTS BY EILEEN B. CLAUSSENAssistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International and Environmental Affairs

Excerpts fromAssistantSecretaryClaussens Remarksat the Chatham House Workshop on Multinational

Corporations and Global Environmental Change,London, England27 June 1996

. . .Let me assure you that governments now acknowl-edge the importance of global environmental concernsat the highest levels. They are raised in meetings ofheads of state. . .to the highest levels of government. It

means that we will make environmental issues an in-creasingly significant component of our bilateral rela-tionships. It means that we will improve the capacityof our embassies around the world to address envi-ronmental concerns. It means that we will confrontthe problem of weak compliance with internationalenvironmental agreements. In a broader sense, itmeansthat we will continue to make strong links betweenprotection of the environment and continued economicstrength, public health, and national security. . . .

STATEMENTS BY JOHNGIBBONSAdvisor to the President on Science and Technology

Excerpts from John Gibbons Remarks at the Con-ference on Climate Change, Evolving Technologies,U.S. Business and the World Economy in the 21stCentury,U.S. Department of State,Washington,D.C.18 June 1996

. . .Through thepast nine Presidents and 22 Congresses,our primary emphasis has been the battle for globalsecurity, based on the uneasy politics of disarmament,nucleardeterrence andcontainment. During that time,the second front has grown continually inboth sizeand

complexity, shaped by the forces of globalization, tech-nological advance, population growth, environmentaldegradation, and social change.

As the image of the Cold War recedes, it is the secondfrontwhich advances. It is the plethora ofhuman andenvironmental stresses which now commands our col-lective attention. It is the humanwantsfor jobs, edu-cation, health, a sound environmentand threatsinfectious disease, illiteracy, massmigration, terrorism,and global changewhich now define the second frontof security policy. In a recent speech at Stanford Uni-versity, Secretary of State Warren Christopher again

drewour attention to that broader concept of securitythe second front. He described how a lasting peacedepends upon our ability to deal effectively and equi-tably with the social, economic, and environmentalneeds of a growing global population while continu-ing to deter military threats.

Secretary Christopher articulated what many of us in-tuitively grasp. We face a set of regional and globalchallengeswhich transcend agencymissions, disciplin-ary divides, and political boundaries. Our traditional

Official Statements


13/26122

notions of national security and the role of science andtechnology need to change. We must craft new poli-cies and priorities which can both sustain our militarydeterrence capability and sustain environmentally-sound economic development. Last year, PresidentClinton took the first step in this direction by issuingthe nations first-ever National Security Science andTechnology Strategy.

. . .Over the past two years,we haveworked withmanyof you to define and implement a National Environ-mental Technology Strategy to support the develop-ment, domestic use, and export of environmental tech-nologies by U.S. business. We met and brainstormedwith over 10,000 peoplefrom industry, academia,NGOs, and state and local governmentsatmore than25workshops across the country. We believe this strat-egy is unique; it was created with all the key stake-holders, and it capitalizes on the resources ofmore thana half-dozen federal agencies including EPA, DoE,Commerce, andDefense, and it includes public-privatepartnerships and an integrated set of policies whichoperate from the initial stages of R&D through com-mercialization and export promotion. The strategy le-verages important trends that are taking place in in-dustry, wheremore and more companies pursue envi-ronmental excellence as a competitive strategy. Thestrategy also looks beyond our borders and supportsU.S. businesses seeking to capture rapidly expandingglobal markets for environmental technologies. Wehave:

developed an Environmental Technology Export

Strategy to provide strategic market analyses of largeemerging environmental technologymarkets and sup-port U.S. businesses interested in moving into thesemarkets;developed an Initiative for Environmental Technolo-gies (through USAID) to focus development assistanceon critical environmental challenges in developingcountries;established a new Environmental Directorate at theExport-ImportBank to assist U.S. businesses with loansfor environmental projects overseas. Funding for en-vironmental projects at Ex-Im now exceeds $1 billion;established the Americas Desk (a State Department

initiative) to help to solve problems for U.S. businessesoverseas and bring business concerns to the forefrontof the foreign policy process.

STATEMENTS BY AMBASSADORMARKHAMBLEYU.S. Special Representative to the

Commission on Sustainable Development andSpecial Negotiator on Climate

AmbassadorHambleys Remarks to theWorkshop onInternationalEnvironment and Security Issues at the

National Defense UniversityExcerpts from The Environment and Diplomacy:New Challenges for American Foreign Policy8 August 1996

. . .Nowadays, the importance of the environment tothe health and well-being of each and every one of ushas come to be recognized as a key priority for govern-

ments, both domestically and internationally. . . .

. . .Environmental issues are now in the mainstream ofAmerican foreign policy. No longer side-lined orplacedin a second tier of interest, the environment is of im-portance to American diplomacy because of our gen-eral awareness about the potential for conflict engen-dered by resource scarcities and the concomitant, re-lated problem of access to limited resources. Moreover,as the Secretary mentioned in his Stanford address,there are now global environmental issues which ourdiplomacy must address in order to preserve a worldwhich is both healthy and sustainable for future gen-erations.

Both of these considerationsthe problem of resourcescarcities and the specific environmental issues chal-lenging us todayare worth exploring this morningin the context ofour discussion of the environment anddiplomacy. But before doing so, it would probably beworthwhile to underscore that, in many ways, a dis-cussion of environment and diplomacy cannot beseparated from the topic of environment and secu-rity.

. . .Lets take a moment to look into the question of re-source scarcities and see how diplomacy is working toreduce some of the conflicts whichhave developed overtime because of them. First of all, it should be clarifiedthat such scarcities are not usually the direct cause ofviolent conflicts around the globe, but they are oftenindirect causes. This said, the four resources most likelyto contribute to conflict are land,water,fish, andforests.

Land scarcity is a recurrent theme in several low-levelbut persistent conflicts around the world. Scarcity canresult from land degradation, unequal distribution ofland, over-population, or some combination of these

factors. The dynamic behind civil insurgencies overthe past decade in both the Philippines and Peru looksremarkably similar. Lack of access to productive agri-cultural land combines with population growth to en-courage migration to steep hillsides. These hillsidesare easily eroded, and after a few years fail to produceenough to support the migrants. The result is deep-ened poverty which helps to fuel violence. In the Phil-ippines, the New Peoples Army found upland peas-ants to bemost receptive to its revolutionary ideology.InPeru, aswell, areas of land scarcity and poverty have

Official Statements


14/261

oftenbeen Sendero Luminoso strongholds. Here,whilediplomatic efforts have met with some success in thePhilippines, peaceful reconciliation inPeru has not beenpossible.

Another resource thatmay cause conflict is water. Thisis in part because water shortages play a large role inconstraining agricultural productivity. And, to state

the obvious, water often moves from one country toanother. Almost 50 countries have more than three-quarters of their land in international river basins; 214river basins around theworld are international in char-acter. While resource constraints tend to threaten in-ternal stability, water shortages in some regionsthreaten international conflict.

. . .Whether this will continue to be the case in the fu-ture remains very much problematical. Suffice it to say,that foreign policy experts are increasingly on the recordas stressing that armed clashes over water and waterrights are likely to be a major point of conflict in thefuture. To be sure, there are few issues where activediplomacy will have to be brought to bear to reducethe prospect for conflict over environmental issues ofsuch potential sensitivity as those which are related towater.

This said, a third area of resource scarcityone relatedto fishis also much involved as a matter of environ-ment and diplomacy. In the first instance, fish remainthe most important source of animal protein in manydeveloping countries. Yet, all of theworlds major fish-ing areasall 17 of themare close to reaching, or have

exceeded, what we perceive to be their natural limits.

. . .Finally, a fourth area of resource scarcity is in thearea of forests. Forests are linked with the other re-sources in a variety ofways. Deforestation accelerateserosion, changes local hydrological cycles and precipi-tation patterns, and decreases the lands ability to re-tainwater during rainy periods. Resulting flash floodsdestroy irrigation systems and plug rivers and reser-voirs with silt. And when silted coastlines decimatefisheries, fishermen turn to agriculture and then joinstarved farmers in cutting downmore forestcomplet-ing a vicious cycle.

. . .The questions of fish and forests as environmentalissues provide us with a good lead into the second as-pect of todays discussion, namely, those areas whereour current diplomatic strategy is concentrated. Inaddition to these two areas, there are four others whichare also worthy of mention in this context:marine pol-lution, chemicals, biosafety, and climate change.

. . .The use of certain toxic chemicals and pesticides(likeDDT andPCBs) in developing countries andEast-

Official Statements

ern Europe and the newly independent states (NIS) isan increasing health threat to U.S. citizens. Most ofthese toxic chemicals were banned long ago in theUnited States, because they donot biodegrade and haveserious negative impact on human health and the en-vironment. These chemicals are transported long dis-tances through the air and water, thus affecting popu-lations far from their region oforigin (they tend to travel

from warmer to colder climates and are found withtelling effects even in remote, non-industrialized partsof the Arctic). Because this poses a long-term healthand environmental threat to theUnited States,we haveplaced a high priority on developing internationalagreements to regulate the trade, production and useof the most hazardous of these chemicals and pesti-cides, also known as persistent organic pollutants(POPs). We are in the process of urging all countries towork together toward an effective regime to addressthis issue. We are also working to provide improvedmechanisms for addressing risks associatedwith otherhazardous chemicals, including through participationin the development of a legally binding instrument forprior informed consent for the export of certain of thesehazardous chemicals. This is one diplomatic effortwhich, with continued patience and initiative, shouldresult in a meaningful result sometime during the nextyear.

The Parties to the Biodiversity Convention have de-cided to negotiate a biosafety protocol to regulate thetransfer and handling of organisms that have been ge-netically modified throughmodern biotechnology. . . .

. . .Perhaps the leading environmental issue confront-ing the world today is the question of global warmingor climate change as the problem ismore accuratelydescribed. . . .TheAdministration has pushed for a sen-sible but progressive domestic and international ap-proach to this problem, including the negotiation ofstronger steps under the 1992 Climate Convention.

. . .In this regard, I think it is both important and ap-propriate to applaud the recent MOU signed by Secre-tary Perry, Secretary OLeary, and EPA AdministratorBrowner to strengthen coordination of efforts to en-hance the environmental security of the United States,

recognizing the linkage of environmental and nationalsecurity matters. This agreement is particularly timelygiven Secretary Christophers initiative to better inte-grate environmental concerns into all aspects of ourforeign policy. . . .


15/26124

Official Statements

Memorandum of Understanding among theDepartment of Energy, Department of Defense,

Environmental Protection Agency3 July 1996 (excerpts)

The Environmental ProtectionAgency, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Defense (the Parties),Recognizing thatAmericas national interests are inextricably linkedwith the quality of the earths environ-

ment, and that threats to environmental quality affect broad national economic and security interests, aswell asthe health and well-being of individual citizens;

Recognizing that environmental security, including considerations of energy production, supply and use, isan integral component of United States national security policy and that strong environmental security contrib-utes to sustainable development;

Recognizing that environmental degradation can have global consequences that threaten the environment,health and safety in the United States;

Recognizing the central role of science and technology in promoting sustainable development and in re-sponding to global threats to environmental security;

Recognizing the need to overcome the environmental legacy of the ColdWar in order to promote prosperityand stability;

Recognizing that the Secretary of State has primary responsibility for the conduct of United States foreignpolicy;Recognizing that each of the Parties has a different experience, expertise, and perspective and that their

collaboration can uniquely assist in addressing international problems of importance for environmental secu-rity and can serve as a model for other countries;

Recognizing that each of the Parties has an important role to play in demonstrating and promoting ap-proaches and technologies that achieve safe and effective environmentalmanagement in defense-related activi-ties in the United States and abroad;

Recognizing that the Parties have established cooperation with the private and public sectors as a basis forjointly addressing sustainable development and environmental security; and

Believing that enhanced cooperation on international environmental protection issues that is consistentwith United States foreign policy and national security objectives is of mutual benefit,

Have agreed as follows:

I. Purpose

1. The purpose of thisMemorandum is to establish a framework for cooperation among the Parties to strengthencoordination of efforts to enhance the environmental security of the United States, recognizing the linkage ofenvironmental and national security matters.

The Parties do not intend this Memorandum to create binding legal obligations.

II. Scope

1. The Parties shall develop and conduct cooperative activities relating to the international aspects of environ-mental security, consistent with U.S. foreign policy and their individual mission responsibilities, utilizing theirlegal authorities and facilities appropriate to specific tasks directed at achieving mutually agreed upon goals.2. Cooperative activities under this Memorandum may be conducted in areas contributing to improved envi-ronmental security, where such cooperation contributes to the efficiency, productivity, and overall success of theactivity. Such activities include: information exchange, research and development, monitoring, risk assess-ment, technology demonstration and transfer, training, emergency response, pollution prevention andremediation, technical cooperation, and other activities concerned with radioactive and non-radioactive con-tamination and other adverse environmental impacts on terrestrial areas, the atmosphere, hydrosphere,cryosphere, the biosphere (including human health) and the global climate system; defense or defense (strate-gic) industrial activities, energy production, supply and use, and related waste management; or other suchmatters as the Parties may agree upon, according to criteria to be mutually developed by the Parties.


16/261

Official Statements

[To EPA Administrator Carol Browner]August 8, 1996Dear Ms Browner:

It was gratifying to receive your letter regarding the Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Cooperation in EnvironmentalSecurity which you recently signed with Energy Secretary OLeary and Defense Secretary Perry. The roles of your three agencies in

promoting environmental security are a significant contribution not only to protecting the environment but to pursuing our nationalinterests in key regions.

This agreement is timely, given our initiative at the Department of State to better integrate environmental concerns into all aspectsof our foreign policy. We are taking a number of steps towards this goalfrom incorporating environmental planning into each of ourbureaus to designating key embassies as environmental hubs to address region-wide natural resource issues. These regional hubs willhelp to coordinate with national governments, regional organizations, and the business community to identify environmental priorities.Your combined effort in the Baltics provides a good example for other agencies on the importance of coordinating transboundary environ-mental concerns.

We welcome the opportunity to collaborate with you as you begin activities under this agreement. The Assistant Secretary of Statefor Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Eileen Claussen, has designated her senior advisor, Sarah Horsey-Barr, to work with the program coordinators.

Sincerely, Warren Christopher

Related Official Correspondence[To Secretary of State Warren Christopher]July 1996DearMr. Secretary:

We are writing to apprise you of the collaborative action taken by the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and the Environ-mental Protection Agency in the area of environment and security. Our action complements your initiative to incorporate environmen-tal issues in the Department of States core foreign policy goals.

As you stated in your Stanford speech: The environment has a profound impact on our national interests in two ways: First,environmental forces transcend borders and oceans to threaten directly health, prosperity and jobs of American citizens. Second, ad-dressing natural resource issues is frequently critical to achieving political and economic stability, and to pursuing our strategic goalsaround the world. In order to address critical issues related to environment and security most effectively, our agencies must worktogether to maximize our collective statutory and mission responsibilities, capabilities and resources.

The enclosed Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in Environmental Security is responsive to these concerns andestablishes a framework within which our agencies can work more productively together, and with our foreign partners. Projects underthis Memorandum will include work in both military and civilian fields and cooperation on a wide range of issues including scientificresearch and development, technology transfer, regulatory reform and environmental management. A goal of our projects is to enhancethe capacities of foreign states to protect the environment.

Our first activities under the Memorandum include plans to characterize and address radioactive contamination and environmen-tal degradation in the Former Soviet Union, to support the creation of an effective regional environmental framework in the BalticRepublics, and to enhance the work of the U.S. Energy Technology Centers in the Former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and China. Weexpect that activities in all these areas will benefit the environment, further U.S. foreign policy goals and national security interests, and

expand opportunities for private U.S. investment abroad.As we pursue these and other activities under the Memorandum, we will continue to coordinate closely with the State Departmentin order to support the important issues of environment and security.

Sincerely, William Perry Hazel R. OLeary Carol BrownerDepartment of Defense Department of Energy Environmental Protection Agency

3. The forms of cooperation under thisMemorandummay consistof the following: participation in joint projectsaddressing the activities cited in paragraph 2 above, including sharing of technical expertise; cooperative workto institute and enhance environmental management systems related to defense activities; informationmanage-ment and exchange; participation in relevant symposia, conferences and seminars; development of joint scien-tific and policy publications; provision of equipment and associated materials to foreign entities through theappropriate instrument, consistent withUnited States law; temporary assignments of personnel from one Partyto another; and such other forms of cooperation as the Parties may agree upon.

4. Each Partymay use the services of and enter into agreements with appropriate institutions, such as universi-ties andgovernmental andnon-governmental organizations, to develop andconduct activitiesunder this Memo-randum, consistent with applicable law. Where required by law, applicable regulations or procedures, suchagreements shall be subject to consultation with and the concurrence of the Department of State. [. . .]


17/26126

New Publications

Fighting for Survival: Environmental Decline, Social Conflict, and the New Age of Insecurityby Michael Renner

W.W. Norton and Company, 1996. 240 pp.

Reviewed by Peter Stoett

This book is part of the Worldwatch Environmental Alert Series edited by Linda Starke. Michael Renner isa Senior Researcher at the renowned Worldwatch Institute, and he has put together a text that is highly readableand informative. Though it might be criticized in academic circles as heavy on description but rather light onanalysis, Renners accessible style and conscious avoidance of jargon is best viewed as beneficial to the environ-mental security literature as a whole.

Renner describes the effects of environmental scarcity with reference to conflict, global warming, demo-graphics, population movements, inequality, andultimatelythe insecurity that characterizes the post-ColdWar era. He links the global and local aspects of these developments, and argues that environmental crises ofboth orders can induce conflict. Yet he tempers his analysis with the realistic caution that Typically there is nosuch thing as an exclusively environmental conflict (page 75). Many other factors will always be involved,and to Renners immense credit he manages to discuss many of them within the space of this short, yet very

ambitious, book.In the second half of the book hemoves beyond describing the problemswe face and into what he considers

more positive suggestions for change, including a new North-South compact of sorts, decreased militarism,funding for conflict prevention, and the redistribution of land inmany southern states. While Renner certainlysucceeds in convincing us that these things need doing, we get more about why than how in the end.

Nonetheless,Fighting for Survivaloffers the reader a broad overviewof the burning security questions of ourtime. The author has made good use of his access to statistical resources (for whichWorldwatch is so famous),and the writing flows from one page to the next. The book would make an excellent introductory text in envi-ronmental security studies, and should be considered for any course in global issues. One might argue that thebook tries to do too much, but this is overcome by the fact that, given its intended general audience, it largelysucceeds.

As such, complaints about the book are few. Renner includes two short case studies of Rwanda and Chiapas.These promising studies both reinforce the need to look at land tenure as a fundamental variable affecting

conflicts over resource utilization. However, Renner does not provide enough detail in either case tomake thema substantial contribution; nor does he make much of an attempt to identify the similarities and differencesbetween the two.

Some statements aremadewithout adequate treatment. The author argues on page 101 that official defini-tions of what constitutes a refugee and who therefore is eligible for assistance and protection are outdated andoverly narrow,without offering a better definition that would have any chance of political acceptance. He alsotells us that, with the rise of NGOs in world politics, No longer can governments engage in secret diplomacyagainst their own people, and no longer can corporations easily hide behind a smokescreen of proprietaryinformation and private property rights (page 152). This is of course an optimistic overgeneralization. Indeed,Renner might have expanded considerably on his implicit faith in NGOs, especially in the latter sections of thebook.

When discussing his plans for a Human Security Budget, Renner brings up the quickly shelved yet stillpromising idea of obtaining funding for conflict prevention and southern development by fees levied on airtravel, maritime shipping, telecommunications, and trade (including arms sales). Though there are problemsinherent in all these possible revenue sources, it is the arms trade notion that really needs explication. Do wewant to finance environmental security with money from militarism? Do we want to legitimate arms sales inthis fashion?

But these are small points. This book succeeds because it clearly outlines the problems we collectively face,even if it does not provide all the answers we need. It is aimed at a broad audience that needs to understandbetter key global trends. After all, esoteric theoretical discussions of environmental security paradigms have alimited (if devoted!) following. Renners book not only serves as an excellent backgrounder, but may inspireothers to question the meaning of security, and its policy implications, in our time.

Peter Stoett is a professor in the Department of Political Science, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada.

Book Reviews


18/261

BUILDING BRIDGES: Diplomacy and RegimeFormation in the Jordan River Valleyby Randy Deshazo and John W. SutherlinUnited Press of America, 1996. 190 pp.

Reviewed by Jeffrey K. Sosland

For the past half-century power politics have been

the organizing principle for Middle East diplomats andscholars. Political realists have used the Arab-Israeliconflict as a proving ground for their pessimistic ap-proach to international relations. Given that the regionhas been wracked by years of war and protracted con-flict, the approach of these political theorists is under-standable. However,with the advent of the peacepro-cess andwith initial indications of a regional paradigmshift from conflict to cooperation, developing newmodels to understand the Arab-Israeli arena seemsmore germane. Water scarcity is a pivotal issue thatoffers a good testing ground for different theories ofinternational relations for this region.

In Building Bridges, Deshazo and Sutherlin apply amultilateral institutional approach to explain the im-pact ofwater scarcity in the Jordan River Valley. Theirstudy can be divided into three parts: (1) a historicaloverview of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the recentMadrid peace process; (2) an outline of various ap-proaches to cooperation and of many different meth-ods for testing these theories; and (3) a proposed modelfor a Near Eastern water regime.

The authors conclude that for a regime to be effec-tive, the institutions associated with it should have alegal structure, financing institutions, dispute resolu-

tion mechanisms and an epistemic community whichis a professional group, such as water technocrats,whose members share common values; as well as acommon understanding of a problem and its solution.The authors multilateral institutional approach leadsto their policy recommendation for a peace pipeline a water conveyance system from Turkey to some ofthe water-poor states in the Middle East.

The authors are on the mark that cooperation willbe more probable and lasting if there is a regime thathas clear rules, available financing, an internationalcommunity of experts that supports the regime and themeans to punish states that cheat. Nonetheless, the

book fails to address adequately the political and eco-nomic challenges of water scarcity in the Arab-Israeliarena. First, while the authors highlight the Arab-Is-raeli conflict, they do not adequately examine the po-litical history of the conflict over water. While theremay be a paradigm shift from conflict to cooperation,one lesson learned from the past is that Middle Eaststates are suspicious of plans that would unnecessar-ily increase their dependence on imported water and,thus, diminish their autonomy. Second, the peacepipeline is a supply-side, mega-project which will

probably never go beyond the planning stages becauseof the heavy costs and complicated politics. Currently,there are far cheaper and easier ways to address theregions water scarcity problems.

Improving water demand management offers amore realistic and effective approach to resolving theregionswater scarcity problems than the peace pipe-line. The World Banks emphasis is on reducing the

amount of water allocated to agriculture, whichDeshazo and Sutherlin argue against (p.100),while in-creasing the use of treated waste water in the farmingsector. This incremental approach, which is similar tothe method actually being pursued in the Middle Eastmultilateral peace talks on water resources, involvesan epistemic community, international funding andinterstate cooperation. In contrast to Deshazo andSutherlins approach, the World Banks and multilat-eral peace talks institutional approach call for build-ing many small bridges rather than a single onerousand enormously expensive water pipeline.

Jeffrey K. Sosland is a lecturer and Ph.D. candidate in Gov-ernment at Georgetown University.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL TRAP: The Ganges RiverDiversion, Bangladeshi Migration and Conflicts in

Indiaby Ashok Swain

Department of Peace and Conflict ResearchUppsala University, SwedenReport No. 41, 1996. 135 pp.

Reviewed by Deepa Khosla

Population movements both within and acrossstates are a major concern for individual states and theinternational community in the post-Cold War era.Worldwide there are estimated to be some 20 millionrefugees with an additional 10million people displacedwithin their own countries. The inter-relationshipsbetween such flows, environmental stresses, security,and conflict have received much attention in recentyears. Swains study is a valuable contribution to ourgrowing body of knowledge in these areas as it helpsfurther both theoretical clarity and empirical researchon SouthAsia.

What constitutes a refugee and how to incorporateenvironmental stresses in such definitions are widelydisputedtopics amongboth scholars andpolicymakers.While the term environmental refugees is currentlypopular among some academics, Swain argues thatclearer distinctions are required between forced (push)migration and movements based upon both push andpull factors. He focuses on the notion of migration,defining environmental migrants as those who areforced to move away from their homes as a result of

New Publications


19/26128

the loss of their livelihood and/or living s

environmental change and security program report 3: official statements and new publications

Documents