Global Warming as a Global Security Issue

Ally Tompkins

Global Security Studies

Professor Shirk

Climate Change as a Security Issue

Climate change has posed a pressing challenge for all nations as many debate how to handle the situation. Global warming is not a national security issue; it cannot be fought off with guns or the army of a nation, but instead it is a global security issue. The threat of the changing environment is universal as its effects will be seen by all nations and therefore must be addressed by all nations. While it does not connote the same violence or military strategy as national security, global security requires action from people across the world in efforts to keep the globe safe from environmental destruction. The threat of climate change must be recognized globally in order for there to be effective action taken, such as reducing emissions and working with countries to deal with the impacts.
The Global Security Defense Index on Climate Change examines how global warming is relevant as a security issue by looking at how various regions of the world approach dealing with climate change. Many who work on defense have deemed climate change as a “threat multiplier” or an “accelerant of instability” because of how it influences a range of other, already existing threats”(American Security Project 1). As it directly affects independent nations, so too does it affect their relations with other countries. The index identifies East Asia as being an ideal representation of how the rest of the world should handle climate change. The countries recognize climate change as being one of the factors of conflict. International conflicts heighten because of climate change, bringing attention to the issue in some areas. Other areas such as the Middle East and North Africa have done little to identify climate change as a prevalent issue. However, many international conflicts have direct affiliation with the effects of climate change; for example, in areas with food shortages, the problem could be heightened by increasing temperatures, leading to a conflict in resources (American Security Project 1). Similarly, as sea levels rise, many island nations are witnessing their homes deteriorate. Thus, with the destruction of such areas comes an impending refugee crisis. Therefore, nations must recognize the damaging effects that climate change has on the people of the world and its resources. 
In identifying global warming as a problem, action can be taken to reduce the effects and acquire strategies to handle the impact. The Paris Agreement is perhaps the most famous attempt at actualizing a plan for climate change. The agreement sets a long term temperature goal of keeping the global temperature increase to below two degrees celsius, and hoping to limit it to one and a half degrees above pre-industrial levels. Syria has recently announced their plans to sign the agreement, making the United States the only nation not participating in the efforts. The goal is for nations to plan to create a strategy that aids in reducing emissions and working with the global temperature outline. The timeline is that by mid-century, the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will be balanced. For example, there will be efforts put into growing forests in order to absorb carbon dioxide output. Yet, such an agreement is dependent upon participation and cooperation. As the issue affects all people on the globe, all nations must be willing to work towards a solution. While the current threat is largely to nations deeply impacted by the rising sea levels, everyone will ultimately be affected by global warming. 
Therefore, while it is important that climate change is recognized independently within nations, it is more prevalent as a global security issue than a national security issue. The rising temperatures and sea levels do not merely impact one nation, but rather the entire world. While some effects seem more direct (such as the rising sea levels near Tuvalu, for instance) for some areas, ultimately, the entire world will be subject to the impact of global warming. Thus, there must be a global plan or strategy that includes every nation and works to implement concrete programs in order to aid in the handling of global warming. 

Work Cited;

Deudney, “The Case against Linking Environmental Degradation and National Security”, 

            American Security Project.

North Korea

Too often are Presidents, politicians, and everyday Prince Charming’s use North Korea as another excuse for the United States to get themselves involved in another nation’s internal affairs.  Most often, this desire for American involvement is due to our dedication to democracy, and attempting to implement it around the world in order to form a strong globalist coalition of democracies.  However, such a fantasy is just that – a fantasy.  There are complexities, intricacies, and nuances within every nation that none of us will be able to understand as outsiders.  We believe that American democracy is a round peg, and every other nation happens to be a round hole.  This is simply a fallacy.  North Korea, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of our failed interjections are triangular and square holes, but we, the persistent child, force the peg in regardless.

This is certainly not to say, however, that North Korea is given a clean record and should not be influenced otherwise.  Though, when we decide that, since our system of government and way of life is superior to theirs, we must force them to adhere to it, we find the flaws in our own ideals.  It is clear that the United States, free of human rights atrocities like the DPRK, can serve as a model to not only the Kim family, but other nations around the world.  However, we cannot allow ourselves to force this onto them.  To do so downplays and ignores those intricacies and nuances that each nation holds.  The best thing, at this point, that the United States could do, would simply be to serve as a model for North Korea to follow.  Although this is inefficient, it is much more efficient and effective than forcing it. 

Further, this is only referencing American policy on the internal affairs of North Korea and their blatant human rights violations.  There continues to be an ever-present external threat to the United States posed by North Korea, which should be handled otherwise.  The nuclear threat that the DPRK poses is real, and diplomacy is the only present way to alleviate that threat.  We have seen Presidents flaunt their attempts at diplomacy with North Korea for decades, although none seem to have made any progress.  Frankly, certain Presidents from the 1990’s made things significantly worse.

Diplomacy with North Korea seems to be a very challenging task, which it certainly is.  However, it is not impossible.  There is an abundance of stigma surrounding the nation which is almost completely negative.  This stigma creates most of the difficulty in working with them, since it is considerably frowned upon to cooperate with nations that commit such heinous acts upon their people.  If we were able, as Americans, to blind ourselves to these things and make an honest attempt to help these oppressed peoples, we may be able to see good results.  Kim Jong Un is a man that, although crazy, would be able to rationalize a discussion if given the right opportunity.  Our leaders have spent too long demeaning North Korean leaders, while at the same time, attempting to have diplomatic discussions.  Two such things are simply mutually exclusive.

The Global Influence of North Korea

            One of the biggest issues of international security currently is that of North Korea (also known as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or DPRK). The most obvious of potential threats the nation poses to the world is that of nuclear war. North Korea currently poses a great threat to countries such as South Korea and Japan, who are within range of its short-range missiles and may potentially pose a great threat to the rest of the world, and especially the United States. Beyond these risks, however, there also remain several other reasons to focus on North Korea and its potential impact on the world, from its geopolitical location, to its leader, human rights violations and alliances.

            In regards to the most obvious potential threat North Korea poses -nuclear war- many may argue that based on international experiences with the Cold War, North Korea is actually not much of a threat. As no one launched any nuclear weapons then, no one will utilize their nuclear arsenal now, for the same reason they didn’t then: mutually assured destruction. While that may potentially be true, there always remains the risk that Kim Jon Un may decide to act anyway, for whatever reason anyone chooses to believe: from cold-blooded, calculated cruelty, to a mass tantrum stemming from insanity and/ or immaturity and egocentrism.

            Beyond that, North Korea also poses a threat to international security due to its relationships with nearby countries such as China, with whom it shares a border and is immensely economically reliant. China holds great control over North Korea and its future actions, as it accounts for “89% of DPRK foreign trade” (Lecture 10). However, it also does not want a change in regime, for a multitude of reasons. If the North Korean regime falls, it fears an influx of refugees into China, something which it does not wish to deal with. China also fears intervening too much, as North Korea is guilty of committing terrible human rights abuses on a large scale, and pressuring change in the nation would only serve to highlight China’s own human rights abuses (such as the conditions for their factory workers). This is something that would greatly impact Chinese power, as well as trade, primarily with countries such as the U.S.  This fact alone greatly hinders any efforts to absolve the many threats North Korea poses, however, it also could potentially be utilized to solve many issues, with both North Korea, and China.

            China is one of the largest producers of consumer goods in the world. Many of the goods it produces is for western countries, most notably, the U.S. Perhaps if some form of trade sanctions or regulations could be implemented by, say the United Nations, on China and its production abilities, it could motivate China to positively utilize its influence over North Korea. Currently, one of the only things standing in the way of China properly helping the rest of the world curb North Korea’s threat level is the motivation to do so. If there was a way that could curb economic advance for China, even temporarily, perhaps such change could be inspired (along with, potentially some positive change for China’s human rights issues, if implemented correctly). This, of course, is relatively unlikely, unless such regulations could be designed to not negatively impact those countries and corporation’s dependent on Chinese labor to build their products at a cheap rate. It is also likely that Russia, unless in on the agreement, with help bail China out of any issues, as it wants its fellow communist country to succeed.

            Overall, North Korea and its importance to international security and prosperity cannot be ignored or minimized. Regardless of personal opinions of Kim Jon Un’s dangerousness, of the abilities of North Korea’s nuclear weapons, or of any other such factors, due to its geopolitical positioning and consequent relationships with superpowers such as China, its potential influence on and/ or role in international security affairs cannot be underestimated.

The Deadliest Century

20th Century: The Deadliest In Human History

The "Miracle of the Sun" on October 13, 1917 marked the final apparition of Our Lady of Fatima, having already appeared several times since April of that year. Those Marian apparitions in Portugal were a harbinger, a warning sign of what was to come within the next 100 years: the most brutal century that the world has ever seen. The casualties of conflicts in the 20th century completely dwarfed those of any centuries that came before it. With a much larger global population in the 21st century, greater technology, and civilizations once again retreating to their own ideologies, we may yet see a carnage on par with the 20th century, through war or otherwise. Even if we should believe conventional warfare to be in decline, other human security issues suggest that our era is no less bloody than those of our ancestors.

Our Lady of Fatima appeared during an unprecedented period of history. For the first time, entire societies were pitted against each other directly in war. "The Great War" encapsulated the size of destruction that occurred primarily in "civilized" Europe between 1914 and 1918. The World War I period is also important because the West found themselves in the same predicament then as they do today. In each case, there was a golden age of peace (Belle Epoque and post-Cold War), economic and technological revolutions (Industrial Revolution and Information Age), rising powers leading to hostilities (the rise of Germany and the rise of China/Russia), and political scientists predicting a continued peace, appealing to liberalism and trade interests  ("The End of War" and "The End of History"). Though we do not yet know the end result of our era, World War I ended in around 10 million deaths, and the drastic change of political boundaries that had existed since the Congress of Vienna. Since then, no European state has been able to challenge for dominant global hegemony, at least as an individual power. Therefore, all the "progress" made by humans technologically amounted to nothing socially.

More importantly, the last Fatima apparition occurred three weeks before the Russian Revolution, launching a global ideological war that would last until the 1990s. Having established the first Marxist state, it provided a serious threat to conservatism, liberalism, monarchy, and capitalism all at the same time, ideas that had dominated the world centuries before. World War II was a culmination of the conflict of these ideologies. It remains the deadliest war in history, with around 60 million people perishing during the war. In addition, it was the only truly global war so far, in that there was no nation on earth that remained unaffected by the war, whether or not they were neutral. The end of the war came about with the development of nuclear weapons, the first weapon powerful enough to destroy the earth. While the United States and the Soviet Union did not devolve into direct war with one another, there were several instances where nuclear war was a real possibility, especially during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

This time period in history was also brutal enough that it prompted the recognition of genocides. The Armenian Genocide, Holocaust, Holodomor, genocides in Russia, Cambodian Genocide, Great Leap Forward, and Cultural Revolution all occurred between World War I and the end of the Cold War, and with the exception of the Armenian Genocide, these events were part of the ideological warfare between capitalism and communism. Together, these events alone have caused at least 100 million deaths. While none of these events were unique from any other historical atrocities with similar consequences, they came at a time when genocide awareness existed, and were done on a more massive scale than any time period before it. In addition, none of these examples except Armenia and the Holocaust took place during a war. The Holodomor and genocides in Russia occurred under Stalin in the 1930s. The Khmer Rouge were enabled by their victory in a war to carry out their atrocities in the 1970s, after they had gained power. Many of the victims died from execution, but also dysentery, malnutrition, starvation, or being physically worked to death. Famine during the Great Leap Forward killed tens of millions of Chinese in the 1950s. And social upheaval claimed the lives of millions during the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s and 1970s, though no war was declared.

The post-Cold War era itself has already had many humanitarian crises as well. The Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syrian wars are all well documented. Nuclear weapons are also still an issue, as India and Pakistan developed nukes after the Cold War, with the threat of Iran and North Korea gaining capabilities as well. On top of those issues, however, the Yugoslav Wars resulted in the ethnic cleansing of Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks. In Rwanda, the Hutu murdered 800,000 Tutsi over the course of 100 days in 1994. The Second Congo War raged on from the late 1990s and early 2000s, resulting in an estimated 2.5-5.4 million deaths, the largest death toll since World War II. The War in Darfur has killed about 300,000 and displaced several million since 2003.

While diplomacy in the 20th and early 21st centuries has reduced the sheer number of conflicts, a mountain of evidence, past and contemporary, suggests that the world is still very capable of barbaric acts, and that leaders will seek to circumvent either diplomacy or direct war to abuse their people.

Effectiveness of the Dayton Accords

Effectiveness of the Dayton Accords

Since the signing of the Dayton Agreement in 1995, there has not been a significant conflict among the Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians. This is, in part, thanks to the UN peacekeeping forces in the area. These peacekeepers are merely a guardian of these three ethnic groups and are using the Dayton Agreement to keep the Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians in a prolonged timeout. Taking a realist perspective, I believe that the reemergence of conflict between these three ethnic groups is inevitable.

It is a common belief that the Bosnian conflict was caused by ethnic strife between the Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians. This may have been an underlying factor. However, I argue that a small dislike of another group was turned into a political tool by the leaders of each state involved. Often times political actors would act more moderate to get voted into office, but once in office, would take a more nationalist approach and preach ethnic superiority. Thus, ethnic strife increased as more extremist-view people were given power.

Now, almost 22 years after the signing of the Dayton Agreement, these preachings have slowly diminished. However, like terrorist ideology, this propaganda and beliefs will never completely disappear. All it takes is another ethnic extremist to take over, and the ethical cleansings that happened during the ‘90s will begin again.  

Drawing upon historic events, Hitler rose to power due to the country’s economic depression, the people’s lack of confidence in the current government, and most importantly, the country’s hatred of the Treaty of Versailles. In regard to the Treaty of Versailles, many German nationalists and veterans believed the war could have been one if they had not been betrayed by protesters and politicians. These animosities during the years after World War I created the perfect environment for Hitler to rise to power.

I would argue that a similar situation could potentially happen in the Balkan region. The Dayton Accords was a United States backed peace talk/agreement. The lone hegemon in the world arguably forced the three leaders to discuss a peace agreement. This most likely created some anger among the three ethnicities because an outside actor was making them go about their conflict in a different way, instead of letting them figure it out for themselves. Also, it took Hitler 14 years after the Treaty of Versailles was signed to become chancellor. Therefore, this rise to power in the former Yugoslavia area will take time to happen.

Even if there wasn’t a major ethnic hatred among the three groups before the Bosnian conflict, there is probably a larger dislike now due to the atrocities committed during the conflict. Like Hitler with his Antisemitism, it is quite possible a new leader will try and succeed in bringing these hatreds out once more. Making this even more possible is the fact that in the past, political actors have acted less radical in order to get elected, and then presenting their more nationalist views once in office.

The Dayton Agreement did not end the conflict between the Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians, it simply suspended the fighting. Also, this conflict was not the end-all for ethnic tensions in the region, but rather, due to the ethnic cleansings that took place, made them even deeper. All it takes is one leader from any of the three ethnicities to insert nationalist ideals into the heads of his or her people to begin another conflict between the three major ethnic groups.  

North Korea and Foreign Relations

Ally Tompkins

Global Security Studies 

Professor Shirk

                                                   North Korea and Foreign Relations

As the Kim regime has gained control over North Korea, their cult of personality has consumed the ideologies of the populace. In maintaining their unpredictable reputation, each leader (currently Kim Jong-un) has preserved their oppressive rule over the state. Therefore, it is difficult to determine how many of the citizens of North Korea believe the propaganda that the regime provides and how, if the United States were to end the regime, people would react to a world without the Kim family. Thus, the United States is forced to determine the viability of the nation’s threats and nuclear power in order to establish a plan for further actions. The most recent approach known as strategic patience seems the most practical for current foreign relations, as it avoids the consequence from any potentially destructive activity.

The Kim family has become known for their outlandish claims surrounding their personas. From creating a reputation for Kim Jong-il as a fashion icon, to asserting that the rest of the world loves North Korea, the country’s leaders have forged a nation built on lies. In a completely artificial world, it is difficult to tell whether those who live there believe the words of their dictator and to what extent. Therefore, it is difficult to measure how to intervene with the nation’s leadership if after the fall of the regime there is a nation of distraught citizens with a secluded view of the actual world. It is difficult to keep a nation locked in fear and to garner the attention of major world powers, thus there is a danger in dismissing the rationality of a leader such as Kim Jong-un. Anna Fifield of The Washington Post notes that “Leaders throughout the centuries have realized it can be advantageous to have your enemies think you're crazy”, which she argues has been beneficial for the North Korean dictator. While it is evident that the decisions he makes are not good or beneficial for his people, it can easily be argued that they are rational. For example, he has been able to maintain power as he incited fear in the people of his country. A political cartoon by Rick Mckee depicts the North Korean leader as a child, drawing up his plan of attack on the Americans with crayons. Ofttimes Jong-un is dismissed as an immature child because of his anarchic behavior, yet it must be considered that their is a method behind his madness. While his actions may not be seen by members of a democratic state as rational, he has utilized his system of dread and disorder has allowed him to maintain his power to this day.

Therefore, it puts nations such as the United States in a burdensome situation in dealing with the nation. Beginning in 2003, the U.S., China, Russia, Japan, South Korea, and North Korea began engaging in meetings known as “Six Party Talks”(Lecture 10). While the framework for the talks still exist, there has not been a talk since 2009. Due to North Korea’s strong intent to build nuclear weapons, the ability to reason with the nation has lessened. If the talks were to change to those with five parties, it could lead to anger from North Korea. Therefore, engaging in such a system would not be beneficial for those involved, as it would only lead to irritation from the excluded party. Taking any drastic actions towards North Korea would risk great casualties amongst both the infiltrators and North Korea itself. Currently, the United states and other nations are preoccupied with North Korea’s intent on building up their nuclear weapons program. However, the human security issue in the country serves as a great problem as well. Yet, with the current regime in power, there are few options to take action against the human rights violations of the nation. Due to all of the risks associated with a definitive action, for now it seems that the best option is to wait. Few options at this point seem viable. In order to take down the regime, there must be a strategic element associated with timing. Similarly, the United States does not want to be responsible for beginning a war that could potentially be nuclear. Therefore, it is important that the United States take a step back to evaluate their options in order to take action when the timing is right. Ally Tompkins

Global Security Studies 

Professor Shirk

As the Kim regime has gained control over North Korea, their cult of personality has consumed the ideologies of the populace. In maintaining their unpredictable reputation, each leader (currently Kim Jong-un) has preserved their oppressive rule over the state. Therefore, it is difficult to determine how many of the citizens of North Korea believe the propaganda that the regime provides and how, if the United States were to end the regime, people would react to a world without the Kim family. Thus, the United States is forced to determine the viability of the nation’s threats and nuclear power in order to establish a plan for further actions. The most recent approach known as strategic patience seems the most practical for current foreign relations, as it avoids the consequence from any potentially destructive activity.

The Kim family has become known for their outlandish claims surrounding their personas. From creating a reputation for Kim Jong-il as a fashion icon, to asserting that the rest of the world loves North Korea, the country’s leaders have forged a nation built on lies. In a completely artificial world, it is difficult to tell whether those who live there believe the words of their dictator and to what extent. Therefore, it is difficult to measure how to intervene with the nation’s leadership if after the fall of the regime there is a nation of distraught citizens with a secluded view of the actual world. It is difficult to keep a nation locked in fear and to garner the attention of major world powers, thus there is a danger in dismissing the rationality of a leader such as Kim Jong-un. Anna Fifield of The Washington Post notes that “Leaders throughout the centuries have realized it can be advantageous to have your enemies think you're crazy”, which she argues has been beneficial for the North Korean dictator. While it is evident that the decisions he makes are not good or beneficial for his people, it can easily be argued that they are rational. For example, he has been able to maintain power as he incited fear in the people of his country. A political cartoon by Rick Mckee depicts the North Korean leader as a child, drawing up his plan of attack on the Americans with crayons. Ofttimes Jong-un is dismissed as an immature child because of his anarchic behavior, yet it must be considered that their is a method behind his madness. While his actions may not be seen by members of a democratic state as rational, he has utilized his system of dread and disorder has allowed him to maintain his power to this day.

Therefore, it puts nations such as the United States in a burdensome situation in dealing with the nation. Beginning in 2003, the U.S., China, Russia, Japan, South Korea, and North Korea began engaging in meetings known as “Six Party Talks”(Lecture 10). While the framework for the talks still exist, there has not been a talk since 2009. Due to North Korea’s strong intent to build nuclear weapons, the ability to reason with the nation has lessened. If the talks were to change to those with five parties, it could lead to anger from North Korea. Therefore, engaging in such a system would not be beneficial for those involved, as it would only lead to irritation from the excluded party. Taking any drastic actions towards North Korea would risk great casualties amongst both the infiltrators and North Korea itself. Currently, the United states and other nations are preoccupied with North Korea’s intent on building up their nuclear weapons program. However, the human security issue in the country serves as a great problem as well. Yet, with the current regime in power, there are few options to take action against the human rights violations of the nation. Due to all of the risks associated with a definitive action, for now it seems that the best option is to wait. Few options at this point seem viable. In order to take down the regime, there must be a strategic element associated with timing. Similarly, the United States does not want to be responsible for beginning a war that could potentially be nuclear. Therefore, it is important that the United States take a step back to evaluate their options in order to take action when the timing is right. 

Work Cited:

1.blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/files/2013/04/kim-cartoon-mckee.jpg.

2. Fifielder, Anna. “A Danger Lies in Underestimating North Korea.” Chicagotribune.com, www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-kim-jong-un-north-korea-20170325-story.html.

3.“How to Stop Kim Jong Un.” Time, time.com/north-korea-opinion/.

`