Rockridge Institute : Shifting the Climate of Security

[RedEarth]

by Joe Brewer
Last modified Tuesday, May 15, 2007 04:35 PM
We are in the midst of a debate over the meaning of security. This has been ongoing since the end of the cold war almost twenty years ago and it is taking place behind the scenes right now. Progressives have an opportunity to reclaim our rightful place as the responsible protectors of our nation after a decades-long smear campaign to frame us as weak on security issues. The old idea of national security that dominated U.S. policy at home and abroad during the Cold War can be replaced with a new one that offers a more appropriate perspective on relevant issues in our globalized world. The broad public recognition of the looming climate crisis can be the catalyst for this change.

A Clash of Moral Worldviews
Earlier this month an article was published in the New York Times titled Bill Proposes Climate Study Focused on U.S. Defense. The writer, Mark Mazzetti, informs us that the Democratic Congress has proposed a National Intelligence Estimate examining "political, social, economic, and agricultural risks" associated with the climate crisis.

Republicans are critical of the proposal, declaring that it is an "unnecessary burden on intelligence agencies" whose priorities should be the demands of Iraq, Afghanistan, and "efforts to combat Islamic radicalism worldwide." This is not simply a partisan divide between two political parties. It is an ideological struggle about the meaning of security between progressives and conservatives based on very different moral worldviews.

............

Reclaim Progressive Security
Most of the 20th Century was dominated by a conservative understanding of security. The cold war has been over for a decade and a half, during which time there has been revolutionary change in global communications and trade. Security decisions in this networked world are more crucial than ever before, so it is imperative that we frame security effectively.

Security needs to be reframed as about protection against threats, which in some circumstances will merit appropriate use of force as a last resort. This allows a much broader range of considerations than the narrow meaning of security as use of force, or threat to use force, to eliminate threats.

Security needs to be reframed as about friends and strangers when appropriate so that we are no longer constrained by the judgment that those who are not with us are against us. This includes a modification of our approach to get away from myopic emphasis on interactions at the national level and to recognize the relevance of non-agent threats. Security issues in the modern world occur within and across national boundaries. They involve diverse ethnic groups struggling to survive in a complex world.

Security is about human life and dignity. We need to stop talking narrowly about national security and start talking broadly about human security. This is a critical step for moving beyond the cold war mentality that defines security as being about military threats with military solutions.

As you read these words, carbon dioxide pollution is warming our atmosphere and altering the planetary climate. Many have recognized the climate crisis as one of the most important security issues humanity has ever faced. The use of force against changes in climate is absurd. The threats do not come from an enemy. We are all in this one together, whether we are friends or strangers. This is a problem that threatens the security of humanity.

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/rockridge/shifting-the-climate-of-security