The War on terror has diverted attention from other more serious and likely causes of conflict claim the authors in their study on global threats. Here they explore the study and argue that the root causes of global insecurity must be dealt with now.
Since the events of September 11, 2001 and the development of the ‘war on terror’, western powers have cited international terrorism as the greatest threat facing the world. This has diverted attention and resources from other, more serious, likely causes of future conflict. The root causes of global insecurity must be addressed.
A publication from the Oxford Research Group, in the UK, challenges the idea that the ‘war on terror’ must be prioritised over all other global challenges. Current responses to terrorism may actually provoke rather than contain it. The authors identify four challenges more deserving of international attention: climate change; competition over resources; socio-economic marginalisation of the majority world; and global militarisation.
Climate change is likely to lead to the displacement of peoples from coastline and river delta areas, severe natural disasters, and increasing food shortages. This would lead to increased human suffering, social unrest, and greatly increased migration, with long-term security implications for all countries. States are increasingly dependent on imported resources, especially the oil and gas that are a primary cause of climate change. Supplies are concentrated in the deeply unstable Persian Gulf, where the United States is heavily involved, militarily and politically.
Disparities of wealth and power are deepening, both within countries and between different regions of the world, fueling political violence and repression. Yet current trade and aid arrangements do little to address global economic inequalities. Further, far from ‘keeping the peace’, constant growth in global military expenditure is contributing to fresh conflicts. New weapons, such as biological warfare systems and ‘mini-nukes’, are destabilising arms-control regimes and placing more deadly capabilities within reach of terrorists.
Key elements of a sustainable response should include:
- comprehensive energy efficiency, recycling and resource conservation and management, and rapid replacement of carbon-based energy sources by diversified local renewable energy sources
- the phasing out of civil nuclear weapons programmes
- reform of global systems of trade, aid and debt relief to prioritise poverty reduction
- addressing the legitimate grievances and aspirations of marginalised groups, with intelligence-led police operations against violent revolutionary groups and dialogue where possible
- alongside non-proliferation measures by nuclear weapons states, significant, visible steps towards disarmament while halting development of new nuclear weapons and bio-weapons.
Together these constitute efforts to address the root causes of problems. The authors label this the ‘sustainable security paradigm’, as opposed to the ‘control paradigm’ that seeks to control symptoms by use of force. The authors conclude that:
- non-governmental organisations and wider civil society (including journalists) need to coordinate to convince governments that the new approach is practical and effective
- new future leadership in the United States and the United Kingdom may be more responsive to this paradigm
- genuine reform of regional organisations and the United Nations, particularly the Security Council, may also help governments move beyond narrow national and economic interests
- energy and resources now devoted to opposing war (anti-war activities) could be harnessed to promote peace and security (pro-peace), and linked with anti-poverty and environmental movements.
Source(s):
‘Global Responses to Global Threats: Sustainable Security for the 21st Century’, Oxford Research Group, by Chris Abbott, Paul Rogers and John Sloboda,