“decisions today regarding the environment and
natural resources can affect our security for genera-
tions” (White House 1991). Considering this empha-
sis on long-term resolution of root causes of insecu-
rity, greater political commitment and resources are
needed, but is problematic given the political short-
term focus in the United States and current budgetary
realities (Abbott et al. 2006).
In 2005, then United Nations (UN) Secretary-Gen-
eral Kofi Annan reinforced the broadening of tradi-
tional security frameworks to incorporate the concept
of sustainability by asserting “we will not enjoy [sus-
tainable] development without security, we will not
enjoy security without [sustainable] development,
and we will not enjoy either without respect for hu-
man rights” (Toepfer 2005, xvi). More recently, two
senior serving military officers conclude the strategic
environment has become significantly more com-
plex and different than it was in the past. They also
call for a longer generational view of security to be
promulgated in a “National Prosperity and Security
Act” to integrate policies across the “whole of gov-
ernment,” employing basic tenets and principles of
sustainability (Mr. Y 2011). Specifically, outlined are
three major sustainable investment priorities: “human
capital” (e.g., education, health and social infrastruc-
ture), “sustainable security” (e.g., promoting stability
as much as ensuring defense), and “natural resources”
(e.g., investing in long-range sustainable management
of critically important natural resources).
Instability, Fragility, and Environment Change
The complexity and scale of U.S. national secu-
rity challenges continue to accelerate. It is no longer
the situation of a single superpower or even multiple