in terms of military might and technologies (and the
economy to support them). In the 1980s, some began
to challenge the idea that the force on force concept
should have predominant control over security issues.
In 1990, the Brundtland Commission of the UN’s En-
vironmental Program conducted a study which con-
cluded that there was a “deepening and widening
environmental crisis” presenting a threat to national
security, and even survival, more formidable than
military might and hostile state relations. The report
stated: “[t]he arms race—in all parts of the world—
pre-empts resources that might be used more pro-
ductively to diminish the security threats created by
environmental conflict and the resentments that are
fueled by widespread poverty...There are no military
solutions to environmental insecurity.”(Brundtland
Commission 1990, 7 & 19)
In the late 1980s and through the 1990s, a wealth
of environmental security studies were published,
as researchers chronicled and calculated the direct
and indirect costs of the Cold War security-as-power
model. They argued that security assessments must
take into account damages to the ecosystem, and that
the defense establishment had been a major source of
the toxic and hazardous wastes generated each year.
The ecological disruptions and destruction wrought
by war are obvious, but peacetime activities also have
adverse effects, from training troops, to defense in-
dustrial processes (weapons development and testing,
research, etc.), to disposal of toxic materials. Contami-
nation from these activities can result in permanent
environmental degradation. These arguments gar-
nered increasing attention in Western government
policy forums, among political activists and within
academic circles.
sharon
(sharon)
#1