<<  <  >  >>

Several large

ing standards. In short, anything environmen-

lihood that the strategy would backfire and

tal is now considered a national security issue.

lead instead to the military's co-opting envi-

"environmental

Subsuming all those goals under the title

ronmental policy. Indeed, very little diversion

national security"

"environmental security" makes a muddled

has occurred, but much profoundly negative

projects have

"catch-all" policy inevitable. It is worrisome

attention has been given to environmental

when any environmental policy or project

issues.

already gone for-

can be designated "in the national interest,"

The incursion of the military into environ-

ward without a

and any environmental problem can be

mental affairs is cause for great concern. As far

branded a "threat to national security."

back as 1991, some authors had outlined the

proper analysis of

Those terms should not be taken lightly.

risks of military involvement in environmental

how they really

issues.3 6 Those risks include an institutional

They are mobilizing terms designed to prior-

affect national

itize projects; muddling the concept of secu-

tendency toward secrecy and control of infor-

rity makes it easier to avoid providing a

mation, a propensity for conflictual thinking

security, or even

coherent rationale for them. That is not a

(i.e., the perception of "them vs. us"), and calls

what is meant by

trivial point. Several large "environmental

for mass mobilization against the perceived

threat.3 7 Of great concern, too, is the potential

the concept.

national security" projects have already gone

forward without a proper analysis of how

for contravention of civil liberties as the mili-

they really affect national security, or even

tary takes one more step into civilian affairs.

what is meant by the concept. That also is

Conversely, there is a danger when civilian

not a new problem. Arnold Wolfers recog-

agencies make incursions into the military

nized it when he wrote in 1962 that "the term

sphere, as the EPA for instance has done in its

`security' covers a range of goals so wide that

involvement in military activity in the Arctic,

highly divergent policies can be interpreted

discussed below. The militarization of EPA

as policies of security."3 5 However, instead of

policy is hardly a desirable objective.

Unfortunately, it is already happening. As if

taking note of this caution, the new security

to underscore the point, EPA recently pub-

policymakers and policy wonks continue to

lished a brochure describing its role in envi-

use the term "environmental security" with

ronmental security; depicted on its cover

carefree abandon.

were a group of fish, an eagle, a CH-53 heli-

As a result, the term "security" is in serious

copter, and a U.S. Navy destroyer all floating

danger of being appropriated by any cause

in harmony around a large tree.3 8

that wishes to use it. This is not to assume that

all causes that do so are bad. It is simply to say

To put the problem differently, would we

that a closer look should be given to what

really want to leave important aspects of

kinds of causes are doing so and why. Without

national security policymaking to the EPA?

such an examination, it will be possible to jus-

Yet if its current activities in the name of

tify any policy, and any expansion of govern-

national security are anything to go by, that

ment intervention, with little democratic over-

might well occur. According to William

sight. However, the consequences go far

Nitze, assistant administrator of the agency,

beyond even that considerable danger.

environmental security is the "minimization

of environmental trends or conditions involv-

"Green Security or Militarized

ing other countries that could, over time, have

Environment?"

significant negative impacts on important

U.S. interests."39 It is not hard to envision, on

The first additional danger is the poten-

tial for the militarization of the environment.

the basis of that orientation, a time when the

While many environmentalists have pushed

EPA is involved in making foreign policy too.

the concept of environmental security on the

As Nitze himself declares, "These [environ-

basis that it will lead to a diversion of defense

mental] problems point to the need for EPA

funding and technology and give greater pri-

to play a large role in implementing the U.S.

Government foreign policy agenda."4 0

ority to environmental policy, there is a like-

8