<<  <  >  >>

A sensible securi-

intervene. For the moment, the type of inter-

country A is downstream of country B and

vention is unimportant. The question of

relies heavily on water from the river that

ty policy should

whether to intervene is a judgment call: the

flows through both countries. Country B's

first set a measur-

risk and potential cost of the waste and the

state-owned nuclear power stations and mil-

able threshold

risk and potential cost of intervention must

itary complexes are discharging large

be compared. The examples also assume that

amounts of high-level liquid waste into the

beyond which

country A has the resources to intervene, and

river and thereby causing a large number of

something consti-

that there are no threats to its security from

deaths and serious health problems in coun-

other quarters that deserve more attention.

try A. If country B refuses to stop polluting

tutes a threat and

Country A is thus faced with a difficult

the river, one might reasonably argue that

warrants inter-

choice and must use some form of objective

country A is justified in using military force

vention. That is

calculation to evaluate its options.

against B to prevent further extensive loss of

In the United States no such objective cal-

life. The environmental threat to A's security

difficult to do

culation has been made or even attempted.

is direct, and its causes are easily identifiable

with all issues,

Projects are being embarked upon without

and preventable.

but especially so

any kind of cost/benefit analysis or assess-

In the second example, country B is pro-

ment of risk. Incidentally, in example three,

ducing large amounts of dangerous radioac-

with the environ-

country A is the United States and country B

tive waste and storing it in low-quality under-

ment.

is the Russian Federation. The Russian

ground tanks close to the river. Country A is

radioactive waste problem is an example par

worried about the integrity of the tanks,

excellence of a lack of calculation, in which

since any leakage in B will result in huge

all three elements of distraction, resentment,

casualties in A, but B refuses to upgrade the

and extortion come into play.

tanks. Does the situation present a threat to

the security of country A, and is financial or

even military intervention justified?

Radioactive Waste in Russia:

In the final example, country A does not

Costs, Benefits, and Risks

border country B; the two are separated by an

ocean. Country B has dumped some radioac-

of Intervention

tive waste into the ocean and also has huge

volumes of radioactive waste awaiting dis-

In the early 1990s a flurry of revelations

posal, as well as vast areas used to store waste

and allegations led to pressure on the newly

adjacent to important rivers that flow into

formed  government  of  the  Russian

the ocean. This time, it is country B's citizens

Federation to come clean about the ecologi-

who are affected by their own nation's waste

cal damage its predecessor had caused both

disposal problem. However, country A is con-

by its military activities and by its military-

cerned that it too might be affected by the

industrial complex's support of those activi-

dumped waste, or if the huge storage tanks

ties. Much of that damage was thought to

were to leak. There is no scientific evidence

have occurred in the Arctic seas, where naval

that the existing dumped material will harm

activity was particularly intense. The com

-

country A, and it is uncertain whether the

mission set up by President Boris Yeltsin to

stored waste will leak, or what will happen if

investigate those allegations brought out its

it does. Does the situation constitute a threat

unexpectedly candid report in 1993. Known

to country A's security?

as the Yablokov report, after the commis-

The last two examples demonstrate the

sion's chairman, Alexei Yablokov, it detailed a

problems in defining a threshold of threat,

vast number of incidents of radioactive and

beyond which conflict, or at least some form

other forms of contamination of the Arctic

of intervention, is deemed necessary.

and other seas around the Russian

Federation.6 4Since then, the ecological disas-

Nonetheless, on each occasion country A

must make a decision about whether to

ters that took place--and in some cases con-

14