Globalisation & Climate Change: Implications for South Asian Security
Samir Saran
22, September 2009
The interpretation
of security through the prism of Westphalia1 for the
past three centuries now stands under scrutiny.
Traditional Nation-State centric security narratives
are now giving way to a more complex discussion on
security. These take into account the influence of
global negotiations (on trade, climate and
economics), non-state actors and nature. Most
importantly these discussions place the individual
at the centre of the emerging and complex rubric of
how security is beginning to be understood. This
distinct shift is indeed a result of the greater
inter-dependencies that globalization has woven
across the globe and the increasing influence that
non-state actors have on this paradigm.
The western liberal development model that pervades
most contemporary societies has resulted in wealth
and resources available with nations to increasingly
reside in the private domain, with national
governments even ceding the task of governance
(relief, social and financial activities) to
non-state institutions. Alongside, and as a result
of this, threats to a nation’s security have also
evolved from the rudimentary danger posed by the
action of other nation-states to hostile acts from
non-state actors such as terrorists, religious
radicals, organized crime etc and economic threats
posed by rogue traders and financial scamsters that
the recent financial crisis has demonstrated. These
two realities are reshaping our understanding of
security and are compelling us to develop responsive
frameworks that can deploy the resources available
in the private and public domain(s) to respond to
threats from traditional and non-traditional
sources.
But, perhaps the single biggest change in our
understanding of security is based on the
realization that ‘internalities’ within society,
communities and countries are the defining nuance of
contemporary security. These include water, food
security, migration, socio-economic constructs,
environment etc. What makes these internalities even
more difficult to comprehend and respond to is the
very nature of these vectors that make them
susceptible to historic developments, international
interactions and simmering and some times volatile
internal fault-lines. The challenge of responding to
these threats will be further heightened by another
emerging reality which is the ‘changing climate’,
and its influence on geo-political, economic and
internal security.
South Asia in particular cannot afford to ignore the
impact of this changing climate for two reasons.
First, in terms of geography, South Asia has a
unique identity2. Plains, grasslands, mountains,
deserts, glaciers and rainforests constitute this
sub-continent. Furthermore, it is surrounded by
three water bodies, The Bay of Bengal, The Arabian
Sea and the Indian Ocean. Any conceivable effect
that climate change can have on any these
geographical features will all be felt concurrently
in South Asia. Second, the region’s large
population, among the highest in the world, only
exacerbates this situation further. Natural
resources are already under severe strain to cater
to the demands of this young population which, as a
result of the recent economic growth, has the means
at its disposal to consume at historical levels.
This situation will be further tested by the
changing climate and its impact on coastal
migration, agriculture production, water
availability and resources competition (internal and
external) among its inhabitants.
However, the region is also being influenced by
another recent phenomenon, Globalisation. This
equally decisive force is reconstituting the region
sociologically. Without going into the specifics, it
is apparent that South Asia is consuming more as a
result of higher purchasing power (though the
inequality is steeper) and its consumption profile
is non-traditional and if one is to be provocative,
alien to the regional resource availability and
capabilities. It has been argued that globalisation
has created universal attitudes and values without
necessarily globalising resource availability. South
Asia is living this dichotomy. This intersection of
an emerging global ‘Aspirational’ culture and the
limited per capita resource availability in the
region is testing the already fragile socio-economic
fault-lines among the multitude of ethnic and
economic groups in the region. Changing Climate in
South Asia will serve to reinforce these. Some of
the challenges to South Asian security, from the
“Human Security” perspective and from the point of
view of traditional security would arise from:
• Depleting water availability and the contests over
sharing of intra-nation and transnational sources of
water;
• Migration, an issue that could strain inter and
intra nation security;
• Urbanisation and its social security implications;
and
• Impact of the multi-lateral negotiations on
climate change on regional development.
This brings us to the current global discussions on
Climate and how this North-South dialogue is being
seen by many as ineffective in responding to the
‘here and now’ and serving to maintain status quo.
The current focus and obsession with mitigation in
the climate negotiations deprives carbon space to
the aspirations of those living on the margins of
economic growth. In fact it has been argued that the
current debate on climate is less about preventing
climate change and more about preventing change
itself3 . It is in this regard that India, being the
first among equals in the region, needs to show
leadership. It cannot afford to be inflexible at the
negotiating table and must seek the best for its
people; South Asia after all will be amongst the
first regions to expererince the harmful
manifestation's of changing climate. The same time
India cannot undermine its security by signing away
carbon space that it would need for its development
if it is to provide meaningful relief to its 80%
population who live at less than two dollars a day
and over 35% population who survive with les than
one dollar a day. This in essence is India’s new
security paradigm.
Any negotiated global consensus must be based on two
basic realities. Irrespective of the causation of
climate change, climatic variations is affecting
people and security even today and responding to
these changes has to be the prerogative of those
having the wealth and resources to do so, historical
responsibility or not. After all, if new science was
to prove that rising sea levels and other predicted
and dramatic developments are not a result of GHG,
will the developed world abandon the south countries
with limited means to defend themselves? Secondly
the debate on and resolution of this global
challenge must move away from the obsession on
future impact of climate and on how to mitigate it;
instead it should also focus on the plight of the
people in the developing world who are grappling
with the harsh realities of changing climate and
resource scarcity today. This is the security
paradigm for the global North.
Excerpts from an unpublished paper by the same
author
Views are those of the author
You can reach the author at: samirsaran@orfonline.org
1 Jackson, R.H.; P. Owens (2005) "The
Evolution of World Society" in: John Baylis; Steve
Smith (eds.). The Globalization of World Politics:
An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, p. 53.
2 Saul Bernard Cohen, Geopolitics of the
world system, pages 304, Rowman & Littlefield, 2003
3 “ The tale of the sad negotiator” by
Sunjoy Joshi on the Observer Research Foundation
website, URL- http://www.observerindia.com/cms/sites/orfonline/modules/analysis .
Also See:
PRE CONFERENCE ROUNDTABLE | PARTICIPANTS
|
