Climate change as a security concern and,
of course, lots of attention from IOs, NGOs, civil society networks as well
government ministry of many states. Statistically, there are numerous meeting
to discuss environmental issues and confess that climate change is truly our
human disaster if no action will be made to prevent it. Tsunami in Japan in
2011, drought and heat-wave which killed thousands Indian in the Southern part
of the country, and 2015 historic earthquake in Nepal are constant example of
human under threatening of climate change. Climate change is precisely threatening
to human and national security. It triggers and give light to many issues
emerge – migration, refugees, starvation, many natural resource competition and
conflicts, last but not least natural disasters which all of these problem very
often become more militarizing.
Recognition climate as a human security is
largely in principle, though. In practice, it is just on the table and many
government officials pretend to accept that it is a primary concern and thus
require primary action. But so far, states did not come together and sort out
the solution. Rather one state after another is watching and blaming each
other. They remain silent on whether effective and practical actions need to be
taken to combat climate change in order to promote security. For most, countries
would wait until its counterparts also agree to work on and even sometime its
counterparts initiated a project but wholeheartedly rejected with a reason of
destroy one’s own state economy and create higher rate of unemployment etc. The
EU, for example, has put bravery effort to negotiate and manipulate other to
join the band but so far, states like China and Russia, care nothing but focus
only on their national interests. Deriving from realist perspectives, the
implication of climate change have less effects than if they have not ensured
order, stability and their smooth growth of economy in the country. China, for
example, knows for sure it is bad to use coal for energy generation but they
can’t stop using it since it helps boost economic growth as well due to its
vast resource availability in the country.
I, personally, have no rejection against
Oels’s argument but I felt his emphasis is more ideal and very normative. He
should also talk about what is “is” rather what we hope to be. Because in
reality as every of us is witnessing advocating to combat climate change was initiated
and run be the elite West, mainly, whereas most of the time one can see many
contractions among the club– they promote it while at the same time they
support and protect big companies, MNCs, transnational business to invest in sectors
that harmful to climate and environment at large.
More, not many states and people of world
accept climate change is a primary issue. Climate change, to them, is not as
direct issue as political or military conflicts. Even than that politicians, most
of the time, adopt only short term goal, which to a big extent is increasing environmental
pollution, to favor constituencies so that they can earn lots of votes from
people. Therefore, politician seeks to spend less effort and costless policy designation
that supports environment than for military and national security.
Additionally, it seems very popular in
many developed nations while to very little or nothing has been debated in
developing countries. Being aware of policy implications is less attractive by
politicians and even least by developing nations. Understanding of a greater
implication of climate change from the public is considerably low in the global
south.
