|
|
||||||||||||||||
Since the events of September 11, 2001 and the development of the ‘war on terror’, western powers have cited international terrorism as the greatest threat facing the world. This has diverted attention and resources from other, more serious, likely causes of future conflict. The root causes of global insecurity must be addressed. A publication from the Oxford Research Group, in the UK, challenges the idea that the ‘war on terror’ must be prioritised over all other global challenges. Current responses to terrorism may actually provoke rather than contain it. The authors identify four challenges more deserving of international attention: climate change; competition over resources; socio-economic marginalisation of the majority world; and global militarisation. Climate change is likely to lead to the displacement of peoples from coastline and river delta areas, severe natural disasters, and increasing food shortages. This would lead to increased human suffering, social unrest, and greatly increased migration, with long-term security implications for all countries. States are increasingly dependent on imported resources, especially the oil and gas that are a primary cause of climate change. Supplies are concentrated in the deeply unstable Persian Gulf, where the United States is heavily involved, militarily and politically. Disparities of wealth and power are deepening, both within countries and between different regions of the world, fueling political violence and repression. Yet current trade and aid arrangements do little to address global economic inequalities. Further, far from ‘keeping the peace’, constant growth in global military expenditure is contributing to fresh conflicts. New weapons, such as biological warfare systems and ‘mini-nukes’, are destabilising arms-control regimes and placing more deadly capabilities within reach of terrorists. Key elements of a sustainable response should include:
Together these constitute efforts to address the root causes of problems. The authors label this the ‘sustainable security paradigm’, as opposed to the ‘control paradigm’ that seeks to control symptoms by use of force. The authors conclude that:
Source(s): Funded by: Polden-Puckham Charitable Foundation id21 Research Highlight: 25 April 2008
Further Information: Tel:
+44 (0)7979 428 312
Paul Rogers Tel:
+44 (0)7979 428 312
John Sloboda Tel:
+44 (0)7979 428 312 Other related links:
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||