“Climate Change May Cause Armed Conflicts”

The expression ’climate change’ was used in 1972 for the first time, at the UN conference held in Stockholm. But at that time, nobody talked about the fact that global warming would have any links to security policy. When did the experts realize this for the first time?

There is not a specific date, since this ‘realization’ was a long process. It is true that climate change, as a concept, became widely known in the early ‘70s. This was also the period when we began to interpret the concept of security in a different way. Until then, classic security policy had been a determining factor, which regarded military issues as the key area of security. But in the ‘70s, a few other sectors that had not belonged to this branch of science before, but which are today an integral part of it, had been included in the concept of security. Such as environmental security, or following the 1973 oil crisis, economic security. The fact that climate change may also entail security policy risks was outlined for the first time after this period – around the second half of the 80s.

Nevertheless, there was something that prevented large-scale changes in that period.

Yes, because the issue was included on the agenda in an international sense only in the beginning of the ’90s – in 1990 in Bergen, then in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro. In the years that have passed since the millennium – and especially after the 2002 Johannesburg conference on sustainable development – even the experts had been dealing a lot with the security policy aspect of climate change. And why was the beginning of the ’90s the dividing line? Maybe because in earlier days, security had been predominantly defined by bloc-policy and this pushed everything else a bit into the background, for what the world was afraid then was that the Warsaw Pact and NATO could engage in some kind of an armed conflict, and what is more, there were some who did not entirely exclude the possibility of a nuclear war. When later the opposition of the two sides eased, and the bipolar world order ceased to exist, a number of new issues – or issues which had less importance for security policy in earlier days – appeared on the agenda, one of them being climate change. But certainly, a thing that also contributed to this was that the profession dealing with climate change could not decide to this very day, to what extent is the phenomenon called global warming a natural geological process, to what extent is it the result of human activity, just like they could not decide what specific consequences it might entail. Then in the1990s, they had to face a series of alarming signs and it turned out that regardless of the conclusion of the professional debate, we have to deal with the security policy aspects of global warming.

What are the factors caused by climate change that influence security policy the most?

From the aspect of security policy the most important factors are the ones which can cause conflicts in one way or the other. And here and now we should not think of the depletion of oil or gas supplies, or perhaps other industrial raw material supplies as the most important components inducing a conflict, but rather the tendencies which can be linked to global warming. Let us see them one by one! One of the most important consequences of global warming is the decrease in the size of ice caps in polar regions, or as scientists put it, their withdrawal; furthermore the recession of glaciers in the heart of the continents, and as a result of that, a considerable rise in sea-level. If we take a look at the distribution of the settlements on the Earth, we will see that the majority of the most densely populated areas, the biggest metropolises are located in litoral regions. In other words, if sea level continues to rise in the future, it is inevitable that a huge wave of migration will set off from these cities – and from the coastal regions in general – towards the inland. This can be a major source of conflict in itself. The other very serious impact of climate change will be the extreme weather: we will have to face drought and desertification, as well as enormous waves of internal waters and floods at the same time. Increasing evaporation caused by the warming climate will drastically decrease freshwater supplies even in those areas – for instance in Hungary, too – where the inhabitants perhaps do not even think about it today. The effective, or the nearing effective freshwater shortage causes grave problems in certain places even today, and the ratio of areas where people have to face so-called economic water shortage due to nonexisting water management investments is even larger. Today there are approximately one billion people without safe drinking water supply, and there are a further 2.6 billion people without proper sewage system. Aridity, and the desertification of certain areas will be at least as important factors than the above. For this process will mean a decrease in food production in the given territory, thus it will be less capable of maintaining the population. In other words, aridity may also cause a serious wave of migration, which can result in conflicts, for instance border disputes, or in an even worse case, armed conflicts. And I have not even mentioned the public health and epidemiological challenges of climate change, in other words, the risk that climate change may import totally new diseases that were unknown before, to the areas with a changed climate.

Last year the European Commission compiled a report for the Council of Europe on the security policy aspects of climate change. In this report, threats are grouped by regions. We have read that in Africa, the lack of potable water and deteriorating food safety, in the Middle East the lack of potable water again, in South Asia migration and the spreading of contagious diseases, in Central Asia increasing water shortage resulting from the melting of glaciers, and in South America desertification may destabilize the regions. In your opinion, which is the most dangerous region?

I believe Africa is the most endangered, obviously. There are several reasons for that. On the one hand, facing crises and the management of conflicts is ab ovo more difficult in less developed countries – and from this aspect, it is especially valid in Africa. There is a lack of technique, infrastructure, solid central administration with a monopoly of force – which are key elements in crisis management operations of any kind. Thus disaster management and conflict settlement is much more difficult in an African county than in a more developed region. For the problems are accumulated in certain zones of Africa: the lack of water has an impact on agriculture and food production, and the latter has an impact on the nutrition and health of the people. Malnutrition in itself is a problem that makes people more defenceless against other difficulties. And I believe at the moment the African continent is facing nearly all the problems listed above.

It must not be forgotten either that Africa is an extremely dynamically developing continent even from a demographic aspect, which means that more and more people are affected by these challenges.

Yes, and the result of all this may be that in case as a consequence of the climate change, migration will start from certain areas of Africa, the litoral regions of Northern Africa will be even more densely populated than they are at the moment. We Europeans have been aware for at least 15-20 years how the migration of Africans affect the old continent. The question of refugees arriving illegally from Africa is already a serious concern for southern European countries. But we must also note that since Africa has the world’s largest freshwater resources underground, what the continent struggles with at the moment is so-called economic water shortage. It is important for us to know this because in these areas, access to freshwater and the efficiency of freshwater use could be improved significantly by better water management and considerable investments. But in order to achieve this, African societies should develop more efficient states, more developed economies, with a central power that is indeed able to modernize the societies living here. I am one of those who share the opinion that the historical development of societies living in various continents is of a different pace. If you like, this means that Africa lives in an entirely different historical period than Europe or North America. Moreover, there are enormous differences in this aspect even between the regions within the continents. To use a tangible example which can be understood by us as well: the history of Western Europe after 1945 was about integration. The states were struggling to join their forces, and they had sacrificed a part of their national sovereignty in order to be more developed and safe. Whereas in Central Eastern Europe, we meet a totally different trend as of 1990; here we have witnessed the advancement of nation-states. The former federative states had disintegrated, a number of new nation-states were established where national integration also has to be realized. Or take the Middle East: in the solution of societal relations, disagreements and opposing interests, here in many cases they have not even reached the level which had been reached by Central Eastern Europe or even the Balkans. And let us think about what is happening in Africa, where the European concept of conflict settling cannot be applied at all, where societal relations and contrasts prevent the establishment of a stable central power and state, and where the culture of consolidation is entirely different than it is in Europe. Where the attitude towards violence or even the value of life is absolutely different than what we got used to.

Then why is it so that the global public opinion is less passionate about the problems of Africa than it is about the conflicts taking place in different continents, regions?

Mainly because at the moment, the African continent – from economic and political considerations alike – is present only on the periphery of the globalized world. Developed countries deal with African conflicts only if the intensity of these confrontations reaches a certain level, or interferes with their interests for any other reason. For instance let’s see the NATO and UN operation off the coast of Somalia, launched to combat pirates. Piracy is not a novelty in that region, for similar attacks had happened there as early as thirty years ago. But now they have reached a level which has already interfered with the interests of those great powers which are capable of exercising a greater influence on NATO or the UN. Therefore last year, the anti-piracy operation was launched. But if we consider the issue of Darfur for example, it has to be said that in this case, the world is not yet in a situation to have the courage to act very resolutely against the problem. We are only at a stage where we wish to take the edge off of the conflicts, and with aid policy, we want to prevent the further deepening and spreading of the crisis. In other words: we do not act perspectively but in a way that is dictated by our momentary interests. Climate change – provided its impacts show quickly enough – can bring serious changes in this respect as well. For the freshwater supply of Africa is a very serious resource, from which probably a lot want to have a share

Is it probable that due to the reasons mentioned before, even serious armed conflicts may spark between African countries?

The experts unanimously say that the risk of an armed conflict can be a very serious concern in the future because of the disposal of water resources. Or to put it in a wider context: yes, climate change may cause armed conflicts. But these conflicts may not occur for water or food alone, but also because of accelerated urbanization for instance. Since as one of the very specific consequences of climate change, gigantic megapolises will develop, to which people will practically escape – hoping to find more secure supply. But supplying these gigantic cities and maintaining their infrastructure may be an enormous challenge, and it will be impossible to maintain and operate them without a stable central government. And their collapse may entail disastrous consequences.

Let’s talk about domestic issues. To what level may the security policy risks resulting from climate change affect Hungary?

Since climate change-related researches have only started recently in our county, it is difficult to predict what Hungary can expect. The scenarios are quite varied: according to some the Carpathian Basin can even be the part of Europe which will be the most affected by the climate change, while others say that – although temporarily, but – we may even benefit from climate change. It is certain that our country will also be affected by warming – meaning that our weather will be more like that of the Mediterranean –, and the decreasing water resources of the Mediterranean will be perceptible. The total annual rainfall will decrease, with some increase in winter but a considerable drop in summer. In addition, summer rainfall will arrive suddenly and heavily, and these cloudbursts will be followed – mainly in the central and southern parts of the Alföld (plains) region – by more and more arid periods of drought. Increasing heat will cause heavier evaporation, which will also have an impact on our underground water resources. As regards the latter, we are in a good situation at the moment, and we can slow down the process with clever water management. Extreme weather will probably give the disaster prevention organizations more tasks, and the challenges brought forth by sanitary and epidemiological issues related to climate change will not leave us intact either.

In the opinion of the security policy expert, what can we do to mitigate these impacts?

I believe the most important things are that we should change our attitude, and adopt a more environmentally conscious lifestyle. The big question is if we can make the people accept this in due course. I am not convinced at all that we can achieve the latter. Even because crises of various nature – just like the present global economic crisis – usually change the security policy preferences of society. In Central Eastern Europe for instance, the people have laid emphasis on the social dimension of security and public order since the change of the political system. Because of the global economic crisis, this will remain the same or even increase in the coming years. Meaning that it is not certain at all that in our region, environmental security will be the issue that concerns the majority of the people the most. We Hungarians, in an interesting way and much to my pleasure, seem to be the odd one out: even though the population regards social security and public order as the most important questions, but a survey conducted in 2008 by National Geographic and GlobScan in 14 countries ranked us fourth after Brasil, China and Mexico as regards environmental consciousness.