The relationship between militarization and the environment has received very little scrutiny. Although some recent studies have shown the negative impact of military establishments and conflicts on the environment, the effect of environmental stress on social tension and conflict remains a potential area of research. This section clarifies the causal relationship between the environment and the military establishments.
As we defined militarization to refer to the expansion of the military establishment in the society, it is difficult to judge its total impact on the environment. In this section the focus is on the effects of the military establishments on the environment; and distinction is made between the effects during peacetime and wartime.
Armed forces are established to defend national unity and deter foreign aggression. Their activities during peacetime, however, are injurious to environmental security, to the extent that many researchers describe them as the "great polluters" in modern societies.1 The armed forces contribute, both directly and indirectly, to environmental degradation in a multitude of ways:
[a] The direct effects include the following:
(i) In most countries, military training, installations, and manoeuvre expropriate vast areas of land which could have been used for cultivation or other economic activities. Military activities also damage wildlife habitats, forests, and soil stability, particularly through the movement of heavy and armoured equipment and the discharge of toxic wastes.
(ii) The spread of arms production is another source of environmental damage.1 The production and testing of conventional and chemical weapons generate specific harmful wastes that cause enormous damage to the environment and to the health of the workers. The situation is even worse in LDCs because they lack safety standards and the required efficiency.
(iii) Military establishments are among great consumers of resources. These include petroleum, minerals, chemicals, as well as agricultural products. For example, military aircraft alone consume half of all fuel used by aircraft.1 Moreover, arms production has become increasingly dependent on non-renewable resources (e.g., uranium, titanium, and chromium) causing their long-term depletion. These resources might be very important for economic development of future generations.
(iv) The preparation for war, and sometimes routine activities, involves mobilization of forces and high military presence in certain areas, and is usually accompanied by the massing of equipment and arms arsenals. This population boom damages local environments and generates extensive wastes (sewage and solids).1
(v) The military share in the destruction of the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect is substantial.
(vi) It is often argued that LDCs' armies, particularly in Africa and Latin America, oppose natural conservation projects. This usually happens when the army controls the government. Their opposition to conservation projects is often motivated by their intention to secure quick revenues to support their regimes, and this might entail the oppression of domestic opposition to the depletion of resources.1
[b] The indirect effects of militarization on the environment include the following:
(i) High militarization and military spending, particularly among LDCs, has substantial economic costs. This negative impact on economic growth contributes to widespread poverty. Mass poverty, however, is considered as one of the most significant factors that threaten environmental security.
(ii) There is an indirect effect of the military on the environment through increases in military spending. This usually takes place at the expense of other categories of government expenditures, including environmental conservation projects.
(iii) The military competes with civilian sectors over human resources. One percent of total population, at any time, works in the military sector. Moreover, more than 20% of all scientists and engineers in the world are employed by the military.1 The opportunity cost of this human resource capital on civilian economy and the environment is substantial, particularly so in LDCs where the lack of well-developed human capital is considered as the most important constraint for economic growth and development.
(iv) Military wastes, which result from the arms race in the North, are exported to LDCs, putting more pressure on their local environments. These include large-scale dumping of toxic nuclear and chemical waste, extensive foreign bases, permanent activities of aircraft, submarines and naval missiles, as well as testing of nuclear weapons.
While it is clearly evident that the military contributes to environmental degradation during peacetime, consensus on the volume of such degradation is less than universal. However, the direct share of the military in environmental degradation is believed to be more than its share in national product.1
The above negative effects of militarization on the environment do not, however, exclude the existence of some positive ones. In many countries, particularly in Africa, the military fight harmful environmental activities such as hunting or cutting forests.1
4.1.2 War Effects on the Environment.1
War causes enormous direct damage to the environment, and puts pressure on the environment indirectly through its dislocation of population whose displacement would in turn put stress on neighbouring environments.1
Modern wars might employ defoliants, high explosives, biological agents or weather modification techniques; they also involve land, air, water, and space. The use of weapons of mass destruction in conflict has grave environmental consequences. Moreover, as Atles (1992: 71) argues "spectacular technological developments have greatly increased the mobility of conventional arms and the range of firepower". The Gulf war provides an example of how the destruction of resources (burning oil fields) can be used as a military tool.1 Furthermore, Westing (1989: 131) shows the disruptive environmental effects of wars in the Horn of Africa, particularly the wars between Ethiopia and Somalia, as well as within Ethiopia and Somalia.1
There are also indirect effects from war on the environment and the economy. For example, soldiers and warfare are playing a significant role in the spread of diseases. Cookson (1992) reviews the evidence for the role of war in the spread of AIDS, and other sexually transmitted diseases. He pinpoints the military-associated factors that have been instrumental in the development of the geographical pattern of clinical AIDS in Uganda.
The previous section has tackled briefly the impact of military establishments on the environment. However, the direction of causality also goes from the environment to militarization. The impact of environmental factors on conflict and militarization, although of vital importance has received little attention by researchers. Defining the concept of security shows the causal link between militarization and the environment. Westing (1989: 129) suggests that comprehensive human security has two components: political security (with its military, economic, and social/humanitarian sub-components); and environmental security (with its protection-oriented and utilization-oriented sub-components).
There are different environmental factors that give rise to conflict, and consequently military actions, at the national, regional and international levels. These environmental factors can lead directly to conflict, or through their indirect effects on other forces that induce conflict.
The environmental threats can be divided into two aspects: (i) threat to the environment from vandalism, excessive pollution and anthropogenic intrusion; (ii) non-sustainable utilization of resources.1 Thus protecting the environment is one of the most important security goals of all governments. This includes both natural and human resources.
Competition over natural and scarce resources has been the most important factor for arms races and outbreak of wars.1 These resources include land (e.g., the Libyan-Chadian conflict over Ozou strip); raw material (e.g., the Sudanese-Egyptian conflict over Halayeb area); energy (e.g., oil supplies from the Gulf); water (conflict between Syria and Turkey over Ataturk dam); and food (e.g., tribal conflicts in many parts of Africa).
Gamba-Stonehouse (1992) emphasises that the potential that conflict may result from competition over the resources mentioned above is not a matter of the distant uncertain future, and that many countries are already poised for conflict on these issues. She adds " This is not a new phenomenon. The request for territorial expansion in hopes of securing resources and trade routes to benefit one or a group of nations has often generated conflict in the past".1 It is also evident that environmental conflict arises between countries within the same eco-geographical region (Israel-Jordan, Turkey-Syria, Sudan-Egypt-Ethiopia, Iraq-Iran, Iraq-Kuwait, etc.).1
Environmental degradation, pollution, and over-use of common resources (such as water) do cause conflicts which can lead to wars,1 or exacerbate conflicts that have other root causes.1 Two examples are relevant to this argument. The first is the direct threat to Syria from the inevitable loading of fertilizers, pesticides and salts that will be transported down the Euphrates as a result of Turkey's agricultural and irrigation efforts (Great Anatolia Project). These might cause further risks to downstream states (Iraq) and the Gulf ecosystem from these same inputs.1 The second example is the potential for conflict over the Nile water between Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia. The present Secretary-General of the United Nations, Dr Boutros Ghali (1985), warns about the potential for conflict over the Nile by saying "The next war in our region will be over the waters of the Nile, not over politics..."1.
Apart from the regional conflicts caused by environmental factors, there is also growing evidence that global environmental concerns, such as global warming or Ozone depletion, will be a potential for international conflict and an important factor in international relations.
Environmental factors can have significant effects on conflicts, and consequently higher militarization, through various indirect conduits. Population dislocation, and the economic problems caused by environmental degradation are the most important channels through which environmental stress can cause social conflict.
Population dislocation caused by environmental change (such as drought or desertification) creates the problem of refugees. If people living in a depleted country see no prospect of feeding themselves they will start to move. There will be large-scale migrations from the degraded area to better placed areas.1 This creates population boom which in most cases exceeds the capacity of the hosting environment and creates conflict and competition over the resources. Armed conflict and banditry in western Sudan is an obvious example of population dislocation.
Hassan (1992: 81) explains further the effects of environmental degradation on domestic political dynamics. He argues "as affected communities vacate degraded habitats and transplant themselves in other localities, conflict often ensues between them and the host communities and local authorities. When such rivalries and conflicts become exacerbated, aggrieved communities turn to subnational ideologies, parties and symbols to fight for their way of life. Extraneous interest groups (such as political parties) also usurp environmental issues for their own gain". Furthermore, the internal population dislocation exert pressures not only on the carrying capacities of the land but also on those of the polities involved. Political systems may also be threatened by the influx of the displaced as they put pressure on the services in cities and cause food shortages. Food riots and urban violence may come to constitute a clear danger to national governments, particularly in Africa.1
Moreover, population displacement across international boundaries owing to environmental stress has raised the level of tension between several countries.1 In Africa, for example, the conflicts between Sudan and Chad, and Sudan and Uganda in the late 1980s were clearly exacerbated by the environmental refugees who transgressed interstate boundaries.
Environmental degradation also has obvious effects on the economy, particularly in LDCs which depend mainly on natural resources for their exports and local consumption.1 People in the affected areas will have lower incomes and they degrade the environment further or move to put pressure on other communities or cities. This mending cycle of decline may cause tensions and food riots or armed conflicts.
Homer-Dixon (1990) presents several suggestions about the effects of environmental change on human conflict. He argues that seven clusters of environmental problems (Greenhouse warming, Ozone depletion, deforestation, acid rains, degradation of land, overuse of water supplies, and depletion of fish stocks) will produce four general types of social effect (decrease in economic productivity, changed agricultural production, population displacement, and disruption of institutions and pattern of social behaviour), which will in turn lead to three types of conflict (frustration conflicts, identity and structural conflicts).
The frustration-aggression theories of conflict suggest that people become hostile when they perceive a wider gap between the level of satisfaction that they have achieved and the level they believe they deserve (or because of absolute deprivation). The group-identity theories explains conflicts involving ethnicity, religion, and nationalism; individuals have a need for a sense of belonging that can be satisfied in a group when it attacks or discriminates against another group (e.g., the Muslim-Hindu conflict in India). The structural theories explains conflicts arising from the rational calculations of actors in the face of external (social or material) constraints.1
Figure 4 summarizes the hypothesized complicated causal links between militarization (in particular military establishments, both during peace and war times) and environmental degradation and depletion of resources.
