Transcript Global Responses to Global Threats

Global Responses to
Global Threats
John Sloboda
Adapted and presented by:
Richard Parncutt
University of Graz
7 November 2006
Oxford Research Group (ORG)

An independent British NGO since 1982
–
–

Research areas:
–
–
–

13 staff and advisors
many trustees, patrons, associates
UK and global security policy
policy decision-making processes
nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation
Roles:
–
–
fostering dialogue with policy-makers
promotion of accountability and transparency
Authors of this presentation

Chris Abbott
–
–

Paul Rogers
–
–
–

BSc. (Hons.) in Psychology, M.Litt in Social Anthropology
articles in Open Democracy, Int. Herald Tribune, Global Dialogue
Professor of Peace Studies, University of Bradford
20 books, e.g. Losing Control: Global Security in Early 21st C.
regular media commentator on global security issues
John Sloboda
–
–
–
–
Executive Director of ORG since 2004
Prof. of Psychology at Keele Univ.; Fellow of British Academy
Research: civilian effects of war, psychology of anti-war movement
Co-founder of Iraq Body Count
The biggest threat?

“Terrorism is the greatest 21st Century threat, and
there is only one rational response - to stand up to it
with an "unshakeable unity of purpose" until the
world is free of this evil".

Tony Blair, London,
November 2003
(on the occasion of the
State visit of George W Bush)
Terrorist attacks in the USA
Number of international terrorist attacks in US (1995-2003)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
13
10
0
0
1995
0
1996
1997
0
1998
2
1999
0
2000
4
2001
0
2002
0
2003
US deaths from terrorism
Number of US citizens killed by
international terrorism (1995-2003).
Source: US Department of State
3500
3000
2689
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
12
1995
24
1996
7
1997
12
1998
6
1999
23
2000
2001
27
35
2002
2003
World deaths from terrorism
Total number of people killed by
international terrorism (1995-2003)
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
20 causes of death in the USA
Number of deaths by cause (US, 2001)
Source: Center for Disease Control
800000
700000
600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
Int ernat ional M alnut rit ion
Terrorism
Viral
hepat it is
Skin cancer
Alcoholic
liver disease
HIV
Emphysema Parkinson's
Homicide
Firearms
Suicide
Traf f ic
accident s
Alzheimer's
Pneumonia
Diabet es
Accident s Lung Cancer
Cancer
Heart
disease
Terror versus climate change

"I think we still overestimate the danger of
terror. There are other things that are of
equal, if not greater, magnitude, like the
environmental global risks."
(Hans Blix speaking on UK TV
– March 2004)
US military in Persian gulf




US was self-sufficient in oil until the 1970s
CENTCOM in Persian Gulf since 1970s
Primary aim is oil control
Permanent US bases in Iraq: near oilfields
Iraq – a case study in failure

Civilian deaths since May 2003
Year 1 =
6,331
20 per day
Year 2 =
11,312
31 per day
Year 3* =
12,617
36 per day
Source: www.iraqbodycount.org
Iraq – a case study in failure

US “counter-terrorism”
–
–
e.g. Falluja: 50 bombing raids per day
kills, mains and makes homeless


Iraqi civilians
Iraqi security forces
sectarian hatred
 recruits for terrorism

Iraq – a case study in failure

living standard was better under Saddam
–
–
–
–
child nutrition
health and education
income and employment
basic services: water, electricity
The main threats to global security
1. Climate change
2. Competition for resources
3. Socio-economic divisions
4. Global militarisation
5. Terrorism
Each point interacts with the others
E.g. nuclear power contributes positively to 1,
negatively to 2, 3, 4, 5
1. Climate change: Coastal effects
Melting ice-caps




rising sea levels
highly populated coastal regions
mass displacement of populations
social and economic consequences
1. Climate change: Rainfall
Less rainfall over tropical landmasses
 drought and desertification
Mainly in Africa, China, India
–
Mediterranean also affected
Food shortages
 social unrest, migration
1. Climate change: Deaths

“In my view, climate change is the most severe problem we are
facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism…"

“… based on the number of fatalities that have already occurred
… global warming has already killed more people than
terrorism”.
Sir David King,
UK Government’s chief scientist,
2004
1. Climate change: Remedies

Less fossil fuels
–

More renewables
–

coal, oil, gas
wind, solar, hydro, biomass
Energy conservation
–
–
–
more efficient cars, more public transport
improve efficiency of electricity production, batteries
energy taxes, public awareness
1. Climate change: Nuclear energy





Limited resources of high-grade uranium
Toxic waste for thousands of years
Not carbon free: 30% CO2 emission of gas-fired electricity
Link to nuclear weapons (e.g. Iran)
Power installations are vulnerable
–
–

terrorist attack
nuclear theft
Security and MOX fuel
–
–
transported on open seas
can make crude nuclear weapons
1. Climate change: Sellafield
An aircraft flown into the Sellafield nuclear plant in Cumbria could
cause "at worst, several million fatalities“.
(“Assessing the Risks of Terrorist Attacks on Nuclear Facilities”.
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, July 2004)
1. Climate change: Nuclear energy

Nuclear not the answer, say UK Government
advisors (7 March 2006)
Nuclear power is too costly and
dangerous to justify its expansion
in the UK, even if it cuts carbon
emissions, the Government's own
advisors said in a new report.
Source: Sustainable Development Commission
2. Competition for resources: Oil
5 Gulf countries have 2/3 of reserves
–
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, UAE
World’s major economies import oil
–
USA and China: rapid growth in demand
2. Competition for resources: Oil
2. Competition for resources: H2O
One billion have no safe drinking water
(UN Report, “Water and Development” March 2006)


Population of Nile basin will double in 25 years
Israel and Palestine share declining resource
2. Competition for resources: H2O
Avoid water wars


multilateral water management
strict observance of international water laws
3. Socio-economic division: Trend
The rich get richer, the poor get poorer


within countries
between countries
3. Socio-economic division: Poverty

One in five people have less than $1 a day
Half the world’s children live in poverty

organised crime, social disorder, cultural tensions

3. Socio-economic division: Processes

International trade and aid rules impede economic
development of poorer countries
–

Western agricultural subsidies; “free market”
Western corporations take natural resources of poor
countries with little local benefit
–
e.g. Nigerian oilfields
Perception of injustice & marginalisation increased by


education
communications technology
3. Socio-economic divisions: AIDS

“Worst catastrophe to hit the world” (UNICEF)

Far less spent on AIDS than on Iraq war

Loss of working adults
 collapsing
social structures
 children to criminal and paramilitary groups
3. Socio-economic division: Discrimination

Affects 1 billion members of persecuted
ethnic, religious, or linguistic groups

Discontent and marginalisation
 violence and terrorism
How to “fight terror”
Do not treat the symptoms (short-term)



Do not fight violence with violence
Do not exacerbate local grievances
Both increase the number of terrorists
Identify and treat the causes (long-term)

Encourage dialogue
–
–


intercultural, interfaith
even with those who advocate violence (cf. Northern Ireland)
Address grievances and respect differences
Rectify wealth disparities
4. Global militarisation: Cold war



massive investment in military technology
at the expense of civil programmes
Conflicts worldwide from 1945-2000 killed
25 million people
4. Global militarisation: 1990s



Some nuclear disarmament
Chemical Weapons Convention ratified
US developed “global reach” to fight limited
wars at a distance
4. Global militarisation: G. W. Bush

Reject multilateralism
–
–
–

Develop “usable” nuclear weapons
–

Comprehensive test ban treaty
Anti-ballistic missile treaty
Biological and Toxins Weapons Treaty
B61-11 “bunker buster”
Encourage nuclear proliferation!
–
through aggression and threat (Iran, North Korea)
4. Global militarisation: Solutions



Diplomatic resolution of international disputes
International law, UN security council
Military forces
–
–

Control nuclear and biological weapons
–
–

non-provocative defensive posture
peacekeeping, humanitarian missions
Biological and toxic weapons convention
Non-proliferation of nuclear weapons treaty
Stop developing and upgrading nuclear weapons
Instability: The control paradigm

Counter-terrorism
–
–

Counter-proliferation
–
–

indefinite detention of terrorist suspects without trial
restriction of democratic freedoms
against non-state organisations and state ‘sponsors of terrorism’
strategy of pre-emptive military strikes
Irrational belief that technological advances and free
markets will solve global problems such as
–
–
–
–
resource depletion
climate change
disease
poverty
Addressing the ladder of instability
Global
threat
Control
paradigm
Sustain
paradigm
Climate
Nuclear power
Renewable energy
Resources
CENTCOM
Reduce consumption
Poverty
Social control
Reduce poverty
Militarisation
Threaten
Disarm
Terrorism
Declare “war”
Political dialogue
The main global threats

Growth affects climate and causes war
–
–
–

Poverty produces migratory pressures
–
–
–

growth in population + per-capita consumption is straining eco-system
competition over scarce resources, particularly oil, but also water
increased intensity and frequency of hurricanes, floods, droughts
away from highly populated coastal regions
from tropical to temperate regions
to escape downward spiral of poverty and disease
Frustration and desperation cause terrorism
–
–
recruits for terror
WMD proliferation (also to terrorists)
Sustainable Security

Energy
–
–

Nuclear and biological weapons
–
–

encourage dialogue, address legitimate grievances and aspirations
Trade and aid
–

multilateral disarmament
no new developments
Conflict
–

replace fossil fuels with renewable sources
phase out nuclear energy
reform global systems of trade and aid to reduce poverty
Democracy
–
improve education, human rights, political transparency
Summary of talk

Key points in Open Democracy article
www.opendemocracy.net
Contact
www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk
[email protected]
Titles on sale
£5.00 each
• Iran: consequences of a War
• Iraqi Liberation
• Secure Energy Briefing paper
• A dossier of Civilian Casualties
in Iraq
£10.00
• Iraq and the War on Terror.
Paul Rogers
Richard Parncutt’s afterthoughts






Why academics?
Academic strengths
A strange but common logic
A rational alternative
Evolutionary psychology
Implications for governments
Why academics?

Politicians can’t do everything
–
–

limited information and intellectual resources
limited time window (next election)
Academic training costs taxpayers
They should get direct returns
 Academics should devote 5% of academic work time to politics
 Academics should feel responsible

Prerequisites for democracy
–
–
–
equal rights  political basis
freedom of speech  academic role
access to accurate information  academic role
Academic strengths

Rational, logical, detached thinking
–

Intellectual resources
–
–

academic and popular literature
reconciling contrasting viewpoints
Communication and networking
–
–

evidence  conclusion  implications
international colleagues, interdisciplinary approaches
opportunities to inform the general public
Imagining the unimaginable
–
–
physicists imagine quarks
academics imagine future scenarios
A strange but common logic
Observation:

Crazy people predict the end of the world
Irrational conclusion:

There is no danger of an “end of the world”
Implication:


Don’t worry about it
Maintain distance from those crazy people
A rational alternative


Massive catastrophes are possible
They would be caused by humans
 Take responsibility
 Who else will?
 Work towards realistic solutions
 Concrete projects rather than talk and agreements
 Focus on the big picture
 Detail is important but don’t get lost in it
Prioritisation: A quantitative approach
1.
2.
3.
Estimate probability p of a catastrophe
Estimate number of deaths N (or equivalent suffering)
Prioritize political projects according to pN
Example
A nuclear war could kill 10, 100 oder 1000 million

rough estimate: N = 100,000,000
Probability is less than 100% and more than 1%

rough estimate: p = 10%
pN = 10 million will die if nothing is done
Implication: Act now! Nothing is more urgent

Evolutionary psychology

The science of human nature
–
–

Altruism is reciprocal
–

Selfish gene  protect self and biological family
We have not changed much in 100,000 years
Genuine altruism is rare
Men appear altruistic to attract females
…who believe they will care for the children
Implications for governments

Healthy self interest:
–

invest in own future, don‘t pretend to be altruistic
Local versus global security:
–
no long-term difference!
Implications for federal budgets

Global expenditure: 30%*
–
–
–

aid, development, poverty reduction: 10%*
renewable energy research and promotion: 10%*
defense, conflict res., peace research, cultural exch.: 10%*
Domestic expenditure: 70%*
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
administration: 10%*
education: 10%*
transport: 10%*
research: 10%*
benefits: 10%*
health: 10%*
other: 10%*
* Order of magnitude estimates
Danke!

John Sloboda http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/
–

GRAS http://www.gras.at/graz/
–

For promotion of this talk
Grüne Akademie http://www.gruene-akademie.at/
–

For permission to use and adapt this file
For financial support
University of Graz
–
For promoting freedom of speech and diversity of opinion