Search

This article addresses ways to move toward capacities to tackle future challenges in asymmetric conflict. In particular, it considers how networks and the holistic “neuron” synthesis of man and machine offer new possibilities and new threats. Adapting armed forces to the challenges of the future will not be easy; vigorous debate is required about how to address vulnerabilities in light of the science of complexity and future uncertainties. Indeed, “chaos strategy” may increasingly confront us as we search for solutions to future dilemmas.

By 2015, there will be 58 cities on the planet with a population of 5 million or more and, by 2025, according to National Intelligence Council, 27 cities with a population exceeding 10 million. The U.N. Population Division classifies populations in excess of 10 million as megacities and many of these urban behemoths will be located in the so-called 10/40 window—the area in Africa and Asia between north latitude 10 and 40 degrees. This emerging growth will have serious consequences for international stability, human security and environmental degradation. Without a doubt, unchecked growth in the 10/40 window will change the face of the global map in the twenty-first century. The questions are: how and what should be done about it? In this article, we primarily address the how question—leaving a detailed examination of policy options to others, as we contend that the most important step at this point in time is to first understand the nature of the problem. Download : Download full-size image

P. H. Liotta is professor of humanities at Salve Regina University and executive director of the Pell Center for International Relations and Public Policy.

Although security - as a basic concept - is frequently considered in the study and analysis of policy decisions, its essential meaning ought to be more widely disagreed than agreed upon. Commonly considered a basic concept in policy and academic debates, security is in reality a quantity that is not basic at any register. The couching of emerging ‘non-traditional’ concepts such as environmental security and human security solely on their relationship to potential or real threats, most often within a topology of power, and the use of language that is inadequate to the often nuanced and almost always complex dynamics of such emerging identities imprisons such concepts within ‘traditional’ state-centered, national security paradigms. Moreover, not all security issues involve ‘threats’; rather, the notion of vulnerabilities is as serious to some peoples, and some regions, as the more familiar concept of threat. The issue truly is not one of ‘hard’ traditional security (often based on state-to-state power relationships) or ‘soft’ non-traditional security (which can involve multiple trans-national aspects), but rather the need for a focus on both. Too exclusive a focus on one form of security may cause a ‘boomerang effect’, resulting from failure to recognize, or deal with, other contending forms of security. Recognizing and acting on the best approaches to issues of security will prove the greatest challenge.

When the Cold War ended, scholars, pundits, and policymakers turned to the task of defining the new world order and America s place in it. Some warned of coming anarchy or of the clash of civilizations. After September 1 1 , those warnings seemed prescient. Since 9/11, our sense of insecurity has only increased, as has our reliance on military solutions to the problems we see before us. Yet the more we rely on military force, the less secure we feel. Perhaps the difficulty is in how we see the world that confronts us. It is as if we are trying to find our way using an old map, only to discover that the roads marked no longer exist. One new map that may be particularly useful in helping us to see the contours of the future is the "earthlights" image reproduced here and available on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's website. The image is a composite of satellite photographs taken over a period of months that recorded the illumination from

P. H. Liotta is the Jerome E. Levy Chair of Economic Geography and NationalSecurity at the U.S. Naval War College.

The 1999 NATO intervention against Yugoslavia may prove to be a pivotal event in European security. Yet much of former Yugoslavia seems to hover in tenuous uncertainty, Kosovo remains an international protectorate and Macedonia's fate is uncertain. Specifically, aftershock events of the post-Kosovo intervention led to a security degradation in Macedonia in 2001 and seriously hampered the recovery efforts of Serbia after the ‘October Revolution’ of 2000. This article presents a broad problem-set of dynamics that were and are driving forces in the shaping, analysis and future direction of the European security architecture. Attempts to explain conflict that focus too narrowly on ethnic differences or too broadly evoke human justice as grounds for intervention will consistently miss the strategic mark. There are indeed spillover effects in Macedonia and in Serbia that have direct relations with the aftermath of the 1999 Kosovo intervention.

Partly as a result of the 11 September 2001 attacks on Washington and New York, policy decisions and future choices may well be driven by a blurring of concerns that involve state-centric security (in which military forces have traditionally been the best form of protection) and human security (in which instruments other than the military may prove the primary means of protection). The implications for the analyst and policymaker are tremendous. We may be witnessing a `boomerang effect' in which we must focus on both national and human security and yet realize that excessive focus on one aspect of security at the expense or detriment of the other may well cause us to be `boomeranged' by a poor balancing of ends and means in a changing security environment.

Whether or not the future Europe will be characterized as one of constant security dilemmas or a place of integrating security identities may well be linked to the fate of Macedonia. Indeed, Macedo...

P. H. Liotta is the Jerome E. Levy Chair of Economic Geography and National Security at the U.S. Naval War College. He wishes to thank James F. Miskel of the Naval War College for insightful readings of earlier drafts.

Macedonia is the last genuinely multi‐ethnic state in the Balkans. For some, this suggests the impossibility of its continued existence. As ethnic Albanian leader Arben Xhaferi would have it, however, Macedonia's incentive for success is compelled by the inevitable allure of the West. In retrospect, when the Badinter Commission of the European Union released its opinion regarding the status of former Yugoslav states on 15 January 1992, the commission found that only two former republics sufficiently met the established criteria for recognition by the European Community: Slovenia and Macedonia. Yet Macedonia, unlike Slovenia, is an ethnically diverse nation and the poorest of the former Yugoslav republics. A review of the various geographic and geopolitical influences reveals that conflicting and often competing political, economic, social, cultural, and historic forces constantly conflict in Macedonia. The absence of increased attention and support to integrate Macedonia within the fold of Europe suggests...

Aligning with the effort to establish warfare ecology as a disciplined bridge to advance ecological science to inform policy decisions and implementation and offset negative environmental consequences, this chapter suggests linking two propositions. The first is that the praxis of security should be understood as extreme efforts within a state’s larger management of uncertainty about the future. By focusing on a motivation for government action rather than a locus of bureaucratic activity, such an approach may open the possibility for a more nuanced discussion about the idea of security. Within this wider frame, it is possible to recognize relationships among sources of uncertainty and alternative responses. Further, there is the conceptual flexibility for issues to be escalated when great uncertainty is identified and de-escalated as the means to address an uncertainty are developed and incorporated into normal routines of public administration. The second proposition is that the planning, design, and use of the environment are fundamental aspects of a state’s response to uncertainty and vulnerability. We examine military lands and their surrounding regions as sites where the management of multiple uncertainties are negotiated for the needs of national defense and ecological sustainability. Equally, for military operations themselves, we also give brief consideration to the environments where military forces are adapting themselves for future engagements and their implications for warfare ecology.

Underscoring the critical tension between environmental security and ecoterrorism, the authors present two essential propositions linking environments, states and security. The first is that the praxis of security should be understood as extreme efforts within a state’s larger management of uncertainty about the future. By focusing on a motivation for government action – rather than as a locus of bureaucratic activity – we open the possibility for more nuanced discussions and decisions on security. As such, recognizing the critical relationship between environmental security and ecoterrorism, it becomes possible to consider greater sources of uncertainty and alternative responses. The second proposition suggests that the planning, design, and use of the environment are fundamental aspects of a state’s response to uncertainty and vulnerability. By examining uncertainty, recognizing vulnerabilities, and designing adaptive response measures, will fundamentally improve security.

Although security1 — as a basic concept — is frequently considered in the study and analysis of policy decisions, its essential meaning ought to be more widely disagreed than agreed on.2 Commonly considered a basic concept in policy and academic debates, security is in stark reality a quantity that is not basic at any register. By couching emerging “non-traditional” concepts such as ‘environmental security’ and ‘human security’ solely on their relationship to potential or real threats, most often within a topology of power — and by using language that is inadequate to the often nuanced and almost always complex dynamics of such emerging identities — makes such concepts hostage to ‘traditional’ state-centred, national security paradigms. Most often such decision-makers only conceive of security concepts in power-dominant, state-centric mindset. The consequence has been that human and environmental issues tend to be ignored, relative to national security, even when it is clear that some of the issues we ignore today will contribute to the national security issues we will face tomorrow.

I am a new instructor in the Depart ment of English at the United States Air Force Academy. Even as I write this, though, I wonder exactly what this means. What expectations are raised in the mind of any normal reader, that is, one outside the extraordinary curriculum of a service academy? New: Yes, it's true. I am new to the arena of university education. In my last active military assignment, I served as a KC-135 aircraft commander. I was responsible for the operation of a $10 million airplane, and, more important, the leadership and?at times?the lives of my crew. Here, in my new job, one of my colleagues/supervisors stated my position clearly: You won't be trusted with a $10 budget. I was once accustomed to dealing with complex aircraft systems and so phisticated instrumentation, but noth ing could have adequately prepared me for the day when I first stood before twenty expectant faces?eager, and even willing to learn.

While environmental and human security remain both evolving and contested concepts in numerous theoretical debates, there should be little doubt that the vulnerability aspects that these security issues involve present serious long-term challenges to the success and stability of Central Asia. Aside from offering a general approach to the meaning of environmental and human security, this article also argues that there are crucial differences between threats and vulnerabilities, distinguishes between the two, and suggests why recognizing that difference has important implications for policy decisions in Central Asian security. Additionally, this article offers several theoretical models that have been proposed in recent research and considers their relevance to the region. Specifically, this review addresses what have been argued as "trigger mechanisms" that can unleash violent conflict, create socio-economic disparity, and induce long-term insecurity.

This chapter assesses the geostrategic and geopolitical implications of water shortages in Central Asia and argues that resource scarcity or competition cannot be separated from other regional realities. On-again, off-again relations between Central Asian states, as well as the so-called war on terrorism, bear significant implications for the region. Thus, the convention of defining Central Asia as a grouping of five states is increasingly less relevant for policy making and sound strategic analysis. Central Asia is linked to the entire Caspian basin, the South Caucasus, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, and China’s Xinjiang province. Equally, the long- term interests of Russia and the United States now play into the complex realities of Central Asia. Specifically regarding water shortages, a number of vulnerability issues involving so-called “non-traditional” security present serious long-term challenges to the stability of the region. The chapter argues that there are crucial differences between threats and vulnerabilities, distinguishes between the two, and suggests relevant policy applications for the Central Asian states. The analysis includes a review of theoretical models that have been proposed in research. Specifically, this review addresses what have been argued as “trigger mechanisms” that can unleash violent conflict, create socio economic disparity, and induce long-term insecurity, and provides possible pathways for geostrategic solutions and means to reduce water resource tensions.

This book focuses on two basic concepts: security and environment, on the environmental security dimension and a human security perspective and different outcomes of global and regional environmental change on natural disasters and environmental conflict but also on efforts at environmental cooperation that have resolved or avoided conflicts from occurring in the Mediterranean eco-region (Brauch ch. 2). This chapter offers an overview of the themes and structure of the book (1.1), its key research questions to be addressed (1.2), its aim to achieve an interdisciplinary and intercultural scientific dialogue (1.3) to contribute to problem awareness, agenda-setting and an anticipatory learning (1.4), on the authors and the audience (1.5), on the editorial process (1.6) and on the contents (1.7).1

Mediterranean politics has been undergoing profound change since the end of the Cold War under the conditions of globalisation.1 These changes affected all countries and extended to include domestic, regional, trans-regional politics, and the interactions between the region and the global system. Eastern and Southern Mediterranean countries are experiencing forces of political and economic change, and political-ideological extremism, and some Northern countries are coping with the rise of forces of political secessionism. Traditional conflicts are still plaguing the Mediterranean in addition to new ones, which emerged after the end of the Cold War. The Mediterranean is also going through processes of integration and fragmentation at the same time (Brauch 2001, 2001c). Because of the different levels of development and state-building, Northern countries have been able to achieve integrative breakthroughs unmatched by Southern states. For the first time, the region is experiencing the introduction of neo-regional arrangements, the most important of which is the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (EMP) project. It is also going through a process of slow integration into the global economy through the arrangements of global trade and financial liberalisation (Sid Ahmed 2001).

By now it seems a well-worn axiom that to speak honestly about the Euro-Mediterranean and the relevance of commonly agreed security issues is to enter a conceptual minefield. If one adds to this mixture a further discussion of military and environmental security, the minefield appears only to expand. Perhaps this need not be the case, though; in particular, in focusing on an examination of environmental security for the region-both in the past and future-some aspects of military security have relevance.

Democracies create free markets that offer economic opportunity, make for more reliable trading partners and are less likely to wage war on one another. While democracy will not soon take hold everywhere, it is in our interest to do all that we can to enlarge the community of free and open societies, especially in areas of greatest strategic interest, as in Central and Eastern Europe. I believe it is easier to wage war than to organise [sic] the government and direct social development, becau...

Innovative and responsible community actions are crucial for achieving environmental security. Continuous environmental pollution, as well as the uncontrolled and/or excessive exhaustion of natural resources, and their associated risks to human health and the environment, are the great challenges for modern societies. Consequently, effective strategies and measures to control and reduce environmental pollution and promote the preservation of natural resources and ecosystems are of paramount concern when developing, and synonymous with, the achievement of sustainable development goals. Achievement of these goals will to a large extent depend on changing the behavior of individuals, as well as whole societies. With increasing levels of personal and social responsibility and knowledge, research, development and application of innovative technology are critical circumstances/tools and at the same time driving forces relevant to significantly contribute to achieving environmental security.