A Critique of Deudney's Argument

In his essay “The Case against Linking Environmental Degradation and National Security,” Daniel Deudney argues that while there are numerous links between national security and the degradation of the environment, environmental degradation is not a threat to national security. Deudney does not state, however, that there are not links between the environment and national security; he merely states that environmental issues do not act as a threat to national security. He believes that military conflict and degradation are related in that conflict leads to the consumption of resources, is directly destructive of the environment, and generates waste and pollution that act as threats to environmental quality.  

Deudney believes that violence and environmental degradation are often connected simply because both cause a reduction in human wellbeing. However, he disagrees with this connection simply because many things are harmful to human wellbeing but are still not classified as security threats. These include natural disasters, crime, and disease. Anything that is bad cannot simply be defined as an issue of security, Deudney argues. He also argues that environmental threats can never be simply “national” issues merely because they are not limited by political boundaries and restricted to just one nation. Environmental issues, such as air pollution and climate change, know no boundaries and often involve more than just one state. Deudney also argues that issues of national security are almost always intentional; after all, states go to war for a reason. On the contrary, issues of environmental degradation are almost never intentional; rather, they are often merely side effects of human actions that are designed to increase human welfare. It is such that Deudney argues that we do not attempt to frame environmental issues as issues of national security. 

I would like to refute Deudney’s arguments on the environment and national security by pointing out that environmental issues are broad and far-reaching in scope and can cause more problems than we expect. One important environmental issue we face today is conflict over scarce resources, one of the most vital being freshwater. Deudney fails to realize that conflict over important resources such as water can indeed translate into issues of national security, especially in politically tenuous areas of the world such as the Middle East. Because water is poorly distributed between countries in this region of the world—and because countries in this region have traditionally had disharmonious relationships with each other—the potential for military conflict over water poses a threat to national security. Because environmental issues are not limited geographically as political and economic ones are, they may cause conflict among neighboring countries that acts as a threat to national security. 

Deudney also fails to realize that with such pressing environmental issues at hand, we cannot conclude that national security will remain entirely unaffected. The potential for environmental degradation to generate serious consequences leaves us wondering what aspect of our lives will be the first to deteriorate. With the inevitable acceleration of climate change, the depletion of key resources, and the worsening of air quality comes the concern that our societies may not hold up for much longer. If environmental issues become serious enough to cause societal collapse, they will undoubtedly become issues of national security as well. If we run out of resources and have no way of sustaining ourselves, the countries of the world will soon experience conflict with each other over who gets access to what resources. The potential for a global scramble to collect scarce resources is pressing enough for us to believe that environmental threats may one day threaten the security of the world’s nations. 

Finally, I would like to critique Deudney’s argument by stating that it is in our best interest to treat environmental issues as issues of national security. Because a country’s primary concern is protecting the wellbeing and security of its people, any issue that threatens these factors is one to be treated as vital. Framing the environment as an issue of national security may be enough to motivate countries to take further action on correcting these problems. On the downside, this attitude may also lead to further conflict between states. For instance, if one state generates pollution that has a negative impact on an adjacent state, the affected state may view this threat as a threat to its national security. Because national security is the most important concern facing all states, the affected state may decide to go into armed conflict with the other state simply because they view this environmental threat as a threat to their security. While this may make any linkage between the environment and national security sound unappealing, the mere possibility of this conflict should incentivize a more rigorous addressing of environmental issues. If countries understand that the environmental issues they face may soon plunge them into military conflict, they will treat these problems as more serious and do anything they can to mitigate them.