(Page 19 of 32) - Danger in the Post-Cold War Era: Nation, Environmental Security and Postcolonial Feminism authored by Urban, Jessica.

environmental destruction. The 1997 and 2000 NSS documents discuss the conflict generated by
environmental degradation in fairly explicit terms (The White House, Clinton Administration, 2000a:
3, 9; The White House, Clinton Administration, 1997c:18-21). In even stronger language, The US
Commission on National Security discusses the potential for regional conflicts triggering “larger
interstate conflicts [that] grossly violate internationally accepted norms, or create massive flows of
refugees, disease, and environmental degradation” (1999:86).

The 1998 NSS also reflects Homer-Dixon’s (1999, 1998) work in its contention that “failed

states” will “lose their ability to provide for the welfare of their citizens” which will cause “mass
migration, civil unrest, famine, mass killings, environmental disasters and aggression against
neighboring states or ethnic groups,” which may threaten US interests (1998a:7). Also much like
Homer-Dixon’s work, the 1998 NSS (under the heading of Transnational Threats) argues, “terrorism,
international crime, drug trafficking, uncontrolled refugee migrations and environmental damage
threaten US interests, citizens and the US homeland itself” (1998a:6). Later, under the heading
Environmental Initiatives, the 1998 NSS suggests, “natural resource scarcities can trigger and
exacerbate conflict” (1998a:13) which is a direct reflection of one of Homer-Dixon’s central points.

In sum, I concur with Thomas that a threat-based approach characterizes US security discourse

on environmental concerns. I further argue that environmental security threats are identified and
interpreted within US government discourse in tandem with traditional, civilizational security
concerns. In elaborating this point, it is important to again note that this approach continues within a
markedly different international arena, one characterized for instance, by the end of the Cold War. As
the National Security Commission explains, “since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and the dramatic
transformation of world politics resulting from the dissolution of the Soviet Union two years later, our
leaders have been searching for a unifying theme to provide a strategic framework appropriate to
current and future circumstances. That search has not been easy” (2000:1).

On one hand, traditional IR security concerns remain important within the NSS and

Commission reports, including the maintenance of US sovereignty, the promulgation of American
values and institutions, and increasing national prosperity (The White House, 1997c:Online document).
On the other hand, these documents are unified in their recognition that today’s security environment is
characterized by countless new actors and concerns “that once seemed quite distant” (The White
House, Clinton Administration, 1998a:1). As the 1996 NSS explains:

The central security challenge of the past half century -- the threat of communist
expansion -- is gone. The dangers we face today are more diverse…It is a world where
clear distinctions between threats to our nation’s security from beyond our borders and
the challenges to our security from within our borders are being blurred; where the
separation between international problems and domestic ones is evaporating; and where
the line between domestic and foreign policy is eroding. The demise of communism
not only lifted the lid on age-old conflicts but it opened the door to new dangers… (The
White House, Clinton Administration, 1996a:1, 5)

Nearly all of the NSS documents, as well as Phase I of the National Security Commission report, point
out changes in the post-Cold War environment and highlight security threats that are much more vague
than those thought to exist during the Cold War.

These post-Cold War threats include environmental destruction as a threat to US national

security and international stability. Environmental concerns have been added to a crowd of seemingly
amorphous dangers ranging from population growth and terrorism to the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction. These dangers are however unified in their construction as threats to “our open and
free society” (The White House, 1996a:1). I use the word “added” intentionally because the
incorporation of environmental degradation has not fundamentally changed traditional IR security
discourse or the ways in which enemies are “discovered.” Hayes explains, “as the external threats
inherent to the Cold War have dissipated, we have begun to conjure up internal scapegoats, easy