ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY:

A DOD PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE

Kent Hughes Butts

Editor

April 25, 1994
ii

*******

The views expressed in this study are those of the author

and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of

the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the

U.S. Government. This report is cleared for public release;

distribution is unlimited.

*******

Comments pertaining to this report are invited and should be

forwarded to: Director, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army

War College, Carlisle, PA 17013-5050. Comments also may be

conveyed directly to the author by calling commercial (717)

245-4510 or DSN 242-4510.
iii

FOREWORD

International environmental issues can lead to instability

and conflict that threaten U.S. security interests and may result

in the commitment of U.S. forces. Chronic, unresolved

environmental issues threaten stability in such critical regions

as the former Soviet Union, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle

East. Recognizing this, the Department of Defense (DOD) has

committed itself to using DOD assets to mitigate environmental

issues that could lead to instability. However, a strategy to

implement this proactive policy has not been developed.

As part of the effort to create this strategy, the Deputy

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Environment, Safety and

Occupation Health), Mr. Lewis D. Walker, convened a panel on

Environmental Security as part of the Fifth Senior Environmental

Leadership Conference. The panel was sponsored by the Strategic

Studies Institute and the Army Environmental Policy Institute.

Its members were environmental security experts from within and

outside DOD and represented Major Commands and the Joint

Community. This report was drafted by members of the panel and

edited by the panel chairman.

While recognizing that their report was a contribution to

the ongoing effort to define DOD's environmental security role

and not a comprehensive study, the panel reached consensus, and

made recommendations on key policy issues. The Strategic Studies

Institute is pleased to offer this report as a contribution to

the debate on DOD's environmental security role.<R>

JOHN W. MOUNTCASTLE

Colonel, U.S. Army

Director, Strategic Studies Institute
iv

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE EDITOR

KENT HUGHES BUTTS is Associate Professor of Political Military

Strategy in the Center for Strategic Leadership, U.S. Army War

College, and is the War College Environmental Course instructor.

Previously he was a strategic research analyst in the Strategic

Studies Institute of the Army War College, and Associate

Professor at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. A 1973

graduate of the U.S. Military Academy, he holds a master's degree

in business administration from Boston University, an M.A. and

Ph.D. in geography from the University of Washington, and was a

John M. Olin Post-Doctoral Fellow in National Security at the

Center for International Affairs, Harvard University. He is a

graduate of the Army Command and General Staff College and the

Army War College. Dr. Butts is the author of the SSI

environmental studies: Environmental Security: What is DOD's

Role? and Army Strategy for Environmental Success.
v

SUMMARY

The end of the cold war has brought with it a milieu in

which superpower control of client states has been greatly

reduced and regional conflict has been exacerbated. Many formerly

suppressed variables that contribute to political instability and

regional conflict are now seen as important targets of foreign

policy. One of the most important of these is the role of

environmental issues in undermining the stability of newly formed

democratic regimes. As stated by the National Security Strategy,

"The stress from environmental challenges is already contributing

to political conflict." Recognizing the importance of

environmental issues to U.S. national security interests, the

Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental Security

defined DOD's role in environmental security to include

"mitigating the impacts of adverse environmental actions leading

to international instability."

The Secretary of Defense in his analysis of the future

threat environment described the four primary threats to U.S.

national security interests as regional dangers, nuclear dangers,

dangers to democracy, and economic dangers. All of these threats

have significant environmental components and all could involve

U.S. combat forces in regional conflict. By participating on a

preventative basis in the resolution of transnational

environmental issues that could lead to such conflict, DOD can

forestall future Somalia-like involvements before they occur, a

course of action that is extremely cost effective.

DOD has the broad spectrum of capabilities that allows it to

take pro-active measures that could prevent conflict and obviate

the need for costly involvement of U.S. forces overseas. By so

doing, DOD would be supporting the National Security Strategy

objectives of encouraging new democracies, enhancing the

humanitarian agenda and promoting global engagement and the

peaceful settlement of regional conflict.

The environment will continue to have a significant role in

international stability and should, therefore, be seriously

addressed by U.S. national security policy. As a key executor of

this policy, DOD has capabilities that should be used in

resolving the environmental challenges that the United States

must face. Through effective leadership, partnership, and

resources, U.S. federal agencies can serve as an environmental

security magnet effectively bringing together the international

community to mitigate issues that could lead to instability and

conflict, promote sustainable economic development and preserve

our planet.

Recommendations.

• Make a renamed DOD/State Department Security Assistance

Program the flagship of environmental security efforts. Used for
vi

environmental outreach aimed at creating the capabilities among

host nations to address their own environmental security needs,

such a program would take advantage of the existing

infrastructure and State/DOD working arrangements while fighting

the dangers of isolationism and instability.

• Appoint a special assistant to the National Security

Advisor for International Environmental Security Affairs and

create an interagency working group, chaired by the Special

Assistant, to develop a Presidential Decision Document

establishing U.S. environmental security policy.

• Establish environmental security as a principal objective

of the National Security Strategy and include environmental

issues in National Security Council threat assessments and

foreign policy planning.

• Emphasize the linkage between environmental security

objectives and the achievement of current, primary congressional

and administration interests of democratic reform, economic

development, and conflict resolution.

• In conjunction with the United Nations, use DOD

capabilities to enforce international treaties and agreements.

• Create a DOD Environmental Crisis Monitoring Center to

warn the policymaking community of chronic environmental issues

before political positions have hardened and policy options have

narrowed.

• Use environmental security issues to promote the transfer

of appropriate environmental technology and expand the global

market for U.S. corporations.

• Use environmental security missions to enhance the

operational capabilities of U.S. military forces.
vii

PANEL PARTICIPANTS

Colonel Frederick W. Boecher, U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene

Agency

Lieutenant Colonel William Jay Carson, Headquarters, U.S.

European Command

Mr. Ray Clark, President's Council on Environmental Quality

Mr. Chris Conrad, Army Environmental Policy Institute/Life

Systems, Inc.

Dr. Odelia Funke, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Dr. Thomas L. Hart, Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Colonel Leonard G. Hassell, Headquarters, USAREUR and Seventh

Army

Lieutenant Colonel Michael J. Leibel, U.S. Army Concepts Analysis

Agency

Mr. Jim Waddell, Office of Strategic Initiatives, U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers

FACILITATOR

Dr. C. Mark Dunning, Institute for Water Resources

CHAIR

Dr. Kent Hughes Butts, Center for Strategic Leadership, U.S. Army

War College
1

ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY:

A DOD PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE

It should be stressed that the broad range of

capabilities within the military permits the

national leadership to use the military--in which it

has invested so much--for more than the traditional

combat role. It can do this without dulling the

sword.

Admiral Paul David Miller, USN, 19931

INTRODUCTION

The change in the international arena since the end of the

cold war has given rise to an entirely new approach to viewing

U.S. security interests, and a recognition of the importance of

environmental factors in international stability and the onset of

conflict. During the cold war, parenting by both the United

States and the Soviet Union limited regional conflicts or ensured

that sufficient superpower attention was paid to preclude their

escalating into nuclear war. In the absence of superpower

control, long festering regional, ethnic and religious enmities

have erupted into conflict that defies international management

and threatens U.S. security interests. With Somalia as the

precedent, the use of U.S. forces to address the humanitarian

dimensions of this conflict has been established and public,

media, and nongovernmental organization (NGO) pressure exists to

commit additional U.S. forces to humanitarian and peacemaking

missions. Because the U.S. Government's ability to manage

multiple conflicts and fight multiple wars is limited, there is

an increasing need for the United States to become proactive in

addressing the causes of such conflicts before they occur,

significant among them environmental issues. As an element of

government with significant interest in solving regional problems

before they escalate into conflict, the Department of Defense

(DOD) should play a major role in problem resolution and conflict

prevention. This report examines adverse environmental actions as

potential causes of conflict, assesses DOD capabilities to

mitigate these actions, and recommends policies for the DOD to

proactively address environmental issues.

The DOD environmental security mission has its roots in the

fact that environmental problems that lead to instability and

contention are being ignored, and U.S. combat forces are becoming

involved in the resulting conflict. In addition, DOD's

environmental security mission supports the National Security

Strategy (NSS) of the United States and must be understood in

that context.

The NSS is the document written by the National Security

Council to reflect U.S. national interests and objectives and the

strategic concepts for achieving them. These interests guide U.S.

foreign policy, and their objectives are achieved using the
2

traditional elements of power: political, military, economic,

and social. The environment became an element of the National

Security Strategy and a recognized objective that supports U.S.

interests in 1991, when the NSS pointed out, "the stress from

environmental challenges is already contributing to political

conflict," and listed as a primary U.S. objective to "achieve

cooperative international solutions to key environmental

challenges."2 DOD has a larger role beyond the physical defense

of the nation. As an element of power with unique technical

attributes, DOD is an appropriate and well-qualified entity with

which to achieve environmental objectives of the National

Security Strategy. The question needs to be asked, "if not DOD,

what agency has the resources and experience to execute the U.S.

environmental security mission?"

In the 20th century, international environmental problems

have contributed significantly to international instability and

conflict, and therefore have the potential to involve U.S. combat

forces. As the current environmentally related crises in Haiti

and Somalia make clear, DOD has a vested interest in mitigating

environmental problems before they evolve into

difficult-to-manage state or regional conflicts. Regional wars

that threaten U.S. interests potentially can involve U.S. forces,

and incur substantial operational and public support costs to the

United States and to DOD. By participating on a preventive basis

in the resolutions of environmental issues that could lead to

such conflict, DOD can forestall future Somalia-like involvements

before they occur--an action that is extremely cost effective.

Recognizing this phenomenon, the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense

for Environmental Security has defined DOD's role in

environmental security to include, "mitigating the impacts of

adverse environmental actions leading to international

instability."3 This role reflects the Secretary of Defense's

recognition that the four primary threats to U.S. national

security interests are: regional dangers, nuclear dangers,

dangers to democracy, and economic dangers.4

 All of these

threats have significant environmental components and all could

involve U.S. combat forces in regional conflict. Such involvement

carries high costs to DOD in terms of lives, dollars, and, as the

media graphically portrays the resulting casualties, the

potential loss of public support for the military and other DOD

missions.

DOD can address environmental security objectives across a

broad spectrum of operations, taking preemptive measures that

could alleviate the need for the direct involvement of U.S.

combat forces. Such measures draw upon DOD's variety of technical

skills and noncombatant capabilities, and may be executed in

partnership with other U.S. agencies and international

organizations. Moreover, they would directly support the NSS

objectives of supporting new democracies and the humanitarian

agenda, preventing conflict, and promoting global engagement.5

This report addresses how DOD can best utilize its resources
3

to mitigate adverse environmental conditions that could lead to

international instability or conflict and, therefore, pose a

threat to U.S. national security.

THE CONCEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY

The environment is not a new security concept, but in the

past it has primarily been seen as a victim rather than a cause

of conflict.6 Today, its role as a primary variable in regional

stability is unquestioned.

Environmental degradation imperils nations' most

fundamental aspect of security by undermining the

natural support systems on which all of human

activity depends.

Michael Renner, 19897

Security requires a fundamental level of economic,

environmental, and physical well-being; a healthy economy and a

healthy environment go hand-in-hand. Society must find solutions

that protect the environment and its natural resources while

allowing for the development required to sustain living standards

in a growing world population.

The legitimacy of a state regime depends upon its ability to

manage the country's resource base in a manner that satisfies the

basic needs of its population. Environmental degradation has the

potential to erode that resource base and make it impossible for

the government to satisfy these needs and to maintain the

confidence of its people. If sustainable development is precluded

by environmental problems, it may lead to environmental refugees,

internal conflict over scarce resources and, ultimately, to a

loss of legitimacy and downfall of the regime. This phenomenon is

particularly important to U.S. interests in the post-Soviet era,

where promoting democracy and free market economies in

vulnerable, developing states is a primary objective of the

United States and its allies.

Environmental security requires a broad approach because

environmental systems are interconnected, having effects that

cross the boundaries of time and space. For this reason,

difficulties stemming from local environmental neglect can

escalate into regional or global conflict. Long-term

sustainability implies the ability to meet basic human needs over

time and states must take both transboundary effects and the

needs of future generations into account. Because of the

intergenerational nature of environmental issues, environmental

policy requires long-term planning and activity. With the

acceleration of natural system degradation over time, many

environmental issues become more difficult to correct the longer

they persist. A combination of factors: society depleting or

polluting resources at accelerating rates, the inability of

nature to regenerate/recover at commensurate rates, society's
4

increasing tolerance for change, and apathy over resource

depletion make it difficult for developing states to assess and

understand environmental processes and develop technical

expertise in time to take corrective action.8

Instability and conflict often result from the poverty

created by the economic regression of resource depletion or

scarcity. The abuse of power by the leaders of many developing

countries has frequently manifested itself in exploitive resource

management practices, a wasting away of the economic

infrastructure, human suffering and ethnic-based competition for

increasingly scarce resources, and, ultimately, to conflict.

Given this phenomenon, why have security analysts been slow to

focus on environmental destruction as a source of conflict?

First is the long lead time of most environmental threats.

In prioritizing threats to a nation's security, it is natural to

focus governmental resources on objectives that guarantee

security in the short term. The perception of threats such as

nuclear holocaust or conventional warfare is very visceral and

the system for prioritizing political and economic objectives is

based on annual evaluations, elections and other short-term

considerations. However, the absence of an overarching Soviet

threat and a growing public awareness of impending environmental

shortages and irreversible losses have provided the conditions

necessary to allow the security community to consider less

obtrusive factors of global instability.9

The global population has grown geometrically and will

double over the period from 1950 to 2000, bringing environmental

issues to the fore. Rates of global population continue to

increase, particularly in the vulnerable developing world,

accelerating demand for food and a broad range of other natural

resources. The global rates of consumption of natural resources

are far greater than the ecosystem has previously endured.10 The

world is rapidly moving beyond local shortages, which

historically have created local conflict, to regional or

transboundary resource shortages with the potential to escalate

into far reaching hostilities involving U.S. forces. In numerous

regions the ability of the earth to replenish its renewable

resources, even with the human intervention of irrigation and

fertilizer, has already been exceeded. Indeed, these very

interventions often create unforeseen, adverse environmental

consequences. Thus, the frequently ignored, long-lead-time

environmental factors have reached their thresholds and are

causing instability that security policy analysts cannot ignore.

Second, technological advances have allowed society to use

natural resources more creatively and efficiently, thus

accelerating their consumption. Technology transfer enhances the

ability of other nations to exploit and deplete resources on a

broader scope. The significant difference is the scale and speed

with which society now consumes resources for peaceful purposes,

or destroys them through belligerence or accident. The
5

combination of population increases and technological advances

has allowed many countries to exploit their resource base at

rates that outstrip the carrying capacity of the environment.

With such accelerated and unmanaged resource use, the difference

between renewable and nonrenewable resources becomes irrelevant,

as the ability of the ecosystem to regenerate itself is

destroyed. Overgrazing, overfishing, toxic and hazardous

pollutants, and soil loss can permanently deplete "renewable"

resources.11

Third, scientific knowledge is far greater than in the past,

yielding a heightened awareness of the interconnectedness of

ecosystems and of human reliance on the maintenance of ecosystem

balance. The resulting understanding has increased the urgency of

solving environmental problems.12 Further, advanced methods of

data collection provide growing evidence that current practices

are undermining critical ecological balances at the national,

regional and global levels. These changes have made security

policy analysts aware of the urgency of resolving environmental

security issues before they can lead to conflict. Accomplishing

this task, however, will require a strategy.

The time frame associated with recognizing environmental

threats, creating a strategy with which to address them, and

planning and executing the threat-mitigating strategy is longer

than those encountered with the traditional security threats of

weapons proliferation and regional conflict. To meet these

threats one must recognize the wisdom of preventing conflict by

providing resources to address the sources of instability.

Conflict resolution is much more expensive in terms of lives,

money and environmental destruction than conflict prevention. As

Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara noted, simply purchasing

more military hardware does not buy a country greater security. A

country must develop a strategy that employs all elements of

national power and a variety of resources to mitigate threats

before they lead to conflict, whether the threats are political,

economic, environmental, or military.13 Preventive strategies

are more effective when they emanate from a position of strength

and, where possible, have a synergistic relationship with

strategic concepts to achieve other national objectives. By

emphasizing and applying U.S. knowledge, institutions and

technologies, environmental degradation can be limited and

environmentally sustainable development can be fostered. This is

the only long-term strategy that will allow the nations of the

earth to improve the living conditions of impoverished peoples

and reduce the likelihood of conflict.14 And, in the end, a

strategy of conflict prevention saves vast financial resources

and perhaps thousands of lives for the ultimate environmental

security stakeholder...the Department of Defense.

ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS TO NATIONAL SECURITY

Because much of the popular periodical literature concerning

environmental security has dwelled on the past environmental
6

transgressions of DOD and their domestic health risk potential,

to the exclusion of the much more significant international

dimension, it is important to clarify the threat that

environmental security issues pose to U.S. national interests.

Therefore, this section explains what constitutes an

environmental threat, lists various threats at the three

geographic levels, and provides clear examples of how

environmental issues are threatening U.S. interests in the former

Soviet Union, Middle East, and Caribbean.

All environmental problems are not threats to national

security. Determining which constitute legitimate national

security issues and prioritizing them is a difficult challenge.

No generally accepted criteria for making such a determination

exist, and the arguments defending the validity of environmental

security as a national security issue often criticize the lack of

a methodology by which decisionmakers can determine when risks

exist and when resources should be committed, a criticism

relevant to many issues of national security.15

Prioritization for environmental risk analysis is based on

the assumption that environmental problems create or contribute

to events that threaten U.S. national security interests by:

• Undermining the legitimacy of governments or promoting

instability;

• Creating civil strife or conflict that could involve U.S.

forces;

• Harming U.S. strategic alliances and the ongoing

democratization process.

Environmental actions may receive priority when they provide

an opportunity to foster engagement in humanitarian issues, or

promote U.S. strategic interests.

These threats may occur at three general geographical levels

of resolution, although they are not mutually exclusive. The most

notable environmental threats to U.S. security are:

• Global: competition for or threatened denial of strategic

resources; ozone depletion; global warming; loss of biodiversity;

proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; effects of

demilitarization of nuclear, chemical, biological and

conventional weapons; space debris; and inability or

unwillingness of countries to comply with international

environmental agreements and standards.

• Regional: environmental terrorism, accident or disaster;

vector-borne communicable diseases; regional conflicts caused by

scarcity/denial of resources; cross border and global common

contamination; and environmental factors affecting military
7

access to land, air, and water.

• State: environmental degradation of the resource base on

which governmental legitimacy depends; risks to public health and

the environment from DOD activities; increasing restrictions on

military operations and access to air, land, and water;

inefficient use of military resources; reduced weapons systems

performance; demilitarization of nuclear, chemical, and

conventional weapons systems; and erosion of public trust.16

Each of these categories may have global, regional or national

dimensions.

East Europe and the Former Soviet Union.

It is in the U.S. national interest that stable societies

and governments emerge in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet

Union (FSU). Unfortunately, both regions are politically and

economically unstable and threatened by environmental problems.

To survive as stable entities, these governments must address the

basic needs of their people, which requires that their societies

are capable of producing (or acquiring) and distributing food,

vital materials and services. The FSU's GDP growth in 1992 was

estimated at -18.5 percent,17 while consumer prices escalated at

least 70 percent during 1990-91 in FSU nations; some saw consumer

prices rise by approximately 125 percent.18 The nations of the

FSU and East Europe cannot establish viable economic and

political systems without solving some of their fundamental

environmental problems.

The Soviet regime released untreated industrial and

hazardous wastes into the environment at military and civilian

facilities in both the FSU and Eastern Europe, and pursued

policies leading to irreversible contamination of natural

resources. East Europe has some of the dirtiest coal-fired power

plants in the world; pollutants pose health risks and threaten

buildings. One well-publicized example is the Lake Baikal region,

where agricultural irrigation practices led to catastrophic

damage and the destruction of agricultural lands. Mismanagement

of nuclear production, testing, and wastes irradiated many sites.

The facility at Mayak, which produces plutonium for military

purposes and for handling and burying radioactive wastes, remains

one of the most problematic operations, due to several serious

accidental nuclear releases. Significant quantities of

radioactive waste were dumped into the Techa River; large areas

of land and approximately a half-million people were

irradiated.19 Moscow itself is dangerously polluted;

approximately 350 sources of radioactive contamination were

discovered in the city between 1982-1987. Since then, over 300

new sources of radioactive contamination have been found.20 The

weapons testing sites at Semipalatinsk and Novaya Zemlya are

environmental disaster areas.21 Millions of curies of

radioactive waste were discharged into Lake Karachai, thought to
8

be the most contaminated site on earth by the late 1960s. The

contamination in waters offshore is estimated at about 1.5

million curies.22 Also, nuclear accidents continue to occur,

such as the April 1993 nuclear waste explosion at Tomsk-7, a

military facility.

Nationally or regionally-based environmental problems in

these lands have direct and serious implications for economic and

political stability. If not adequately addressed, transboundary

environmental problems could trigger significant economic, social

and political disruptions within a nation or region. As more is

learned about the movement of pollutants and delicate ecological

balances, it is increasingly clear that each nation is vulnerable

to the environmental actions of other states.

Instabilities leading to armed conflict are only one aspect

of the environmental equation. Aside from interest in the

stability of regimes in Eastern Europe and the FSU, the United

States has a particular interest in the management of weapons of

mass destruction in the former Soviet empire. Without stable

governments, the likelihood of mismanagement, of terrorism, or of

black-market sales of both nuclear and conventional weapons

increases dramatically. There are stockpiles of extremely

hazardous chemical and nuclear materials in the FSU. It is not

clear how these materials are being safeguarded. For example,

there may be as much as 150,000 tons of heptyl--a supertoxic, a

carcinogenic liquid rocket fuel used for Russian missiles--

stockpiled in closed production facilities and missiles. No

technology is known for handling it.23

The United States has clear and immediate interests in

negotiating and carrying out arms reduction and safe disposal of

weapons. These issues entail daunting technical challenges in

addition to the political challenge of reaching agreement. No

single FSU nation has the authority to determine the fate of

these weapons. Even with effective agreements and planning, the

danger from these weapons and the need for continuous control and

oversight by governments will continue; some of these weapon

components cannot be degraded into "safe" materials in the

foreseeable future. The complex set of tasks involved in nuclear

weapons destruction would be impossible if the FSU lacks

authoritative government actors to negotiate and execute

demilitarization and cannot be safely accomplished without

Western technical assistance.

In addition to concern about the direct impacts upon

stability arising from environmental conditions in the FSU and

Eastern Europe, the United States must be concerned about

indirect transboundary effects on the rest of Europe. Some of

those effects are obvious. Ecosystems are connected, and

pollution does not respect national or regional boundaries;

polluting industries contaminate rivers that run through many

countries, killing fish, clogging waterways, endangering local

populations, and eventually depositing poisons into international
9

waters. Groundwater contamination spreads across national

borders; air pollution blows across borders. Moreover, the

political and economic consequences of environmental crises spill

over national and regional borders as well. For example, soil is

depleted by pollution and by lack of clean water; as soil is

degraded, agricultural productivity declines and migrations occur

as people seek more productive farm lands. Large migrations from

the East would create very significant economic and security

problems for the receiving lands, and would threaten their

stability. Environmental systems and processes do not remain

static. If effective steps are not taken to address these

problems, deterioration will spread.

There are economic motives for pursuing environmental

security. As the peoples of the FSU and Eastern Europe seek to

rebuild infrastructure and open new relationships, existing and

potential economic ties are important. The region is potentially

very important for new markets, which the United States wants to

encourage for economic as well as political reasons. If these

nations fail to meet environmental challenges or to set and meet

environmental goals, they will maintain severely polluting

industries---and attract more polluting industries. Failure to

meet Western environmental standards will limit trading

opportunities and increase local, regional and global threats to

the environment.

Given the strong interest in the stability of this region,

there are reasons for alarm. The catalogue of severe

environmental problems in the FSU keeps growing, as more is

learned about the conditions, and health effects data are

released. There is massive contamination of both air and water

sheds; large areas of land and surface waters have been polluted

with hazardous and radioactive materials. One-sixth of the

world's land mass is moving toward disaster. One of three

inhabitants of this territory lives in an ecological crisis zone,

covering an area of over 4 million square kilometers,24 resulting

in severe health effects. The former German Democratic Republic,

for example, had the largest uranium mine operations in Europe,

which supported the USSR nuclear weapons industry. Three mines

have over 150 million tons of uranium mill tailings, plus many

tons of contaminated liquids. One site, now closed, generated

thousands of cases of lung cancer, with more reported each

year.25 Neither Eastern Europe nor the FSU has the strong

efficient governmental infrastructure or economic resources

necessary to successfully assess, or more importantly, mitigate

these environmental threats.

Contaminated lands and livestock can destroy a state's

ability to produce foodstuffs for many years, perhaps

permanently. Diminished crop and fish production, and consequent

food shortfalls, are consequences of severe ecological

degradation. High disease and infant mortality rates and an

actual decline in life expectancy are present in the nations of

this region.26 Environmentally-induced health problems include
10

neuro-toxic effects that impair brain function. Decrements in the

mental as well as physical capabilities of many people would

affect the region's ability to build and maintain reliable armies

and manage sophisticated socio-economic systems. The success of

economic restructuring and political stability are

interconnected. No nation can maintain complex political, social

or economic infrastructures without a healthy citizenry.27

For these reasons, the West, and particularly the United

States, must play a role in revitalizing the environmental

processes and resources in Eastern Europe and the FSU if there is

to be any stability possible in these areas. The problems are

massive and unaffordable; they require long-term, often technical

solutions.28 Additional sites and problems continue to appear in

these areas, driving cost estimates even higher.

The West should prioritize problems that seem particularly

important to stability, and assist in the design and

implementation of targeted remediation and pollution prevention

projects to address them, based on risk and the probability of

widespread and/or long-term effects. Assistance programs should

stress management, training, and techniques for pollution

prevention; Western nations need to attend to issues (and groups)

that can assist in building infrastructure and legitimacy.

Technical and managerial aid should be tied to problems that

empower Eastern Europe and FSU nations to concentrate on

developing systemic capabilities. DOD personnel have the

technical knowledge and organizational skills to help the East

European and FSU governments begin to address these problems.

Water in the Middle East.

The Middle East is characterized by a relative scarcity of

water resources, and by the presence of users of those resources

who are members of different cultural, national, ethnic, and

religious groups. Population growth is also among the most rapid

in the world. An estimated 217.4 million people lived in the

northeast Africa and the Middle East area in 1983. By the year

2000 the World Bank estimates that the population will have grown

to 337 million or an increase of 55 percent.29 The combination

of resource scarcity, rapid population growth, and social and

cultural differences can be volatile. As Peter Gleick notes,

"local or regional instability arising from a combination of

environmental, resource and political factors may escalate to the

international level and become violent."30 If this occurs in the

Middle East, it would threaten U.S. petroleum supply and could

involve the use of weapons of mass destruction.

The potential for water resource-related conflicts in the

region exists in several river basins. These include classic

upstream-downstream issues involving supply and use involving

Turkey, Syria and Iraq over the use of the Tigris and Euphrates

system; involving Jordan, Syria, Israel and Lebanon on the Jordan
11

River; and between Egypt and its upstream neighboring states over

the Nile River.

Tigris-Euphrates Issues. Turkey has embarked on an ambitious

program to develop the water resources of these river systems.

The Grand Anatolia Project, consisting of 21 dams, will provide

water supply, hydroelectric capacity and irrigation to Turkey.

However, downstream water supplies to Syria and Iraq could be

reduced by up to 40 percent and 80 percent respectively by these

projects.31 Syria and Iraq have protested these projects as being

inimical to their strategic interests, since a majority of their

water comes from outside their borders. In the 1970s, Iraq almost

went to war with Syria over the reduced flows in the Euphrates

produced by the filling of Turkish and Syrian dams coincident

with a dry period.32

Kurdish separatists fighting Turkey have also been aided by

Syria and Iraq as a means of showing these states' displeasure

with the Turkish water projects. As of 1992, this insurgency had

taken 3,500 lives.33

Jordan River. Demand for the limited water available in this

basin is already substantial, and is expected to grow as

population increases. These waters are shared by Jordan, Syria,

Israel and Lebanon. Jordan and Israel already use more than 100

percent of their renewable water resources. In the past 10 years

the Palestinian population on the West Bank has more than

doubled, further exacerbating differences in access to water

between Israel and Palestine, currently estimated at 354 cubic

meters/person/day (cmd) for Israelis versus 119 cmd for

Palestinians.34

The control over headwaters of the Jordan River has been a

critical strategic interest of Israel. In the 1967 Arab-Israeli

War, Israel occupied these headwaters to ensure control over

water. These resources provide approximately 33 percent of the

total sustainable water yield to Israel.35

Nile River. The Nile is literally the lifeblood of Egypt.

Ninety-seven percent of Egypt's water comes from the Nile, yet

Egypt is particularly vulnerable to impacts of upstream

development or diversion of water, since 95 percent of the Nile's

flow originates outside Egypt's boundaries, and comes from the

other eight basin states. Additional upstream water development

could pose a basic strategic threat. Egypt has indicated its

willingness to fight to maintain its access to Nile River

flows.36

Water resource issues could pose significant sources of

conflict in the Middle East. In two of the three cases, actual

armed conflict has already taken place. Continued conditions of

resource scarcity, population growth and industrial development

are likely to place greater demands on these resources. Cultural,

religious, ethnic, and political differences among basin states
12

further complicate the situation. Hostilities which arise over

water could quickly escalate to more general conflict which would

in turn affect U.S. strategic interests related to petroleum

access and honoring treaty or friendship relations.

Haiti.

The manner in which environmental issues can endanger U.S.

security interests and involve U.S. forces in life-threatening

conflict is demonstrated by recent events in Haiti. The United

States has a long economic relationship with Haiti, that, like

its neighbor the Dominican Republic, resulted in U.S. forces

being sent to its shores during this century to support a

struggling government.

Today, Haiti is a threat to U.S. national security. The

flood of illegal Haitian immigrants to the United States is a

burden that incurs significant domestic political and diplomatic

costs, promotes divisive political and legal debate that has

diverted foreign policy resources from other more vital

international issues, and overwhelms the economic, health and

human services infrastructure of the areas to which the refugees

arrive. Large numbers of Haitian immigrants carry the HIV virus

and have the potential to place disproportionately high demands

on the already burdened U.S. health care system. In Haiti, the

decline in infant mortality and the cultural norms of its

uneducated, rural population have caused the population rate to

increase from 2 to 3 percent annually since the 1970s, with

average fertility increasing to 6.3 children per female.37 As a

result, Haiti's 6 million population is expected to rise to

famine levels of between 9.5 and 15.5 million by 2025.38

Moreover, diplomatic efforts to resolve the Haitian conundrum

have divided State and Defense Departments and very nearly

established the precedent of introducing unprotected U.S.

military forces into violent, life-threatening situations with no

clear objective or possibility of success. Haiti's political

difficulties stem from severe environmental degradation that

eroded the resource base upon which any government could be

successfully established.

Haiti is an example of how ignored environmental problems

promote instability. A country's environmental security is

threatened when it undergoes change in its quality of life over a

short period of time with limits placed on its alternative

responses. This can occur when overpopulation consumes elements

of the state's resource base at rates that exceed the land's

carrying capacity. When migration is constrained, the imbalance

becomes chronic. In a desperate search for energy sources, many

less developed nations have denuded their landscapes with all the

consequences of this depletion; such is the case with Haiti. The

burgeoning, poor population, unable to afford imported fuel, has

stripped the forests in a constant search for firewood. With 90

percent of the country deforested, the torrential tropical rains
13

have eroded vast quantities of topsoil, creating a loss of arable

land of 1 percent annually.39 Some of the effects of

environmental degradation that have particularly important

national security ramifications lag behind the direct cause. The

requirement for energy resources in the developing world has this

effect.

In Haiti it was known for some time that deforestation was

causing social instability. In 1978, the President's Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ) annual report indicated that

deforestation was virtually complete and warned that such

resource degradation would result in social disruption and

instability.40 By the mid-1980s, the Haitian peasants' continued

unchecked harvesting of bush and seedling trees for firewood and

cultivation of marginal soil had denuded the landscape of soil

retaining flora and allowed devastating erosion and loss of soil

productivity. The result has been an exodus of environmental and

political refugees to the United States with significant impacts

on Florida's economy and social infrastructure, which continues

to cause turbulence.

The environmental-energy linkage has profound global

implications. For example, the 1978 CEQ report states that for

Ouagadougou (then Upper Volta), the forest was completely

stripped within a 70 kilometer circle around the urban center.

The trees had been harvested for firewood. The average laborer in

Ouagadougou spent 20 percent of his income for fuelwood each

year.41 Such actions can directly affect national security

because deforestation can lead to desertification.

Desertification is the gradual, long-term reduction of soil's

productivity and resulting spread of desert-like conditions. It

is a major cause of destabilizing migration. Most of the world's

drylands are at risk to the desertification processes with at

least one sixth of the world's population threatened.

The search for energy resources to support the economies of

the industrial states has been a national security issue for some

years. What has not been clear to security policymakers, however,

is the connection between political instability, environmental

degradation, and the energy issue. The search for family energy

sources in developing countries such as Haiti has led to resource

depletion, large scale migration and instability. DOD has the

institutions and technical infrastructure to help these countries

develop alternative energy sources that are not high-tech,

complicated, and expensive, and by doing so, it would execute its

environmental security mission. One of the most important areas

in which the Defense establishment can help promote democracy and

increase stability is by helping develop and field appropriate

technology for an energy starved world. The environmental

benefits would be substantial.

THE CAPABILITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

As an element of national power traditionally used to pursue
14

U.S. security interests, the Department of Defense is a logical

choice to execute U.S. environmental security missions. Formally

recognizing DOD's environmental security roles, the Secretary of

Defense created the Office of Deputy Under Secretary of Defense

for Environmental Security during the Clinton administration DOD

 reorganization and committed DOD to addressing important

international environmental issues. To determine how best to use

DOD in this effort, it is important to review some of its

environmental capabilities.

Considering its broad spectrum of operations, DOD has many

assets with which to mitigate environmental threats to national

security. The spectrum of DOD operations ranges from the nuclear

deterrence/strike roles of the Air Force and Navy to the purely

domestic issues supported by the Civil Works Program of the Corps

of Engineers. In these roles DOD brings rapid response, excellent

organization, and efficient management capabilities. Important

environmental issues already addressed by DOD entities include

chemical and nuclear demilitarization, toxic and hazardous waste

cleanup, and nuclear accident assessment.

However, DOD's installation support capabilities may be the

most useful and first called upon in responding to environmental

problems. A DOD skill unique among federal agencies is its

management of installations that have the characteristics of

small towns and communities around the world. This aspect gives

DOD the capability to understand not only the technological

issues associated with environmental challenges but also the

institutional organizations and relationships necessary to solve

environmental problems, particularly those associated with the

industrial and military base areas of East and Central Europe and

the FSU.

Some examples of these capabilities are:

• Training in all aspects of environmental compliance,

prevention, restoration, and conservation;

• Assessing and anticipating environmental needs, trends,

challenges, and emergent technologies;

• Preparing environmental documentation;

• Satellite, aircraft, seaborne and terrestrial observation,

monitoring, sensor, and mapping platforms;

• Cleanup technologies and processes;

• Waste minimization technologies and processes;

• Conservation technologies and processes;

• Restoration technologies and processes;
15

• Explosive ordinance disposal;

• Chemical and biological weapons accounting, monitoring,

transfer, storage, and destruction technologies;

• Nuclear weapons accounting, monitoring, transfer, storage,

dismantling, and disposal technologies;

• Surveillance technologies, platforms, command and control

mechanisms to monitor treaty obligations;

• Toxic and hazardous waste minimization, storage,

monitoring, transfer, and disposal technologies;

• Hazardous material incident response;

• Transfer and cleanup of military installations for

civilian use;

• Land and sea mine detection and removal;

• Orbital debris control and tracking;

• Air, land, and sealift to respond quickly, sustainably,

and in mass;

• Human health assessment, risk analysis, monitoring,

facilities and services (medical);

• Civil affairs;

• Financial management;

• Legal services;

• Interagency partnerships and relationships;

• Accountable and responsive chain of command and control;

• Development of energy sources;

• Established communications networks;

• Public participation processes;

• Public affairs;

• Land and installation management;

• Environmental laboratories;

• Information management;

• Infrastructure planning and development; 
16

• Coastal and ocean sciences;

• Climatology;

• Habitat/Ecosystem restorations;

• Contract preparation, solicitation, award, management and

litigation for all capabilities listed; and,

• Policy, regulations, specifications, and guidance

development on all issues listed.

DOD Research and Development for Environmental Security.

As part of developing a strategic plan for environmental

security, consideration must be given to incorporating

Tri-Service/DOD RDT&E efforts concerning environmental issues.

The Tri-Service Environmental Quality Research and Development

Program (a joint service program that consolidates existing

science and technology funded research) will provide numerous

technologies appropriate to address national, regional, and

global environmental issues. To achieve effective technology

transfer, however, a mechanism with appropriate funding must be

developed and incorporated into the program.

In addition, new environmentally related initiatives under

DOD control also have great potential to provide technologies and

data appropriate for addressing environmental security issues.

The Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program

(SERDP), a joint DOD/DOE/EPA program, was established by Congress

in P.L. 101-510 on November 5, 1990.42 This program facilitates

DOD and DOE efforts to address, through basic and applied R&D,

the development of data and technologies that will enhance DOD

and DOE capabilities to meet their environmental obligations. As

one of its tenets, the program also is intended, "to identify and

foster research, development, and demonstration programs to help

solve major national and international environmental problems

through the use of the Departments' technical and research

capabilities, as well as their unique data collection and

analysis capabilities."43 The SERDP is structured into six

thrust areas: cleanup, compliance, conservation, pollution

prevention, global environmental change, and energy

conservation/renewable resources. Each area will provide

technologies that have applications for addressing environmental

security issues. For example, under global environmental change,

a major research thrust is intended to, "conduct fundamental

studies of essential environmental processes addressing

identified global environmental change issues."44 Another

responsibility is to identify national assets and capabilities

that can concurrently address environmental concerns of DOD and

DOE.

In summary, DOD has within its research and development
17

programs numerous opportunities to apply ongoing research to

environmental security issues. However, to transfer developed

technologies to the address of environmental security issues

effectively, an implementing process must be developed.

Medical Support in Environmental Security.

The Army Medical Department (AMEDD) has unique resources and

capabilities to perform risk assessments of environmental issues.

The centerpiece of these resources is the Army Environmental

Hygiene Agency (AEHA), with its main element located at Aberdeen

Proving Ground, Maryland and its three direct support activities

located at Ft. Meade, Maryland; Ft. McPherson, Georgia; and

Fitzsimons Army Medical Center, Texas. This organization has over

650 employees representing the disciplines associated with

occupational and environmental health. In addition to AEHA, which

has a world-wide mission, two other organizations exist with

similar but more limited capabilities: the U.S. Army Pacific

Environmental Health Engineering Agency (USAPACEHEA) in Japan and

the 10th Medical Laboratory in Germany.

These organizations share some common characteristics.

First, the work they perform is accomplished with in-house

resources, in contrast to most other science and technology

organizations and laboratories, which rely heavily on contractor

support to execute their missions. Second, military personnel

comprise a significant portion of their staffs. At AEHA

approximately 30 percent of the authorized positions are

military; over 75 percent of the staffs at the 10th Med Lab and

USAPACEHEA are military. These in-house capabilities allow the

organizations to respond quickly to emergency requests, and the

staffing allows for deployment to areas that are sometimes

inaccessible to civilians.

The role that they perform in support of environmental

security issues is primarily in health risk assessment. The AMEDD

can deploy physicians, toxicologists, engineers, and other

technical specialists to an area, where they assess the potential

health or environmental risk and prioritize the environmental

security hazards. They can also produce the medical input

required when decisionmakers are determining appropriate levels

of cleanup, remediation, or treatment. Risk assessment-based

decisions not only mitigate liability, but provide a basis for

the cost effective use of resources.

The unique in-house expertise of these organizations,

combined with their rapid deployment capability, has been a major

environmental security asset. The AEHA was selected to assess the

potential health effects of the oil fires in Kuwait on DOD

personnel. The data collected during the 8-month sampling effort

is considered the most comprehensive ever gathered on such an

environmental health issue. DOD, through AEHA, was the only

organization capable of deploying the number and type of
18

technical specialists, with the necessary equipment, and in the

time frame required to perform the assessment. This effort, which

received close support from EPA and the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Agency (NOAA), is likely to be used as a basis for

major studies and analysis for years and will also be used by the

Veterans Administration (VA) in their registry of Desert Storm

veterans. It also demonstrates the AEHA's capacity to provide

timely assistance for disaster relief.

Another example of the military's unique capabilities is the

assignment of AEHA teams to the former Czechoslovakia to survey

contamination at a former Soviet air base. The team provided

assessment data and recommendations on cleanup and possible

conversion to civilian use. The AEHA also sent health physicists,

expert in radiation, to Chernobyl to analyze the health risk

associated with that environmental disaster.

AMEDD professionals have been deployed in conjunction with

other Federal agencies, such as Department of State and EPA, as

well as to augment existing Army teams deployed to Somalia and to

Florida (Hurricane Andrew).

Managing the Chemical Threat.

The U.S. Army Chemical Corps, a multidisciplined

organization of officers and enlisted personnel, determines the

presence and type of chemical warfare agents and manages the

demilitarization of U.S. chemical weapons. The Chemical Corps is

trained to decontaminate these agents and leave behind

"non-detectable" traces. One of its major resources is a $15

million EPA-permitted training facility where live chemical

agents are used to contaminate equipment, which soldiers are then

trained to identify and decontaminate. In addition, the Chemical

School, the location of the Chemical Decontamination Training

Facility, has specially outfitted laboratories for handling

hazardous and toxic chemicals. All of these skills, abilities,

and knowledge are transferable to regions such as the FSU and

Eastern Europe which have extensive military, chemical, and

nuclear contamination problems requiring mitigation.

The Chemical Corps can provide the following skills to the

U.S. assistance community:

• Determination of chemical presence;

• Identification of chemical;

• Training assistance;

• Emergency spill training where real agents can be used;

• Decontamination; and,

• Chemical demilitarization management.
19

In addition to its expertise in training and

decontamination, the Corps has a cadre of experts trained in the

handling, storage, and transportation of chemical munitions.

Further, because it is responsible for destroying X toxins of the

U.S. Chemical Weapons Stockpile, the Corps could be used to

assist other nations in destroying their chemical weapons.

Environmental Security and the Unified Command.

The primary mechanism by which the United States employs its

military element of power in the international arena is the

system of unified commands. These theater-level commands have

regional responsibilities and support U.S. foreign policy and

national security objectives.

The U.S. European Command (EUCOM), established 40 years ago

to support NATO, is responsible for the largest foreign area of

any of the unified commands with over 70 countries in Europe,

North and sub-Sahara Africa and the Near East. No longer focused

on halting a Soviet threat, EUCOM now supports NATO's New

Strategic Concept and U.S. humanitarian interests through

military-to-military and security assistance programs.

Environmental security missions fit easily into the EUCOM

organization and objectives.

In Europe and Africa, the ability of the United States to

support democratization and the economic growth of developing

countries is enhanced by EUCOM's nontraditional military

assistance programs which now include environmental security

missions.

In the July 1990 London Declaration, the Heads of State and

Government of the 16 NATO nations declared that the NATO

countries and the countries of the former Warsaw Pact were no

longer adversaries. The Alliance nations further stated their

intentions to embark on confidence and security building measures

(CSBM) designed to lessen international tensions between the

former adversaries. The formation of the North Atlantic

Cooperation Council (NACC) furthered the goals of peaceful

cooperation, but the need for specific CSBMs has not only

persisted, but has increased. The Alliance nations have embarked

on both Alliance and bilateral efforts in military outreach

programs of benign intent, including environmental security

programs. EUCOM already has several successful environmental

security programs underway.45

In the bilateral spectrum with the developing nations of

Africa, the U.S. State and Defense Department Security Assistance

Program has a long and successful history. Concerning

environmental security specifically, since 1991 these programs

have included support of African biodiversity and conservation

efforts. Naval patrol boats, communication equipment and aerial
20

surveillance aircraft also were provided to West African littoral

states to control foreign flag poachers that were overfishing, or

not paying the required fees. The resulting increased revenue

protects fisheries from overharvesting and boosts the states'

economies.

In 1992, EUCOM established a Military-to-Military Contact

Program for the East and Central Europe that now includes such

nations as Albania, Belasarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia,

Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Slovakia,

Slovenia and Ukraine.46 Reflecting overall U.S. foreign policy

objectives of establishing partnerships with these nations, this

program could evolve into a form similar to the African security

assistance program, emphasizing environmental security. In 1993,

at the request of EUCOM and the Lithuanian government, the Air

Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE) sent a team of

environmental technical experts to Siauliu Airfield, Lithuania to

conduct a preliminary field assessment of pollution cleanup

requirements.

The Lithuanians faced a difficult challenge. The city of

Siaulia now owned the recently abandoned Russian military

airfield there. The airfield had been host to a large military

operation. At its peak, the 11 square kilometer base had over 100

assigned combat aircraft, including fighters, transport, and

airborne warning and control system aircraft. The aircraft were

nuclear capable, and there was a large nuclear weapons storage

area. Moreover, the airport had been a major maintenance retrofit

base for Soviet aircraft being flown by Third World nations. The

Lithuanians knew very little about the military operations of the

base due to Soviet security. However, they were deeply concerned

about three types of pollution at the airfield: soil

radiological contamination, hydrocarbon (jet fuels, which they

believed had polluted the ground water), and heavy metal

contamination of the soil. The Lithuanians wanted to restore the

base for use as a civilian airline retrofit and airfield facility

but could not properly assess the environmental contamination.

The AFCEE, which was partnered with the EPA in this

endeavor, was an ideal DOD agency to provide technical support,

because one of its primary missions is the environmental cleanup

of U.S. military airfields to be returned to civilian use. The

AFCEE team consisted of environmental, bioenvironmental, and

health physics experts. During the team visit, preliminary

validations in radiological and hydrocarbon contamination were

conducted. Pollution in these two areas did not appear to be as

severe as the Lithuanians originally believed, and the technology

used by DOD in cleanup of U.S. bases easily could be transferred

to help the Lithuanians conduct further assessments. Although the

damage is serious, the Lithuanian authorities had concluded

erroneously that catastrophic damage had occurred because limited

local testing methodologies were providing an inaccurate

analysis. The assessment visit provided a clear understanding of

the future potential for the airbase, and data upon which the
21

Lithuanians can base requests for donor cleanup and development

loans. As a direct result of the visit, the Lithuanian Air Force

Chief of Staff ordered the creation of an Air Force environmental

protection committee, and has opened military bases to

representatives of the Lithuanian environmental department,

EPD.47 Such visits mitigate environmental problems that impede

the economic development necessary to support the Lithuanian

government's efforts to establish a successful democracy.

According to the EUCOM program coordinator, the most

important environmental security product needed in this case, and

in many FSU and East European cases as well, is the common

testing methodology used by DOD. DOD's environmental assessment

technology, management and technical procedures are needed to

solve these pollution problems. The military-to-military visit

was successful, and the Lithuanians considered it to be very

valuable and have requested follow-on DOD efforts. Such

environmental security programs can be implemented by all of the

unified commands using existing security assistance or

military-to-military programs.

The DOD unified commands have existing and evolving programs

that provide the partnering mechanism between the U.S. State

Department and the DOD to address the environmental security

goals of the National Security Strategy. The unified commands

already have the organizational infrastructure to facilitate and

orchestrate the types of environmental assistance most needed at

the earliest stages of remediation. This is particularly true of

the military and industrial waste sites of East and Central

Europe and the former Soviet Union.

• Environmental Testing and Measurement Methodology, as well

as Access to Ecological Databases. Data are needed to determine

the state of ecological condition or pollution. This is important

for a variety of reasons: ecological damage may be over- or

understated by emerging democracies; without proper assessment,

the state cannot seek donor funding to effect cleanup.

• Low Cost Cleanup Technology. The developing nations are

particularly vulnerable to economic exploitation in unnecessarily

expensive cleanup techniques, lessons already learned in the

West. If unnecessarily stringent levels of cleanup are performed,

or the techniques themselves are the more expensive to achieve a

desired state, the developing country will waste its own scarce

funds or those of the international donor community. Economically

viable technology has already been developed for DOD and is

immediately available for technology transfer.

Environmental Cooperation with NATO.

Environmental security cooperation with NATO is an area of

great potential benefit. NATO is struggling to identify roles and

missions that will help it maintain its relevance in the new
22

global security architecture. The waning of the Soviet threat has

led to criticism that NATO lacks a current mission, and a

lessening of the U.S. leadership role necessary to make NATO an

effective organization. An increased environmental security

mission, with major U.S. contributions in leadership and

technical expertise addressing the significant environmental

problems that now threaten European and U.S. continental

interests, would provide NATO a visible and relevant role.

Establishing military-to-military based environmental security

assistance programs with the military organizations of the

developing world and former East Block cooperation partners would

give meaningful assistance to newly-formed democratic regimes

when the legitimacy of these governments is being threatened by

difficult environmental problems that vastly exceed government

capabilities.

To achieve such a program, NATO formally recognized

environmental problems as a security threat. The North Atlantic

Council has redrafted its Strategic Concept to recognize the

realities of the new threat. The Alliance Strategic Concept now

states,

Risks to Allied security are less likely to result

from calculated aggression against territory of the

Allies, but rather from the adverse consequences of

instabilities that may arise from serious economic,

social and political difficulties, including ethnic

rivalries and the territorial disputes, which are

faced by many countries in Central and Eastern

Europe. . . . They could . . . lead to crises

inimical to European stability and even to armed

conflicts . . . and that security and stability have

political, economic, social, and environmental

elements as well as the indispensable defense

dimension.48

In the spirit of the London Declaration and the Charter of

Paris for a New Europe, NATO is undertaking confidence- building

activities with East and Central European countries in an effort

to use dialogue and cooperation to reduce the misunderstandings

that lead to conflict. In addition, both the NATO Advisory Panel

on the Environment and Committee on Challenges of Modern Society

(CCMS) have established pilot studies and projects to address

significant environmental problems such as the study of Cross

Border Environmental Problems Emanating From Defense Related

Installations and Activities, which is being executed under the

auspices of the NACC.49 CCMS studies are also addressing

critical environmental security problems, such as nuclear weapons

disposal in the seas surrounding Europe and the pollution runoff

into marine estuaries. Cooperation partners participating in the

Advisory Panel's projects and CCMS studies include Poland, the

Ukraine, Russia, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania and, in the near

future, other FSU and Eastern European countries. These countries

are interested in expanding their role in and cooperation with
23

NATO.50 Doing so would promote the dialogue and partnerships

that reduce misunderstandings that can lead to conflict. Further,

it would take advantage of a common nonmilitary but strategically

important security issue, to unite the futures of East and West

in a "partnership" that is nonthreatening to Russia.

NATO's environmental cooperation with countries in areas

important to its strategic interests should not be limited to

CCMS studies. NATO could build upon the Security Assistance and

Military-to-Military Contact Programs of EUCOM and draw upon DOD

technical capabilities to create an environmental security

program focused on helping countries in its area of strategic

interest to solve the environmental problems that, left

untreated, could lead to regional or intrastate conflict, or the

undermining of the governments' legitimacy.

The diverse technical resources present in the NATO

militaries provide the means to offer environmental assessment,

cleanup training, engineering, public health, and sanitation

support often unavailable in the target countries. The NATO

environmental security teams could tailor their assets and

capabilities to reflect the specific needs of the host country.

Roles for these teams could include training military or host

government civilian officials in critical environmental skills,

conducting joint remediation exercises and broadening the

military's general capacities for supporting the host

government's nascent environmental programs.

The resulting improvement in primary water treatment

facilities, disaster relief management, environmental assessment,

and cleanup of toxic and hazardous waste at former Warsaw Pact

military installations would reduce significant environmental

threats, cement the bonds of friendship and cooperation between

former antagonists, and offer a meaningful contribution to the

environmental capabilities of developing countries.51

HOW SHOULD DOD PROCEED?

Organizing to Meet the Threat.

If the United States is to meet the threat to national

security posed by environmental factors efficiently, it should

not attempt to develop new organizations. Rather, it should adapt

and coordinate the same organizations and practices that have

functioned effectively during the four decades of the cold war,

focusing all relevant agencies on the environmental security

issue. The relationships among elements of the basic national

security apparatus (The National Security Council [NSC], its

staff, the intelligence community, the Joint Staff, and OSD

offices and agencies) do not need to be reinvented. Many

processes and procedures can be retained but with a shift in

orientation and minor organizational changes.
24

The Threat and Strategy Development.

The intelligence community should be tasked by the NSC to

analyze the environmental threat in strategic terms. This

analysis should be performed in the context of relationships

between environmental factors and political, economic,

psycho-social, and military conditions. In particular, regional

stability should be examined with respect to changing

environmental conditions. A threat assessment of this kind will

require some new linkages and capabilities within the

intelligence community. As these threats are assessed they will

likely impact the National Security Strategy which, in turn, will

affect the National Military Strategy through the OSD and Joint

Staff planning systems. For example:

• The National Security Council (NSC) staff will forge new

links with various Federal agencies and working groups in the

science and technology area. As environmental threats are made

explicit by the intelligence assessments, the NSC staff must

formulate appropriate strategies in the documents dealing with

national security policy.

• New interagency working groups must be formed to develop

strategic assessment options and recommendations and to

coordinate specific actions. This process is well defined and

understood by the professional staffs of all Federal agencies.

All that is required to start the process identifying the issue

and assigning responsibility.

• The OSD Office of Net Assessment will need to examine the

significance of environmental factors to regional security. As

OSD offices begin to review the problem, the Joint Staff will

react.

• The Joint Staff should assess environmental factors as

strategic issues. Currently, the J-4 (Logistics) has the only

"environmental" responsibility. The environment is viewed

strictly as a technical matter. When the J-5 (Strategy and

Policy) begins to study a problem it will be placed in a

strategic context.

• The Strategic Planning System should begin to assess

environmental factors. This process will eventually trigger the

regional expertise of the Unified Commands.

Strategic Initiative.

DOD resources that could have a major effect upon

environmental problems include the planning, coordination, and

communications capabilities of the Unified Commands as well as of

the Joint and OSD staffs. Unified Commanders, unlike ambassadors,

have regional responsibilities, and planning staffs, as well as

communications and logistics capabilities. They also manage the
25

U.S. Security Assistance Program.

The most comprehensive method to bring DOD resources to bear

upon global environmental security objectives is through the

security assistance process. In conjunction with ambassadors and

the State Department, DOD and the Services have long practiced

security assistance in many forms. Nation building, or nation

assistance, is not a new concept; many of the procedures

developed for the Offices of Defense Cooperation could be

transferred to actions which have a stabilizing effect from an

environmental perspective.

The same interagency procedures which provide the

coordinated road building programs in Central America, for

example, could be used to address environmental security

assistance projects. Military-to-military contacts could be more

focused and given specific environmental objectives as part of an

overall strategic initiative. The Security Assistance Program has

already been extensively used for environmental projects. The

U.S. military has provided support to biodiversity, natural

resource conservation, and fishery management projects in a

number of African states. These projects can pay significant

dividends in regional economic development and stability if they

are a part of a planned and coordinated strategy. As the Army's

keystone doctrinal manual states, these are appropriate roles for

the military.

Army forces have participated in operations other

than war in support of national interests throughout

their history. They have protected citizens at the

edge of the frontiers of an expanding America; built

roads, bridges and canals; assisted nations abroad;

and served our nation in a variety of other

missions. Thus, operations other than war are not

new to the Army. Their pace, frequency and variety,

however, have quickened in the last three decades.

Today the Army is often required, in its role as a

strategic force, to protect and further the interest

of the United States at home and abroad in a variety

of ways other than war.52

The use of military forces to solve nonmilitary problems is

not unique. We have seen the Soviet military playing a critical

role in the immediate reaction to the Chernobyl nuclear accident,

and the use of American soldiers to battle the fires in

Yellowstone Park and assist in other environmental disasters from

hurricanes to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. This suggests that the

military, in the right circumstances, has unique contributions to

make to environmental security.

To understand why the military should be used in this

nontraditional role, one must recognize that the military

organizations in most developing countries, to include the FSU,

are well-organized and well-resourced, present in all regions of
26

the country and a very strong voice within the government. In

certain situations, the DOD presence will give U.S. environmental

assistance an avenue into the country that cannot be otherwise

achieved. Other foreign assistance programs of the State

Department, such as those of USAID, could be enhanced by

including an appropriate military component. In times of

declining resources, it makes sense to take advantage of an

existing multi-agency program in the security assistance area to

achieve U.S. interests. DOD scientific resources, such as the

Chemical Corps, environmental organizations and medical

personnel, bring important assets to such missions, as does the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which has a long history of

international water resource management and construction work.

The single best mechanism with which the United States can

address international environmental problems that could lead to

conflict or instability is the State Department/ Department of

Defense Security Assistance Program. Because it reflects U.S.

foreign policy, and local ambassadorial and host nation

priorities, it will ensure that environmental missions undertaken

by DOD assets are the most appropriate, and designed to achieve

U.S. regional objectives. Moreover, the Security Assistance

Program is popular with Congress when it is dedicated to

executing environmental missions. In FY 1991, Congress earmarked

$15 million for the African biodiversity and conservation program

of the EUCOM Security Assistance Program. Congress appropriated

an additional $15 million for the African environmental Security

Assistance Program in FY 1993 at a time when Congress was

actively seeking to cut security assistance programs to the bone.

That Congress is willing to fund environmental security

assistance programs is noteworthy and should be recognized for

the opportunity that it is.

The Security Assistance Program is essential for the United

States to maintain the military-to-military contacts with

developing countries that ensure overflight, base access, and

influence. The functional areas addressed by the Security

Assistance Program are less relevant than the program's

continuance. The continued communication between the United

States and this critical governmental element of power in the

developing world is important. A broadened and expanded

environmental security assistance program would allow the United

States to maintain these lines of communication while mitigating

environmental problems that could undermine the legitimacy of the

host country or lead to instability or regional conflict. Further, such a program would support NATO's New Strategic

Concept and efforts to address nonmilitary threats to European

security. The organizational infrastructure of the existing U.S.

Security Assistance Program could funnel the extensive DOD

environmental assets to regions and countries in a tailored

fashion that has the best possibility of providing appropriate

assistance and achieving U.S. environmental security objectives.
27

Conclusions and Recommendations.

The environment will continue to have a significant role in

international stability and should, therefore, be seriously

addressed by U.S. national security policy. As a key executor of

this policy, DOD has capabilities that should be used in

resolving the environmental challenges that the United States

must face. Through effective leadership, partnership and

resources, U.S. Federal agencies can serve as an environmental

security magnet, effectively bringing together the international

community to mitigate issues that could lead to instability and

conflict, promote sustainable economic development, and preserve

our planet.

Recommendations:

• Make the DOD/State Department Security Assistance Program

the flagship of environmental security efforts. A reconfigured

and renamed Security Assistance Program that emphasized

environmental security would provide a broader spectrum of

opportunities to obtain such strategic objectives as basing,

overflight agreements and influence, while encouraging civilian

controlled and democratically responsible militaries in

developing countries. Such a program would also fight the dangers

of isolationism and instability, while supporting the

humanitarian interests of democratic reform, economic development

and conflict resolution sought by Congress.

• Appoint a special assistant to the National Security

Advisor for international environmental security affairs and

create an interagency working group, chaired by the special

assistant, to develop a Presidential Decision Document (PDD)

establishing U.S. environmental security policy. Guidelines are

needed. This PDD must task the subordinate agencies, such as the

intelligence community, EPA, DOD and Department of State, to

develop implementing plans.

• Establish environmental security as a principal objective

of the National Security Strategy and include environmental

issues in National Security Council strategic threat assessments

and foreign policy planning. Currently the importance of

environmental problems to political instability and conflict is

not fully recognized in this process and no single administration

agency has been tasked with coordinating U.S. efforts to address

environmental security issues. As a result, the environmental

security programs of agencies and organizations such as the

Department of State and the AID, CIA, EPA, DOD, nongovernmental

organizations, the United Nations and NATO lack a central focus,

source of direction, and ability to coordinate their efforts to

maximize efficiencies.

• Promote the linkage between environmental security

objectives and achieving the current, primary congressional and

administration interests of democratic reform, economic
28

development and conflict resolution. The four primary threats to

these interests identified by the Secretary of Defense: regional

dangers, nuclear dangers, dangers to democracy and economic

dangers, have significant environmental components.

• Develop synergistic partnerships with other countries,

agencies, and organizations that will allow DOD to enhance the

effectiveness of its environmental security programs.

Coordinating DOD and AID environmental efforts, for example, will

multiply the capacity of the United States to achieve its

regional national security objectives.

• Avoid duplication of efforts and the large start-up costs

of new programs by capitalizing on existing, well-established

international security programs. Such programs as the Security

Assistance Program of the Department of the State, AID technical

training, EPA East European demonstration projects and technical

advice and training have the potential to execute the required

environmental security missions.

• Use environmental security initiatives to promote the

transfer of appropriate environmental technology and expand the

global market for U.S. corporations.

• Use the existing DOD organizational structure to execute

the environmental security mission. Properly resourced, such

organizations as the Air Force Center for Environmental

Excellence, Army Health Command and Chemical Corps, and Army

Corps of Engineers, provide the necessary means and preclude

unnecessary start-up costs, which could needlessly divert funds

from operational readiness.

• Use environmental security missions to enhance operational

capabilities. Intelligence, logistical and combat arms skills may

be required to address game poaching, overfishing problems, and

driftnet agreement violations, and may provide a live environment

that can be more effective than training.

• Use DOD capabilities to enforce international treaties and

agreements. The chief weakness of all such agreements is the

absence of global monitoring and enforcement capabilities.

Through its technical and intelligence capabilities, DOD can

assist in evaluating treaty signatory compliance and can support

U.N. enforcement efforts. The U.S. Navy, for example, could

enforce international whaling and driftnet fishing agreements

that protect rare species and fish stocks essential to U.S. and

other nations' economic security.

• DOD should take advantage of the extensive nation building

assessment and construction skills of the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers in the developing world Security Assistance Program and

give the Corps the chairing of a multiagency task force for

evaluating or developing the guidelines and criteria for DOD

involvement in environmental security missions.
29

• Create a DOD environmental crises monitoring center to

warn the policymaking community of chronic environmental problems

that could lead to conflict before they have grown into political

disputes, positions have hardened, and policy options have

narrowed. DOD has the data collection and analysis abilities to

execute such a mission, as well as the resources to mitigate the

underlying problems.

ENDNOTES

1. Admiral Paul David Miller, The Inter-Agency Process: 

Engaging America's Fuel National Security Capability, (draft

copy), January 1993, p. 4.

2. National Security Strategy of the United States, The

White House, August 1991, pp. 3 and 22.

3. Sherri Wasserman Goodman, Deputy Under Secretary of

Defense, (Environmental Security), Statement Before the

Subcommittee on Installation and Facilities, May 13, 1993.

4. Les Aspin, Bottom Up Review, Washington: Department of

Defense, 1993.

5. National Security Council, "Draft National Security

Strategy 1994," Washington: National Security Council, 1993.

6. James M. Waddell, Chief, Office of Strategic Initiatives,

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Working Paper: Environment as an

Element of National Security, February 1992, p. 4.

7. Michael Renner, National Security: The Economic and

Environmental Dimensions, Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute,

May 1989. Another early and important effort to broaden the

definition of national security to include environmental

challenges was Jessica Tuchman Matthews, "Redefining Security,"

Foreign Affairs, Spring 1989, pp. 162-178. 

8. Waddell, p. 4.

9. Ibid., p. 5.

10. World Bank, World Development Report 1992: Development

and the Environment, New York, Oxford University Press, 1992, pp.

30.

11. Waddell, p. 5.

12. Ibid., p. 5.

13. Ibid., p. 5.

14. Waddell, p. 6. See also Dennis R. Horn, Sustainable
30

Development, A Report to the Engineer Strategic Studies Center,

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, August 1993.

15. Ibid., p. 7.

16. Taken almost verbatim from, Gary Vest, Environmental

Security in the Year 2003, Washington: Department of Defense,

1993, p. 10.

17. World Bank, 1992, p. 30.

18. International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook,

Washington: International Monetary Fund, May 1993, p. 14.

19. See, e.g., "Archival Documents on Chelyabinsk-40

Released," reprinted from Moscow Rossiyskaya Gazeta, in

JPRS-TEN-93-012 ("Environmental Issues"), May 3, 1993, pp. 27-32,

and Mayak Military Plant's Waste Irradiated 500,000," from Tokoyo

Kyodo, in FBIS-SOV-92-112, June 10, 1992.

20. "Geological Exploration Directorate Maps Moscow

Radiation Hazards," from Moscow's Novaya Yezhednevnay Gazeta, in

JPRS-TEN- 93-023, September 15, 1993, pp. 28-30.

21. "Ministry Invites Newsmen To Nuclear Range," from

Moscow's ITAR-TASS, in FBIS-SOV-92-200, p. 18.

22. U.S. Department of State, Problems of Environmental

Contamination in the Former Soviet Union, July 14, 1993, pp. 2-3.

23. Murray Feshbach, "Toxic Archipelago," The Washington

Post, July 11, 1993.

24. "Chernobyl Aftermath; Sarcophagus Threat," from Moscow's

Novaya Yezhednevnaya Gazeta, in JPRS-TEN-93-024, September 20,

1993, pp.38-41.

25. Nicholas Lessen, Nuclear Wastes: The Problem That Won't

Go Away, Worldwatch Paper 106, Washington: Worldwatch Institute,

1991, p. 13; "Nuclear Wastes, Sludge in Lakes Legacy of Mining

Operation in Eastern Region," International Environmental

Reporter, April 10, 1991, pp. 202.

26. Douglas Pasternak, "Moscow's Dirty Nuclear Secret," U.S.

News & World Report, February 10, 1992, pp. 46-47; Michael

Renner, The State of the World 1991, pp. 150; Vladimir M.

Lupandin, "Russia's Forgotten Land," Earth Island Journal, Fall

1991, pp. 37-38.

27. Murray Feshbach has written extensively on the important

aspect of the widespread health problems; see for example,

"Soviet Military Health Problems," report prepared for the

Department of Defense, February 1991.
31

28. Estimates for environmental stabilization vary widely.

For Russia alone, one estimate was over $30 billion. See Robin

Knight and Julie Worwin, "New Year, Old Fears," U.S. News & World

Report, January 13, 1992, p. 35. The German Institute of

Ecological and Economic Research estimated a 10-year effort

costing $249-$308 billion to bring the former GDR to West German

standards. See Hilary French, Green Revolutions: Environmental

Reconstruction in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, Worldwatch

Paper 99, New York: World Watch Institute, 1991, p. 40.

29. Water in the Sand: A Survey of Middle East Water

Issues, Washington: U.S. Army Institute for Water Resources,

1991, p. 4.

30. Peter Gleick, "Water and Conflict: Freshwater Resources

and International Security," International Security, Summer 1993,

p. 81.

31. Peter Gleick, "Water and Conflict," Occasional Paper

Series on Environmental Change and Acute Conflict, Cambridge,

Massachusetts: International Security Studies Program, American

Academy of Arts and Sciences, September 1992, p. 8.

32. Water in the Sand, p. 9.

33. Jonathan C. Randal, "Euphrates Dam Aids Turkish Rebels,"

The Washington Post, May 15, 1992, p. A27.

34. Ibid.

35. Gleick, 1992, p. 85.

36. Gleick, 1993, p. 86.

37. Brian Weinstein and Aaron Segal, Haiti: The Failure of

Politics, New York: Praeger Publishers, 1992, p 135.

38. Ibid., p. 135.

39. Ibid., p. 132.

40. Environmental Quality, 1978 Annual Report on the

Environment, Washington: Council on Environmental Quality,

Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978. 

41. Environmental Quality, 1978.

42. Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program

(SERDP), Mission Statement, 1993, p. 1.

43. Ibid., p. 1.

44. Ibid, p. 4.
32

45. U.S. European Command, From Confrontation to

Cooperation, A White Paper prepared by the Joint Contact Team

Plans and Policy Directorate, U.S. European Command, (Working

Draft), 1993.

46. U.S. European Command, Environmental Security In U.S.

EUCOM In the Year 2003, Draft Vision Statement, 1993.

47. William J. Carson, Environmental Security in the USEUCOM

Area of Responsibility, (Background Paper), March 9, 1994. Five

additional Environmental Mil-Mil visits are scheduled in the near

future, providing a basis for more direct environmental support

in managerial and technical expertise, analysis, and technology

transfer in the cleanup and safe environmental operation of C/EE

and FSU military installations. The cornerstone of the program is

a May 2-6, 1994 conference at USEUCOM on the Military Engineer

Role in Environmental Protection, with 16 C/EE and FSU nations

invited.

48. NATO, "The Alliance's New Strategic Concept," November

7, 1991, NATO Press Service, Press Communique 5-1 (91) 83, p. 3.

49. Wendy Grieder, U.S. National CCMS Coordinator, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, "Memorandum: Status of the

NATO/ CCMS Program," May 10, 1993, and "NATO Works with

Cooperation Partners on Environmental Problems," NATO Review, April 1993, p. 34.

50. Grieder, 1992, and Cheryl Hogue, "NATO Environmental

Committee Expanding in Post-Cold War Era," Analysis and

Perspective, The Bureau of National Affairs, No. 26, February 10,

1993. See also, Stephen S. Rasen, "A Partnership that Falls

Short," The Washington Post, January 7, 1994, p. A19.

51. USEUCOM, Environmental Security. . . 2003, 1993.

52. Department of the Army, FM 100-5, Operations, Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993, p. 13.0,

emphasis added.
33

U.S. ARMY WAR COLLEGE

Major General William A. Stofft

Commandant

*****

STRATEGIC STUDIES INSTITUTE

Director

Colonel John W. Mountcastle

Director of Research

Dr. Earl H. Tilford, Jr.

Volume Editor

Dr. Kent Hughes Butts

Institute Editor

Mrs. Marianne P. Cowling

Secretaries

Mrs. Shirley E. Martin

Ms. Rita A. Rummel

*****

Composition

Mrs. Mary Jane Semple

Cover Design

James E. Kistler