Clear and Present Climate Blindness

This Micah Zenko and Michael Cohen essay, attacking the “threat inflation” in foreign affairs, is generating a lot of buzz. DDay wrote about it here, and Paul Pillar has a worthwhile addition here. At one level, I’m positively thrilled that this sentiment is being expressed in the bible of the foreign policy establishment, Foreign Affairs.

Within the foreign policy elite, there exists a pervasive belief that the post–Cold War world is a treacherous place, full of great uncertainty and grave risks. A 2009 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 69 percent of members of the Council on Foreign Relations believed that for the United States at that moment, the world was either as dangerous as or more dangerous than it was during the Cold War. Similarly, in 2008, the Center for American Progress surveyed more than 100 foreign policy experts and found that 70 percent of them believed that the world was becoming more dangerous. Perhaps more than any other idea, this belief shapes debates on U.S. foreign policy and frames the public’s understanding of international affairs.

There is just one problem. It is simply wrong. The world that the United States inhabits today is a remarkably safe and secure place. It is a world with fewer violent conflicts and greater political freedom than at virtually any other point in human history. All over the world, people enjoy longer life expectancy and greater economic opportunity than ever before. The United States faces no plausible existential threats, no great-power rival, and no near-term competition for the role of global hegemon. The U.S. military is the world’s most powerful, and even in the middle of a sustained downturn, the U.S. economy remains among one of the world’s most vibrant and adaptive. Although the United States faces a host of international challenges, they pose little risk to the overwhelming majority of American citizens and can be managed with existing diplomatic, economic, and, to a much lesser extent, military tools.

But there’s just one problem with their argument. “It is simply wrong.”

This is an over 5,000-word article, 16 pages long.

And while Zenko and Cohen discuss non-military threats–primarily health and economics and cybersecurity–they [update (see below)–almost] never discuss climate change.

That’s largely a reflection of the paradigm of foreign policy. After all, climate change doesn’t pose a unique, comparative threat to the US. It’s a real, pressing threat to the entire globe at once.

But that doesn’t mean the US–and every other country–is as safe as Zenko and Cohen claim. It just means the risk–one that transcends boundaries and nationalities, though is exacerbated by the latter–doesn’t fit the framework foreign policy wonks work under. And until the foreign policy community gets that climate change should be today’s key foreign policy issue–one that will disrupt the current paradigm of international relations, sure, but as such (particularly given all the very legitimate points Zenko and Cohen make about other threats) really ought to represent an opportunity as well as an imperative.

Update: I apologize to Zenko and Cohen: They do too mention climate change: once, in the following passage.

Indeed, the most lamentable cost of unceasing threat exaggeration and a focus on military force is that the main global challenges facing the United States today are poorly resourced and given far less attention than “sexier” problems, such as war and terrorism. These include climate change, pandemic diseases, global economic instability, and transnational criminal networks—all of which could serve as catalysts to severe and direct challenges to U.S. security interests. But these concerns are less visceral than alleged threats from terrorism and rogue nuclear states. They require long-term planning and occasionally painful solutions, and they are not constantly hyped by well-financed interest groups. As a result, they are given short shrift in national security discourse and policymaking. [my emphasis]

My point still stands though: Climate change is not a catalyst to severe challenges, it is in fact, itself, a challenge (and also contributes to instability and migration and food insecurity which will be catalysts to insecurity).

So I apologize to Zenko and Cohen for accusing them of being “blind,” though I still think the claim that no real threats face the US to be “simply wrong.” And thanks to Cohen for alerting me of my initial error.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

16 Responses to Clear and Present Climate Blindness

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel @B_Meson Let me check my sched. Also I eat other things besides goat! Even lovely veggies! @jujueyeball
32mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @Hydra_Cook Nice thing abt being a rich man--presumed Asian gangster or honest businessman--is you can pay for good legal representation.
33mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @mattfwood Sure, all I'm saying is Commerce gets involved in carrot-and-sticking companies to cooperate @biasedreporter @freepress
38mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Anyone besides me think the Phua case (Caesar's illegal entry) has some spectacular parallel construction behind it? http://t.co/pOa5ytZElH
38mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @daveweigel Sure. But they have that nice river park. Plus when you live in place w/seasons it becomes where you live.
40mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @freepress It'll prolly make it easer for the govt to spy on you. @mattfwood
50mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @daveweigel You have a really crummy approach to seasons! "Junk weather?!?!"
54mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @onekade You guys!! Get a room! Or a condo. @flexlibris
55mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @ggreenwald: Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak: Edward Snowden is 'a hero to me' https://t.co/Krx03s1vjF (via @dangillmor)
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @Courtartist: Trying my hand at cartooning: #SCOTUS takes "One-Person, One-Vote" case, Evenwel v. Abbott. http://t.co/esxeY7bFzo
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @manish_vij @benwizner And, yet, by same idiot theory saying all Clinton correlations are CORRUPTION!, Sanders guilty http://t.co/jKBNhIwLDm
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @EdMasley @GrantWoods @azcentral And, yet, there is not a Marshall amp or Stratocaster in sight. Did you ask about that??
2hreplyretweetfavorite