I haven't written much about the Pentagon's Minerva Initiative, but it's one of the most intriguing developments I've seen in the last few years in how the Pentagon does business. The project caught my eye because it's an example of the kind of "crowdsourcing" I believe so firmly in. Instead of spending millions or billions of dollars to tackle problems in-house, government--like many leading companies now--should find ways to tap the energy and talent of willing members of the general public. That's exactly what Minerva does. It offers $50 million over five years to fund research projects in the social sciences.
Minerva has generated a lot of controversy, and I'm sympathetic to fears about militarizing the social sciences with Pentagon dollars, but I'll leave the debate to others. In the meantime, I'm curious to see what results Minerva generates. Earlier this week, the Pentagon announced who would receive the grants (see the above hyperlink).
One project caught my eye and warmed my heart: James Lindsay of the University of Texas is "leading an investigation into the effects of climate change on state stability in Africa."
I'm no expert on global warming. But whatever you think about the reasons for climate change, or whatever you think about whether or not climate change can be slowed or reversed, all the facts seem to indicate that the Earth's climate is indeed warming. There is a strong consensus on at least that much. This is a vital moral and strategic issue, because volatility in the climate can cause severe practical consequences in countries ill-equipped to adapt to change. Slight rises in sea level because of polar ice breakup will flood many coastal regions. Raising the temperature a couple degrees will change the feasibility of growing certain crops, and several scientific papers have convincingly argued that even small temperature rises adds tremendous energy to hurricanes. Katrina served as a wake-up call to much of America that concern for climate change isn't merely about hugging trees.
If the Earth does indeed suffer a period of rapid climate change, these effects will be most devastating in poor countries without the resilience to adapt. Massive crop failures, natural disasters, or coastal flooding could all destabilize fragile societies and economies in Africa. Such disruptions would likely take an unacceptable humanitarian toll, as well as pose strategic threats to the international community. Just look at Somalia.
Foreign policy is frequently reactive, especially in small developing countries. For the past twenty years, the US and UN have undertaken a number of missions to put out African fires. These missions seldom go well, because the problems are not military in nature. The only solution to instability in weak states is a long-term investment in their economic and political viability. Africa needs preventive strategies, not military interventions. As economist Jeffrey Sachs argues, it needs carefully targeted infusions of aid and development to break poverty traps and build the capacity for economic growth.
That is why I'm excited that Minerva is researching climate change and the stability of African countries. It's the strongest sign I've seen that the Pentagon is looking seriously at positive strategies to shape Africa and forestall crises, rather than merely respond.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Doctor Zubrin addresses all of those issues and more in his wonderful book "Energy Victory". In it, he tackles climate change and how to combat it with the (slightly-tweaked) free market, how to cut off funding to non-state aggressors by minimizing the income of their state sponsors, and how these actions can empower third-world nations through trade. I'm not aware if he has anything to do with the Minerva folks.
Why should the Pentagon be doing climate change? Why not shove the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and his malaria program over the the generals as well? And USAID. Not to mention the Peace Corps. Do that, and we can totally rebrand AFRICOM -- call it the New Peace Corps!
My point isn't that the Pentagon should "do" climate change. But to quote Paul Yingling, "Failing to visualize future battlefields represents a lapse in professional competence." The Pentagon has a responsibility not just to anticipate conventional future wars, but to anticipate state instability and failure based on economic, political, cultural and environmental factors.
You're right that Defense should not be the lead on malaria, aid and development, or fighting climate change. We have civilian institutions that should do that. But it's critical for today's generals that understand that all of those are vital security issues. The US and the world will be far more secure with an economically stable, prosperous Africa than with an anarchic, failing continent where our military is used to put out fires.
Achieving any sort of positive change will require close coordination between military and civil agencies. AFRICOM has a closely integrated staff of Defense, State and USAID leaders for exactly that reason.
Yes,it is critical that the generals appreciate the broader plate of threats, and what the uniformed military should not be doing. It is the responsibility of the civilian agencies to do this work. That's where the expertise is, not in the Pentagon. That's why there is a National Security Council -- to coordinate.
It doesn't do your argument much good to cite AFRICOM, which in fact is encountering precisely the problems of taking on a portfolio beyond that of its expertise. Just as in the case of climate change, it ends up privatizing what it cannot do -- funneling cash to Booz, Allen and other non-USG organizations.
Of course, non-Defense civilian agencies can, will do, and often have already done these tasks and provide this information, when consulted and -- as necessary -- given the sufficient resources.
Post a Comment