CHAPTER 2CLIMATE CHANGE AND SECURITISATION

ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY: A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKThe United Nations Conference on Human Environment at Stockholm in 1972 triggered a debate regarding various environmental issues. It induced the people to think of unconventional security issues and sought various ways to tackle it. The International on Relationship between Disarmament and Development convened by United Nations General Assembly in 1987 and United Nations Human Development Report discussed the nature of non-military security threats in detail (United Nations Study series 2004:11). These conferences reached a conclusion that non-traditional threats are creating crucial repercussions in the livelihood of humanity as a whole (Welzer 2012:60-61). This heralded a vibrant discussion on the non-traditional security issues of nation-states. Moreover a comprehensive approach to the concept of environmental security was adopted in the Earth Summit of 1992 held at Rio De Jenario at the World Summit on Sustainable Development at Johannesburg 2002.Since the end of the cold war, many factors have given a momentum for adopting alternative definitions of security other than military threats like international terrorism, pandemic diseases, global meltdown, natural catastrophes, inflating food and energy prices etc. This provoked the academicians , policy makers and heads of the state to go beyond the military security concerns and addresses the other crucial issues of international importance (2009:2).In the modern times, Asian and African countries were ruthlessly threatened by climate change (Fussel 2010:48). The recent researchers testify that these countries will continue to be affected by ill effects of the vagaries of nature. While not ignoring traditional security threats, the ecological security paradigm, which traces its diplomatic origins to the Stockholm Conference, emerged as a non-traditional security threat in the recent times. (Pirages 2011:9). This chapter aims to deal with debates in regards to the concept of security with special reference to traditional and non-traditional security (NTS) debate.

Traditional concept of security Realism and NeorealismThe end of the cold war heralded a change in the political environment both in theoretical as well as in political sense. This change has been also visible in the realm of security studies. Several academicians started to consider the very concept of security and tried to analyse an apt definition for it. They tried to analyse the question whose security is to be addressed? (Biswas 2011:1, Williams 2008:8-9) This small group of academia started to reevaluate the traditional concept of security which describes only about external aggressions or military threats. They tried to give a broad framework for security which includes non-traditional threats like poverty, malnutrition, economic security, climate change etc.

This actuated a debate between the traditional security non-traditional security threats (NTS) in the realm of security studies. The proponents of the traditional security perspective want to maintain the cold war concept of security i.e. state-centric and military centric. Those who advocated non-traditional security perspective has attempted to widen and deepen the concept to include such other issues as economic security, social security, environmental security etc. (Sheehan 2004:44). As a result of this discourse the very concept of security became more normative. Moreover there are two views among the non-traditionalists regarding the inclusion diverse security concerns. The Wideners and Deepeners forms the sub-category among the non-traditionalist and there is disagreement between them as well. The wideners agree that military security may not acknowledge the greatest threats to the human survival like economic crisis, poverty, environmental crisis etc. The deepeners on the other hand , ask the question whose security is being threatened. They are trying to redefine the concept to use individual as referent object against the state. (Tarry 1992:2)

The traditional security paradigm refers to a realist construct of security in which the referent object of security is the state. The prevalence of this theory reached a peak during the coldwar. For almost half a century , major world powers entrusted to the security of their nation to a balance of power among states. In this sense international stability relied on the promise that if state security is maintained, then the security of the citizens will necessarily follow.

Traditional security relied on the anarchistic balance of power, a military buildup between the United States and Soviet Union (the two superpowers), and on the absolute sovereignty of nation state.

States are deemed to be national identity , national interests and policy driven for the desire for absolute power. Security was seen as protection from invasion; executed during proxy conflicts using technical and military capabilities.

Realism And Neo-Realism Concept Of Security Inadequate?It became clear that the security of citizen was threatned by hardship arising from internal state activities as well as external aggressors. Civils wars were increasingly common and compounded existing poverty, disease, hunger, violence and human right abuses.

Traditional security policies had effectively masked these underlying basic human needs in the face of state security. Through neglect of its constituents, nation states had failed in their primary objectives.

More recently, the traditional state-centric notion of security has been challenged by more holistic approaches to security. These approaches address these basic threats to human safety are paradigms that include cooperative, comprehensive and collective measure, aimed to ensure security for the individual and, as a result , for the state.

NON-TRADITIONAL SECURITY Unlike the preceding centuries, in which the gravest security threats that a nation-state faced were invariably the armies of other states, in the 21st century, this is no longer the case. The emergence of a number of non-state actors, such as terrorist networks, drug cartels and maritime piracy networks, and intra-state conflicts (e.g. civil wars) have assumed importance as new-age threats to the national security of present-day states. Apart from such non-state and transnational actors, the impact of environmental degradation on the future of the nation-state, especially the implications of global climate change, has emerged as a credible and serious threat to the future existence of modern-day nation states. Demographical changes, such as an aging and/or shrinking population, especially acute in the Western developed countries, have emerged as the one social factor that might influence global power politics in the future. Finally, technological advancements in the 21st century, particularly with respect to the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) revolution, have facilitated the emergence of cyber-warfare and cyber-espionage, triggering the slow shift of the battlefield from land, air and sea to cyberspace.

2. Rise of Non-state Actors

The world underwent seismic shifts in the 20th century in the form of two resource-draining world wars, the creation of a bipolar world order, numerous proxy wars, end of the Cold War and emergence of the US as the sole superpower. The formation of the United Nations in the aftermath of World War 2 and its ensuing proclamation that the military forces of member-states could be deployed only for self-defense, collective self-defense or collective security, as identified and legitimized by passing a UN resolution, has resulted in effective outlawing of the use of offensive military force by the UN member-states. According to World Bank, the frequency of inter-state and civil wars has now reduced, in comparison with those that were fought in the 20th century. When the UN was established, it was primarily structured to deal with states. However, modern conflict is no longer restricted to only wars between the military forces of states. The rise of organized crime networks (e.g. drug cartels) and terrorist groups in the 21st century has led to a scenario where such non-state actors pose a greater threat to a states national security than the military forces of other states.

2.1 Transnational organized crime networks

These are especially a potent threat to a states national security because of a number of reasons. The World Bank (2013) defines an organized crime network as one that uses force and coercion for pursuit of wealth by criminal means. Thus, going by this definition, international drug cartels, arms smuggling groups and maritime piracy networks can be classified as some of the major organized crime networks. Drug cartels have especially gained importance in the last few decades because of their greater access to resources (both financial and organizational) and use of sophisticated technological advancements in order to improve their risk management strategies and thus evade capture by the state security agencies. Organized crime networks usually mushroom and thrive in weak or failed states (mostly underdeveloped and developing countries), which are characterized by ineffective government control, poor law and order control situation, weak regulatory framework for protecting business activities and a corrupt judiciary. Because these networks are non-state actors, by default, they do not conform to the international laws and treaties that govern a state in its use of force. Non-state actors are neither limited by territorial boundaries, nor do they recognize the concept of sovereignty. As a result, international drug cartels and illegal arms sales networks flout all international rules during their operations. They also use bribery as an effective instrument to attract and/or coerce the very personnel who are employed by the state to combat them. Since state security agencies and police forces in developing and impoverished countries are more susceptible to the lure of bribes, such organized crime networks thrive well in these regions. However, this is not to arrive at the conclusion that organized crime operations flourish only in these regions. The US and European Union serve as the two biggest markets for drugs, and the drug cartels can reap in profits by exclusively focusing on these markets alone. A number of states are involved during the trajectory from production to reaching the final destination, categorized by Williams (2014) as follows: home state (where the drug originates), the transshipment states (which can be one or more states that are involved in the transit of the drug shipments), the host or market states and the service state (which usually act as safe havens for illegal financial transactions). The same applies for other organized crime networks such as arms smuggling or the transport of illegal migrants. Thus the networks flout the sovereignty of not one, but many states and also may bribe the authorities involved of multiple states in the process, thereby extending their web of influence and threatening the national security of multiple states at the same time. It has become increasingly difficult for the state authorities to nab the leaders of such networks. One reason is institutionalized corruption in the state system (e.g. in Colombia), which ensures the protection of the leaders. In some cases, charismatic leaders of the organized crime networks even publicly involve themselves in philanthropy and charity, portraying themselves as more efficient and welfare-oriented than the local elected government. This is usually effective in the home state, where the people usually suffer from poverty, high crime rates and the lax attitude of government authorities in addressing their grievances. The organized crime networks assume the identity of a generous benefactor and protector of the people, thus cultivating a Stockholm Syndrome-like attitude in the general public, who begin to view the state with mistrust and gravitate toward these crime syndicates with their problems, thereby undermining the local police and military force and contributing to the overall degeneration of the national security of the state. Thus the state is made progressively weaker, until the security situations spirals into chaos and the prospectof a civil war may become imminent. The major obstacle to a combating an organized crime network is that, invariably, the state is perceived to be in a weaker position, which, in a way, legitimizes the formers influence. The situation is exacerbated when there is inter- drug-cartel rivalry for supremacy, along with the conflict between the drug cartels and the state government, as is the case in Mexico Drug War.

2.2 Terrorism and insurgency

It have emerged as the most widely recognizable and visible threats to a nations security, especially after the 9/11 attacks. Hoffman (2013) defines terrorism as the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or threat of violence in pursuit of political change. Although terrorist and insurgency groups are similar to organized crime networks in their use (or threat of use) of force to achieve their stated objectives, the most important and fundamental difference is in their objectives: while drug cartels and arms smuggling networks primarily operate to increasen their wealth, terrorist and insurgency networks always have a political goal. Moreover, insurgency groups differ from terrorist groups in their quest for self-determination and hold over territory, usually fighting the established local government or foreign power, who they perceive to be illegitimate occupying forces. Also, organized crime networks manipulate state machinery to ensure that their businesses flourish, while terrorist groups target the civilian population in order to seek attention to their political demands. The one commonality between transnational organized crime networks and terrorist groups that is also the major source of security threat to a state that harbors such groups is that both are non-state actors, and like the former, terrorist groups do not recognize the concept of state boundaries, sovereignty or international norms and regulations on the use of force. As a result, civilians, diplomats and media persons are routinely targeted by terrorist groups. The effective use of suicide bombers to target civilians in crowded places, the employment of sophisticated technology and tactics such as leaderless movements (i.e. terrorist organizations that do not have a visible leader), sleeper cells (especially in India) and phantom cell networks have made it increasingly difficult for the governments to wipe off terrorist groups. Also, while the members of a terrorist network, especially suicide bombers, might be thought of as irrational or brain-washed, the leader of the terrorism network is a completely rational person. As a result, governments find it increasingly difficult to track down and annihilate terrorist groups and their leaders. Terrorist groups such as the Shining Path (Peru) also tap into the organized crime network in order to set up a highly successful drugs smuggling network to fund their terrorist campaigns. This leads, sometimes, to a blurring of lines between organized crime and terrorism, placing additional pressure on the governments in their combat against such intertwined networks. The most important advantage of a terrorist group is their effective use of the element of surprise, catching the public and the government off guard, especially if they use a neutral territory to conduct a terrorist attack. Combating terrorism has been hampered by the increased organizational efficiency of terrorist groups (e.g. leaderless networks) and ineffective use of brute force and targeted killings by the state (in Chechnya and Palestine). It would be of note here that the last inter-state war between Israel and an Arab state was nearly 30 years ago, the recent wars that Israel waged were against non-state actors (i.e. Hezbollah and Hamas). Doubts over whether terrorism can completely been annihilated have plagued the minds of counterterrorist operatives, which also weakens the states response to tackle this global threat to security and peace. Thus the threat of terrorism still remains a very important factor that shapes a states sense of national security.

3. Civil War and Regime ChangeAlthough the post-World War 2 period saw the establishment and strengthening of the United Nations and the formation of what Jervis (2002) defines a pluralistic security community (a term initially coined by Karl Deutsch), comprising a group of nations who fought the previous world wars (i.e. US, the EU and Japan), among whom the breakout of inter-state war is unimaginable, this does not literally translate to a peaceful international community. Apart from wars that are occasionally fought between other states outside the security community, intra-state wars (most importantly, civil wars) still threatens the lives of thousands of civilians caught in conflict. Annan (1998) states that [m]ost wars are now civil wars. According to Nye and Welch (2013), 89 of the 113 conflicts in the period between end of cold war and beginning of the 21st century were purely civil wars. Civil wars are more destructive that inter-state wars because of their duration (they usually last longer than inter-state wars), the high number of civilian deaths, instances of the inability of the government to emphatically defeat the rebel groups (if the civil war is between state and non-state actors) and the involvement of different ethnic groups in the conflict. Since civil wars are usually fought between intra-state groups (usually the government and one or more non-state actors), they are classified as internal affairs of states, hence hindering UN intervention during the initial stages, which might prevent spiraling of the conflict. The Syrian civil war is an example of how the UN and the member-states failed to effectively stop the strife, thereby resulting in the escalation of war to the extent where chemical weapons were used against innocent civilians. One of the disadvantages of the way the UN has been structured is that it authorizes the use of force to respond only to situations where there is a clear evidence of aggression. In civil wars, as Nye and Welch (2013) argue, identification of the aggressor is not always easy. When UN intervention is not found to be effective enough, sometimes foreign intervention occurs, usually when the situation spirals out of control, as it happened in Libya (Downes, 2011). However, civil wars are inherently recursive in nature. About 40% of states that endured a civil war and a resulting regime change imposed by a foreign power suffered a relapse within a decade. Regime change is usually not effective because of the sudden reversal of fortunes of a particular group involved in the conflict, which the group might object to, usually through violence. Thus civil wars are difficult to end through UN or foreign intervention; usually such conflicts end only when one group has a resounding and complete victory over the others, which might take decades. In the meantime, the law and order situation is thrown into disarray, with rise in crimes and murders. This leads to a situation of failed states, where a combination of intra-state war and foreign intervention has resulted in the state government losing control and power over the military establishment or the state in general. There are a number of examples of civil wars resulting in failed states, such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Rwanda. There is also the possibility of spillover, where a civil war in one country affects the stability and peace of the neighboring countries as well due to inflow or outflow of refugees, rebel fighters,arms and ammunition into the adjacent states. Thus civil wars invariably lead to regional instability and a degenerating security situation.

4. Impact of Environmental DegradationOne of the most critical issues concerning a nations security in the 21st century is environmental degradation, and in particular, climate change and its impact. Rising population and burgeoning energy needs, especially in developed and developing countries, has led to the excessive depletion of natural resources, at a rate much faster than it can be replaced. Climate change has assumed critical importance to world security in the last few decades. Global warming due to climate change has been predicted to have a cascading affect, wherein the increasing temperatures will facilitate more frequent formation of cyclones and storms in the tropical regions and the melting of polar ice caps, in turn leading to rising sea levels and possible submerging of low-lying areas and island nations, threatening their very existence. Rising temperatures also have the capacity to foster the spread of communicable diseases, such as malaria and cholera, due to increased number of air-borne and water-borne vector carriers. Thus climate change is a serious cause for concern to nation, since it is the fountainhead for various other natural and related phenomena that may threaten the very existence of the human race in the decades to come.

Dwindling fresh water resources has led to many scholars predicting inter-state water wars in the future. For example, Dupont (2013) points out that China has resorted to diverting fresh water resources from Tibet to the water-scarce Northern China region, thereby affecting millions of livelihoods in the riparian regions from which the water was redirected. Such endeavors may not only affect the environment but also lead to deteriorating relations with the neighboring countries that would be adversely affected by one states quest for fresh water resources. Thus water scarcity is a critical national security issue for states, and is the best example of a tragedy of the commons as postulated by Hardin (1968), wherein overpopulation and a free-riding mentality may result in the degeneration and pollution of a resource. Climate change may also affect agricultural production due to disruption of normal climate caused by increasing temperatures. Food scarcity is an issue that has been touted to be the most important problems that will be faced by the states in the future. Inflation in food prices is already a reality, especially in developing countries which have dense populations. Although predictions of a food deficit have not yet turned true, this cannot be ruled out in the future, as a rapidly increasing population will place additional strain on the finite land resource and the excessive use of fertilizers might result in soil infertility due to chemical imbalance. Energy security is and will be one of the primary factors that will drive the foreign policy of nations. Since oil, gas and coal are non-renewable sources of energy, states are expected to resort to nuclear energy in the future in order to fulfill their energy needs. This will lead to the problem of nuclear waste disposal and protection of the nuclear fuel from non-state terrorist and criminal organizations which might misuse it to manufacture nuclear weapons. Resource wars cannot be ruled out, as states might not hesitate to use offensive force in order to secure its energy needs for the future. An example is Russias recent stunt at claiming the Arctic seabed, a region which is being eyed by many states, such as the US, Canada, Norway and Denmark, due to the unexploited resources that it holds (Dupont, 2013). Environmental refugees may soon become a reality, as environmental degradation and food and water scarcity may lead to mass migration of populations from the affected regions, contributing to the instability of the host states. Thus environment protection and nurturing is an urgent need of the hour, as a destabilized environment can lead to a tipping point, after which catastrophic and irreversible consequences, such as increase in the number of natural disasters, may threaten the survival of the state and its population.

5. Demographic Changes and Their Consequences

While over-population is a legitimate concern and, in some cases, already a reality in the developing and underdeveloped regions of the world, the developed world is at the threshold of a sweeping demographic change, with a simultaneously ageing and shrinking population, a consequence of decreasing fertility rates and increasing life expectancy over the last few decades. As a result, Howe and Jackson (2011) expect that, by 2025, the population in Western Europe and Japan will predominantly comprise the elderly, with a rapidly decreasing workforce. This will increase the strain on government resources, which will need to be diverted to provide care and assistance for the ageing population, while at the same time being constrained by a shrinking working-age population being unable to offset the deficit. This demographic transition may be partially assuaged by the migrant working population from the developing and underdeveloped countries, however, their integration into the society may not be smooth, due to the prospect of ethnic tensions and religious extremism. A greater proportion of the national budget will be allocated for social welfare, which might directly impact the defense spending of the nation and compromising national security. Chinas rise as a possible challenger to the US hegemony is being advocated by many scholars; however, the one-child policy that has been rigorously enforced by the ruling Communist Party of China for the past four decades has resulted in the premature aging of its population. Howe and Jackson (2011) predict that, by 2030, China would have surpassed the US as the country with the greater proportion of the elderly population. Also, they expect Russia to face the sharpest decline in population among the large states. Although some regions, such as Sub-Saharan Africa might have a burgeoning young population, the combination of political instability and impoverishment would prevent the population from effectively contributing to their nations economies. An aging and shrinking population would also translate into a reduction in the military capacity of a state due to shortage of personnel. Thus, it is only logical that a dynamic change in the age and size of population directly affect a states national security, even with the development of sophisticated weapons technology.

6. Cyber-conflict and National SecurityThe 21st century has been labeled as the Information Age, where civilians are being able to have unprecedented access to information. However, the information and communication technology (ICT) revolution has transformed the way information is used, transmitted and stored not only by the civilian population but also the state military and intelligence agencies. As a result, a new battlefield has opened up: cyberspace. Cyber-conflict and cyberexploitation are the new threats to a states security. And similar to a traditional kinetic conflict (TKC), both offensive and defensive acts take place in the cyber-arena (Lin, 2013). During a cyber-conflict, there are no clear lines between the civilian and military, as civilian computer systems may be used to launch offensive cyber-war against an enemy state. Also, the difficulty is determining the perpetrator (which could be state or non-state actors) adds to the confusion in determining the legal course of action once a cyber-attack is discovered.A spate of cyber-attacks have been reported by the media, especially in the last few years: China, Israel and the US are thought to routinely engage in cyber-conflicts with other states in order to siphon confidential business or military information (i.e. cyber-exploitation) or prevent/stun rival military systems from functioning properly (i.e. cyber-conflict).

Cyber-war is especially a serious threat to the national sovereignty and security because it transcends national borders and involves use of civilian resources (such as broadband networks and electric grids) and, sometimes, malignant non-state actors such as organized crime networks and fringe extremist groups that hack into national databases and steal classified information, in many cases without being discovered. The reverberations of an intrusive cyber-attack are hard to predict. Unlike TKC, where deterrence, dissuasion and defense are said to be more advantageous than offense, in cyber-conflict, it is the opposite. Also, in TKC, the enemy can be seen or identified; this is not the case in cyber-warfare. As Lin (2013) states, cyber-defense has to work every single time whereas cyber-offense needs to work only once. Cyber-conflict need not necessarily be restricted only to those between states or between non-state actors and states. Drug cartels, arms smuggling networks and many other illegal businesses routinely use ICT to carry out under-the-radar financial transactions, using the illegal wealth to further strengthen their influence, contributing to a weakening of the states security. Although the number of instances of cyber-attacks and cyber-exploitation by state and non-state actors is low at present compared to, say, intra- or inter-state wars, they still pose a credible threat to the national security of 21st century states, mainly because of the relative anonymity of the perpetrators, absence of explicit UN legislation on cyber-warfare (unlike TKC) and the possibility of escalation of cyber-conflict. Also, since there has been no precedent, once cannot predict what might be the possibility or consequence of a cyberworld war, which may not necessarily involve only states.

Non-traditional security concerns

India also faces a number of non-traditional security concerns. One of the major security challenge facing is that of energy security. This essentially involves ensuring uninterrupted supply of energy to support the economic and commercial activities necessary for sustained economic growth. As far as India is concerned, the need for energy security emanates from the growing imbalance between the demand for energy and its supply from indigenous sources, resulting in increased import dependence. Highlighting the issue PresidentA.P.J. Abdul Kalam said, Energy independence has to be our nations first and highest priority.

At present India is the sixth largest energy consumer in the world and is projected to emerge as the fourth largest consumer after the United States, China and Japan by 2010. Its economy is projected to grow 7%-8% over the next two decades, and in its wake will be a substantial increase in demand for oil. For more than a decade, Indias energy consumption has grown at a faster pace than its economy and it appears this trend will continue. Moreover, even if India reduces the use of oil in its power and manufacturing sectors, the demand for oil in the transport sector shows no sign of abating. Due to stagnating domestic crude production, India imports approximately 70% of its oil. Its dependence is growing rapidly. The World Energy Outlook, published by the International Energy Agency (IEA), projects that India's dependence on oil imports will grow to 91.6% by the year 2020. Within the last decade India has emerged as the fourth largest economy of the world in the purchasing power parity terms. In more absolute terms, as the National Intelligence Council (NIC) in the US underlined recently, India will begin to overtake all the Western nations except the US, by 2020 in economic size. Hence energy security is crucial for thesustaining the current growth rates. In the short term there appears little likelihood of reducing its energy imports. Currently, around 65% of its crude oil imports are from West Asia and the rest from various parts of the world, including Africa and Latin America. It has also started acquiring oil and gas assets in different parts of the world from Sudan to Sakhalin. Recently the countrys Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) has identified 22 countries to pursue exploration, production, pipeline transportation and the refining of hydrocarbons.

1-In the long term, India will have to shift its energy sources from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources like bio fuels, wind, solar and nuclear power. Another crucial security challenge that India faces today is terrorism. While globalisation has resulted in the softening of borders, it has also, unfortunately, enabled many security problems to attain dangerous dimensions.

2-The spectre of international terrorism is one such phenomenon. Post 9/11, terrorism has moved centre stage in the security discourse. The shadowy non-state actor a terrorist who was in the fringes of security discourse - is now the new threat. A threat that has gone global. Indians have suffered cross-border terrorism for decades. In Jammu and Kashmir, the Pakistan-sponsored terrorism has paralysed normal life since the 1980s. According to Indian estimates, terrorism has claimed 34,000 lives since 1990 including over 12,000 civilians and 18,000 terrorists. Pakistan has also been involved in the supply of arms and financial assistance to Naxalites and separatist groups active in India.Apart from Pakistan, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) is known to have trained the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) and Maoists from India and Nepal, respectively. Similarly, it has been reported that Maoists in Nepal also work closely with the Peoples War Group (PWG) of Andhra Pradesh.

3-Linked to this issue is the issue of transnational crime networks. Many of these networks are not purely criminal but have become involved in Indian politics, providing them with certain levels of immunity from Indian law enforcement.

4-Further, India is the principal target, and it is difficult for it to make common-cause with international partners to address them, though some of these networks have been proscribed as a result of the war on terror. The best known of these groups is the Dawood Ibrahim network, originally a Bombaybased criminal enterprise, which is today involved in everything from extortion to terrorism\ in India. The network receives active support from Pakistans notorious Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), and Dawood Ibrahim himself is known to be based in Karachi and travel on a Pakistani passport. But Ibrahims activities have become so widespread that he is now on US and UN lists of wanted global terrorists for his role in financing and supporting Al-Qaeda. Nevertheless, Ibrahim remain at large in Pakistan and his network intact. Such criminal groups are linked to a number of trans-national criminal enterprises such as small arms, drug trafficking and money-laundering and have been utilised by the A.Q. Khan network.

5- Small arms trafficking in the region began as blowback from the Afghan war,first affecting Pakistan, but is now becoming a more widespread problem. This proliferation of small arms is changing the character of insurgencies in India, making them more violent and less susceptible to resolution. This spread, at least partly, also explains the growth in the number of violent rebellions in various parts of the country. The market for weapons is big and accessible, and has encouraged a resurgence of left-wing extremism, which is now linked to Nepali Maoists. These networks are also connected to drug-trafficking. India is bracketed by two of the worlds three largest narcotics producing-exporting regions. There are indications that the narcotics traffic, from what is euphemistically referred to as the Golden Triangle encompassing Myanmar-Thailand-Laos, constitutes the major source of illicit heroin and opium, although it has shown a decline in recent years. Willy-nilly, India became a passage country (directly and via Nepal) and some, if not most, of the crime and violence in Indias Northeastern region is linked to this factor. South Asia is at present a transit point for drugs, rather than a consumer. However, as Indian and other South Asian countries prosper, there is the potential for this to change and governments in the region are ignoring this risk at their peril. Money laundering is another activity linked to these criminal groups. Though originally serving a social function for poor migrant international labour of South Asian origin in West Asia, the so-called hawala networks have become extremely powerful and dangerous. But unlike the various other trans-national criminal enterprises mentioned earlier, hawala networks came under the scanner of the international community because of their links in financing or supporting global terrorism. Though by no means eliminated, there is greater international cooperation in fighting these networks. Some of these criminal networks are also thought to have been used by the Pakistani government and its agencies, especially the A.Q. Khan network, for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) trafficking. This link between criminal enterprises and WMD proliferation makes it particularly necessary to develop international cooperation on these issues. Illegal immigration is one of the most serious non-traditional challenges confronting India. Illegal immigration into the country occurs through its huge porous border. Bangladesh in particular, poses a problem for India, with large numbers of immigrants and great difficulties in regulating flows. Though the seriousness of this problem in well recognised, it is nevertheless difficult to tackle because it is entangled in domestic political issues. According to official Indian estimates, there are about 15 million illegal Bangladeshi citizens in India; Bangladesh of course, refuses to accept the immigrants as Bangladeshi citizens.

Illegal Bangladeshi immigration is a significant cause for ethnic conflicts in northeastern India, where it has shifted the balance of ethnic communities, setting off inter-ethnic violence. But illegal immigration has also become a source of trans-national criminal enterprises, some of which, Indian police and security agencies believe, are linked to terrorism. But Bangladesh is not the only one of Indias neighbours that is a problem: tens of thousands of Sri Lankan Tamils have fled the fighting in that troubled island and settled in India (though, unlike the Bangladeshi migrants, the vast majority of these are formally registered as refugees). According to the Indias Home Ministry, 278,480 refugees have entered Indian territory since 1983. As the fighting in Nepal between the Maoists and the government has picked up, hundreds of thousands of Nepalese have also shifted to India. Should the situation in either of these countries worsen, India can expect another bout of unwanted population flows into it. The increasing non-traditional maritime threats in the Indian Ocean region are also an area of concern. India has a coastline of about 7,600kms and an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of over 2 million km2 . The island territories in the east are 1,300km away from the mainland. The Indian Maritime doctrine provides an indication of the emerging security threats.

6- Piracy particularly has been on the rise. The Indonesian waters, Bay of Bengal and Horn of Africa are among the worst affected areas of the world. The use of sophisticated weapons and increasing violence is particularly distressing. More alarming, is the news that various terrorists groups have resorted to maritime terror in the form of hijacking commercial vehicles. The LTTE, in particular, has been accused of such acts in past. Moreover, the discovery of Al Qaeda operatives in a container in January 2002 has brought to light the importance of container security. With the dramatic increase in container transport by sea this problem has grown. The US-launched Container Security Initiative (CSI) is a welcome initiative. Also many of the terrorist organizations have merchant fleet of their own. These ships are registered under the Flags of Convenience (e.g. those registered in Panama, Liberia or Cyprus) making it virtually impossible to track them down. To compound it all, the Indian Ocean region has become another theatre for trafficking of drugs from the golden crescent and golden triangle region in Asia. Most importantly, natural disasters like Tsunami and Hurricanes such as Katarina, have brought the area of disaster management to the forefront.Let us now shift gear to an issue that is not often conceived as a security challenge for India, though it is surely emerging as one. Over the last two decades Indias HIV/AIDS infected population has shot up from two people to 5.1 million. According to the official figures, nearly one percent of Indias adult population is now carrying the deadly virus. Also certain Indian cities and regions are reporting more than 5% infection rates. The countrys aspirations for the future will be severely impacted by the epidemic. The biggest negative impact would demographic. By 2020 an estimated 64% of the total population would be in economically active age bracket. However, the average age of the HIV-positive population in India is currently between 25-30 years. A severe epidemic would imply 140 million new HIVinfections that would lead to the country losing almost 100 million of its workforce. The socio-cultural impact of such an eventuality will be immense. While there is no comprehensive data available on the extent of the infection on the armed forces, certain reports suggest that the disease has reached military personnel, though the numbers arelimited at present.

Widening School Of Thought- The Copenhagen School

The Copenhagen school of security is a school of academic thought with its origins in international relations. Theorist Barry Buzans book ; people ,States and Fear; the National security problem in international relations, first published in 1983. The Copenhagen school places particular emphasis upon the social aspects of security. Theorists associated with the school include Barry Buzan, Ole Waver,andJaap de wilde. Many of the schools members worked at the Copenhagen school is Bill Mesweeny.

The primary book of the Copenhagen school is security. A new framework for analysis, the author list the following sectors: military/state, political, societal, economic and environmental. As such , this theory can be regarded as Widening traditional materialist security studies by looking at security in this new sectors.

The very concept of non-traditional security and the debates centered around has been initiated by Barry Buzan , Ole Waever and Jaap de wilde of the Copenhagen school. Barry Buzan in his work, people,states and fear: A n agenda for international security studies post-cold war era. Tries to examine a broader understanding of the concept of security. The three levels that he system (Buzan-1983:21).In New patterns of Global security in the 21st century, he further widened the scope of security to include military security, political security, societal security, economic security (Buzan 1998:2). The concept finds elaborations in his edited volume with Waever and Wilde Security: A New Framework for Analysis (Buzan 1998). Despite this, the Copenhagen school developed a new framework called securitization to conceptualized security. This theory says that an issue can be securitise by the process of the repeated usage of the term in the public domain. A kind of potlitical manipulation takes place to securitise the issue. Consequently, that particular issue becomes an agenda for the national and international security. In a nutshell security is self referential practice. In this practice an issue becomes a security issue, not necessarily because a real existential threat exists but the issue is presented as a threat (Buzan 19998:24). This menifests that securitization is a Speech Act. Speech act is a term borrowed from John L. Austins book How Do Things with Words pulished in 1955.Another important figure in this discourse is Richard Ullman. His definition of security is more comprehensive. He defines security, (1) as an action or sequence of events that threatens drastically over a relatively brief span of time to degrade the quality of life for the inhabitants of a state or (2) threatens significantly to narrow the range of policy choices available to the government of a state or to private, npn-governmental entities (persons, groups, corporations) within the state (Ullman1983:7). Within the first category are included a spectrum of disturbances and disruptions ranging from external wars to internal rebellions, from blockades and boycotts to raw material shortages and devastating natural disasters such as decimating epidemics, catastrophic floods or massive and pervasive drought. This definition clearly broadens the concept of national security which incorporates all issues that threaten the life of citizens. The description adopted by Ayoob has also been very pertinent in this stage as the peripheral countries had to face new challenges and not just military insecurity. Moreoer, the threats they have to tackle are transitional in character like frequent ethnic clashes and boundary disputes resulting in inter-state conflict (Ayoob 1983:41-51)

SECURITISATION:Securitization, developed by Ole Weaver, is probably the most prominent concept of Copenhagen school, and the one that has generated the most literature. The process of securitization is intersubjective meaning that it is neither a question of an objective threat or a subjective perception of a threat.

Understanding Climate Change and Security So why should we care if climate change is being linked to security? The short answer would be: because producing climate change as a security issue has very specific implications for the way(s) with which it is dealt. Yet, to answer this question in greater detail and in order to show what we can make of climate change as a security issue, I shortly introduce the concepts of securitization and climatization. Even though these concepts are discussed mainly in the theory chapter, I would like to familiarize the reader with the concepts already, as they constitute important cornerstones of this thesis. Securitization and Climatization The Copenhagen School and Paris School both represent critical security approaches. Yet, the Paris School has tried to move beyond the Copenhagen School, by not relying on a fixed understanding of security. The Schools respective concepts of securitization and climatization provide the theoretical basis, helping to understand the production/construction of climate change as a security issue. According to the Copenhagen School, the process of securitization is essentially a negative development, in which an issue is expressed as a security concern that requires extraordinary means. Through securitizing speech acts and securitizing moves, an issue can be constructed discursively as a threat to security. Once an issue is commonly referred to as an existential threat to security, and is accepted as such by a relevant audience, the particular issue can be considered securitized. An advantage of such securitization is the increased attention paid to the issue, which might include more funds being made available to it (Nyman 2013). However, securitization also is used to justify exceptional political measures to deal with the securitized issue, which can involve traditional security/military means (Peoples and Vaughan-Williams 2010: 77). Buzan et al. (1998) consider securitization as an indicator of a failure to address an issue within normal politics, and Waever (1995) has called for less security, more politics! Nonetheless, as shown above, climate change commonly has been expressed as a substantial threat to national and human security, indicating that a securitization of climate change might be at play.

The Paris School offers another framework, the so called climatization of the security field, to understand how climate change is produced as a security concern. The Paris School argues that the discursive construction of climate change as a security issue certainly hints that professionals of (in)security (i.e. intelligence, military, police, defense ministries) are producing climate change as a legitimate threat in their everyday practices (Oels 2012: 185). Climate Change Complexity 5 At the same time, however, the security field is being expanded because climate change professionals and their practices, such as risk management or climate modeling, are being included, which transform the security field and its practices (Oels 2012: 185). Since the Paris School relies on a broader understanding of security, the security field is more than just the defense sector, and also includes fields such as migration and development. The Paris School contends that evidence of security transformations can so far be found within the policy fields of defense, migration and development. Furthermore, in contrast to the Copenhagen School, the Paris School argues that to understand how climate change is produced as a security issue we need to assess not only the discourse but also the policy implications and practices. Moreover, whether the production of climate change as a security issue should be considered a positive or negative development depends on the employed strategies and policy implications (Oels 2012: 190-191). In doing so, the Paris School adopts a crucially different understanding of the concept of security. Unlike the Copenhagen School, the Paris School understands processes of security as not necessarily negative it depends on the practices. Consequently, securitization rhetoric is not inextricably linked to extraordinary measures.

References for second chapter:

1.Martin van Creveld, On Future War (London: Brasseys, 1991 p.1942. Security Environment at http: //mod.nic.in3. Address to the nation on the eve of the 59th independence day- 20054. The Financial Express August 11, 20055. Afsar Karim, Terrorism and Indian response in NS Sisodia and C Uday Bhaskar in Emerging India,Security and foreign policy perspective. (IDSA, 2005) p.3326.PR Chari, ed. Alternative approaches to security (Samskriti, New Delhi, 2005) p.3257. Vohra committee report submitted to Ministry of Home affairs, government of India, 9th July 1993, p.4)8.David Albright and Corey Henderson, Unravelling the AQ Khan and future proliferation, Third WorldQuarterly, Spring 2005)9. Indian Maritime Doctrine Integrated Defence headquarters, Ministry of Defence, 2004)