National Climate-Related Security Policies of the Permanent Member States of the United Nations Security Council
Publisher: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Author(s): Jiayi Zhou
Date: 2017
Topics: Climate Change, Governance
Countries: China, France, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, United States
Over the past decade, climate change has become increasingly embedded within global security discourse, but whether it should be formally considered as a matter for the international peace and security agenda remains contested. Moreover, while the adverse effects of climate change on natural, societal and governance systems clearly amounts to a threat that is transnational in scope, the international response remains dependent on positions taken at a national level. The United Nations Security Council represents a key forum and lens into this debate, within which national governments’ positions on climate security continue to diverge. As background context to this debate, this paper traces the national climate-related security policies of five key UN Security Council states: China, Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom and France—the permanent members (or the P5) holding veto power. Specifically, it examines how more traditional security actors within each country have assessed the risk of climate change on national security, and the extent to which they have organizationally begun to incorporate any identified climate risks into their plans and operations. Given their geopolitical weight, China, Russia, and the USA are given more extensive attention in this study.
As expected, these five case studies show a diverse picture of securitization, with the military and foreign policy sectors of Russia and China taking on few if any active adaptation efforts in relation to climate change. Though there has been official recognition by both governments that climate change may pose a threat to elements of national security, this recognition has not yet resulted in any structural changes in military or security strategy, planning or processes. China continues to publicly maintain that climate change risks should be addressed from the angle of sustain- able development, while Russia’s security response—outside of Arctic issues—has been dampened by the government’s ambivalence in addressing anthropomorphic climate change more broadly. In both countries, security thinking related to the cli- mate remains nascent, and policy responses within the security sector are underde- veloped. On the international stage, both have held that the UN Security Council is not an appropriate forum for consideration of the topic. Political developments in China, however, are worth monitoring: more comprehensive and robust security discourse from its leaders, an increasing overseas footprint, and a more proactive China on a range of global governance issues could lead to change in its position over time.