Some interesting reads on the climate, migration, and security nexus
A couple of interesting articles (and my take on them)
Over the last few weeks, a few interesting articles on the link between climate, migration, and security have popped up.
This piece on Tuvalu and Australia’s new climate displacement agreement is interesting.
The agreement was certainly groundbreaking. Agreements allowing people to move from one country to another due to climate impacts is virtually unheard of. For this to be offered by a wealthy, high-emitting country is also rare. But the agreement between Australia and Tuvalu is not "no strings attached." In return for Australia offering 280 special visas for people impacted by climate change, Tuvalu has agreed not to enter into security or military agreements with any other nation without first consulting with Australia. The agreement also prevents the setup of Chinese military bases or infrastructure on Tuvalu.
Progress on protecting people hit hardest by climate change may end up being driven by the military and security concerns of big economic and military powers. Unfortunately, we may end up in a situation where some people are allowed to move because their country of origin is strategically useful to another nation.
Over the years, there has been a lot of support for bilateral agreements as a way of addressing climate-driven migration.
A patchwork of bilateral deals allowing people to move between neighboring countries has been seen as the quickest way of actually getting something done. Other proposals for a new global treaty on climate migration, or an update to the Refugee Convention, are mostly viewed as too time-consuming, risky, or complicated to succeed within the timeframe needed.
The Tuvalu/Australia deal shows that the bilateral approach can work. But the inclusion of Australia's wider security and military objectives in the deal makes it clear that these agreements will never just be about protecting people who need to move because of climate change.
This piece from Just Security is also worth a read.
For a long time, the security community has painted climate-linked migration as one of the great security threats of our time. In an attempt to grab headlines and policy influence, they have presented people moving due to climate impacts as a source of violence, tension, and conflict. This article points out that the actual security threat is the violence and chaos caused by states (and their private contractors) preventing people from moving when they need to.
The article is an appeal to security actors to drop this discourse. However, I'm skeptical that they will. They have a vested interest in presenting migration as a security crisis. Their sector is geared up for dealing with conflict and violence. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
This piece reporting on Gaia Vince’s predictions about widespread future climate-driven migration is interesting.
It’s worth remembering that while climate change will reshape patterns of migration, it's not as simple as lots of people moving north, as the article claims.
One of the biggest impacts of climate change is to push people further into poverty. As this happens, migration actually becomes harder. One of the biggest changes in movement we may see is that people are actually trapped in climate-vulnerable locations and unable to migrate.