Financial Crisis, a Challenge to Global Security
 From the OpEd section of the well-known Argentine newspaper La Nación, Irma Arguello analyzes the new international environment and the subsequent challenges to global security derived from the financial crisis.
La Nación Journal
Irma Arguello 22 October 2008 | Link to the Article (Spanish) The world finds it difficult to overcome the turbulences of financial collapse, regardless of extraordinary bailout measures taken everywhere. In this challenging context, global security will be also severely tested.
The current emergency has exposed, without halftones, the power of globalization and, at the same time, the dilution of global power. The transition from a “unipolar” world based on the sole leadership of the United States, toward a “non polar” one, where power, with a few or no rules, distributes around multiple states and non state actors, seems to have reached a point of no return.
In terms of security risks, as a big paradox, nations with a higher degree of institutional quality could be more exposed in the short and mid range, and it counts. In effect, countries with solid democratic institutions and a strong control by public opinion over government’s acts, will find difficult to commit past budgetary levels to defense and security affairs. As a clear demand of their societies, these matters could likely lose priority in comparison with which are broadly perceived as crisis-related issues, such as short term actions focused on healing financial damages, and on restoring people’s quality of life.
On the opposite, countries with weaker democracies or totalitarian regimes (condition usually connected to a bigger economic isolation, concentration of power, and lack of pluralism) would likely follow a path toward a deeper radicalization, which could even include a potential increase in the use of the force. Within this assumption, domestic impacts of the global crisis -such as the deterioration of national income due to a drop in international prices of commodities, or to diverse financial shortages- would be probably overlooked or underestimated by the regime. As a consequence of this, population’s welfare, rather than offensive and defensive programs (procurement and development), would turn out the adjustment variable, at the time of the allocation of resources.
Moreover, totalitarian regimes (or those ones with governments on the way to be), with official bureaucracies discretionary handling funds and priorities, might find the way of consolidating, or even gaining regional or global influence.
These “after-crisis” scenario and its general consequences could be applied, for example, to analyze the impacts on nuclear threats, in order to acknowledge and closely monitor early signs of potential increases.
In concrete terms, the financial crisis could create a favorable environment for an undesired growth of nuclear proliferation by strengthening questionable ambitions and, at the same time, by weakening barriers to avoid that key materials reach hands of terrorists, or states with non-peaceful ends.
It could come about because some of the programs related to prevention and response, at a country level, could become affected and lose their strength, due to financial shortages.
Likewise, multilateral agencies of control and enforcement, such as the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), could find difficult to expand or even keep its operating capacity. Concerning this organization, current aims of expanding its role, beyond its core verification responsibilities, should also come under review, to realistically adjust it to the brand new global financial situation.
Scarcity in availability of funds could also lead, at least in the short and mid terms, to a significant delay of the so-called “renaissance of the nuclear industry”, referred to the expansion in the number of projected reactors and power plants. Anyway, such postponement would not necessarily bring about reduction of global nuclear dangers.
In effect, states with past records of dubious nuclear behaviors could be able to reshape their aspirations, which have repeatedly sparked a vast disapproval by the global community.
For example, it seems unlikely that Iran, governed by a radical theocracy, could bend their priorities due to local economic impacts derived from the current collapse. This government, with the aim of becoming perpetual, has been, so far, strongly determined to fulfill its nuclear goals regardless of diplomatic efforts and top level international sanctions, and there is no visible sign which could anticipate a change on this matter. In this sense, and given its relevance, the realism of every other supposition should be, at least, carefully tested.
News on the recent agreement Washington-Pyongyang, which would allow restarting inspections over “declared” North Korean facilities, seems a little bit more encouraging, but they should be also taken with caution, to prevent costly backward moves.
Terrorism and other non-state actors with goals of acquiring weapons of mass destruction, usually funded from informal financial networks, could also take advantage of the collapse. In this sense, growth of illicit traffic of materials and nuclear technology, due to erosion of control mechanisms could be a plausible scenario.
All the stated issues open a new dilemma: actions by the global community to neutralize potential activities of concern (including enforcement ones, if required) to become effective, should be kept in place with independence of the global financial stress. But, at the same time is difficult to guess how their enormous costs will be afforded from now on, given the international situation.
In any case, the potential increase of nuclear risks derived from the global collapse, which could take the already vulnerable international community to an extremely problematic condition, should be managed without delay, by all means available.
Experience shows that global problems require global solutions, rather than isolated measures. This concept has been recently confirmed by the shy, but positive effects over the market’s confidence, derived from the agreement between the US Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank to jointly reduce interest rates. Coordinated efforts derived from the G7 and G20 summits could be also seen as promising signals of tuning within the global community.
Concerning global security, it is essential and urgent that politic leadership worldwide work together in order to spot, reach consensus, and put into practice a minimum set of key points, based on common interest, in order to preserve the huge efforts done so far to deal with proliferation dangers.
The outcome should be an achievable core plan defined with the conviction that leaving this key issue unattended, could lead to an aftermath of uncertain, but surely unfortunate and permanent consequences. The author is Chair of Nonproliferation for Global Security Foundation Back |
