Constructing Environmental Security and Ecological Interdependence

Both the study and the practice of world pOliticS. have been afflicted, until recently, with a profound ecological myopia. The pursuit of military power was divorced from environmental protection to the point that whole ecosystems were laid waste in the name of national secu­ rity. The negative externalities associated with the pursuit of wealth were considered negligible, or at least their spatial scope was thought to involve only local or national politics. In short, environment was the in­ visible and putatively stable backdrop against which international actors enacted their dramas of conflict and cooperation. To the extent that it was considered at all, nature was perceived as a source of state power, whether through geostrategic positioning or natural resource endowments. So long as nature appeared to be resilient, abundant, and immutable, the study and practice of international relations could proceed despite this blind spot. The assumptions that sustaioned this blind spot throughout the industrial • era, however, are no longer tenable. As nature's productive and absorptive limits have become evident, all fields of social practice and analysis, in­ cluding international relations, are being compelled to widen their vision.' The progressive, yet still embryonic, of world politics since the 1970s scrambles conventional understandings of international re­ lations. The relationship between coercive power and ecological problems, for instance, raises a host of issues that do not find a comfortable home in traditional international relations discourse. Ecological degradation, in­ creasingly transnational in both its causes and solutions, typically involves a complex web of nonstate actors: industry, scientists, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and indigenous peoples. Thus, the greening of in­ ternational relations has entailed a movement away from its traditional state-centric orientation. A web of state and nonstate actors is involved not only in problem solving but also in problem definition or the social construction of prob­ lems. Although it would be reckless to deny that environmental have real physical referents and consequences, it is important to recognize that problems always presume a prior social process of recognition, pri­ oritization, and some level of assent. The obvious material character of en­ vironmental often obscures their less obvious social character.