ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY : AN APPENDAGE TO GEO-POLITICAL WORLD ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES?

This article explores whether the rise of “environmental security” reflects genuine ecological concern or serves primarily as an instrument of U.S. geopolitical strategy after the Cold War. It traces the diffusion of security language into climate, resources, and health, and evaluates how framing environmental risks as security threats can mobilize resources but also centralize authority and militarize policy. The paper examines doctrinal statements, aid conditionalities, and coalition-building around transnational issues, arguing that outcomes vary by context. It concludes that environmental security can be constructive if embedded in multilateral norms, transparent financing, and locally owned adaptation plans; otherwise, it risks reinforcing power asymmetries.

The body begins with theory: securitisation, human security, and the political economy of global public goods. Section One dissects U.S. strategic documents and funding streams that elevated environment within broader stability agendas, connecting resource scarcity narratives to conflict-prevention programming. Section Two tests the thesis against case material—disaster relief logistics, pandemic preparedness, and climate resilience—showing where defense and development tools complemented, and where they collided with, local priorities. Section Three critiques risks: crowding out civilian institutions, privileging surveillance over participation, and conditioning aid on alignment with great-power objectives. Section Four proposes an alternative architecture: UN-anchored risk assessments, regional adaptation compacts, and transparent technology transfer that empowers local governments and communities. The conclusion argues that environmental security should enhance human well-being and ecological resilience rather than serve as a proxy for geopolitical management, and recommends metrics that privilege vulnerability reduction and community agency.