Citation

Hartmann B. Environ. Urban. 1998; 10(2): 113-127.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1998, Human Settlements Programme, International Institute for Environment and Development, Publisher SAGE Publishing)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

12295043

Abstract

This paper critically examines the literature on the interaction between population, the environment, and development. It posits that population pressure and resource scarcities are unfairly blamed for internal conflicts in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Internal conflicts are, in fact, affected by underlying economic and political causes (international companies, development assistance agencies, and military). This reasoning implies that the national security threats are environmental groups, poor women, and social change groups, which in fact should be integrated within solutions to poverty, environmental destruction, and violence. The US military's focus on "neutralizing environmental consequences that could lead to instability" and promoting sustainable development is misspecified and falls within the domain of civilian agencies. Use of military satellites by the US Central Intelligence Agency in environmental surveillance raises questions about the management of secret archives. The scarcity-conflict model has an indirect role in misshaping public opinion, legitimizes population control as a top priority, neglects gender issues, and dehumanizes refugees. Evidence indicates that the conflicts in Rwanda were the result of institutional failure and ethnic divisions. Homer-Dixon's model fails due to weak definitions of scarcity, ignorance of the role of colonial history and economic inequities, idealized views of the state, and neglect of external factors. The scarcity-conflict model is popular due to opportunism and political pragmatism. For the military, it provides new rationales for a huge budget.

Language: en