Dr. Paul Rogers discusses the new security paradigm.

Dr. Rogers is professor of Peace Studies at the University of Bradford, UK. His work focuses on security issues and conflict, paramilitary and terrorist movements.

Information on DFAIT's Canadian International Policy eDiscussions:

View current eDiscussion

Security
View eDiscussion (now closed)
Questions and Resources

View Video Interview Library

Video Interview

Note: The opinions presented are not necessarily those of the Government of Canada.

Paradigm shift	2 minutes	Quicktime
Problems for international security	3 minutes	Quicktime
Public involvement	1 minutes	Quicktime
Middle East public opinion	2 minutes	Quicktime
US election	2 minutes	Quicktime

(Video players are available here: QuickTime | Windows Media)

Transcript:

Paradigm shift

I’m Paul Rogers, I’m professor of Peace Studies at Bradford University. I was originally trained as a biologist. I worked in international development in Uganda for several years - that will be nearly 40 years ago. I got very interested in the political aspects of development, particularly in conflicts over resources. Over the last 20 to 30 years, I have worked more and more on international security issues. My main interests at present are the major factors which are likely to determine conflict over the next 20 to 30 years. I’m also particularly interested in paramilitary and terrorist movements and how western military are responding to them.

I think in some ways there was a paradigm shift at 9/11, but it was in combination with what was already happening in the United States. The Bush administration when it came in, in early 2001, was essentially rather more unilateralist and independently minded on security issues. It was giving up on a number of treaties, and really believed that there was a prospect for the United States to show unique leadership in the new century. The Project for the New American Century, in a sense, epitomizes that. And essentially, prior to 9/11, by July-August 2001, there was a feeling in Washington that the United States was on a roll and could really demonstrate international leadership of a particular kind - a new American century in a way. It was 9/11 coming on top of that which I think really represents the paradigm shift. 9/11 showed innate vulnerabilities which hadn’t been anticipated. The end result was a very forceful response. I do think that if Gore had got the presidency in 2001, you would have had a rather different response. But under Bush it was forceful, in a way which was trying to regain what appeared to be being lost, this prospect of real leadership. You put those two together and I think you have a strong explanation for the force which was used in Afghanistan, the high point really with the State of the Union Address in January 2002, and the West Point speech – axis of evil, the need to preempt threats. It all combines to present a very different United States from that of the Clinton era. There I think you have the paradigm shift overall.

Problems for international security

In the longer term, the major problems for international security are going to be the effects of the combination of three things. One is the widening socio-economic divide. It’s widening quite rapidly; a billion people are doing very well, five billion are not, frankly. Secondly, you have a much more educated majority on the margins. People are much more aware of their “majority marginalization”; and in a sense, we are facing a revolution of frustrated expectations. You see it on occasion with actual insurgencies, as we’re seeing in Nepal in the present time. The third factor is more in the future, but clearly it’s there, and that is environmental constraints, of which climate change is going to be the dominant one. It is now highly likely that the tropics could progressively dry out on present trends. That will cause formidable problems. You put those three together and you get some sort of picture of problems which are going to arise over the next 10 to 30 years, but which have to be countered now.

Turning to the shorter term, ‘the war on terror’ - as it is called – has now been under way for almost three years and is not achieving the results expected. Al-Quaeda and its affiliates are as active, if not more active, than in the three years prior to 9/11. We have seen a whole host of attacks, most recently in Jakarta and in Taba in Egypt, and there are probably many more to come.

So the idea of defeating this terrorism threat - as is it perceived - by traditional military means does not seem to be working. In many ways, linked to that you have Iraq which is proving very difficult. There is therefore a need for a short term re-think plus some real political wisdom in terms of the long-term problems that we are going to face.

Britain is in a curious position because on some issues, such as international development and climate change, it’s actually really quite positive and it is exercising, even to a rather limited extent, something of a leadership role.

As far as a country such as Canada is concerned, Canada I think is in a very significant and interesting position. It does have a certain degree of influence within the United States, although not great, possibly not as great as Britain. But Canada has a long history of involvement within the UN. It’s one of a small cluster of countries that, which I could say with some honesty actually punches above its weight in issues like development, environment, and to some extend security as well. There may be problems with that at times, but it means that within the UN group, countries such as Canada, along with a few others, can have a role which is significant - I would even go so far as to say may have some potential in helping to create a more viable long term approach to international security worldwide.

Involvement

I think this is one of the areas where you use that very old rather hack phrase “knowledge is power”. Essentially, in these issues like the global socio-economic divisions, climate change, the dependence on fossil fuels, people need to make themselves much more aware of the long-term trends. I would certainly say that if people are prepared to do that, they can then look at the kinds of arguments which are being put, to suggest a more sane long-term security policy. Issues in relation to peacekeeping, conflict prevention, conflict resolution, a return to a more multilateral approach on issues like climate change, landmines, arms sales and the rest, these are all areas where I think an active public interest can actually lead to a degree of pressure on governments of any political complexion. So this is an area where one would want to see a wider debate, and in that sense, the kind of initiative that you have in Canada, with this kind of weaponry I think is very much at the fore and very worthwhile.

Longer term

In the longer term, there is of course the risk of considerable instability in Saudi Arabia. So you have that as a major issue. Saudi Arabia transcends every other country in terms of oil reserves. Nearly 27% of all the world's oil is in that one country; Iraq is the only one that comes anywhere near that amount, with about 11-12%. So you do have potential problems in Saudi Arabia.

And quite separately, you have the issue of the antagonism between the United States and Iran. Iran is very complex because you do have conservative theocrats who have considerable power at the present time, but there is a whole new generation of Iranians coming up who are not prepared to accept that kind of theocracy. So there are internal problems within Iran, and the problem is, if the United States singles out Iran as a country for action, it’s actually consolidating the position of the conservative theocrats against the reformers. In other words, again it is rather counter-productive. And it is worth remembering that in the longer term, Iran is second only to Russia in its access to gas reserves, which is going to become increasingly important over the next 20 or 30 years.

Linked to that, and perhaps most intriguing of all, is the way in which China is making approaches to major Middle East oil and gas producers. That I think is likely to lead in the longer term, to tensions between China and the United States, particularly if you have a more right-wing administration in Washington.

So taken together, my own view is that the Gulf is of crucial importance in international security. And there is a desperate need for alternative approaches to prevent greater instability than we have in the present time.

Middle East public opinion

One thing that is probably worth talking about is what is happening in Iraq. Essentially, if you track the developments in Iraq over the past nearly 20 months now, the reality is of a developing insurgency, and very serious insurgency. The Iraqi government, which is essentially an appointed regime, is not truly in power across the country. The United States is finding it difficult to control this insurgency, and if anything, it is escalating at the present time.

At the same time, with the re-election of President Bush, the neoconservative view of the need to suppress the problems in Iraq is going to remain dominant. I think the best bet therefore is that the insurgency is going to continue. One extraordinary feat you have is that in the run-up to the war, one of the arguments made for the war was that there was a link between the Saddam Hussein regime and Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. Very little evidence of that is being produced; almost certainly there were hardly any links. What is now happening though, is that Iraq is becoming a kind of beacon for more radical Jihadists, and people are now moving into Iraq to aid the insurgency. In a sense, the kind of combat experience, which some of the paramilitaries associated with Al-Qaeda were getting in Afghanistan, they no longer generally get in Afghanistan; they are now getting it in Iraq. So you have this extraordinary irony that the situation in Iraq is providing a new training ground for Islamic paramilitaries. That I think was certainly unexpected, and as long as the insurgency lasts in Iraq, then I think this is going to represent quite a major factor long term.

Linked to this, one has to appreciate the extraordinary importance of Gulf oil in the long term. I recognize that Canada itself has some potential, very considerable resources if the price goes high over a number of years, but essentially, in the near future, 2/3 of all the world’s easily exploitable oil reserves are in the Gulf. And the Gulf is of crucial geopolitical significance. One of the real problems at present is of course that in much of the Arab world, the perception - I’m not talking about the reality – the perception is that you actually have an American operation, in conjunction with the Israelis, to control Arab oil. Whether that’s true or not is neither here nor there. That is the perception. And one of the interesting things, which is hardly reported in the Western media, is the way that across the Arab world, there is very considerable knowledge of the currently very close links between the American military and the Israeli military. This again is sending a very difficult signal, which I think is actually counter-productive to US security interests.

US election

With President Bush re-elected, with a pretty clear mandate - it was a pretty clear election result - then the idea of the kinds of pursuit of policies which have developed over the last three years will, if anything, be strengthened. Against that, the United States has very considerable difficulties in Iraq – one tends to forget there are probably still 17,000 or so combat troops in Afghanistan fighting quite a bitter insurgency war. So the United States is really quite badly stretched in a military sense.

It is likely that very considerable force will continue to be used in Iraq, in the hope of suppressing the rebellion. I’m bound to say I think this is unlikely to work. So the innate perception in the United States of a requirement to preempt is being hindered by the difficulties which are now being encountered. I don’t think that is going to lead to any major change in policy over the next two to three years. And it is at least possible that there will be some kinds of moves – not necessarily military – against countries such as North Korea and particularly Iran. In many ways, Iran is going to be the country to watch, because of the close relationship between the Bush administration and the Israeli government, but also because of a much greater unease among European states as to the risks of really confronting Iran in the short term.

Dr. Rogers' articles (in English only)
Professor Rogers' International Security monthly briefings. Oxford Research Group.

Professor Rogers' weekly commentary on the 'war on Terror'. Open Democracy.

Politics in the next 50 years: The Changing Nature of International Conflict. (October 2000) Peace Studies Papers, Fourth Series, Working Paper no. 1. University of Bradford, Department of Peace Studies, October 2000.

International Security in the Early Twenty-First Century. (January 2000) International Security Information Service (ISIS) Briefing Paper, No. 76.