Thanks for those who saved a Scotsman from subscribing to Fortune. I've
read other documents on exactly the same subject.

Whereas I have little doubt that security is an issue which is closely
tied to sustainability, then I feel the Pentagon report, with our
current state of knowledge, is somewhat premature. That, having been
said, does not deny that migration and terrorism could result from
regional deprivation of sufficient resources to sustain life. The Rwanda
affair, 10 years ago, is a case in point.

However, if the money spent on security in any nation had been devoted
to preventing resource depletion, I venture to suggest that tight
security would not have been necessary. I'll go farther, into more
political realms: if just half the money spent on the two Iraq wars had
been channeled into Iraq as medical, welfare and educational aid,
instead of the useless sanctions, Saddam would have not risen to the
position he did and the country would have had a reasonable autonomous
government without a single coalition life lost. Dictatorships arise
only from hardship and poverty (cf. Hitler, Mugabe, Stalin etc.). Surely
our so-called "intelligence" (which has proved to be a misnomer) can
detect the conditions ripe for the rise of a dictatorship before it
happens and stop it at a bargain price before it gets a hold, with the
help of aid to the ordinary people. Prevention is better than cure.

So it is in the context of the Pentagon report. Instead of
sabre-rattling and establishing a "Fortress-USA", it would be far
cheaper to prevent the events occurring, in the first place. It reminds
me of Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration, which I believe was igned,
inter alia, by President George Bush Sr.:
"Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full
scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing
cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."

The UN went farther at the WSSD and, in paragraph 5 of their 2002
Declaration, it stated:
"Peace, security, stability and respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms, including the right to development, as well as respect for
cultural diversity, are essential for achieving sustainable development
and ensuring that sustainable development benefits all."

I believe that this sums it up. I pose many further questions about the
relationship between sustainability and the current climate of security
or, rather, the lack of it, globalisation, trade, governance, health and
safety, poverty, forestry and agriculture, tourism, winning minerals
and, above all, water and sanitation. Unfortunately, I know this view is
not shared by all, especially by some right-wing elements in a number of
countries who would rather believe more in closed-shop policies and the
power of arms, and who would label me as 'commie' or, at least, 'liberal'.

Brian

Joe Fjelstad wrote:

> http://www.fortune.com/fortune/subs/article/0,15114,582584,00.html
>
>