Migration, Climate Change, and Security in the Pacific

This transcript was generated using AI and may contain inaccuracies. If you notice an error, feel free to email [email protected].

CHAPTERS 

[00:02:02]: Security as a means to address instability and uncertainty 

[00:03:25]: How climate change is increasingly experienced at the local level 

[00:06:53]: Sea-level rise, displacement, and implications for Pacific island states 

[00:10:13]: Migration pathways and their role in regional diplomacy 

[00:13:18]: Policy responses to climate-related displacement 

[00:15:37]: The role of the military in climate-related and humanitarian contexts 

[00:19:15]: How climate-related instability can contribute to broader security risks 

TRANSCRIPT
[00:00:03.15] 

Welcome to Changing Climate, Changing Migration. Coming to you from the Migration Policy Institute, I'm Julian Hattem. This is a podcast exploring how climate change is affecting migration. There are a lot of ways that climate change can force or encourage people to leave their homes. Fast moving events like hurricanes and wildfires are an obvious threat. Drought and soil salinization can destroy farms. And warming oceans might be a problem for people who catch fish for a living. All of those factors might make people decide to move someplace else. In doing so, and through other ways, climate change can increase the instability and maybe even the likelihood of violent conflict, which itself can force people to flee their homes and have very large repercussions around the world. World that's the topic of my conversation today. My guest today is Admiral Scott Swift. Admiral Swift spent more than 40 years in the U.S. navy, including as commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet from 2015 to 2018. Admiral Swift, thank you so much for joining me. I'm honored to have you here today.

[00:01:11.04] 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you and through you, your audience. I think this issue is a very important one and I'm grateful for the opportunity to share what insights I might have.

[00:01:24.04] 

Thank you. I guess, generally speaking, how does climate change affect global security and particularly in the Pacific, where you've done a lot of work and where I know there has been a lot of focus on climate security threats in general?

[00:01:39.19] 

Well, the first thing I would say was, is to anchor a little bit on the term security and the context that I use as someone with a broad military background. Oftentimes people think and talk about security as a, as an end, and I think security is more of a means. I think security for security's sake has little value. But when you apply security in two areas, specifically in areas where there is instability or uncertainty, then that's the real value of security. I spend a lot of time in the national security domain and very little time in the national defense domain. As an example, defense is more binary. Security is more broad. And so where there is good stability and good certainty, I think security runs in the background. I think when the situation becomes so insecure or there's so much uncertainty, I think there's a role for security organizations, the military being one of them, to play a role, but always under the guidance of civil authority. There's other, you know, there's police organizations that people are more familiar with, but I see the police as just another example of one of those security organizations that, you know, parallels the military.

[00:03:19.21] 

You know, we operate in different domains so with that as a background, I think we are at a point in the world now where the debate is diminished as to is climate change something real that needs to be dealt with? To how is it that we deal with it because it is so destabilizing, it is causing so much uncertainty in everyday lives. I mean, I live in New England. I live on a river. Our property, our home is about 200ft above the level of the river. The river is tidal. And the area below our home, the first 100ft, is only 2ft or so above the depth of the river. It's reasonable to assume, in fact, we're seeing flooding that we've never seen before on the lower part of our property. The house next door is right on the edge of the river. And so they. It has a huge economic impact. It has impact on the ability to get insurance. It has numerous impacts that people are seeing in their everyday lives. That I think 10 years ago and certainly 20 years ago, people were listening to the debate, but they weren't able to personalize it.

[00:04:34.06] 

Now I think people are personalizing this issue of climate change and what are its impact. We talk about global warming. Global warming is measurable. I mean, this is science. I mean, you can see how the temperature has, has increased. So it's a very insightful question to begin the dialog with. And I hope that that some of the thoughts that I've shared have helped expand your audience thinking as to how to think about climate change and global warming and those issues that we're facing today.

[00:05:08.08] 

No. That's great. I appreciate that that is a helpful framing. I mean, I guess I'm wondering on a bit of a broader level, are we seeing instances in where this climate related instability, climate related uncertainty is rolling downhill and kind of gathering momentum and turning into a climate related conflict or another way to think phrase that is will, will we see a large scale quote, unquote, climate war in our lifetimes? Is that aid an endpoint of some of these concerns?

[00:05:42.11] 

That's another great question. I'm glad we have two hours for this session to fully cover that point. Let me back into the answer to that question as well. I think one of the challenges that we face in the discourse and dialog today is on the scale of national implications. I think the examples are fairly small. You know, I mentioned the challenge that we have here in the community that I'm in New England, you know, Colorado, I was just. I have some friends that live in Colorado and I was talking about the amount of rainfall that we have received here. In New England this year, you know, beyond anything in my memory. And they talk about the amount of snowfall, but that doesn't, that they don't view that as an environmental challenge that it's creating. In fact, from a skiing perspective, you could argue that it's helping the economy, if it's a skiing economy. So I think that the national implications are small enough. And where I see them, based on my experience, is in the Pacific and in particular the South Pacific. So when you look at a percentage of a nation that the territory of that nation is being reduced percentage wise significantly by rising sea levels now, you see real implications.

[00:07:09.05] 

But they're small. People have a hard time relating to it. So if you look at any one of the countries in the South Pacific, they've been in the news several times where islands, small islands, small population, less than 50 have had to move. This leads to the discussion about could climate change lead to war? So these individuals become stateless and to some extent, you know, their homes are gone, their livelihood is gone. If they were fishermen, if they were farmers, that property is gone. So they get absorbed into the other islands of the state, creating crowding issues. This is climate migration, but it's internal to a nation. If you scale that up to climate migration, that's driven out of a nation completely, we see the manifestation of the implications of such migrations in migrations that are occurring because of war. We see it out of Syria with the number of immigrants that have come into Europe, for example. And back to the two terms I have used. It's creating uncertainty and instability in Europe, which goes at the core of governance issues within the nations of Europe. We see it along the southern border of the United States with immigration.

[00:08:29.19] 

That's occurring based on gang warfare, lack of governance within their communities. So think in the context of, and we argue about, is there a real need for those individuals to, to migrate, to move to the United States or to move to Europe because it's, it's human based. The environmental argument, once it occurs, there's no arguing these people become stateless. And so where is it that they turn to? And those are the triggers we see it in, in the South China Sea. That's more in the news. Was some of these claims by nations that are historical in nature and those are leading to potential triggers for war. May I invite your audience to do some research on second Thomas Shoal in the South China Sea. This debate between the Philippines and China about who has sovereignty claims of the Second Thomas Shoal. This is an example of, to answer your question directly of what could occur, instead of being driven by historical claims, these are driven by environmental reality that these islands disappear. And now the people that, that called that island home based on their national affiliation now have no place to go. And it becomes very destabilizing, very much a security issue.

[00:09:52.24] 

That's great and I'm glad you brought it back to China there. I think that you're obviously the expert, but whenever we're talking about security concerns in the Pacific, China is a bit of the elephant in the room. And I wonder, I mean, this is a bit of a tangent, but there's, there's a diplomatic angle to this too that I want to bring in, which is it seems to me like in some ways legal migration pathways can be a sort of diplomatic bargaining chip in terms of dealing with some of these smaller countries in regards to China. So I'm speaking particularly, there was a recent deal between Australia and the very small country of Tuvalu which could allow a few hundred people from Tuvalu, which is beset by lots of sea level rise issues, to move to Australia. And basically in exchange, Australia gets some sort of de facto control over Tuvalu's security arrangements, which is kind of a China posturing element. Without talking about that deal in particular. Or you can if you want to, I guess. Does it seem possible or likely that migration avenues, migration pathways, that some sort of migration element can be in the mix as kind countries of the west try and firm up alliances in the Pacific and solidify their position vis a vis China? Is that a, does that question make sense?

[00:11:18.16] 

It does make sense. I would argue, I would be very much against, and this may be a mischaracterization of the question that you ask. I would be very much against taking advantage of conditions driven by climate change for national objectives. I don't think that's what's happening in the case of Australia. I think that what is happening with Australia and Tuvalu. My view is based on the facts that I have, is this is what happens naturally on the global stage as nations resolve the frictions and the concerns that they have within their own national status as well as the international forum. And this goes to the, to the international rules based order. When you talk about conflict, I think by vast, a vast majority of historical occurrences of armed conflict have resulted over economic issues. Now the trigger may not have been economic, but at its core it's economic. And I think that's what is at core with this. You know, the challenges that are being manifest with how to accommodate and how not to accommodate claims of any nation. And it might be the PRC, it might be other countries as well. So my view is that the situation with Australia and Tuvalu, this is the natural application of the rules based order and Tuvalu is making an informed national decision of what's in their best interest.

[00:12:59.24] 

It should be their right as a liberal democracy to make that decision with whomever they choose. It could be China, it could be Australia, as long as it's done through discourse and dialog, not force and coercion, economic force and coercion, immigration force and coercion, whatever it may be. So these forced migrations, for whatever reason they occur, they should be addressed for what their core is. And if their core is climate, there's, there's very little control over the people that are migrating have on that. I think it's arguable as well. I think the people migrating from the war in Syria, I mean look at what's happening in Gaza for instance. It's arguable, did they have any control over that? But that's where the debate, that's where the debate should be. So I think that, I think this is why this climate change issue is so challenging, is people have not made the connection. You've only been through two questions so far. Both of those connections have been with the implications of China with climate change to stability and uncertainty, which goes direct to regional security, national security and international security as well. It's a compelling argument that people are accepting climate change as a reality, but there's not a clear understanding of the implications that has to national security and international security.

[00:14:27.05] 

So I guess what then is the role of militaries, of authorities? I mean you mentioned along with police and other authorities, but let's talk about the military in particular, since that's your particular expertise.

[00:14:39.11] 

So you characterized myself earlier as being an expert and I'll take this opportunity to clarify that. I don't feel like I'm an expert at anything.

[00:14:51.03] 

I'm not sure who is, is, but, okay.

[00:14:52.17] 

Well I, I have, I, I'm, I listen carefully when people self identify as experts or are identified as experts to what they have to say with, with a, a, a bit of a, a skeptical view at, at first. So, but I, so I don't describe myself as an expert. I describe myself as a practitioner. And with that practitioner I, I bring in, in the work that I do now, I bring that practitioner's perspective on the solution first of all the problems. Well, let me back up a little bit. I would say the first thing is when we have these discussions when you talk about the military. Before we talk about a military solution, we should talk about what to do. What are the various solutions to a problem set? Not just military. In fact, I think the military should be the last tool that we reach into, into our international toolkit of solutions. The first thing is to ask what to do. The next thing is to ask why do we do it? So what is it that we should do about climate change? The next thing is why is it important? Because it's so compelling, even if it's not impacting a state like Colorado, they should be aware of the relationship they have with a state like Massachusetts.

[00:16:07.02] 

And if it's destabilizing in Massachusetts, certainly from an economic perspective, it very well could be destabilizing in, in Colorado, we haven't talked about hurricanes and cyclones and those issues. Look at what's happening. There's a very interesting article in the New York Times just yesterday about what's happening in the insurance industry. And I believe it was Iowa or maybe it was Indiana, that insurance companies are just leaving. They're not providing insurance there because these climatic conditions that they're just losing so much money that the business model is not supportable. So the why part is the compellence is why is it compelling that we talk about this climate change and then we get to the how, how do we get after it? Now I believe there's a military role to play in how do we get after climate change, but it has to be under civil control. And if it's in an international. Let's go to back to the example of Tuvalu that you used. If there's evacuations that are needed, if there's engineering that needs to be done in their harbors, we have incredible engineers in the military that can help with that in direct support.

[00:17:21.24] 

If there's transportation needed to move people, the military has great capability, amphibious lift ships, airlifts, many different assets that can be used. But the leadership role has to be one of the, the international community that it has to be invited by the state. And in my experience, on the US perspective, the State Department should have the lead. Now there's, there's the EPA, there's other organizations within the US Government that would advise, and it may be the military that is providing the material solutions. But I'm very reluctant to have the military take a lead, especially with the potential of it being characterized as a military operation. It's not. It's a humanitarian operation. And the military participates in humanitarian operations innumerable times through any season. The cyclone season in the Pacific, but it's always done under the leadership of civilian personnel. State Department coordinating with a nation that we're serving, not with a direct military leadership role, specifically in the absence of State Department.

[00:18:35.18] 

That's, I think an important point. I, yeah, I guess the, the military, the US Military in particular and other militaries have a very long history of acting in response to humanitarian urgencies or humanitarian events. Evacuations, helping people get out of dangerous zones. I guess what is, I mean, I feel like you've been hinting around it, but let's confront it directly. What is the concern about a quote unquote military led operation or subsuming that civilian control, the State Department or, you know, Foreign Ministry, whatever, control of the military? What is the concern about going too far in terms of the military's role in responding to some of these incidents?

[00:19:15.02] 

Okay, I'll give you some examples within the US history. And this isn't the, this is really the National Guard that has been used. But if you look at riots that we've had throughout our history when police have been involved, there's been times that it's been challenging this difference of opinion about police brutality or whatever. But as soon as the National Guard comes in, when, when the military is called in, I, I think it's, my view is that it, a clear statement is being made that says there is no negotiated solution here. Diplomacy has failed. We have turned to a military solution. The military is, it goes back to stability, uncertainty. The military comes in in a very heavy handed way. You know, we're, we're not diplomats. By training to reestablish security, by increasing the stability and reducing the instability in a given area. So that's one point is we need to be very careful about the use of the military from a, from a climatic sustaining stability, increasing the sense of certainty that is created with climatic change conditions. The other point is if the military is involved, you're one step away from escalation, military escalation.

[00:20:50.07] 

And the second question you ask is what is the potential of having some kind of climatic war or you know, a conflict, a military conflict that's triggered by climatic change. This is the example of how it could happen. That's why we need to be so careful about applying military solutions and be very clear of what the objectives of those solutions is and who is in ultimate control of command of that operation. It has to be someone from State Department. It has to be some civilian control. We understand this as liberal democracies and we need to be very clear about the actions that we're taking almost out of time.

[00:21:28.11] 

But just very briefly to sum up, are you optimistic about where we are and where we're going? I mean, I know the military has been raising some degree of concern about climate change's potential to upset certainty, upset stability for several years. How are we doing? Are things getting better? Is the future bright or are you pessimistic?

[00:21:51.18] 

So I think we. I think I am optimistic. The military is one of the first organizations, I think, that have spoken out about concerns with respect to climate change, the implications that it has to create instability that eventually the military may have deal with, may have to deal with. You've talked about this and those military leaders that have spoken out about it have been roundly criticized. The Admiral Locklear, when he was the INDOPACOM command, talked about the challenges of the Arctic and climate change and he was roundly criticized for it. I would invite your viewers to Google that now. He appears to be prescient and forward looking and anticipating where we are. It gives me a sense of a confidence that now those voices are at least not pushed back again. So I wouldn't say they're embraced, but now they're recognized. As I said at the opening, I think that the challenges of climate change are upon us and we understand that. So I am confident. But what I am unchanged is the critical necessity of what I would describe as urgency, that we shouldn't panic. We should be very thoughtful in the approaches that we take.

[00:23:09.19] 

And a sense of urgency I think best describes that. So I hope that your viewers look for a place to invest themselves with a sense of urgency of where they can make a difference and encourage them not to judge their own personal commitment. Is it making a difference? But look across the broad organizations that are investing of themselves because they are making a difference and every individual can make a difference when applied to a broader goal that this podcast and what you're doing is helping very much in that effort.

[00:23:44.03] 

That's great. Thank you so much for your time, Admiral. We should probably wrap things up there, but this has been super interesting. I learned a lot and I really appreciate you taking the time to speak with me today.

[00:23:52.19] 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to participate.

[00:23:56.11] 

Admiral Scott Swift is the former commander of the US Pacific Fleet. He retired from the US Navy in 2018 and he's also the founder of the Swift Group. He's a research affiliate at MIT, Senior Fellow at the center for Naval Analysis, adjunct Professor at the Naval War College, a board member of the US Naval Institute, and an Advisory Board Member of Spirit of America thank you for tuning in to this episode of Changing Climate, Changing Migration. Make sure to subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. That way you can catch all of our new episodes as soon as they come out. You can also dig through our archives online at migrationpolicy.org/podcasts. If you liked my conversation with Admiral Swift, I'd suggest you check out our previous episode with former U.S. homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, in which we discuss homeland security threats. Or my conversation with Julia Blocher, who spoke about predictions for future climate related migration and and the possibilities for conflict. And while you're on the site, please subscribe to our Migration Information Source newsletter. It's absolutely free and offers top level insights on all kinds of migration around the world.

[00:25:19.02] 

This episode of the podcast was produced by Daniella Espacio. Assistance came from Lisa Dixon, and editorial oversight was provided by Michelle Mittelstadt. Our theme music is Touch by Patrick Patrikios. My name is Julian Hattem. Thank you for listening.