BLOG
April 5th, 2017
Via Future Directions International, some speculation on the US global water strategy 2017 under President Trump:
President Donald Trump’s administration – along with the US Agency for Aid and Development and the State Department – must produce a Global Water Strategy (GWS) and submit it to Congress by 1 October 2017. This document will outline how the US plans to secure the supply, sanitation and governance of water resources in at-risk countries and regions. This will be the US’s first GWS and, if it passes Congress, will shape US water leadership over the long-term. A chief concern for observers will be how US global water policy will look under Trump and how will it impact US water, and by extension, climate, leadership.
Comment
Examining how Trump chooses to treat existing climate policy from the previous Obama administration gives an insight into the position that the Trump administration is likely to take on the GWS. Trump has already moved on six Obama-era climate policies, via executive order, which he believes are ‘job killing regulations.’ In a way, Trump’s executive orders signal to the intelligence community and both the departments of defence and homeland security that climate change is not a major security issue for his administration. Despite officials from defence and intelligence stating plainly that climate change is a threat multiplier and a threat to global security, Trump has signalled that he, at this stage, is more concerned with his domestic agenda, particularly healthcare and tax reform, than America’s long-term international foreign commitments to climate and water security.
Trump’s zero-sum vision of the world offers further insight into the kind of GWS that may be produced come October. Despite the recognition given by Rex Tillerson and James Mattis, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defence respectively, of the dangers of climate change to national security, Trump has signalled that the US will not be hostage to internationally-decided climate policy that in his eyes, restrict what the US can do with its domestic economic policy. This has been evident in his recent axing of Obama-era climate policy that some argue jeopardises the US’s leadership position in the Paris Climate Agreement. Trump believes that the world today is a zero-sum one, where statecraft and agreements are not defined by how well both countries benefit, but how effectively one country (the US) can crush the other and profit as a result. What Trump needs to understand, however, is that the world has moved in to an Age of Consequences where security challenges such as water insecurity and climate change are capable of triggering events, such as, in the worst case scenario, conflict, that would have global ramifications. Water insecurity in South Asia, for example, could contribute to conflict between India and Pakistan, but the ramifications extend beyond the two states. A possible nuclear exchange could mean worldwide crop failure and a possible global famine. Regional stability is thus a security interest for the US.
The GWS must aim to be a genuinely global policy that shows that the White House is prepared to deal with 21st century security challenges. To do this, it must firstly be backed up by a strong US stance on climate change. Reinstating the Obama-era climate executive order of 2013, that instructed government departments to prepare for climate change as a security threat, would provide this stance. Its reinstalment is unlikely to occur, but nonetheless, it needs to happen because climate change and water security are inextricably linked. Secondly, a GWS must be a result of a government-wide action. This means restoring the Presidential Memorandum ordered in September 2016 to better coordinate government agencies’ efforts to address the security implications of climate change. Before embarking on a global water policy, the Trump administration must first have in place a plan to coordinate government departments that would work together to produce the necessary strategies to cope with climate shocks to water supplies both at home and abroad. James Mattis has declared the Department of Defence’s support for a climate action plan, but this needs to be co-ordinated with commitments from other departments. The GWS can only be global if a number of different departments agree on the US’s “responsibility to prepare” for national, and then foreign, climate shocks. Trump’s realist streak will more than likely show come October, but the President must realise that the securitisation of water supplies in foreign lands enables the US to manage future policy problems, like migration and conflict, with greater ease.