Climate Change Threatens National Security

By: Charlotte Sparling

In the latest UN climate report, the Secretary-General starkly warned that we are in the midst of  “a ‘code red for humanity.’ ” The climate is collapsing and national security is at risk. While green energy is the solution, and investment into the sector is crucial to protect national security, this is not a simple fix.

Globally, accounting for 80% of energy production, 75% of greenhouse gas emissions, and nearly 90% of carbon dioxide emissions, fossil fuels are the largest contributors to climate change. Consequently, the World Health Organization has reported that around 99% of the world’s population breathe in air that has exceeded safe air quality levels, causing millions of deaths a year and $2.9 trillion in health and economic issues. 

This climate crisis extends beyond health concerns and into national security threats. Before Russia’s war on Ukraine, over 40% of Europe’s imported gas and roughly 25% of their oil came from Russia. When Russia turned off the tap, oil and gas prices skyrocketed. 

Energy is fundamental to a successful country. The power and influence fossil fuel exporting countries have over their tethered receiving countries, threatens the recipient’s national security. Hospitals, schools, homes, businesses, and governmental activities are all reliant upon energy. Cut that off, and the country is at its knees.  

Yet, Europe recognized their Achilles heel was their fossil fuel reliance, and shifted faster towards green energy. As they moved, so too did the world, which sped up the global transition towards green energy upwards of five to ten years.

Green is on the rise; out of the renewable energies, solar, wind, and hydropower are the three most promising. This transition to renewable energy is imperative, but the solution is by no means simple.

As a cheap and abundant source of energy, solar appears to be the perfect solution. If utilized to its full extent, one hour of sunlight generates more energy than the world consumes in a year. Yet, solar contributes only 3.6% to electricity production globally. This huge gap in utilizing solar is largely due to how expensive and difficult it is to store the energy. 

Wind, another cheap energy source, also is inefficient with storing excess energy. Simultaneously, wind turbines cause environmental concerns, such as bird collisions, habitat disruptions, and noise pollution. 

Hydropower outproduces all other forms of renewable energy in US electricity production and begins to address the energy storage problem. In these systems, water is pumped up to a higher elevation, from an initial energy source, and is released downhill through a turbine that generates energy when necessary. However, hydropower systems have problems of their own, including specific geographical needs, access to an energy source, and high capital inputs.

While pumped hydropower systems are one approach to the storage issue, batteries are another. The most common option is lithium-ion batteries. Unfortunately, these often utilize fossil fuels in transportation and manufacturing, while also containing nickel and cobalt, which are associated with complications of their own. 

Contaminating the air, water, soil, and natural habitats, nickel mining is extremely costly. The extraction itself produces sulfur dioxide and metal-infused dust. In Indonesia, nickel mining has caused deforestation, water pollution, and human health concerns. 

The mining of cobalt employs unsafe practices, child labor, and unregulated disposal of toxic waste, which causes water and crop pollution. In turn, this destabilizes the local regions and makes them more vulnerable.

The truth is this: no energy source is perfect. Countries must continue to fund research and development to progress this green transition forward. 

Currently, 80% of people live in countries that are net-importers of fossil fuels. To avoid being vulnerable to these countries turning off supply or fossil fuel depletion, green energy should be explored as a safer and a more abundant alternative. However, this assumes green energy is a viable solution, thus stressing the need for more resources to be devoted to solving this issue. 

Simply put, investing in green not only protects the environment, but also releases other countries from the grasp of fossil-fuel producing countries, which, in turn, boosts national security.

THE U.S. MUST TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION TO AID THE SUDANESE HEALTHCARE CRISIS

By: Anna Douglas Piper

Sudan is experiencing a rapidly deteriorating humanitarian crisis. The International Rescue Committee cites the escalating fighting, an economic crisis, and a near collapse of health care services, among other causes. 

The healthcare crisis presents the most urgent problem, and the United States must do more to help.

In April of 2023, conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) erupted into civil war. Though fighting has been concentrated in the capital city of Khartoum, reports of ethnic cleansing exist in other regions. More than 61,000 people have died. 26,000 deaths were a direct result of the violence, while the majority resulted from largely preventable diseases and starvation. 

The Sudanese conflict is the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. According to the World Health Organization, 11 million are in urgent need of life-saving health care. 

The healthcare crisis precedes the conflict, driven by long-term political and economic instability. The problem is compounded by lack of access to food, a key driver of disease. Millions are experiencing malnutrition, and famine was officially declared in the Darfur region in August of 2024. Exacerbated by the fighting, 25.6 million, over half of the population, are in desperate need of aid.

Over 70% of health facilities are currently non-functional. Sudan faces a complete lack of funding, supplies, and staff. Hospitals suffer from targeted attacks as well as repeated looting and occupation from both sides of the conflict.

"The situation in health clinics is beyond words," said Amelie Chbat, who oversees the International Committee of the Red Cross in Sudan. "The injured lack medicines, food, and water, and the elderly, women, and children are without essential treatments like dialysis or diabetes medications. And the situation is deteriorating."

Sudan’s health care system has virtually collapsed. 

The consequences are immeasurable. There is a severe strain on resources, including water, sanitation and hygiene services. Measles has killed more than 1,000 children, while a severe cholera outbreak has led to 8,000 cases and 299 deaths. Malnutrition is rampant, immunization levels are low, and care is nonexistent. Outbreaks will continue to have devastating effects, particularly for the youth. 

Humanitarian organizations have attempted to help, including the IRC, Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), The Red Cross, and more. However, access to the Sudanese has been difficult. Violence and movement restrictions on organizations have constrained aid delivery, especially in the south–where need is highest. The Assessment Capacities Project (ACAPS) rated aid constraints a 5 out of 5 (extreme). 

“The cost of inaction is already unbearable,” said Dr. Tammam Aloudat, president of the MSF Netherlands board. “It can be measured in the tens of thousands of lives lost and the millions of lives that are on the line as we speak.”

The U.S. has contributed financial assistance, food, and medical services to Sudan and neighboring countries. The most recent $424 million package was announced in September 2024, bringing US aid since April 2023 to over $2 billion. However, as diplomacy fails to reduce the conflict, the capacity to target rising needs will continue to fall.

The United States must do more. 

Though U.S. officials claim to be “steadfast in [their] support for the people of Sudan,” they must do more than call on the RSP and SAF to cease hostilities and allow in aid. Existing support is not enough–America must use its global influence to end the crisis. 

International pressure must be increased on the Sudanese forces, and the U.S. can play a major role. Unobstructed aid flow into the country is vital, and solutions are necessary to allow delivery of medical support. The United States can increase support for humanitarian organizations to bolster their presence and create a reliable supply movement into Sudan.

“Sudan and its suffering people have slipped down the world's list of priorities—forgotten by the media, neglected by political will, and overlooked by the humanitarian donor institutions that should be putting this catastrophe front and center,” says Dr. Mohamed Bashir, Sudanese medical staff member.

“Amid all this, I plead with the world: Do not let Sudan slip from your attention. At times, it feels as though no one cares, as if Sudan has been deliberately deprioritized by the global decision makers, pushed aside for other crises.”

“How much longer can we tolerate this inaction?”

Engagement With China: Lessons From United States - Japan Relations

By: Anna Douglas Piper

Today, the United States and China compete across almost every facet of the global market. Whether surrounding nuclear weapons, Taiwan, or economic relations, nearly every conversation has grown tense. Cooperation has broken down since 2018, largely due to various administrations’ trade wars, specifically the Trump administration’s strategies of hostile engagement.

Attitudes coming from China reflect much of the same hostility. Advocates of aggression have grown stronger – one of the only things Democrats and Republicans agree on today is a tough stance against China. This won’t change on its own, even with the upcoming election. 

We must not fall into this trap. A pre-Trump engagement strategy is not only possible, but necessary.

The U.S. must aspire to stabilize the tense relationship and allow conflict resolution. Mutual benefits include addressing shared challenges, like climate change and nuclear proliferation. An engagement strategy aligns with U.S. principles of international cooperation and diplomacy and ensures peace and stability are supported globally. 

To examine the effectiveness of engagement in promoting a liberal world order, we can turn to historical experiences with Japan. 

The U.S. saw confidence grow under the Bretton Woods System as trade barriers were reduced and Japan experienced rapid growth. As this growth continued into the 1980s, the U.S. began to worry about Japan’s rising influence. Economists warned Congress that Japan would surpass the U.S. in economic size. By 1995, Clinton was taking relations to the brink of a trade war – the U.S. even briefly imposed 25 percent tariffs on luxury vehicles.

A breakdown in cooperation was clear. 

Many argue this supports the realist prediction that engagement will fail in the long run. However, U.S.-Japan cooperation in the 1990s continued, countering the realist theory. A 1988 bilateral deal opened Japan’s beef, orange, and cigarette markets to imports, and the collision over automobiles was averted when the U.S. withdrew luxury car tariffs a month later. 

Though the end of the twentieth century witnessed international tensions that arguably undermined liberal institutionalism, this tension did not produce a collapse of the international system. Despite tensions with Japan, cooperation remained.

The realist perspective that increasing tensions inevitably lead to trade wars does not always explain how countries will interact. To better understand U.S.-China relations, we can consider the neoliberal institutionalist prediction that countries continue to move to a liberal world order.

Moves like trade restrictions are only a partial solution to combat a rising China. Export controls by the U.S. are unlikely to succeed unless other participating countries do the same, which they won’t do for fear of Chinese retaliation. It seems to be unavoidable that restrictions will either stagnate and dissipate or the two economies will forever be separated — the latter being unrealistic. 

The conflict between China and the United States is not inevitable, but depends entirely on the next moves from both sides. It is clear, then, that the U.S. must return to increased engagement with China.

Responses may vary. Countries with close economic relationships with China, including South Korea and Japan, may view engagement positively. However, others with competitive concerns may profit from a limited U.S.-China trade flow. Additionally, regions like Taiwan may not react positively to an apparent U.S. acceptance of China’s policies. While countries may be wary of China’s growing regional influence, increased engagement is more effective than trying to convince them to confront China through other means, given fears of retaliation.

The urgency for renewed engagement is clear. Rising tensions threaten global stability and undermine U.S. efforts to pursue cooperation. Both nations have the opportunity to address pressing challenges, though it remains to be seen how China would respond to such a move. We cannot rely on the upcoming election for a change. The stakes are high, but the attitude that the U.S. adopts creates impacts far beyond the borders of Washington and Beijing.