Linking green militarization and critical military studies

Abstract

The precipitous increase in commercial poaching across parts of Africa has been met by progressively more militarized responses. Amounting to green militarization, we now see national armies, increasingly paramilitarized rangers, military tactics, and even sophisticated military technology used to address the problem. Scholarly investigations on the topic have largely been approached from a political ecology perspective and hence have not made connections with the equally relevant field of critical military studies (CMS). We see this as a missed opportunity. This paper is thus an early attempt to begin forging these connections. At the most general level, we introduce green militarization Ð as a practice and realm of scholarly debate Ð to CMS. By bringing in environmental conservation and non-human nature, this offers a broader view into the vast areas of nominally civilian life that are increasingly militarized, a defining interest of CMS. Second, we draw from core CMS insights Ð especially regarding the link between development and security Ð to grasp changing practices and trends in green militarization. In particular, we illustrate how the recent shift toward softer militarized approaches amounts to poaching-related soft-counterinsurgency, which we capture in the concept of the conservation-security-development nexus. Here, communities become the object of development interventions to Òwin hearts and mindsÓ and prevent their involvement in poaching, thereby neutralizing the security threats poaching might pose. We close by suggesting future areas of intersection between CMS and the political-ecological work on green militarization in hopes of inciting a deeper engagement.

Why we must question the militarisation of conservation

“…For example, militarised conservation tactics in specific contexts in South Africa often resemble apartheid-era counterinsurgency practices, where efforts to win the support of local people also coincide with tactics of intimidation and use of violence. These tactics also currently extend into Mozambique, and include: the development of informant networks, co-option and development of cultures of mistrust within communities ( Annecke and Masubele, 2016 ; Lunstrum, 2015 ; Massé et al, 2017a , Massé et al, 2017b ); raiding and invading people's homes in operations to uncover evidence of wildlife crimes ( Ramutsindela, 2016 ; Massé et al, 2017a ; Büscher, 2018 ); and active displacement of communities for conservation ( Massé and Lunstrum, 2016 ; Witter and Satterfield, 2018 ). More forceful approaches to conservation can also be accompanied by new incentive schemes, such as the provision of game meat to schools and water reticulation programmes.…”

“…There is a debate in conservation about whether it can or should address poverty and inequality; this is important because efforts to address these problems underpin ‘hearts and minds’ approaches. However, these approaches are then systematically undermined by practices of intimidation, violence and surveillance which can be part and parcel of militarisation ( Massé and Lunstrum, 2016 ; Massé et al, 2017a ; Ramutsindela, 2016 ). As discussed in more depth below, addressing inequalities and ensuring that conservation does not exacerbate them is necessary to tackle the underlying causes of poaching in the longer term (see for example Cooney et al, 2017 ; Haas and Ferreira, 2018 ; Hübschle, 2017 ; Hübschle and Shearing, 2018 ; Duffy et al, 2016 ; Duffy et al, 2015 ).…”

“…Understanding what militarisation means for those people can shed light on how the drive to save species by more forceful means has counterproductive effects in the longer term. For example, one of the most significant problems with militarisation is that it has the capacity to alienate local communities who object to the use of force to protect wildlife, the development of cultures of surveillance and their continued (often violent) exclusion from protected areas; such approaches will lose the support of the very people who are central to conservation efforts in the longer term ( Duffy et al, 2015 ; Cooney et al, 2017 ; Hübschle, 2017 ; Massé et al, 2017a , Massé et al, 2017b ). Further, a recent study by Holden et al (2018) details emergent findings that demand reduction campaigns coupled with sustainable livelihood approaches are more effective at tackling poaching for ivory than enhanced policing and enforcement alone.…”

“…As Sandbrook et al (2013) point out, there is sometimes a false distinction drawn between those who work on and in conservation. Indeed, researchers often work closely with practitioners, and have provided an important alternative avenue for them to draw attention to and express their concerns, criticisms and frustrations ( Barbora, 2017 ; Bennett et al, 2016 ; Lunstrum, 2014 ; Massé et al, 2017a , Massé et al, 2017b . Critical engagement can facilitate a better understanding of militarised conservation, its short and long-term implications, why alternatives are needed and what these might look like.…”

Militarization, stigma, and resistance: negotiating military reservist identity in the civilian workplace

“…Militarism and militarization are paradoxical, though; for example, alongside popular support for the UK armed forces, we see ongoing recruitment difficulties and waning support for the idea of overseas military intervention. A wealth of recent scholarship seeking to define and explain the causes and consequences of militarism and militarization has burgeoned across disciplines as diverse as international relations (Stavrianakis and Selby 2012), human geography (Woodward 2005;Rech et al 2015), feminist studies (Enloe 2000;Stern and Zalewski 2009;Mohanty 2011;Åhäll 2016;Wibben 2018) criminology (Kraska 2007;Salter 2014;Evans 2017), sociology (Shaw 1991;Martino 2012;McSorley 2012) and, of most relevance to the current article, CMS (Enloe 2015;Agathangelou 2017;Massé, Lunstrum, and Holterman 2017). Broadening and deepening formulations of militarism derived from earlier literatures (Liebknecht and Sirnis 1972), allied work has identified the spatially and temporally diffuse character of militarization (Hyde 2016) that can play out at the level of everyday commodities (Turse 2008;Jackson 2017) and assume both subtle and hidden forms (Giroux 2004;Kallender and Hughes 2018).…”