Cozens, director of the New Zealand think-tank Center for Strategic Studies, is less worried about the security threat posed by Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) than about overfishing in the South China Sea.
Overfishing? Cozens considers it as big a security problem as the nuclear threat on the Korean peninsula and countries’ overlapping efforts to extract oil from the South China Sea.
Think about it, he tells me. Southeast Asia has a population of about 500 million. If only a tenth of that — the poorest 50 million who are dependent on the sea for food and livelihood — were to lose their principal source of protein and go hungry, think of the social unrest it could trigger across the region.
That could worsen already serious problems of national security, including piracy, illegal migration, drug trafficking and of course terrorism. More people will flock to developed cities, aggravating urban blight.
"I call it irresponsible resource extraction," Cozens says of overfishing.
He is part of a growing number of people espousing the idea that the military is just one component of national security. Governments, Cozens says, must consider the "human dimension" in promoting national security. This means dealing with problems such as human smuggling, the use of child labor to gain an edge in international trade, and yes, environmental degradation.
Cozens has been discussing these ideas with counterparts from countries in the Asia-Pacific, including the Philippines where he works with Prof. Carolina Hernandez, who helped draw up proposals for defense and military reforms. The Center for Strategic Studies prepares studies and promotes "human diplomacy" for a "comprehensive and cooperative" rather than competitive security structure in the region. The center facilitates dialogue to deal with tricky transnational problems that have implications on national security.
There is one big problem with the work of these think tanks: are policy makers listening to them?
"Probably not," Cozens admits. "Political leaders do not look at these time bombs."
There is a strong focus on the military aspect of national security, especially because it brings good publicity in the light of the war on terror. This isn’t bad per se; the Armed Forces of the Philippines can use a lot more capability upgrading. What our policy makers have neglected, however, are the issues that should complement the military aspect of national security.
Governments have to rethink the way they view problems such as illegal migration. Currently, immigration rules, all geared toward keeping people out, aren’t working as globalization opens the doors to labor mobility.
"You cannot stop human ingenuity," Cozens says.
"What are you defending against?" he asks. The answer to that is bigger than the JI threat, which is why promoting national security cannot be left entirely to the military or the government.
"Security is not the preserve of people with guns. Security depends on each and every one of us. It’s a collective responsibility. Everybody has a role to play," Cozens says.
Naturally he cites the example of New Zealand, whose concept of defense is not offensive but "the coercive use of force in highly regulated circumstances."
Those who believe wars must sometimes be fought to bring peace will probably dismiss this as a lot of bull and think New Zealand is just weaseling out of responsibilities to preserve world peace.
Cozens fell short of saying New Zealand does not believe in promoting its national security by attacking sovereign countries. He is no America-basher and the United States is part of the Center.
"US engagement in Asia is vital," he says. "The United States is the guarantor of big-picture security in the region."
New Zealand does have a strong anti-nuclear policy that has made its defense ties with the United States less than robust. New Zealand opposed the war in Iraq but its troops are involved in reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. Wellington announced recently that it is extending its troops’ stay in that country.
New Zealand prides itself in being clean and green. Its products are renowned for world-class quality. The country is blessed with some of the world’s most picturesque landscapes, from glaciers in the south to lush sub-tropical forests in the north.
The forested hillsides of Wellington — a few minutes’ drive from Cozens’ office — provided the backdrop for several scenes in The Lord of the Rings. Pristine beaches are within walking distance of residential areas, where residents lazed in the sun and walked their dogs on Good Friday.
Its immigrants are generally happy. Some Filipinos here corrected certain details in my previous column: tertiary education is not completely state-subsidized, there IS traffic in Auckland (which I saw, and it was nowhere near as bad as what we see in Manila), and there are limits to the coverage of public health care.
It is not paradise, but New Zealand is way ahead of many other countries in the quality of life. An annual international survey of quality of living in 215 cities, whose results were released last week, included two in New Zealand among the top: Auckland ranked fifth, behind Zurich, Geneva, Vancouver and Vienna; Wellington was rated 12th.
New Zealanders are at peace with their place in the global scheme of things.
"We’re non-threatening. We’re not powerful enough to influence things," says Cozens. "But we’ve got the power of ideas."
The challenge for New Zealand is to maintain its idyllic lifestyle. As long as it pursues its comprehensive approach to national security, it is likely to succeed.