Interview: Dr Anton Grizold
The still missing development strategy for society should become the fundamental starting point for any post-election exercise of power, instead of the current coalition agreements.
This year’s fire in the Kras region comes almost exactly two years after the largest devastating fire in independent Slovenia. In between were last August’s floods, which washed away tens of billions in property overnight. The theoretical question is: how many of these disasters can we, as a nation, withstand? In addition to nature, we are also threatened by an increasingly tense international situation, marked by the emergence of new global power centres that no longer accept the post-Soviet unipolar world order, with the US at the forefront. We talked to Dr Anton Grizold, co-founder of the Forward Institute and an expert on security issues, about what threatens us more and what we need to pay more attention to if we want to survive.
What is the greater threat to Slovenia at the moment: war or natural disasters?
Natural disasters are unfortunately inevitable given climate change. While war can still be prevented by diplomatic, political and other means, natural disasters cannot be avoided, but only by building systemic resilience. The impacts of climate change show that extreme weather events are unavoidable and it is inevitable that similar natural disasters, such as the fire in the Kras two years ago and the water storm last year, will recur. So far, Slovenia has produced risk assessments for 15 individual disasters, with varying risk ratings.
Which natural disasters are we most vulnerable to?
Given the current situation in the world and in Europe and the risk assessment in Slovenia, I believe that Slovenia is currently facing floods, droughts, heat waves, epidemics, earthquakes and extreme storms. We cannot yet control these natural phenomena. An earthquake, for example, is always accompanied by a high degree of surprise and uncertainty, as it happens mostly suddenly and unpredictably. But we can measure it very well, identify earthquake zones, estimate the maximum magnitude and its probability, and the damage that an earthquake might cause in a given location. If it happens in Ljubljana, it will have greater and more radical consequences, because of the mass of inhabitants, the commuters and the centralisation of the entire state administration in the centre of Ljubljana.
Overall, flooding can have major economic, political, social, economic and environmental negative impacts. According to the National Disaster Risk Assessment, the current flood risk in Slovenia is higher than the earthquake risk. Floods are frequent in Slovenia and often cause significant damage. Moreover, of all the natural disasters that cause major damage, floods are probably the most frequent.
What is the overall extent of flood damage?
Floods cause deaths, economic losses, social and environmental damage. Damage in flood-prone areas is usually relatively extensive and includes damage to housing, utilities, commercial and industrial enterprises, crops on agricultural land, etc.
“We have risk assessments for 15 disasters in Slovenia.”
In the event of flooding, the natural environment can be threatened by harmful substances released when the facilities where they are processed or stored are damaged or destroyed. The hazard potential of flood events is likely to continue to increase in the future, both due to changing climatic conditions and inadequate river basin management and land cover change.
As State Secretary in the Prime Minister’s Office, how did you see the implementation of the National Protection and Rescue Plan in the wake of last year’s floods?
Slovenia has an excellent design of the system of protection against natural and other disasters and a very well prepared protection, rescue and assistance force, which combines volunteer, contract and professional rescuers and emergency responders. The overall response of the system to last year’s floods was largely adequate, but there were some problems and challenges in its operation. For example, there were gaps in the areas of disaster response management, use of software tools, early warning and strategic communication, and so on.
The most challenging systemic weakness at the moment is that we have a more fragmented system without adequate unified coordination in the management of complex operations, which also leads to some gaps between the completion of the implementation of the National Plan and the start of the coordination of the rehabilitation, for example. After the August floods, the Government’s Flood and Landslide Recovery Service filled this gap perfectly, but as I said, there is still a need for proper systemic regulation.
Would there be any need to update such plans?
It is necessary to modernise and strengthen the existing system of protection against natural and other disasters because, as mentioned, the frequency and intensity of disasters is increasing and increasingly affecting society as a whole. I believe that – especially in the light of climate change – the further development of this system is conditional on a more integrated approach and the unification of the entire disaster management cycle: from prevention, preparedness, response and recovery; it should cover all the essential elements of the system: from the legal regulation of the scope and competences in the functioning of the Protection and Rescue Administration, the recruitment policy, the position and role of the Commander of the Protection and Rescue Service to the system of managing the response to natural and other disasters; the observation, information and alarm systems should also be renewed, the protection and rescue information and communication system should be upgraded, as well as the information of the population in the field of protection, rescue and assistance, the readiness of municipalities to manage the response to natural and other disasters, etc.
“It is essential to limit the monopoly of political parties in the governance of the country, in particular by enforcing Slovenia’s development strategy.”
Could the high level of solidarity and support shown between people be a substitute for some organised and prepared response by those responsible at all levels in the wake of last year’s floods?
Absolutely not. I am convinced that solidarity and people-to-people assistance can only be an excellent added value to an organised and systemic response to natural disasters in our country as well. Any solidarity and ad hoc help from volunteers should be more organised in future, so that there is no confusion on the ground or even potential disasters.
100 municipalities were obliged to draw up an earthquake protection and rescue plan? Were plans drawn up?
In some places, municipal earthquake protection and rescue plans are just a letter on a page. There needs to be more commitment from the state to develop a systemic approach because, after all, the state will be leading the response to the earthquake and needs to have an optimal plan in place with all bases covered. Nothing should surprise us in such disasters, only the response of the system should be adapted to the current situation.
“Slovenia, although a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, is obliged to provide its own national defence as a sovereign state before the Alliance can come to its aid.”
What is missing from these plans to make them more effective?
A more practical approach. The plan as such is not a bad document, but it should have a checklist, a checklist where anyone reading the plan can know exactly what they have to do or what their role is, even though they may not have experience in doing it. In addition, the State, together with the municipalities, should regularly practise these procedures. And commanders – municipal, regional and national – would have to undergo annual mandatory training in order to be appointed to such a post.
How else could we be better prepared for natural disasters?
As mentioned above, the existing system of protection against natural and other disasters needs to be strengthened across the board. In this context, I would highlight the responsibility of the state to ensure that:
– a greater autonomous role for the RS Protection and Rescue Administration vis-à-vis the Ministry of Defence, either – as at present – within it or as a separate government agency;
– a comprehensive systemic modernisation of the existing system along all of the elements listed above,
– political support for a comprehensive national strengthening of resilience to natural disasters. We still do not realise, as in many other parts of Europe, that the areas of systemic protection and the resilience of society and the state to natural and other disasters should be priorities in the governance of the state. This is because it is something that we know will happen, or that this type of threat directly affects individuals and society as a whole in everyday life.
“We need to devote all our professional and political support to the system of protection against natural and other disasters, including, of course, the support of the media and the Slovenian public at large.”
Are there any other disasters threatening us?
As mentioned above, Slovenia has risk assessments for 15 disasters, including nuclear accidents, hail, hazardous substances, accidents at sea, terrorist attacks, cyber threats and attacks, forest damage, air and rail accidents and animal diseases. We are also threatened by extreme storms, hail, tornadoes, power outages, etc. Given that we are witnessing live the catastrophic negative consequences caused by an increasingly warming global atmosphere, the possibilities are many.
Is the state efficient and strong enough to actually implement disaster protection plans?
Given the current organisation and staffing of the Protection and Rescue Administration and the lack of political support in this area for many years, I believe that all professional and political support, including, of course, the support of the media and the general Slovenian public, should be devoted to the modernisation and strengthening of the Protection System against Natural and Other Disasters. However, when we talk about the threats to our security today, in addition to what we have mentioned so far, we must not ignore the fact that Slovenian society and the country are today the most vulnerable, not to say threatened from within.
Who is threatening Slovenia from within?
To strengthen the successful governance of the country, the government, ministries and local communities, we need a serious overhaul of the country’s human resources policy; this means that the most capable people, who are also willing to work for the common good and who have a proven track record, must be put in positions of responsibility.
The functioning of all the formal and informal control mechanisms of the state, such as the judiciary, the public prosecutor’s office, the inspection services and so on, must be improved. It is essential to limit the monopoly of political parties in the governance of the country, in particular by enforcing the development strategy of the country. Such a strategy should be the starting point for the exercise of power after the elections have been won, not the current so-called coalition agreement. In short, we will have to take care of an effective and strong country in an increasingly hostile and turbulent international environment ourselves; the sooner the better.
Looking around, does it seem that the danger of war is greater than the danger of a devastating fire?
In fact, not even. Looking at the European continent alone, we are currently, for the first time since the end of the Second World War, at risk from the possibility of a wider war breaking out. The extreme temperatures and scorched areas across Europe indicate a greater likelihood and risk of a devastating fire.
Can we be as prepared for war as we should be for an earthquake?
Yes, certainly in today’s international environment, the state as a sovereign entity must also ensure a defensive capability to deter and, if necessary, to successfully defend itself. In this area, too, the Slovenian State has a challenging and responsible job to do.
Could the conscription and reserve systems be reactivated in the event of an escalating risk of war?
Certainly. Slovenia only froze compulsory military service, not abolished it, and at the same time as this freeze, we introduced a voluntary defence training programme, which was civilian-military oriented. It was quite effective in the early years, with a significant number of trainees signing up for the two-month military training courses, which also included a range of practical subjects from first aid to mountain rescue. Of course, in order to unfreeze the compulsory military service institute, the appropriate infrastructure – human resources, space, material, etc. – would have to be prepared in time. Our orientation is therefore to rely on our own forces, while at the same time being a member of the NATO alliance.
To what extent is the escalation of international pressure on Russia increasing Slovenia’s war risk?
Slovenia’s war threat is not international pressure on the Russian Federation, but Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, which undoubtedly poses a risk of a wider war breaking out in Europe. Given the unilateral use of brute military force by one nuclear-armed state to resolve bilateral problems with another state, it is quite clear that Russian aggression against Ukraine not only constitutes an eclatant violation of the fundamental norms of the UN Charter, but is also a very bad omen for the collective and rational resolution of a fundamental cultural and civilisational problem in the first decades of the 21st century. The question of what new international security order the world should put in place to ensure our survival together on our very threatened planet.
“Politics is turning a blind eye to the fact that the world is once again at a decisive turning point that could determine the existence of all of us.”
Would the current generation of politicians on the international scene even be able to approach this issue constructively?
Unfortunately, the current acute and hostile international context also has its real basis in the inertia and incompetence of politicians who are simply not in tune with the global interdependence of the modern world and therefore fail to address the vital problems that afflict individual countries and the world as a whole. It is not only wars, but also the already catastrophic consequences of climate change, and the deep social inequalities that reinforce the discontent of the masses and escalate into populisms and extremisms, mass migrations, armed conflicts, etc., which are the main causes of these problems.
In the event of a war, which phenomenon other than war itself would pose the greatest threat to Slovenia’s security?
Today, the world is facing what is known as ‘complex threat’, which means the convergence or integration of several types of threat at the same time. For example, a major threat to Slovenia would be any large-scale natural disaster and/or cyber-attack on the country’s critical infrastructure if it were to occur simultaneously in the face of war.
Refugees? Hunger? Lack of medicines, energy ? Loss of control over the UN?
These are all real threats that should already be taken into account when designing or implementing security strategies at the level of the individual country and the common security strategy at the level of the wider international community (EU, UN, etc.).
Which of the world’s hot spots poses the greatest risk of war on our soil?
Certainly the war in Ukraine and the armed conflict between Israel and Hamas.
“War can still be prevented by diplomatic, political, etc. means, while natural disasters cannot be avoided, only systemic resilience can be strengthened.”
Belarus is one of them. Would the entry of this country into the war on Russia’s side pose the greatest risk of the war spreading?
Belarus is one of Russia’s main supporters and allies, both in its military aggression in Ukraine and in Russia’s escalating relations with Western countries. With Russia’s support, at this year’s Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in Astana, Belarus was granted permanent membership of this largest regional organisation of countries in the Asia-Pacific region. This has added new political-security dimensions to the Belarus-Russia partnership, which may pose an additional risk of extending the current war in Ukraine.
“The institutional framework of our statehood has been eroded over the last two decades, instead of being sharpened and strengthened to allow the state and its institutions to function successfully internally and externally.”
Does the CSO, in which Russia is an important member, include not only political but also defence integration?
Absolutely. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) is the successor to the so-called Shanghai Five, established in 1996 between China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan in response to the threat of terrorism and separatism in Central Asia. The CSO currently has 10 member countries and 14 so-called “dialogue partners”. Russia and China’s objective in this organisation is to create a new economic, political, ideological, scientific-technological and military centre that will help to reshape the international order established after the Second World War, with the US playing a dominant role. In addition to Russia and China, the SCO includes India, Pakistan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and, starting this year, Belarus. Turkey, which is also an important NATO member, has the status of “partner in dialogue”.
To what extent does this integration go? Is it the antipode to NATO?
Certainly, despite its less than homogeneous permanent members, the CSU is a counterweight to the US and NATO, also in the military-defence sphere. If the processes of the formation of new political, ideological, economic and military centres in the international community continue, we may be able to speak of a new version of the bipolar world order of the “first” Cold War (1945-1990). The geostrategic, geopolitical and geo-economic changes that culminated in the end of the Cold War have also triggered a process of transformation of the existing world order. Given that the world today is a “small village”, which also implies an extremely high degree of interdependence among all of us, we would need a strong common and global awareness of this, as well as of the need for a cooperative (rather than conflictual) approach to the transformation of the current bipolar into a multipolar international order. I am afraid that politicians at national and international level are not sufficiently aware of all this and are turning a blind eye to the fact that the world is once again at a decisive turning point that could determine the existence of all of us.
Dr Anton Grizold
Slovenian defence scientist, long-time professor of defence and security studies in international relations – from 2007 to 2011 also Dean – Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana. He served as Minister of Defence between 2000 and 2004, during the period of two governments and Slovenia’s accession to NATO. From 2022 to October 2023, he was State Secretary in the Cabinet of the Prime Minister, Dr Robert Golob, responsible for defence and natural and other disaster protection matters. He has published hundreds of scientific, technical and popular articles in the fields of security, peace, defence, conflict prevention and conflict resolution.
Author: Brane Maselj
Inštitut NAPREJ d.o.o.
Stegne 23a
1000 Ljubljana
T: +386 (0) 30 484 488
Registration number: 9509283000
Tax number: 23813806
We are not liable for VAT.
TRR: SI56 6000 0000 1309 765, odprt pri Hranilnici LON
