Various understandings of “security” — lecture #10

Alright, it’s now less than a month to my first exam, and I still have some 25 lectures to type out. This means that I gotta start prioritising. Which basically means that I’ll be concentrating on the notes from my political science notes, as these are the ones requiring the most restructuring and the most work.

————————————————————————————————————————–

Definition.
Security, or being secure, is usually defined as being free from threats against one’s life and one’s core values. During the cold war, this was traditionally connected to military threats against the national security. However, there are other factors that can also be said to constitute threats against the national security. Concepts of security that include these last factors (which I’ll get back to in a moment), is refered to as an extended concept of security.

In 1990, George Bush, Sr., held a speech in which he spoke about “The New World Order”. This caused a debate, in which new factors that could come to threaten our security were being discussed. One of the contributors to this debate was Samuel Huntington, who claimed that cultures were taking the place of ideologies and economy as the major point of conflict; by “culture”, he really meant “religion”. Thus his theory of the Clash of Civilizations arose. Others pointed to the increase in relatively limited ethnic or cultural conflicts, whereas others yet mentioned economic inequalities, environmental problems and various other stuff, as the potential causes of conflicts.

Areas of security.
[This was basically just a figure, so I'll only take a screenshot of it and post that, rather than make an attempt at explaining it in words. It'll be in Norwegian, though. The figure itself should be rather self-explanatory, I think.]

Global, or international, security.
Global security refers to the security of the world as a whole. Some of the most important fields of this concept, is avoiding nuclear war and accidents, protecting the ozone layer, reducing and control climate changes, and handling poverty issues.

National security.
A state’s security, and what it sees as its main issues in this respect, is very much dependant on what kinds of goals is tahs for its foreign policy. Thus, it is also dependant on what level of development the state is on. A military state (reference) would be focused primarily on territorial security and political independence, while more advanced states would be more concerned with economic, social or environmental security as well.

Individual security.
For an individual, the term “security” has a slightly different, yet highly related, content. Here, it is most concerned with safety for people, and often property as well, and also political rights, and the satisfaction of economic and social needs of families and individuals.

Security dilemmas.
In the previous lecture notes, especially the ones dealing with Realism, the term “security dilemma” was used and explained in a more general sense. However, there are also more specific versions of the security dilemma. One is the so-called Hobbesian version, refering to the great English thinker Thomas Hobbes, where one envisions that the state of nature has been transferred from the national to the international arena. In other words, when a sovereign took control of his surrounding lands, establishing a kingdom, he created order within that area. But when several of these Leviathans (a metaphor for the sovereign, with both biblical and less biblical roots) meet on the international arena, there will be no one to restrain them, and they will relate to each other in a most anarchic manner.

Another version is the Herzian one. It focuses on how one state’s security is the other states’ threat, and how this makes security a zero-sum situation, where one state’s wins are balanced by the losses of the others, and vice versa, thus creating a situation where nothing really changes, and the threat level is never reduced.

A different aspect of the security dilemmas has risen with the invention of nuclear weapons. A state develops a nuclear capability to strengthen its security through its national deterring capacity, but at the same time, it increases the spread of nuclear weapons, as well as the potentially the actual use of such weapons. THrough this, it also reduces its own security. This is an example of how a single-minded pursuit of national interests can undermine global, collective interests.

Yet another aspect is the conflict between nationalor international, and individual security concerns. Many victims of civil wars and strife in failed states are civilians. This raises the question of whether the principle of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other states should be set aside in certain cases, where humanitarian reasons suggest it. In other words, should national security at times be violated to protect the security of individuals? Or should the national security be supreme and overrule individual security at all times, regardless of the situation?

Military security.
Military security refers to protecting against threats against a state’s territory or its political independence. As has been seen with the case of Norway during the Cold War, this can be done through both deterring and reassuring one’s perceived potential enemy.

Political security.
Political security refers to protection against the development of authoritarian governments and the extermination of the state’s own citizens. This can be accomplished through the protection of civil rights, the rule of law, peaceful political transitions of power, legitimate governments and the democratic peace.

Economic security.
Economic security refers to protection from poverty and its structural causes. Economic cooperation can strengthen this kind of security, but it can also be a double-edged sword: Are states interested in developing common interests, or are they only looking to exploit each other?

Social security.
Social security primarily refers to protecting national and ethnic identities from the dominant culture and globalisation. It can be reached through protecting languages, and other such measures. However, it is also a question whether ethnic fragmentation is a source of conflict, and whether this is going to lead to a Clash of Civilizations. (This will be expended somewhat upon later.)

Environmental security.
The physical environment surrounding a person, is an important feature of that person’s welfare, and the environment changes we’re likely to face in the next couple of decades can very easily prove to be a huge source of conflicts, e.g. as water resources begin to disappear in densely populated areas. Thus, environmental problems can have both national and international dimensions. We also have the tragedy of the commons as a potential source of conflict, and also as a source of environmental changes. It’s disputed whether or not these environmental changes will bring with them a depreciation of natural resources, as well as whether or not this potential resource depreciation will lead to a shortage of resources, which in turn could lead to an increase and intensification of international conflict levels.
Somewhat related is the question of whether or not there’s any correlation between interventions and resource surpluses…

Security threats.
[This slide was also a figure, or rather a table, which is way to complicated for me to even attempt explaning it in plain words. So I'll just post a screenshot, and add a short comment. This one will also be in Norwegian, and it'll be even more self-explanatory than the last figure.]
The only real thing to remember with this table is that threats can transcend their boxes; the boxes are only there as a kind of Weberian ideal types. The rest of the imporant stuff is primarily on it.

The sources of security threats.
[I'll just list them as they were listed on the slides, seeing as I don't really have anything to add.]
Technological development
Interdependence or globalisation
Globalised markets; exploitation, unfair conditions of trade
Unlimited ambitions (zero-sum logic)
The inherent logic of international politics: Self-help, power struggles, insecurity, focus on relative goods
Resource shortages and surpluses
Lack of political og social distribution of power
Absolutist ideologies, e.g. extreme nationalism, religious fanatism
War, both between and within states
Terrorism

Means to increase security.
[I'll just list them here, too.]
Balance of power
Hegemony
International laws and treaties
Non-proliferation and reduction of arsenals
Democratisation
Equality and a fair distribution of goods
Integration
Sustainable development
Preemptive strikes and military intervention

[The first set of slides's done, but there's some stuff in another set as well. However, nine of its ten slides are tables, so there's not gonna be much. Which means that I gotta read them before my exams. Anyway, the tables are mainly presentations of some empirical data related to the areas of debate presented below.]

Ethnic differences: A source of conflicts?
The view that ethnic differences always leads to conflicts is called primordalism, and it’s in many ways a basis for Huntington’s Clash theories. Another take on the relation between ethnic differences and conflicts, is represented by the Instrumentalists. Thay hold that ethnic differences are essentially irrelevant; they’re only used by elites to mobilise the masses. The middle ground between these two opposing positions is held by the Constructivists, who claim that ethnic identities become importent if a society is set up for it, by e.g. economic or political discrimination (South Africa under Apartheid can serve as an example).

Democracy and internal conflict.
There’s some disagreement on whether democracy reduces or increases conflict levels in a society. The advocates of the former holds that democracy must be understood as a non-violent method of conflict solving, and that democracy incites cooperation and negotiations, as well as protection of political and civil rights. These factors make armed conflicts within democracies highly improbable. Those supporting to the latter theory, on the other hand, claims that democracy can act as a channel for conflict. The openness of the democratic system leads to an increase in political activity. However, not all of this activity is bound to be non-violent.

A theory combining these two positions holds that semidemocracies have the highest rate of conflicts, becuase their openness allow political activity. But as the methods of negotiations or the political and civil rights required, aren’t in place, conflicts may arise.

The probablility of internal, armed, violent conflicts is less in autocracies and democracies than it is in semidemocracies. This fact problematises the process of democratisation, because if this process isn’t conducted just right, it might increase insecurity rather than reducing it.

[Alright, one IP lecture to go, before I get started on the CP.]