The Constituents of National Security

Mystic Hightower

POS 364 Peter Hickman October 7, 2012

The global community has evolved to an age where technology escalates as rapidly as the global population, where global communication is made substantially easier and the agents of globalization are set into motion. This rapid upsurge in globalization has, on one hand, increased global communication, the exchange of ideas (cultural, technological, religious, etc.), and on the other, has accentuated both the strengths and weaknesses of interstate communication. The emphasis of these weaknesses and interstate differences has indicated a universal need to secure ones state, or increase National Security. Due to the fact that, in the past, acts of external aggression were equated to acts of violence or acts of war, National Security is, all too often, generalized and vastly diminished to its militaristic aspects. The issue with this school of thought is that the global society has now reached a point that an external threat is not always an act of war in that states are no longer the sole agents of external aggression. The global society has also reached a point in which the largest threats for many, developing; nations are internal to the state, therefore the scope of security must be deepened and broadened to encompass the gamut of possible threats to a state. Furthermore, reducing National Security to its martial aspects is synecdochical in nature, in that Military Security is a single facet in national security. It is important to understand that the idea of National security hinges upon the approach, or the intellectual perceptions through which the international system is seen. The three general approaches most succinctly tied to the foundations of national security are Realism, Social Constructivism, and Human Security. It is important to understand that national security is a multi-faceted entity; it is the preparedness for and capability to quell both internal and external threats to a nation, its identity, and its assets. The realist, specifically structural realist, approach is a perspective in which the anarchical structure of the international system is the permissive cause of war. In structural

realism, the emphasis is focused on the international environment in which states cohabitate, although states still behave as the main actors. The anarchical structure of the international system puts states into a condition of self-help thus causing potential interstate competition. This concept of self-help is central to power maximization, the primary component in offensive realism. The idea of power maximization argues that states face uncertainty about others intentions, but in addition that states should assume the worst about those intentions (Collins, 22). This cynical perception of the intent of others leads states to become ultimately concerned about the technology and capability of other states. Observably, this approach, sans moderation, can lead to paranoia ad a potential arms race, and an ultimately less stable international society. Defensive realism thrives in light of these threats in that interstate cooperation can increase technology, and therefore standards of living, as well as cultural exchanges emphasizing common goals and efforts via alliances and agreements. Defensive realism leads to an environment in which expansion is difficult and it is more advantageous to cooperate, due to increased interstate participation. Social Constructivism is also an approach critical to National Security. Social Constructivism argues that The human world is not simply given and/or natural but that; on the contrary, the human world is one of artifice that is constructed through the action of the actors themselves (Kratochwil 2001: 17). In the international realm, the actors can be Presidents, agents of the media, political figures and other people and/organizations of an influential nature. Additionally, constructivism postulates that The state is a social actor. It is embedded in social rules and conventions that constitute its identity and the reasons for the interests that motivate actors (Katzenstein, 23). Constructivism argues that the interstate interaction of the state is the means through which an identity is ascertained. Additionally, "States' claims to sovereignty construct a social environment in which

they can interact as an international society of states (Biersteker and Weber, 2) while maintaining and protecting their sovereignty. The interstate communication through which identity is acquired is the means through which the valences of certain interstate communications occur. The culmination of the myriad of interstate inter-alliance communication ultimately determines or constructs the general valence of the international community and, more importantly, how international relations and policies are enacted. Finally, Human security is additionally, a critical approach in National Security in that it focuses on broad, normative visions that aim to ensure that people will be secure, such as through the adoption of universal human rights (Collins, 122). Human Security focuses on the broad gamut of potential threats to the lives and standards of living of humans and the universal rights thereof. Military Security is one of the numerous aspects of which National Security is comprised. Although it is one of many facets in National Security, it is still of paramount importance in that a state and its society can be, in their own terms, secure in the political, economic, societal and environmental dimensions, and yet all of these accomplishments can be underdone by military failure (Buzan, 1991: 35 Collins). Traditional military security is laden with realist thought in that the security of the state is equated to the military protection against the threats posed by other states. In this sense, the source of the threat is always external and the only legitimate threat to national security is the antagonism of another state. In military security, ultimately, the state is the referent object or, the object being secured (Collins, 86). With the state being the referent object and the primary source of threat being considered to be the threats posed by armed forces of other states, (Collins, 172) the competitive nature of the anarchical international system delineated by the Realist approach becomes all too apparent; in that the lack of international governance compels the states to be able to construct Military Security for their

state through means of their own. This construction of, presumably, more able and effective methods of Military security, in turn, results in insecurity and feeling of being threatened within other states causing them to respond in kind and triggering an arms race spiral as a result of this security dilemma (Collins, 173). Additionally, with an anarchic state of nature in the international system, the idea of power maximization presented in offensive realism is present in that it is believed by some that the more powerful a state is, the better its prospects for defending itself if attacked (Collins,22). The Cold War, although based on ideological foundations, embodies the aforementioned competitive nature of the anarchical international system resulting in a security dilemma, or rather, an arms race. This is exemplified in the fact that, according to our lectures, between 1950 and 1990 America amplified its nuclear warhead artillery from 400 to 12,000 nuclear warheads, and the Soviet Union from 84-10,000, clearly stated, that is an increase of 290 nuclear warheads a year for the United States, and 248 for the Soviet Union. It should be noted that a potential explanation for the exponential increase of nuclear warheads on the American front occurred due to the fact that being accustomed to geographically isolated, it was new for the US to feel such a close to home threat. This ever present threat of war and possible annihilation made the military central to US Security and then, national security was defined by the capability of the US to defend itself from an attack from the Soviet Union. Although this situation and similar situations truly emphasize the offensive realist school of thought, delineating the competitive nature of the international system and the possible desire for power maximization, cooperation, as delineated by the defensive realist school of thought and liberalism is not inherently lost or deemed infeasible. Cooperation is available through various means such as diplomacy and alliances as well as through arms control agreements, which are still a highly militaristic component. Although military security is, indeed,

an important aspect within national security, it need not be completely martial in nature, on an international scale, it has become recognised that a purely adversarial relationship between nuclear armed states was far too dangerous and that efforts should be made to negotiate agreed constraints on military security (Collins, 179). Defensive realism also argues that the same is true on a general level, in that cooperation enables a state to articulate its ideals and motives and indicates that the nation is seeking security rather than expansion. This cooperation of one state and cooperative policies can potentially induce a positive spiral of interstate cooperation, rendering an environment in which it is more advantageous for other states to cooperate as well. Although cooperation, alliances, and, most importantly, actual military capability are agents of defense, military security policy and military resources are also used as agents of deterrence. Should a nation be incapable or unwilling to ward off an attack, it is possible for them to utilize their military capabilities and resources to prevent an adversary from doing something by threatening him with unacceptable punishments if he does it (Collins, 178). The culmination of these practices provides a complexity to military security rather than reducing it to its martial aspects. Cooperation and alliances are a way in which a nation can achieve Military security on a multilateral front because Alliances are often perceived to be mechanism for exercising influence over allies, whose own military security policies may increase the dangers to their allies (Collins, 176), thus allowing a state to remedy possible source of external threats created by other states via diplomacy or other multilateral approaches. In an age of rapid globalization, the increased inter-state communication provides a more effective means to interact with and analyze the prospect for alliances and other diplomatic processes with other states. Diplomatic processes and alliances are growing increasingly more important due to expanded globalization in that they provide an opportunity for states to bond over mutual efforts and/or concerns as well

as an opportunity for increased cultural, ideological, technological, and resource exchange, providing an increased feeling of support in an international community lacking governance. Although Military security is an essential component contributing to national security, a nations borders and sovereignty are not the only objects to secure, therefore, the scope of security needs to broadened and deepened in order to account for the other assets and ideals integral to a nation as well. Societal Security, therefore, also is to be encompassed in the scope of security in that it is possible for states to be rendered insecure due to threats to their societies. The foundation of societal security is based upon a desire to protect a nation against threats to its identity in that if a society loses its identity, it will not survive as a society (Collins, 204). Societies are typically paralleled to ethno-national groups; they are self-conception of collectivities and individuals identifying themselves as members of that collectivity (Collins, 205). It is also of importance that societies and societal identities are a socially constructed idea, and that shared ideas construct identity and interests are not given by nature (Collins, 53). The societal identity of a nation is vital in that identity tells us who actors are, what their preferences and interests are, and how those preferences might inform their actions (Collins, 53). The identity of a state additionally gives light to the interest of states in that security interests are defined by actors who respond to cultural factors (Katzenstein, 2). Societal security can be approached from two different levels: interstate and intrastate. Societal Security, on an interstate level, can be pursued and protected in a similar manner to that of Military security in that a potential interstate societal threat would be posed in a manner similar to armed aggression, rendering the response to be militaristic in nature. In an interstate threat to societal identity in a nation or, in this case, a society is providing a, mostly, united front against their common aggressor. However, the pursuit and protection of societal identities on an intrastate level are far

more complex in that conflicts within, typically, can render the state insecure. Furthermore, it becomes difficult for a state to address an intra-state societal conflict with a militaristic approach in that all involved parties are a part of the citizenry. These intra state societal conflicts may lead to acts of violence in that, demographic processes and political-legal means designed to deprive societies of beliefs and practices vital to the maintenance of their culture are being enacted (Collins,211). Such violence should, theoretically, be quelled by the state. However, in cases of homogenization and ethnic cleansing, the state is usually the perpetrator and humanitarian intervention by the international community is usually called upon, however these cases are not common. Additionally, At the intra-state level, the vulnerabilities felt by many groups derive not so much from armed aggression. A means through which these types of intra-state societal conflicts can be combatted is through the promotion of a single societal identity and a national level, or cultural nationalism. Cultural nationalism emphasizes various commonalities such as language, religion, and history, and downplays other ties that might detract from its unity (Collins, 211). Although, intra-state societal conflicts are infrequent in developed states, this aspect of societal studies can be used as an analytical tool, in that the basis of societal security is fundamental to the understanding of multi-ethnic states, in that in multi ethnic states a regime is capable of exercising power over a societal minority group and in an increasingly more interwoven international community, large schisms such as these in a developing country, or any country for that matter, can have enormous global ramifications. For example, the Ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and Bosnia, along with others lead to the drafting of the Initiative funded largely by the Government of Canada the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICSS) was formed, and in 2001 the commission released its report, The

Responsibility to Protect .Although these ramifications were positive, their origins are in the loss of many innocent lives. The optimization of globalization and expanded inter-cultural, inter-societal communication, although positive, have also unearthed or even actualized the fact that states are no longer the sole form of external threats. This intensified inter-cultural communication has both promoted social exploration, bonding, and acceptance as well as emphasized the cultural strains and stark distinctions on an interstate, international level. An example of the latter would be the correlation between the increases in globalization alongside that of terrorism. According to The Study of Terrorism and the Responses to Terrorism conducted by the University of Maryland in 2007, , the total incidents of Domestic and International terrorism exacerbated from 1,138, in 2000, to 2,461 total incidents, in 2004; these numbers indicate a rapid increase of more than 100% in the matter of four years (Collins, Table 347). These, along with many others, are the reason for which concern about terrorism increasing exponentially. An additional reason is due to the fact that the violence is directed against a target audience that extends beyond the immediate victims, who are often innocent civilians (Collins, 341). Terrorism is of increasing concern due to the fact that it is difficult to comprehensively address; terrorists are often loosely bound. Terrorists also frequently associate in leaderless resistances, further convoluting the structure of the organization, to more detriment, the way in which we can track and ascertain those conducting or orchestrating violence. Additionally, terrorism is difficult to deter and address. Policy makers often time have difficulty in deciding whether to police terrorism, wage war upon it, or treat it as a disease with symptoms and causes, although it is common to address each incident differently depending on the context in which things are done. Social Constructivism also plays into the equation of dealing with terrorism in that these acts of

terrorism are aimed to generate fear in a target audience by attacking individuals who are representative of a larger group (Collins, 341). The idea of social constructivism plays into terrorism in that terrorism reminds us that many of the categories we treat as natural are in fact products of past social construction processes in which power is often deeply implicated (Finnemore and Sikkink 2001:398). The basis for which terrorism, specifically that against the United States and the Western World, is considered truly alarming lies within the fact that the United States was previously posited to be an international hegemon impervious to attack and terrorism against the United States challenged that idea. Social constructivism also plays into terrorism in that the threats and acts of terrorism speak things into existence, for instance fear, or the challenge to the idea of an international hegemon or international hegemonic discourse. These threats and acts are speech acts which relate language to action, and rules, constitute actors (Collins, 63). Threats by terrorists presented themselves or through the media can result in a change in the social construct of our international order in that they exemplify the strengths and weaknesses within states and their socially constructed place in the international order. Terrorism is a mutual presage to the international community in that, despite their nationality, innocent civilians are often the target. It is important to note that domestic terrorism is not often as newsworthy as international actions, but it accounts for a large majority of terrorist attacks (Collins, 347). The fact that innocent civilians are, more times than not, targeted in terrorist attacks is a human rights concern as it malevolently usurps the right to life of the individual. Terrorism, along with many other factors raise concerns in regards to human security. Due to the fact that, in targeting the state or cultural group, terrorists specifically harm individuals, the scope of security cannot merely be placed upon the state. Ultimately, the human beings of which these states are comprise constitute the state, therefore in making human beings the referent

object, or the object being secured, security of the state is implied and further reinforced through aspects of military security. Although terrorism has enormous ramifications anywhere it occurs, the ramifications in non-democratic and developing countries can be extremely detrimental in that security forces may be weak in a variety of non-democratic political systems providing terrorist groups with opportunities to operate relatively freely (Collins, 343), and an example of such would be the dominance of Hezbollah in Lebanon. These instances are exceedingly troubling in that these terrorist organizations, in these occurrences, it is almost as though these organizations have access to resources of the state it inhabits. Although there are wells to respond to terrorism, it is increasingly more difficult to prevent. Intelligence may be gathered to predict possible attacks, this information can, in turn, provide places or people to protect and may possibly give the names of those to apprehend. Additionally, increased security measures may complicate the execution of these plans, however less developed states do not always have the economic resources to do so, additionally, increasing security measures does not necessarily assure the prevention of the attack in that targets as well as those operating the attack may be changed. Although prevention is difficult, responses to terrorist attacks can determine the valence of the communication between terrorist organizations and the international community. Although terrorism has expounded the list of possible external and internal threats, it has yet to become of paramount importance in that it or the prevention thereof, is not entirely integral to the survival of a state. Development and economic security, however, are entirely indispensable to the longevity and national security of a state. It is pertinent to understand the fact that the distribution of wealth or the more equitable distribution of income constitutes the highest forms of development (Collins, 258). Human security is vastly interwoven into the concepts of development in that development and human insecurity are considered to be of

inverse correlation. Human insecurity refers to a condition of vulnerability in which human beings physical or material wellbeing is threatened (Collins, 258). Development is integral to national security because the global distribution of income, specifically income via foreign direct investment, has been augmented exponentially seemingly in correlation to the intensification of technology and the subsequent amelioration thereof. This is displayed in the fact that Eight countries that accounted for 30 percent of developing country GDP absorbed around two-thirds of total FDI (World Bank 2009: 14). FDIs are pivotal to a state and the development and national security thereof due to the fact that FDIs are form of intra-state and, more importantly, interstate communication. A states FDIs are inherently integral to the interstate exchange of technology. This headway in technology often equates to an increase in the quality of life in the host country. This increase in the quality of life for the individual is critical to the human security approach in that human security is defined as freedom from wanta condition of existence in which basic needs are met, and crucially in which there is a reasonable expectation that protection will be afforded during any crisis or downturn (Collins 258) and freedom from feara condition of existence in which human dignity is realized , not only by embracing physical safety, but going beyond that to include meaningful participation in the life of the community, control over ones life, and so forth (Collins, 258). It is clear that the furthering

of development is essential to national security because development levels are indicative of standards of living and stability. It is also clear that development is critical to the human security approach in that the brunt bearer of the levels of standard of living of a state is the individual. According to the UNDP Development Report in 2005, Individual freedoms and rights matter a great deal, but people are restricted in what they can do with that freedom if they are poor illiterate, discriminated against, threatened by violent conflict or denied a political voice."

Furthermore, development is the process of more effective use of resources and increased efficiency in production and distribution (Collins, 258), due to the culmination of the previous two statements, it is important to broaden the scope of national security to the scope of the individual, not solely, but comprehensively, because in doing so would equate to, to some extent, adopting the human security approach which requires a disaggregated and therefore richer, more sophisticated, exploration of the very complex and sometimes contradictory impacts of globalization on actual human experience across the globe" (Collins, 262). In an international society experiencing increasing globalization, with the implied threats to military security, alongside non-traditional threats such as threats to societal security, terrorism, and lack of development: it is imperative to equate the referent object of national security to that of the individuals or the citizens in conjunction to the promoting continuation of border protection via military resources and diplomatic processes as well in order to construct a more comprehensive means of national security. Protecting the individual rights and needs of the individual or citizen equates to a more secure citizenry, in conjunction to military security, and diplomatic processes in place, equates to a more secure state.

Works Cited Biersteker, Thomas J., and Cynthia Weber. State Sovereignty as Social Construct. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996. Print. Buzan B. (1991) Is International Security Possible?, in K. Booth, New Thinking about Strategy and International Security, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Collins, Alan. Contemporary Security Studies. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010. Print. Finnemore, M., and Sikkink, K. (2001), Taking Stock: The Constructivist Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics, Annual Review of Political Science, 4: 371416. Katzenstein, Peter J. The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. New York: Columbia UP, 1996. Print. Kratchowil, F.V. (2001), Constructivism as an Approach to Interdisciplinary Study, in K.M. Fierke and J.M. Jorgenson (eds.), Constructing International Relations The Next Generation, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 13-35 World Bank (2009), Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative: Status of Implementation, Washington: World Bank. United Nations Development Programme (2005), Human Development Report2005, Oxford: Oxford University Press