Barry Buzan’s Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT) in South Asia

Barry Buzan, a Professor of LSE

Introduction
 The RSCT is a middle ground to understand geo-politics of the regions of the world.
 The RSCT framework is built to develop a security complex that is being shaped by the
interdependence of the securities of major players of a region.
 In South Asia, India and Pakistan stands as two major/primary actors of South Asian
complex.
 The Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT) is a framework in international relations
that provides insights into the complexities of regional security dynamics. In the context
of South Asia, this theory proves particularly relevant given the region's historical
conflicts, nuclear proliferation concerns, and ongoing political tensions.
 In South Asia, the RSCT helps analyze the intricate web of relationships between major
regional states such as India and Pakistan. Historically, the region has experienced
territorial disputes, ethnic conflicts, and nuclear arms race, making it a volatile security
complex. The presence of nuclear weapons in both India and Pakistan adds an additional
layer of complexity, as it necessitates constant vigilance to prevent potential escalation.
  Within the RSCT framework, the interactions and security interdependence among South
Asian countries can be understood. For instance, the India-Pakistan rivalry significantly
shapes the security perceptions of other states in the region. Additionally, China's
strategic interests and its relationship with countries like Pakistan influence the overall
security dynamics.
 Furthermore, the RSCT allows for the examination of non-traditional security challenges
in South Asia such as the issue of terrorism and disputes over water sharing, etc.
 Security
 What is security?
 Security has been a contested phenomenon1 in the international security studies; however,
different scholars endeavored to articulate the concept. Barry Buzan posits that security is
a “seamless web.”2 He enunciates, “securitization is inter-subjective and socially
constructed”3 therefore, national power and threat perceptions are intrinsically linked for
determining military security. Stephen Walt explains that security studies may be defined
as “the study of the threat, use, and control of military force.”4 It envisages certain
“specific policies that states adopt in order to prepare for, prevent, or engage in war.” 5 A
prudent strategist is the one who takes into account the capabilities and limitations of its
military force.6 “As long as states continue to exist in a condition of anarchy, military
power will continue to play a crucial role in international politics.”7
 Expansion of realist paradigm implied formation of different levels of analysis. Hence,
security puzzle in the international system needs to be systematically analyzed for deeper
understanding of international issues at state, regional and international levels. Buzan
distinguished five such levels of analysis. First, international systems, the highest level
where independent unit of international system interact, second, international subsystem
1
Barry Buzan, People, States and Fear: The National Security Problem in International Relations, North Carolina:
The University of the North Carolina Press, 1983.
2
Barry Buzan, South Asian Insecurity and the Great Powers, London: Macmillan, 1986.
3
Barry Buzan, Ole Weaver, Jaap de Wilder, Security: A Framework for Analysis, Colorado: Lynne Rienner
Publisher, 1998.
4
Stephen M. Walt, “The Renaissance of Security Studies”, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 2 (June
1991), pp. 211-239.
5
Ibid.
6
Richard Beardsworth, Cosmopolitanism and International Relations Theory, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2011.
7
John F. Troxell, “Military Power and the Use of Force”, J. Boone Bartholomees, Jr., ed., U.S. Army War College
Guide to National Security policy and Strategy, June 2006.
 to which he points the regions where certain group of units interact and depend on each
other, third, units means states and nations who play a decisive role in forming security
calculus, fourth, sub-units that are referred as organized groups within units for instance
non-state actors, bureaucracies, lobbies; and fifth, individuals, the lowest level in the
social sciences. From these levels, one visualizes a theory.8
 For this study, the second level i.e. sub-system is taken for understanding the South Asian
security complexion. Barry Buzan is the main architect of this concept who assumes how
actors in a specific region shape the security perceptions and policies for regional actors.
He also connotes the role of major powers in regional security complex.
 Regional Security Complex
 Buzan’s connotation holds that most of the security analyses were conducted from either
the state or the international levels of analysis and sub-system of analysis is largely
ignored. He claims that the sub-system level is significant to capture the overall picture of
security relations.9 This level has the most appropriate basis to conceptualize the security
of a state and its concerned region. He calls this sub-system level as “Regional Security
Complex (RSC).”10 Buzan articulates;
o “A security complex is defined as a set of states whose major security
perceptions and concerns are so interlinked that their national security
problems cannot reasonably be analyzed or resolved apart from one
another.”11
 Security Complex is determined through identifying high level mutual threat among two
or more major states, Indo-Pakistan enmity defines South Asian complex.12 Buzan is of
the view that after the demise of the Cold War, the regional level of analysis seems more
appropriate for security analysis.
 International security is determined through analyzing threats and vulnerabilities of units
of international system. Two points are identified by Buzan regarding international
system; one, all states are interdependent in terms of security; and second, their military
threats emanate more easily over short distances.13 India and Pakistan provide good

8
Buzan, et al. 1998. op. cit., p. 6.
9
Buzan, 1986, op. cit., p. 4.
10
Ibid, p. 8.
11
Buzan, et al. 1998, op. cit., p. 12.
12
Ibid, p. 9.
13
Buzan, et al, 1998, op. cit., p. 11.
 example of it. The two nuclear arch rivals are neighbors and their threats emanate from
each other. Hasan Askari aptly enumerates this assumption by stating that;
o “Pakistan and India are the major concerns for each other’s foreign and
security policies and their bilateral diplomacy is characterized by mutual
distrust and adversary relationship.”14
 Buzan further states that Regional Security Complexes not only shape the regional
relations among nations but also determine outside power’s influence in that region. This
is basically the involvement of extra regional powers (say China, Russia or the US in
South Asia).

The Pattern of Amity and Enmity

 The degree of amity and enmity among regional actors plays a critical role in defining
security interdependence. Fear, rivalry and mutual perception of threat contribute to
conflict formation.15 The mutual suspicion of India and Pakistan, their historical
animosity and record of conflicts and wars point to the fact that relations of both

14
Hasan Askari Rizvi, Pakistan and the Geostrategic Environment: A Study of Foreign Policy, (New York: St.
Martin's Press, 1993), p. 18.
15
Buzan, 1998, op. cit., p. 13.
 countries are beset with enmity instead of amity. Although, there are some Confidence
Building Measures (CBMs) yet it does not necessarily conform friendly relations
between the two. Askari writes, “They successfully negotiated bilateral agreements from
time to time. However, mutual antagonism has been more conspicuous in their
relations.”16 The era of thaw could be categorized as ‘normalized relations.’

 Buzan enunciates that territorial security interdependence exists in a region to analyze

security complexes of neighboring states. Regarding South Asian region, he states;
“South Asia is a clear example of a security complex centered on the rivalry
between India and Pakistan, with Burma acting as the border with the complex in
Southeast Asia, Afghanistan delineating the border with the Middle East complex,
and China looming as an intervening great power.”17

 Following characteristics of security regions are defined by Buzan;

 A region is conglomeration of two or more states,
 These states are geographically persist in a coherent manner,
 Security interdependence is hallmark feature of a region that could be either positive
or negative,
 Security interdependence is rooted in the relationship of group of states (i.e. much
more than a one-time interaction.)18
 Buzan articulates, “Security complexes rest on the interdependence of rivalry rather than
on the interdependence of shared interests.”19 He claims that a state’s foreign policy and
military behavior define its security concerns. 20 Therefore, the two cannot be separated
from each other and both contribute in formulation of security calculus. Analyzing the
South Asian security complex, it would be evident that foreign and defence policies of
the two states, India and Pakistan, mainly emanate from each other. For example,
Pakistan has been staunch supporter of non-proliferation particularly in pre-
Nuclearization era and it asked for many non-proliferation initiatives to be adopted in the
region but in vain. However, when India tested its nuclear devices in May 1998, it had to

16
Rizvi, 1993, op. cit., p. 18.
17
Buzan, 1998, op. cit., p. 14
18
Ibid., p.15.
19
Buzan, 1986, op. cit., p. 8
20
Ibid.
 follow suit in accordance with its national interests. Pakistan in the aftermath of
nuclearization substantiated its case in the international community that its nuclear
program was India-centric.

Higher and Lower Levels of Security Interplay

 Barry Buzan indicated two levels of security; higher and lower. He submits that “a lower
level is composed of local states and a higher level contains great powers like the United
States and the Soviet Union.”21 The great powers penetrate in varying degrees into the
affairs of the local complexes thus inculcating security interdependence of whole club of
the international system.22 In this way, Indo-US nexus impinge upon the security of the
whole region. Military and political dimensions of security primarily characterize
security complexes because these two are “the most relevant to the pattern of threat and
amity/enmity.”23

 While applying the framework of regional level of security analysis on South Asia,
Buzan exemplified hostile relations of India and Pakistan as defining feature of security
dynamics of the region.24 Indo-Pakistan historical rivalry over territorial disputes (mainly
Kashmir issue) has been a big cause of their animosity since partition. 25 It is pertinent to
denote that the relations of the two countries have been caught in a host of issues
including Kashmir, Sir Creek, Siachin, etc. Political confrontation in the preceding years
combined with military conflicts, wars and stand-offs have shaped the security
architecture of the whole region.
 Buzan stated that American Power established in rim-lands of Asia rested to Pakistan. 26
This concept might be valid for the Cold war era when the relations of the US and
Pakistan were on peak. The former considered the later as a key ally that was preserving
its interests under the umbrella of SEATO and CENTO, however, this tilt is now shifted
to India in the wake of Enhanced Indo-US Strategic partnership, envisioned in 2005. This

21
Ibid, p. 11.
22
Ibid, p. 12.
23
Ibid, p. 10.
24
Ibid, p. 13.
25
Buzan, 1983, op. cit., p. 73.
26
Buzan, 1986, op. cit., p. 18.
 development occurred because of two main reasons; first, the US growing interest in
Asia-Pacific and second, its policy to contain China 27 through friendship with India. The
rising Indian economy and military strength also provide its basis.
 To Buzan’s point of view in 1980s, there were two divergent higher level complexes in
South Asia that were ‘Sino-Pakistan-American axis’ and ‘Indo-Soviet’ one. 28 Analyzing
critically, South Asian security should be revisited in terms of global-regional interaction.
The growing tilt of American interaction towards India in the last two decades
necessitates altering regional dynamics of security.
Essential Structure of Security Complex
 Buzan identified two main elements that comprise essential structure 29 of security
complex i..e. the pattern of amity/enmity, and the distribution of power among the
principal states”30 These elements determine the security architecture of a region.
Nonetheless, sources of change significantly redefine the structure of security complex.
Buzan proclaims, “these changes could result either from internal or external factors.” 31 It
is articulated how shifts in the distribution of power and pattern of hostility develop
through internal and external factors.
The Role of Internal Factors
 Internal factors include disintegration of actors (regional key players), level of
development and major allocation of resources towards military build-up. The
dismemberment of East Pakistan in 1971 though politically hampered Pakistan’s security
yet its military strength continued developing. On the other hand, India is massively
building its conventional military muscles.
 The Role of External Actors
 External actors either by joining or making alignments alter the power structure. Buzan
stated that South Asian security structure was affected by alignments. Although, these
alignments did not necessarily over-turn the power balance yet they could add to the

27
Mark E. Manyin, et. al., “Pivot to the Pacific? The Obama Administration’s “Rebalancing” Toward Asia”,
Congressional Research Service, March 28, 2012, p. 8.
28
Buzan, 1986, op. cit., p. 19.
29
Ibid, p. 22.
30
Ibid.
31
Ibid.
 power of regional actor. He elaborated two major external patterns that penetrated the
South Asian complex, ‘the Sino-Soviet’ and ‘the US-Soviet’ acrimonious nexus.32

 “Arms supplies hardened and intensified the local disputes and linking together of local
and external patterns of hostility amplified securities all around.” 33 During the Cold War,
Pakistan was benefited by anti-Soviet alliances. From 1954-65, India cut the sorry figure
over the US arms sale to Pakistan. In the early 1950s, India acted as a non-aligned player
in the international politics yet the Soviet generous offers of arms sale in 1962 distracted
it from non-aligned actor to a Soviet partner. 34 This served two purposes for it; one, it
provided basis to India strengthening its national power to defuse Chinese threat and
second, it also provided opportunity to get benefit from Cold War alliances. The Sino-
Indian border dispute in 1962 turned to be an enduring pattern of insecurity for India at
one of its borders. As soon as India was defeated in 1962 war by China, the US, Britain
and the Soviet Union rushed to India for military assistance. India transformed its
military strength to new heights by these collaborations and investing much in defence
sector. These developments rung alarms in Pakistan’s security apparatus as it felt to be on
the verge of permanent inferiority. Pakistan was of the view that all such arms sales were
aimed at strangulating Pakistan’s security. On the other hand, India was concerned of
two-frontal war by China and Pakistan, thus creating security dilemma in South Asia.
This was the situation that formed security dynamics in South Asia during the Cold
War.35
 As soon as 1965 war started between India and Pakistan, the US and Britain put arms
embargo on both India and Pakistan that implied Sino-Pak convergence. Pakistan played
a constructive role to bring together the two rival external powers, the US and China
closer to each other. However, no external power physically intervened in internal
security complex of South Asia in 1971 war. Pakistan was defeated because of internal
weaknesses. India and the Soviet Union forged their relations as alliance.36

32
Buzan, 1983, op. cit., p. 107.
33
Ibid, p. 111.
34
Ibid, p. 109.
35
Ibid.
36
Ibid, p. 110.
  Buzan highlighted three developments followed by 1971 war between India and Pakistan.
One, South Asian quest for nuclear power, two, Pakistan’s bolstering relations with Gulf
states and three, the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and Pakistan’s dilemma of two-
frontal war.37 These developments contributed in shaping security situation of the region
in the last years of the Cold War. The US emerged as a unilateral power in the aftermath
of the Cold War and the ‘New World Order’ took place as a result of that. It emerged as a
super-power of the world which in the later years influenced and affected the security
architectures of different regions. The 21 st century marked major transformations in
regional and global politics. As soon as the US launched its War on Terror in Afghanistan
in 2001, it maintained relationship with an old-ally of the region, Pakistan due to its
strategic commitments in the region however; it also gave a new direction towards its
relationship with India.
Shifts in the Pattern of Hostility
Shifts in the pattern of hostility emerge when a dispute is resolved or new disputes develop.
Buzan stated that enmity decreased if there were some conflict resolution. He gave examples of
conflict resolution of Germany and France, and Egypt and Israel. 38 To this notion, it is observed
that both regional players of South Asia albeit have certain CBMs; however, their relations do
not characterize a friendly one rather they could be categorized as normalized relation with
mixture of mutual suspicion and distrust.

Buzan highlighted four outcomes of change in the security structure that take place due to two
sources of change which include the pattern of amity/enmity and distribution of power. First,
maintenance of status quo in which both factors remain the same; second, internal transformation
that imply unification, deletion or alteration in the geographical region or modification in pattern
of hostility; third, external transformation when there is an addition or deletion of major powers
for example the end of Cold War marked the elimination of a major power at global level; fourth,
overlay in which an external power directly goes into the local complex thus penetrating the
indigenous security dynamics physically.39

37
Ibid, p. 111.
38
Ibid.
39
Buzan, 1998, op. cit., p. 13.
  The brainchild of Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT) posited three possibilities
for internal transformation in South Asia; one, break of one or both of the major powers;
two, the ending of hostility between them; three, dominance of one actor.
The Logic of Threats and Vulnerabilities
 Threats and vulnerabilities are important factors in defining a security complex. Buzan on
account of the logic of these elements states;
“Insecurity reflects a combination of threats and vulnerabilities, and the
two cannot meaningfully be separated…insecurity could be diminished either by
reducing vulnerabilities or by lessening threats.”40

 He submits that a link between national and international security could be drawn by
analyzing these alternatives.
 Buzan categorizes two types of threats; military and economic one. Military threat is the
hallmark of insecurity that impinges upon all components of the state. 41 He claims that
military threats have political ends. Pakistan and India present ‘structural political threat’
to each other because of their historical, geographical and cultural divergences. To put a
glaring example, Kashmir issue has been the major bone of contention between the two
throughout their relations.42
 Buzan claimed that India tried to be a major regional actor but Pakistan remained
competitor to it despite it being smaller than its rival in terms of military capabilities and
geographical area. Arms race has been the distinctive feature of the South Asian complex
since 1950s. Pakistan’s disintegration in 1971 even could not stop the regional player to
go nuclear.43
 Vulnerabilities are the immediate referent with insecurity that can be determined through
following variables of threat perception enlisted by Buzan as;
 Geography,
 History,
 Political Factors

40
Buzan, 1983, op. cit. p. 73
41
Buzan, 1983, op. cit., p. 75
42
Ibid.
43
Ibid.
  Geographical component in threat perception and military preparedness is important in
terms of distance and terrain.44 Lesser distances pose more challenges than longer one as
mobilization and maneuvering of force is easy for travelling less, therefore, most states
pose military challenge to their immediate neighbors. Rivalry between India and Pakistan
is a point of reference here. The geographical contiguity of the two establishes more
vulnerability.
 Historical legacy cannot be ignored in building threat perception. The Indo-Pak legacy of
mutual distrust and war are key features of South Asian security complex. Both perceive
each other as an enemy. The two fought three major wars of 1948, 65 and 71 along with a
Kargil conflict and remained at loggerheads at many border stand-offs. There have been
many efforts for transforming good relationship under the banners of ‘Composite
Dialogue’ and ‘Aman ki Ashaa’ but facts remain that they could only forge normal
relationship instead of friendly one.
 “Political factor is of importance because of two reasons; one, the degree of recognition
that exists between the two states and, two, harmonious or disharmonious political
ideologies.”45 Facts remain that India and Pakistan perceive each other as their arch-
rivals. Their socio-political and religious ideologies are altogether different.
Unequivocally, it is the ideological differences for which Pakistan emerged as an
independent state from united India in 1947.
Post-Cold War Regional Security Architecture and Non-proliferation Regime
 The advent of 9/11 brought two major changes in the region. First, realignments of
relationship of the US with key actors of the region and second, as a by-product of this
realignment, security of the whole region is disturbed. Convergence of Indo-US interests
has endangered Pakistan’s security apparatus. Moreover, external penetration in South
Asia to make India as a counterweight to China has shaped new security architecture in
South Asia. Moreover, the Sino-Pakistan relationship further strengthened particularly
with the signing of the CPEC under China’s BRI project.
Conclusion

44
Buzan, 1998, op.cit.
45
Ibid.
 Regional Security Complex is the sub-system of analysis that envisages how actors in a
specific region shape the security architecture of the region.
 Buzan, the pioneer of RSCT identified the role of major powers in regional security
complex.
 Higher and lower levels of security interplay are intersect to highlight how the major
power interaction with regional actors affect the security of the region.
 The external actors make alignments with regional ones that could alter the power
structure.
 The threats and vulnerabilities are analyzed in South Asian context to envision the
security situation in the presence of nuclear weapons.
 However, the role of minor states is largely ignored in RSCT.
 However, the role of smaller states cannot be ignored due to various factors such as
security interdependence (Afghanistan and Pakistan); balancing act (smaller states
seeking security assurances from the major actors: Operation Cactus/ Sri Lankan
counterinsurgency, etc.); acting as buffer; non-traditional security efforts; and regional
integration.