• Conceptualization of concept of security in 21st Century

• Power: Balance of Power, Elements of National Power

• Foreign Policy: Determinants, decision making and analysis
• National Interest
• Sovereignty
Conceptualization of security in 21st Century

 Students of Int. Politics deal the most profound

Question

“Whether the International security is

possible to achieve and what are the
causes of war”?

 Answer it keeping in mind the previous lecture

1. Human Nature
2. State interest
3. Anarchy
 Realism remains the best thought to explain International or
national Security
 Security is a “contested concept”
 There is consensus that it implies freedom from threats to
core values (for both individuals and groups)
 Disagreement: Main focus of inquiry? Individual, National,
or International?
 It is mostly defined in militarized terms.
Concept of Security

Conventional/Traditional Concept of Security

 Military Security against hard threats (only)
1. Today If India diverts the flow of our water?
2. If enemies of Pakistan sabotage PCEC?
3. If our society is polarized on sectarian and ethnic lines?
Non-traditional/Expanded concept of Security
 Expanded concept of security (Barry Buzan, People
states and fear 1983) from parochial Military notion to
political, economic, societal, environmental, as well as
military. Against soft threats (macro to micro level)
Notion of Security
 “A nation is secure to the extent to which it is not
in danger of having to sacrifice core values if it
wishes to avoid war. And is able, if challenged, to
maintain them by victory in such wars”. (Walter
Lippmann)
 “Security is absence of threat”.(Arnold Wolfers)
 “Security is about the ability of states and
societies to maintain their independence identity
and functional integrity”. (Barry Buzan)
 “Security is emancipation”. (Ken Booth)
Traditional National security: is protection of
a state’s sovereignty and territorial integrity
from external military attack.

Non-traditional security: is protection of a

state’s institutions and governing capacity from
non-military threats.
 New Threats and threat
perception
Newly perceived threats, crises, wars, and revolutions.
 1973 oil crisis catalysed the prominence of economic security.
 Growing signs of environmental degradation, such as urban air
pollution, acid rain, and deforestation was behind another
redefinition of security in the 1990s
 SARS, Bird flu, Ebola, Mad cow, and Swine flu.
 Abrupt climate change may lead to (floods, famine, draught, food
insecurity etc.)
 The 9/11 attacks had a dramatic effect on Western thinking about
security. (non-state actor)
 In East Asia, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, the 2002 Bali Bombings,
the 2003 SARS outbreak and the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami.
 Globalization, 9/11, unilateralism, pre-emptive strategies.
New patterns of security and insecurity

 Clashes over identity (Yugoslavia)

 Search for regional dominance (Gulf War 1990)
 Disintegration of failed states (Africa)
From traditional to non-traditional concept of
security
 Conventional or traditional approaches are pre-occupied with
broadly defined military issues such as deterrence, balance
of power, alliances formation and weapon proliferation.
 It was state centric agenda that overwhelmed the attention
on ‘intra-state or inside state issues’. Like identity (Societal),
environment, economic, and political etc.
5 Sectors of security
Societal Security
 Societal insecurity exists when a society of whatever
kind defines a development as a threat to their
existence and survival. As a community.
 Migration/refugees As threat. Hungary, Iran, Russia
post 1990s,
 USSR in1991, Yugoslavia in1992, Czechoslovakian in
1993 disintegrated
 Tribal code and values, norms, ethics etc.
 Ethnic harmony in multi-ethnic societies like
Pakistan, SL, India etc.
 Destabilization off civic order, migrants can lead to
conflict and unrest, social friction (Afghan in Pak).
 From majority to minority ….changing dynamics of
demography…this is how identities are shaped and
reshaped.
 Ethno religious entities can challenge the state on the
grounds of being unable to maintain their identity.
 Political Security
 The heart of political sector is made up of threats to state
sovereignty.
 Political stability = vibrant economy
 Representative democratic government string state institutions.
 Prevent internal dissent and discontent.
 Security against supranational entity .. EU, pan Arabism, CIS,
etc.
 Security against politico-ideological rounds .. India can loose
secularism to Hinduism. Pakistan to
Economic Security
 The state is required to provide law and politico-military security
to support the social fabric in areas in which the market fails to
do so.
 The main objective of economic security is to develop rules
that generate revenue for state sustenance.
 Compatibility with regional and global trends to mitigate
vulnerabilities; Globalization, regional economic organizations.
 Human development, employment, and prosperity avoids
internal conflicts.
 Military Security
 Heart of the military sector is having state of the art
weapons, advanced technology, sound training of the
military forces with sufficient number.
Environment Security
Guarding against
 Environment degradation, draught, famines, Food shortage,
Land erosion, floods, Rains, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.
 Environment weapons have been developed by many
countries , HAARP technologies.
Power:
Elements of
National Power
Power
 “Often defined as the ability to get another actor to
do what it would not otherwise have done (or vice
versa)”.
 “Ability to influence other” Joseph Nye
 If actors get their way a lot, they must be powerful.
 “Power is the ability to influence the behaviour of
others to get a desired outcome”
 Relative power is the ratio of the power that two
states can bring to bear against each other.
Hard and Soft Power
 Hard power enables countries to wield military power to get what
they want, war, use of force, threat of use of force. (coercive)
 Soft power is the ability to attract people to our side without
coercion.”
 Smart Power combination of both (hard & Soft) proportionally. USA-
PAK
----------------------------------
 States attempt to exert influence rather than authority because
authority is something that can only emerge in legitimate
 relationships which do not exist between states.
 The contrast between influence and control works rather
differently. When
 control is exercised, those who are controlled lose all autonomy.
The logic of power suggests:

 The more powerful state will generally prevail.

 Estimates of the power of two rivals should help explain the
outcome. (U.S. and Iraq)
 Implications of the outcome -- GDP does not always predict
who will win the war
 The state-centric view of the world, especially in its realist
variant, paints;
 a picture of great insecurity and fear.
 States are obliged to keep a watchful eye open for ways of
enhancing their own power, and reducing that of others. (???)
 The BOP is one notion that is virtually inescapable in the
discourse of IR as it has developed over the last three or four
centuries.
Elements of National Power
Tangible elements of National Power
 GDP
 Geographic Location
1. Topography
2. Climate and neighbour
3. Location (Canada, Mexico USA)
4. Geo-politics (Pakistan, Iran, Yemen)
 Population and man power
 Resources 
(Natural)
1. Coal
2. Iron
3. Oil
4. Gas
5. Water
 (Human Resources)
1.Capital
2.Technology
3.Labour
4.Food
 Industrial and Agricultural output
 Military Apparatus/Military Industrial Complex 
1. Numerical strength
2. State of the Art technology
3. War fighting Capability
 Intangible Elements of National Power
 Political and Economic System
1. Political system
2. Economic System
3. Social System
 Scientific and Technological Base and Education
 National Morals
1.Religion
2.Nationality
 National Character
 Leadership (strong, charismatic, shrewd)
 International strategic standing/position
 Internal Cohesion
 Ethnic, social, religious harmony
 Bureaucratic efficiency
 Diplomatic Skills
 Popular support for the government
Balance of Power
“Is a notion favouring such an equilibrium among states in international arena
that no state has preponderance on any of the other states”.
How Balancing is done:
Balance process can be carried on either by diminishing the weight of the
heavier scale or by increasing the weight of the lighter one.
 Divide and Rule
 It’s a classical manifestation
 For this purpose third party is necessary that may exercise its
authority with coercion.
 Resorted by nations who want to keep the competitor weak. E.g.
France with Germany and USSR in Europe. (since 17th century
France has treated German empire in this way by favouring division
into small states or prevent the coalescence of these states.)
 Compensation
 Compensation of territorial currency 18th 19th century
phenomenon
 Congress of Vienna 1815 was the refined form of this tool of BOP.
 Fertility of soil, number of quality of population are the objective
standards.
Armaments
 This is a typical instrument of unstable and dynamic BOP
 The armament of nation A tries to keep up and then to outdo
with nation B and vice-versa
 Actually armament or military preparedness further infuses fear,
suspicions, and insecurity
Pre-WWI between Germany and Britain naval competition and rivalry
of France and German armies are the examples.
 At the end of Napoleonic wars attempts were made to create stable
BOP with proportionate disarmament which is similar to territorial
compensation. (Congress of Vienna 1815)
 For both a quantitative evaluation is required.
 Best example Washington naval treaty of 1922, where Britain, Japan,
Italy, France and US agreed to reduce and limit the naval
armament.
Alliances
 The most important manifestation of BOP
 Nation A and B competing with each other have three choices in
order to maintain their relative power
 They can increase their own power
 They can add to their own power the power of other nations
 They can withhold the power of other nations from the adversary.
 When they make 1st choice they embark upon an
armament race
 When they choose 2nd and 3rd they pursue the policy of
alliances.
 If a nation believes itself strong enough it would not go for
alliances. Because Burden of commitments are attached
with alliances.
 Britain and US have refrained from making peacetime
alliances but acted as if they were allies. To preserve the
European BOP.
 An alliance requires a necessity of community of
interests for its foundation, how alliance would pay,
formulation, and against whom.. (Iran-Saudi????)
 General alliances are typically temporary and most
prevalent for wartime.
 Typical alliance attempts to transform a small
fraction of the total interests of the parties.
 
On what basis alliance can be formed????
 Ideological (Arab League V/S Israel),
 Distribution of benefits (among equals in power,
equal resources of all responding to equal incentives,
distribution of benefits is thus likely to reflect the
distribution of power within alliance)
 Identical interests (US+UK V/S Europeans, and
NATO defense alliance V/S USSR).
 Alliances vs Counter-alliances
Preceding years of WWI
 Triple alliance (Austria, Germany and Italy) VS Triple Entete
(France , Russia, and Great Britain)
During WWII
 Axis Power (Germany, Italy, and Japan) vs Allied Powers
(Britain, France, USA, and USSR)
 NTAO vs Warsaw pact
The “Balancer” or “Holder of the Balance”

 The holder of the balance occupies the key position in the

balance of power system, since its position determines
the outcome of the struggle of the power.
 It decides who will win or lose?
 Which country can be a balancer B/W India and Chian?
 Between China and US?
 Between Iran and Saudi Arabia?
 Intervention
 Russian intervention in Georgia 2008
 Indian intervention in Eastern-Pakistan 1971
 Russian intervention in Afghanistan in 1979
 Buffer States
 A buffer state is a small or weak state laying
between two rival great powers.
 It prevents conflict between them.
 A buffer state is sometimes a mutually agreed upon
area.
 It also serves as ‘cushion’ or ‘crush zone’
 Poland between USSR and Germany
 Afghanistan between Great Britain and USSR
 Thailand cushion zone between French and British
Evaluation of Balance of Power concept

 Uncertainty and unreality of BOP…it is all about

preventing the one from becoming too strong to threaten.
It is uncertain when threat is perceived and because power
and threat quantification is not mechanistic.
 BOP as Ideology …assumption that BOP is a device for
self-defence against the potential aggressor. A nation
seeking empire always use this excuse and keep continue
the status quo so the emergence of peer competitor can be
stopped. (US vs Germany and USSR and now vs China)
 BOP as heritage … appeared its new and powerful form
since the emergence of Nation State system.
 BOP as a situation … it arises with relationship of states,
it is not the result of decision makers’ policies.
 BOP as system …. Ambiguously it is not between two
states, not between two fronts but it is within a system and
any state with hegemonic design is countered by other
states in the system.
 Best antidote to Power ….power vacuum is always filled
by power.
 As peace strategy … Napoleonic France in Vienna
1815, Imperial Germany, Nazi Germany
 Foreign Policy:
Determinants, decision
making and analysis
Foreign Policy
 Strategies governments use to guide their actions in
the international arena, the actions state leaders
decide to pursue and protect national interest in given
relationship or situations.
 Foreign policy is designed to protect and promote
the national interest abroad.
 Domestic policy is designed to protect and promote
the national interest within the country.
 Foreign policy is, which operates under the standard
of the national interest — H. J. Morgenthau
Foreign policy of a state is concerned with the behaviour
of a state towards other states.
Purpose of the foreign Policy

 Promote a nation’s
 Security
 Stability
 Prosperity
In the domains of
 Domestic
 Regional
 Global
Stages in foreign policy decision making

 1 Assessment of the international and domestic

political environment
 2 Goal setting
 3 Determination of policy options
 4 Formal decision making action (process)
 5 Implementation of chosen policy option (specialized
people Foreign Service, state Dptt.)
Objectives
 Short Range, Middle Ranged, Long Ranged
Determinants of Foreign Policy

External
 Power structure (international position, small,
middle, great power)
 International Organization (importance in int.
institutions, pol, econ, military/defence)
 Geographic Location
 Reaction of other States (Iraq invaded Kuwait and US
intervention 1991)
 World public opinion/Public Perception
 Alliances
 Internal
 Historical Influence
 Size and Geography
 Natural Resources
 Economic development
 Industrial Development
 Military Power
 Population
 Good Governance and Leadership
 Quality of Diplomacy
 Political Organization (party and manifesto)
 Role of Media and Think Tanks
Foreign Policy Making Process/Analysis

 Comparative foreign policy; comparing states to see if

they have similar or different types of foreign policies.
 3 Approaches
 1 how does Size, Wealth and form of government affects
foreign policy?
 2 how do population, natural resources and technology
affects FP decision making process?
 3 how does state’s political culture and history affects FP
 Foreign Policy outcomes result from multiple forces at
various levels and analysis.
Decision making Models

Rational Actor Model

 Decision maker set goals, evaluate their relative importance,
calculate the cost and benefits for each possible course of action,
and then choose the one with highest benefits and lowest cost.
What is wrong with Rationality?
 Several Actors are Crucial to FP Decision-Making; International
Outputs are the Results of their Interests, Which May Differ
 Bureaucracies
 Diplomats – disagreements with leaders
 Tensions amongst Bureaucratic Agencies – specialization, turf wars,
funding
 
 Interest Groups – lobbying to influence
 Military-Industrial Complex
 Public Opinion – constraint and approval generation
Organization Process Model
 1 FP decision makers respond based on the standard
operating procedures
 2 Bureaucratic Model (or government bargaining)
 Foreign policy making is an agreement among different
government institutions/agencies.
 Individual decision makers
 Individual decision making diverges from the rational
model in at least three systematic way
 Decision maker suffer from misconception and
selective perception
 Affective Bias: not being able to make the most
rational decision because of the emotions you are
feeling at that time
 Cognitive bias: not being able to make the most
rational decision your brain cannot comprehend all
possible options.
Study of individual decision making
revolves around rationality:
 1 to what extent a national leader can make a
rational decision in national interest
 2 individual decisions reflect the values and
beliefs of the decision maker as well as their
personality. (Saudi request .. NS, AZ??)
National Interest
 The national interest, often referred to by the French
expression raison d'État ("reason of State"), is a
country's goals and ambitions whether economic,
military, or cultural.
 The most important national interest is the survival of
the state.
 Security, Stability, Prosperity are the cherished national
interest of every nation
 Generally, the political traditions and political cultural
context with in which a nation formulates its foreign
policy”. H. J. Morgenthau
Types of National Interests

 Primary Interests: physical (territorial integrity),

cultural identity, guarding against external
aggression.
 Secondary Interests: protection of diaspora living
abroad, diplomatic immunities abroad etc.
 General Interests: in the field of trade diplomacy
and international law
 Variable interests: that keep on changing, it may be
primary or secondary.
 Permanent Interests: that can uphold their
permanence or at least evolve dead slowly.
Sovereignty
 Sovereignty: A government has the right, in principle, to do whatever it
wants in its own territory.
 The principle of supreme authority within a territory
 In modern times, sovereignty is almost inextricably bound with
territoriality.
In all three major theories Realism is mechanistic with tight and
mechanistic territorial sovereignty.
 (internal. External)
 It is indivisible, absolute, permanent, and cannot be transferred
(Rousseau)
 For Liberals sovereignty is defines as the in terms of the state’s ability to
control activities within and across its borders.
 For realists the essence of sovereignty is the state’s ability to make
authoritative decisions _ the decision to make wars.
Discussion