Soft Security Issues - Case Study Example

Approaches to Security Issues Security issues play an important role in international relations and a global order. At the beginning of the 21st century, every major part of the world has an important impact on the ways the global economy develops, weapons of mass destruction are controlled, dwindling resources are guarded and economized, critical threats to the environment are dealt with, and pariah states or terrorist organizations are checked. Europe may be the most important region in this regard, given its tremendous industrial capacity and its central role in global politics. In international relations, Japan, East Asia, and the Persian Gulf have become very important as well. China, the Indian subcontinent, and some other countries are also important because of their sheer size, the number of people affected by issues of war and peace within their territories, the strains on the worlds ecosystem and resource base that they are beginning to impose, and their potential for producing, exporting, and possibly using weapons of mass destruction (Collins, 2007). Post positivist approach extends the issue of security and proposes new insights on the problem of international peace and relations between political entities. In terms of traditional broad school, security can be defined as attempts to resolve conflicts that might endanger peace, and defense as any deterrent or retaliatory action by countries to secure their territorial integrity and protect their vital interests. Security tasks typically take place concurrently such as the building of air-defense infrastructures, pre-positioning of forces and the maintenance of nuclear deterrence (Morgan, 2006). In the case of European security in the last few years, the understanding security issues includes territorial integrity, the functioning of the national economy, safeguards against subversion and the preservation of international peace. Also, European security is followed by a combination of diplomatic, military and economic means. The challenges to Europes future fall broadly into two categories: hard security and soft security (Morgan, 2006). Hard security issues are characterized by external armed attack against the land mass or the threat of mass destruction and are broadly issues of defense. Soft security issues form lower-level threats including the collapse of democratic forms of government, international organized crime, mass migration, poverty and social problems around the European perimeter and dependence on raw materials. In contrast to traditional school, post-positivism proposes a new insight into the problems of security and the main mechanisms of political relations (Murdock, 2003). Post-positivism emerged as a response to traditional positivist approach unveiling misconceptions and weaknesses of positivism. The main representatives of post-positivism are Karl Popper, John Dewey and Nicholas Rescher. Post-positivists suppose that knowledge is conjectural. Post-positivists suppose that security issues are predetermined and unified. Following Buzan et al (1998): ‘Security’ is thus a self-referential practice, because it is in this practice that the issue becomes a security issue – not necessarily because a real existential threat exists but because the issue is presented as such a threat (p. 24). In political terms, agreement on collective defense is a single whole, as defense is much closer to being an absolute quantity than security. Sovereign nations can readily agree on the existence of an armed threat to their territorial integrity, and on the need and methods to counter that threat. Indeed, defense cooperation has collateral political advantage in providing a cohesive factor for all the involved nations and their political parties. Attempts to achieve collective security can easily fragment an alliance, whereas collective defense has a bonding effect (Murdock, 2003). Constructivism is one of the postpositive perspectives which help to explain security issues and international relations in the modern world. Following Peou (2002): “Unlike the various perspectives found in the rationalist traditions, such as realism and liberalism, social constructivism proves that multilateral cooperation among states within the region is possible and that this progress has not simply resulted from states enlightened interests driven by a rationalist vision” (p. 575). Constructivism identifies that modern states should develop a long-term, comprehensive vision of the transatlantic partnership in a world no longer faced by a common threat (Collins, 2007). The concept separable but not separate vividly reflect the main ideas of post-positivist approach. While the separable but not separate concept is promoted by international community and Europe to find a strengthened role within the alliance, there are doubts about the capability and political will of Europe to lead an operation and act in a crisis situation (Nuechterlein, 2000). There is some question of how well the European allies can accomplish such new missions on their own, with only limited US involvement, and these doubts raise questions about the reality of a EU-led operation in the future. In this era of shrinking European defense budgets it is less likely that the EU will have the resources to develop meaningful capacities. Peou (2002) underlines that: “Unconventional, nonmilitary sources of human insecurity have also challenged realism, but they have yet to be translated into concrete policy action and might even intensify the need for threat balancing among states” (p. 577). They lack the lift capabilities, do not have the full range of intelligence necessary, and lack the political will and weight of the US. The Europeans have to develop some kind of military clout and some kind of political unity in the European Union to be able to develop their military capacity to levels that impress the rest of the world, and they seem a long way from doing that (Fierke 2007). The traditional broad school treats political and military threats as responses to political changes and power shifts in the global environments. The security imperative of the Cold War period that permitted security issues to be addressed on their own merits, separately from other bilateral and multilateral issues, no longer obtains (Nuechterlein, 2000). Long-term security considerations for the United States are likely to be embedded in a larger and more colorful mosaic of international considerations. The move of the EU into the security arena will intensify discussions about the US role in Europe and NATOs relationship to that role. However, military means do have a role and offer at least a partial answer to many nations concerns about the stability of their new democratic institutions (Nuechterlein, 2000). They wish to lock themselves into the major alliances of the West, including the military institutions of NATO and the European Union. International order in the twenty-first century will therefore depend upon the United States and a Europeanized NATO, working with but outside any security structures formed by the European Union. The WEU is unlikely to displace NATO as the primary defense body while the United States remains a member of NATO. NATO has already established the basis for an appropriate strategy for the twenty-first century by recognizing that conflict has not come to an end in international politics despite the end of the Cold War and that the WEU and the European Union are not able or willing to displace NATO. NATO has transformed itself as both a defense and a security organization. Based on the continued relevance of collective defense, NATO remains capable of dealing with the security challenges of the future (Weldes et al 1999). In terms of post-positivism, the world is socially constructed influenced by national policy and international politics. In the context of European Union countries, post-positivists blur boundaries that previously separated fields of domestic and international security, pointing toward the emergence of a transnational security field” (Larner & Walters 2004, p. 495). Following traditional broad school approach, in these ways the United States can help develop an international consensus on what types of disputes between modern countries are legitimate, and what types of means can properly be employed to resolve them. Ultimately, this may help the international community move toward the compelling goal of reducing the role of warfare in global politics, and of internationalizing the means through which threats to peace are managed (Stevenson, 2003). This general philosophy can be viewed as a juxtaposition of two disparate approaches to foreign policy: collective security and hegemonic stability. Advocates of this type of approach to foreign policy often argue that the United States can afford to maintain its present overseas commitments, and that there are significant potential benefits for the world in its doing so (Weldes et al 1999). In sum, different philosophical schools propose different approaches and vision of security issues and their impact on international relations. The traditional broad school put an emphasis on responsibility for the security of various overseas regions while post-positivism underlines importance of unified system of collective actions and system of defense. The debate is likely to engage a wide variety of interests ranging from military security to trade to cultural issues. Thus, this concept is a significant one, serving to avoid duplication of capabilities and maintaining a single command structure that provides coherence and effectiveness in alliance capabilities. Modern states have a strong interest in promoting international stability and in enhancing sustainable economic development worldwide. Arguably, they also have a moral and national imperative to advance the values on which society and system of government are based. Bibliography 1. Collins, A. 2007, Contemporary Security Studies. Polity, 2007. 2. Buzan, Barry, Ole Wæver and Jaap de Wilde 1998, Security. A New Framework for Analysis, London: Rienner. 3. Fierke, K. M. 2007, Critical Approaches to International Security. Polity Press. 4. Larner, W. Walters, W. 2004, Globalization as Governmentality. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, vol. 29, iss. 4, pp. 495-498. 5. Morgan, P. M. 2006, International Security: Problems And Solutions. CQ Press. 6. Murdock, C. A. 2003, Improving the Practice of National Security Strategy: A New Approach for the Post-Cold War World. Center for Strategic & International Studies. 7. Nuechterlein, D. E. 2000, America Recommitted: A Superpower Assesses Its Role in a Turbulent World. University Press of Kentucky. 8. Peou, S. 2002, Withering Realism? A Review of Recent Security Studies on the Asia-Pacific Region. Pacific Affairs, vol. 75, iss. 4, pp. 575-577. 9. Stevenson, T. 2003, Wendell Bell: Critical Realism in Studying in the Future. Futures, vol. 35, iss. 3, pp. 283-285. 10. Weldes, J. et al. 1999, Cultures of Insecurity, States, Communities, and the Production of danger. University of Minnesota Press. Read More