Analysis of the State as a Reference Object for Security - Essay Example

Introduction Security, may be defined in two ways, the first approach is an objective one. It may be defined as the absence of threats to obtained values. The subjective definition; security is the lack of fear. There are a number of questions that arise when defining security, these are: Who is being threatened? What values are being addressed? Who is posing the threat? Which threats are most important? (Gleditsch, 2001) All these critical issues need to be examined to find out whether the traditional approaches to security are valid even in modern times. In the twentieth century and before, national security (use of the state as a reference object) had its limit within a country’s border. A lot has changed since then; national economies are not independent forces. They are now affected by policies made by other countries. In light of these new developments, there is a need to revisit the traditional concepts of security. One should ask themselves whether it is plausible to include other parameters like demography, environment and resources. (Daniel, 1998) This means that the concept of international relations must be redefined; this is because there may be other underlying assumptions that have governed it. There are common strains and factors that have broken national borders. It must also be remembered that communication and information has undergone rapid changes. Besides, finances and capital are flowing all around the world. The clear dividing line that separated foreign and domestic policy is now distorted. This has now caused states to deal with problems in international forums rather than domestically. (Paul, 2000) Security perceptions may either be narrow or wide. Narrow concepts focus on power as the main agenda while wide concepts focus on cooperation. It must be remembered that human rights and international law are crucial determinants in this analysis. There are a number of occurrences that have sparked this debate. The first was the unification of Europe and Germany in the year 1989. Shortly after, there was the September eleventh attack in the year 2001 that posed new challenges to the American government. The security concept is now widening from national security to human or individual security. It has also expanded to include other factors like; actors, food, energy, health and other sectors. (Mathews, 1993) Arguments for the state as a reference object Other concepts are vague In opposition to the view that national security is of prime importance, other bodies like the United Nations Commission of Human Security have endorsed and proposed the idea of human security. However, traditionalists argue that this concept is too wide. It does not provide a clear outline of cause and effect like national security does. In addition, these conservatives further claim that the concept of global security is a mere complication of an already difficult subject to handle. They believe that it is a secondary matter and should not be included in security discussions. The state is a very significant entity Arguments have been put forward that considering other concepts in security diverts attention away from matters of national concern. Yet, the state is a very crucial part of our lives. It determines who we can and cannot see where we can and cannot do business. It is therefore imperative to ensure that these issues are safeguarded Protecting countries from foreign investors Some countries like the United States allow the purchase of military or government companies by foreign investors in line with modern concepts of security. This could be perceived as a progressive step that causes capital development and increases in technology for the country. But it allows foreign investors access to classified information concerning the country’s military efforts. This is especially so for those countries that have not been fully scrutinised to find out whether they are capable of handling too much access. This could bring about a problem for selfish companies. The foreign investors could try exploiting a given country’s technologies. To make things even worse, global security could make countries vulnerable to foreign exploitation. (Mathews, 1991) Challenging the status quo Making a paradigm shift from national security could pose a threat to any country. This can occur when cooperative exchange programs are put in place. Through these programs, countries are able to exchange information regarding their weapons, technical data and other military information with their collaborators. This will become detrimental to countries that have advanced military technologies. This is because their allies will be trying to outdo them and bring about undue economic competition. Besides competition, exchange programs could put a given country at a disadvantage when the time comes for them to meet in a battlefield even though that country was the pacesetter of a certain type of technology. Information technology With improvements in the field of technology everyday and with the increase of hackers on a daily basis, the definition of a security threat has taken a different turn. It is quite easy for anyone with a good IT background to infiltrate the systems of a country and betray its secrets. There is also the possibility of identity theft. Some people may pose as enemies of a certain state and may cause unnecessary friction even when the country whose identity they stole meant well. Because of this, nations should try as much as they possibly can to safeguard their interests. This means that national security will still be of prime importance (Mathews, 1989) Arguments against use of the state as the reference object in defining security Cooperation rather than confrontation The last major world war was in the mid twentieth century, a lot has changed since then because countries now focus on other economic and social issues. It is no longer a priority to be militarily supreme. Countries are now pursuing peace and the new song that everyone is singing is peace and cooperation. This implies that other countries are no longer viewed as threats but are seen as opportunities to improve and advance countries in all aspects of their being. Advancement of technology There are numerous technologies that have been introduced in the global economy. It is quite easy to conduct business between two countries separated by long distances. In case any payment or physical contact is necessary, then the parties concerned do not need to invest too much. This is so because air travel is now very convenient and affordable. Besides, there are increasing numbers of cars in the market current. It is therefore very easy to cross between one country to another. In light of these new developments, insisting on separating countries distinctly and viewing others as security threats will only be fighting the inevitable. Countries will be trying to control what has already been established and will therefore be imposing unnecessary regulations on its citizens. This implies that using the state as a reference object will inhibit movements, trade and hence developments in an effort to prevent security threats from harming them. (Käkönen, 1992) Crime and violence within countries While terrorist attacks are still in place today, it is important to remember that there are worse matters occurring inside the borders of most countries. This implies that there should be a shift from viewing other countries as threats to viewing internal problems as threats. There has been an alarm on what could be causing such terrorist attacks, yet there is a more serious problem in people’s homes, violence is serious destroyer of any community. There are thousands of homicide cases all around us. Firearms are a serious threat to the well being of any country’s citizens compared to other external factors (Lowi, 2000) Violence should be nipped at the bud. It causes terror to members of a community more slowly and adversely than any other external force. Besides, violence is lethal and has caused the loss of numerous constructive members of society. It is therefore imperative for all members of a community to work hand in hand to combat this malevolence. In this sense, a lot of resources should be put into the fight against such national forms of terror because home grown terror causes more loss of lives than any threat on national security. (Johnston, 1996) Rise of security cooperation forums In the recent years, countries are moving towards unification in security matters. It is therefore important for these countries to shift from the perception that other countries are their security threats and that they should use this definition as a reference point. So many countries have participated in such forums. One such example is the Forum for Security Cooperation. The activities of the organisation may be summarised as follows; Military reform Enhancing cooperation between countries Conflict prevention Stopping the spread of weapons (Mann, 1984) Combating terrorism The forum was formed in the year 1992 and member states agreed on disarmament, arms control and assurance building measures. This was achieved through the exchange of information, notification and verification of military activities. These countries have also agreed on the control of security and military forces. They also adhere to principles affecting the use of force, international laws and civil conflicts. The forum also deals with the non propagation of arms and landmines. It also handles issues concerning small arms among signatory countries. It has a document that governs their storage, distribution and even their destruction. (Lonergan, 2000) Overly, the forum tackles issues regarding political and military security in member states. All these countries are treated under one umbrella of the body and are subject to these international regulations. This goes to show that there is a shift from state matters to regional matters and global security concerns involve participation from neutral organisations that endorse this concept. (Job, 1992) Concept of human security rather than state security There was a renewed reference to national security in explaining how the US relates to the rest of the world. This was especially so after the Second World War. This concept was again revisited during the cold war. (Baldwin, 1995) Here there was a mention of national, internal alliances and international security. These policies were all made in relation to the concept of state security. However, there is a new school of thought called Human security. Human security may be defined as the option of adapting, finishing and mitigating threats to social, human and environmental rights. This incorporated the use of human or individual problems as the reference point. It is an encompassing concept. It looks at all human beings as subject to common stresses within the environment. These include conflicts, migration and disaster. Here, the major security threat is the lack of basic needs. Within this concept, there is also the aspect of hazards acting as a threat. This implies that major security threats are big weather disasters such as earthquakes, droughts or floods. This approach was mainly supported by the republic of Canada. There is also the element of security threats from hazards induced by humans. These include issues like global warning and pollution. (Käkonen, 1994) Such concepts were supported by the UN in the year 2004. Unification of states through formation of regional unions Issues of national security are not relevant to the European Union. This is because it is treated as a region. It does not have citizens of its own who have to be protected. This implies that issues concerning military and arms control are scarcely controlled. However, there are a few areas that the European Commission looks into. Some of these include climate policy, disarmament and arms control. The European Union has served as an example to other countries. It has shown the benefits that regional cooperation can bring. This means that we may see other countries cooperating and forming such unions. If some countries could embrace these concepts then using the state as a reference object will not be feasible. (Klonergan, 2002) The European Union has had quite an impact on this issue. It has established a response programme in The Hague to deal with issues regarding risks facing members of the European Union. It has also put up an integrated management of borders and has also dealt with a number of issues in its agenda. These include; natural disasters, transport crisis, energy threats, and attacks of disease. But most importantly, the European Commission has facilitated peace and cooperation globally. It has also focused on the environment. (Jahn, 1987) Institutional security There is continuing emergence of this concept. It is fostered by international organisations such as the United Nations and focuses on world peace. The UN charter was signed by a number of nations in the year 1945. The main idea behind it was maintaining international security and peace. This meant that signatories had to put in mind their collective responsibilities. The first aspect of this concept is universality in security. Disputes within the UN are settled on the basis of the chapter seven of the article which requires that all the countries included must not breach peace and must not act aggressively. There is also a provision for regional agreements in the UN. Such forms of cooperation include the Arab league and others. Lastly, there is room for collective self protection. This is embodied in alliances such as the National Alliance Treaty Organisation. (Gleditsch, 2001) The UN, through the above channels, advocates for world security and it believes that there should be shared responsibility amongst all the nations of the world. This implies that it has defined what the key threats to security are and has spearheaded the adoption of human security as a referent. Some of the threats which the UN believes affect the human race include; poverty, illiteracy and poor health. The UN feels that all threats are universal and do not segregate. In addition, it recognises the fact that there is no country that can fight these issues by themselves. Because of the economic and social differences among member states, it is necessary to ensure that a culture of collective responsibility is engrained in all participatory nations. In light of the above facts, the use of the state as a referent object for defining security is strongly objected by the United Nations. This implies that other concepts have the backing of such a strong force in today’s world. The UN has caused a lot of impact through its endorsements and since it does not endorse national security, then the concept should be phased out. (Eileen, 2002) Conclusion Proponents of use of the state as a referent object have put forward a number of arguments to support their claim. They believe that any other concept aside from the traditional one is vague and has no clear outline of the causes and effects of security threats. They also believe that the state is still an important component of society and must not be ignored; lastly, they believe that countries need to protect themselves against external aggressors. In my opinion, these arguments fail to fully address modern security threats. The state as a referent would be relevant fifty years ago because at that time problems were solved by going to war. But modern times have presented society with new challenges thus redefining what security threats are. Terrorism has taken on a new image; it comes in the form of violence, natural disasters, global warming and other human challenges. Security should shift from use of the state as a referent to use of the individual. World wars have not taken place since the mid twentieth century and borders are getting hazier by the day. Besides, institutions like the UN and security cooperation forums strongly support new approaches to security. ‘National security’ should be replaced with ‘human /individual’ security. References Baldwin, D. (1995): Security Studies and the End of the Cold War: a journal on World Politics Banbury, T. (1996): Human security: Rethinking security, rethinking development: New York Printing Press Daniel (1998): World Security: Trends and Challenges at Century’s End; St Martin’s Press Eileen, C. (2002): Responding to Environmental; a report on Geneva UN Gleditsch, P. (2001): Environmental Change, Security and Conflict: United States Institute of Peace Press Gleditsch, P. (2001): Resource and Environmental Conflict: St Martin’s Press Jahn, E. (1987): European Security - Problems of Research on Non-Military Aspects; A journal for Copenhagen Job, J. (1992): The Insecurity Dilemma. National Security of Third World States; Boulder, Company Publishers Johnston, J. (1996): Spatial Analysis; London-New York: Rout ledge Käkonen, J. (1994): Green Security or Militarized Environment; Dartmouth Publishers Käkönen, J. (1992): The concept of security; London - New York: Printer Klonergan, S. (2002): Environmental Security: Encyclopaedia of Global Environmental Change, vol. 5 Lonergan, S. (2000): The Index of Human Insecurity; University of Victoria Press Lowi, M. (2000): Environment and Security: Discourses and Practices; Pal grave Publishers Mann, M. (1984): The autonomous power of the state: its origins, mechanisms and results; European Journal of Sociology Mathews, T. (1989): Redefining Security; journal for Foreign Affairs Mathews, T. (1991): The Environment and International Security, in: Klare Publishers Mathews, T. (1993): Nations and nature: A new view on security; Prentice Press Paul, G. (2000): Threats without enemies: Facing environmental security; Earth scan Publishers Read More