United States National Security - Essay Example

Introduction In the wake of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre on September 9, 2001, the United s is threatened less by conquering states than by these failed or failing ones. This was the upshot of the 2002 National Security Strategy Paper of the US Department of Defense. While the Cold War posed the primary threat to international order in the latter half of the last century, failed states have emerged as perhaps the greatest threat to international stability. There are currently some forty-six states that are effectively failed or are failing. Michael Ignatieff (2002) characterizes weak and collapsing states as the chief source of human rights abuses in the post-cold war world as these states comprise the world's most poor population that are easily disposed to resorting to violence against other groups, their own governments or international terrorism primarily in a battle of survival. James Wolfensohn, formerly of the World Bank, calls for a global strategy that includes measures designed to address "the root causes of terrorism: those of economic exclusion, poverty and under-development."(Wolfensohn, 2002) This paper outlines why are failed and failing states significant threat to United States national security by first establishing whether failed and failing states are in a position to pose a significant threat to the United States. The paper will look into the reasons why they are a threat and in case it is established that failed or failing states are not a threat to US security, the essay will discuss the reasons thereof. It is also relevant to determine the scope and level of post-911 threat perceptions in the corridors of power in Washington as well as define what is a "failed" and "failing" state. For any hypothesis, one needs support from the international relations theories that may offer an explanation. Though the concept of failed or failing state is relatively new, it has quickly established itself as part of the international relations lexicon and the strategic vernacular apparently since the year 2000, and it has many definitions. Various characterization in the literature are: fragile states (Goldstone et al, 2000), difficult partners (OECD, 2001), Low Income Countries Under Stress (LICUS) (World Bank, 2002), poor performers (AusAid, 2002), difficult environments (Torres & Anderson, 2004), weak performers (ADB, 2004), failed and failing states (Rotberg, 2004) and countries at risk of instability (Government of the UK, 2005). CIA's Instability Task force defines state failure as the collapse of authority of the central government to impose order in situations of civil war, revolutionary war, genocide, politicide and adverse or disruptive regime transition. Rotberg (2004), on the other hand characterizes failure of the state as being marked by an inability to provide basic political goods-especially security, dispute resolution and norm regulation and political participation-to many, if not most, of its citizens. A failed state may face restrictions on its sovereignty, such as political or economic sanctions, the presence of foreign military forces on its soil or other military constraints such as a "no-fly" zone. A prestigious journal, Foreign Policy, and the Fund for Peace, in independent research organization in their joint-project called "Failed States Index" (FSI) define a failing state as the one in which the government does not have effective control of its territory, is not perceived as legitimate by a significant portion of its population, does not provide domestic security or basic public services to its citizens and lacks a monopoly on the use of force. A failing state may experience active violence or simply be vulnerable to violence. According to the yearly survey on state instability conducted by Foreign Policy and Fund for Peace, there are some sixty states that are most likely to qualify as failing states. Twelve social, economic, political, and military indicators were used to rank 148 states in order of their vulnerability to violent internal conflict and societal dysfunction. These indicators are: Demographic pressures, massive movement of refugees and Internally Displaced Persons, legacy of vengeance-seeking group grievance, chronic and sustained human flight, uneven economic development along group lines, sharp and/or severe economic decline, criminalization of delegitimization of the state, progressive deterioration of public services, widespread violation of human rights, security apparatus as "state within a state, rise of factionalized elites and intervention of other states or external actors. The scores in the index are based on data from more than 11,000 publicly available sources. How many states may be categorized as failed or failing states According to Foreign Policy and Fund for Peace's FSI, twenty-eight states with ninety percent or above marks, the World Bank has identified about thirty "low-income countries under stress," whereas Britain's Department for International Development has named forty-six "fragile" states of concern. A report commissioned by the CIA has put the number of failing states at about twenty. So, there are between twenty and forty-six countries that may be bundled as failed or failing states. Country Indicators for Foreign Policy (CIFP) further divides states into four categories namely, strong, weak, failed and collapsed. It defines strong states as those in control of territory and boundaries, willing and able to deliver a full range of public goods to their citizens. Such states are able to withstand significant external shocks without requiring large amounts of external aid. Examples: Czech Republic, Brazil. Weak states, according to CIFP are states that are susceptible to fragility or failure because of their limited governance capacity, economic stagnation and/or an inability to ensure the security of their borders and sovereign domestic territory. Examples: Indonesia, Kenya. Failed states are characterized by conflict, humanitarian crises and economic collapse. Government authority, legitimacy and capacity no longer extends throughout the state, but instead is limited to specific regions or groups. Examples: Sierra Leone, Afghanistan. And finally, collapsed States are those in which central government no longer exists. These nations exist purely as geographical expressions, lacking any characteristics of state authority, legitimacy or capacity. Examples: Somalia The 10 most at-risk countries in the index have already shown clear signs of state failure. Ivory Coast, a country cut in half by civil war, is the most vulnerable to disintegration; it would probably collapse completely if U.N. peacekeeping forces pulled out. It is followed by the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, Iraq, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Chad, Yemen, Liberia, and Haiti. United Nations Human Development report awards Human Poverty Index (HPI) value to individual states based on a long and healthy life, knowledge and a decent standard of living. These ten states are at the lowest order meaning that the people in these countries have neither a long and healthy life, knowledge nor a decent standard of living. Therefore, these states are also the most deprived. (HDR, 2003) Jean-Germain Gros (1996) specifies five types of failed states: chaotic, phantom, anaemic, captured, and aborted. The various types derive their dysfunction from different sources both internal and external. There are, of course, a number of other important concerns emanating from failed state environments. Though not always included in the fragile states literature, the recent report "A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility," drafted by the UN's High Level Panel On Threats, Challenges, and Change offers perhaps the most complete justification currently extant for international engagement in failed and failing states. In its account of the most pressing threats to national and international security, the panel goes beyond traditional concerns of interstate conflict, and includes "economic and social threats, including poverty, infectious disease and environmental degradation; internal conflict, including civil war, genocide and other large-scale atrocities; nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons proliferation; terrorism; and transnational organized crime." In summary, definition of failed and failing state posed a real difficulty as different organizations reflecting their own school of thought and criteria have different notions about states that are failed or failing and those that are successful. Some analysts in the least developing countries may disagree with the criteria and methods of data collection. However, one element that appears in all of the definitions is that failed states are qualitatively different than other types of developing states, with unique problems that require novel policy responses. (Prest et al, 2005) Needless to say that theory forms the backbone of an inquiry whether related to the academia or part of a policy framework. "Theory" can be defined as a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world or an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena." Waltz(1979) suggests that mainly explanation not prediction is expected from a good theory. Halliday (2005) asserts: The criteria for good or sound theory are evident enough: it should be conceptually clear and rigorous, historically aware, able to yield substantive analysis and research agenda, and, where appropriate, able to engage with ethical issues. Theory is a necessary part of all human understanding, from the numbers of mathematics or divisions into colours we use in everyday life to the abstractions of Hegel, or of the sociologist Talcott Parsons. In order to answer the research question, one needs to look into theories related to Neo-Marxism and Realism and Neo-Conservatism. Although the latter most does not really fall into the category of a theory, and it is more of an ideology, it is important from the point of view that it offers the strongest underpinning to the American foreign policy. Neo-Marxist IR theories focus on the economic and material aspects of international relations making the assumption that the international system is an integrated capitalist system aiming at accumulating wealth and in this system economic interests are paramount for states which are essentially unequal in terms of economic strength. The study of neo-Marxist IR theories can be divided into the "Dependency Theory," the "World Systems" theory, the "Structuralism" theory and the theory of "Imperialism." David Harvey is a contemporary theoretician who speaks about new imperialism and argues that the US foreign policy can be explained by looking at it from his point of view. Harvey's theory of the new imperliasm can be summarised as follows: The capitalists who own the wealth of nations have an inevitable and insatiable desire to accumulate more wealth which is really the driving force behind economic growth and technological advancement. But when their lust exceeds the capacity of their local economy, they venture out and this generates economic inequalities among states and thereby the anarchy in the international realm. Of course, "realism" (discussed infra) dismisses this anarchy as a norm. The capitalists and the state get into a competition as the interests diverge and the incompatibilities between them are resolved by a dialectical process and, since the capitalists are in a position to influence the state, they always come out on top. Crossing the bounds of their home turfs, the same processes are exported by trade, investment, and the state's exertion of military power which results in the creation of empires. Furthermore, America has gradually turned into an empire over the last fifty years of which the large number of US military bases around the world is a clear evidence. (Harvey, 2003) Dependency Theory is an off-shoot of the neo-Marxist school of thought. It describes the international system as a group of producing states, known as "Periphery," surrounding the wealthy states, the "Centre" and goes on to add that the underdeveloped states of the periphery are exploited by the wealthy states of the centre, in order to sustain economic growth and accumulate wealth. Dependency Theory states that it is the concept of "dependencia" which is responsible for the poverty in the peripheral states. Dependencia is actively, but not necessarily consciously, perpetuated by the rich nations of the "Centre" through various foreign policy initiatives involving economics, media control, politics, banking and finance, education, sport and all aspects of human resource development. It argues that the international system necessarily thrives on the economic disparity between the "centre" and the "periphery," and by virtue of the accumulated wealth, the "centre" is posited to exert control through military invasions and economic sanctions on a member of the "periphery" that attempts to break the disparity. Dependency Theory emerged after the Argentine economist, Paul Prebisch, released a study, "The Economic Development of Latin America and its Principal Problems" which also came to be known as the "Singer-Prebisch Thesis." German economist, Hans Singer had arrived at a similar conclusion albeit separately but at roughly the same time. Singer-Prebisch thesis begins with the following observation: .in the present world system the periphery produces primary goods to export to the center, and the centre produces secondary goods for export to the periphery. As technology improves, the centre is able to retain the savings made, since it can retain higher wages and profits through developed unions and commercial institutions. At the periphery, companies and workers are weaker, and have to pass on technical savings to their customers in the form of lower prices (Singer-Prebisch, 1950). Structural Marxism is another off-shoot of Neo-Marxism and is primarily associated with the works of the French Philosopher, Louis Althusser. The main tenets of Structual Marxism are: first, capitalism begets imperialism when capitalist societies are compelled to explore new markets for their products and new resources for production. One may argue that when the bourgeoisie sails away to find new markets, they force their governments to support them through diplomatic and military means. And this is what structural Marxism's second tenet is all about. It says there is a distinct relationship between the military, capitalism and imperialism. Structural Marxism is also in accordance with Lenin's theory of imperialism which, he states, is the highest stage of capitalism. Lenin stated thus, "the capitalist class from the rich extract a profit from cheap labor and raw material of poor countries the majority of which is kept by the capitalists themselves, but some of it is shared with the working class of the rich countries in the form of higher standards of living, social security, pensions, etc in order to appease them and avoid revolution." (Lenin) Neo-Marxist approach to the study of International Relations is based on the paradigm that foreign relations of the state are related to its domestic or national politics and vice-versa. According to Fred Halliday the state is Janus faced, that it functions "simultaneously at the domestic and international level in order to maximize benefits in one domain to enhance their position in the other." (Halliday, 1994) Realism emerged as a reaction to the early 20th century idealist school of thought in international relations. While idealism propounded an authority to regulate relations between states in accordance with mutually agreed laws, realism quickly rejected the notion of a supreme authority as they believed that the world system was based on anarchy in which there is no room for norms. Modern realism can be traced to political thought related to Hobbes. According to Boucher (1998), Hobbes tends to compare international relations with the unmitigated war of everyman against everyman which is characteristic of the "state of nature" in which the individual must learn how to survive. Since at the international level, there is no sovereign to hold the states in awe, therefore there is neither justice nor injustice, neither public good nor public evil. This condition is synonymous to the state of nature that existed before the civil society was formed. In consequence, nations "live in the condition of a perpetual war. Classical realists such as Morgenthau, Waltz, Mearsheimer, et at follow the same line as Hobbes although they offer advanced forms of the realist theory. For instance, international politics is subject to human nature; the survival of states depends on the level of military power they have, international relations must be observed objectively or without emotions and power politics determines relations between states. But the most pertinent off-shoot of the realist theory, structural realism, is propounded by John Mearsheimer. He says: Given the difficulty of determining how much power is enough for today and tomorrow, great powers recognize that the best way to ensure their security is to achieve hegemony now, thus eliminating any possibility of a challenge by another great power. Only a misguided state would pass up an opportunity to become hegemon in the system because it thought it already had sufficient power to survive. (2001) According to Mearsheimer (2001), "a great power that has a marked power advantage over its rivals is likely to behave more aggressively because it has the capability as well as the incentive to do so." US National Security "In the past, the geography of national security was defined by foreign frontiers. Dangerous enemies had to possess mass and scale as they first accumulated armies, navies or air forces and then deployed them. Today the frontiers of national security can be everywhere. The point is so obvious in the case of mass-casualty terrorism that it needs no elaboration." (Zelikow, 2003) US national security can be studied in two parts: homeland security and security of US military and economic interests overseas. A threat to the Saudi oil fields could be taken as a threat to US economic interests as oil sustains American economy and therefore a threat to the US national security. At the same time a threat to the value system that represents the American establishment and the society could also be taken as a threat to the US national security because it strengthens other value systems that may pose an ideological threat to the American society. Examples: communism and "jihadism". Neo-conservatism firmly believed during the Cold War period that ideological supremacy of communism was more dangerous than strategic superiority. US president George W. Bush's introduction to the National Security Strategy Paper provides an insight into what may be termed as non-tangible national assets namely, freedom, right to dissent, capitalism (versus "murderous ideology") and totalitarianism. Bush wrote: "We're engaged in a global struggle against the followers of a murderous ideology that despises freedom and crushes all dissent, and has territorial ambitions and pursues totalitarian aims." (NSS, 2002) Less obvious is the way the Bush Administration, following on but surpassing the Clinton Administration, has consistently identified poverty, pandemic disease, biological and genetic dangers, and environmental degradation as significant national security threats. (Zelikow, 2003) The research topics begs the question whether failed or failing states are a significant threat to the United States national security or is it part of the Political Public Relations campaign sponsored by the "neocons". For instance, some analysts believe that the story of Saddam Hussein possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) was a political public relations job aimed at selling the planned invasion of Iraq to the US public and critics abroad. Another example is the US plan to change the world order. For instance, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member and former Carter National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, says the United States should take the lead and conquer the world which will lead to nation states being incorporated into a new world order, controlled solely by economic interests as dictated by banks, corporations and ruling elites concerned with the maintenance (by manipulation and war) of their power. Hollywood plays a major role in US government's public relations exercise as "certain filmmakers are in league with military officials. Just weeks after Sept. 11, [2001], the U.S. Army and secret services directly asked Hollywood directors to come up with ideas- in the utmost secrecy of course. Hollywood is now creating series based on information and ideas supplied by the Army." (The History Channel, 2005) The 2002 National Security Strategy Paper essentially abandoned the policy of deterrence for "a forward-reaching, pre-emptive strategy against hostile states and terrorist groups, while also expanding development assistance and free trade, promoting democracy, fighting disease, and transforming the U.S. military. We are menaced less by fleets and armies than by catastrophic technologies in the hands of the embittered few." (NSS, 2002) The shift in foreign policy from deterrence to pre-emptive strike and unilateral militarism was seen by many experts as striking for a country whose foreign policy for almost half a century was dominated by the struggles against powerful states such as Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union. But the new threat perception in Washington was supported by many including the then U.N. Secretary-General, Kofi Annan who clearly warned that ignoring failed states created problems for advanced states. The French President, Jacques Chirac, spoke of the potential threat failed states posed to the world order. One of the reasons may have been the demise of Soviet Union which, during the Cold War period, shielded the failing states by extending deterrence and financial support. At the same time the United States never felt threatened from the failing states which were obligated by the Soviet Union not to take a unilateral action that may offset the delicate balance of power between the two superpowers. The United States distinguishes between states that are vulnerable from those that are already in crisis. According to USAID, vulnerable states are unable or unwilling to adequately assure the provision of security and basic services to significant portions of their populations and where the legitimacy of the government is in question. In crisis states, the central government does not exert effective control over its territory or is unable or unwilling to assure the provision of vital services to significant parts of its territory, where legitimacy of the government is weak or nonexistent, where violent conflict is a reality or a great risk. The newly-created Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization within the Department of State is the new locus for American response to failed and failing states. (Krasner & Pascual, 2005) The office is intended to coordinate all civilian government efforts within those states deemed to be most at risk of instability, to pose the greatest risk of regional destabilization and to impact most seriously on American national security. According to US National Security Strategy, the threats in the world are so dangerous that the US should "not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively". The strategy also states that the US aims to create a new world order that favours democracy and defeats terror at the same time. The NSS document recognises the importance of addressing state failure as an immense structural and global problem which is unlikely to go away in the short run. The list of failing states is extensive and growing, and all regions of the world are affected by the multiple consequences of these failures: state failures serve as the potential breeding ground for extremist groups, and most contemporary wars are fought either within nation-states or between states and non-state actors. (NSS) In the immediate aftermath of 11 September, media reports indicated that primary countries harbouring terrorists included Afghanistan, Sudan, and Algeria. However, dismantling the Al-Queda network now involves intelligence and law enforcement efforts in the over thirty countries where the terrorist network is believed to have cells. Conclusion As explained in the Neo-Marxist theory, the capitalist system has arrived at a stage where national bourgeoisies must expand to other countries in search of natural resources to fuel their production and to sell their commodities hence keep up the process of maximizing profit. The post-Cold War world order ushered in the era marked by the global hold of capitalism which fueled a competition among major powers for gaining control over the peripheral states' natural resources and raw material on the one hand and new markets on the other. But in an anarchic world system, where power determined the role of the states, United States emerged as the sole superpower (also know as "hyperpower") because it possessed the largest military might and had the political will to use it unilaterally in pursuit of its self-interest. "The point of departure of the new national security strategy is the position of unparalleled military strength and great economic and political influence that the United States enjoys." (David & Shapiro, 2003) The evidence for competition between the rich states lies in the fact that the United States' March 2004 invasion of Iraq was aimed at stopping Saddam Hussein from selling oil in Euro currency to the European Union. Washington viewed this decision in Baghdad as an economic threat to its interest, in that, when oil was sold in dollar currency, the European Union like other countries had to purchase dollars from the United States to pay for their oil. But when Saddam Hussein offered them oil in Euros, this meant a serious blow to the US economy as it could no more print fiat dollars against oil sales to offset recession at home. Globalization increased the dependency of the failed states manifolds for the reason that they had no alternative power to fall back on, such as Soviet Union which also extended sufficient deterrence against overt US military intervention. Although there emerged a tendency among the peripheral states to form regional blocs such as NAFTA, ASEAN, APEC, SAARC, GCC, Shanghai Six, and so on, with the aim of improving their economies, but American presence in these blocs prevented them from becoming a formidable force to be reckoned with in Washington. In the capitals of the failed states, the leadership realized that the reason for their failure is the world system itself in which they sit on the last rung of the hierarchy and will always be at the receiving end. Therefore, the only foreign policy option available to them would be resort to terrorist attack. 911 certainly encouraged them to explore this option. Following factors may be cited as some reasons why failed states are a significant threat to the United States: unabated poverty which threatens local regimes, exploitation of natural resources, clash of civilization, tendency to launch military attacks with disregard to international law or sovereignty of other states and a reading that the United States must be cut down to size so that there is room for a bipolar or even multi-polar world system. REFERENCES James Wolfensohn, "Making the World a Better and Safer Place: The Time for Action is Now", Politics, Vol. 22, No. 2 (2002) 118. Michael Ignatieff, "Intervention and State Failure", Dissent, Vol. 49, No. 1 (2002), 115. OECD, "Poor Performers: Basic Approaches for Supporting Development in Difficult Partnerships - Note by the Secretariat", OECD DAC, (November 2001), available: ww.oecd.org/dataoecd/26/56/21684456.pdf Magi Moreno Torres and Michael Anderson, "Fragile States: Defining Difficult Environments for Poverty Reduction", PRDE Working Paper, No. 1, (August 2004), available: . Jack Goldstone et al., State Failure Task Force Report: Phase III Findings, (McLean, VA: Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), 2000), available: . 8 World Bank, "World Bank Group Work in Low- World Bank, "World Bank Group Work in Low-Income Countries Under Stress: A Task Force Report" World Bank LICUS Task Force, (September 2002), available: . AUSAid, "Australian Aid: Investing in Growth, Stability and Prosperity", AUSAid, (September 2002), available: . Asian Development Bank, "ADB's Approach to Weakly-Performing Developing Member Countries", Discussion Paper for the Asian Development Fund (ADF) IX Donors' Meeting, (March 2004), available: . Robert Rotberg (ed.), When States Fail: Causes and Consequences, (Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2004). Prime Minister's Strategy Unit, "Investing in Prevention: An International Strategy to Manage Risks of Instability and Improve Crisis Response", A Prime Minister's Strategy Unit Report to The Government of the U.K. (February 2005), available: . Human Development Report, 2003 http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2003/indicator/indic_27_1_1.html Jean Germain Gros, "Towards a taxonomy of failed states in the New World Order: decaying Somalia, Liberia, Rwanda and Haiti", Third World Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 3 (1996) 548-461. Stewart Prest, John Gazo & David Carment, (2005) Working out strategies for strengthening fragile states-the British, American and German experience, Conference on Canada's Policy Towards Fragile, Failed and Dangerous States, CIFP Stephen Krasner and Carlos Pascual, "Addressing State Failure," Foreign Affairs, Vol. 84, no. 4 (July/Aug 2005) 153-163. US Government, National Security Strategy, 2002 High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change, "A more secure world: Our shared responsibility", UN (2004), 2, 14-16. Available:. Jean-Marc Chtaigner Franois Gaulme., (2005), Beyond the fragile state : Taking action to assist fragile actors and societies,". Lynn E. Davis, Jeremy Shapiro; 2003, The U.S. Army and the New National Security Strategy Rand, Philip Zelikow, The Transformation of National Security, The National Interest, Spring 2003 The History Channel, (2005), Hollywood and the Pentagon. Read More