Security in the 21st Century: Globalisation, Regionalisation and Individualisation of Security - Article Example

Running Head: Securitization of the environment. Year of Study: Semester: In its widest and scholarly term, security is defined in the modern world by Buzan and Weaver as being a special kind of politics in which particular developments are threats constructed socially as they have an existential characteristic of covering values as well as property of human groups whereby they call for urgent measures (Oberleitner, 2005). Despite this, a survey of older traditional points of view regarding security that go as far back as during Plato as well as Aristotle together with Confucius, Kant, Kautilya and Hobbes’ time, reveals a connection of a security research as an answer to human physiological requirements interpreted in different fields ranging from Philosophy to Political Science as well as International Relations. They presented their postulations in the study carried out by Solidum et al (1991) as Oberleitner, (2005) observes. Plato presented a path that led to security in his ideal republic. In defining what is in the national interest, three notions are critical. One of these elements is the notion of realism. Realism, throughout the cold war era was the domineering theoretical tradition (Walt, 1998). It depicted international affairs as a tussle to gain power and control among self interested states. Realism was generally pessimistic about the endeavours endeared towards eliminating conflict as well as war. During the cold war period, realism dominated as it exemplified simple but influential justification for war to the concerned states, their intended alliances, imperialism, inherent obstacles that stumbled in the path of corporative ventures and other international phenomena as well. The reason behind realism’s dominance also came as a result of its stressing the need for increased competition an aspect that was consistent in America’s rivalry with the former USSR. Realism though is not just one theory and much in the same light, realist’s thought evolved to a considerable extent throughout the period of the cold war. Classical realists for instance, Hans and Reinhold contended that states in fostering their national interests, just like human beings pursue their individual interests, had an internal longing to dominate others. This resulted in warrior confrontations. Morgenthau also put emphasis on merits of the classical, multi-polar balance of power system whereby he saw the polarized rivalry between America and the former USSR. Contrastingly the neo-realist theory as advanced by Waltz overlooked the nature of humanity focusing on international systems effects. For Waltz, the international system was made up of different great powers (sovereign states), with each state seeking to survive through furthering its own policy in its national interest. As a result of the anarchic characteristic of the system with no central authority that can protect states from one another, each given state had to survive on its own through pursuing policies that fostered its national interests. Waltz argued that this condition resulted into weaker states balancing against as opposed to allying in the same bandwagon with powerful rivals. In contrast to Morgenthau, Waltz claimed that this bi-polarity compared to multi-polarity was more stable. Realism was refined with the addition of the offence-defence theory as postulated by Robert Jervis, Stephen Evera and George Quester. The named scholars argued that war was more probability in the event where a state conquering another state was easy. On the other hand when defence was easier than offence it implied that security was more plentiful whereupon incentives for expansion fell and ultimately cooperation of states was fostered. In the event that defence had the advantage whereupon states were able to distinguish between defensive and offensive weapons, it followed that states were able to acquire means of defending themselves without posing a threat to others. Ultimately the effects of anarchy were dampened. For these defensive realists, country sought survival and much in the same light great powers guaranteed their security through formation of balancing alliances as well as choosing defensive military postures for instance retaliatory nuclear forces. Unsurprisingly, Waltz as well as other non-realists contended that America was safe for most of the cold war period. Their key anxiety was that America would squander its desirable position through adoption of an aggressive policy internationally. As such, when the cold war concluded realism had moved from Morgenthau’s dark brooding regarding human nature taking on a more optimistic tone. Another notion, though a challenge to realism that can explain national interest and its pursuance for countries is the concept of liberalism. One strand of liberal thought contended that economic interdependence would discourage countries from using force against each other. This is because warfare threatened each side’s advancement. A second perception, often associated with Woodrow Wilson contended that the spread of democracy was the key to peace in the world. This had a basis in the claim that democratic states were inherently more peaceful compared to states that were primarily authoritarian. A third and most recent theory contended that international institutions for instance, the International Energy Agency as well as the International Monetary Fund could help overcome selfish behaviours by states through encouraging countries to forego immediate gains for the greater advantage of persevering cooperation. Despite the fact that some liberals flirted with the idea that new trans-national players mainly the multi-national cooperation were encroaching on state powers gradually, liberalism generally perceived countries as the central actors in global affairs. Every one of the liberal theories implied that cooperation of countries was pervasive more than the defensive version of realism were it to be allowed, although each perception offered a varied recipe for its promotion and as such state interests were fostered. Until the eighties, Marxism was the major alternative to mainstream liberal and realist traditions. Marxism, where liberalism and realism took the system of the state for granted, exemplified a blue print to fundamentally transform the existing international order as well as a different explanation for international conflict. The mainstream Marxist theory perceived capitalism as the key source of conflict on the international stage. Capitalist states fought one another as a result of their incessant struggle for profits whereupon they also battled states that were socialist as they saw in this states the seeds of their own destruction. The neo-Marxist dependency theory on the contrary focused on the relationship between advanced capitalist powers with the less developed countries arguing that the former supported by an unholy cooperation with the developing worlds ruling classes had grown wealthy through exploitation of the latter. The solution was thus to overthrow these parasite-like elites and put a revolutionary government that was committed to autonomous development. Environment first came up as an issue that relates to security as part of a Malthusian analysis of international issues. Provided that Club de Rome’s The Limits to Growth, printed in the early seventies, predominantly focused on fiscal issues, the environmental resources such as land, air, water as well as wood and raw materials conceptualization as a necessity to human life which were also limited in access and availability made these resources a strategic dimension. This implied that the presence of this interests or their absence came across as of great national interest (Meadows, 1972). Confrontations as well as divisions were thus inherent among a majority of states as well as groups that competed for access. Additionally, environmental scarcity was thus eminent as a potential strategy to be used in weakening one’s enemy by making environmental resources a target during a war, for instance. According to this point of view, which does not greatly vary from realist strategic or traditional international school thinking, the environment comes across as an issue of security as environmental resources are strategy. What is meant here is that environment elements demand protection and as such they are worth battling for. With the conclusion of the Cold War, this dimension that had come up more than twenty years previously became highly visible. As some confrontations in the South that were read till then by use of the West vs. East perspective endured the Soviet Union’s fall, it became a necessity to find a method of explaining their perseverance outside the model of the Cold War. Conflict for resources thesis evolved as an appealing as well as attractive substitute whereby it led to the growth of a popular as well as influential study program led by researchers for instance, Thomas Homer-Dixon together with Nils Petter Gleditsch (Gleditsch, 2001). Additionally, writer and Journalist Robert Kaplan were also central to the popularization of the resource conflict ideas and themes in his essay “The Coming Anarchy”. In this essay Kaplan figures out wars wrought in Africa as illustrations of wars resulting from environmental collapse (Kaplan, 1994). The Gulf War outbreak as well as development also played a central role in democratizing the resource conflict idea as it showed how the environment was able to become an indirect target in a military conflict (Gleick, 1991). Peter Gleick work is central in this respect. Gleck illustrated environmental resources could be used even in a non-strategic way primarily, diminishing of resources as a result of industrial pollution, for instance , as an inspiration for conflict as it decreases the said resources availability for other countries. As early as 1991, he also forecast the conflict potential of the global climate change, which was already manifest in the growing divide inherent between poor and rich countries in global negotiations over a model convention on climate change. References Kaplan R. (1994). “The coming anarchy: how scarcity, crime, overpopulation and disease are rapidly destroying the social fabric of our planet”, The Atlantic Monthly, February 1994. Gleditsch N. P. (eds.) (2001). Environmental Conflict, Boulder (Colorado), Westview Press. Gleick P. H. (1991). “Environment and Security: The Clear Connections”, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, vol. 47, no 3, p. 17, April 1991. Meadows, D. L. et al., (1972). The Limits to Growth, New York, Universe Books, 1972. Oberleitner, G. (2005). Human Security: A challenge to International Law. Global Governance 11 (2005), pp 185-203 Walt, S. M. (1998). International Relations: One World Many Theories. Foreign Policy. Vol. 14. (2) pp 29- 45 Read More