Different Perspectives in Security - Essay Example

Different Perspectives in Security Traditional Security, Critical Security and Human Security Introduction Security is an important component for an effective international relations policy particularly defence policy. Various scholars view security in three perspectives namely traditional security, critical security and human security. Each of these perspectives looks at the issue of security differently. This essay will present these three various perspectives and give examples to understandably present how it has become relevant in today’s issue of international relations. Traditional Security Traditional security studies focused on the role of states, particularly the military, in ensuring political stability within and among nations. It therefore puts the concept of lawlessness as the controlling factor that drives each state to ensure internal as well as external security in the field of international relations. Thus, foreign policy related to defence is paramount in the agenda for international relations. It basically supports the concept of nation states as sovereign entities that must protect and defend its own security. This concept originate from the “Treaty of Wetphalia” (Groves et al, 2009, p. 189) which had been created from battles between countries (p. 189) developing countries into “military units and … for tax collection to support expanding armies” (Tilly, 1990 cited in Groves, et al, 2009, p. 189). Thus, developing security systems comprised primarily by the military and the law enforcers are the primary goal of a country in order to maintain its security as well as maintain social order. For example, the mandate of the United Nations during the transition of the state of Timor-Leste was “state focused” (p. 188) instead of focusing on the security of individuals. Thus, it is focused in protecting the sovereignty of Timor-Leste particularly its security from both internal and external threats. Critiques such as Groves (2009) highlighted the lack of security protection of individuals as a result of the state focused mandate of the transitional government of Timor-Leste. Thus, protection of individual security particularly gender based security, mostly related to security of privacy, was not given focused. It is apparent that this individual security concerns does not support the overall goal of the transitional government to defend the nation state from internal and external security threats mostly from rebellion and attacks from other countries, particularly Indonesia. The focus on sovereignty by traditional security is further supported by the views of liberalism and mercantilism schools of thoughts. Both recognise the importance of pursuing “wealth and power” (Krishner, 1998, p. 66) to protect sovereignty of nation states. Mercantilism viewed the accumulation of wealth as an important aspect to maintain or reach the hold of power of sovereignty of nations within or outside its territories particularly in international relations. Wealth accumulation would support the purchase of weapons of a country as well as economically support its armies. Liberals, on the other hand, argued for the importance of economic productivity as the basis of accumulating military strength making the latter depended on the former. In fact, Kennedy (1948 cited in Krishner, 1998) give credence to this thought by highlighting the “economic capacity of the participants” (p. 66) of the First World War to explain the outcome of the war. Recognising economic capacity as a primary source of military power would lead nation states to focus on strengthening their industrial capacity, energy access, and technological capability to establish modern defence system. A stable and growing economy become major concerns for national security particularly in the long run in traditional security concepts. Thus, political and economic goals of nations become intertwined in international relations. Critical Security Krause (1996) identified six arguments that founded the critical approaches to security. First, is the presence of subjects or actors in the area of world politics primarily comprised by states that evolved from complicated processes in history involving areas in politics, social, material and ideas. Second, is the constitution and reconstitution (p. 6) of these subjects giving it identities and interests developed through political practices. Third, is the concept that world politics is continuously moving affecting the movement of its social structure. Fourth, is the argument on the absence of objective knowledge on world politics’ subjects, structures and practices. Fifth, is the argument that interpretative method of research is the appropriate methodology for the critical analysis of security concepts in international relations. Sixth, is the argument that critical security studies purpose is not to predict or control claims in security in international relations but “contextual understanding and practical knowledge” (p. 6) is the suitable goal. In essence, the critical approach to security is primarily concerned with answering how “subjects, objects and interpretive dispositions were socially constructed” to explain why certain practices evolved or came to be (p. 7). The best example of this approach to critical security is the case of Canada’s international security policy which was touted by many traditional security scholars as irrational policy choice. They considered the security policy choice of the Canadian government after the September 11 suicide attack in the United States of America as irrational particularly its decision not to participate in the war in Iraq. The decision of the Canadian government in 2005 not to participate in the “ballistic defence system” (Massie, 2009, p. 626) of the USA demanded countless request for reversal given the economic and security interests of the country. Further, they have criticised the failure of Canada’s defence policy to achieve its interest as a secondary power given that its “defence ambition exceeded its capabilities” (p. 627). Massie (2009) rationalises these policy choices of Canada by applying the critical approach to analysing security policies particularly the constructivist approach. He illustrated the strong evidence that the international security policy of Canada is motivated by cultural boundaries. Its foreign and defence policy is conceptualised by “territorial integrity and socio economic prosperity,….political autonomy, the promotion of moral principles (e.g. democracy and freedom) and …. international prestige and credibility” (p. 628). Thus, the determination of the defence policy of Canada is based on identity and culture as well as material interests thereby resolving problems usually associated with foreign policy namely abstract goals of foreign policy and meaning of “hierarchy to national values” (p. 628). The former is resolved by providing a framework to explain the priority of foreign policy of Canada on national unity, autonomy in politics and reputation in matters related to security. Prioritising national cohesion over international prestige explains the foreign policy of Canada to be averse to the Iraq war. This same priority led Canada to actualise or put a hierarchical value to national unity over supporting the Iraq war thereby primarily enhancing its identity as a nation. Thus, in the end, the behaviour of Canada with regard to its foreign defence policy is heavily influence by its national identity of cohesion. Peou (2002) supported this phenomenon in foreign policy conceptualisation of a country by stressing that cultural changes happening in domestic political attitudes is highly influential in determining foreign security policy behaviour. This is highly in contrast with the traditional security scholars’ perception of basing security policy determination on material factors that does not consider cultural factors in its security policy formulation. Thus, there is a direct correlation on constructivism and culturalism in terms of creating an impact on the “norms on international security” (Farrel, 2002, p. 49). Human Security Human security refers to protection of human lives to enhance and fulfil human freedom (United Nation’s Commission on Human Security, n.d.). It thus essentially refers to protection of “fundamental freedom” (par. 1) particularly protecting people from “critical and pervasive threats and situations” (par. 1) by developing a system that is conducive for survival, employment and self respect. A systematic combination of social, political, economic, military, environmental, and cultural systems must therefore be created to achieve this conducive situation for human security. Thus, human security is not only protection but empowerment of humanity. Groves et al (2009) emphasised the argument of the United Nation’s Commission of Human Security that appropriate approach to human security might lead towards reformation of the bases of power of nations recovering from conflict. The United Nations Human Security Commission (Groves et al, 2009, p. 193) described human security as “interconnected, universal, people-centred, and multidimensional”. It is not limited to “geographical boundaries” (p. 193) and is aimed at poverty reduction, accomplishing growth in the economy, and prevention of conflict. It is not aimed at replacing state security or the traditional concept of security. Rather it reinforces the role of state security in the perspective of the individual person such that the behaviour of the state in the provision of security be it in domestic or international relations will be geared towards the protection of human rights and empowerment of human potential to achieve the goals of human security. Gender sensitivity particularly its protection is recognised as an important component of human security particularly in the “operationalisation of the human security approach to recovery” (p. 194). Gender is entrenched in every society and traverse through the social, political and economic sectors of society that lead to the exposition of “norms and hierarchies” (p. 194). It helps humanity understand the presence of inequality in the very complex process of society. It completes the process of the approach of human security if gender mainstreaming is followed by projects and policies. Gender based violence is the concern raised by human security scholars in relation to the transition of governance of Timor-Leste (Groves et al, 2009). It was brought up that there is a lack of protection on the privacy of individuals particularly in relation to domestic violence. The state is more focused on protecting its sovereignty and foregoes the concern on the protection of households from domestic violence. The head of the household is then tasked to protect the household from domestic violence but this becomes irrelevant when he himself is the one that perpetrates domestic violence. The study conducted by Groves et al (2009) accounts the lack of focus on the insufficiency of the efforts on peace keeping endeavour of Timor-Leste’s time of transition when it turned a blind eye to the “gendered forms of violence or gender responsive human security” (p. 194) as a prerequisite for authentic peace efforts. Summary and Conclusion The main difference between traditional security, critical security and human security perspectives is how it views security in relation to either domestic or international relations. Traditional security concepts focused on the perspective of power in relation to militaristic defence which later on led to the focus of economic power as the base or bridge for military power. Critical security, on the other hand, focuses on the critical analysis on the motivation of defence policy of a country in order to explain in a deeper framework the non-materialistic factors in determining defence policy behaviours of nations. Finally, human security focuses on the individual situation of humanity in order to influence the overall efforts for peaceful international relations; thereby security has a perspective of humanity and not just using military power to enhance sovereignty but as a means to enhance the situation of humanity. The evolution of the perspectives of security has eventually humanises international relations efforts particularly in the areas of defence policy. The evolvement from traditional to critical to human security perspectives allowed for the eventual creation of humanitarian efforts as part of foreign policy. It is no wonder therefore that countries and international organisations started to strive for the inclusion of human security in their peacekeeping efforts. References Farrel, T. (Spring 2002). Constructivist security studies: Portrait of a research program. International Studies Review, 4(1), 49-72. Retrieved 20 December 2009 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3186274 Groves, G., Resurreccion, B. & Doneys, P. (2009). Keeping the peace is not enough: Human security and gender-based violence during the transitional period of Timor-Leste. Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 24(2), 186-210. Kirshner, J. (1998). Political economy in security studies after the cold war. Review of International Political Economy, 5(1), 64-91. Retrieved 20 December 2009 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/096922998347651 Krause, K. (1996). Critical theory and security studies. YCISS Occasional Paper No. 33. Massie, J. (Summer 2009). Making sense of Canada’s “irrational” international security policy: A tale of three strategic cultures. International Journal Peou, S. (Fall 2002). Constructivism in security studies on Pacific Asia: Assessing its strengths and weaknesses. Pacific Focus, 17(2), 177-211. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (n.d.). Human Security. Retrieved 21 December 2009 from http://ochaonline.un.org/HumanitarianIssues/HumanSecurity/tabid/2421/language/en-US/Default.aspx Read More