Difference between Non-state Actor and a Nation-State Actor - Essay Example

INTELLIGENCE STUDIES Question Difference between non actor and a nation actor Non actors are organizations or people acting in the international relations and have the power of influencing and causing change without being part of a state.1 Similarly, non-state actors are defined as organizations with powerful economic, political, and social power and have the ability of influencing to the national or international levels without belonging or affiliating to a certain nation.2 Some of the non-state actors include private international media stations, NGOs, and terrorists among others. On the other hand, nation-state actors are territories that a government runs and have a permanent population.3 Nation-states are the most important actors in the international relations, but non-states actors strongly influence them. Hence, nation-states actors are entities or organizations, which a government runs.4 Some of the state actors include elected leaders, diplomats, bureaucrats, militaries among others. Non-state actors have a responsibility of checking state parties in all their actions. For instance, non-state actors such as NGOs which comprises of civil societies scrutinizes government policies to make sure they comply with provisions of human rights. Similarly, these non-state actors play the role of influencing policies and pressurizing the government to implement policies towards meeting its agenda.5 This is contrary to the role of the government, which has a role in making national policies and executing them for the benefit of the people.6 The two actors are different because of the role they play for the people. In the past decades, different civil societies have echoed their voices on the actions of state actors to influence change. For instance, civil societies echoed their voices when the death toll was rising in Egypt. As much as the Egyptian government was condoning and comfortable with the developments, non-state actors comprising on international civil societies opposed the actions. This is an indication of the differences between the two actors. State actors have their media that influences and pass information regarding developments as well as the activities of the nations. This is normally biased, as various governments do not want to expose the wrongs to the public or in the international area. Therefore, most of the wrongdoing of the government goes unreported. Nearly every country has its national broadcasting, which the government influences to get favor. On the other hand, non-states actors such as media expose the nations concerning their wrong doings. They have greater influences because they reach a larger audience compared to state actors. For instance, non-state actors such as CNN as an international media have exposed different nations on many occasions to influence their activities. CNN as an international media reaches a larger audience from different parts of the world compared to state media station, which only covers a given territory as well as airing regional or local news.7 Therefore, there is a difference in coverage, content, and ownership. Moreover, violent non-state actors such as Al-Qaida and other organized groups and drug cartels influence the state actors by competing for power and dominations.8 Whereas state actors have legitimate powers and authority and are sovereign, violent non-state actors try to have power using crude methods.9 There are many cases when violent non-state actors have grabbed power illegitimately from a sovereign government to influence the nation. For instance, Somalia was once a stable and had a unitary government before Al-Shabab militia group took over the nation and influenced its policies. Through this action, the non-state actors took over control certain parts of the sovereign nation and implemented their activities. Currently, Nigeria is largely under the influence of militia groupings, and they are giving the government of the day sleepless nights. Although the two actors have influenced almost in equal measure, the influence of non-state actor is not legitimate because it is obtained from an illegal source. Similarly, drug cartels use the money they obtain to influence or buy support from the locals. They also run parallel agencies to the government making it very hard for the government to control them. Lastly, some non-state actors comprise of cell-based. This consists of independent intelligence agents that offer security to the nations.10 They advise different governments on possible terror strike or any crime likely to happen. Through their actions or roles, they are different from state actors who have agencies operating within a certain limit. Hence, their geographical boundary coverage makes them different in the way they operate. Whereas independent intelligence agencies such as Interpol has no boundary and legitimately operates across nations, state actors agencies such as the police have an operational boundary.11 They are to operate within the sovereign boundary and deal with certain cases. Through this, cell-based non-state actors have a wider influence because they keep in touch with various governments in providing intelligence services or information. Therefore, they contribute to ensuring world security without considering the boundary, unlike state actors who guarantee national security. Question 2: Intelligence community The end of the Cold War in 1989 saw the changes in the Intelligence Community to deal with threats that are more non-traditional. During Cold War period, the Soviet Union was a world threat, and there was a need to put measures towards countering its effects. Therefore, the Intelligence Community together with other NATO forces played an important role in putting Soviet Union in check. The collapse of the Berlin Wall and the re-unification of Germany made the Intelligence Community irrelevant because there was no threat to the world security. Additionally, the Soviet Union had been so powerful that US needed to have a strong force in checking or controlling its effects to the neighboring weak nations.12 The Intelligence Community comprised of many agencies which came together to offer essential information on the Soviet Union as well as its allies in ensuring world peace is maintained. Although there was no war witnessed during this period, it was a good idea to put measures through combining different agencies to offer intelligence information to help in ensuring world security. The end of the Cold War saw the disintegration of nations that made the Soviet Union and the emergence of non-traditional threats.13 Hence, it was essential for the intelligence community to revamp and address the changing form of global threats as it stands today. Changing the role of Intelligence Community The Intelligence Community has since changed its tactics from the traditional security threats to a more non-traditional Security threats. The United Nations (UN) passed resolutions, which only allow a state to use its military personnel for self-defense as opposed to attacking or dominating other weaker nations.14 These have resulted in less civil as well as interstate wars among nations. Therefore, the Intelligence Community has changed its tactics towards dealing with traditional threats to national security. However, the emerging non-traditional threats are making Intelligence Community to adapt new ways of fighting the security threats. For instance, transnational organized crime networks are a non-traditional security threat, and it is taking over making the Intelligence Community change tactics.15 This group comprises of drug cartels, arms smuggling groups, maritime piracy networks among others.16 They are posing a security threat worldwide since they have a developed network, which they operate and its acts a like a web spread all over. Drug cartels have a wide network and get access to different resources that they use in invading States security agencies. Moreover, these traditional threats thrive best in failed states where there is ineffective government control, weak regulatory framework, and corrupt judiciary among others. Therefore, US Intelligence Community has changed its tactics towards dealing with such non-state actors by not bombing them, but spreading the intelligence network across the nations they operate. Intelligence community agencies are found in almost all the failed states to deal with such cartels. This is an approach contrary to the traditional way where the agencies approached the groups after identifying them. Identifying these non-state actors is difficult. Additionally, non-traditional threats such as terrorism have become very difficult to control because of the tactics used. Intelligence Community used to fight a winning battle, and this has proved to be different with the cases of terrorism of fighting insurgent group. One of the reasons why fighting terrorism is difficult is because of its leaderless networks or structures.17 It is very difficult for the Intelligence Community to target their leaders who have the responsibility of assembling the group. Through this, the Intelligence Community has to change its tactics in fighting terrorism since it is hard to detect the individuals or their networks and normally takes time to hit on them. This is contrary to traditional security threats, which normally presented themselves, or the soldiers saw or had a clue of whom they were fighting. Fighting terrorism has enabled the Intelligence Community to deploy new tactics such as invading the operating bases of the terrorist groups as well as heightening the control of the cyberspace. Moreover, it requires the Intelligence Community to use or secure the airspace, sea and land since these insurgent groups use any available opportunity to terrorize the government. Additionally, the non-traditional threat makes the Intelligence Community to collaborate with their neighbors to fight the security threats. This is contrary to traditional methods they used in fighting because they went alone. Lastly, civil war and regime change are first emerging as a non-traditional security threat.18 The end of the Cold War led to the rise of civil war in different countries. Unfortunately, the Civil War takes a long time to calm because it does not involve the outside forces other than militia or ethnic groups. Most of the Civil War occurs due to demand for regime change.19 For instance, the Syrian civil war has taken longer time because the citizens want a change in leadership. Initially, the intelligence community was quick to respond to such wars as witnessed during WW II. Currently, the civil war takes much longer time than any other does, which signifies the change of tactics in the Intelligence Community. They do not respond to the Civil War as in the case of interstate war. On the other hand, the UN has a body that is in charge of keeping and restoring peace in such events. The delay of the UN to respond in Syria case has led to the escalation of the war leading to more death. However, one can also argue that the US, under its Intelligence Community agencies is responsible for the civil war taking place. Reports indicate that the external forces to bring regime change initiate over 40% of civil wars.20 The initiators do not involve themselves directly, but use the citizens through sponsorship. The same thing was witnessed in Libya and Egypt, where US played a critical role in changing the regime and leading to the downfall of the mighty leaders Bibliography Bruderlein, Claude. The role of non-state actors in building human security. Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (2000), 1-18 Inteligence.gov. Our strengths lie in who we are. Available from http://www.intelligence.gov/mission/member-agencies.html Ryngaert, Cedric. Imposing international duties on non-state actors and the legitimacy of International law. Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies. (2010), 2-20 Srikanthi, Divya. Non-traditional security threats in the 21st century. International Journal of Development and Conflict. 4(2014), 60-68 Swain, Ashok. Understanding emerging security challenges: threats and opportunities. New York: Routledge, 2013. Read More