Development of Military Power for International Security - Essay Example

To what extent is traditional military power still central to todays international security? By Introduction International security involves measures that international organizations like the United Nations and other nations in the world aimed at ensuring safety for the people and mutual survival. The measures involve diplomatic agreement and military actions. National and international security is linked in one way or the other. Major international security policies are developed and passed by countries under the United Nations. Some countries are also known to influence such decisions (Buzan & Hansen, 2009). Some of the countries that are of influence in making decisions pertaining to the world’s international security are united states, Canada, France, Germany Great Britain, Italy , Japan, and recently Russia. Among the issues discussed at the united nations security forums includes, threats of nuclear war, military conflicts that is associated with mass destruction weapon, stress in the environment can also result to political and military conflicts. Discussion Nations have for many years conflicted on issues such as energy supplies, land, river, sea and other environmental resources such as oil (Buzan & Ver, 2003).Other issues such as convectional, chemicals and biological weapons have been of concern during the various conventions. International suctions have been directed to those countries that are developing weapons that are deadly such as the nuclear weapons. National security has in the past been associated with state survival toward threats that are posed by other states. The same legacy has continued to be used in national security matters. The emphasis has always been based on responses to military threat. Exceptional measures such as use of force, secrecy, suspension of civil liberties, extra legal activities and increase of executive powers by national security is justified by the same legacy (Art, 2009). National security presupposes a state where the society and the government enjoy a degree of integration that is considered consensual. Security is concerned with threat management. It is considered as a way of looking for freedom during threats. It is however not clear whether states or individuals may want to be in an environment that is threat free. This is believed to be boring for some states and individuals. The raison d’être principal of the state will be threatened in an environment that is threat free. The principal is aimed at security provision. Threat is harm that is directed to a valued object. Threats are understood in variety of ways by the national security. Both the threatened and the threat are to be considered objective and national security as material condition. For example a country may feel to be under threat if the neighboring has more war weapon. A threat may also exist due to securitization of the threatened and the threat. In rational world, material conditions triggers securitization. Failing and failed states have become a source of concern in the international political environment. All are linked to the impact of the war to the people and property. Several deaths and destruction has been reported in such states. The worst thing is, failed states have continued to fight for many years. Such cases have been reported in many countries in Asia and some parts of Africa. The causes of war have always been political. Just like in the past, loss of innocent lives and destruction to properties that amount to billions of money has been reported in the various countries around the globe. In the 19th century Russia and British empires struggled to be in control of central Asia. British continued to protect its colony in India but at the same time worried about Russia’s assertiveness in the countries such as Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Russia was concerned of maintaining the peace in those nations and extending its territory (Ball, 2012). The conflict between the two countries however did not result to war but it impacted on trade opportunity for the two countries. Currently the players comprises of the United States, a weakened Russia and china. The past competition is parallel to the game that is being played in Asia in the current world. The United States has continued its relations in the Middle East to extend its war on the terrorists. The cooperation between the three counties, the United States, china and Russia and the leaders in Asia has continued though the impact on the local authority has not yet been felt. The interest of the three countries in the continent has however nearly different from their predecessors in the previous century. The United States major focusing the continent of Asia has majorly been associated with the fight of the terrorism (Art, 2009). The impact of the United States in the continent has declined over time. China and Russia however have remained in control. International politics have been controlled by the great powers. Such powers have extended their influence out of their countries with the aim of finding ways to create a conducive environment that favors their interests and security. Such countries have goals of becoming hegemons through becoming powerful than the other global competitors. The current geo political setting is based on the predominance of the United States of America (Reveron, 2010). In the United States case, the 1996’s enlargement and the engagement national security strategy was aimed at meeting the security challenges presented by the post –cold war. Some situations were delineated in cases that may end up contemplating the application of the United States forces. United States interests were one of the standard conditions, other essential interests and the interests associated with humanity were among the other conditions. The world has registered so many changes since the completion of the cold war. However, the United States leadership has continued to utilize the various opportunity presented by the current international environment (Ball, 2012). Three goals have been presented by the America; to promote democracy in other countries outside America, to promote the countries’ economic revitalization and to promote security. The policy makers in the United States of America belief such goals can only be promoted through international engagements and extending the community of democracies. Every administration that assumes power in the country has created a policy that enhances the American position, primacy and power. All this are aimed at increasing the influence of the United States abroad (Feiler, 1939). The country is committed to the agenda of internationalism without balancing the ideological and geopolitical war. The globalism presented by the country is associated with the stability and international order. All of them are linked to the interests of the country (Claxton, 2008). The September terrorist attack in the United States soil altered some settings. It resulted to the creation of the many political that were aimed at protecting the United States population from future threats and resulted to the fight of terrorism in the world. The country is the only one that exercises political leadership that target the whole world. It has the most powerful military force and posses the most mobile forces in the world. The advanced technology and the good training that entail sealifts and airlifts has made it easier for the United States to transport forces to troubled area around the world. The ability of the country to transmit power to various parts of the world has resulted to change of rules. The terrorism war has transformed the United States military into a lighter, more lethal and lighter force. Such forces utilize surveillance, inter-linked communication, target system and the weapon aimed at exploiting them (Mueller, 2007). The United States military has inherited unilateralism. The super power status of the United States of America is not only confined to the military dimensions. The country has the most vibrant and large national economy. The combination is considered the lynchpin of the US national and foreign policies. It will be difficult for other countries to challenge the United States given the policies and the advancement it has registered in the world today. The 1995 and 1999 campaign in Balkan, the Afghanistan intervention the 1991 gulf wars and the spring war of 2003 against Iraq have exhibited United States strength. President Bush believed that, Clinton’s policies lacked clear priorities and coherence and failed to indicate what was essential to the interests and security of the United States. His administration thereby, focused on unilateral policies. The concept has been considered as one of the most profound theme in foreign policy initiatives. The 9/11 attack on the US soil has caused the reordering of international engagement and reinforcement of unilateralism. Unilateralism is explained by the attempt by America to create its own rules (Rapport, 2009). The fight of terrorism is aimed at extending the presence of the American military in the world and enhances its power. Terrorism issue has enabled the United States of America to open more military bases around Russia and china and therefore able to monitor them in cases of threats. The relationship of the US with other countries in the world is experiencing some changes. The changes are impacting on the international security more than the terrorists due to the powerful nature of the US. Militarization, unrestricted unilateralism and urgency have characterized the United States response towards international terrorism. The urgency has made the terrorism war a priority in the current world. The country is obsessed with power and military technology. The obsession is based on the reaction of the country towards terror attacks. Missile defense programmes has been sped up to replace diplomacy in the nuclear fight (Record, 2012). The United States has also aimed at making allies and coalition with the other countries in the world. According to them, coalition is based on the mission of the countries involved and not the other way round. Many European countries have been frustrated by the use of the military and the unilateralism approach by the United States in solving of the many problems in the regions around the world. the bush doctrine which states that, ‘you are either with us or against us’ has made it difficult for the allies less security than the united states of America. The approach of president bush to the world in most traditional sense is state-centric. It was based on traditional conceptions about security, rogue states and great powers. The operation of terrorism in the Middle East was supported by the rogue regimes and therefore the United States of America focused on changing the bad governance and rogue regimes while targeting to end terrorism in the countries concerned and the world in general. There is emergence of new balance in the world. The United States is concerned with dominating the financial market of the world, the military power and the political leadership. American’s aspirations of working and maintaining the world as unipolar is doomed. The unilateralism that exists may not last for long. Achieving global hegemony is impossible for any state in the world. in the world economic context , the outcome of the united states may be impaired given that some policies have to be agreed upon by European union, Japan and others. The push for change of the world security policies by the United States was aimed at ensuring the country deals with threat from outside its territory. The US has been on the forefront at preventing other countries such as Iran from developing world. The unilateralism presented by the United States does not necessarily bar others from becoming super powers. Other powers will eventually emerge because the free ride economically and militarily (Singer, 2011). The hegemony practiced by the US only allows diffusion of technology and wealth to other potential rivals. The involvement of the country in many global activities especially over expenditure in military will exceed America’s political, demographic and military resources. The global United States expenditure may be considered cheaper in the eyes of an American but not on the finances. Traditional powers have a belief that undemocratic countries are bad; some of these countries are known to fight the other countries which are undemocratic as a way of making peace. They have ended up pushing for rules that allows them to enter such non countries and bring peace and democracy. The United States of America for example invaded Iraq with the intention of the getting Saddam out of the thrown and brings democracies and peace in the country. However, in the process of bringing peace to such countries, many human rights violations have been reported (Shimshoni, 2010). For example when the United States attacked Afghanistan, violation of human rights by the soldiers was reported. In addition innocent lives were lost in the process. National security has always been associated with the protecting the people from threats that are from other countries. Countries have been known to protect themselves by ensuring the military department is alert and weapons which are sophisticated are in place. It is also true that countries have invested a lot in ensuring they have the most current weapon compared to the rival. Such pressure is so intense in countries that are more developed than those which are still developing. United States of America is one of the countries that have invested a lot in military. It has also influenced and ensuring the international security bodies are able to pass rules and policies that support them. Globalization has shifted attention from the state and opened ways for referent objects and other framing for securities. Framing of military securities are related to economic, identity, environmental and human security (Salt & Smith 2009). Globalization has however downgraded the war between states, and thereby cracking the claim of national security. It is believed to impact on the threat scale. National security is never applied in failed states due to globalization. The traditional military powers are still applied both in developing and developed countries. The united nation has ensured deployment of the military to the affected countries to maintain peace and order. America is considered a super power because of its vast military influence in the many parts of the world. References Art, R. 2009. To What Ends Military Power? International Security, 3-3. Ball, D. 2012. Arms and Affluence: Military Acquisitions in the Asia-Pacific Region. International Security, 78-78. Buzan, B., & Ver, O. 2003. Regions and powers the structure of international security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Buzan, B., & Hansen, L. 2009. The evolution of international security studies. Cambridge [U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Claxton, B. 2008. Traditional American Military Doctrine and SDI. Defense Analysis, 347-359. Feiler, A. 1939. International security,. Chicago, Ill.: The University of Chicago Press. Mueller, J. 2007. Pearl Harbor: Military Inconvenience, Political Disaster. International Security, 172-172. Rapoport, D. 2009. Military And Civil Societies: The Contemporary Significance Of A Traditional Subject In Political Theory1. Political Studies, 178-201. Record, J. 2012. Jousting with Unreality: Reagans Military Strategy. International Security, 3-3. Reveron, D. 2010. Exporting security international engagement, security cooperation, and the changing face of the U.S. military. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Salt, J., & Smith, M. 2009.. Reassessing Military Assistance to the Civil Powers: Are Traditional British Anti-Terrorist Responses Still Effective? Low Intensity Conflict & Law Enforcement, 227-249. Shimshoni, J. 2010. Technology, Military Advantage, and World War I: A Case for Military Entrepreneurship. International Security, 187-187. Singer, P. 2011. Corporate Warriors: The Rise Of The Privatized Military Industry And Its Ramifications For International Security. International Security, 186-220. Read More