Defining National Security Threat in the 21st century
National Security Threat is Anything that threatens the physical well-being of the population or jeopardizes the stability of a nation's economy or institutions is considered a national security threat.
It is clear that in the 21st century the definition of security has to be broader because the perception of security threats of states and nongovernmental actors in international relations has broadened. There are states which perceive only military capabilities as threats and there are states that perceive global warming as a bigger threat to their security then military capabilities, such as the Netherlands or Ireland. Consequently, a new definition of security has not just to address states as well as individuals and groups, but also a large variety of factors that are perceived as security threats.
The world order shifted dramatically after the end of the Cold War.
 |
| National Security Threat |
As the USA rose as a new hegemonic power in the international system, as did the concept of security shifted. Especially since 9/11 and the rise of global threats such as global warming, the concept of security has shifted on a regular basis. The changing nature of international relation since the cold war transformed the traditional understanding of security for ever.
In order to analyze the different concepts of security, this paper will give examples of the wide varieties of definitions. This work will show how each of these theories cannot explain nor predict the wide and complex world of international relations, today. Furthermore, all these definitions never really satisfy all the different schools of thought in international relations.
Following this discourse, this essay will illuminate the core problems of these definitions. Further it will be argued that they are valid in the context of a specific point of view but are not valid for the overall field of international relations.
Finally, this paper will give a broad definition of security. It will show that a contemporary definition of security will have to be broad enough to accommodate many schools of thought in international relations in order to be accepted.
The final part is nearly a suggestion in order to demonstrate that just a broad definition could be successful in the academic realm of international relations.
The 21th century and the concept of securities
Since the emergence of the nation states after the French Revolution, the concept of national security shaped the discourse of international relations. National security can be defined as the interest in national survival (Haftendorn, 1991: 5-6). The concept of National Security is based on the realist assumption that states are the main actors in an anarchic system and power is measured in military capabilities. This concept was very prominent in the Cold War era. However, this understanding of security in the international system has earned much criticism. The main points of this criticism are that the realist understanding of security does not take into account state internal features (Navlakha, 2000: 3-4); nor the role of economy (Sperling, 1995) and neither gender or human factors (Manchanda, 2001). This way of picturing the state system and its threats is very simplistic, because it does not take into account the complex and interdependent factors influencing state and non state actors in international relations. The role of the state changed since the end of the cold war (Sperling, 1995). This implies that the state is not a unitary actor in the international system but rather one of many.
Out of the concept of national security developed the concept of international security.International security can be defined as a concept of security which deters the enemy of attacking and further, “implies that the security of one state is closely linked to that of other states, at least of one other state” (Haftendorn, 1991: 9). Partly, national security and international security share the same criticism. It acknowledges a more interconnectedness of international actors but it does not acknowledge that the security threats of the 21th century are not always state based. Examples are global warming, terrorism, and economic or humanitarian crises. Additional to the criticism mentioned above one could argue that the private sector as well plays an important role in the shaping of security in the international system today (Cha, 2000: 395). One argument in favour of this point of view could be that the private sector is more and more important since the production of military goods and military services themselves are outsourced to the private sector.
Another concept which developed out of national security is global security.
Global security can be defined as a program of common security for the global community under a system of world order erasing the anarchy in the international system (Haftendorn, 1991: 11). Haftendorn implies with that that global security will arise when we have a global security system and all share the norms, ideals, principles and practices “which result in common patterns of international behavior” (Haftendorn, 1991: 11). This concept of global security is similar to Kant’s understanding of security which is based on his concept of perpetual peace.
For Kant, peace, as in the absence of threat has three preconditions in the international system. First, the system must sustain of republics based on moral autonomy, individualism and social order. Second, these republics will build a union of peace with other states which share the same values and ideology. Third, this state system will establish a cosmopolitan law of peace and friendliness in which citizens can travel from one country to another in order to share ideologies and values. (Doyle, 1994: 21-27)
Both the concept of global security and the concept of the Kantian peace are ideas for the creation of security in the international system. Yet, both of them are too broad to operate and to unspecific to pursue. Furthermore, they not succeed to implement the ideas of gender, environment and so on. The idea of global security can be seen as a constructivist approach because it concedes that “threat perceptions and security concepts are formulated as a result of political and social processes within states” (Haftendorn, 1991: 12). To acknowledge this fact seems to be of elemental importance because it explains why the definition of security in international relations is shifting towards a wider understanding of security.
Keeping this in mind, other authors have different definitions of security because they come from different academic fields. This is as an advantage of international relations as it is a weakness. Kirshner, for example, argues that political security is deeply related to economic security(Kirshner, 1998). Therefore, state security always has to pay attention to economic aspects of the state to state relations. Moran in contrast argues that energy security is central to state securitybecause of the economic, civil and military dependence on huge energy resources(Moran, 2008: 2). An argument can be made that economic stability depends on energy supply and vice versa. Again, these two definitions do not take into account the other factors such as the role of Non Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) or the role individuals play in the decision making process.
Human security on the other hand does put the individual in the center of attention. Human security is “emphasizing sustainable development, social justice, human rights, gender equality and democracy” a long with a wide range of ecological and individual factors influencing the safety of individuals and therefore ultimately the security of the state (Manchanda, 2001: 1). This also leads to a feminist understanding of security. In the eyes of a feminist, gender plays a main role in human security because of two main factors:
“One is that women's experience of (in) security and violent conflict is different from that of men and therefore, cutting across class, caste and cultures, women's notions of security and power are different. Two, is that women are more pacific than men in their approach to internal and inter-state (potential) conflicts situations, more accepting of compromises to resolve disputes and less likely than men to believe armed force is necessary or appropriate” (Manchanda, 2001: 1-2).
Recognizing the fact that woman have different experiences and approaches towards the concept of security, human security is very broad and defines every threat towards ourselves or our environment as a threat, therefore affecting the international system. Roland criticizes the concept of human security because of exactly the point made above: human security is too broad of a concept to be workable and implementable in the global system(Roland, 2001: 88). Other contemporary writers argue that even though we need a new concept of security, human security is to broad a concept and that the realist focus on military capability should be in the center of attention when it comes to defining security. Ramanna , for example argues that “The whole world knows, in spite of all the writings on the subject, that even now military power is the only power that is respected”(Ramanna, 1992). This would imply that a new definition of security is not needed after all.
The core problem of defining security
As argued above, no definition of security in the international system is valid for all the different approaches and schools of thought in international relations. Definitions which have only military capability and the state as main factors characterizing security are insufficient. New definitions of security taking into account “non-traditional threats, like terrorism” are needed (Nations, 2005). Further, ideological clashes between schools of thought never lead to a commonly accepted definition of security. On the one hand, realists argue that mutually assured destruction (MAD) is the best deterrent and guarantees peace at least on the state level. On the other hand, constructivists such as Manchand argue that “stability is never possible with the ultimate weapons in the hands of a few”(Manchanda, 2001: 3-4). This only leads to the assumption that a broad definition of security is more successful in the academic realm of international relations because a broad definition can accommodate more schools of thought than a narrow definition can.
In contrast, Sperling argues that a broad definition of security is inefficient because it cannot be used in the practice because of three main points. First, “the preferred institutions of security in both the military and economic dimensions differ across national boundaries” and therefore a global approach of security is unlikely. Second, “the broad definition of security and the competition to supply the outlines of the security architecture poses a barrier to great power cooperation” because every country would have different security priorities. Finally, Sperling argues that “it remains likely that the intended roles to be played by institutions in the new security environment will remain unfulfilled” because global institutions need clear guidelines and priorities(Sperling, 1995).
Cha in contrast to Sperling argues that the definition of security in the 21st century is characterized by the tensions between globalization and national identity or interests (Cha, 2000: 392). Therefore, a definition of security needs to be broad in order to accommodate different national identities and therefore, security interests unified by global interests and cooperation. This leads this paper to the attempt to give an own definition of security which acknowledges the need for a broad definition able to accompany different points of view.
Defining security
It is now clear that there is no definition of security that all the different academic fields and schools of thought in international relations can agree upon. Furthermore, this work acknowledges that the best definition for security is the one which shows that security is the absence of threat while acknowledging that the total absence of threat is impossible (Evans, 1998: 237). It also should be stated that a definition of security cannot only include big actors in the international system such as states but has to pay attention to smaller actors and individuals equally. Cha demonstrates that a contemporary definition of security should take into account “irregular substrate units such as ethnic militias, paramilitary guerrillas, cults and religious organizations, organized crime, and terrorists” (Cha, 2000: 393-394). However, such groups and individuals are just part of security threats in the international system face; there are also threats from the environment, the economy and other global factors.
The following definition takes several factors into account. The definition puts a special emphasis on the interdependence of the world, also called globalization. It recognizes national and international norms, values and ethics. The definition is non-exclusive as it also takes into account smaller units affecting international relations such as groups and individuals as well as global threats.
Security in the 21st century is defined as the absence of a threat towards every human, group and state able to threaten the international system itself and its environment; including economic, ecologic, ethical, technological, cultural, gender, energy and military aspects.
The benefits and dangers of the definition
The positive aspect of this definition is that it more or less includes all different schools of international relations. It takes into account that international relations is based on not just unitary state actors operating in an anarchical system but also other nongovernmental actors and individuals shaping the international system. Moreover, the definition is not just concerned with the threats posed towards individuals, groups and states but also the international system itself. These threats are not just based on military capabilities and the possibility of future wars, but also with all the factors influencing the safety of individuals, groups, societies and states. The definition acknowledges that if the security of an individual is threatened, then the reaction to this threat by the individual can threaten other groups, the society and the state which also would react. This could lead to a chain reaction resulting in security threats. Consequently, a modern definition of security needs to take this into account, as it needs to take into account the interconnectivity between them and how they are affected by other factors such as energy and gender.
The criticism of this definition is quite obvious. As with human security this definition is so broad that it is hard to be implemented in actual policies. It can be argued that the definition gives an outline of how to tackle security threats. What factors should be looked up on and the way policy changes affect individuals, groups and societies are outlined in the definition. Apart from the problem of using this definition in practice, there is more criticism to be made. The definition lags a clear ranking of the factors affecting security. Arguably, gender is not as big a threat as military capability or energy security. This leads to the conclusion that all these factors are equally important, which is clearly false.
Conclusion
This paper started of with giving several definitions for security. As shown, none of them are strong or convincing enough to be valid for all the specific fields of international relations. The point was made that the definition of security depends on which field of international relations is argued about. Naturally when it comes to the economy and its effects on the security system, the definition of economic security is more helpful than the definition of human security. Nevertheless, this paper comes to the conclusion that all the definitions give are either too wide or too narrow to be widely accepted in the field of international relations. But, it is clear that in the 21st century the definition of security has to be broader because the perception of security threats of states and nongovernmental actors in international relations has broadened. There are states which perceive only military capabilities as threats and there are states that perceive global warming as a bigger threat to their security then military capabilities, such as the Netherlands orIreland. Consequently, a new definition of security has not just to address states as well as individuals and groups, but also a large variety of factors that are perceived as security threats. These threats are not just threatening states but individuals as well as the whole international system.
Therefore, this paper concluded that security is defined as the absence of a threat towards every human, group and state able to threaten the international system itself and its environment; including economic, ecologic, ethical, technological, cultural, gender, energy and military aspects.
This definition is very broad and therefore very vulnerable, as the definition of human security is. However, this work argued that even though this definition has some obvious weaknesses the positive aspects outweigh the negative aspects.
This definition implies the interdependence of nearly every factor in the international system; it pays attention towards a nonexclusive approach which involves not just groups and individuals but also norms and values that can affect or threaten the state and international structure. In addition, it defines security as the absence of threat which implies that something as perfect security does not exist in the international system.