International Security: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (2 page)

The series began in 1995, and now represents a wide variety of topics in history, philosophy, religion, science, and the humanities. The VSI library now contains more than 300 volumes—a Very Short Introduction to everything from ancient Egypt and Indian philosophy to conceptual art and cosmology—and will continue to grow in a variety of disciplines.

VERY SHORT INTRODUCTIONS AVAILABLE NOW

For more information visit our website
www.oup.co.uk/general/vsi/

Christopher S. Browning

A Very Short Introduction

List of illustrations

1 Introduction

2 A contested nature

3 The problem of war

4 The United Nations

5 The changing nature of armed conflict

6 Human security and development

7 Resources, climate change, and capitalism

8 Saviours or sinners?

9 The politics of fear and control

References and further reading

Index

1
Nuclear military balance during the Cold War

Adapted from: The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

2
Current global distribution of nuclear weapons, (2013)

Adapted from: The Federation of American Scientists

3
The UN at the border in Cyprus

UN border checkpoint
, © Philip Mark/AP/Press Association Images

4
The destruction of Bamiyan Buddha statues

Destroyed Bamiyan Buddhas
, © Brennan Linsley/AP/Press Association Images

5
A map of the Dayton Peace Accords of 1995

6
Princess Diana with a landmine victim in Angola

Princess Diana, Angola, © Trinity Mirror/Mirrorpix/Alamy

7
A Russian submarine plants a flag under the Arctic

© TV/AP/Press Association

8
The stark contrast of Haiti’s landscape (left) on the Haiti/Dominican Republic border

© Haiti, 1987/National Geographic/Getty Images

9
‘IF YOU SUSPECT IT, REPORT IT’ advertising campaign

© Paul Zak

International security is an evocative and often highly charged subject. In popular perception it is a world of high politics, of international summits, and not least of war and conflict. International security readily conjures up images of nuclear weapons and other military arsenals, of soldiers and blue-helmeted United Nations (UN) peacekeepers, and of geopolitical struggles as states compete in a zero-sum game for power and influence and ultimately for national survival. International security is also often seen as ‘out there’, as what happens beyond safe national borders and a matter of primary concern to statesmen, diplomats, and generals, a world of secrecy and high stakes poker. Indeed, statesmen and military elites often see themselves as tasked with the responsibility of identifying threats to the nation and providing means of protection and response, and as such international security is also often the arena where politicians see the chance to gain reputations for great statesmanship, thereby securing their place in the national canon.

This, however, is not the whole story and other images can tell a different tale. Media pictures of refugee camps, child soldiers, migrants drowned at sea, Somali pirates, national liberation struggles, retreating ice caps, and burning oil wells indicate a less glorious and more complicated realm. And while (from a Western perspective) such images may still locate international security
abroad beyond safe national borders, other images can tell a different story again. Look hard enough and our everyday lives are increasingly intertwined with worlds of international security, from the proliferation of surveillance systems and border controls designed to identify potential threats and suspicious behaviour, to the political, economic, and social consequences of the purchases we make in an age of globalized production networks. Understood this way international security affects us all, both directly and indirectly, and is therefore too important just to leave to statesmen and generals.

These various images provide a brief illustration of the complexity and breadth of contemporary debates about international security. Whereas during the Cold War the international security agenda was dominated by concerns about the East–West conflict, the balance of power, nuclear proliferation, and military strategy, today a host of other issues have also found their way onto the agenda. Traditional concerns have obviously not gone away and can be seen in recurrent speculation about the implications of the rise of China on world order, in the rhetoric of a ‘new Cold War’ in respect of a revanchist and emboldened Russia, in debates over whether future security concerns will be dominated by a ‘Clash of Civilizations’, and in concerns over nuclear proliferation to ‘rogue states’. Today, though, such issues are also often connected with concerns over the rights and wrongs of humanitarian intervention, the spread of infectious diseases, food supplies, migration patterns, transnational organized crime, terrorism, environmental change, and poverty.

For some people the expansion of international security agendas is an unwanted distraction from what should be the core concerns of war, peace, and state security. In contrast, this book argues that expanding understandings of the nature of international security acknowledges the complex dynamics and multiple factors that frequently underlie narrower concerns with war and peace. Moreover, expansion has also been accompanied by more radical implications. The increasing emphasis on humanitarian and
ecological concerns that seek to locate the lived experience of people at the heart of debates about security has, for example, challenged the priority traditionally accorded to states. Put differently, in a globalizing and increasingly interconnected world people are becoming increasingly aware of how security dynamics in different parts of the world, and even in their local neighbourhoods, are often intimately connected. The traditional domestic–international divide when talking about security is therefore increasingly breaking down.

This book provides an insight into this complexity and some of the questions it raises. Broadly speaking the book is divided into two halves, with
Chapters 3
–
5
focusing on more traditional security concerns of war, peace, and international order and
Chapters 6
–
9
homing in on key debates central to the expansion of the international security agenda. In tackling these issues, however, the book seeks to sensitize readers to three core analytical points. First, debates about international security cannot be separated from considerations of power and politics. This can be seen, for example, in how debates about the relative merits of the expansion of the international security agenda ultimately raise questions concerning who gets to set the agenda or frame how particular issues are understood as threats and to whom. Second, debates about international security also inevitably entail considerations of justice, morality, and responsibility. This is particularly evident when considerations of human rights, the distribution of resources, and responsibilities for tackling climate change are on the table. Given these first two points it is important to emphasize that international security issues are almost inevitably sites of contention since they typically evade any singular way of understanding their nature or the appropriate responses necessary for their resolution. Third, the book will also draw attention to the inherent limitations of the structure of the international system in tackling many contemporary international security issues, and indeed, suggests that sometimes the problem may lie in the very nature of the system itself.

Before turning to substantive debates, however, the book begins with a theoretical chapter. This is necessary since any understanding of the political and ethical nature of debates about international security requires understanding that such debates often have their background in the different conceptual and theoretical assumptions that different actors have, about both the content and nature of security and of what constitutes the appropriate concern of international politics.

… when people talk about security problems they do so in terms qualitatively different from any other type of problem. Security is seen as an imperative not an option. People do not obsess over cost–benefit analyses or about opportunity cost: they get on with what has to be done because they understand that security goes right to the heart of the basic contract between state and citizen. In the same vein, when it comes to security the worst case scenario is prepared for, you don’t sit around and hope for the best.

(Margaret Beckett, UK Foreign Minister)

Security is important, indeed, many people think it is of utmost importance and a primary value. Without security we may be unable to pursue secondary goals of the good life. Indeed, without security we may become immobilized by existential anxiety. In this respect security is also the language of political priority. Invoking security is to raise the spectre of catastrophe if actions are not taken immediately. Invoking security plays to our fears, but it is also the language of mobilization. Security gets things done.

For this reason the language of security is also attractive and can function as a rhetorical trump card for governments. Presenting issues as matters of national security, for example, can legitimize governments in diverting scarce resources to favoured issues,
justify curbing civil liberties or keeping discussions, information, and intelligence out of the public domain. Not least, it can justify using military force.

However, while we may agree security is important, it is also an elusive concept. The above quote, for example, tells us little about the actual content of security, or what it means in practice. Indeed, disagreements about the nature and meaning of security are common and constitute the heart of many political debates. As it happens the above quote is taken from an address in which the UK Foreign Minister was making the case for prioritizing climate change as a security issue. Not long ago such claims might have been ridiculed, but the idea of climate change as a major security threat has today gained broader acceptance. However, as discussed in
Chapter 7
, people still disagree about precisely in what sense climate change is a security issue, while a case can also be made for suggesting that thinking about it in security terms might itself be a cause of significant problems.

One way of picking apart the elusive nature of security is to ask some questions of it, the most obvious being, ‘what is security?’ Answers vary and one question easily begets others. For example, does security simply entail physical survival or should it also concern conditions of existence, such as a certain level of welfare or the preservation of core values? The UN, for example, distinguishes between two aspects of security. What they term ‘freedom from fear’ emphasizes threats of physical violence and repression. ‘Freedom from want’, in contrast, emphasizes the provision of basic human needs. In each case, though, the question still arises as to where we draw the line and pass from a position of insecurity to one of security. In other words, how much fear is acceptable and how much food and material possessions (or indeed, education, employment, housing, and health) is
actually required to meet basic human needs? Moreover, are these questions best answered in absolute or relative terms?

A second question concerns whose security counts. Traditionally debates about international security have emphasized the security of states, as states were seen as the principal actors of international politics theoretically understood as charged with upholding the security of their citizens. In practice, however, states have often been a source of considerable insecurity to their own citizens. In many places (e.g. apartheid South Africa, Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq) state security has rather been synonymous with upholding the security of the ruling regime. It is increasingly argued, therefore, that the security of other things should be prioritized instead. We might, for example, emphasize the security of ethnic groups, individuals/humanity, social classes, the environment, or even values like liberty and freedom. The choices we make matter since prioritizing the security of one object might be detrimental to the security of others—as when preserving a state’s security requires sending soldiers off to die.

A third important question concerns what counts as a security issue. Put differently, this is a question of how threats are identified and prioritized. It is tempting to think that threats are self-evident and objectively knowable; however, in practice this is not the case and the identification of threats and their ranking in terms of importance is a matter of disagreement and politics. For instance, whether high levels of immigration are viewed as a fundamental threat to social cohesion and the welfare state, or a solution to endemic national economic problems related to skills shortages, ageing populations, and pension provisions, is hotly debated in many countries. In principle almost anything could be constituted as a security threat to someone or something. However, whether particular threat claims garner attention will depend on how well they resonate with the security concerns of others, the persuasiveness of the argument, and not least on the power and position of the person or group
making the claim. In this respect the security concerns of the powerful and powerless often diverge, while it is often the concerns of the powerful that dominate international security agendas. The prioritization accorded to international terrorism since 2001, with attention in turn diverted away from problems of international development, is a case in point.