4116811_M14084_1516

MODULE TITLE – WAR, PEACE AND TERROR

QUESTION – ‘”Security” is […] a self-referential practice, because it is in this

practice that the issue becomes a security issue – not necessarily because a real

existential threat exists but because the issue is presented as such a threat’.

(Buzan et al, 1998, 24). Discuss in relation to at least one case or issue

discussed on the module.

INTRODUCTION

Before the end of the cold war, new discourses have emerged that have depicted

health and environmental issues as being linked to security. The need arose to

expand the field of security beyond the bounds of the military sector, which was

basically threat of invasion from one State to another. The analysis of security,

threats and risks, especially in the absence of an obvious enemy had to take into

account threats emanating from the economic, environmental or societal fields

[Leboeuf, 2008: 6-8].

The Cambridge Dictionary gives the meaning of Security as, “protection of

a person, building, organization, or country against threats such as crime or

attacks by foreign countries” [Cambridge Dictionary]. In this context, human

and State security issues are encapsulated in Security studies. The problem with

this definition is that it is not only foreign countries that can pose a threat to

both State and human security as it is believed by the traditional international

relations scholars, meaning that the concept of Security needs to be evaluated

from a broader perspective.

This essay intends to lay out the logic of the Copenhagen School on the

process of securitization and evaluate some of the issues that have been

successfully securitized and argue that although, the practice of securitization is

1
4116811_M14084_1516

as explained by Barry Buzan in his assertion, but it ought not to be just a speech

act. The mere application of the rules of a securitizing speech act is not enough

to convince an audience. The speech must be corroborated with empirical

evidences of an issue as posing existential threat before securitization can be

successful.

SECURITY AND SECURITIZATION THEORY

By the end of the Cold War, the threat of nuclear Armageddon had

subsided in a new world order, allowing attention to be shifted to previously

marginalized issues to emerge on the international agenda as Ullman had

defined a threat to security in the early 1980s as ‘an action or sequence of

events that threatens drastically and over a relatively brief span of time to

degrade the quality of life for the inhabitants of a State or threatens significantly

to narrow the range of policy choices available to a government of a State, or to

private, nongovernmental entities (persons, groups, corporations) within the

State’ [Ullman cited by Hough, 2004:7].

To the mainstream theorists redefining security in terms of deepening or

broadening risks intellectual incoherence of the field[Hough, 2004:7]. Walt and

the traditionalists fear that widening the definition of security will render the

concept redundant by making it too all-encompassing and diluting the important

task of analysing military threats and inter-State conflict [Hough, 2004:7]. To

them, the State remains the only referent object of security and the field of

security studies is about the phenomenon of war which can only be defined as

the study of the threat, use and control of military force [Walt, 1991:212-13].

The definition of security was traditionally limited to a military dimension

of inter-state relations, but in the contemporary world politics, the referent

2
4116811_M14084_1516

object of security is now no longer confined to the State and its defence from

external military attacks but also includes societies and humans collectively

[Caballero-Anthony et al, 2006:1].

To the Copenhagen School, security is a social and intersubjective

construction. They argue that to prevent everything from becoming a security

issue, a successful securitization consists of three steps: identification of

existential threat; emergency action; and effects on inter-unit relations by

breaking free of rules [Buzan et al, 1998: 6]. According to Buzan, threats and

vulnerabilities can arise in many different areas, military and non-military, but to

count as security issues they have to meet strictly defined criteria that

distinguish them from the normal run of the merely political. They have to be

staged as existential threats to a referent object by a securitizing actor who

thereby generates endorsement of emergency measures beyond rules that

would otherwise bind [Buzan cited by Hough, 2004:8].

From this argument, it can be said that not all issues that pose an

existential threat can be securitized. The Copenhagen School identifies five

general categories of security namely: military, environmental, economic,

societal, and political security. The dynamics of each category are determined by

securitizing actors and referent objects [Caballero-Anthony et al, 2006:3].

The Copenhagen School argues that if by means of an argument about

the priority and urgency of an existential threat the securitizing actor has

managed to break free of procedures or rules he or she would otherwise be

bound by, an act of securitization is taking place [Hough, 2004:17]. Referent

objects are things that are seen to be existentially threatened and that have a

legitimate claim to survival. These can be the State (military security), national

3
4116811_M14084_1516

sovereignty or an ideology (political security), national economies (economic

security), collective identities (societal security), species or habitats

(environmental security) [Caballero-Anthony et al, 2006:3].

The conditions for a successful securitization as argued by Buzan are: the

internal grammatical form of the act; the relationship between the actor and the

audience and the likelihood of the audience accepting the claims made in a

securitizing attempt; and features of the alleged threats that either facilitate or

impede securitization [Buzan cited by Salter, 2008:321-322]. The audience is

not always the public, as noted by Salter. It comprises bureaucrats, consultants,

parliamentarians, or officials that must be convinced that securitization is

appropriate, efficient, useful, or effective [Salter, 2008:323-349].

The main motive behind securitization or politicization of an issue is to

make it a matter of urgency so as to mobilize political support and deploy

resources to forestall the threat. On the other hand, de-securitization may be

beneficial due to the risks involved with a process of securitization. Political or

military elites can exploit an act of securitization to curtail civil liberties, restrict

the influence of certain domestic political institutions or increase military budgets

[Caballero-Anthony et al, 2006:5].

Consequent upon the San Bernadino terrorist attack carried out by a

Muslim couple that saw about 14 people dead and several others seriously

injured, the leading contender to become the Republican Party’s nominee,

Donald Trump, called for a total and complete shutdown of the US borders to all

Muslims. He said, “until we are able to determine and understand this problem

and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of

4
4116811_M14084_1516

horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of

reason or respect for human life” [Pilkington, 2015].

Trump’s call is subjective against the back drop of Barry Buzan’s assertion

because his opinion is not based on a consensually observed fact. A singular act

of terrorism by a Muslim couple is not enough evidence to convince an audience

for the securitization of Muslims, as a leading Muslim writer, Ziauddin Sardar,

had written sequel to 9/11 that, “Islam cannot explain the actions of the suicide

hijackers, just as Christianity cannot explain the gas chambers, Catholicism the

bombing at Omagh. They are acts beyond belief by people who long ago

abandoned the path of Islam” [Booth, 2002 cited: 7].

His call for the securitization of Muslims is infringing on the right of

Muslims to practice their religion freely. Moreover, statistics reveal that more

people are killed by gunfire, which is not related to terrorism than those killed in

acts of Islamic terrorism. Between 2001 and 2013, 406,496 Americans were

killed by gun violence on American soil compared to only 3,380 Americans who

died as a result of terrorist incidents within and outside the US [Jones et al,

2015]. This difference is quite staggering and what should top the US agenda is

gun control, not the banning of Muslims from gaining entry into the US.

In other words, Trump is giving attention to inconsequential issues rather

than issues that are causing more human damage. For instance, more people die

of poverty and disease than are killed by terrorist acts, yet terrorism receives

more attention than poverty and disease as Aradau criticizes the moral and

ethical dimension in the process of securitization by citing Huysmans, who

argues that securitization is a technique of government, which retrieves the

ordering force of the fear of violent death by a mythical replay of the variations

5
4116811_M14084_1516

of the Hobbesian state of nature. It manufactures a sudden rupture in the

routinized, everyday life by fabricating an existential threat, which provokes

experiences of the real possibility of violent death [Aradau, 2001].

Buzan’s assertion is evident in some issues like the western States

approach to immigrants and asylum seekers, and the issue of terrorism and the

global war on terror in comparison to climate change and poverty in Africa.

There has been call for a stricter border security by the US and EU because

immigrants are seen as posing existential threat to the sovereignty of their

States. Whereas, a recent report published by the World Bank, the Organization

for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the UN’s International

Labour Organization concludes that in most countries, migrants pay more in

taxes and social contributions than they receive [Buchanan, 2015].

According to Buchanan, demographic trends show that many countries in

the European Union are aging too fast to maintain a healthy economy and that

an influx of relatively young and skilled workers could alleviate this problem

[Buchanan, 2015]. Judging by these reports, it can be said that immigrants are

not posing as much threats as poverty, which is killing hundreds of people every

day due to lack of access to the basic things of life.

It has been argued that terrorism is a political rhetoric and a socially

constructed phenomenon as the saying goes that one man’s terrorist is another

man’s freedom fighter [Hough, 2004:62]. The US State Department defines

terrorism as premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against

non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents usually

intended to influence an audience [Hough, 2004:62]. As much as this definition

does explain the major issues of global security since the late 1960s, which is

6
4116811_M14084_1516

political violence waged by non-state actors, the word ‘terrorism’ is a derogatory

word used in conflict situations in order to contrast one side’s legitimate killing to

another side’s illegitimate killing [Hough, 2004:62].

In other words, States frequently use the term “terrorist” to describe

violent non-state actors during conflicts. This is one of the reasons why Syria

has had a prolonged civil war because the opposition groups to Al-Assad’s

government are conceived as terrorists, thereby making peace talks and

negotiations difficult. Similarly, ten years after Margaret Thatcher remarked that

a group like the African National Congress (ANC), which was perceived to be a

terrorist group and led by Nelson Mandela, would never run the government of

South Africa, President Mandela was welcomed by the Queen Elizabeth on his

first visit to London [Milmo, 2013], meaning that yesterday’s terrorists may

become today’s statesmen.

More often, the term is used by States to describe a non-state actor or

another State only when they are not in support of that State or group, not

necessarily because a particular act threatens the survival of a particular object.

Terror is something that can be inflicted on people by governments as well as by

non-state actors. Some examples are Nazi genocide, Stalin’s purges and the

killing fields of the Khmer Rouge, among others [Hough, 2004: 62].

Taking Islamic terrorism into consideration, the fourth wave of terrorism,

as Rapoport put it, was borne out of the western interference in the political

affairs of the Islamic world [Rapoport, 2004:63-65]. Post-revolutionary Iran

gave active support to Hezbollah, a group conceived as terrorists by the US,

seeking an Iranian style revolution in the Lebanon as well as resisting Israeli

invasion into the country [Hough, 2004:65]. Some Islamist groups took the fight

7
4116811_M14084_1516

beyond domestic revolution, rallying to the cause of Palestinian nationalist

resistance to Israel and further to the US and Western Europe seen as upholding

Israel and meddling in the affairs of the Islamic world. As a result, Islamic

violence became more of a security threat to western democracies than other

forms of non-state violence [Hough, 2004: p.65].

AlQaeda, for instance, was born out the Soviet-Afghan war to oust the

communist country (a country perceived to be godless) from Afghanistan. The

Mujahideens, though, hate the US and its hegemony, made use of the

opportunities given by the US to support their cause. They were trained and

equipped by the West in an effort to drive out the Soviet from Afghanistan

thereby containing communism in the Islamic world [Rapoport, 2004: 62]. But

the transformation of the group after driving out the Soviet was unprecedented.

Their operation in all parts of the world became a cause for concern and by the

time attacks on the world trade centre were carried out it then occurred to the

West that those once approved and trained by them had turned out to become

their enemy.

The rise of Islamophobia as a result of Islamic terrorism is in agreement

with the Copenhagen school’s assertion that the securitization of an issue is

successfully constructed by an actor not because the issue poses an existential

threat, but because the actor is able to influence his presentation of that

particular issue as a threat and win the approval of an audience in the sense that

some politicians have been able to successfully label Islam as a religion that

supports violence mainly because most terrorist organizations hide under Islam

to justify the legitimacy of their actions. However, it would be very wrong to look

at Islam and judge the religion by such lens because not all Muslims live a

violent life.

8
4116811_M14084_1516

The invasion of Iraq was justified by the Bush administration as a

preventive strike to avert Saddam Hussein’s use of weapons of mass destruction

on America and its allies, despite the fact that there was an ongoing inspection

into the nuclear programme embarked upon by Iraq and a report had been

submitted by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) that though

Iraq intended to possess WMD, but the programme had been jettisoned [Nichols,

2004]. A perceived threat from biological weapons wielded by terrorist

organizations became the centre of security policy after the collapse of the

Soviet Union owing to the fact that political and economic instability in the

region raised the fear that there could be black market for WMD which could be

accessed by terrorist organizations and rogue States such as Iraq, Iran, Libya,

north Korea and Cuba [Farrell, 2010:p.70]. In essence, the issue of terrorism

has been over-securitized by the US and its allies much more than issues that

pose existential threat to both humans and the State.

The securitization of HIV/AIDS, for instance, was necessary at the time it

was securitized because it had become a pandemic and its spread needed to be

checked. The first case of HIV / AIDS was reported in 1981 when infectious

diseases were perceived as a threat because of their destabilizing potential at

the social, economic, and political levels that threatened to spread anarchy

within societies, but it was not securitized until the end of the 20th century

during the era of Bill Clinton [Leboeuf, 2008: 6-8], when peacekeeping

personnel were being sent to war torn countries in Africa and their movement in

and out of countries where HIV/AIDS was prevalent, was becoming a cause for

concern. By the mid to late 1990s, when it became apparent that countries

affected had failed to contain the spread of the disease, HIV/AIDS began to

come to the attention of the security policy community, prompting the then US

9
4116811_M14084_1516

Secretary of State, Colin Powell to declare that it ‘now represents so great a

threat to stability in Africa, Asia, and Latin America that it needs to be regarded

as a national security issue’ [Farrell, 2010:68].

The process of securitization was pushed by Peter Piot, Executive Director

of UNAIDS, pushed the issue on the agenda of the UNSC in 2000 and the

adoption of resolution 1308 on HIV / AIDS, which called for pre-deployment

testing and counselling for peacekeeping personnel. This was due to the increase

of HIV infection in sub-Saharan African military personnel. The UN resolution

came in response to a report that in Zambia, three government ministers had

died of AIDS and it was estimated that half of the police and armed forces were

HIV positive [Hough, 2004:170-71].

Concerns raised in the security context include the disproportionate HIV

infection rate among security forces, the economic burden caused by the

disease, increased social fragmentation, reluctance to send or receive

peacekeepers due to the risk of infection, and even its use as a weapon of war,

principally through rape [Farrell, 2010:67].

It is worthy to note that some other infectious diseases have received

attention like HIV/AIDS. Such diseases as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

(SARS), Ebola, and Tuberculosis are believed to have the potential of moving

from developing countries to industrialized countries [Farrell, 2010:69] not

because an actor was on display trying to impress an audience, but because

there were enough empirical evidences to show that the diseases were

inherently dangerous.

However, some diseases that have more record of mortality than these

diseases have not been given much attention. Their threats have been

10
4116811_M14084_1516

downplayed by security actors, partly because these diseases are peculiar to a

particular region. Diarrhoeal disease, for instance, causes an estimated 1.8

million deaths a year, with 90 percent of these deaths among children, as a

result of lack of portable water, sanitation and hygiene in the developing world

[Farrell, 2010:67], sharing the view of Ken Booth, who says, “terrorism is an

abomination and must be countered, but poverty is the world’s biggest killer”

[Booth et al, 2002:6].

This is an indication that these diseases are given preference not as a

result of the threats they pose, but because a particular set of people feel some

of these diseases are likely to affect them than the others. As a result of

globalization, movement of humans from one country to another cannot be

controlled. As such, only diseases that can spread through contact with people

coming to industrialized areas from where the diseases are domiciled are given

preference over those causing deaths in the specific regions especially in

developing countries.

According to Theo Farell, the focus on the spread of infectious disease

obscures dangers from non-communicable diseases (including tobacco-related

illnesses), which are related to foreign policy through international trade. He

added that the attention given to the spread of infectious disease speaks more

to the concerns of western foreign (including economic) and security policy than

it does for the concerns of global public health [Farrell, 2010:70].

His assertion is evident in the number of people killed by Tobacco smoking

in developed countries than the number of malaria deaths in Africa. More than

16 million Americans are living with a disease caused by smoking and for every

person who dies because of smoking, at least 30 people live with a serious

11
4116811_M14084_1516

smoking-related illness [CDC fact sheet]. Smoking causes cancer, heart disease,

stroke, lung diseases, diabetes, and pulmonary disease, which includes

emphysema and chronic bronchitis. It also increases risk for tuberculosis, certain

eye diseases, and problems of the immune system, including rheumatoid

arthritis [CDC fact sheet]. But, tobacco industries have not been banned because

Industrialized nations make a lot of money through taxes.

This is also similar to environmental issues. The issue of environmental

degradation is under-securitized because security actors do not want to invest in

issues that may likely not happen. Secondly, most natural disasters occur in

overpopulated poor areas and they affect people that are not of great economic

importance.

As Hough points out, natural disasters are as much socio-political as

geological. It is socio-political factors that make people vulnerable to hazardous

natural events. The fact that people live in places known to be prone to disaster,

whether through their own choice, ignorance or compulsion is one factor.

Another is the capacity or willingness of governing authorities to take steps to

alleviate the potential human cost of events known to be likely to occur [Hough,

2004:180].

Environmental issues, however, received attention when it was published

in the media that global warming might lead to the collapse of Gulf Stream,

plunging Europe into a new ice age and triggering widespread unrest. In 2004,

the British government’s chief scientist, Sir David King, suggested that climate

change is a far greater threat to the world’s stability than international terrorism

[Farrell, 2010: 167-168]. This is an indication that environmental issues might

12
4116811_M14084_1516

not have received attention if the existence of industrialized nations had not

been threatened by it.

Similarly, the war on terror campaign is only effective against a particular

set of terrorist groups like ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Al-Shabaab and the Taliban partly

because these groups are operating beyond the borders of their domiciled

regions and because of their western targets. Other terrorist groups like the

Boko Haram, which also operates beyond the borders of Nigeria, have not

received as much attention as ISIS and others because the areas where they

operate are of not much importance. It has been over 2 years since the kidnap

of over 200 schools girls by Boko Haram in the northern part of Nigeria and not

much help has been received from the international community on how to locate

or rescue these girls. The Charlie Hebdo and Bataclan attacks in France early

and late 2015, which left about 12 people [Levs, 2015] and 130 people dead

[BBC News, 2015] respectively, received worldwide publicity and condemnation

than the estimated 2,000 people killed by Boko Haram in January of 2015 alone

as reported by Amnesty International [Mark, 2015].

There was a notable social media support for the Charlie Hebdo attack

that popularized ‘Je suis Charlie’ slogan. The same went for the Bataclan, where

individual profile pictures on Facebook social medium were veiled with the

French flag in support of aggrieved France. It is not the same with Nigeria. Many

attacks of Boko Haram have gone unnoticed since 2009 that the group launched

its bloody massacre of innocent civilians and the displacement of many, yet a

global war on terror has been on since 9/11 2001 US attacks.

13
4116811_M14084_1516

CONCLUSION

It can be concluded against the back drop of several evidences in this essay that

speech acts done by security actors are expected to be corroborated by

evidences of existential threats to a referent object when it is presented to an

audience. Lack of enough evidence to back up threats to survival would not

convince an audience to securitize issues and they could be jettisoned as

inconsequential.

In the same vein, not all issues are securitized by security actors because

of their political and economic importance.

The role played by the media in publicizing security issues cannot be over-

emphasised. The issue of terrorism, for instance, has received a constant

publicity, thereby making terrorism to be at the top of the agenda of many

nations even though there are other security challenges that are causing more

deaths than terrorism. Terrorism overrides the issue of climate change, which

poses a bigger existential threat to humanity because climate change does not

receive enough publicity as it ought to.

In conclusion, it will be worthy to note that many issues that pose

existential threat have failed to be securitized because they have not been given

preference by security actors.

14
4116811_M14084_1516

BIBLIOGRAPHY
 Aradau, Claudia. ‘Beyond Good Securitization / De-securitization
Techniques’, Rubikon: International Forum of Electronic Publications
(2001), http://venus.ci.uw.edu.pl/Brubikon/forum/claudia2.htm ,
(accessed on 13th March 2016).
 Booth, Ken and Dunne, Tim. ‘Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future of
Global Order’, Palgrave Macmillan (2002).
 Buchanan, Patrick. ‘Immigration Crisis is Existential Threat’ the Daily Bell
(2005), http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/patrick-buchanan-
immigration-crisis-is-existential-threat/ , (accessed on 15th April 2016).
 Buzan, Barry, Waever, Ole and Jaap de Wilde. ‘A New framework for
Analysis’, Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers (1998).
 ‘Paris Attacks: What happened on the night’, BBC News, 9 December,
2015, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34818994 , (accessed on
13th March, 2016).
 Caballero-Anthony, Mely, Emmers, Ralf and Acharya, Amitav. ‘Non-
Traditional Security in Asia: Dilemmas in Securitization’, (Global Security
in a Changing World), Ashgate Publishing Ltd (2006).
 Farrell, Theo. ‘Security Studies: Critical Concepts in International
Relations’, Vol. V (2010).
 Hough, Peter. ‘Understanding Global Security’, By Routledge (2004).
 Jones, Julia and Bower, Eve. ‘American deaths in Terrorism VS Gun
Violence in one Graph’, CNN News, 30 December, 2015,
http://www.edition.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-terrorism-
gun-violence/ , (accessed on 13th March, 2016).
 Leboeuf, Aline and Broughton, Emma. “Securitization of Health and
Environmental Issues: Process and Effects”, The Institut Francais des
Relations Internationales (IFRI) Health and Environment (2008).
 Levs, Josh, Payne, Ed and Pearson, Michael. ‘A timeline of the Charlie
Hebdo terror attack’, CNN News, January 10, 2015,
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/08/europe/charlie-hebdo-attack-timeline/
, (accessed on 13th March, 2016).
 Mark, Monica. ‘Boko Haram’s deadliest Massacre: 2,000 feared dead in
Nigeria’, The Guardian News, 10 January, 2015,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/09/boko-haram-deadliest-
massacre-baga-nigeria , (accessed on 13th March, 2016).
 Milmo, Cahal. ‘Nelson Mandela’s complex bond with Britain’, Independent
News (2013), http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-
news/nelson-mandela-s-complex-bond-with-britain-8991790.html ,
(accessed on 13th March, 2016).
 Nichols, Bill. ‘UN – Iraq no WMD after 1994’, USA Today (2004),
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-
wmd_x.htm , (accessed on 13th march 2016).
 Pilkington, Ed. ‘Donald Trump: Ban All Muslims entering US’, The Guardian
News, South Carolina, 8 December 2015,
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/07/donald-trump-ban-

15
4116811_M14084_1516

all-muslims-entering-us-san-bernardino-shooting , (accessed on 13 March

2016).
 Rapoport, David C. ‘The Four Waves of Modern Terrorism’, Cronin and
Ludes eds (2004).
 ‘Smoking & Tobacco Use’, Centre for Disease Control and Prevention.
 Salter, Mark B. ‘Securitization and De-securitization: A dramaturgical
analysis of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority’, Journal of
International Relations and Development (2008), Vol. 11, pp.321 – 349.
 Walt, S. M. ‘The Renaissance of Security Studies’, International Studies
Quarterly, 35 (1991) pp. 212- 13.

16