Você está na página 1de 23

CHAPTER-1

CONCEPT OF SECURITY
Security is a frequently used and all too often

abused concept but one that is rarely explored in conceptual

terms. It has been defined differently by different

scholars but what is common to most is that they define it

with a positively state-centric view. The reason is


obvious. Not-withstanding the influence of some schools of
thought which emphasize the importance of the individual in
any credible security arrangement, and in spite of the

considerable growth of internationalism, the nation-state


continues to be the most decisive socio-political
organization in the present-day world. Though, national
security has a primacy over the individual and international

security, but all are inextricably interwoven because if

security at one point is endangered, the other points cannot

remain wholly unaffected. Therefore, it is no wonder that

the average citizen should find it almost beyond his

competence to understand problems of security.

Till a few years ago, the concept of security was


confined to narrow lin1its, it was almost habitual to think
of a nation's security problems exclusively in terms of
military capabilities. This sort of idea only helped to
promote wars and armed conflicts and placed the security of
large parts of the world in jeopardy. Since the old

1
approach has been found wanting in many respects, according

to Prof. Misra,
many scholars have pleaded for a wider
1
approach to the concept of security.

Security is an essential precondition of an


ordered human existence, it is natural for men to take
precautions against danger. Governments must provide a
secure environment which would allow people to pursue their
economic and social goals without undue anxiety and fear.
The concept of security covers every facet of life, and

governments must find it difficult to meet every contingency


which might arise. The actual process of providing social
and economic security has too frequently brought about a

condition of insecurity caused by excessive state


2
interference in private matters.

The concept of security embraces the totality of

the determination of a nation to secure its unity and

integrity against external and internal threats, to enable

it to protect its legitimate national interests and to

l. K.P. Misra, "The concept of Security", India


International Centre Quarterly ( NetoJ Delhi) vol. 3, no.2
(1976), p.87. '
2. Otto Pick and Julian Critchley, Collective Security
(London: Macmillan, 1974), p.15.

2
achieve its rightful place in the community of nations. At

first sight, the task of maintaining external security would


seem to be a simple one - to defend the state against
possible attack, to make provision for such a contingency,
and to maximise the state's position in relation to that of
pocential aggressors. The concept may be simple, but its
application is incredibly complex. The community of states,
though theoretically and legalistically equal, is in fact a
hier~rchy, the order of which is determined by the

capability and power potential of individual states. The


definition of capability in this context is not simple.
Tangible factors, such as numbers and quality of population,

area, location, access to raw materials, can be assessed

with relative ease; intangible elements which include

political traditions, social structure and morale are much


more difficult to define in precise terms.

In open societies, the citizens are preoccupied


with different aspects of security - they are worried about

their economic well-being and they are concerned to make


their society more safe internally by spreading the benefits
of welfare economies as widely as possible. Whilst it is
true that, in the long run, a government which presides over
a completely un~table and insecure society cannot guarantee
the external security of the state, it is equally true that

3
a secure &nd stable society cannot develop in an atmosphere
of complete international insecurity, when the very

existence of the state may be at risk. Internal stability

and external security interact continuously. It is


ultimately true that without external security, policies

designed to create and maintain social cohesion cannot

succeed. On the other hand, excessive preoccupation with

external security sets up internal stresses and conflicts


which can be damaging to the political and social fabric of
the state. So, as Alagappa rightly points out, "it is a

prerequisite to the pursuit of national security - both in

ics internal and external dimensions. It provides the means


to neutralize some of the domestic sources of conflict,
makes the state less vulnerable to ·external pressure land
penetration, and makes possible the allocation of necessary
3
resources to counter internal and external threats".

Individual Security:

Now we will look to what extent are individuals

the basic referent object of security, and how does

individual security relate to the state? We start our


analysis with the individual, because people represent in
one sense, the irreducible basic unit to which the ~oncept

3. Muttiah Alagappa, The National Security of Developing


States: Lessons from Thailand (Dover, Massachusetts:
Auburn House Publ is hi ng Co. , 198 7) , p. 3.

4
of security can be applied. Although the traditional
emphasis in international relations has been on the security
of collective units, particularly states, individuals can be
analysed in the sarue way.

Individual lies at the very root of the


international system. He faces threats from all quarters,

from among his fellow beings, from nature, and moral and
psychological threats. Security for individuals, however,

cannot easily be defined. The factors involved life,


health, status, wealth, freedom - are far more complicated
and plagued by the distinction between objective and·
subjective evaluation. So, it is useful to discuss security

in relation to specific threats.

The aspect of individual security which we need to


pursue here relates to what might be called social threats:
those arising from the fact that people find themselves
embedded in a human environment with unavoidable social,
economic and political consequences. Social threats come in
a number of forms, but according to Barry Buzan, there are
four obvious basic types of threats an individual
4
perceives. . These are: physi~al threats (pain, iQjury,

deat:h); economic threats (seizure or destruction of


------------------------------------------------------------
4. Barry Buzan, People States and Fear: The National
Security Problem in International Relations {Sussex:
\.Jheatsheaf Books, 1983), pp.19-20.

5
property, denial of access t9 work or resources); threats to
rights (imprisonment, denial of normal civil liberties); and
threats to position or status (demotion, public
humiliation). The existence of these threats to individuals

within the context of human society points to the great

dilemma - how to enhance the liberation of community without

amplifying oppression by authority. Individuals, or


collective human behavioral units, existing with others of

their kind in an anarchical relationship, find their freedom


maximised at the expense of their security. Waltz puts it
this way, "states, like people, are insecure in proportion
to the extent
of their freedom. If freedom is wanted,
5
insecurity must be accepted." .

According to the social contractualists like


Thomas Hobbes and John Locke the state becomes the mechanism
by which people seek to achieve adequate levels of security
against social threats. In the words of Hobbes, people
formed states in order to "defend them from the invasion of
foreigners and the injuries of one another, and thereby to

secure them in such sort as that by their own industry, and


by the fruits of the earth, they may nourish themselves and

5. Kenneth N.Waltz, Theory of International Politics


(Massachussets: Addison, Wesley, 1979), p.112.

6
6
live contentedly." Similarly John Locke considers the

state as the great and chief end of men's desire and says

"putting themselves under government is the preservation of

their property (meaning here their lives, liberties and

estates) which in the state of nature is 'very unsafe, very


7
insecure'.

But the paradox, of course, is that the state also

becomes a source of social threat against the individual.

The individual citizen faces many threats which emanate

either directly or indirectly from the state, and which not

commonly may occupy an important place in the person's life.

A rather serious level of threat can come to individuals

directly from the institutions of the state what John


8
Galtung calls "structural violence". Yet much of it is

direct as well. The persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany,

legal discrimination against blacks in South Africa, police

atrocities in India, assassinations by police 'death squads'

6. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan reprinted in Carl Cohen, ed.,


Communism, Fascism and Democracy: The Theoretical
Foundations ( Ne\'l Yor'i<":Random House, 19'72) , 2nd Edn. ,
p.275.

7. John Locke, Second Treaties of Government reprinted in


Carl Cohen, ed., Communism,~ascism and Democracy:
The Theoretical Foundations (New York:~ndom ·House,
~2), 2nd Edn., pp.406-o7.

8. See John Gal tung, "Violence, Peace and Peace


Research", Journal of Peace Research (Oslo), vol.2,
(1969), pp.166-91.

7
in Argentina, and ruthless relocation, liquidation and
enforced labour in Pol Pot's Kampuchea are examples of such

threats that individuals face.

Another type of threat from the state is threat

arising from political disorder - the struggle for control

over the state's institutions. Only a minority of states

have developed stable mechanisms for the transfer of

political power. In the rest, mostly in the small states,


violent conflicts over the reins of office pose an

intermittent, and frequently serious threat tp large


sections of the population. Political terrorism also fits
under this heading, regardless of whether or not the
terrorist see themselves as contending for political power.
By undermining trust in the state's capacity to provide
domestic security, terrorists can force the state to make
its security measures more obtrusive. In responding to such
threats even a minimal state would necessarily begin to
adopt a maximal line.

Another aspect where individual security gets


linked up with that of state is foreign policy. The state
is supposed to provide a measure of protectio~ to its
citizens from foreign interference, attack and invasion, but
obviously it cannot be so without imposing risks and costs
on them. The nature of modern war, high risks and heavy

8
casualties, makes the decision about what constitutes a

threat to security of a state, a matter of considerable


public concern as it puts individual security too at stake.

While the state provides some security to the


individual, it can only do so by imposing threats. 9 These

threats, whether from the state itself, or arising


indirectly as a side-effect of state actions aimed at
serving the common good, are frequently serious enough to
dominate the relatively small and fragile universe of
individual security. However, they are balanced to some

extent by the domestic land external security which the


state provides. In spite of the fact that state becoming a
source of social threat against the ;individual, the
stability of the state derives from the assumption that it

is the lesser of two evils (that is, that whatever threats


come from the state will be of a lower order of magnitude
than those which would arise in its absence).

National Security:

The scope of national security is exceedingly


broad. As it is currently interpreted, national security
encompasses several disciplines political science,
history, economics, and others - and a shifting array of
------------------------------------------------------------
9. Buzan, n.4, p.30.

9
specialized topics - strategy, weapons, policy analysis,

arms transfer, budget making etc. National security is a

relatively recent field of inquiry. As it is said, "the

concept is a product of the post-war international


environment, although its components have existed
10
independently for some time."

Walter Lippmann is one of the first scholars to


define national security explicitly. He defined, "a nation
has security when it does not have to sacrifice its

interests to avoid war and is able, if challenged, to


11
maintain them by war." Arnold Wolfers made a simple
translation of ·the national interests into 'national
12
security interests.' In objective sense, it measures the

absence of threats to acquired values, and in subjective

sense, the absence of fear that such values might be

attached. According to Wolfers, Lippmann's definition

implies that "security rises and falls with the ability of a

nation to deter an attack, or to defeat it. This is in

10. B. Thomas, Trout and James E. Ha rf, "Teaching


National Security" in B. Thomas Trout and James E.
Harf, ed., National Security Affairs: Theoretical
Perspectives and ContemTorarl Issues (New Brunswick:
Transaction Books, 1982 , p . .
11. Walter Lippman, US Foreign Policy: Shield of the
Republic (Boston: Little Brown, 1943), p.Sl.
12. Arnold \.Jolfers, "National Security as An Ambiguous
Symbol", Political Science Quarterly (New York),
no.67 (1952), pp.481-502.

10
13
accord with the common usage of the term." Michael H.H.
Lou\,, argues, national security includes traditional defence

policy and also "the non-military actions of a state to

ensure its total capacity to survive as a political entity


in order to exert influence and to carry out its internal
14
and international objectives." Ian Bellany defines it as

"a relative freedom from war, coupled \11ith a relatively high


expectation that defeat will not be a consequence of any war
15
that should occur."

However, several efforts have been made to broaden


the definition of core values. For example, the definitions

of national security advanced by Stephen Krasner and Harold


Brown include economic well-being as a core value to be
protected under the label of national security. To prove
his point, Krasner argues that,

"Limiting the definition of national security to


the core objectives maintaining the political and
territorial integrity of the state - ignores many other

13. Arnold Wolfers, Discord and Collaboration: Essays ~


International Politics (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press,
1962), p.150.
Michael H.H. Louw, National Security (Pretoria:
Institute of Strategic Studies, 1978). '

15. Ian Bellany, "Tm11ards a Theory of International


Security", Polit:ical Studies (Survey), vol.29, no.l
(1981), p.102.

11
deeply held goals pursued by states. In a broader sense

national security can be defined to include not only the

core .objectives but a number of other values as well, some


of which are economic. Economic well-being has become a

basic goal of all political units in the last part of the


16
twentieth century."

Brown defines national security in the United


States to include the liability to "maintain economic its
17
relations with the rest of the world on reasonable terms."

Though Krasner and BroY.>n convincingly argue to include

economic well-being as a core value but at the same time

they do not object to the broadly accepted core values of

physical survival and political independence as the

objectives of national security.

All the above definitions point to one thing

their bias towards great powers and developed nations in


their security definitions. Discussion is usually

associated with those countries, who by definition are more

able to approach perfect security than their lesser

16. Stephen D. Krasner, "National Security and Economics",


in Thomas Trout and James E. Harf, ed., National
Security Affairs (New Burnswick: Transaction Books,
1983), pp.320-21.
17. Harold Brown, National Securit1 and Economics (Boulder,
Colorado: Westview Press, 1983 , p.14.

12
counterparts. The definition of national security for our

purpose, however, is less extensive than that embraced by

the big developed nations. As Talukdar Maniruzzman states,


"By security we mean the protection and preservation of the
minimum core values of any nation: political independence
18
and territorial integrity."~ Though it is both simple and
conventional, the dilemma of national security of the small

developing countries has to do with how these nations


perceive their security and with the proper policies to

achieve it. Scarce resources, poverty, the need for

modernization and institution building, popular demand for a

voice in government, expectations for respect and personal


dignity, and the need for international cooperation are some
of the elements of the security dilemma. An overview of the

policy orientations of these countries discloses that the


need for creating a domestic environment conducive to
national cohesion and consensus is not a priority. As Al-

Mashat rightly points out, "an integrative social


development strategy has been almost sacrificed for the sake
19
of defending political independence and sovereignty".

There is no doubt that security consists in the


development of a nation. In other words, there ,is an
18. Talukdar Maniruzzaman, Security of Small States in
Third World (Dhaka: Academic Publishers, 1989), p.15.
19. Abdul Monem M.Al-Mashat, National Security in the Third
World (Doulder: Hestvi~w Press, 1985), p.1.- - -

13
organic connection between socio-economic development and
security. In a small developing nation, where the level of
development, both political and socio-economic, is low and
alienation and conformity are common, the first priority
should be to evolve strategy for the development of the

nation. We must conclude with McNamara's words, "In a


modernising society security means development. Security is
not military hardware, though it may include it; security is

not military force though it may involve it; security is not

traditional military activity though it may encompass it.

Security is development, and without development there can


20
be no security" ..

International Security:

If there is an international society, then there

is order of some kind to be maintained, or even developed.


Mortan Kaplan in the post-war trends of behaviouralism and
system analysis, did attempt a conceptual analysis. His

work tends to study all aspects of human behaviour as a part


21
of total pattern which constitutes a behavioural system.

National interest and national security are treated as


simply one aspect. Further, security of the nationa~ system
20. Robert S. McNamara, The Essence of Security (London,
1968) ' p. 149. - -
21. Mortan Kaplan, System and Process in International
Politics (New York: Wile~-1957).

14
is closely linked with the security of sub-system which
makes up the national system. Systems approach to security
argues that security of the parts of the system is
inextricably interwined with that of the whole. The
propagators of this theory have argued that various segments

of the international system are interlinked and that they


are called 'inter-dependent'. The oil and energy crisis of
1970s have made this inter-dependent nature of nation states

all the more explicit.

The analysis of security points out that security

at no level can be achieved unilaterally. The existence of


more than one hundred and fifty political units organized as

nation states and acting as such on the international scene,


makes security itself interdependent. Interdependence has
been made to mean almost any sort of active relationship

betweeri states and any other entities. It represents a very

major problem of definition. However, there is some meaning


when states are said to be interdependent it is because
their actions affect one another, whether these effects are
symmetrical or asymmetrical.

Interdependence is not a unitary phenomenon either


in terms of the issue areas to which it applies or to the
actors in the system. Two actors may be interdependent in
an issue area but not in the other. While the same actors

15
may be dependent in one period, it might not be the same in
other. Therefore, is security possible individually, for
all the states? If not, what is the way out to ensure

security? Can security be thought of in terms of economic,

social and political aspects or should it be analysed only


in terms of military aspect?

Obviously the answer is: we should pursue the


goals towards international security. One must remember

that we owe this world not to our ancestors, but to our


descendants. For them we have to leave a world in which
they can exist, just as we had inherited from our
forefathers. This view underlines the basic necessity of
reservation of the international s~stem. Today, when nobody
can escape a nuclear holocaust, whether it be a nuclear

power or not, we cannot think of security of just one


nation. The development and inventions in science have

shrunk the globe, making all of us vulnerable to same


threats. Mechanization of weapon system have brought us to
the precipice, where even a human error causing war will
send all systems out of control. A nuclear war, once
initiated, knows no end - it would be an endless game of
destruction, extinction "the death of death", to borrow a
22
phrase from Jonathan Schell. Essentially, it is a threat
22. Jonathan Schell, The Fate of Earth (London: Pan Books,
1982), p.119.

16
to the very existence of mankind, and in recent years masses
of people have come to realise how grave this threat is, and
that nuclear war must be averted. Although the arms race
remains an instrument of policy - and by extension, a weapon
used by some countries to pressure or blackmail others - the
actual use of nuclear weapons is senseless: such a war
cannot solve any political problems, but can only lead to

the death of those involved in it, and, perhaps, to the

destruction of modern civilization as a whole. So it is


required to prevent nuclear war and to remove the threat of
such a war.

As a Soviet expert opines, "the arms race, far

from being a means of ensuring the security of any country,


23
actually undermines it and increases the danger of war".

In the past, the stockpiling of weapons was seen as a means


of strengthening the security of a particular country.
Today, however, it is clear that the arms race is itself a
source of mounting threat. When there are too many guns,
they start shooting of their own accord, as an old saying
goes. Now that a computer mistake, or an error on the part
of technical experts or politicians could trigger off a
'
global war, the overstockpiling of weapons creates an
23. V.V.Zagladin, "The Soviet Concept of Security", in
SIPRI, Politics for Common Security (London: Taylor and
Frances, 1985), P:66.

17
~xplosive situation for the mankind. So, halting the arms
race and achieving disarmament are prerequisites for

strengthening security.

New political thinking has made for a healthier

international situation over the last few years and for

decisive advances in strengthening security along the

foremost line of its progress: the sphere of disarmament.


The ongoing limitation of arsenals has become an essential
component of the positive changes that have allowed us to

push away the threat of war and shift the emphasis to


cooperation, mutual understanding and negotiation.

In essence, we are all eyewitnesses of the ongoing


process to develop a new model of security - one attained
not by increasing them in a ;mutually acceptable way. 'fhc

historical Treaty on the elimination of intermediate - and


shorter-range missiles (INF Treaty) is being implemented and

physical destruction of these two types of nuclear weapons

has begun. Negotiations to draft a convention banning and

abolishing chemical weapons have reached the final stage. A


great deal has been done towards concluding a treaty on 50
per cent cuts in the strategic nuclear weapons of th~ USSR
and USA while maintaining the anti-ballistic missile (ABM)
Treaty. The outline of a common approach to the
negotiations on the reduction of conventional forces in

18
Europe is beginning to appear and moves are being made
towards agreement on a new set of complementary confidence

and security building measures to diminish the risk of

confrontation between the two largest military alliances.

The easing of East-West tensions offer political

and diplomatic opportunities for all members of the

international community. "At this juncture", as Magalhaes

argues, "it is particularly important to promote a


comprehensive understanding of contemporary global
24
trends." The main issue at hand, however, is to promote a
substantial rem~delling of international relations on the
basis of a comprehensive diagnosi~ of the present problems
affecting humanity. The prevention of war on a global scale
would not be really meaningful if the major powers remained

either silent or indifferent to the small developing

countries' permanent isolation from the streams of

international wealth and prosperity.

Out of a world population of about 5 billion, more


than 1 billion are under-nourished, 1.4 billion without safe
drinking water, 1.4 billion without adequate medical care,
800 million without a roof over their head, 800 'million
2.!~. Fernando Simas Magalhaes, "The Impact of East-West
Confidence Building Measures on Global Security: A View
from the South", Disarmament (New York), vol.XIII, no.l
(1990), p.158.

19
illiterate and about 40,000 destitutes dying every day out
25
of poverty and hunger. The two Development Decades had

only sharpened the dichotomy between "private opulence and


26
public squalor and aggravated North-South confrontation".

Security cannot in any real sense be said to exist

at a personal or national level in a condition of chronic

underdevelopment. Poverty itself can lead to internal and

external conflict. Peace and security cannot therefore be


fully realised unless people and nations are released from

the trap of poverty through real development. In truth, far


more people in the world today suffer from economic than
from military insecurity. Yet the resources devoted by the
international community to development assistance are very
small compared with military spending. The relationship

between disarmament and development will only be interactive

and mutually reinforcing if nations have the political will


to make it so. The present moment of international

opportunity must be used to begin such an interactive


27
process.

25. See, Ruth Legar Silvard, World Military and Social


Expenditure 1988 (Virginia, 1988).
26. J.K.Galbraith, The Affluent Society (Harmonds~worth,
1962), p.73.
27. See Final Statement of the Palme Commission on
Disarmament and Securitylssues, A/44/293 (Stockholiiil
14 April 19~

20
World should move consciously and with deliberate

speed towards a more stable ;and balanced social and


economic development within a more sustainable international
economic and political order. Peace cannot be founded on

existing inequalities and by permanently keeping the


developing countries which comprises two-third of mankind

on the margin of the international community. According to


Mojsov, "general security of all peoples and states can be
achieved only through the profound transformation of these
28
relations".

The current international economic order has been

undemocratic in·its decision making, has marginalized the

developing world and passed on to these developing countries


all the economic shocks of the system. Basic restructuring

of this order may be a prerequisite to security because

security is incompatible with gross inequality. Technology


is the vital component for enhancing the equality of life in

the developing world. An important trend in the current


international order is the attempt to use technology as an
instrument of foreign and national security policy as
indicated by restrictions on scientific exchange. In order
to create a more rational technological order, the advanced
28. L. t"iajsov, "Common Security and the Third World", in
SIPRI, Policies for Common Security (London: Taylor &
Francis, 1985), p:tb.

Trl£ s' .s TH
v,1-o, .)s0; ~1, (}~J'~
'3'2- 7· \1 21
\
Sw l '1
developing countries must pursue with determination South-
South technology transfers, and must set an example on fair
and reasonable transfers of technology. The divergence
between the energy consumption patterns in the North land
South is totally skewed in favour of the North but the
developed countries have yet to accept restrictions on their
environmentally unsound policies while they demand
restrictions on the South. The need is for lan equitable
sharing of the burdens of protecting the environment and the
sharing of environmentally benign technologies.

The handling of the non-military threats to global


security is obviously impossible without the creation of a
cooperative global order and the creation of a new dynamic
multilateralism. This must be based on principles such as
universality and common benefit, flexibility that

accommodates the different levels of development, respect

for the diversity of social system and transparency with a


free of information.

22

Você também pode gostar