National Security: Concepts & Components

Transcription

1 G h a n n a m 101 Chapter - 3 National Security: Concepts & Components Any proper study of Palestinian Security would be possible unless the concept of National Security is explained in true perspective. In the recent years the National Security issues have caught the attention of scholars all over the world, particularly the third world countries. This has been because of insecurity and instability. As a result, the problems of National Security have acquired a new dimension. Over the years, large section of scholars are concerned with the problems of National Security. Hence, an attempt has been made by them to study this problem and arrive at a viable and acceptable model. The quest for a nation s security in an international environment characterized by uncertainty is truly speaking unsuitable. Today one cannot imagine of absolute security. At best, one can discuss relative or partial security. It is thus important that we have to live in relative to

2 G h a n n a m 102 partial insecurity. In practice the actual point in between (with absolute security and insecurity as two ends of the wide spectrum) at which any Defence Policy is based in turn determined by a wide variety of complex variables. These together constitute what has been variously termed as National Interests for any country which goes on to constitute the essence of National Security. Generally, it assumed that the security of a nation is more concerned with protecting its way of life, its social and economic institution being and preserving internal harmony. In military terms, it implies defence against territorial aggression from which ever direction it may be land, sea, air and now even from space. Security relates to all aspects of nationalism and internationalism. 71 Redefining security has recently become something of a cottage industry. 72 However, scholars are more concerned with redefining the 71 B.M. Jain, South Asian Security: Problems and Prospects, New Radiant Publishers, New Delhi, 1985, p See Lester Brown Redefining National Security, Worldwatch Paper No.14 (Washington, DC, 1977); Jessica Tuchman Matthews, Redefining Security, Foreign Affairs, 68 (1989), pp ; Richard H Ullman, Redefining Security, International Security, 8 (1983), pp ; Joseph J. Romm, Defining National Security (New York, 1993); J. Ann Tickner, Revisioning Security, in Ken Booth, Security and Emancipation, Review of International Studies, 17 (1991), pp ; Ken Booth, Security and Emancipation, Review of International Studies, 17 (1991), pp ; Martin Shaw, There Is No Such Thing as Society, Beyond Individualism and Statism in International Security Studies, Review of International Studies 19 (1993), pp ; John Peterson and Hugh Ward, Coalitional Instability and the New Multidimensional Politics of Security: A Rational Choice Argument for US-EU Cooperation. European Journal of International Relations, I (1995), pp ; ten articles on security and security studies in Arms Control, 13, (1992), pp ; and Graham Allison and Gregory F. Treverton (eds.) Rethinking America s Security; Beyond Cold War to New World Order (New York, 1992).

3 G h a n n a m 103 policy agendas of nation-states than with the concept of security itself. The parameter of defining security is more varied and has to take into account such issues as human rights, economics, the environment, drug traffic, epidemics, crime, or social injustice, besides traditional concern with security from external military threats. In addressing such a pertinent problem one is faced with a vital issue of the protection of the values of which people or groups of people and the nature and magnitude of those values that are threatened. As a result, some attention has been devoted to conceptual issues as such. Identifying the common elements in various conception of security is useful in at least three ways: First, it facilitates asking the most basic question of social science Of what is this an instance?. 73 Second, it promotes rational policy analysis by facilitating comparison of one type of security policy with another. And third, it facilitates scholarly communication by establishing common ground between those with disparate views. Perhaps scholars from different schools have more in common than is generally acknowledged. 74 In many ways in Arnold Wolfers looked at the term national security as an Ambiguous Symbol. But Wolfers still discussed and examined the concept. As he was, however, concerned about the ambiguity of national security, as the following passage indicates: 73 The credit goes to James Rosenau for this phrase. 74 See Kell Goldmann, Im Westen Nichts Neues: Seven International Relations Journals in 1972 and 1992, European Journal of International Relations, I (1995), pp

4 G h a n n a m 104 It would be an exaggeration to claim that the symbol of national security is nothing but a stimulus to semantic confusion, though closed analysis will show that if used without specifications it leaves room for more confusion than sound political counsel or scientific usage can afford. 75 What really Wolfers refer to the concept of national security not only as a policy objective but also as the means for its pursuit, i.e., national security policy. In the discussion that follows, Wolfers definition will be examined in the context of more recent literature. These concepts are subject to a set of criteria summarized by Oppenheim: (1) concepts should be operational in the broadest sense, although this should not be interpreted as requiring quantification. (2) concepts that establish definitional connections with other terms are to be preferred. (3) concepts that draw attention to the theoretically important aspects of the subject matter that might easily be overlooked are desirable. (4) concepts should not preclude empirical investigation by making true by definition what should be open to empirical inquiry. (5) concepts should remain reasonably close to ordinary language. Ordinary language, however, does not necessarily mean the way most people would define the term, but rather the set of rules they implicitly follow when applying it to a given situation Arnold Wolfers, National Security as an Ambiguous Symbol, Political Science Quarterly, 67 (1952), p Oppenheim, Language, pp See also Felix E. Oppenheim, Political Concepts: A Reconstruction (Chicago, 1981). For criticisms of this approach, see William E. Connolly, The Terms of Political Discourse, 2 nd edn (Princeton, 1983), and Richard E. Little, Ideology and Change in Barry Buzan and R.J.Barry Jones (eds.), Change and the Study of International Relations: the Evaded Dimension (New York, 1981) pp Regardless of

5 G h a n n a m 105 Oppenheim s approach is quite different from Barry Buzan and Richard Ullman s approaches. Although Buzan believes in exploration of the concept of security, his analysis includes both conceptual analysis and empirical observations. For example, Buzan was in favor for the empirical proposition that security at the individual level is well-connected to security at the level of the state and the international system. His insistence that security cannot be examined isolated at any level. His justification for mixing conceptual and empirical analysis is that the search for a referent object of security goes hand-in-hand with that for its necessary conditions. 77 Understating the concept of security is a fundamentally different kind of intellectual exercise from specifying the condition under which security may be attained. Indeed, conceptual clarification logically precedes the search for the necessary conditions of security because the identification of such conditions presupposes a concepts of security. 78 whether one accepts the criteria suggested here, it is necessary to identify some criteria for conceptual analysis. Barry Buzan s contention that security is weakly conceptualized and underdeveloped would be more telling if he were to identify criteria for distinguishing between weak and strong conceptualizations or between undeveloped and fully developed concepts Barry Buzan, People, States and Fear. An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era, 2 nd edn (Boulder, Co, 1991), pp Buzan, People, State, pp. 20-1,26, See also, Barry Buzan, Peace, Power and Security: Contending Concepts in the study of International Relations, Journal of Peace Research, 21 (1984), pp The elaboration of hypotheses presupposes, logically, a conceptual framework in terms of which clear hypotheses may be formulated. Harold D. Lasswell and Abraham Kaplan, Power and Society: A Framework for Political Security, pp. 130, 133.

6 G h a n n a m Security: A neglected concept It would be wrong to think that conceptual basis of security started and ended with Wolfers article in The neglect of security as a concept is reflected in various surveys of security affairs as an academic field. In 1965 one such study stated that thus far there have been very few attempts..to define the concept of national security. 79 In 1973 Klaus Knorr tried deliberately bypass the semantic and definitional problems generated by the term National Security. 80 In 1975, Richard Smoke observed that the field had paid quite inadequate attention to the range of meanings of security. 81 In 1991, Buzan described security as an underdeveloped concept because of lack of conceptual literature on security prior to the 1980s. 82 Although Buzan sees some progress in the 1980s, but still it was far from satisfactory. Recently two surveys of security studies, did not made an attempt to define security P.G. Bock and Morton Berkowitz, The Emerging Field of National Security, World Politics, 19, 1966, p Klaus Knnor, National Security Studies: Scope and Structure of the Field, in Frank N. Trager and Philip S. Kronenberg (eds.), National Security and American Society: Theory Process and Policy (Lawrence, K.S., 1973), p Richard Smoke, National Security Affairs, in Fred I, Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby (eds.) Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 8 International Politics (Reading, MA, 1975), p Buzan, people, op.cit. pp Stephen M. Walt, The Renaissance of Security Studies, International Studies Quarterly, 35(1991), pp ; and Joseph S. Nye, Jr. and Sean, M. Lynn-Jones, International Security Studies: A Report of a Conference on the State of the Field, International Security, 12 (1988), pp

7 G h a n n a m 107 An attempt to redefine security since the end of the Cold War. 84, there is a need to reconsider one might security should be described as a neglected concept. There are two reasons for examining it. First, security is an important concept, which has been used to justify suspending civil liberties, making war, and massively reallocating resources during the last fifty years. Despite the recent works, on national security it seems fair to describe security as a concept that received far less scholarly attention than it deserved during that period. And second, most recent works on security would not qualify as conceptual analysis in the sense described earlier. Security has not received the serious attention accorded to the concepts of justice, freedom, equality, obligation, representation, and power. 85 Buzan has suggested five possible explanations for the neglect of security. 86. First, is the concept itself. But Buzan admits that this concept is no more difficult than other concepts. Second, is the apparent overlapping between the concepts of security and power. Third, is the lack of interest in security by various critics of realism. This, however, does not explain why security specialists themselves neglected the concept. Fourth, is that security scholars are too preoccupied with new 84 See Tickner, Re-visioning Security; and Emma Rothschild, What is Security? Daedalus, 124 (1995), pp Peter Digeser, The Concept of Security. Paper presented at the 1994 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 14 September, Unlike most recent works on security, this paper seriously engages conceptual issues. 86 Buzan, People, States, pp

8 G h a n n a m 108 developments in technology and policy. Perhaps the possibility is that some scholars give low priority to conceptual issues than an explanation for this lack of interest. And the fifth explanation considered by Buzan is that policy makers find the ambiguity of national security useful, which does not explain why scholars have neglected the concept. 87 It appears that Buzan s explanation of security is not is very convincing. What is important in recent times that security can be explained in terms of two specifications: Security for whom? And Security for which values? 3.2. Security for Whom As Buzan has rightly pointed out, a concept of security that fails to specify a referent object makes little sense. 88 For Buzan, however, a simple specification, such as the state or the individual, does not suffice. Since there are many states and individuals, and since their security is interdependent, he argues that the search for a referent object of security must go hand-in-hand with that for its necessary conditions. 89 As discussed above, there is lack of clarity in explaining concept and then to establish relationship with empirical observation. For purposes of specifying the concept of security, these are number of answers to the question, Security for whom? All have been acceptable at individual and international levels. 87 The only instance that has come to my attention of a scholar suggesting that the ambiguity of security night be an asset is Buzan, Peace Power, op. cit. p Some security specialists are willing to defend the security studies. 89 Buzan, People, States, op.cit. p. 26.

9 G h a n n a m Security for which values Individuals, states and other social actors have many values. They may include physical safety, economic welfare, autonomy, psychological well-being, and so on. The concept of national security has been traditionally linked with political independence and territorial integrity as values to be protected; but on other occasions other values may be further added. The former American Secretary of Defence Harold Brown includes the maintenance of economic relations with the rest of the world on reasonable terms in his conception of national security. 90 Failure to specify which values are included in a concept of national security often generates confusion. Wolfers distinguished between objective and subjective dimensions of security. 91 The object was to allow for the possibility that states might overestimate or underestimate the actual probability of damage to acquired values. In the former case, reducing unjustified fears might be the objective of security policy; while in the latter case, a state might perceive itself as secure when it was not. The definition given above clearly demonstrates both the objective and the subjective dimensions of security. It could be made more probable by peace of mind or the absence of fear as values that could be specified. 90 Ibid 91 Harold Brown, Thinking About National Security: Defense and Foreign Policy in a Dangerous World Boulder, CO, 1983, p. 4.

10 G h a n n a m How much security? According to Wolfers, Security is a value of which a nation can have more or less and which it can aspire to have in greater or lesser measure. 92 His contemporary analyst, Bernard Brodie, observed that not everyone regards security as a matter of degree. He cites as an example statement by General Jacob L. Devers: National security is a condition which cannot be qualified. We shall either be secure, or we shall be insecure. We cannot have partial security. If we are only half secure, we are not secure at all. 93 Brodie, Wolfers, and others have criticized such views where the idea of security as a matter of degree cannot be taken for granted. In fact, Knorr accepts that treating national security threats as matters of more or less causes a lot of conceptual uneasiness. 94 The same difficulties are also pointed out by Buzan. The word itself implies an absolute condition-something is either secure or insecure-and does not lend itself to the idea of a graded spectrum like that which fills the space between hot and cold. 95 If we accept their concept of security as valid then it would be necessary to depart from common usage in defining security as an 92 Wolfers, National Security, p Ibid, p Bernard Brodie, National Security Policy and Economic Stability, Yale Institute for International Studies Memorandum No. 33, New Haven, CT, 1950, p Economic Interdependence and National Security in Klaus Knorr and Frank N. Trager (eds.) Economic Issues and national Security Lawrence, KS, 1977, p. 18.

11 G h a n n a m 111 analytical concept. But, this does not appear to be the case. In common language we speak of varying degrees of security. Again it is important to mention about the degree of security a country has to seeks is that absolute security is not attainable. Buzan accepts this, but visualize it as a logical problem arising from the essentially contested nature of security as a concept. 96 If security is conceived of as a matter of degree. Buzan observe, then complicated and objectively unanswerable questions arise about how much security is enough. 97 It is not clear why such questions should be described as objectively unanswerable. Precisely these kinds of questions the economists have been addressing for a long time, i.e., how to allocate scarce resources among competing ends. 98 There is neither anything peculiar about the unattainability of absolute security. As Herbert Simon notes, the attainment of objective is always a matter of degree From what threats? Security is generally used when the nation faces particular kinds of threats. Home security system, could be directed at potential burglars; 96 Ibid., p Ibid 98 See Cf. Thomas C. Schelling, International Economic (Boston, MA, 1958), pp ; Alain C.Enthoven and K. Wayne Smith, How Much Is Enough? (New York, 1971); Charles J. Hitch and Roland M. McKean, The Economics of Defence in the Nuclear Age (Cambridge, MA, 1960); James R. Schlesinger. The Political Economic Reasoning in National Defence. In Alan A Brown, Egon Neuberger, and Malcolm Palmatier (eds.), Perspectives in Economic: Economists Look at their Foelds of Study (new York, 1971), pp Herbert A. Simon, Administrative Behavior, 3 rd edn New York, 1976, p. 177.

12 G h a n n a m 112 and national security systems are often in reference to other states. Since threats to acquired values can arise from many sources, it is helpful if this dimension is clearly mentioned. Vague references to the Communist threat to national security during the Cold War often failed to specify whether they referred to ideological threats, economic threats, military threats, or some combination thereof thus impeding rational debate of the nature and magnitude of the threat. The concept of threat referred to in this specification differs from that used by many students of international politics and national strategy. Such scholars often use the term threat to refer to actions that convey a conditional commitment to punish unless one s demands are met. 100 In simple usage, one often comes across such to calamities epidemics, floods, earthquakes, or droughts as threats to acquired values. Ullman believes that the concept of security should be expanded to include such phenomena. 101 There seems to be no reason not to include them in the category of concept of threats. Those who wish to refer to conditional commitments to punish by social actors as security threats may make that clear when specifying this dimensions of security Security by what means? Like wealth, the goal of security can be pursued by a wide variety of means. Wolfers has drawn considerable attention to make it clear and 100 On the concept of threats, see Baldwin, Paradoxes, op.cit. pp Ullman, Redefining Security. See also, Allison and Treverton (eds), Rethinking America s Security.

13 G h a n n a m 113 precise that many different policies may also be adopted in the pursuit of security. Specification of this dimension of security becomes important in discussions of international politics. With the publications of Wolfers article, security studies has been recognized as a subfield in international relations. The tendency of some security studies scholars to define the subfield entirely in terms of the threat, use, and control of military force 102 can lead to confusion as to the means by which security may be pursued. It can also tilt the balance in favor of military solutions to security problems Security at what cost? Cost is an important factor in examining the concept of security. Here what is significant to point out the resources that are related to security. Specification of this dimension of security policy becomes important because writers sometimes ignore cost factor. One writer, for example, defines national security in terms of the protection of core values, which he describes as interests that are pursued not-withstanding the costs incurred. 103 Costs always matter. Another scholars asserts: There is, in fact, no necessary conflict between the goals of maintaining a large and powerful military establishment and other goals such as 102 Walt, Renaissance, p See also, Knorr, National Security Studies, p. 6; and Schultz et al. (eds) Security Studies, p Melvyn P. Leffler, National Security, Journal of American History, 77 (1990), p. 145.

14 G h a n n a m 114 developing independence from Persian Gulf oil, promoting selfsustaining development in poor countries.and promoting greater public tranquility and a more healthful environment at home. All these objectives could be achieved if the American people choose to allocate the resources to do so. 104 Only the assumption of a cost-free world would eliminate the necessary conflict among such goals as they compete for scarce resources. In thinking about security, as in thinking about other policy goals, it is helpful to remember the TANSTAAFL principal, i.e., There aren t no such thing as a free lunch. 105 Wolfers further elaborate by focusing on additional reason for specifying this dimension of security Arguing against those who would be place national security policy beyond moral judgment, he contends that the sacrifices of other values for the sake of security inevitably makes such policies a subject for moral judgment Time Factor? There is a great debate by scholars on the question of security pursued by a state in the long and short run. In the short run, a high fence, a fierce dog, and a big gun may be useful ways to protect oneself from the 104 Ullman, Redefining Security, p. 132, Emphasis in original. 105 Edwin G. Dolan, TANSTAAFL (New York, 1971), p Wolfers, National Security, pp

15 G h a n n a m 115 neighbors. But in the long run, it may be preferable to befriend them. 107 Short-run security policies may come into conflicts with long-run security policies Overview of Security Concepts Concepts of security, thus, become important for states and the international community to pursue their main objective. International polities after 1945 have seen more usage of terms such as balance of power, deterrence, peaceful coexistence and collective security. Security policies, are means to promote security. For example, the focus on disarmament and arms limitation arrangements is related of the maintenance and development of military capabilities Balance of power Theory of Balance of power has been a regular feature of International relations since the beginning of the state system. It could be understood in many ways. What is more important is the strategic international environment where States seek security by indulging power in arrangements that could reduce the risk of attack upon them. It also points out coalitions against emerging military alliance anywhere in the system. Situation could be such where equivalent power is held by two 107 Cf. Kenneth E. Boulding, Towards a Pure Theory of Threat Systems, American Economic Review, 53 (1963), pp See Robert A. Dahl and Charles E. Lindblom, Politics, Economic and Welfare (New York, 1953, pp

16 G h a n n a m 116 or more nations or groups of nations and then laying a policy of promoting the desired result. Also, it is sometimes understood as a system of international relations where States are more concerned the adjustment of their power relationships. It could be reflected either increasing or reducing the level of armaments. The concept of balance of power was quite popular in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In Europe, the concept was expressed as a multiple balance of among at least five great powers. It was considered as neutralizing an aggressor. In propagating the theory of balance of power, it clearly legitimizes the use of force in international relations. Furthermore, in their pursuit of stability and security states often try to adjust favorable balance of power. This kind of system often leads to international tension and stimulates arms races. Hence, the balance of power as a system is regarded as an alternative of international security, yet is not capable to cater the security needs of all States. The concept is then seen as relative balance between countries in a region when States consider the vital problem of needs their security. The perspective of small and weak State is difference from that of a major power, and also depends on whether the State is a member of an alliance or not. History is full of examples, the first and Second World War was based on the concept of balance of power. In both the wars the power equation was Allied powers versus Axis powers.

17 G h a n n a m 117 As stated above, the balance of power concept then become important for the formation of military alliances. One can trace the present arms race in the theory of balance of power itself. Why nations opt for it? It is because of political and socio-economic differences between the countries from the two groups of States that later came to form the two main alliances Nuclear Deterrence The post-war alliance system has not been able to eliminate the essential dilemma of security in the nuclear age: the problem of ensuring mutual security, any measure designed to improve the military security of one side may weaken the security of the other. According to the advocates of this concept, deterrence too has become a security concept. According to Bernard Brodie, with the development of nuclear weapons, the term deterrence has acquired not only a special emphasis but also a distinctive connotation. On the question of who will win the next war in which nuclear weapons are used, Brodie observed that thus far the chief purpose of our military establishment has been to wins. From now on its chief purpose must be to avert them. It can have almost no other fruitful purpose. Some States feel that conventional deterrence depends on military capabilities possessed by them. This is important for self-defence of their national territory, so as to deny an adversary the prospect of securing territorial, political or economic gains by the use of military force. Nuclear

18 G h a n n a m 118 strategists visualize that nuclear deterrence, relies mainly on the possession of offensive nuclear capabilities that would punish an adversary in the event that the adversary were to initiate conflict. Thus, the result which is desired to achieve is, therefore, psychological one and it is sought by means of a threat. In the view of some other States, conventional deterrence is based on the same negative features as nuclear deterrence. The argument is based primarily on the creation of highly precise weapons of great destructive power on the basis of the most modern technology. Their destructive capacity is more or less equivalent to nuclear weapons. It also leads to lowering the threshold between conventional and nuclear deterrence, the plans providing for the use of such weapons by a nuclear weapons State or by its ally against targets in the territory of a presumed adversary would lower the nuclear threshold and would inevitably increase the risk of nuclear war. A distinction is often made be between conventional and nuclear deterrence in case deterrence fail and conflict escalate. Failure to check of conventional deterrence could result in wars causing, enormous devastation and failure to check nuclear deterrence would threaten the very survival of humankind. Though nuclear wars have not been fought still now, the possibility that nuclear deterrence might fail cannot also be ruled out. This is a grave concern to all states in present time.

19 G h a n n a m 119 The concept of nuclear deterrence is shrouded with great mystery. Many strategic experts of the concept of deterrence reject the concept out of hand. They have challenged its basic assumptions. They argue that the doctrine of deterrence is by nature aggressive and relies on force and thereby lead to un-escalated nuclear arms race. They argue that the nuclear deterrence policy pursued by some states ranks first in their approach to agreements on disarmament, especially to a comprehensive test ban treaty, a nuclear weapon freeze and non-first-use of nuclear weapons. Some states regard nuclear deterrence as being the only reliable arrangement against nuclear war at present in operation. Seeing the development of effective collective security arrangements and major reductions in nuclear weapons these states consider that it is vital contribution for international stability. Other states, which do not possess nuclear weapons, may accept conventional deterrence as a means for achieving national security but have their own reservation about the applicability of the nuclear deterrence. As long as nuclear weapons exit national security decisions makers must evolve such concepts as to guide decisions on nuclear weapons. These states believe that nuclear weapons have no any military purpose and that as long as nuclear disarmament and arms control are not achieved, nuclear states must assure the avoidance of nuclear war. These states question the capability of the concept of nuclear deterrence

20 G h a n n a m 120 to serve this purpose in the long-term perspective. They also believe that nuclear deterrence has not been able to prevent conflicts. In their view the arguments about the peace-keeping effects of nuclear deterrence may influence decisions regarding possible acquisition of nuclear weapons of non-nuclear-weapon states and have a negative influence on the nonproliferation regime Equal Security Equal security is not a security concept. It is accepted as a principle or bilateral areas negotiations that parties may argue upon. For example, in a joint communiqué issued on 29 May, 1972 the United States and the Soviet Union declared to limit strategic offensive arms and to conduct them [their negotiations] in a spirit of goodwill, respect for each other s legitimate interests and observance of the principle of equal security. 109 This principle would seem to embrace the notion that nuclear states has the right to claim exclusively or to demand for itself any special privileges or advantages. Indeed, it has been stated that mutual security between the two major nuclear-weapon states can be assured by equality. However, questions have further raised issue as to its exact meaning and wider applicability. Critics argue that this principle does not affect the 109 Concept of Security, Department for Disarmament Affairs, Report of the Security General, United Nations, New York, 1986, p.8.

21 G h a n n a m 121 security concerns of medium-sized and small states, because of the wide gulf in military capabilities possessed by the nuclear powers Concept of Collective Security The concept of collective security is a global commitment to international peace and security. The term is also understood in legal sense. An attempt has been made to institutionalize and enforce the rule of international law to enhance the security of all nations. Collective security believes in the concept of one for all and all for one It indicates protection of national interests and sovereignty in a collective manner that strengthen international security and world order. As a concept it aims at a broader objective than just the absence of war by taking into account the wider requirements of international peace and security. Sometimes the problem that emerge with the sanction of collective security is that on many occasions states have been forced to fulfil their obligations, as the basic condition for the functioning of the system. In the case of the League of Nation lack of political will it failed because there was utter and some major powers were not the members of the league. On the other hand, security action by the United Nations requires the concurrent of the five permanent members of the Council. Hence, a negative vote by any one of the five states vetoes the proposed action. 110 Ibid, p.9.

22 G h a n n a m 122 However, the veto provision reflects that the great powers would maintain a more co-operative working relationship among themselves and, therefore, use the veto in exceptional cases. In practice, however, disagreement between the permanent members have in a number of cases led to the use of the veto, which, in turn, has prevented collective security action Neutrality One of the principle means of promoting national security has been staying outside military alliances. The policy of neutrality practiced by mainly European countries is one such policy. Historically a power rivalry was seen in the context of armed hostilities in Europe. It has recently evolved in response to the East-West conflict. In strict sense, the term neutrality is a war time concept indicates. The rights and obligations of neutrals in times of war are well mentioned in international law. A neutral state does not indulge against its other opponents. In a war situation, The Hague Conventions of 1907 and 1912 have to be taken into account. A neutral state always aims to ensure security in accordance with their national interests. Since they are not part of any military alliances, neutral States have substantially contributed in reducing international tensions and promoting peace in their regions on a large scale. Through 111 Ibid, p.9.

23 G h a n n a m 123 the United Nations, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and other international forum, neutral states have taken an active part in the processes of co-operation, mediation and peace-keeping Non-alignment Non-alignment is not merely a policy of development countries but also a movement of the people of non-aligned countries. After Second World War many nations emerged as independent states. During the Cold War the nations were divided on the basis of ideologies and as a result military alliance also increased. In this hostile environment of the cold war, it was only logical for the non-aligned nations to come together to protect themselves from major power rivalry game. They avoided from taking action which they had little to gain and much to lose. Nonalignment may be seen as a response not only to the cold war that characterized the period after the Second World War, but also to the challenges of the process of decolonization, especially in Africa. Nonaligned states have reacted against the inherent dangers involved in major Power rivalry, military alliance and the arms race, voiced its opposition to colonialism and expressed a reaffirmation of the principle of the equality of all nations in the international system. 112 In developing the concept of non-alignment, a number of political leaders from the countries concerned made a considerable contribution to 112 Ibid, p.11.

24 G h a n n a m 124 this concept with the following basic objective; (a) staying out of military blocs or other forms of great Power entanglements; (b) working towards defusing international tensions and promoting peace; (c) peaceful coexistence and peaceful co-operation among states irrespective of their social or political system; (d) support for people struggling for freedom from colonialism, opposition of racism, apartheid, etc.; (e) support for disarmament, especially nuclear disarmament; (f) working towards a more just equitable international order. These provisions formed the core of the non-aligned policies in the 1950s and 1960s. 113 Besides political aspect of non-alignment, the economic factor was the main motive force and later on became the strong motive that implied the non-aligned countries to co-operate and come forward for joint action. More recently, the movement has become a forum for promoting the new international economic order based on equity, co-operation and interdependence. The Non-Aligned Movement, has been active in formulating and pursuing the interests of developing countries within the international system, including the United Nations and regional organization. Non-alignment does not merely mean non-involvement but it regarded as a means to attain security goals within an international system dominated by the opposing political and military alliances. The Non-Aligned Movement has made several positive contributions to international security. Individual countries or group of 113 Ibid

25 G h a n n a m 125 non-aligned nations have sought to help resolve specific conflicts among members of the Movement, as, for example, the Iran-Iraq war. The Movement has further strengthened the status of new nations in spite of significant changes after the disintegration of the Soviet Union Common Security The idea of common security was spelt in the report of the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security (A/CN.10/38 and Corr.1). The Commission stated that a doctrine of common security must replace the present expedient of deterrence through armaments. International peace must rest on a commitment to joint survival rather than a threat of mutual destruction. The Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues convened with the purpose of finding new ways of thinking about the organizing for security in response to the failure of mutual deterrence to lessen international insecurities. The Commission began with the premise that threats to security-the conventional and nuclear arms races, resource shortage, environmental degradation, underdevelopment-are threats that nations increasingly have in common, and that solution should therefore be sought in common. The concept of common security has relevance first of all to the relationship between the nuclear alliances in general and to the relation between the Russia and the United States in particular. Common security well recognizes the fact that nuclear weapons have changed not only the

26 G h a n n a m 126 pattern of warfare but the very concept of war itself. In the nuclear age war cannot be demand to be an instrument of policy. A nuclear war has winners, and no looser. Nuclear weapon is an offensive weapon. The only way of protecting the humankind is the avoidance of nuclear war itself. Even nuclear powers have a vital interest in procuring nuclear face conflict. Common security as a concept is based on two preferences: for international over national means of achieving security; and for means that are peaceful over those that rely on the use or the threatened use of force. These extremely venerable preferences are analyzed in the context of present destructive technological developments, particularly nuclear conventional, chemical and biological weapons. On the other hand, the existence of modern weapons makes it likely that of resorting to military force (certainly to nuclear force) would exceed the benefits as no one would win a nuclear war. On the other hand, the effects of the use of modern weapons would cross international frontiers. No country would be secure from the consequences of nuclear war. Thus there is consensus amongst nations that in order to promote their national and international and international interests the focus should be on the need to prevention of war Ibid, p.14.

27 G h a n n a m The Security of developing countries In developing countries security concept have acquired added attention. Many developing countries are facing with war and other forms of conflicts. The growing importance of economic and political linkages between the developed and developing regions has made of the developing countries more cautions and hence may have increasingly influenced the entire international system. Unrest in developing countries have been made possible by the possibility political, economic or military intervention by the great Powers. People living in the developing countries, security has been conceived at as basic struggle for individual survival. Some eight hundred millions live in absolute poverty and deprivation. Five hundred millions are malnourished. Many millions face the problem of safe drinking-water and they do not even have the income necessary to purchase food. They lack protection against the consequences of environmental degradation and natural calamities, such as floods and drought, have produced famine and suffering of unprecedented proportions. Since 1945 the developing countries have fought some 150 armed conflicts. But most of these conflicts were the consequence of struggles for independence and self-deceleration from colonial rule and some involved territorial disputes. Many of them have been also marked by various forms of intervention.

28 G h a n n a m 128 The interference of those states with the largest military arsenals has not only disturbed regional power balance but also has deepen local conflicts. This has led to instability and insecurity amongst the people. In those regions who are regarded as strategically or economically sensitive, such type of interference can threaten international security. In issues are linked to threats posed by proliferating arms technology. Nuclear and conventional arms races, problems of development, population and environmental resource issues have emerged as major new challenges to global peace and stability Security of Small States A significant number of small states have become independent members of the international community relatively recently. It seems that these states are also facing specific security problems. Recent developments in global and regional power politics have focused more on the special needs and vulnerabilities of small states. Although the special needs of these States have given rise to such categories an small island states, mini-states, micro-states, the concept of small states is more relative then precise. Small states have one thing in common that they have very small population. For example, among the members of the United Nations there are 34 States with a population of approximately one million or less. Besides this, small states generally face problems like small territory, limited natural resources, geographical isolation and economic and social underdevelopment.

29 G h a n n a m 129 These factors are hindrance for small states to organize and guarantee their national security on their own. No proper defence preparedness makes them vulnerable to external attacks and intervention. Intervention in these states include the use of externally sponsored insurgents, economic pressure and destabilization. Moreover, small states that are strategically well placed or those that possess valuable natural resource face even more formidable problems. They always live in fear that they have to accommodate the wishes of the more powerful states. In addition, with the advent of the convention on the Law of the Sea, many small states will face more problems in maintaining adequate surveillance over their exclusive economic zone Human Security Human security is a non-traditional dimension of national security. The emphasis is more on the individual. In this age of globalization, human security puts emphasis more on the individual rather than on the security of the state. As such, the concept challenges the notion of traditional security. The concept of traditional security seeks to defend states from external aggression and to protect a state s boundaries, institutions and values. Thus, it focuses on the development of military capabilities. After the Second World War we have seen how the developed countries have enhanced their military capabilities. This was possible only where the state enjoyed economic and social stability. This

30 G h a n n a m 130 perspective does not fulfil the ambition of developing state because these countries lack national unity and socially cohesive society. Within the state, there are different groups operating for different goals and their security issues are not the same. Such countries lack effective institutional capacities to provide peace and order. After the fall of the Soviet Union, it became clear that military security was not the sole guarantor of protecting the territorial integrity of the state. Hence, economic power became more important as it could fulfil the requirements of common men, women, children and workers. Hence, the state territorial sovereignty cannot solely depend upon the traditional national security such as military aggression. For individuals in self-preservation and economic well-being are important for survival. Therefore, it is necessary to take the holistic view of the security. Both traditional and nontraditional threats have to be addressed by the state. In view of this, traditional national security or comprehensive national security based on the development of political, economic, and military capabilities has to be complemented by social, technological and environmental strands. As such, in the year 1994 the concept of human security was first advanced in Human Development Report of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The 1994 UNDP s Human Development Report is milestone document in the field of human security. Mahbub ul Haq first drew global attention to the concept of human security in the 1994 UNDP s Human Development Report. This report is of

31 G h a n n a m 131 vital significance that sought to influence the United Nations (UN) 1995 World Summit on Social Development in Copenhagen. The 1994 UNDP s human development report has defined human security as safety from such chronic threats as hunger, disease and repression. Human security is protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in the patterns of daily life. It is an assurance of protection in jobs, in homes, or in communities. 115 It is argued that the scope of global security should be expanded to include threats in seven areas: 1. Economic Security: The real security issue is economic. Economic security needs an assured basic income for individuals. This income should come usually from productive and remunerative work. It is expected that the government should form a publicly financed safety net. In this sense, only about a quarter of the world s people are presently economically secure. The economic security is a serious problem in developing countries. The concern for economic security also affects the developed countries. Weak economy causes unemployment and it ultimately leads to political tensions and ethnic violence. Today, unemployment is the biggest threat. Creating job prospects will bring in real economic security. 2. Food Security: Food security assures that all people at all times have access to food. People should have both physical and 115 United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1994, p. 22.

32 G h a n n a m 132 economic access to basic requirements of food. According to the United Nations, the overall availability of food is not a problem. The problem arises because of the poor public distribution of food and a lack of purchasing power. The past record shows that the food security problems have been dealt with both at national and global levels. However, their impacts have been limited. According to UN, the key is to tackle the problems relating to access to assets, work and assured income which is related to economic security. The key to food security lies in economic security Health Security: Health security aims to guarantee a minimum protection from diseases and unhealthy lifestyles. In developing countries, the major causes of death are infections and parasitic diseases. These kill approximately 17 million people annually. In an industrialized country, the major killers are diseases of the circulatory system, killing 5.5 million every year. The United Nations report shows that in both developing and developed countries, threats to health security are usually greater for poor people in rural areas, particularly children. The causes of ill-health are malnutrition and insufficient supply of medicine, lack of clean water or other necessary factors that are conducive to sound health United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report, 1994, op.cit; pp Ibid.

33 G h a n n a m Environmental Security: Environmental security aims to protect people from the short and long-term ravages of nature. Pollution is caused by man-made threats in nature. Pollution results from degradation of the natural environment. In developing countries, lack of access to clean drinking water resources is the greatest of all environmental threats. In industrially developed countries, major threat is air pollution. Global warming, caused by the emission of greenhouse gases, is another environmental security issue. Efforts are being made all over the globe to secure the planet from pollution Personal Security: Personal security aims to protect people from physical violence, whether from the state or external states. It protects them from violent individuals and sub-state actors. It is necessary to protect the young and the female from domestic abuse, and the young in particular from predatory adults. For many people, the greatest source of anxiety is crime, particularly violent crime. Industrialization and urbanization have led to the increase in violent criminal activities in many ways Community Security: The aim of community security is to protect people from the loss of traditional relationships and values. It is to protect people from sectarian and ethnic violence. Traditional 118 Ibid., pp Ibid.