Chapter 5 Security In The Contemporary World

What Is Security?

At its most basic level, security means **freedom from threats**. However, human life and countries face countless threats. Defining which threats qualify as security threats is complex. If every minor threat were considered a security issue, the world would be overwhelmed with such concerns.

Experts generally focus on threats that endanger **‘core values’**. But whose core values – those of the state, ordinary citizens, or specific groups? Do governments always share the same notion of core values as their citizens? Additionally, how intense must a threat be to be considered a security threat? Major and minor threats exist to every value. Including all of them would be paralyzing.

Therefore, security is typically understood to relate only to **extremely dangerous threats** – those that could irreversibly damage core values if not addressed. Despite this refinement, security remains a complex and sometimes ambiguous concept. Conceptions of security have varied across time and between different societies, reflecting changing contexts and values. We can group these different views into two main categories: **traditional** and **non-traditional** security.

Traditional Notions: External

Traditional security conceptions primarily focus on **national security** and military threats. The greatest danger to a country, in this view, comes from the military actions or threats of another country. These threats endanger core values like **sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity**, and can also result in the death or injury of ordinary citizens (as war often affects non-combatants).

When faced with the threat of war, a government has three main traditional choices:

1. **Surrender:** Although rarely a publicly stated policy.
2. **Deterrence:** Preventing attack by convincing the potential aggressor that the costs of war would be too high.
3. **Defence:** Defending oneself when war occurs to deny the attacker their objectives or defeat their forces.

Security policy, therefore, is concerned with both **preventing war (deterrence)** and **limiting or ending war (defence)**.

Traditional security also includes the concept of **balance of power**. Countries monitor the military strength of others, particularly neighbours or potential rivals. A country's power (military, economic, technological) is seen as an indicator of potential future aggression. Governments try to maintain a favourable balance of power, often by building up their own military capabilities, especially relative to those close by, those with whom they have disagreements, or those they have historically conflicted with.

A fourth component is **alliance building**. An alliance is a coalition of states that coordinate actions for deterrence or defence against military attack. Alliances, usually formalised by treaties, are based on shared national interests and can shift as interests change (e.g., US support for Islamic militants in Afghanistan against the Soviets, then attacking them post-9/11). Alliances aim to increase collective power relative to opponents.

In the traditional view, most security threats originate from outside borders because the international system lacks a central authority to enforce rules or control state behaviour. Unlike within a country where the government provides order, there's no global government. Although the UN exists, its authority depends on member states. Thus, each country is primarily responsible for its own security in the international arena.

Traditional Notions: Internal

While external threats are central to traditional security, internal peace and order are also crucial. A society cannot be truly secure if it faces internal violence or instability, which also hampers its ability to defend against external threats. Traditional security, therefore, should encompass internal security.

However, internal security was less emphasised in traditional discourse by powerful countries after WWII because it was largely assumed to be stable for them. Post-1945, the US and Soviet Union expected internal peace. Most Western European countries also faced no significant internal threats from domestic groups, allowing them to focus primarily on external dangers.

The main external threats for these powers during the Cold War (post-WWII) were military attacks from the opposing alliance (US-led vs. Soviet-led). Some European powers also worried about violence in their colonies from independence movements (e.g., French in Vietnam, British in Kenya).

As colonies gained independence, their security concerns were often similar to European powers, but with key differences. Some joined Cold War alliances, fearing entanglement in superpower conflicts. Others feared attacks from former colonial rulers, necessitating defence preparations. The security challenges for newly-independent countries in Asia and Africa differed from Europe in two significant ways:

1. The prospect of military conflict with neighbours (often over borders, territory, or populations).
2. Worry about internal military conflict, particularly from separatist movements seeking independence.

Often, external and internal threats merged, with neighbours supporting or instigating internal movements, causing bilateral tensions. Internal wars have become the dominant form of armed conflict globally (over 95% since WWII), with a dramatic increase in civil wars between 1946 and 1991. Thus, newly independent states faced both external wars with neighbours and significant internal conflicts.

Traditional Security And Cooperation

Traditional security acknowledges the possibility of cooperation to limit violence, both in terms of the reasons for war (ends) and the methods used (means). There is a near-universal consensus that countries should only go to war for justifiable reasons, primarily self-defence or protecting others from atrocities like genocide. The means of war should also be limited, avoiding harm to non-combatants and surrendered combatants, and using force only as a last resort after other options have failed.

Traditional security also includes other forms of cooperation: **disarmament, arms control, and confidence building**. Disarmament involves states giving up specific weapons. The 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) are examples, banning production and possession of these weapons, with wide state accession. However, superpowers did not disarm nuclear weapons but pursued arms control.

Arms control regulates the acquisition or development of weapons. The 1972 Anti-ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty limited defensive missile systems. Other treaties like SALT II and START regulated strategic arms. The **Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968** is an arms control treaty regulating nuclear weapons acquisition; countries that tested before 1967 could keep them, others renounced the right to acquire. It limited nuclear powers rather than abolishing weapons.

**Confidence building** is a method to avoid violence through misunderstanding. Countries share information about military intentions and plans with rivals to signal they are not planning surprise attacks. This includes sharing information on force types and deployment. Confidence building aims to prevent war due to misperception.

Overall, traditional security is primarily concerned with military force – both as the main threat and the main means of achieving security. Its focus is largely on the state as the referent of security.

Non-Traditional Notions

Non-traditional security expands the concept beyond military threats to encompass a broad range of dangers affecting human existence. These notions question the traditional focus on the state and broaden the 'referent' of security – who is being secured. Proponents argue for securing not just the state, but also **individuals, communities, or humankind as a whole**.

Non-traditional security concepts are often called **‘human security’** or **‘global security’**. Human security prioritises the protection of people over states. While state security is necessary for individual security, it's not sufficient; people can be insecure even in a secure state. More people have been killed by their own governments than by foreign armies in the last century.

Human security proponents agree on protecting individuals but differ on which threats to focus on. The 'narrow' concept focuses on **violent threats** to individuals from internal sources. The 'broad' concept includes threats like **hunger, disease, and natural disasters**, which cause more deaths than war. This broader view also includes economic security and threats to human dignity, encompassing **‘freedom from want’** and **‘freedom from fear’**.

The idea of global security emerged in the 1990s to address threats that transcend national borders, such as **global warming, international terrorism, and health epidemics** (AIDS, bird flu, SARS). No single country can solve these problems. Some countries disproportionately suffer from global problems (e.g., sea level rise in low-lying nations due to global warming). International cooperation is vital for addressing these global threats, although challenging to achieve.

New Sources Of Threats

Non-traditional security concepts highlight new and changing sources of threats. **Terrorism** is a major non-traditional threat, involving deliberate and indiscriminate violence against civilians for political aims. International terrorism involves multiple countries. Terrorist groups use violence to terrorise populations and pressure governments or other parties. Classic acts include hijacking, bombings in public places. While terrorism isn't new, it gained more attention globally after the 9/11 attacks (though attacks have occurred in various regions in the past).

**Human rights** have become a significant aspect of security discourse, classified into three types: political rights (speech, assembly), economic/social rights, and rights of minorities/indigenous peoples. While classification is agreed upon, debates exist on which rights are universal and what the international community should do when rights are violated. Events like the genocide in Rwanda sparked debate on UN intervention to stop abuses, raising questions about international responsibility versus national sovereignty and whether powerful states' interests drive intervention decisions.

**Global poverty** is another source of insecurity. Rapid population growth (expected to reach nearly 1000 crore by mid-21st century), particularly concentrated in developing countries, exacerbates poverty. High-income countries face shrinking populations, while low-income countries experience high growth, widening disparities between North and South, and within the South. Poverty in sub-Saharan Africa, where most armed conflicts occur, is particularly acute.

Poverty fuels **large-scale migration** to seek better economic opportunities in the North, creating international political friction. International law distinguishes between **migrants** (voluntary) and **refugees** (fleeing war, disaster, persecution). States should accept refugees but not necessarily migrants. People displaced within their own countries are **‘internally displaced people’** (e.g., Kashmiri Pandits in the 1990s).

Wars and conflicts, especially in the South, generate millions of refugees (correlation between conflict and refugee flows). **Health epidemics** like HIV-AIDS, bird flu, SARS, and emerging/mutated diseases (Corona, Ebola, etc.) spread rapidly globally through travel and migration. By 2003, millions were infected with HIV-AIDS, particularly in Africa and South Asia. While expensive treatments reduced deaths in rich countries, they were inaccessible in poor regions, exacerbating poverty. Animal epidemics (mad-cow disease, bird flu) also have significant economic impacts. These epidemics highlight increasing global interdependence and the need for international cooperation beyond national borders. (Refugee map shows displacement globally).

Expanding the security concept requires a minimum criterion, such as threatening the very existence of the referent (state or group), otherwise, everything becomes a security issue. Non-traditional threats, like traditional ones, are context-specific (Maldives threatened by sea level rise, Southern Africa by HIV-AIDS, Rwandan Tutsis by genocide). They vary based on local conditions and the nature of the threat.

Cooperative Security

Addressing many non-traditional threats requires **cooperation** rather than military force. Force is limited against poverty, migration, refugees, or epidemics; in fact, it can worsen these situations. Military force may be relevant for combating terrorism or enforcing human rights (though with limitations), but is ineffective against most non-traditional threats.

**International cooperation** is a more effective strategy. This cooperation can be bilateral, regional, continental, or global, depending on the threat and countries' willingness/ability to act. Cooperative security involves various actors: international organisations (UN, WHO, World Bank, IMF), NGOs (Amnesty International, Red Cross), businesses, and influential individuals.

Cooperative security may involve force as a last resort, collectively sanctioned by the international community against governments committing atrocities or international terrorists/those who harbour them. Non-traditional security is more effectively pursued when force is applied collectively, rather than unilaterally.

India’s Security Strategy

India faces both traditional (military) and non-traditional security threats, originating from within and outside its borders. India's security strategy has four main components, used in varying combinations:

1. **Strengthening military capabilities:** India has engaged in conflicts with Pakistan (1947-48, 1965, 1971, 1999) and China (1962). Its decision to conduct nuclear tests (1974, 1998) was justified to safeguard national security in a region with nuclear-armed neighbors.
2. **Strengthening international norms and institutions:** India, led by Nehru, supported Asian solidarity, decolonisation, disarmament, and the UN as a conflict-resolution forum. It advocated for a universal, non-discriminatory non-proliferation regime and an equitable New International Economic Order (NIEO). Non-alignment created a zone of peace. India ratified the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and contributes troops to UN peacekeeping missions, supporting cooperative security.
3. **Meeting internal security challenges:** India faces militant and separatist groups (Nagaland, Mizoram, Punjab, Kashmir). India preserves national unity through a democratic political system that allows diverse communities to express grievances and share power, aiming to resolve conflicts peacefully.
4. **Economic development:** India aims to alleviate poverty, reduce economic inequality, and improve citizens' lives through economic growth and human development. While partially successful, democracy provides a platform for the poor/deprived to voice concerns, creating pressure for economic growth combined with human development. Democracy is seen as providing greater security by addressing socio-economic issues.