Chapter 7 Security In The Contemporary World

This chapter delves into the meaning and application of the terms 'security' and 'national security' in world politics, particularly in the contemporary era. These terms are often used in a way that limits public discussion, implying issues are too sensitive or critical to be debated openly. However, in a democracy, it is essential for citizens to understand what security entails, especially concerning their country's well-being and specific concerns, like those of India.

The chapter presents two different perspectives on security – traditional and non-traditional – emphasizing that the context and specific situation significantly shape how security is perceived and prioritized.

These images illustrate diverse threats that go beyond traditional military concerns, reflecting a broader understanding of security that includes human security and environmental issues.

What Is Security?

At its core, security means being **free from threats**. However, daily life and national existence face numerous threats. The question then arises: which of these constitute genuine 'security threats' warranting specific attention?

Security scholars typically focus on threats that endanger **'core values'**. But determining whose core values matter (the state's, citizens') and whether government priorities align with those of ordinary people is complex. Furthermore, the intensity of threats is crucial; not every minor risk to a value should be classified as a security issue, as this would make the concept too broad and unmanageable, leading to a state of constant alarm.

Therefore, security is generally understood to relate to **extremely dangerous threats** – those so severe that they could cause irreparable damage to core values if not addressed decisively.

Despite this refinement, the concept of security remains fluid. Historical conceptions have varied, and even in the contemporary world, different societies and countries hold diverse views on what constitutes security, given their unique circumstances, histories, and challenges. These varying perspectives can be broadly categorized into traditional and non-traditional notions of security.

This cartoon on 'Peacekeeping Force' uses the image of a military figure 'taming' a dove (symbolizing peace), highlighting the inherent paradox or tension in using military means for peacekeeping, suggesting that force may restrain but not fully achieve peace.

Traditional Notions: External

The most common understanding of security is the **traditional, national conception**, primarily focused on **external threats**, particularly from other states. In this view, the greatest danger comes from military actions by another country that threaten a state's fundamental values: **sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity**. Military conflict also endangers the lives of civilians, as modern warfare often impacts non-combatants.

When facing the threat of military attack, a government pursuing traditional security has three primary responses:

1. **Surrender:** While an option in extreme circumstances, it is not a declared policy goal.
2. **Deterrence:** Preventing war by convincing a potential attacker that the costs of initiating conflict would be prohibitively high.
3. **Defense:** Limiting or ending a war once it has begun, by repelling or defeating the attacking forces and preventing them from achieving their objectives.

Therefore, traditional security policy fundamentally revolves around **deterrence** (preventing war) and **defense** (limiting or ending war).

A third element of traditional security policy is maintaining a **balance of power**. States are sensitive to the power levels of other countries, especially neighbors or those with whom they have historical differences or conflicts. A strong neighbor, even without declared hostile intentions, is seen as a potential future threat. Countries actively work to maintain a favorable balance of power by building their own military strength (though economic and technological power, as foundations for military capability, are also crucial).

Closely related is the component of **alliance building**. An alliance is a formal coalition of states that agree to coordinate actions for mutual defense or deterrence against a specified threat. Alliances are typically based on shared national interests and can shift as those interests change. For example, US support for Islamic militants in Afghanistan against the USSR in the 1980s changed dramatically after Al-Qaeda (emerging from such groups) attacked the US in 2001.

The traditional view sees external threats as paramount because the **international system lacks a central authority** capable of enforcing order or controlling state behavior. Unlike within a state, where a government regulates violence, in world politics, each country is considered responsible for its own security. While the UN exists, its authority depends on the consent and obedience of its member states; it is not a global government above nations.

This cartoon appears to critique the stance of major nuclear powers who possess weapons and seemingly deny or question the right of other countries to acquire them, raising questions about trust and equality in the nuclear realm.

Traditional Notions: Internal

The question naturally arises: isn't internal peace and order fundamental to security? How can a state be secure against external threats if it faces violence or instability within its own borders? Traditional security does, in fact, acknowledge the importance of **internal security**, but its emphasis has varied historically and contextually.

After World War II, internal security seemed largely assured for the most powerful states, particularly the US and Western European countries, which enjoyed relative internal peace and focused primarily on external threats (especially from each other during the Cold War).

However, for the **newly independent countries** of Asia and Africa emerging from colonialism starting in the late 1940s, internal security became a critical concern. These nations faced threats not only from potential external aggression (sometimes from former colonial powers or neighbors who joined opposing Cold War alliances) but also, and often more acutely, from **internal military conflict**. Many grappled with threats from **separatist movements** seeking independent states, sometimes fueled or supported by neighboring countries. Internal wars became increasingly prevalent globally, accounting for over 95% of armed conflicts between 1946 and 1991, a significant rise in civil wars. Thus, for new states, both external threats from neighbors and internal threats from separatism posed severe security challenges.

This cartoon illustrates the flow of arms into the 'Third World' (developing countries), highlighting how external factors like the international arms trade contribute to instability and conflict within these nations, which are often sites of internal or regional wars.

Traditional Security And Cooperation

While traditional security focuses on threats from military force, it recognizes that **cooperation** can play a role in limiting violence. These limitations apply to both the reasons for going to war (the ends) and the methods used (the means).

There is a widely accepted norm that states should only use force for just causes, primarily self-defense or protecting others from atrocities like genocide. The means of war should also be limited, avoiding harm to civilians and unarmed or surrendering combatants. Force is ideally used only when other peaceful alternatives have failed.

Beyond limitations on the use of force, traditional security also includes other forms of cooperation:

• **Disarmament:** States agree to give up certain types of weapons. Examples include the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the 1992 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which banned these weapons and have been widely ratified. However, major powers have been reluctant to eliminate nuclear weapons.
• **Arms Control:** Regulating the acquisition or development of weapons. Treaties like the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty aimed to limit defensive systems. During the Cold War, the US and USSR signed other arms control agreements like SALT and START. The 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regulated nuclear weapons by allowing existing nuclear states (those who tested before 1967) to keep them while non-nuclear states pledged not to acquire them, thus limiting the *number* of nuclear powers rather than eliminating the weapons entirely.
• **Confidence Building Measures (CBMs):** A process where rival countries share information about their military activities, intentions, capabilities, and deployments. This aims to increase transparency and reduce the risk of unintended conflict arising from misunderstanding or misperception.

In essence, traditional security primarily views **military force** as both the main source of threat and the primary means to achieve security, while acknowledging that cooperation through disarmament, arms control, and CBMs can help manage the risks associated with military power.

Non-Traditional Notions

Non-traditional concepts of security move beyond the narrow focus on military threats between states. They broaden the definition of threats and question the traditional idea of the state as the sole focus of security. Instead of asking "Security for the state?", they ask **"Security for whom?"** and propose the referent for security should be expanded to include **individuals, communities, and ultimately all of humankind**.

These broader perspectives are often termed **'human security'** or **'global security'**.

Human Security focuses on protecting people, asserting that while state security is important, secure states do not automatically guarantee secure populations. Protecting individuals from foreign attack is necessary but insufficient for human security. Historically, states have sometimes been major sources of threats to their own citizens.

• A **'narrow'** concept of human security emphasizes protection from **violent threats** to individuals and communities (e.g., protection from internal violence).
• A **'broad'** concept includes non-violent threats that kill far more people than violence, such as **hunger, disease, and natural disasters**. In its broadest sense, human security encompasses economic security and protection of human dignity, often summarized as **'freedom from want'** and **'freedom from fear'**.

Global Security emerged in the 1990s in response to threats that are inherently global and cannot be contained by state borders or solved by single countries. Examples include global warming, international terrorism, and health epidemics. Addressing these requires international cooperation, even though achieving it is challenging. Some countries may bear disproportionate burdens from global problems, like low-lying island nations vulnerable to sea-level rise from global warming.

This cartoon critiques the disproportionate spending on military defense ('security') compared to investments in peace programs ('peace') in the US, suggesting that the focus remains heavily on 'hard power' even when other approaches to security might be more effective or beneficial.

New Sources Of Threats

Non-traditional security concepts highlight a range of new or newly recognized threats that go beyond military aggression between states. Some prominent examples include:

Terrorism: Defined as political violence specifically targeting civilians, often indiscriminately, to instill fear and pressure governments or groups. **International terrorism** involves actors or targets spanning multiple countries. Terrorist groups use force or its threat to achieve political change they desire. Civilian targets are chosen to terrorize the public and mobilize their discontent as a weapon against adversaries. Classic acts include hijackings, bombings in public spaces. While terrorism is not new, attention increased significantly after the 9/11 attacks on the US. Historically, regions like the Middle East, Europe, Latin America, and South Asia have experienced frequent terrorist attacks.

Human Rights Violations: Human rights are broadly classified into three categories: political rights (e.g., free speech, assembly), economic and social rights, and the rights of marginalized groups (colonized people, ethnic/indigenous minorities). While this classification exists, there is no universal agreement on which rights are paramount or what international action is warranted when rights are violated. Events like the Iraq invasion of Kuwait, the Rwandan genocide, and violence in East Timor in the 1990s spurred debate on whether the UN should intervene to stop such abuses. Some argue the UN Charter justifies intervention, while others contend that intervention is selectively applied based on the national interests of powerful states.

This cartoon, depicting a train heading towards a dead end, could symbolize a variety of societal or global issues where progress seems to be on a destructive path, perhaps relating to human rights abuses, unchecked development, or other systemic problems that constitute non-traditional security threats.

Global Poverty: A major source of insecurity. The world population, currently around 7.6 billion, is projected to reach nearly 10 billion by mid-century, with half the growth in just six countries. Poorer countries often face rapid population growth and low incomes, reinforcing poverty, while rich countries with high incomes and low growth become wealthier. This creates a growing disparity between the Global North and South, and even within the South. Poverty is linked to conflict; many armed conflicts occur in sub-Saharan Africa, the poorest region, which has seen high war-related fatalities.

Migration and Refugees: Poverty and conflict often drive large-scale migration. International law distinguishes between **migrants** (voluntary movement) and **refugees** (fleeing war, disaster, persecution); states are generally expected to accept refugees but not necessarily migrants. Those who flee homes but remain within their country are **internally displaced people**, like Kashmiri Pandits fleeing violence in the 1990s. The map of refugees correlates strongly with conflict areas, as wars generate millions of displaced people. Between 1990-1995, wars caused immense casualties and forced displacement due to violence or destruction of livelihoods and environment. Most refugee flows in the 1990s coincided with internal armed conflicts.

This chart illustrates the distribution of refugees globally in 2017, showing which regions hosted the largest percentages of displaced people.

Health Epidemics: Diseases like HIV-AIDS, bird flu, and SARS spread rapidly globally through travel, trade, tourism, and military movements, demonstrating the interconnectedness of the world. Success or failure in containing disease in one country affects others. By 2003, millions were infected with HIV-AIDS worldwide, heavily concentrated in Africa and South Asia. While expensive drug therapies helped in industrialized countries, they were inaccessible in poorer regions, exacerbating poverty. New diseases (ebola, hantavirus) and drug-resistant forms of old diseases (tuberculosis, malaria) pose ongoing threats. Animal epidemics can also have severe economic consequences. These health crises highlight the increasing interdependence of states and the need for international cooperation, making traditional borders less relevant for containing such threats.

However, expanding security to include all forms of distress would make the concept meaningless. To be a security problem, an issue must pose a threat to the very existence of the referent (state or people), although the nature of the threat can vary (e.g., sea level rise threatening the Maldives' existence, HIV-AIDS threatening populations in Southern Africa, genocide threatening the Tutsi tribe in Rwanda). Non-traditional security threats, like traditional ones, are understood differently based on local contexts.

This cartoon illustrates various global challenges and threats – potentially representing non-traditional security issues like poverty, disease, environmental degradation, and conflict – suggesting the interconnectedness and complexity of contemporary security concerns that require a comprehensive approach.

Cooperative Security

Many non-traditional threats cannot be effectively addressed through traditional military confrontation. Military force may be useful in specific cases like counter-terrorism or, controversially, enforcing human rights (though its effectiveness is debated), but it is ill-suited for tackling issues like poverty, managing migration, controlling epidemics, or environmental degradation. In these cases, the use of military force would likely worsen the situation.

A more effective approach to dealing with many non-traditional threats is **cooperative security**, which relies on **international cooperation**. This cooperation can take various forms: bilateral (between two countries), regional, continental, or global, depending on the threat's nature and the willingness and capacity of states to collaborate. Cooperative security involves a wide range of actors beyond states:

• International organizations (UN, WHO, World Bank, IMF).
• Non-governmental organizations (Amnesty International, Red Cross, foundations, charities, religious organizations, trade unions, social movements).
• Businesses and corporations.
• Influential individuals.

While primarily cooperative, this approach does not entirely rule out the use of force, but only as a **last resort** and ideally when sanctioned and applied **collectively by the international community**. This could involve using force against governments committing atrocities against their own people, or against international terrorists and those who shelter them. Collective action is generally considered more legitimate and effective than unilateral use of force by individual countries.

This cartoon portrays the world as blindfolded and stumbling amidst global problems, perhaps suggesting a lack of clear vision or understanding of how to deal with complex issues, which underscores the need for shared perspectives and cooperative approaches like those advocated by non-traditional security concepts.

India’s Security Strategy

India's security strategy has been shaped by both traditional (military) and non-traditional threats, originating from within its borders and from outside. India's approach has involved four broad components, employed in combination over time:

1. Strengthening Military Capabilities: Given its history of conflicts with neighbors – Pakistan (1947–48, 1965, 1971, 1999) and China (1962) – India has prioritized building a strong military. Facing nuclear-armed neighbors, India justified its 1998 nuclear tests as essential for national security, following an earlier test in 1974.

---

2. Strengthening International Norms and Institutions: India has actively sought to reinforce global norms and institutions to protect its security interests. Early leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru championed causes such as Asian solidarity, decolonization, disarmament, and the UN as a forum for conflict resolution. India has pushed for a universal, non-discriminatory non-proliferation regime covering all weapons of mass destruction and advocated for an equitable New International Economic Order (NIEO). Non-alignment was utilized to create a zone of peace outside superpower blocs. India ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate change and contributes troops to UN peacekeeping missions, supporting cooperative security efforts.

---

3. Addressing Internal Security Challenges: India has faced threats to national unity from various militant and separatist groups (e.g., Nagaland, Mizoram, Punjab, Kashmir). Its strategy involves maintaining national unity through a **democratic political system** that allows diverse communities to voice grievances and participate in power-sharing, aiming to address discontent peacefully.

---

4. Economic Development and Equality: A component of India's security strategy involves economic development aimed at alleviating poverty and reducing vast economic inequalities. While complete success remains elusive, democratic politics provides avenues for the poor and marginalized to articulate their needs, placing pressure on elected governments to balance economic growth with human development. Thus, democracy is seen not only as a political ideal but also as a mechanism contributing to greater security by addressing socio-economic disparities.