Global Security Issues
Introduction
Concepts of security have evolved significantly beyond traditional military frameworks and national security perspectives. Security is increasingly recognized as a complex, multidimensional phenomenon encompassing political, economic, societal and environmental aspects. While traditional approaches focused narrowly on national interests and the balance of power between states, contemporary perspectives argue for expanded notions of security centered on individuals, groups and humanity as a whole.
The end of the Cold War brought increased debate over the meaning of security. As the threat of direct military confrontation between superpowers declined, new risks and dangers emerged on a global scale. Globalization, the rise of non-state actors, climate change, cyberattacks, terrorism, and pandemics present interdependent dangers unconstrained by national borders. This complex of interconnected threats requires rethinking traditional state-centric ideas of security focused solely on protecting territory from military attack.
Expanding conceptions of security beyond the traditional understandings rooted in national defense and the military capabilities of states allows greater focus on tackling societal, economic, environmental and political insecurities. The level of analysis also expands from the state to include regional and global perspectives, as well as the security of individuals and social groups. This evolving understanding of security has paved the way for new theoretical frameworks and models beyond realism and liberal institutionalism.
The Traditional Approach to National Security
The traditional approach to national security focuses on nation-states as the primary actors in an anarchic international system. This realist perspective views the international arena as akin to a Hobbesian state of nature in which states must rely on self-help to survive. With no overarching authority, states operate in a self-help system and power capabilities determine security.
According to realists, the international structure compels states to pursue power; especially military power. State sovereignty and the balance of power between states is crucial for stability and preventing hegemony by one state. International institutions have a limited effect.
The traditional security perspective is state-centric with military power seen as the best guarantor of security. It focuses on concepts like deterrence, offensive and defensive capabilities, alliances, and balancing against threats. The primary threats are viewed as coming from rival states.
While realism recognizes that non-state actors like terrorist groups can pose threats, the greatest danger to national security is deemed to come from other powerful nation-states. International stability is sought through a balance of power in which no state achieves hegemonic status. Alliances can be formed to counter a mutually threatening state.
Ultimately the anarchic structure of international relations shapes traditional security thinking. States can at best create a stable balance of power as they compete for security in a self-help world. International institutions have a limited effect in an anarchic system based on state power. Military force remains crucial to advancing national interests and ensuring state survival.
Liberal Institutionalism
Liberal institutionalists offer an alternative view of security that emphasizes the role of international institutions in promoting cooperation and resolving conflicts. In contrast to neo-realists who see the anarchic structure of the international system as the key factor, liberal institutionalists argue that international institutions can play a crucial role in overcoming anarchy and facilitating collaboration between states.
According to liberal institutionalism, institutions help facilitate repeated interactions between states, enhancing trust and enabling reciprocity. By providing information and reducing transaction costs, institutions allow states to negotiate mutually beneficial cooperative agreements. International institutions also embody norms and principles accepted by member states. Over time, these norms and rules become internalized, shaping the interests and identities of states in a more cooperative direction.
Liberal institutionalists highlight how economic and security institutions such as the United Nations, World Trade Organization, and NATO have enabled states to achieve shared goals and resolve disputes through peaceful means. By promoting interdependence and establishing ground rules for international interaction, institutions generate positive-sum outcomes. Liberal institutionalists recognize that self-interest remains a key driver of state behavior. However, they contend that institutions allow self-interest to be pursued in a managed, cooperative fashion that enhances prosperity and security for all states.
Overall, liberal institutionalism provides a more optimistic view of international security compared to neo-realism. It acknowledges the possibility for cooperation and peace through the construction of international institutions that align state interests and supersede anarchy. Effective institutions can act as crucial mitigating forces that facilitate communication, transparency, and collaboration between states.
Constructivism
The constructivist perspective provides an alternative approach to understanding international security. In contrast to realist theories that emphasize power politics and anarchy in the international system, constructivists argue that the structures of international politics are social rather than strictly material. According to constructivists like Alexander Wendt, the fundamental structures in international relations are social and depend on shared knowledge rather than material capabilities alone.
Constructivists posit that changes in social interaction can transform the identities and interests of states, thereby bringing about new social structures. For example, a competitive self-help system driven by anarchy can evolve into a ‘security community’ characterized by shared identities, trust, and norms against using force. NATO is an example of a security community where member states share a collective identity and do not view each other as military threats.
The constructivist perspective suggests that promoting certain norms and international institutions can strengthen shared identities between states over time. As the nature of social interaction changes, states may come to trust each other more on security issues and rely less on strictly military preparations for defense. So spreading norms against aggression and building international institutions can contribute to greater international security. Overall the constructivist view offers a more flexible and socially-oriented understanding of international security compared to traditional realist approaches.
Critical Security Studies
Critical security studies emerged in the 1980’s and 90’s as an alternative approach to traditional national security studies. This school of thought examines existing relationships and institutions with a critical lens, seeking to highlight issues of power, inequality and marginalization.
Critical theorists argue that traditional security studies take a state-centric view, focusing primarily on military capabilities and the balance of power between states. In contrast, critical security studies adopt a broader perspective that looks beyond the state to examine the diversity of actors that either experience insecurity or have a role in providing security. This includes non-state actors like individuals, social groups, private companies and NGOs.
According to critical theorists, the narrow focus on states provides an incomplete picture of security issues. States themselves can be sources of insecurity for their own populations through authoritarianism, human rights abuses, and other forms of political oppression. Therefore, critical security studies argue that states should not be the sole focus of analysis when examining security issues.
This theoretical approach also emphasizes the need to rethink traditional notions of power in world politics that underpin realist national security frameworks. Critical studies highlight how existing power structures and relationships often create and sustain insecurities for marginalized groups. By challenging power dynamics and unequal social structures, critical security studies aim to transform the global security environment to be more equitable and just.
Overall, critical security theorists advocate broadening our understanding of security beyond traditional military frameworks. They argue for reconceptualizing security in human-centric terms that address inequalities of power, resources and status across the global population. This involves moving the referent of security away from the state and towards individuals and social groups.
Feminist Security Theory
Feminist security theory provides a radical departure from traditional approaches to security by questioning foundational assumptions and frameworks. It highlights the highly gendered nature of international politics and security practices. While feminist perspectives are diverse, they share a common focus on the invisibility of gender issues in traditional security studies.
Feminist theorists argue that political discussion has traditionally focused on men’s experiences, overlooking critical security issues that disproportionately affect women. These include gender-based violence, human trafficking, unequal access to resources, and healthcare. A feminist lens views the unequal social status of women as a fundamental kind of insecurity that should be addressed.
Intimate partner violence, rape, female infanticide, and honor killings are identified as everyday security threats faced by women around the world. Feminist scholars emphasize that national and global security fundamentally depends on the security of women at all levels of social life. They advocate redefining security with women’s experiences and gender inequalities at the center of analysis.
This requires examining unequal power relations and challenging assumptions of traditional practices being normal or inevitable. It also means considering women not just as victims, but as active agents in transforming security. Feminist perspectives aim to create more inclusive security policies and practices that challenge, rather than reproduce, gender subordination.
Globalization and the Return of Geopolitics?
There is an ongoing debate about whether globalization and geopolitics are compatible in a changing world. Critics argue that geopolitics is concerned with national and imperial control of space and resources, while globalization focuses on the free flow of goods, capital, and ideas. However, others argue that there is no opposition between the two concepts.
The recent shift in US strategic priorities towards the Pacific indicates that geopolitical analysis is still an important element in strategic thinking. Different views of globalization and geopolitics lead to different conclusions about world order, with some seeing globalization as bringing greater peace and security, while others believe it leads to greater fragmentation and conflict as the status quo is challenged.
Case Study: The Democratic Republic of Congo
The conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo serves as a case study highlighting the need for a broader definition of security that goes beyond traditional military concerns. This conflict took place from 1996 to 2013, sparked by the spillover of the Rwandan genocide into the Congo. The high civilian death toll of approximately 6 million people illustrates the human costs of war.
The conflict involved multiple neighboring countries and exacerbated existing ethnic divisions within the Congo. Rwanda invaded the Congo in the aftermath of the 1994 genocide, targeting Hutu militias who had fled there. This led to a complex web of alliances and proxy forces from Uganda, Burundi, and Angola.
Ethnic violence between the Hema and Lendu groups in northeastern Congo also overlapped with the broader regional conflict. The use of child soldiers and mass rape as instruments of war further emphasize the human and societal insecurities that resulted.
This case study highlights the limits of traditional concepts of national security and the balance of power. Instead, it points to the need for a conception of security that puts human rights, development, and freedom from violence at the center. The massive civilian death toll and societal breakdown emphasize the importance of human and societal security frameworks in understanding the true impacts of conflict.
Nuclear Proliferation
The spread of nuclear weapons technology is a significant global security concern. The primary framework governing nuclear proliferation is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Established in 1968, the NPT recognizes five states as nuclear weapon states - the U.S., Russia, the U.K., France and China. Non-nuclear weapon states are prohibited from acquiring or developing nuclear weapons under the treaty.
There are several motivations driving states to acquire nuclear weapons despite the NPT’s prohibitions. Some states seek nuclear weapons for national security purposes, to deter perceived threats or gain prestige and influence. Others are motivated by domestic political factors like rallying nationalist sentiment. Some states also see nuclear weapons as a symbol of modernity and technological achievement.
Dual-use nuclear technology presents challenges for non-proliferation efforts. Technology, materials and knowledge associated with peaceful nuclear energy programs can potentially be diverted for weapons purposes. Sensitive fuel cycle technologies like uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing can provide fissile material for weapons if diverted from safeguarded facilities. The spread of such technologies therefore increases proliferation risks, even when civilian nuclear energy programs operate under international monitoring.
Case Studies: North Korea and Iran
North Korea and Iran represent two different challenges to the non-proliferation regime.
North Korea initially signed the 1994 Agreed Framework, shutting down its plutonium reactor in exchange for aid and concessions. However, North Korea later withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2003. Since then, it has tested multiple nuclear devices, the first in 2006. Negotiations have aimed at denuclearizing the Korean peninsula, but have achieved limited success. North Korea’s nuclear weapons program remains a key concern despite diplomatic efforts.
Iran has faced accusations of failing to declare uranium enrichment and other nuclear activities, despite remaining a signatory to the NPT. Iran argues it needs enrichment capability for civilian energy and research reactors, but has faced suspicions it may be pursuing nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has identified potential military dimensions to Iran’s program. Ongoing negotiations have aimed to limit enrichment and impose verification measures in exchange for sanctions relief, but a comprehensive resolution remains elusive. Iran’s nuclear program is seen as a potential proliferation threat.