Page 1 OVERVIEW In reading about world politics, we frequently encounter the terms ‘security’ or ‘national security’. Do we know what these terms mean? Often, they are used to stop debate and discussion. We hear that an issue is a security issue and that it is vital for the well-being of the country. The implication is that it is too important or secret to be debated and discussed openly. We see movies in which everything surrounding ‘national security’ is shadowy and dangerous. Security seems to be something that is not the business of the ordinary citizen. In a democracy, surely this cannot be the case. As citizens of a democracy, we need to know more about the term security. What exactly is it? And what are India’s security concerns? This chapter debates these questions. It introduces two different ways of looking at security and highlights the importance of keeping in mind different contexts or situations which determine our view of security. Chapter 7 Security in the Contemporary World The concern about human security was reflected in the 1994 UNDP’s Human Development Report, which contends, “the concept of security has for too long been interpreted narrowly… It has been more related to nation states than people… Forgotten were the legitimate concerns of ordinary people who sought security in their daily lives.” The images above show various forms of security threats. Page 2 OVERVIEW In reading about world politics, we frequently encounter the terms ‘security’ or ‘national security’. Do we know what these terms mean? Often, they are used to stop debate and discussion. We hear that an issue is a security issue and that it is vital for the well-being of the country. The implication is that it is too important or secret to be debated and discussed openly. We see movies in which everything surrounding ‘national security’ is shadowy and dangerous. Security seems to be something that is not the business of the ordinary citizen. In a democracy, surely this cannot be the case. As citizens of a democracy, we need to know more about the term security. What exactly is it? And what are India’s security concerns? This chapter debates these questions. It introduces two different ways of looking at security and highlights the importance of keeping in mind different contexts or situations which determine our view of security. Chapter 7 Security in the Contemporary World The concern about human security was reflected in the 1994 UNDP’s Human Development Report, which contends, “the concept of security has for too long been interpreted narrowly… It has been more related to nation states than people… Forgotten were the legitimate concerns of ordinary people who sought security in their daily lives.” The images above show various forms of security threats. Contemporary World Politics 100 WHAT IS SECURITY? At its most basic, security implies freedom from threats. Human existence and the life of a country are full of threats. Does that mean that every single threat counts as a security threat? Every time a person steps out of his or her house, there is some degree of threat to their existence and way of life. Our world would be saturated with security issues if we took such a broad view of what is threatening. Those who study security, therefore, generally say that only those things that threaten ‘core values’ should be regarded as being of interest in discussions of security. Whose core values though? The core values of the country as a whole? The core values of ordinary women and men in the street? Do governments, on behalf of citizens, always have the same notion of core values as the ordinary citizen? Furthermore, when we speak of threats to core values, how intense should the threats be? Surely there are big and small threats to virtually every value we hold dear. Can all those threats be brought into the understanding of security? Every time another country does something or fails to do something, this may damage the core values of one’s country. Every time a person is robbed in the streets, the security of ordinary people as they live their daily lives is harmed. Yet, we would be paralysed if we took such an extensive view of security: everywhere we looked, the world would be full of dangers. So we are brought to a conclusion: security relates only to extremely dangerous threats— threats that could so endanger core values that those values would be damaged beyond repair if we did not do something to deal with the situation. Having said that, we must admit that security remains a slippery idea. For instance, have societies always had the same conception of security? It would be surprising if they did because Who decides about my security? Some leaders and experts? Can’t I decide what is my security? Taming Peace Have you heard of ‘peacekeeping force’? Do you think this is paradoxical term? © Ares, Cagle Cartoons Inc. Page 3 OVERVIEW In reading about world politics, we frequently encounter the terms ‘security’ or ‘national security’. Do we know what these terms mean? Often, they are used to stop debate and discussion. We hear that an issue is a security issue and that it is vital for the well-being of the country. The implication is that it is too important or secret to be debated and discussed openly. We see movies in which everything surrounding ‘national security’ is shadowy and dangerous. Security seems to be something that is not the business of the ordinary citizen. In a democracy, surely this cannot be the case. As citizens of a democracy, we need to know more about the term security. What exactly is it? And what are India’s security concerns? This chapter debates these questions. It introduces two different ways of looking at security and highlights the importance of keeping in mind different contexts or situations which determine our view of security. Chapter 7 Security in the Contemporary World The concern about human security was reflected in the 1994 UNDP’s Human Development Report, which contends, “the concept of security has for too long been interpreted narrowly… It has been more related to nation states than people… Forgotten were the legitimate concerns of ordinary people who sought security in their daily lives.” The images above show various forms of security threats. Contemporary World Politics 100 WHAT IS SECURITY? At its most basic, security implies freedom from threats. Human existence and the life of a country are full of threats. Does that mean that every single threat counts as a security threat? Every time a person steps out of his or her house, there is some degree of threat to their existence and way of life. Our world would be saturated with security issues if we took such a broad view of what is threatening. Those who study security, therefore, generally say that only those things that threaten ‘core values’ should be regarded as being of interest in discussions of security. Whose core values though? The core values of the country as a whole? The core values of ordinary women and men in the street? Do governments, on behalf of citizens, always have the same notion of core values as the ordinary citizen? Furthermore, when we speak of threats to core values, how intense should the threats be? Surely there are big and small threats to virtually every value we hold dear. Can all those threats be brought into the understanding of security? Every time another country does something or fails to do something, this may damage the core values of one’s country. Every time a person is robbed in the streets, the security of ordinary people as they live their daily lives is harmed. Yet, we would be paralysed if we took such an extensive view of security: everywhere we looked, the world would be full of dangers. So we are brought to a conclusion: security relates only to extremely dangerous threats— threats that could so endanger core values that those values would be damaged beyond repair if we did not do something to deal with the situation. Having said that, we must admit that security remains a slippery idea. For instance, have societies always had the same conception of security? It would be surprising if they did because Who decides about my security? Some leaders and experts? Can’t I decide what is my security? Taming Peace Have you heard of ‘peacekeeping force’? Do you think this is paradoxical term? © Ares, Cagle Cartoons Inc. Security in the Contemporary World 101 so many things change in the world around us. And, at any given time in world history, do all societies have the same conception of security? Again, it would be amazing if six hundred and fifty crore people, organised in nearly 200 countries, had the same conception of security! Let us begin by putting the various notions of security under two groups: traditional and non-traditional conceptions of security. TRADITIONAL NOTIONS: EXTERNAL Most of the time, when we read and hear about security we are talking about traditional, national security conceptions of security. In the traditional conception of security, the greatest danger to a country is from military threats. The source of this danger is another country which by threatening military action endangers the core values of sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. Military action also endangers the lives of ordinary citizens. It is unlikely that in a war only soldiers will be hurt or killed. Quite often, ordinary men and women are made targets of war, to break their support of the war. In responding to the threat of war, a government has three basic choices: to surrender; to prevent the other side from attacking by promising to raise the costs of war to an unacceptable level; and to defend itself when war actually breaks out so as to deny the attacking country its objectives and to turn back or defeat the attacking forces altogether. Governments may choose to surrender when actually confronted by war, but they will not advertise this as the policy of the country. Therefore, security policy is concerned with preventing war, which is called deterrence, and with limiting or ending war, which is called defence. Traditional security policy has a third component called balance of power. When countries look around them, they see that some countries are bigger and stronger. This is a clue to who might be a threat in the future. For instance, a neighbouring country may not say it is preparing for attack. There may be no obvious reason for attack. But the fact that this country is very powerful is a sign War is all about insecurity, destruction and deaths. How can a war make anyone secure? Economy of war © Ares, Cagle Cartoons Inc. Page 4 OVERVIEW In reading about world politics, we frequently encounter the terms ‘security’ or ‘national security’. Do we know what these terms mean? Often, they are used to stop debate and discussion. We hear that an issue is a security issue and that it is vital for the well-being of the country. The implication is that it is too important or secret to be debated and discussed openly. We see movies in which everything surrounding ‘national security’ is shadowy and dangerous. Security seems to be something that is not the business of the ordinary citizen. In a democracy, surely this cannot be the case. As citizens of a democracy, we need to know more about the term security. What exactly is it? And what are India’s security concerns? This chapter debates these questions. It introduces two different ways of looking at security and highlights the importance of keeping in mind different contexts or situations which determine our view of security. Chapter 7 Security in the Contemporary World The concern about human security was reflected in the 1994 UNDP’s Human Development Report, which contends, “the concept of security has for too long been interpreted narrowly… It has been more related to nation states than people… Forgotten were the legitimate concerns of ordinary people who sought security in their daily lives.” The images above show various forms of security threats. Contemporary World Politics 100 WHAT IS SECURITY? At its most basic, security implies freedom from threats. Human existence and the life of a country are full of threats. Does that mean that every single threat counts as a security threat? Every time a person steps out of his or her house, there is some degree of threat to their existence and way of life. Our world would be saturated with security issues if we took such a broad view of what is threatening. Those who study security, therefore, generally say that only those things that threaten ‘core values’ should be regarded as being of interest in discussions of security. Whose core values though? The core values of the country as a whole? The core values of ordinary women and men in the street? Do governments, on behalf of citizens, always have the same notion of core values as the ordinary citizen? Furthermore, when we speak of threats to core values, how intense should the threats be? Surely there are big and small threats to virtually every value we hold dear. Can all those threats be brought into the understanding of security? Every time another country does something or fails to do something, this may damage the core values of one’s country. Every time a person is robbed in the streets, the security of ordinary people as they live their daily lives is harmed. Yet, we would be paralysed if we took such an extensive view of security: everywhere we looked, the world would be full of dangers. So we are brought to a conclusion: security relates only to extremely dangerous threats— threats that could so endanger core values that those values would be damaged beyond repair if we did not do something to deal with the situation. Having said that, we must admit that security remains a slippery idea. For instance, have societies always had the same conception of security? It would be surprising if they did because Who decides about my security? Some leaders and experts? Can’t I decide what is my security? Taming Peace Have you heard of ‘peacekeeping force’? Do you think this is paradoxical term? © Ares, Cagle Cartoons Inc. Security in the Contemporary World 101 so many things change in the world around us. And, at any given time in world history, do all societies have the same conception of security? Again, it would be amazing if six hundred and fifty crore people, organised in nearly 200 countries, had the same conception of security! Let us begin by putting the various notions of security under two groups: traditional and non-traditional conceptions of security. TRADITIONAL NOTIONS: EXTERNAL Most of the time, when we read and hear about security we are talking about traditional, national security conceptions of security. In the traditional conception of security, the greatest danger to a country is from military threats. The source of this danger is another country which by threatening military action endangers the core values of sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. Military action also endangers the lives of ordinary citizens. It is unlikely that in a war only soldiers will be hurt or killed. Quite often, ordinary men and women are made targets of war, to break their support of the war. In responding to the threat of war, a government has three basic choices: to surrender; to prevent the other side from attacking by promising to raise the costs of war to an unacceptable level; and to defend itself when war actually breaks out so as to deny the attacking country its objectives and to turn back or defeat the attacking forces altogether. Governments may choose to surrender when actually confronted by war, but they will not advertise this as the policy of the country. Therefore, security policy is concerned with preventing war, which is called deterrence, and with limiting or ending war, which is called defence. Traditional security policy has a third component called balance of power. When countries look around them, they see that some countries are bigger and stronger. This is a clue to who might be a threat in the future. For instance, a neighbouring country may not say it is preparing for attack. There may be no obvious reason for attack. But the fact that this country is very powerful is a sign War is all about insecurity, destruction and deaths. How can a war make anyone secure? Economy of war © Ares, Cagle Cartoons Inc. Contemporary World Politics 102 that at some point in the future it may choose to be aggressive. Governments are, therefore, very sensitive to the balance of power between their country and other countries. They do work hard to maintain a favourable balance of power with other countries, especially those close by, those with whom they have differences, or with those they have had conflicts in the past. A good part of maintaining a balance of power is to build up one’s military power, although economic and techno- logical power are also important since they are the basis for military power. A fourth and related component of traditional security policy is alliance building. An alliance is a coalition of states that coordinate their actions to deter or defend against military attack. Most alliances are formalised in written treaties and are based on a fairly clear identification of who constitutes the threat. Countries form alliances to increase their effective power relative to another country or alliance. Alliances are based on national interests and can change when national interests change. For example, the US backed the Islamic militants in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union in the 1980s, but later attacked them when Al Qaeda—a group of Islamic militants led by Osama bin Laden—launched terrorist strikes against America on 11 September 2001. In the traditional view of security, then, most threats to a country’s security come from outside its borders. That is because the international system is a rather brutal arena in which there is no central authority capable of controlling behaviour. Within a country, the threat of violence is regulated by an acknowledged central authority — the government. In world politics, there is no acknowledged central authority that stands above everyone else. It is tempting to think that the United Nations is such an authority or could become such an institution. However, as presently constituted, the UN is a creature of its members and has authority only to the extent that the membership allows it to have authority and obeys it. So, in world politics, each country has to be responsible for its own security. How do the big powers react when new countries claim nuclear status? On what basis can we say that some countries can be trusted with nuclear weapons while others can’t be? © Christo Komarnitski, Cagle Cartoons Inc. Page 5 OVERVIEW In reading about world politics, we frequently encounter the terms ‘security’ or ‘national security’. Do we know what these terms mean? Often, they are used to stop debate and discussion. We hear that an issue is a security issue and that it is vital for the well-being of the country. The implication is that it is too important or secret to be debated and discussed openly. We see movies in which everything surrounding ‘national security’ is shadowy and dangerous. Security seems to be something that is not the business of the ordinary citizen. In a democracy, surely this cannot be the case. As citizens of a democracy, we need to know more about the term security. What exactly is it? And what are India’s security concerns? This chapter debates these questions. It introduces two different ways of looking at security and highlights the importance of keeping in mind different contexts or situations which determine our view of security. Chapter 7 Security in the Contemporary World The concern about human security was reflected in the 1994 UNDP’s Human Development Report, which contends, “the concept of security has for too long been interpreted narrowly… It has been more related to nation states than people… Forgotten were the legitimate concerns of ordinary people who sought security in their daily lives.” The images above show various forms of security threats. Contemporary World Politics 100 WHAT IS SECURITY? At its most basic, security implies freedom from threats. Human existence and the life of a country are full of threats. Does that mean that every single threat counts as a security threat? Every time a person steps out of his or her house, there is some degree of threat to their existence and way of life. Our world would be saturated with security issues if we took such a broad view of what is threatening. Those who study security, therefore, generally say that only those things that threaten ‘core values’ should be regarded as being of interest in discussions of security. Whose core values though? The core values of the country as a whole? The core values of ordinary women and men in the street? Do governments, on behalf of citizens, always have the same notion of core values as the ordinary citizen? Furthermore, when we speak of threats to core values, how intense should the threats be? Surely there are big and small threats to virtually every value we hold dear. Can all those threats be brought into the understanding of security? Every time another country does something or fails to do something, this may damage the core values of one’s country. Every time a person is robbed in the streets, the security of ordinary people as they live their daily lives is harmed. Yet, we would be paralysed if we took such an extensive view of security: everywhere we looked, the world would be full of dangers. So we are brought to a conclusion: security relates only to extremely dangerous threats— threats that could so endanger core values that those values would be damaged beyond repair if we did not do something to deal with the situation. Having said that, we must admit that security remains a slippery idea. For instance, have societies always had the same conception of security? It would be surprising if they did because Who decides about my security? Some leaders and experts? Can’t I decide what is my security? Taming Peace Have you heard of ‘peacekeeping force’? Do you think this is paradoxical term? © Ares, Cagle Cartoons Inc. Security in the Contemporary World 101 so many things change in the world around us. And, at any given time in world history, do all societies have the same conception of security? Again, it would be amazing if six hundred and fifty crore people, organised in nearly 200 countries, had the same conception of security! Let us begin by putting the various notions of security under two groups: traditional and non-traditional conceptions of security. TRADITIONAL NOTIONS: EXTERNAL Most of the time, when we read and hear about security we are talking about traditional, national security conceptions of security. In the traditional conception of security, the greatest danger to a country is from military threats. The source of this danger is another country which by threatening military action endangers the core values of sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. Military action also endangers the lives of ordinary citizens. It is unlikely that in a war only soldiers will be hurt or killed. Quite often, ordinary men and women are made targets of war, to break their support of the war. In responding to the threat of war, a government has three basic choices: to surrender; to prevent the other side from attacking by promising to raise the costs of war to an unacceptable level; and to defend itself when war actually breaks out so as to deny the attacking country its objectives and to turn back or defeat the attacking forces altogether. Governments may choose to surrender when actually confronted by war, but they will not advertise this as the policy of the country. Therefore, security policy is concerned with preventing war, which is called deterrence, and with limiting or ending war, which is called defence. Traditional security policy has a third component called balance of power. When countries look around them, they see that some countries are bigger and stronger. This is a clue to who might be a threat in the future. For instance, a neighbouring country may not say it is preparing for attack. There may be no obvious reason for attack. But the fact that this country is very powerful is a sign War is all about insecurity, destruction and deaths. How can a war make anyone secure? Economy of war © Ares, Cagle Cartoons Inc. Contemporary World Politics 102 that at some point in the future it may choose to be aggressive. Governments are, therefore, very sensitive to the balance of power between their country and other countries. They do work hard to maintain a favourable balance of power with other countries, especially those close by, those with whom they have differences, or with those they have had conflicts in the past. A good part of maintaining a balance of power is to build up one’s military power, although economic and techno- logical power are also important since they are the basis for military power. A fourth and related component of traditional security policy is alliance building. An alliance is a coalition of states that coordinate their actions to deter or defend against military attack. Most alliances are formalised in written treaties and are based on a fairly clear identification of who constitutes the threat. Countries form alliances to increase their effective power relative to another country or alliance. Alliances are based on national interests and can change when national interests change. For example, the US backed the Islamic militants in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union in the 1980s, but later attacked them when Al Qaeda—a group of Islamic militants led by Osama bin Laden—launched terrorist strikes against America on 11 September 2001. In the traditional view of security, then, most threats to a country’s security come from outside its borders. That is because the international system is a rather brutal arena in which there is no central authority capable of controlling behaviour. Within a country, the threat of violence is regulated by an acknowledged central authority — the government. In world politics, there is no acknowledged central authority that stands above everyone else. It is tempting to think that the United Nations is such an authority or could become such an institution. However, as presently constituted, the UN is a creature of its members and has authority only to the extent that the membership allows it to have authority and obeys it. So, in world politics, each country has to be responsible for its own security. How do the big powers react when new countries claim nuclear status? On what basis can we say that some countries can be trusted with nuclear weapons while others can’t be? © Christo Komarnitski, Cagle Cartoons Inc. Security in the Contemporary World 103 TRADITIONAL NOTIONS: INTERNAL By now you will have asked yourself: doesn’t security depend on internal peace and order? How can a society be secure if there is violence or the threat of violence inside its borders? And how can it prepare to face violence from outside its borders if it is not secure inside its borders? Traditional security must also, therefore, concern itself with internal security. The reason it is not given so much importance is that after the Second World War it seemed that, for the most powerful countries on earth, internal security was more or less assured. We said earlier that it is important to pay attention to contexts and situations. While internal security was certainly a part of the concerns of governments historically, after the Second World War there was a context and situation in which internal security did not seem to matter as much as it had in the past. After 1945, the US and the Soviet Union appeared to be united and could expect peace within their borders. Most of the European countries, particularly the powerful Western European countries, faced no serious threats from groups or communities living within those borders. Therefore, these countries focused primarily on threats from outside their borders. What were the external threats facing these powerful countries? Again, we draw attention to contexts and situations. We know that the period after the Second World War was the Cold War in which the US-led Western alliance faced the Soviet-led Communist alliance. Above all, the two alliances feared a military attack from each other. Some European powers, in addition, continued to worry about violence in their colonies, from colonised people who wanted independence. We have only to remember the French fighting in Vietnam in the 1950s or the British fighting in Kenya in the 1950s and the early 1960s. As the colonies became free from the late 1940s onwards, their security concerns were often similar to that of the European powers. Some of the newly- independent countries, like the European powers, became members of the Cold War alliances. They, therefore, had to worry about the Cold War becoming a hot war and dragging them into hostilities — against neighbours who might have joined the other side in the Cold War, against the leaders of the alliances (the United States or Soviet Union), or against any of the other partners of the US and Soviet Union. The Cold War between the two superpowers was responsible for approximately one-third of all wars in the post-Second World War period. Most of these wars were fought in the Third World. Just as the European colonial powers feared violence in the colonies, some colonial people feared, after independence, that they might be attacked by their Browse through a week’s newspaper and list all the external and internal conflicts that are taking place around the globe.Read More
![]() |
Use Code STAYHOME200 and get INR 200 additional OFF
|
Use Coupon Code |
120 videos|553 docs|217 tests
|