Unit 5: International Politics and Security

Introduction

Security sits at the heart of most, if not all, part of daily practices of inter-state relations in the forms of either talks or actions. It, thus, takes the most eminent position in the large academic discipline of International Relations (IR), particularly in its sub-fields of International Politics, Strategic Studies, and Security Studies.

It was the carnage of World War I (WWI), between 1914 and 1918 that urged political leaders on the side of winners to provide security by preventing the occurrence of a new Great War. Advocates of security failed during the interwar period between 1919 and 1939, similar to that of previous centuries for their own time. World War II (WWII) from 1939 to 1945 and subsequent Cold War system brought new political and military measures, and ideas about the question of how to overcome insecurity of sovereign states. The new international order after the Cold War is, often, described as disorder because there is not as clear-cut division in international political system as it was during the previous era. For academics in international politics, this has created numerous new empirical data and new interpretations to the old, but still existing, arguments regarding the analyses of security in international politics.

Security as a Contested Concept

Security is a contested concept not because it is difficult to define as a word, but because it refers to a situation in which there are numerous referent objects and actors being in a constant interaction. Security as a word refers to being relatively safe or free from harm and danger. Actors of international politics pay utmost attention and devote huge resources to a condition in which they feel safe or free from danger and harm. States, the most dominant actors in the past in international politics, gave priority to the protection of their sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political regime to be threatened by an external attack or a state of war. Constituent elements of security have yet multiplied since the end of the Cold War in terms of who or what should be protected and who or what pose threat to security. State, individual, and group of individuals belonging to a specific nation, ethnicity, sect, or gender are considered as security subjects that varied opinions among politicians, academics, and experts put one or some or all as their priority to protect or concentrate on. Contestation of security concept has also been seen in the discussions of the level of analysis. Level of analysis in international security discussion in the post-Cold War period gained prominence for two reasons.

Theoretical Perspectives to Security

The lack of consensus is paramount among, indeed the reason for the very existence of, different theoretical perspectives on security in international politics. Different theoretical schools of thoughts offer different security definitions in terms of what the security is, what is to be secured and how. Thus, not just in practice, but in thought, does security present a contestation in international politics.

Realist Thinking on Security

Realism provides a wide range of theoretical tools on security including its both Classical and Neorealist versions. Although many scholars argue that the time of Realism should be left to the Cold War era as it was then the dominant explanatory tool, it is, in fact, not so, for two reasons. First, the Realism has still been offering theoretical and practical tools on state security, war and peace. Second, almost all of the rest of the theories on security have been in an effort to develop their perspectives on the critiques of Realism.

First, the Realism points out that international system is anarchic. Anarchy does not necessarily refer to chaos and disorder. It means the absence or lack of a common international authority to regulate the relationships among constituents of international system.

Second, power is the defining notion of state behaviors in the anarchic international environment. States always seek power in order to feel safe against the power increase efforts of other states.

Third, states are the most important units/ actors in international politics. Inter-state actions create international system in which other actors, such as international institutions, cannot play as important role as states can.

Fourth, states are unitary and rational actors. For many Realists, unitary nature of states are not necessarily related to the issue of whether it is composed of different interest, population, leadership, bureaucratic and ideological groups.

Liberalism on Security

Liberal views agree on the key characteristics of international politics with those of the Realists. Liberalism sees security in international politics actually the way the Realism does. Liberal perspectives, however, challenge the Realist security assumptions in particular, and their views on functioning of international relations in general, by putting cooperative examples of international affairs forward, including in the area of security.

First, the Liberals declare that cooperation, and therefore security, is possible under anarchy

Second, there are as important and influential actors as states in the formation and functioning of international politics

Third, states are not unitary and rational actors. Emphasis on the existence and separate roles of state and non-state actors in equally important external and internal realms of state is a Liberal manifestation that it already challenges the Realist argument of unitary nature of states.

Fourth, power is “the ability of a person or group of persons so to affect outcomes that their preferences take precedence over the preferences of others”.

Critical Security Approach

Critical security does not indicate a consistent and specific body of views. There are various Critical theories or Critical approaches commonly used in the theoretical analyses in international relations, international politics and security studies. This makes the Critical approach heterogeneous reflecting various elements from the Critical security studies to Feminist and Postmodernist ones.

The key common position of the Critical perspectives in their opposition to traditional security theories stems from the way they approach to social sciences. Labels of Positivism and Postpositivism are two approaches that offer a different perspective into the social sciences. First, “there is an objective truth that can be discovered.” Second, “the means of discovering that truth is reason and there is only one correct form of reasoning”. Third, “the tool of reasoning is empiricism, which enables the analyst to test propositions”. Fourth, “there can be a distinction between observer and observed”.

Constructivist Security Approach

Similar to the Critical security approach, the Constructivist Theory does not accept the existence of an objective reality that it is not problematized. It argues that there is a socially constructed world by the actors’ actions which reveal themselves as shared meanings, intersubjective understandings, and established reasons. The Constructivist approach puts forward three main ontological positions. First, normative and ideational structures are important and matter as much as those of material structures do. Second, identities are of great significance. The Constructivist approach argues that there are distinct identities of actors which determine characteristics of their interests. Then, these identityinformed interests decide, and thus explain, how and why actors behaved that way and pursued that objective(s). Third, agents and structures constitute each other mutually. It means in international politics that, while international system, whether it is a unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar one, is the making of states as agents, at the same time the latter is also the making of the former.

Securitization

Securitisation is a framework for security analysis developed by the Copenhagen School at the Conflict and Peace Research Institute in Copenhagen in the 1990s. The concept of the Securitisation, formulated in the works of Ole Waever, Barry Buzan and Jaap de Wilde, broadens content of security by including military and non-military fields into the security studies. Most importantly, it introduces the view that a specific matter or security problem is actually engendered and constructed through multiple and complex internal processes as being an existential security threat.

Relevancy of Traditional Security in Great Power ‘Peace’

Wars in previous centuries that shaped the known international systems were all fought among two or more most powerful states of the time. Military and ideological difference between the US and USSR created a bipolar international system and a Cold War, which disallowed the two super powers to engage in a direct large-scale military conflict one against another. War as a political instrument waged with large scale military arsenals among great powers lost its relevance. It is because, while there were about 9,400 combatant deaths per year in the 16th century, this amount in the same category increased to 290,000 per year in the first half of the 20th century. Today, as it was during the Cold War years, those states which have nuclear weapons occupy an exclusive place in international politics in terms of their military strategic positions. Nuclear weapons provided military stability for super power relationship in the past, and the US and the Russian Federation today. The late comers on this strategic tool seem to have managed to produce the same outcome so far. Not only has the nuclear balance provided a relative peace and security between great powers, economic benefits of peace is also of great value in the post-Cold War era.

Complex Security Agenda in the North-South Context

Fragility, vulnerability, and failure of numerous states in the South in social, economic, and political developments are widely seen today as sources of insecurities, which are influencing stability and security in both the South and the North.

Furthermore, selective inter-state alignments or partnerships between great powers and developing states, and rivalries among, and unilateral actions of, great powers in the South have, to a considerable degree, determined not only the framework of what the top security issues in international arena are, but also their fates regarding if they are resolved or unresolved. Security is a prerequisite for development, but development does not always provide security for many cases in the South and the North. Development brings about prosperity, stability, and cohesion, but it also creates inequality, social stratification, and individual and group estrangement. Migrants from outside Europe and refugees have occupied the most important election debates among competing political parties in recent elections in the North, particularly in Europe.