[Year]

National Security and

Nuclearization; A Threat
to Human Security?

SUBMITTED BY
M HUMAYUN SHAHID AND SYED MAYSUM ABBAS

GCU, LAHORE | Department of Political Science

 Submitted to

Dr. Fauzia Ghani

Department of Political Science

Government College University, Lahore

Submitted by

Muhammad Humayun Shahid

BH-PS-1401

Semester 8

Syed Maysum Abbas

BH-PS-

Semester 8
 Contents

National Security and Nuclearization; A threat to Human Security?...................2

Introduction................................................................................................................................2

National Security....................................................................................................................3

Nuclear weapons and National Security................................................................................4

Impact on civil liberties and human rights.............................................................................5

A new Paradigm encompassing Human/National Security...................................................6

Human security and National Security...................................................................................6

The Suggested Ideal Security Paradigm.................................................................................8

Conclusion..............................................................................................................................8

Approach to Ideal Human Security....................................................................................9

References............................................................................................................................10
National Security and Nuclearization; A

threat to Human Security?

Introduction

For at least 10 years, practitioners and scholars have increasingly utilized the phrase
“human security” to imply a new human-centric security instead of the traditional National
Security approach to security. Despite its increasing application, especially in United Nations
policy statements, foreign policies of countries, teaching curriculum and scholarly journals,
the notion of human security is increasingly becoming a subject of contention. In the field of
security studies and international relations, thoughts regarding these dissimilar security
conceptualizations have led to numerous rationalizations for their respective viewpoints.
However, these different conceptualizations fail to examine whether or not their security
conceptualizations affect the general conceptualization of security. Another way of posing
the question is whether or not human security and national security can be reconciled to
produce a new paradigm towards security. The new security paradigm involves two referent
objects, which include the state and people, between the external and internal threats
affecting these referent objects and the diverse means used for improving the security of the
state and people.

National Security

National security refers to the security of a nation state, including its citizens, economy, and
institutions, and is regarded as a duty of government.

Originally conceived as protection against military attack, national security is now widely
understood to include non-military dimensions, including economic security, energy
security, environmental security, food security, cyber security etc. Similarly, national security
risks include, in addition to the actions of other nation states, action by violent non-state
actors, narcotic cartels, and multinational corporations, and also the effects of natural
disasters.

Governments rely on a range of measures, including political, economic, and military power,
as well as diplomacy. They may also act to build the conditions of security regionally and
internationally by reducing transnational causes of insecurity, such as climate
change, economic inequality, political exclusion, and Nuclear proliferation.

The term ‘national security’ is a broad concept and its remit goes beyond military power.
Other elements of national power, including geography, geostrategic environment, economy,
diplomacy, demography, and most importantly, the leadership play equally important roles
in strengthening national security interests. No single element of national power can alone
guarantee safeguarding of national interests.

It is first of all, a very vague and ambiguous term, as if signifying that a nation will be
devastated if it did not give up its civil liberties for a bit of security. The problem with
national security, or security on any level is the fact that no matter how, “secure” you try to
make it, someone will eventually crack through anyways. So, essentially, you can continually
give up your civil liberties for a bit of personal security, “to feel safe.” Another problem is, in
a free world, there will always be dangers, and ever since the world has come into existence,
dangers of every kind have always existed. Dangers of every kind will continue to exist no
matter what one does to try to, “stop it.” There is no safety from danger, as human life is
always surrounded by danger. People can get offended over the simplest little trivial thing in
life like gay marriage, and you have. “Political correctness” to, “correct” the, “offensiveness”
of criticizing gay marriage. Substitute the above example with, “terrorists” “marijuana
users,” or anything else that may appear, “malignant” and you can pretty much politically
correct anything to appease a few.

Nuclearization and National Security

Nuclear weapons are a vital part of Pakistan’s military strategy. They have not only helped
neutralise the military disadvantage as a result of the increasing conventional disparity vis-à-
vis India, but have also prevented several wars in the region. In the first 25 years of its
existence, Pakistan fought three full-scale wars with India, which eventually led to its
dismemberment in 1971. In the following 40 years since work on the nuclear weapons
programme started and subsequently when Pakistan acquired nuclear capability, there have
been no wars between the two neighbours, except for the 1999 Kargil crisis that does not
fall under the category of a conventional war.

Due to the existence of an effective nuclear deterrence , India, despite having a qualitative and
quantitative edge in conventional military hardware, was restrained from waging wars in
1990 (Kashmir uprising), 1999 (Kargil conflict), 2001-02 (military stand-off), and 2008
(Mumbai attacks). From the economic perspective as well, the cost of three wars far
outweighs the money spent on developing and maintaining nuclear weapons capability.

Contrary to the ‘engineered misperceptions’, the acquisition of nuclear deterrence have in

fact reduced the imperative for maintaining conventional military parity vis-à-vis India, thus
significantly lowering defence expenditures.
Pakistan’s nuclear deterrence was conceived with a focus on deterring future wars with
India. It does not take into account the multitude of internal and external threats being
faced by it today. In order to transform its threat perception from being mainly India-
specific, Pakistan needs to redefine its national objectives that must be consistent with its
national power potential. Nevertheless, existence of nuclear capability does provide
inherent strength and guarantee that the country cannot be treated like states, which do not
have the military means to defend themselves.

The safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons has been a focus of international
attention especially after 9/11. Several Western scholars continue to churn out scenarios
depicting Pakistan as a fragile state, incapable of handling its nuclear assets.

While these concerns are mainly politically motivated, nevertheless, Pakistan has put in
place an effective command and control system. Over 20,000 people are guarding Pakistan’s
nuclear assets to ensure that they do not fall into the wrong hands. Likewise, the system also
caters for all possible external threats to obviate the likelihood of damage or sabotage.

The history of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme is a story of national resilience and
tremendous sacrifices. Safeguarding it against external threats — both intellectual and
physical — is a national responsibility.

Nuclear weapons combined with other elements of national power are an instrument of
policy to safeguard national security interests. Possession of nuclear weapons offers
significant edge in terms of enhanced political stature and diplomatic relations. It is up to the
state and the leadership to formulate a strategy to exploit this potential.

Impact on civil liberties and human rights

Approaches to national security can have a complex impact on human rights and civil
liberties. For example, the rights and liberties of citizens are affected by the use of military
personnel and militarised police forces to control public behaviour; the use
of surveillance including mass surveillance in cyberspace; military
recruitment and conscription practices; and the effects of warfare on civilians and civil
infrastructure. This has led to a dialectical struggle, particularly in liberal democracies,
between government authority and the rights and freedoms of the general public.

Even where the exercise of national security is subject to good governance and the rule of
law, a risk remains that the term national security may be become a pretext for
suppressing unfavourable political and social views. In the US, for example, the
controversial USA Patriot Act of 2001, and the revelation by Edward Snowden in 2013 that
the National Security Agency harvests the personal data of the general public, brought these
issues to wide public attention. Among the questions raised are whether and how national
security considerations at times of war should lead to the suppression of individual rights
and freedoms, and whether such restrictions are necessary when a state is not at war.

A new Paradigm encompassing Human/National Security

The new security paradigm also entails constitutive connections between state and people.
Recent scholarly works provide conceptual proof for this argument. Further, some agents of
security such as states, global institutions and non-state actors offer empirical evidence to
support this argument. The new synthesis between human security and National security
provides a solution to the mounting number of problems affecting the agenda of
contemporary security.

The primary significance of reconciling the concepts and practices of human security and
National security is that, under the existing circumstances, the integration of the elements of
different security paradigms is the most probable means of improving the security of people.
The current societal discourse is characterized by dangerous and unending intrastate,
interstate, and transnational security issues. The cease of the Cold War did not impose a
lasting peace. In the current global discourse, the state is a dominant actor, which translates
to the dominance of National security and sovereignty. Further, there is an emergent
utilitarian and normative imperative to offer improved security to people. The implication
from this observation is that a single security paradigm cannot meet the objectives of
contemporary security agenda.

Human security and National Security

Advocates for National security criticize human-centric security from different

perspectives. Many traditionalists are of the view that there are no sufficient grounds to
make human security a referent object of security. For instance, the view that human
security should supplement or replace national security as a referent object. Buzan
maintains that the individual causes the issue of agency because, in practice, human security
tries to bypass the state, which is necessary, although not sufficient to guarantee each
person’s security. Further, Buzan points out that human security is not a new phenomenon
because human rights law is already focusing on the issue of human security. For National
security advocates, human security entails the collectiveness of people manifested in the
form of nations, which is a short route towards national security. An analysis of the state-
centric view reveals that the utilization of force, the characteristic of the state, and the
state’s power is not influenced by the relations between various states. Therefore,
traditionalists consent that attempting to make individuals as a referent object of security is
flawed theoretically and empirically. It is evident that the National security focuses on
international relations and the nature of states to determine what makes up a referent
object of security; however, it disregards what takes place inside the state and the ideologies
of social justice that function at domestic levels.

The arguments in support of human security draw on critical security studies and the
school of thought that questions the traditionalist’s approach to security. Critical security
scholars widen their understanding of security to include three axes, with the first axis
broadening the narrow traditionalist’s view of security to include other threats to the state
such as environmental, economic and uncontrolled populations. The second axis
incorporates other security referents such as individual security, global security, and societal
and regional security. The third axis advocates for cooperation between various security
actors using collective, collaborative and comprehensive security means. Advocates of
human security criticize the traditional model on account that it does acknowledge the
human-centric dimensions of security. From an international relations point of view, the
most vital features of human security are that it rectifies National security and supplements
the much required normative dimension. The National security perspective argues that the
state is the main referent security object and that threats come from physical violence in
outside states. On the contrary, human security maintains that human beings are the main
referent security objects and threats come from non-military sources inside the state.
Advocates of human security challenge National security using the frameworks of the
development perspective, wherein human security must involve protecting people from the
hurtful disruptions of underdevelopment found within countries. An example is the role that
poverty plays in causing domestic conflicts that lead to human insecurity. The second critic
of the National security makes use of the humanitarian perspective, wherein the National
security does not provide direct support for humanitarian international law. The
humanitarian perspective cites the close relationship between human security and human
security, which serves to rectify the National security paradigm.

The Suggested Ideal Security Paradigm

It is evident from the above critiques that both human-centric and National security
approaches are necessary but not sufficient to address the contemporary issues affecting
human security. Therefore, the ideal security paradigm should comprise of various elements
derived from each of the paradigms, whereby people and state act as referent objects of
security and threats come from both external and internal dimensions including
underdevelopment issues. In addition, an ideal security paradigm must embrace a broad
range of measures to tackle the aforementioned threats. The fundamental argument is that
there is an interaction between National security and human security models, which implies
that an ideal security model should integrate elements acquired from the individual security
paradigms.
Conclusion

Approach to Ideal Human Security

A new synthesis of an ideal human security uses the dual aspects of both National security
and human security. It is essential to acknowledge that security entails both the state and
people. National security involves the defence of territorial integrity and self-determination.
Security of people involves guaranteeing the safety and survival of human beings from
harms of physical violence. Dual approach to security is a perfect solution to the increasing
cases of spill over conflicts arising from domestic problems. This integrated approach to
security ensures the protection of human rights universally while at the same time
protecting the existence of states. It is important to eliminate the antagonism between
human security and national security; instead, they should be considered as a continuum
with each reinforcing the effectiveness of the other. Another element of the suggested
security paradigm is the integration of means of dealing with security threats emanating
from both outside and inside the state. This requires the use of development, humanitarian
principles and force. Empirically, a number of states and global institutions have endorsed
the view that the state and people are referent objects of security. For instance, the United
Nations is one of the chief supporters of human-centric security model. In addition, most
countries are increasingly incorporating human security in their National security foreign
policies.

In the current global discourse, the notion of security is changing persistently. One of
the primary causes for this change in security trends is terrorism; as a result,
counterterrorism methods should incorporate both human-centric and National security
means. The inference is that there is the need to balance between National security and
human security. The suggested ideal security paradigm involves two main referent objects,
which include the state and people, between the external and internal threats affecting
these referent objects and the diverse means used for improving the security of the state
and people. As a result, addressing security issues requires the use of development,
humanitarian principles and force.
 References

Buzan, B. (2000). Human security: What it means and what it

entails. Paper presented at the 14th Asia–Pacific Roundtable, (pp. 1-
15). Kuala Lumpur.

Khong, Y. (2001). Human security: A shotgun approach to alleviating

human misery? Global Governance, 7 (3), 231–236.

Roland, P. (2001). Human security: Paradigm shift or hot air. International

Security, 26 (2), 87 102.

United Nations. (2011). A transnational organized crime threat

assessment. New York: United Nations.

World Bank. (2011). World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security,

and Development. Washington DC: World Bank Publications.