Baskovitz 1 Anthony Baskovitz December 6, 2007 POS 467 Maria Ortuoste International Security The question has arisen

of weather the study of international security should be limited to that of traditional issues such as military affairs and exclude issues that encompass the nontraditional threats of security. Security is essentially a contested topic that is used to describe the analysis and practice of international relations. It is a contested topic, because security is a social construction and the norms of one society differ from that of another, so a trade off in values occurs when comparing different societal views of security. In recent years the focus of security has shifted from a domestic or national view, to one of a broader international scope. A traditional view of security is that which existed before the post cold-war period. That is, Security was seen as being fixed - Military security against the military power of other states.1 Traditional security threats only concerned that of military, territorial, and resource referents of security. Since the fall of the Berlin wall, a broader perspective has been more commonly accepted. A view that examines, The development of military and nonmilitary technologies, including information technology and genetic engineering; the impact of demographic and environmental factors on stability and security; the changing nature of the energy market and defense economics; and the security problems faced by the developing world. Transnational actors transnational mass media organizations, transnational criminal organizations and transnational terrorist organizations.2 One can not ignore the importance of nontraditional referents of security, by focusing only on
1

Sheehan, Michael. International Security: An Analytical Survey. Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner, (2005). pp. 2 2 Brown, Michael E., ed. Grave New World: Security Challenges in the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, (2003). pp. xi

ASU

Baskovitz 2 traditional issues and overlooking the broader aspects of international security, a society will be left vulnerable with its sovereignty constantly being threatened by nations of differing views. The way in which warfare is fought today, is much different from that of the cold war era and that of earlier history. The attacks of 9/11 were not attacks from an opposing nation, no declaration of war was given, no government could be held responsible, and worst of all there was no return address for an immediate retaliation. These attacks were carried out by individuals, who made an attacked, not to impose a differing ideology, to gain land, or resources, but to create a state of fear by implementing a tactic. Terrorism is a tactic not an ideology and it is The systematic use of violence and threats of violence by non-state groups, designed to cause dislocation, consternation and submission on the part of a target population or government3 A traditional view of international security has no way to answer, explain, retaliate, or defend against such actions. Currently in Iraq, the U.S. is fighting a campaign by means of counterinsurgency to quell down a rebellion of a suppressed civil war. The U.S. was slow to recognize that they were fighting an insurgency, allowing insurgents initial success in attacking. Once the armed forces realized the threat they faced they adapted their tactics to accommodate to the unconventional form of warfare required in a counterinsurgency. Presently the U.S. armed forces are trying to keep the peace in Iraq while relentlessly combating insurgents, but their responsibilities as a soldier are far more extensive. They are trying to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi civilians. By playing a constant role in policing and protecting neighborhoods, working with Iraqis to weed out insurgents, being strict but fare by enforcing laws and in protecting civilian rights, handing out of food and supplies to those in need, and providing a glimpse of the blinding power of American sunshine, in hopes to invoke an embrace of democracy. Many aspect are involved in fighting a counterinsurgency, but There has to be a measured, balanced use of force along with (the wining
3

Roberts, Adam. The War on Terror in Historical Perspective, Survival 47, no. 2 (summer 2005): pp 101

ASU

Baskovitz 3 of) hearts and minds.4 With todays modern warfare it is necessary to understand ones enemy, as well as your enemys enemy. By understanding the social and political standings of an enemy in a society, a government can better predict its opponents movements, thus staying a step ahead. Whether or not the weapons were ready for use, Saddam was in clear breach of U.N. resolutions passed during the 1990s. All that remained was to issue an ultimatum and attack when (as everyone assumed) he refused to comply.5 This implies that Saddam knew that he would be held accountable for his violations and feared that if he relinquished his power he would never see it again. Able to anticipate Saddams actions the Bush administration was proficient of preemptively laying the ground work for an invasion of Iraq. Warfare has changed so drastically in recent years not only in relation to the way in which we fight, but in the constant pressures of being politically correct and responsible at all times in military engagements is a continuous challenge. As well as swaying to the pressures of the public opinion, while still knowing, understanding, and predicting your enemys movements and interests. The troops are also fighting a war against individuals using a tactic and not that of a formally recognized state that is lead by an Ideology. A strictly traditional view of international security could not be successfully implemented and carried out without various forms of nontraditional referents of security. Environmental issues are acts of nature or affects to nature by humans, that constantly occur on this ever changing planet. Whether they are considered a security issue depends on the frame of thought that the individual events are depicted in. They can be portrayed or seen in a traditional sense as a realist might perceive them. Realist view the world and the events that occur in it as Self interested, national interest predominate; and see international security as a clash of national interest, that does not account for international change.6 These issues may also be seen in
4 5

Jon Lee Anderson, The Talibans Opium War, New Yorker vol. 83, no. 19 (July 9, 2007): pp 64 B. Burrough, E. Peretz, D. Rose, and D. Wise, The Path to War, Vanity Fair (May 2004): pp 241 6 Maria Ortuoste, IR Theories and International Security, Slide, (August 2007): slide 16-20

ASU

Baskovitz 4 a nontraditional light, that in which a liberalist might possibly identify with such as, Peace is possible, the stressing of international interdependence, and increased cooperation with the spread on liberal values.7 When concerning environmental issues a difference in viewpoints is evident only when environmental threats take place on an international scale or when the immediate risk is only to that of an outside state. A realist would interpret the actions of nature as just that acts of nature. What may take place after such an event is due to the kinds of government, society, and human beings that inhabit that particular portion of the world. To them these events are part of life, where a person decides to live is up to them. Natural disasters can, will, and do occur, but the burden of such should only be to those who are affected. The liberalist view would be that of the complete opposite of the realist, regarding the burden of one state as the burden of all states, no matter the environmental dilemma. Neither of these views can be considered right or wrong when concerning regional disasters that occur from an act of nature and that pose no eminent threat to others. Instabilities are often caused by environmental stresswater scarcity, land scarcity, the depletion of foreststhat can destabilize these societies, that can make them more prone to civil violence even to revolutions.8 Only when the action or inaction of an outside state creates a threat that affects others, is a traditional or nontraditional view considered right or wrong. Environmental issues such as pollution, disease, and the affects of war, can spread from a domestic level to one of an intrastate crisis, to possibly grow to affect the world as a whole. Concerns such as these can not be corrected through traditional referents of international security but if traditional referents are the only means attempted to resolve environmental conflicts such as pollution, disease, and the affects of war, these problems will not get better, but take a turn for the worse.

7 8

Maria Ortuoste, IR Theories and International Security, Slide, (August 2007): slide 16-20 Thomas H. Dixion, Journey to Planet Earth, Handout, University of Toronto, pp 1

ASU

Baskovitz 5 Differences in culture, religion, nationality, and status are the causes of the majority of conflicts between human beings. No other determinates can separate people as quickly and as severely. These determinates are the basis of any society and are used to create a common social structure within a society. A social structure determines how individuals interact with each other with the use of norms as social laws or guideline in any given society. An important reason why some scholars argue that the concept of security should be broadened is that a broader concept of security would more accurately reflect the complexity of social life and would be able to include normative issues. One of the things that are creating tremendous instability within societies and around the world is the differences, the inequalities that are opening up between the rich and the poor and between the powerful and weak groups with in our societies.9 If the traditional referents of international security are used as a guideline for interacting with foreign societies it would be impossible to understand, sympathize, and relate with the norms of a differing culture. If it is impossible for a society to understand and except the dispositions of foreign cultures, then it cant be expected for them to peacefully coexist. Racism, bigotry, and cultural hatred all originated from the inability to empathize with differing cultural views. The Tamil-Sinhalese ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka is an example of a failure to sympathize with social and cultural difference which brought about civil war. This is also very similar to the current situation in Iraq, where differing religious factions are fighting for independence or complete governmental control. Involved in both conflicts are powerful outside developed nations with India involved in Sri Lanka and the U.S. concentrated on Iraq. They both want to help create a truce between the warring nations, but the only way for either mediator to succeed is by being able to get both side listen to them. A nations power is measured by their military strength and economic capabilities, but neither is being listened to by either of the warring groups. In the animal
9

Thomas H. Dixion, Journey to Planet Earth, Handout, University of Toronto, pp 2

ASU

Baskovitz 6 kingdom, the most dominate creatures tend to be the leaders of packs and at times the leaders dominance or leadership will be challenged. These challenges are a test of ones leadership. They are rarely direct and are more commonly passive in the form of a failure to follow a command or recognition a superior. If challenged the leader must quickly reassert its dominance, if he fail to do so then the challenger may begin to lose fear for the leader and if he is aloud to challenge passively enough times with out repercussions, a direct challenge for leadership is not far behind. The same is true in Sri Lanka and Iraq, with the warring parties having a lack of fear for the superior nations power and in an animal like fashion are challenging their dominance. Both sides in the conflicts are challenging the militarily and economic superiority of both the U.S. and India. The challenges of superiority are not direct, but in the form of defiance of requests and by the ignoring of their presence. The Indian air force was ordered to airlift the goods and parachute them over the peninsula, with fighter jets offering protection. This move achieved nothing by itself in terms of moving Sri Lankans and Tamil militants closer to settlement, but it did achieve two things for the Gandhi government: 1) it was an extremely popular move domestically, demonstrating to Indians that New Delhi could use its military power when it wanted to; and 2) it reminded the Sri Lankans that India had a great deal of power and would use that power in matters it deemed important, specifically, the Sri Lankan-Tamil problem.10 This shows that a quick flex of a powerful nations muscle may not stop fighting between weaker nations, but it definitely reassert who the dominate force is and what their intentions are. The problems for U.S. is that they dealing with many conflictions at once with negative media attention, trying to keep a good public opinion, attempting to win Iraqi hearts and minds, and the difficult task of instituting a democracy in a Middle Eastern country. The U.S. is also fighting a war where their trying to stay as politically correct as possible

10

The Tamil-Sinhalese ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka: A case study in efforts to negotiate a settlement, 1983-1988, (case no. 416): pp 11

ASU

Baskovitz 7 and if they were to give a superiority muscle flex it would be taken the wrong way. Nonetheless, in both cases neither mediator is exclusively using traditional military actions alone to come to a solution, but by using cultural awareness, basic psychology, and a nontraditional display of superiority to bring an end to the fighting. Such a feat would never occur through traditional means alone. One can not ignore the importance of nontraditional referents of security, by focusing only on traditional issues and overlooking the broader aspects of international security, a society will be left vulnerable with its sovereignty constantly being threatened by nations of differing views. With out the ability to resolve conflict and disagreement with differing nations and cultures, through means other than direct military force. A constant state of conflict would evolve to where the most primitive form of human nature would become the norm, of always having war and always having conflict. In my opinion a policy that would limit the study of international security to that of only traditional issues such as military affairs would only create irreversible damage to this nation and its people.

ASU