Security Studies in a Changing World - Coursework Example

Security Studies in a Changing World Security studies emerged in most parts of the world after the Second World War (WWII) due to the increased need to develop a scientific approach to secure a country’s security needs against definable threats and maintain the status-quo. The Copenhagen school (CS) of security presented an alternative school of thought to positivism that declining in popularity and practicality during the Cold war that ensued after the WWII. The definition for security according to the CS is determined by three core principles. The creation of sectors that group security into five distinct but interconnected sectors is the first principle. These five sectors are military, economic, political, environmental and social sectors. The second core principle was the development of a regional focus for security studies, where there was the inter-linkage of several security dynamics from different regions. The third core principle was the development of an engendered social constructivist theoretical understanding of security through the formulation of securitization studies. The third core principle of the CS on security has had a significant influence of policies, perspectives and responses towards security in different parts of the world. Question #1 The application of securitization theory allows analysts to engage directly in new and old security discourses by providing them with means to critically analyse security processes (Wæver, 2004 p18). According to Charrett, (2009 p171), critical observation of the securitization process helps analysts avoid making subjective claims regarding the moral rightness of securitization activities. This move provides people with the capacity to assist in the engenderment of more constructive and positive security movements. The CS defines securitization as the socially constructed and inter-subjective process of acknowledging a particular threat to a reference entity that is worth protecting. According to Huysmans, (2000 p762), securitization is the inter-subjective establishment of existential threats that demand immediate and urgent attention. McDonald’s (2008 p575) definition also includes the need for the use of extraordinary measures to neutralize and counter this threat. The objectives of the CS in security matters is described using the following parameters and/or understanding. Studies on securitization are focused on gaining an increased and a precise understanding of securitization issues/threats and actors involved. These studies also define referent entities and/or objects, why, with what results and under what conditions is securitization considered to be successful (Huysmans, 2000 p762). Securitization, therefore, involves analysis through observation and interpretation, and the use of logic to determine whether certain entities and actions fulfil the security criteria (Floyd, 2007 p48). Securitization analysts determine whether actors have been able to mobilize support, who are the audience and what are the facilitating conditions. Analysts and actors in securitization play different roles that are governed by established rules and objectives that work to distinguish between their responsibilities and duties. Analysts do not decide what constitutes a justifiable threat and/or what should not be securitized. The sole responsibility of analysts in the CS is to understand the mode of operation or modus operandi of existing security actors (McSweeney, 1999 p331). The CS widened the definition of security by adopting an approach to securitization that avoids the formulation of normative criterion that could be used to subjectively judge (il)-legitimate claims to security (Lynch et al, 2000 p287). The symbolic power of security can be understood by looking at how it invokes the articulation of certain rationality in people. Question #2 Rationalization of security in this manner develops political technology that interlocks systems of knowledge, practices, responsibilities, and institutional forms that idealize, direct and act on entities in a specific manner (Lynch et al, 2000 p297). Political technology of security connects disciplines, sovereignty and government under the power of ‘govermentality’. This power endeavours to (re)-order society, exclude or oppress opposition and preserve power relations. These heightened and dominant security modes seek to ascribe other securitization criteria as inferior or inconsequential and threatening, which works to instil perceptions of fear in the population. A feminist perspective then postulates that the state through government seeks to fill its patriarchal role as protector by provoking and/or encouraging feelings of safety, allegiance and submission. Thus, security is used as a tool of political power that promotes subjectivities fear as a result of undemocratic and/or oppressive acts that are involved in political and social exclusion (McSweeney, 1999 p311). This is the path taken by securitization of particular matters in a society, where they are taken out of the political context to an area of security concerns that legitimize extraordinary measures and means against socially constructed threats. Securitization of a referent object depends on the audience’s acceptance of securitization reasons or evidence provided by securitization actors. According to the CS, securitization of particular entities in society entails the manner in which these objects and/or issues are perceived with respect to security. An example would be the perception of North Korea regarding the joint military exercises that South Korea and the United State conduct on an annual basis. North Korea has been known to react to these joint military exercises negatively, an aspect that can be attributed to the securitization of these exercises by North Koreans. Propaganda carried out by the state media is an example of socially constructed speech acts meant to rally the people in denouncing the joint exercises. Question #3 Securitization actors are individuals in society who forward or propose securitization claims on various issues. According to CS, successful securitization of referent entities depends on the subjective agreement among the target audience or population that the suggested claim by actors is legitimate or not (Floyd, 2007 p43). The CS stipulates that no individual in society is excluded from the social interpretation of security. However, due to existing power structures in government, some state elites who act as actors hold a position of advantage when it comes to defining security threats. In line with this observation, the CS postulates that an entity qualifies as a security issue if it is declared so by the elites. This is one of the aspects that the CS of thought tries to avoid by explicitly focusing on successful instances of securitization. This has led to the exclusion of certain ideas and groups with respect to securitization of issues, which has resulted into unfavourable consequences for individuals and the global community at large (Huysmans, 2000 p752). An example of this phenomenon is the Cold War, where there was the dispersion of weapons to client states at the expense of security issues such as food and the environment. Another example would be the most recent securitization of international terrorism by the US government. This has resulted in the side-lining of critical social issues like humane governance, human rights and environmental sustainability (Hughes, 2007 p96). The securitization approach of CS does not problematize the elites’ power over security definition policies, but the school opts to make these actors their primary focus, and determine their modus operandi (Stritzel, 2007 p360). This approach helps strengthen conventional or traditional conceptions of security characterized by retention of power by state elites and a negative securitization process. Thus, it apparent that there are powerful actors behind the traditional or conventional actors of securitization as characterized by state elite actors behind securitization of politically motivated referent objects and subjects. This has resulted in a situation where uncritical securitization furthers the notion of prioritizing state elites’ definition of security concerns over those who do not hold the same position and/or influence (Hough, 2014 p86). The analysis and application of securitization theory (ST) serves to challenge the buttressing of this notion by disclosing the power that elites maintain over securitization. ST also works to provide those who employ the CS of thought with tools to counter the powerful utterances of state elites by seeking out and establishing side-lined and marginalized securitizing measures (Hansen, 2013 p149). The CS strives to dislodge its focus from state elites as powerful actors to wider and broader avenues through which appropriate and positive securitization can be accrued. The act of securitization is dominated by powerful actors who encompass some of the state elite who possess a substantial influence to claim the right to the survival of referent objects. The CS school seeks to rise above the notion of powerful actors by deeming their role and impact as inconsequential. In its stead, the CS ensures successful securitization through the establishment and implementation of a securitization process that overlooks the external influences of powerful actors. The ability of this approach to break free of set rules upon which powerful securitization actors thrive; makes the CS a relatively practical securitization measure. This is because ST seeks to reveal the purpose and role of security in society to protect and maintain a state’s sovereignty and wellbeing. The role of actors in securitization has changed over time, and it has metamorphosed into a political tool and government technique to manipulate people’s attitudes and perception about security (Wæver, 2004 p16). Securitization actors are seen as political entities who take advantage of the mandate endowed upon them by the people to serve their political and select interests. Question #4 The CS is seen as a Eurocentric approach to security due to a wide range of factors chief among them being that it originated from Europe. It suffices to say that most of the criticism levelled against the CS of securitization emanates from non-European countries like China, Brazil, Russia, Australia and Japan. Securitization according to the CS is based on the internalization of realist-based notions concerning power, national interests and power. In light of this, securitization is seen as a predominantly Eurocentric affair with insignificant influence and impact internationally. This is in part attributed to the school’s use and application of divergent radical approaches with respect to security that do not echo or resound with non-European and US interests. The CS is regarded as a Eurocentric approach towards security in the sense that it has limited practical implications beyond North America and Western Europe due to its Eurocentric ethnocentrism (Bilgin, 2011 p403). This fact is attributed to the fact that the founder of the CS securitization approach accrued most of his insights from the Cold War, which was dominantly played out on the European continent. Communism can be construed to have played a significant role in influencing the CS of securitization, a fact that was facilitated by the end of Cold War in Europe. The subsequent integration of European societies made them classical templates for the CS to draw its inferences in the development of securitization principles. Concomitant with this point is that securitization is inclined towards state-society relations in Western Europe, which makes the ST less appealing to non-state-society dynamics. Other countries have started to realize the benefits of state-society relations making it more acceptable and applicable in other regions of the world. The increasing need to get more involved in matters of the state by the people makes the CS of securitization an appropriate avenue to perceive their role. The increased prevalence of democracy in a majority of countries in the world has seen the CS of securitization be considered as one towards achieving more participation and control in government affairs. Tony Blair and George, W. Bush failed to securitize the issue of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq because they did not follow the modalities of securitization. Effective securitization demands that actors need to have legitimate interests in the wellbeing of the referent object of their claim. Bush and Blair’s handling of the WMD issue in Iraq is a classic example of how powerful actors of securitization can influence the implementation of extraordinary measures against a perceived threat. Bush and Blair used the media to perpetrate their speech act that is exemplary of CS securitization, where state elites hold an advantageous position to impact security. Their inability to prove the existence of WMD in Iraq is testimony to their inappropriate use of their political positions and power to influence extraordinary measures against socially constructed threats. Bibliography Bilgin, P. (2011). The politics of studying securitization? The Copenhagen School in Turkey. Security Dialogue, 42(4-5), 399-412. Charrett, C. (2009). A critical application of securitization theory: Overcoming the normative dilemma of writing security. Institut Català Internacional per la Pau. Floyd, R. (2007). Human Security and the Copenhagen School’s Securitization Approach. Human Security Journal, 5(37), 38-49. Hansen, L. (2013). Security as practice: discourse analysis and the Bosnian war. London: Routledge. Hough, P. (2014). Understanding global security. New York: Routledge. Hughes, B. (2007). Securitizing Iraq: The Bush administrations social construction of security. Global Change, Peace & Security, 19(2), 83-102. Huysmans, J. (2000). The European Union and the securitization of migration.JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 38(5), 751-777. Lynch, M., Vitalis, R., Williams, M. C., Neumann, I. B., Wong, B., Orend, B., ... & Cook, D. L. (2000). The Little Mermaids silent security dilemma and the absence of gender in the Copenhagen School. Millennium-Journal of International Studies, 29, 285-306. McDonald, M. (2008). Securitization and the Construction of Security. European Journal of International Relations, 14(4), 563-587. McSweeney, B. (1999). Security, identity and interests: a sociology of international relations (Vol. 69). Cambridge University Press. Stritzel, H. (2007). Towards a theory of securitization: Copenhagen and beyond.European journal of international relations, 13(3), 357-383. Wæver, O. (2004, March). Aberystwyth, Paris, Copenhagen NewSchools in Security Theory and their Origins between Core and Periphery. In annual meeting of the Internationsal Studies Association, Montreal (pp. 17-20). Read More