|
|
In the wake of the Cold War, a host of what have been loosely termed “new security” challenges have become the focus of growing concern worldwide. These challenges have defined changed priorities forcing the reconsideration of the traditional concept of security that is no longer focused on a bipolar world, but rather accounts for a spectrum of challenges that have a demonstrated capacity to threaten the political, economic, and strategic interests of the state. The new challenges typically comprise such things as international terrorism, ethnic strife, environmental degradation, drug trafficking, population growth, uncontrolled migration, and organized crime. While none of these issues could be considered novel, under a traditional (realist) doctrine focused almost entirely on external threats to the state from other states, their treatment as security issues constitute something of a new development. It remains unclear, however, whether the changing priorities should be viewed as representing substantive changes in the international system sufficient to be termed a “new agenda”, or if they are merely adjustments in the traditional model of state security and national interest. This analysis is intended to clarify this issue by providing some background on the contemporary debates about security, specifically addressing modern concerns over migration, drugs, and HIV/AIDS in order to conclude that the “new agenda” is not really new, and could more aptly be described as an evolution of the paradigm of international security. In attempting to evaluate the existence of a “new” international security agenda, a key preliminary task is defining what is meant by security. Traditionally, security has been analysed from a Western historical perspective, and was primarily focused on the concerns of the particular type of state outlined in the Treaty of Westphalia (Ayoob, 1995). From this viewpoint, the search for security is primarily a matter of deterring and defending against foreign coercion, attack, or invasion through the maintenance of adequate military defences. While on most issues presented as opposing viewpoints, both realism and liberalism are essentially conservative doctrines inclined towards policies of war avoidance above concerns internal to the state. A bit further down the line though, the two theories part company, with liberalism and notions of collective security in the international community generally being overshadowed by realism’s notion of sovereign states acting in a decentralised anarchic system, one in which conflict is endemic and security is managed by power-seeking and self-help. Perpetual peace is impossible; at best there can be stability gained through effective management of alliances intended to counterbalance hegemony. Realist security focuses on war, the ability to fight wars, and the external threats to the state which, might give rise to them (Pettiford and Curley, 1999). Over the course of time, the realist security paradigm has been subjected to ongoing criticism as being too one-dimensional and short-sighted (Romm, 1993). As the cold war wound down and the threat of foreign attack diminished, arguments for a broader, more comprehensive approach to security policy resurfaced and began to attract attention and support. There are specific differences that distinguish these more recent views from earlier ones which were largely ignored; the argument is no longer essentially about widening he focus of security policy to include non-military threats. Rather, the new thinking on security questions not only the primacy of military threats but also the place of the nation-state as the focus of security policy. Although adherents to the realist security paradigm recognize that the end of the cold war has brought relief from the traditional dominant source of insecurity – namely superpower nuclear conflict – the nature of international society has not fundamentally changed in their view. The protection of the state, its territory, citizens, and vital interests from the potentially hostile intentions of others remains just as relevant today as before. Thus, the absence of major interstate confrontation or conflict is seen by some as just a temporary phase in a long-standing pattern of peace and conflict in world affairs (Mearsheimer 1992; Waltz 1993). The alternative security paradigm that is emerging has its roots in the liberal school and view of the world as increasingly shaped by order and cooperation rather than anarchy and conflict (Rothschild, 1995). In particular, the incidence of interstate aggression is assessed to have declined to the point where it is now more the exception that the rule of global society. As a consequence, the traditional preoccupation with defending the nation-state from the large-scale attacks of others is viewed as anachronistic, and possibly wasteful and potentially provocative (Stares, 1998). Some ascribe this trend to the possibility that the utility of war as a rational instrument of statecraft is declining.
|
