Presentasi berjudul: "Defining Security: From Traditional Perspective. OutlineOutline What is security from traditional perspective? How is the theoretical explanation of this."— Transcript presentasi:
Defining Security: From Traditional Perspective
OutlineOutline What is security from traditional perspective? How is the theoretical explanation of this perspective? How is the relevance of traditional security perspective amid the emergence of new security agendas?
Traditional View on security What is meant by security is the state’s capability to protect its territorial boundaries and its sovereign ability to act as it sees fit (Terrif, et.al, 1999; 63). The referent object of security, therefore, is the state The source of insecurity is military threats, when states’ pursuit its interests. State is the primary actor to define security, and the key element for security is military capability.
Theoretical foundation Realism and its variants: – Classic realism, – Neo-realism, – defensive realism – and offensive realism
What is realism Realism approach argues in international politics, states struggle for power and security in anarchic environment. Core belief (assumptions) of international politics according to realism are: 1.States are the most important actors in international politics. Realism, therefore focuses on the behaviour of states and pay less attention to individuals and transnational actors such as the MNC, INGOs 2.Realism regards anarchy as the distinguish feature in international politics. Anarchy means the absence of any common sovereignty. There is no central authority that could enforce agreement or to guarantee security * States therefore rely on their own means to protect their security and interests (self help-system)
3. Realism assumes that states seek power to maximize their power or their security. Power is regarded as means and end of states. 4. States are rational in pursuing power and security. 5. Realism believes that the distribution of power amongst states leads to the basic pattern in international politics and foreign policy.
International Relations REALIST Traditions Machiavelli, Hobbes. The international relations is the state of war of everyone against everyone. International relations is a zero sum game, they mean the conflicts among states, the interest of one state rules out the interest of another state. The state does not bear any responsibility for its actions. There is no international community, the international politics has anarchist character. Everything heads towards the securing of the own state security and strengthening of the own power. The only rules and principles which can limit the state acting are the rules of self-profit and sagacity. International community (norms, institutions and international law) reflect the power politics of the most powerful states.
Misconception about realism 1.Realism is only applied to the use of military force in international politics. It is not. Realism also pays attention to economic relations. It suggests that in economic relations, instead of reciprocity, states are concerned with relative gain (increase a state’s power relatively to other states) 2.Realism is always confrontational in their sense of foreign policy. Realism argues that there is always way for compromise and negotiation, depends of their capability and other states’ capability 3.Realism is regarded as deny international cooperation. Realism is just pessimistic but not anti. For example: it suggests alliance, and international economic cooperation based on hegemony.
Variants of realism: neo-realism As realists argue on anarchic world, neo-realism agrees with this anarchic feature. However, different with realist (classical) who argues that the source of anarchy is the human nature (political leaders’ lust for power), neo-realism argues that the source of anarchy is the structure and distribution of capabilities in international relations (therefore often called as structural realism). The structure of international politics will form certain polar (bi polar, multi polar etc.), while the weaker states tend to form balancing and/ or alliances against stronger states.
Offensive and defensive Realism Offensive realism: international system fosters conflict and aggression, security is scarce, driving states to seek power and making international competition intense, and war is likely to happened. It suggests that states should adopt offensive strategy for security. States should react for threats: suggests for balance-of-threats policy
Defensive realism: international system does not necessarily generate intense conflict and war. Security is so plenty (not scarce as offensive’s argument) Defensive is the best strategy, the world outside is not really evil and hostile
Criticisms to Realism (and neo) 1.Realism cannot explain change in international system 2.Realism ignores domestic factors of states such as identity and culture 3.Realism exaggerates the importance of state and distribution of power among them, and neglects other actors 4.Realism does not explain specific foreign policy decision
The changing context of security and The future of realism Is realism still relevant? Can realism explain the contemporary aspects of international issues such as: 1.the potential obsolescence of war 2.the internal war and ethnic conflict 3.Terrorism 4.The US foreign policy in the pot Cold War 5.New security agenda such as climate change, globalisation, inffectious diseases, poverty etc?
Realism and the claim of the obsolescence of war Realism becomes so influential in times of war and conflict. When the Cold War ended the world was regarded become more peaceful Has the world changed fundamentally? According to realism, the world has not changed fundamentally. It points out that there has been so many wars after the Cold War: Iraq invasion to Kuwait, the Gulf Crises, Yugoslavia disintegration, Rwanda, India-Pakistan, US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and so many other threats to use military force. The absence of war does not mean that the peace has been established. The possibility of war continues to become important background in international politics
Realism and internal/ ethnic conflict Since the end of the Cold War internal and ethnic wars have become more prominent in international politics. To some extend it is problematic for realism to explain since realism focuses on state’s behaviour. However, realism argues that the internal and ethnic wars follow the logic of anarchy. When central governments weaken or collapse, those groups encounter security dilemma and it drives them to use force
Realism and US power In The post-the Cold War era, the US has been regarded as the solely superpower in a unipolar world. It seems to be durable and stable because other countries lack of capabilities to challenge the US This poses important challenges for realism to explain. Realism shows that after the 9/11, there has been many countries that reacted to the unilateralism of the US, although still far away from bipolarism, at least the US now face challenges from other states; Russia, China, Venezuela, Iran
Realism and globalisation Globalisation and economic interdependence changes the nature of international politics? The population desire economic growth than security and territoriality? Globalisation constraint sovereignty and independence of states, international organisations begin to play important role? The world has changed from what realism has been depicted?
According to realism, the world interdependence would not prevent any wars to break out. States are more interested in prosperity and power but they continues to compete to gain economic benefits States develops military force in global competition for economic benefits: China and other East Asia states? States also still reluctant to cede their sovereignty to international organisation or other transnational actors
Realism and terrorism Terrorism becomes more fearful than ever. Realism ‘does not have much to say about terrorism’? But realism argues that today’s terrorism employ strategic violence, rational and full calculation to achieve goals The targets are states, not random Realism contributes to the understanding how states respond terrorism, whether individually or collectively.
Realism and new security agenda Environmental degradation, climate change, infectious diseases, refugee, hunger and poverty have become more important threats to humanity According to realism, although these threats do not come from military or states sources of threats, they influence states’ behaviour and international responses. Nevertheless, international cooperation would not prompt to international solutions Instead, there will be more competition over scarce resources, such as energy, green energy etc. Regarding to humanitarian crises, states are likely to act of their own interests are at stake; the US, UK, France in Libya, why not in Syria? Realism explains how states react to new security agenda that appears to be changing in international system.
Conclusion? Traditional security approach is about everything that may affect security, but security is not about everything. What do you think? Why do states continue build their military forces? Is traditional security approach relevant to today’s security threats?
Realism and national security For realists, the fundamental national interest of all states is national security. The three S’s’: Statism: states as central actors; makes security a pervasive element of foreign policy Survival: central goal of all foreign policy; use force as a legitimate (element) instrument of statecraft Power vs security debate (offensive vs. defensive realism)
Realism and national security Self-help: take appropriate steps to ensure survival, balance of power as enduring structural feature The security dilemma - efforts to build defensive capabilities in one state can be perceived as threatening to others, which causes them to build their own defenses, which can in turn be threatening to the original state
Security studies and national security Security studies is defined as the study of the nature, causes, effects, and prevention of war. The concept of national security rose to prominence during the Cold War, monopolized by Realists. The concept of human security arose in the early 1990s, which placed individuals at the centre of security strategies.
The case: National security and American grand strategy Grand strategy is a crucial component of a state’s foreign policy: it is the overall vision of a state’s national security goals, and a determination of the most appropriate means by which to achieve these goals. It entails a 3-step process: Determine the state’s vital security goals. Identify the main source of threats to these goals, internal and external. Ascertain the key political, economic and military resources that can be employed as foreign policy options to realize national security goals.
American grand strategy A variety of different grand strategies can be identified for the United States: Neo-isolationism: interest based foreign policy Liberal internationalism Primacyof US power
American grand strategy Neo-isolationism: America should focus on its own national interests. Activist, globalist role is no longer needed in post- Cold War era. US is secure from external threats with power to guarantee its security.
Liberal internationalism: an expansive American national interest, (that includes world peace), necessitates multilateral engagement in pursuit of common goals. The US not immune from military threats. Central: democracy, human rights, interdependence and role of institutions
Primacy: preserving US power as the undisputed pre-eminent power in the international system. US must ensure its military dominance, preventing emergence of a multi-power structure. Institutions seen as restraining unilateral options
There is a good deal of evidence to suggest that US has based its foreign policy on a grand strategy of primacy It is worthwhile to ask whether this strategy is sustainable as evidence suggests that attempts to counterbalance the US are underway. States feel insecure, leading them to increase their military capabilities. Realists advocate a policy of offshore balancing that attempts to maintain America’s relative power and national security in an emerging multipolar world.