|
 |
Nermin Aydemir
JTW
Columnist |
|
|
|
|
|
Friday, 9 January 2009
Although numerous studies tried to bring an analytical conceptualization to the concept of security, it is hard to say that a common theoretical groundwork exists within the field.[1] Just like the case of terrorism, there are a significant number of different answers to what security threats are and what values are under threat in case of insecurity. These discrepancies result in numerous different and contracting views in the field of security.
Pioneer Theories in the Security Literature
Being mainly based on the theories of Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes and Rousseau, the realist theory states that power is the absolute determinant factor.
[2] The view denies the presence of a global authority and asserts that all international relations and dynamics are run by nothing but chaos. Furthermore, military power is believed to be the only determinant of the fate of countries and the only solution to the indefinite international relations. Proponents of this view gained strength and popularity after the breakdown of the League of Nations and is, in fact, very explanatory about many recent conflicts in the world. The Second World War, when realist approaches was being widely used in international relations, is widely believed to give second birth to his view.
Liberal view, which was rooted by Kant, defines international relations as “an uncultivated garden”, in contrast to realists who defined is as “a wild jungle”.[3] Liberals agree that there is a probability of war in global politics but they also argue that there is a probability of peace too. They emphasize the importance of cooperation, coalition and common interests between nations. In addition to the examples of EU and UN, other global or regional establishments like Barcelona process, which is being jointly held by Turkey and Italy, can be categorized under liberals’ views.
According to the views of constructivism, however, global peace or security is mainly constructed by the ongoing discourse. Several factors such as states, media and nongovernmental organizations (NGO) have significant impact in shaping our understanding of what the security threats are and from who we should be afraid of. Constructivists assert that security is constructed by the current dominant policies in the world and different views of security and identity can reshape people’s conceptions. The most obvious example of this view is Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” theory, in this regard. The USA, whose military expenditures are bigger than the sum of those made by the rest of the world, denouncing China as a threat because of its studies in military field is also an adequate example of this view.
Human Security
As it can be seen in the theoretical structures listed above, security was once observed only as a government-level topic including only military issues. But as the world evolves, defining security solely as a country’s protection of its territory is now widely criticized of being exiguous. In the report defining human security, UN considers individuality, environment, economy politic, society, health and food dimensions while defining the term and asserts that human security is protecting against chronic threats and sudden and harmful disruptions that can happen in daily life such as famine, diseases and repression.[4] Human security includes all individuals in the world, consists of separate but inter-related factors, it is much more easily provided when precautions taken and its main focus if individuals, not governments.[5] Chancing conceptions of security encompass economic development, social justice, environmental protection, democratization, disarmament and respect for human rights and the rule of law and they are no longer be narrowly defined as the absence of armed conflict.[6] According to former UN Chairman Kofi Annan, every act against them will also fight with poverty, provide economic growth and prevent conflicts.[7]
In this view, which caught on after 1990, security is believed to be harmed only because of distinct acts of millions of people around the world, not conflicts between governments. Uncontrolled population growth, unequal distribution of wealth, excessive migration, pollution, manufacturing and trading of stupefacient and terrorism are listed as the biggest threats of human security.[8] At this point, multinational organizations, local governments, NGO’s, public, media and manufacturing firms are as much responsible as governments.[9]
Among with all listed above, the concept of human security is also criticized of enabling uncertain understandings because of being a very broad topic; and of disaccording with national interests which causes problems in applications of it. In conclusion, although it is mentioned in theoretical literature and in reports of international organizations more and more, human security still can offer only a delicate point of view in the application process.
Translated by: Kerem Kýlýç
[1] B. Buzan, People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era, New York, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991, pg 15-16
[2] Notions of Security, Shifting Concepts and Perspectives, Transnational Security, Terrorism and the Rule of Law Project, 2005, pg. 23
[3] M. Doyle, Ways of War and Peace, New York, W.W.Norton, 1997
[4] United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Human Development Report, New York, Oxford University Press, 1994, pg. 23
[5] Notions of Security, Shifting Concepts and Perspectives, pg. 41
[7] Kofi Annan’s speech in a workshop in Mongolya about Human Security, 08.05.00
[9] Rotschild E., What is Security, Daedalus, 1995, vol.124, No.3, pg. 53-98
16 June 2008
Turkish Opposition to Rasmussen as the Head of NATO 
