Originally Posted by teh zeppy

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s ending the Cold War that had greatly tensed international relations for the majority of the 20th Century, the study of international security has become one with a plethora of possible explanations and rationales. When adding the environment as a security issue, it serves to further complicate the discussion of international security in the modern era.
The bi-polar nature of Cold-War Era international politics made the discussion relatively simple. A state tended to be one of three things: a member of the Western Bloc, a member of the Soviet Bloc, or more dangerously, a non-aligned state. A state within either of the Blocs tended to be relatively secure from outside threats due to the looming danger of nuclear war that a conflict between the two superpower states could have sparked. The conflicts seen during the Cold-War Era often were results of one of the superpowers seeking to influence the political systems within a non-aligned state or a state with a fragile governmental system and some quality deemed worthy of fighting for; usually either location or resources.
Upon the fall of the Soviet Union, there was a power vacuum virtually immediately filled by the United States seeking to become the sole hegemonic superpower. For the first several years of the Post-Cold War Era, the United States managed to be the sole hegemon and as such was able to greatly influence international relations and security issues.
It seems, however, that over the beginning of the 21st Century, the hegemonic stability theory that could have been applied to explain international relations directly following the Cold War can no longer be applied to international relations. The United States has arguably lost some influence politically and economically. The Euro has become the dominant currency worldwide at the expense of the Dollar, and some developing states (primarily China) seem anxious to knock the United States out of its’ position as international leader.
If we cannot view international security issues through the same philosophical lenses that we could a decade ago, how can we then interpret security in the new millennium? As Simon Dalby (2002) would argue, “security is about the future or fears about the future. It is about contemporary dangers but also thwarting potential future dangers.” (Dalby 2002, 163) When looking at security from this perspective, we would view all actions undertaken under the guise of security as actions to ward off negative events in the future. If we were to use this definition of security when looking at the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, we would have to look at what the possible future implications could mean. Perhaps the invasion and occupation would secure petroleum resources in the region for the United States for the foreseeable future. Perhaps the formation of a democratically based state and the possible spread of democratic ideals in the Middle East could beneficial to the United States because it would reduce ethnic conflict in the region in the future, requiring less U.S. action in the region.
This explanation could be fairly plausible in areas such as the Persian Gulf, which possesses nearly two-thirds of the world’s petroleum supplies. (Klare 2001, 51) When viewed through the perspective that security is a way to protect a state’s future, the developed world’s interest in the region can be explained fairly well. As Klare points out of the differences between the Gulf and other areas, “what sets the Persian Gulf apart from these other areas is the fact that the great powers, including Great Britain and the United States, have chosen to intervene in local disputes when they perceived a threat to the free flow of oil.” (Klare 2001, 53) This perspective, when applied to environmental issues, works to explain a state’s interest in preventing conflict in such resource laden areas as the Persian Gulf. In addition, it would also be able to explain the relative lack of Western action in areas such as Rwanda that are far less resource abundant.
Another theory of international security in the modern era is that, as Klare (2001) writes:
the resource wars of the post-Cold War era are not random or disconnected events. Rather, they are part of a larger, interconnected geopolitical system. Whereas international conflict was until recently governed by political and ideological considerations, the wars of the future will largely be fought over the possession and control of vital and economic goods – especially resources needed for the functioning of modern industrial societies. (Klare 2001, 213)
We can indeed see this shift in rationales for conflict across the world since the collapse of the Soviet Union. There has become an increased tendency for conflicts to be fought over resources, particularly scarce resources, compared to ideology as we had seen for the majority of the 20th century. There is, of course, exceptions such as the U.S. led coalition’s occupation of Afghanistan following the September 11th, 2001 attacks on the United States, but for the most part, conflict in the second half of the 1990s and the beginning of this century has been a result of scarce resources.
This idea of resource scarcity affecting conflict, particularly ethnic conflict such as we have seen accounting for the majority of conflict following the fall of the USSR, has been shown by a study done by Stanton and Marie (2006) exploring the relationship between the two. In their’ study, they found that resource scarcities such as the loss/pollution of freshwater or loss of forested land can lead to an increase in ethnic conflict. (Stanton and Marie 2006) This framework for viewing environmental security works best on a regional level, however. It cannot be applied internationally, as the ethnic conflict that would occur due to loss of resources would primarily have effect on the state level. Despite this limitation, the notion that renewable resource scarcity can lead to ethnic conflict up to and including open, armed rebellion is important for states to keep in mind when controlling the allocation of resources, particularly in regions where such resources are scarce to begin with. The implications of this view on security in the 21st century is that a state must be careful not to push an ethnic group too far and must be willing to be reasonably flexible determining who gets to use what resources where, when, and why.

Originally Posted by teh zeppy again

Unfortunately, this view on security reached upon review of Stanton and Marie’s research brings us to the Ethnic Security Dilemma Theory that is discussed in their study. This theory is that:
what makes one side more secure makes another side feel less secure, necessitating an increase in security measures, which makes the original group less secure. The actions that made the first group secure have made it less secure and the reaction of other groups to the first group led to a response from the original group which made them all less secure.” (Stanton and Marie 2006)
When pairing this theory with the implications of ethnic conflict due to scarce resources, we find ourselves in a tricky situation in some areas of the world. A state would often be inclined to make concessions to an ethnic group that feels they are receiving less then their fair share of resource allocation. Conversely, if a different ethnic group feels that the resources being allocated for the competing group should rightly be theirs, this will lead to an increase in conflict. In a sense, a state with ethnic groups in fierce competition will never truly be secure because any action taken by any group to enhance security will tend to create nothing other than a lack of security.
This security dilemma brings us back to our first security theory by Dalby (2002) that security is an effort to safeguard the future. The relative impossibility of true security in states with competing ethnic groups, particularly resource rich states such as the Middle East, will invariably attract the attention of the developed nations (and likely the almost developed nations such as China or India) that are interested in safeguarding the region if for nothing else than securing the resource flow out of the region.
Upon looking at the issue of international security from a variety of different viewpoints over the course of this course, I would argue that there is no real definition of security; particularly when dealing with international issues. The rationale I would use for this statement is that there is no definition for security because security is merely a term that human beings created as something to strive for. There really is no natural concept of security; it is a utopian creation of humanity.
While I realize that this is indeed a rather radical viewpoint to take, I would argue that virtually everything we as humans do in the name of ‘security’ has some effect to make us less secure at some point in the future. This seems to be true for virtually every level of human activity. For example, let’s say an individual concerned about the security of their home decides to buy a gun for defense. Under certain circumstances this gun bought for the sole purpose of the individual’s security could actually make that individual less secure. It could accidentally fire and cause injury or a burglar could perhaps get to it first and use it against the property owner. On the opposite side of the human activity spectrum, let’s use the example of a state preventively attacking another state in order to eliminate what is perceived to be a future security threat that needs to be dealt with. This action could have the inverse effect in some situations. The preventive measure could radicalize individuals in not only the attacked state but also other states enough to take up arms against the perceived aggressor.
Examples such as this could hold especially true given the nature of international security threats in the 21st century. The key ‘security threat’ seen across the world is the surge in radicalism leading to terrorist activities. The radicalism that could motivate one to strap a bomb to his or her person and get on a crowded commuter bus is not the radicalism seen in the past. It is not a result solely of either economic/political motivation or some ideological extremism. The new radicalism seen in the past few decades has been a merging of ideology and circumstances. The ideological extremists heading an organization recruit members coming from areas that lack access to resources and will be easily convinced that the reason for their hardship is the work of some evil outside force.
The targets of these extremists will often be the developed states of the Global North, for whom the situation is often a lose-lose deal. If the developed states use military force to eliminate a perceived security threat, they will be seen as imperialist aggressors violating the sovereignty of their nation. If they try to assist in the economic development and improved use of scarce resources, they will be seen as imperialists trying to impose a Western lifestyle upon them and lessening their cultural sovereignty. As a result, the notion of a possibility for security in this context is a mere illusion.
In addition, the ease and rapidity of information transfer far across state borders seen in the modern age further complicates the security issue. It is easier than ever for people to spread fear across vast distances at rapid speeds. As Dalby would term this phenomenon, it is “Globalized Insecurity.” (2002, 166) Because of the rapid globalization seen in the 20th century linking not only resources and cultures across vast distances, but also information, no society is ever fully able to distance itself from another.
In addition, non-renewable resource scarcity will in the future lead even higher levels of conflict. This will hold especially true with regard to petroleum and other fossil fuel resources that a vast majority of the world’s economies are based on. When supplies run out, as they are expected to, at some time we will likely see more conflict due to competition for the scarce and infinitely valuable resource. On the other hand, if a new substitute is found to replace fossil fuels as the primary source of energy the developed states that generally keep the fossil fuel resource producing states in a condition of relatively low conflict will lose interest in expending resources to act as protectors. With the newly created power-vacuum in these states that are often ‘secure’ solely due to the assistance of energy-dependant states no longer present, there would be a dramatic increase in regional conflict. Here, once more, we see a lose-lose situation
Because of the inability to make oneself (or one’s state) ever truly secure, I feel that, realistically, there is no actual security. Regardless of what actions a state undertakes to make itself more secure, there is never a guarantee of any security resulting from the actions taken. On another separate level, I would argue that actions taken regarding environmental issues have little to do with actual security. In the example of the developed states of the Global North’s interest in the petroleum rich Persian Gulf, they care very little of the stability and level of peace, democracy, freedom, or any other ideal of the region. Instead, they care solely about not allowing the flow of fuel to stop. Some would call this security but I would not. It is more of a way to insure that their standard of living is not affected.
To this extent, I would hold that the best lens for viewing international ‘security’ is the classic Realism. It seems to me that each actor in the international system is indeed out for their own advancement, often (whenever possible) at the expense of other actors. Central to the realist view of politics is the belief that people are inherently bad. Because of this, one can never fully have faith in another actor in the international system. There is no guarantee that they will follow through, and as such, cannot be trusted. When undertaking negotiations with other actors a state must be suspicious of the other’s agendas. Unfortunately, this does not make us as a global society very far from the Machiavellianism of the 16th Century.

Originally Posted by CD

cliff?

Originally Posted by zeppy

The concept of security is a utopian ideal that humans created; there is no such thing as actual security.