Book (Chapter) Review
Securitization and Desecuritization
Introduction
The author of this chapter “Securitization and Desecuritization” has enhanced our conceptual comprehension of security through pros and cons of the “traditionalist” and “post-modernist” approaches. We can grasp the whole concept, history and rationale behind the term “Security” by studying its ingredients. The notion that “more security is better” is also challenged. Furthermore, the concept is being analyzed through the lens of European security. I have added my concluding thoughts at the end of this review paper.
Key words: Military, war, state, national, human, environmental and societal security, integration, fragmentation
Critical Discussion
Security can be roughly termed as a challenge to the opponent’s will and imposing our (own) will. Security of the people is a broad topic and all encompassing while in essence, the concept of individual and international security is nonexistent. The term national security is a terminology corresponding to state security while non-state security is abstract. Hence, comparing both on the same level is a contradictory approach. Similarly, Barry Buzan’s book: People, state and fear (1983) had inherent flaws where national, international and individual security was discussed in the same pyramid of security (on equal level).
It is possible to re-imagine the concept of security from a new lens but it must be true to the classical discussion on security. In essence the over emphasis on military can be minimized and the non-military security agendas can be emphasized. According to Morgenthau, the use of military as a means of security mechanism is not an automatic choice but given certain circumstances, it is the best available choice in terms of national security. In contemporary world, the paradigm of military in terms of security is shifting towards political, economic, ecological and societal factors.
Logic of war replaces politics in a conflict according to “Clausewitz”. ”Rousseau” further stated that in war, the individuals are enemies by accident as the defenders of their motherland. The fundamental questions of legitimacy, sovereignty and identity as a state are asked when wars are fought between two states. War is an act by the opponent to fulfill his will and derive recognition through this struggle. Due to this important fact, one cannot underestimate the institution of “War”. On the other hand, National security is a complex, diverse and inter subjective concept and therefore, must not be gauged on the scale of some specific yardstick. It is an overarching concept.
From Alternate to Security: The Speech Act
Security is the presence of a security challenge and a response taken to mitigate it while “insecurity” means the presence of security problem but no response towards it. Security discourse most often originates from the elites with “class interests” and hence the term may not be necessarily attributed with a “positive phenomenon”. The elites and power holders’ transform a problem into national security issue in order to gain control and satisfy their inherent interests. The clash of East and West Europe was basically the securitization for the preservation of the system linked to the survival of elite on both sides. However, as the term security is manipulated by the elites, it is also possible to de-securitize the situation in order to escape the negative connotations associated with the term “security”. Such a situation is termed as “Speech Act Failure” and is relevant in terms of Eastern and West European relations in 1980s.
European Détente (1980s)
The advent of European détente was based on avoiding the security conflict which would have triggered negative consequences due to the presence of nuclear stockpiles on both sides of the conflict: Capitalist Western Europe and Communist Eastern Europe. Due to the mentioned circumstances in Europe, the stabilization of status quo was the main discourse. The Western Europe was preoccupied with militarized thinking as it was secured internally while Eastern Europe focused more on its economic and domestic stability concerns. The changes that occurred after the collapse of communism was largely due to the lack of central authority in eastern European countries as the elites lost self confidence and the shift occurred rapidly due to a vacuum. In the past, leaders would be sacrificed and a new clique would appoint a leader while structural changes would be ignored but in 1989, this impulse did not carried forward. Hence, the “Security Speech act” faced with failure and lost its relevance in this case. The debate revolving security mechanism became an unattractive notion to rally people around the idea. As a consequence of this event, the institutions and structures were enhanced and maximized to enable this status quo.
The placement of environment in the sphere of security is conceptually inadequate as the threat of environment to security is unintentional. In classical traditions, there ought to be one aggressor who wants to impose their will on the opponent. The plausible reason for putting the environment in the security paradigm is: (a) emphasize the environmental security (b) Urge popular support for the cause.
Secondly, according to Moss, the response of the state to tackle environmental security issues can lead to militarization of the issue and blow it out of proportions. According to Dan Deudney, the tendency to put environment as external phenomena directs human behavior towards “us versus them” and distracts the mankind own contribution to the environmental problems. In addition, the environmental security could end up as the political weapon in the hands of totalitarian left and damage the peace and tranquility of society with a manufactured security narrative. Although, he views ecological awareness as the possible way forward as opposed to regressive security logic as a driver of human aspirations and ambitions. Buzan and Moss suggests intertwining the environmental issue as one of the economic problem and view that this will put the environment on top priority across the world without the need of regressive steps being taken in the name of environmental security.
The concept of societal security and preservation is a big debate across the world and especially in Europe. With the vast migration in the past few decades, the debate is revolving around a) either to ingrate the refugees and migrants in the society b) consider it a problem and deal with it. The argument is that the minority surge will strengthen their dominance and challenge the societal values of the majority. The debate could either be taken over by: (a) Neo-Nazis that believes in homophobia or (b) the group trying to tell people that their concerns regarding the migration is invalid, which is known as “pedagogical approach”.
One way forward could be to stop putting these issues under the realm of security in order to refrain from complicating it. However, this is easier said than done because societies are closely connected to political security, which gives legitimacy to the state or the government. However, the boundaries of the state and society are not the equal. The society identifies themselves with set of symbols, values and convictions. State needs sovereignty while the society needs identity.
In the evolving era, the political authority and territorial state is eroding in some cases such as Euro Model. In this case, as the culture is deemed under threat from Europeanization, the answer is to enhance existing identities under the union. For example, Denmark has taken steps to reinforce Danish traits of its culture as a mechanism to instill its uniqueness inside the European Union, term broadly outlined as “Cultural Security”
In the above societal security discussion, two basic questions arise: (a) Whether state identities will erode (b) Will EU member states go back to adapt the nation state identities. The current paradigm is to paint the first option as fragmentation of the Europe and second one as the integration of Europe guaranteeing its security.
It is often asserted that the state speaks for the society but this argument cannot be generalized. Most often, the establishment elites of the society enhance their interests in the garb of “will of the society”. The velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia is one of the rarest moments where the non-elected civic forum was recognized as the genuine voice of the society. The voices of society are most often controversial and always countered by an alternative narrative.
In view of the above discourse, we can envision the migration related problems in Europe. The prevalent view of a humanitarian issue and domestic economic issue is clouded by concerns from society about possible security issues emanating from migration. The securitizing of policies on racist grounds could fuel further racist currents in the society.
The Europe’s chief goals post 1989 was to limit the options of fragmentation on the pretext of security and apprehensions of destabilization. The main threat is cited as Balkanization of Europe. Hence, without naming any enemy, the political and military status quo in Europe is maintained. NATO also favors to defend the allied countries against uncertainty which is an implicit acknowledgement of the status quo in Europe and elsewhere.
John Deloras argued in favor of European integration by embracing the migration. This progressive argument enables EU strength and would decrease the chances of wars and conflicts owing to intertwined interests. In essence it is the continuation of Hobbesian principles of anti-anarchy discourse and the enhancement of Euro-State. Europe has two options: (a) to embrace the stateless identity as currently and hence preserve integration of the Europe and decrease perceived threats (b) To embrace state identity and brace for world power influence in their affairs.
My Concluding Remarks
In the light of the abovementioned discourse, we have understood the concept of national security, human security, environmental and societal security from different perspectives. The conventional concept of security corresponded to national or state security which has evolved with the passage of time. The usage of term in various contexts was comprehended in great details. The drawbacks of securitizing the national, societal and environmental problems were discussed. The European Union model of regional identity and its corresponding nation states model were compared in the context of enhancing security and the evolving perspectives. The issues of territorial integrity and sovereignty as well as the erosion of national identities were discussed post the cold war era. How the elites can define the narrative on security and the common perception of being the voice of society all came under the scanner. The most pertaining dilemma of immigration and the European debate of integrating the new migrants into the society versus the debate on excluding them are also discussed. In current era, the debate can be found more pertinent after the “Brexit” or the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union and how the debate of integration may take a blow. Hence, we can assume that the discussion on security can be comprehended with clarity after reading the abovementioned chapter “Securitization and Desecuritization”
