Long post/thread on 'national security'. (2 threads)

I've been teaching & researching ‘national security’ for over 15 years now & for most of my career I have believed that the traditional definitions & notions of national security are deeply problematic & should be challenged.

My ‘alternative views’ on national security begun to crystalize during my MPhil days at JNU (2001-03) when I wrote a short book on the national security implications of HIV/AIDS pandemic. As expected, my arguments were dismissed, short of ridiculed, by most of my peers.

COVID-19’s devastating impact should make us rethink what national security is and what our national security priorities are, as individuals, societies, national and as humanity.

I think it is time to rethink what is national security, how we study nation al security in our universities, how our governments practice national security and how the larger public is conditioned to think about national security.

Consider the following tweet by @RichardHaass

“More Americans have lost their lives to #COVID19 than in Afghanistan or on 9/11. In days it will be more than in Iraq. In weeks it will be more than in all 3 combined. Tragic, but also infuriating, as it was largely avoidable. Little is inevitable. Policy & policymakers matter.”

So how do we rethink national security? Does rethinking national security make any difference to anything or anyone? For that matter, do definitions matter in thinking about things?

I personally think definitions do matter – and this is perhaps the right time to reflect over how we view & define security. Traditional rigid boundaries delimiting the scope of national security must be shunned. It’s time to reread the literature on non-traditional security.

In this thread, I plan to put together some basic literature that might help us understand how national security can be (has been) theorized and practiced differently.

The systematic study of national security, a post-WW2 phenomenon that began in US universities had a militaristic bias. As Gwyn Prins argued “Security came to focus on war, the ability to fight wars and the external threats to the state which might give rise to them.”

This is the way security has been viewed in the mainstream security studies discipline. But how did we get to view national security in a military-centric manner?

David Grondin ("(Re)Writing the “National Security State”) argues that The Cold War ‘military-intellectual complex’ defined what is security, securing, enemy, and national interest.

One of the major debates about security is who must be the referent object of security: if it’s the state, then we prioritize ‘national security’; if its people, we give importance to human security.

In his article “The concept of security”, DAVID A. BALDWIN helps us with breaking down the concept of security. He argues that:

“One could specify security with respect to the actor whose values are to be secured, the values concerned, the degree of security, the kinds of threats, the means for coping with such threats, the costs of doing so, and the relevant time period.”

The 1982 publication, Common Security: A Blueprint for Survival, a report of the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues or the Palme Commission focused on ‘poverty, unemployment, inflation’ and argued that economic development in the Third World should be ...

...seen as integral to any long-term scheme for global security. It recommended several ways to promote “common security and common Prosperity”.

Scholars such as Terry Terrif highlighted environment as a security issue; Peter Singer and others focused on AIDS as an international security issue, while still others focused on small arms, corruption etc.

The 2001 report by the @CrisisGroup entitled "HIV/AIDS as a security issue” was a pathbreaking intervention. It argued that HIV/ADIS is a personal, economic, communal, national and international security issue. @LaurelMillerICG

International institutions and individual countries also started focusing on non-traditional aspects of security. The Canadian government started pursuing human security as a pillar of its international security policy under the stewardship of foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy.

“Human security,” was popularised by the 1994 Human Development Report drafted by Mahbub ul Haq. It defined human security as: Safety from chronic threats such as hunger, disease and repression; and Protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in the patterns of daily life.

Kofi Annan’s 2000 Report to the United Nations, 'We the People', argued: “Freedom from want, freedom from fear and the freedom of future generations to inherit a healthy natural environment – these are the interrelated building blocks of human – and therefore national security.”

The 2003 ‘Commission on Human Security’ stated that “Human security is to protect the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human fulfilment.”

The World Bank’s World Development Report 2000/1 was also pathbreaking.

It described “security” as: “Reducing vulnerability – to economic shocks, natural disasters, ill health, disability, and personal violence—is an intrinsic part of enhancing wellbeing and encourages investment in human capital and in higher-risk, higher-return activities.”

1/2 threads..

Michel Camdessus, Managing Director of the IMF stated in 2000 that “Poverty is the ultimate systemic threat facing humanity. The widening gaps between rich and poor nations ... are ... potentially socially explosive ...

...If the poor are left hopeless, poverty will undermine societies through confrontation, violence and civil disorder.”

In the meantime, several scholars were also drawing attention to importance of refocusing our national security priorities. Emma Rothschild (“What is Security?” Daedalus. 1995) gives a conceptually and philosophically sound presentation of how security must be re-conceptualised.

Political scientist Thomas Homer-Dixon drew out attention to “Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict” way back in 1994.

Critical security theorists such as Keith Krause also put their weight behind this line of thinking challenging the focus on the abstract state:

“The object of security should not, however, remain the state, since what is "really" threatened is not an abstraction like the state, but the material well-being of individuals, or the "ecosystem" itself.”

I consider Kanti Bajpai’s “Human Security Concept and Measurement” to be a basic reading for anyone desirous of understanding alternative conceptions of national security such as ‘human security’. (Perhaps because I was his student!)

Some scholars have critiqued this “crowding” approach to national security agenda setting. Stephan Walt has argued that “Defining the field (security studies) in this way (by including issues such as pollution, disease, child abuse, or economic recession) ..

..would destroy its intellectual coherence and make it more difficult to devise solutions to any of these important problems”.

Then there's the all-too-important question of whether non-security issues should be securitized at all. Those in support argue that the process of securitization would bring in more urgency, attention & resources to the issue at hand. Those who disagree would argue that doing...

... so would de-politicize the issue which would mean that normal political processes would be disallowed, criticism would be muffled, and tools of national security would apply to what are otherwise possibly governance failures.

The visit of the Indian national security advisor to meet the Markaz leadership in Delhi to agree to vacate the Nizamuddin mosque during the ongoing COVID lockdown is perhaps a small example. (OK, not the best example)!

As Stefan Elbe argues this in the context of HIV/AIDS “Although ‘‘securitizing’’ the AIDS pandemic could bolster international AIDS initiatives by raising awareness and resources, the language of security simultaneously pushes responses to the disease away from civil society...

...toward military and intelligence organizations with the power to override the civil liberties of persons living with HIV/AIDS.”

One of the best writings is “Securitization and Desecuritization” by Ole Wæver. His argument that we need less, and not more, security is a stunning one!

Finally, there is the issue of resources and government spending on the health sector. Take for reference: India’s health allocation for 2019-2020 is Rs 63,538 crore whereas defence allocation is Rs 2,82,733 crore. Read this piece by @AnooBhu https://thewire.in/health/indias-defence-budget-is-nearly-five-times-the-health-budget

@NSCwithHJ