Securitization, Politics - International Politics - Topic

3 downloads 0 Views 108KB Size Report
Mar 25, 2009 - University of the Philippines, Diliman ... Historical and Philosophical Bases of Security Studies . ... My impression to the reading materials provided in the syllabus are constructively relevant in terms of periodization of historical ...
Nassef M. Adiong

Securitization Understanding Its Process in the field of International Relations Seminar paper

Document Nr. V125925 http://www.grin.com/ ISBN 978-3-640-32225-1

9 783640 322251

SECURITIZATION

Seminar Paper

Department of Political Science College of Social Sciences and Philosophy University of the Philippines, Diliman

In partial fulfillment of the requirements in Special Problems and Topics in International Security (Intl Stud 267 - WNOP)

Presented by

Nassef M. Adiong 25 March 2009

Historical and Philosophical Bases of Security Studies ..................................................... 3 The Copenhagen School on securitization framework: Conceptualization of the theory .. 6 The Singaporean School on securitization framework: Defining an Asian perspective .... 9 Conclusion: A critique both on the Copenhagen and Singapore securitization frameworks ........................................................................................................................................... 11 References:........................................................................................................................ 12

1

From the previous session of the class (3 December 2008), the students have had a better understanding on the central points of debate over the issues of international security i.e. how it is being redefined from the traditional to non-traditional security and as against to the amorphous orientation of human security, and its effects brought over to the development of security in the field of International Relations. Now, we will discuss how security had been conceptualized and what methodology or approaches had contributed to the expansion of its conception.

I asked Prof. Kraft whether time, in terms of periodization of events, affects the evolution on contextualizing and conceptualizing security. He latently answered that in to some extent it does by referencing events like the saliencies of the Cold War era to the 1994 Rwanda’s humanitarian crisis, etc. My impression to the reading materials provided in the syllabus are constructively relevant in terms of periodization of historical events in consonance to the areas of concerns that are unfolding in today’s human world. Thus security matters triggered an important effort for scholars to empirically study its dynamics and magnitude for the benefit of, mainly, policy-making procedures. I may be wrong about this premise, but this is how I surmised the intricacy devolving in international security particularly its separatist elements to other disciplines such as international political economy or even getting away to the ambit of politics.

Consequently, the paper will focused on how and why do issues become security issues? How issues securitized? Why do they occur? Is such an issue sufficient enough to be measured as a security matter? Which areas of concerns have contributed to the expansion of the conception of security? Some of the posited queries are inscripted in the syllabus as the main focal point of the paper while others were formulated in response to questions raised from the previous class session. The paper will begin with the fundamental philosophical descriptions about security, its historical antecedents of conceptualizing the securitization theory to the presented paradigm and methodology used by the Copenhagen School (CS), and of course its subsequent criticisms made by the Singaporean School (SS) under the IDSS-Ford research project on Non-Traditional Security (NTS) in Asia. The seminar is delimited to the theses presented in the reading

2

materials under the reference section and will only provide a general framework and guidelines for the succeeding seminar presentations for their (my colleagues in Intl Stud 267) chosen specific and significant security issues.

Historical and Philosophical Bases of Security Studies In its broadest and academic term, “security” has been defined contemporarily by Buzan and Wæver (1998) as being that special type of politics in which specified developments are socially constructed threats, having an existential quality to cover values and/or assets of human collectivities and leading to a call for emergency measures. However, surveying the old traditional perceptions of security dating back from Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, to Rousseau, Kant, Kautilya, to Hobbes, Machiavelli and to Morgenthau, I found out a linkage of a security study in answering human’s physiological needs that is interpreted in varied disciplines from Philosophy, Political Science to International Relations. Their arguments were presented in the study done by Solidum et al (1991, p. 13-16), to Plato such path leading to security was presented in his ideal republic. The total security, both spiritual and material, was brought about the creation of a new society and all its institutions based on the right principles of social existence. Plato related these principles to the idea of the universal Good as governing nature.

For Aristotle the quest for security was connected with his idea of fullness of being and ideal nature. This took the form of instinctive striving after perfection as embodied in the species. In the area of man’s social or political life, security arrangements manifested themselves in certain types of social systems said to be harmony with nature or in conformity with man’s striving after full development of himself or the Good’s life. For Confucius security was associated with commitments to certain universal principles of conduct. The ultimate aim was to bring about a condition of universal social harmony and stability. Goodness of human nature was often assumed which, if damaged, could be restored mainly by proper education.

3

For Rousseau, the quest for security look from the man’s attempt to return to his natural condition, which Rousseau portrayed as the natural goodness of man, and man’s quest for political legitimacy. To Kant, security meant the recognition of the rational possibility of a universal peace. However, to an Indian thinker, Kautilya, contends that holding the opinion that universal egoism made permanent security impossible. He developed a system of security where this was treated as so many strategies by which, given the egoist nature of man, social living or security, could be made manageable, and so, relative security might be attained.

Hobbes’ argument of an organized society where security prevails takes place in the shadow of the Leviathan-ruler, ever prepared to use his sword to enforce the conditions of the social contract, which was the original choice of anarchic men. Buzan and Wæver (p. 4) opined that his premise were individualistic (not organicist or romantic like the German ancestors of realism). His starting point is that the individual has a right to self defense, but that individual pursuit of self-preservation is vulnerable. The basic Hobbesian argument that a social contract constructing a commonwealth was necessary or at least preferable for security and thereby liberty, they found it necessary to tame and constrain the state. On the other hand, Machiavelli argues that the possibility of relative security could exist only if a society or a statesman behave as a disciplined and responsible citizen, or alternatively, if a regime is run in an authoritarian manner, with force being used generously to repress anarchic tendencies in man.

In my understanding, security occurs due to the fact that man is responsible in protecting himself from the threats that he thinks is existing with a purpose of building a securitized environment, and for him to live by sufficing and enjoying his satisfactions. In this prism, we’ll going to discuss the differing security theories from the perspective of International Relations and how time impacted its evolution of being conceptualized. Theoretical interest in security from the perspective of realism acquired importance in the 16th and 17th centuries with mercantilist ideas of national protectionism. While an important phase in recent thought on security has been the era of the “Cold War,” where the search for national and world-wide security has tended to crystallize itself in terms of two

4

competing camps, one associated with the Soviet Union and the other with the United States. In contemporary, one view of security is that which defines as the protection of values previously acquired or as high value expectancy in the sense of continued unmolested enjoyment of one’s possessions as Solidum et al (p. 16) described. Here, security, when viewed as a topic of international politics, is generally perceived as the ability of a state to protect its way of life, its “core values,” meaning its territorial integrity and political independence.

Within the context of the power paradigm, security conceived as the absence of threats to national status or values could be attained or maintained only through the accumulation of instrument of power. She (p. 17) discussed that Morgenthau sees the issue of security within the context of international politics where sovereign state pursues its own peculiar national interest. Obviously, during the Cold War there has been a tendency to emphasize balance of power and military power which are thoughts of as useful for protecting national security or interest. On the other hand, according to Buzan and Wæver (p. 2), since the onset of Cold War, liberal theory has downplayed security and security studies mostly ignored or dismissed liberalism. Liberalism challenges the logic of security by asserting that the supposedly permanent realist world of fear can in fact be not only alleviated, but possibly even replaced altogether. If states act according to a liberal logic of maximizing absolute gains and generally prioritize economics over politics, then the war problematic to security will become marginal, and both security studies and the security institutions of the state will eventually become redundant.

During the World War I, the British have been busy desecuritizing issues in the sense of social democracy while in World War II up to the Cold War; Americans had introduced a new paradigm which is securitizing issues through their liberal perspective. Here security was shaped by the contradictory pressures of reacting to Soviet Communism as a broadspectrum external threat, and containing the risk of domestic military threats to the liberty of American civil society. Therefore they (p. 3) contends that securitization, is not just a call for political priority, but if need be, for permission to break the normal rules of politics i.e. by using force, by taking executive powers, or by imposing secrecy.

5

Caballero-Anthony and Emmers (2006, p. 23) added that it is when the move that takes politics beyond the established rules of the game and frames the issue either as a special kind of politics or as above politics and may refers to the classification of and consensus about certain phenomena, persons or entities as existential threats requiring emergency measures.

They explained that securitization is thus mostly about calls for closure against things perceived as existentially threatening and further, the consensual establishment of threat needs to be sufficient so as to produce substantial political effects. What constitutes an existential threat is thus viewed by CS stating that it depends on a shared understanding of what is meant by such a danger to security. Threat may be classified into three according to Solidum et al (p. 28): actual, potential, and fictitious. 1) Actual threats are existing conditions that can, at any moment, reduce security; 2) potential threats are conditions tending to reduce security but are not transformable to actual threats due to some constraints; and 3) fictitious threats are conditions that are perceived to reduce security but do not really exist.

By introducing the concept of securitization and classifying the threats, we will move on how it is being securitized, why issues become security issues, and which areas of concerns have contributed to the expansion of the conception of security?

The Copenhagen School on securitization framework: Conceptualization of the theory Caballero-Anthony and Emmers (p. 21-23) asserted that the CS, a body of research mainly associated with the work of Barry Buzan and Ole Waever, has developed a relevant instrument to conceptualize the theory of securitization. This theory outlines the political nature of “doing” security and challenges the traditional approach to security concerned with identifying and dealing with supposedly self-evident threats - and introduces a social-constructivist perspective that considers how problems are transformed into security issues. Securitization is the successful process of labeling an 6

issue a security issue and results in the transformation of the way of dealing with it. This transformation has relevant implications; through the label “security” problems are turned into existential threats that require exceptional, emergency measures, which may include breaking otherwise binding rules or governing by decrees rather than by democratic decisions. Haacke (2007, p. 3) simply puts that to securitize an issue is to present as urgent and existential, as so important that it should not be exposed to the normal haggling of politics but should be dealt with decisively by top leaders prior to other issues.

In Caballero-Anthony and Emmers (p. 23-24), they were five key terminologies in the process of securitization which was presented by CS for security studies, namely: security, securitizing actors, referent objects, specific audience, and the speech act. ƒ

Security. A socially constructed concept about survival wherein an issue is presented as posing an existential threat to a designated object. It is securitized when articulated by a securitizing actor.

ƒ

Securitizing Actors. These are governments, international organizations or civil society actors that securitize an issue by articulating the existence of threat(s) to the survival of specific referent object.

ƒ

Referent Objects. These can be individuals and groups (refugees, victims of human rights abuses, etc.) as well as security issues like states (military security), national sovereignty or an ideology (political security), national economies (economic security), collective identities (societal security), or species or habitats (environmental security) that possess a “legitimate” claim to survival and whose existence is ostensibly threatened.

ƒ

Specific Audience. The act of securitization is only successful and complete once the securitizing actor succeeds in using the language of security which is the “speech act” to convince a specific or significant audience e.g. public opinion, politicians, military officers or other elites, etc. that a referent object(s) is/are existentially threatened.

ƒ

Speech Act. This is an important part in the process of securitization. According to Wæver (1998), with the help of language theory, we can regard "security" as a

7

speech act. In this usage, security is not of interest as a sign that refers to something more real; the utterance itself is the act. By saying it, something is done (as in betting, giving a promise, naming a ship). By uttering "security," a state-representative moves a particular development into a specific area, and thereby claims a special right to use whatever means are necessary to block it. Through this process, two things became very clear. First, the word "security" is the act and second, the utterance is the primary reality. Caballero-Anthony and Emmers (p. 24) further explained that speech informs and influences our perception of reality and has a direct impact on human behavior and outcome, just like what Prof. Kraft had talked about on how we can convince a specific audience that this is a security issue and explaining the delineation between security and academic issue e.g. poverty as a security or developmental issue. He answered by elaborating the implication of psychological response to them for the purpose of prioritizing and mobilizing greater resources.

Examples for this framework can be substantially presented by the areas of concerns in securitization as chosen by my colleagues in Intl Stud 267, ranging from the issues of environmental security, economic, migration, health, gender, transnational crimes in drug and human trafficking, terrorism, maritime, and human rights and humanitarian intervention on security studies.

Consequently, the CS provided a framework to determine how and by whom a specific matter becomes a security, and that the securitization theory eliminates the rigid distinction between “traditional” and “non-traditional.” However, Haacke (p. 4) gives some fundamental questions regarding the distinction of securitization to politicization of an issue: Does a referent object hold general legitimacy as something that should survive, which entails that actors can make reference to it, point to something as a threat, and thereby get others to follow or at least tolerate actions not otherwise legitimate? In this sense, we will present the criticisms on Copenhagen School’s securitization theory.

8

The Singaporean School on securitization framework: Defining an Asian perspective The IDSS-Ford project identified the limitations of CS’s securitization theory. CaballeroAnthony and Emmers (p. 25-27) listed four shortcomings: 1) Why securitize an issue? They identify motivations and catalysts that encourage securitizing actors to articulate a matter in security terms involving political decisions, which inject urgency into an issue and leads to the mobilization of political support and deployment of resources. These are the tangible benefits of securitizing an issue: ƒ

better bureaucratic coordination,

ƒ

mobilizing popular support for policies in specific areas by calling them security issues,

ƒ

allocating more resources such as budgetary resources, and

ƒ

legitimizing and empowering the military and security forces.

2) Empirical research. The project seeks to develop indicators of securitization and mechanisms beyond the speech act through a mix of theoretical and empirical discussions and test them through a number of case studies. 3) Application to Asia. The key objective of the IDSS project is to provide on how to securitize in an Asian regional setting rather than the Euro-centric CS. 4) Policy effectiveness. According to them, the CS is not concerned with assessing the effectiveness of securitization policy. Therefore, the project seeks to move the concepts of securitization to policy analysis and prescription by engaging governments, regional institutions, and civil society actors in developing a better understanding of, and approaches to, NTS challenges.

After listing the delimitations of CS, they eventually developed seven areas for their conceptual framework on securitization (p. 31): 1) description of the nature of the issue or nature of the problem, 2) the securitizing actors and the motivations behind securitization, 3) the nature of security concept that is applied (national security, comprehensive security or human security), 9

4) the process of securitization, 5) the outcome or result of securitization and identification of the indicators of securitization, 6) an assessment of the effectiveness of the policies of securitization in handling the particular challenge, and 7) policy implications and recommendations.

Some findings of their study (p. 32-34) have revealed that securitization of NTS issues is not an objective process, as political and social forces within societies often influence the process. Thus, you have to identify the motivations of the securitizing actor in order to understand why and how certain issues being securitized. You also have to examine the forms and goals of the government when a state’s securitized because there may be dynamics of conflicts with other actors, although securitization has largely been a statecentric project. As Haacke asked some questions regarding the distinction between the realm of securitization and politicization, Caballero-Anthony and Emmers (p. 33) definitively answered that there is no clear distinction between the two concepts because given the nature of politics can differ from one country to another, securitization is therefore highly context-dependent and the degree of which depends not just on the issue area but also on the nature of the political system and their leadership.

Since securitization involves the “speech act,” it is important in the context of developing Asia to conduct discourse analysis on the language employed to refer to any as a “security” threat (p. 33), because nuances in the language can greatly affect in the operationalization of securitization. In the end they recommend further studies on applying securitization in Asia with regards to what is a ‘perceived’ or ‘real’ threats because sometimes it may lead to negative outcomes e.g. it could be used as an instrument for state oppression by invoking national security and the like. In conclusion, this seminar gives only an introductory overview on why issues become security issues, how they are securitized, and areas of concerns that led to the expansion of security studies, from the scope of traditional to non-traditional, and whether how we can apply CS’s securitization theory in an Asian setting. Though from the different views presented

10

by the authors, the proponent hopefully gave their clear and definite contentions and arguments on securitization and how this paper may help you in guiding and constructing your choice of security issue.

Conclusion: A critique both on the Copenhagen and Singapore securitization frameworks It is imperative to know that in international relations, security evolved as time (periods) and space (events) do also. The conception and expansion in the study of security permeates a great deal of empirical studies because it does not only involve humans but also the flora and fauna of the human world. Thus security study is a multidisciplinal field that combines hard and social sciences, e.g., health security needs a combined study of political science, sociology, biology, chemistry and among others.

One of the concerns in the CS is how to label an issue a security issue so that it will be acknowledge or recognize by the securitizing agent. Then that agent will formulate a speech act to formalize the security issue. But when will speech act a “speech act?” This question is somehow philosophical but it gives me the sense that the CS is insufficient to answer. I would argue that a speech act is a speech act when you have entirely convinced your specific audience that that referent object is in danger posed by an existential threat thus you need an extraordinary response for you to be able to successfully carry out a speech act.

However, the CS provided only on how an issue can be securitized, and what the SS contributed to the securitization process is the significance of an extraordinary response. How a securitized issue will be address regardless of how the agents color their extraordinary responses. But what is lacking here is the effectiveness of an extraordinary response, the effects after the response was made. Will it go back to the normalcy or a détente (relaxation state) of the issue? How about if it happens again, are we going to start all over again from a scratch in the securitization process? Does this mean the extraordinary response was a failure, who should be blame or if not, does the securitization process was carried out wrongfully? 11

I sum, my posited questions need an extensive empirical study that will make security study par excellence.

References: Buzan, Barry and Ole Wæver (1998) Liberalism and Security: The Contradictions of the Liberal Leviathan. Paper prepared for the Copenhagen Peace Research Institute.

Caballero-Anthony, Mely and Ralf Emmers. (2006) The Dynamics of Securitization in Asia. (p. 21-35) in Emmers, Ralf, Caballero-Anthony, Mely and Acharya, Amitav. Studying Non-Traditional Security in Asia: Trends and Issues. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic.

Haacke, Jürgen. (2007) Securitization Theory, Transnational Challenges, and the ASEAN Regional Forum. (p. 1-34) Paper presented for the Second Workshop on the ASEAN Regional Forum.

Solidum, Estrella D., Teresita D. Saldivar-Sali, and Roman Dubsky. (1991) Security in a New Perspective in Solidum, Estrella D. The Sall State: Security and World Peace. Manila: Kalikasan Press.

Wæver, Ole. (1998) Securitization and Desecuritization in Lipschutz, Ronnie D. (Ed.) On Security. New York: Columbia University Press.

12