OVERVIEWIn reading about world politics, wefrequently encounter the termssecurity or national security. Dowe know what these terms mean?Often, they are used to stop debateand discussion. We hear that anissue is a security issue and thatit is vital for the well-being of thecountry. The implication is that itis too important or secret to bedebated and discussed openly.We see movies in which everythingsurrounding national security isshadowy and dangerous. Securityseems to be something that is notthe business of the ordinarycitizen. In a democracy, surely thiscannot be the case. As citizens ofa democracy, we need to knowmore about the term security.What exactly is it? And what areIndias security concerns? Thischapter debates these questions.It introduces two different ways oflooking at security and highlightsthe importance of keeping in minddifferent contexts or situationswhich determine our view ofsecurity.

Chapter 7

Security in theContemporary World

The concern about human security was reflected in the 1994UNDPs Human Development Report, which contends, theconcept of security has for too long been interpretednarrowly It has been more related to nation states thanpeople Forgotten were the legitimate concerns of ordinarypeople who sought security in their daily lives. The imagesabove show various forms of security threats.

Contemporary World Politics100

WHAT IS SECURITY?At its most basic, security impliesfreedom from threats. Humanexistence and the life of a countryare full of threats. Does that meanthat every single threat counts asa security threat? Every time aperson steps out of his or herhouse, there is some degree ofthreat to their existence and wayof life. Our world would besaturated with security issues ifwe took such a broad view of whatis threatening.

Those who study security,therefore, generally say that only

those things that threaten corevalues should be regarded as beingof interest in discussions ofsecurity. Whose core valuesthough? The core values of thecountry as a whole? The corevalues of ordinary women and menin the street? Do governments, onbehalf of citizens, always have thesame notion of core values as theordinary citizen?

Furthermore, when we speakof threats to core values, howintense should the threats be?Surely there are big and smallthreats to virtually every value wehold dear. Can all those threatsbe brought into the understandingof security? Every time anothercountry does something or fails todo something, this may damagethe core values of ones country.Every time a person is robbed inthe streets, the security ofordinary people as they live theirdaily lives is harmed. Yet, wewould be paralysed if we took suchan extensive view of security:everywhere we looked, the worldwould be full of dangers.

So we are brought to aconclusion: security relates onlyto extremely dangerous threatsthreats that could so endangercore values that those valueswould be damaged beyond repairif we did not do something to dealwith the situation.

Having said that, we mustadmit that security remains aslippery idea. For instance, havesocieties always had the sameconception of security? It wouldbe surprising if they did because

Who decides aboutmy security? Someleaders and experts?Cant I decide whatis my security?

Taming PeaceHave you heard of peacekeeping force? Do you think this isparadoxical term?

A

res,

Ca

gle

Ca

rtoon

s In

c.

Security in the Contemporary World 101

so many things change in theworld around us. And, at anygiven time in world history, do allsocieties have the same conceptionof security? Again, it would beamazing if six hundred and fiftycrore people, organised in nearly200 countries, had the sameconception of security! Let us beginby putting the various notions ofsecurity under two groups:traditional and non-traditionalconceptions of security.

TRADITIONAL NOTIONS:EXTERNALMost of the time, when we readand hear about security we aretalking about traditional, nationalsecurity conceptions of security.In the traditional conception ofsecurity, the greatest danger to acountry is from military threats.The source of this danger isanother country which bythreatening military actionendangers the core values ofsovereignty, independence andterritorial integrity. Military actionalso endangers the lives ofordinary citizens. It is unlikely thatin a war only soldiers will be hurtor killed. Quite often, ordinarymen and women are made targetsof war, to break their support ofthe war.

In responding to the threat ofwar, a government has three basicchoices: to surrender; to preventthe other side from attacking bypromising to raise the costs of warto an unacceptable level; and todefend itself when war actually

breaks out so as to deny theattacking country its objectivesand to turn back or defeat theattacking forces altogether.Governments may choose tosurrender when actually confrontedby war, but they will not advertisethis as the policy of the country.Therefore, security policy isconcerned with preventing war,which is called deterrence, andwith limiting or ending war, whichis called defence.

Traditional security policy hasa third component called balanceof power. When countries lookaround them, they see that somecountries are bigger and stronger.This is a clue to who might be athreat in the future. For instance,a neighbouring country may notsay it is preparing for attack.There may be no obvious reasonfor attack. But the fact that thiscountry is very powerful is a sign

War is all aboutinsecurity, destructionand deaths. Howcan a war makeanyone secure?

Economy of war

Ares, Cagle Cartoons Inc.

Contemporary World Politics102

that at some point in the future itmay choose to be aggressive.Governments are, therefore, verysensitive to the balance of powerbetween their country and othercountries. They do work hard tomaintain a favourable balance ofpower with other countries,especially those close by, thosewith whom they have differences,or with those they have hadconflicts in the past. A good partof maintaining a balance of poweris to build up ones military power,although economic and techno-logical power are also importantsince they are the basis formilitary power.

A fourth and relatedcomponent of traditional securitypolicy is alliance building. Analliance is a coalition of statesthat coordinate their actions todeter or defend against militaryattack. Most alliances are

formalised in written treaties andare based on a fairly clearidentification of who constitutesthe threat. Countries formalliances to increase theireffective power relative to anothercountry or alliance. Alliances arebased on national interests andcan change when nationalinterests change. For example,the US backed the Islamicmilitants in Afghanistan againstthe Soviet Union in the 1980s,but later attacked them when AlQaedaa group of Islamicmilitants led by Osama binLadenlaunched terroriststrikes against America on 11September 2001.

In the traditional view ofsecurity, then, most threats to acountrys security come fromoutside its borders. That isbecause the international systemis a rather brutal arena in whichthere is no central authoritycapable of controlling behaviour.Within a country, the threat ofviolence is regulated by anacknowledged central authority the government. In world politics,there is no acknowledged centralauthority that stands aboveeveryone else. It is tempting tothink that the United Nations issuch an authority or could becomesuch an institution. However, aspresently constituted, the UN is acreature of its members and hasauthority only to the extent thatthe membership allows it to haveauthority and obeys it. So, inworld politics, each country has tobe responsible for its own security.

How do the big powers react when new countries claim nuclearstatus? On what basis can we say that some countries can betrusted with nuclear weapons while others cant be?

C

hrist

o Ko

ma

rnits

ki,

Ca

gle

Ca

rtoo

ns I

nc.

Security in the Contemporary World 103

TRADITIONAL NOTIONS:INTERNALBy now you will have askedyourself: doesnt security dependon internal peace and order? Howcan a society be secure if there isviolence or the threat of violenceinside its borders? And how canit prepare to face violence fromoutside its borders if it is notsecure inside its borders?

Traditional security must also,therefore, concern itself withinternal security. The reason it isnot given so much importance isthat after the Second World Warit seemed that, for the mostpowerful countries on earth,internal security was more or lessassured. We said earlier that it isimportant to pay attention tocontexts and situations. Whileinternal security was certainlya part of the concerns ofgovernments historically, after theSecond World War there was acontext and situation in whichinternal security did not seem tomatter as much as it had in thepast. After 1945, the US and theSoviet Union appeared to beunited and could expect peacewithin their borders. Most of theEuropean countries, particularlythe powerful Western Europeancountries, faced no serious threatsfrom groups or communities livingwithin those borders. Therefore,these countries focused primarilyon threats from outside theirborders.

What were the external threatsfacing these powerful countries?

Again, we draw attention tocontexts and situations. We knowthat the period after the SecondWorld War was the Cold War inwhich the US-led Western alliancefaced the Soviet-led Communistalliance. Above all, the twoalliances feared a military attackfrom each other. Some Europeanpowers, in addition, continued toworry about violence in theircolonies, from colonised peoplewho wanted independence. Wehave only to remember the Frenchfighting in Vietnam in the 1950sor the British fighting in Kenya inthe 1950s and the early 1960s.

As the colonies became freefrom the late 1940s onwards, theirsecurity concerns were oftensimilar to that of the Europeanpowers. Some of the newly-independent countries, like theEuropean powers, becamemembers of the Cold War alliances.They, therefore, had to worry aboutthe Cold War becoming a hot warand dragging them into hostilities against neighbours who mighthave joined the other side in theCold War, against the leaders of thealliances (the United States orSoviet Union), or against any of theother partners of the US and SovietUnion. The Cold War between thetwo superpowers was responsiblefor approximately one-third of allwars in the post-Second WorldWar period. Most of these warswere fought in the Third World.Just as the European colonialpowers feared violence in thecolonies, some colonial peoplefeared, after independence, thatthey might be attacked by their

Browse through aweeks newspaperand list all theexternal andinternal conflictsthat are takingplace around theglobe.

Contemporary World Politics104

former colonial rulers in Europe.They had to prepare, therefore, todefend themselves against animperial war.

The security challenges facingthe newly-independent countriesof Asia and Africa were differentfrom the challenges in Europe intwo ways. For one thing, the newcountries faced the prospect ofmilitary conflict with neighbouringcountries. For another, they hadto worry about internal militaryconflict. These countries facedthreats not only from outside theirborders, mostly from neighbours,but also from within. Many newly-independent countries came tofear their neighbours even morethan they feared the US or SovietUnion or the former colonialpowers. They quarrelled overborders and territories or controlof people and populations or all ofthese simultaneously.

Internally, the new statesworried about threats fromseparatist movements whichwanted to form independentcountries. Sometimes, theexternal and internal threatsmerged. A neighbour might helpor instigate an internal separatistmovement leading to tensionsbetween the two neighbouringcountries. Internal wars nowmake up more than 95 per cent ofall armed conflicts foughtanywhere in the world. Between1946 and 1991, there was atwelve-fold rise in the number ofcivil warsthe greatest jump in200 years. So, for the new states,external wars with neighbours andinternal wars posed a seriouschallenge to their security.

TRADITIONAL SECURITY ANDCOOPERATIONIn traditional security, there is arecognition that cooperation inlimiting violence is possible. Theselimits relate both to the ends andthe means of war. It is now analmost universally-accepted viewthat countries should only go towar for the right reasons, primarilyself-defence or to protect otherpeople from genocide. War mustalso be limited in terms of themeans that are used. Armies mustavoid killing or hurting non-combatants as well as unarmedand surrendering combatants.They should not be excessivelyviolent. Force must in any casebe used only after all thealternatives have failed.

Those who fightagainst their owncountry must beunhappy aboutsomething. Perhaps itis their insecurity thatcreates insecurity forthe country.

Third World Arms Ares, Cagle Cartoons Inc.

Security in the Contemporary World 105

Traditional views of securitydo not rule out other forms ofcooperation as well. The mostimportant of these are dis-armament, arms control, andconfidence building. Disarmamentrequires all states to give upcertain kinds of weapons. Forexample, the 1972 BiologicalWeapons Convention (BWC) andthe 1992 Chemical WeaponsConvention (CWC) banned theproduction and possession ofthese weapons. More than 155states acceded to the BWC and181 states acceded to the CWC.Both conventions included allthe great powers. But thesuperpowers the US and SovietUnion did not want to give upthe third type of weapons of massdestruction, namely, nuclearweapons, so they pursued armscontrol.

Arms control regulates theacquisition or development ofweapons. The Anti-ballisticMissile (ABM) Treaty in 1972 triedto stop the United States andSoviet Union from using ballisticmissiles as a defensive shieldto launch a nuclear attack.While it did allow both countries

to deploy a very limited number ofdefensive systems, it stopped themfrom large-scale production ofthose systems.

As we noted in Chapter 1, theUS and Soviet Union signed anumber of other arms controltreaties including the StrategicArms Limitations Treaty II orSALT II and the Strategic ArmsReduction Treaty (START). TheNuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty(NPT) of 1968 was an arms controltreaty in the sense that itregulated the acquisition ofnuclear weapons: those countriesthat had tested and manufacturednuclear weapons before 1967 wereallowed to keep their weapons;and those that had not done sowere to give up the right to acquirethem. The NPT did not abolishnuclear weapons; rather, it limitedthe number of countries thatcould have them.

How funny! First theymake deadly andexpensive weapons.Then they makecomplicated treatiesto save themselvesfrom these weapons.They call it security!

The text says: Whether Elevated or Under Attack, the Departmentof Homeland Security Terror Meter takes the uncertainty out ofstaying informed of the level of terror in our nation. Move the TerrorIndicator to the current threat level, which corresponds to howterrified the Americal people are of the threat of terror attacks.Terror is all around us, and can strike at anytime. Thanks to theTerror Meter, you will never have to wonder how terrified you shouldbe. Proceed with caution.

Contemporary World Politics106

Traditional security alsoaccepts confidence building as ameans of avoiding violence.Confidence building is a processin which countries share ideasand information with their rivals.They tell each other about theirmilitary intentions and, up to apoint, their military plans. Thisis a way of demonstrating thatthey are not planning a surpriseattack. They also tell each otherabout the kind of forces theypossess, and they may shareinformation on where those forcesare deployed. In short, confidencebuilding is a process designed toensure that rivals do not go to warthrough misunderstanding ormisperception.

Overall, traditional conceptionsof security are principallyconcerned with the use, or threatof use, of military force. Intraditional security, force is boththe principal threat to securityand the principal means ofachieving security.

NON-TRADITIONAL NOTIONSNon-traditional notions of securitygo beyond military threats toinclude a wide range of threats anddangers affecting the conditions ofhuman existence. They begin byquestioning the traditional referentof security. In doing so, they alsoquestion the other three elementsof security what is being secured,from what kind of threats and theapproach to security. When we sayreferent we mean Security forwho? In the traditional security

conception, the referent is the statewith its territory and governinginstitutions. In the non-traditionalconceptions, the referent isexpanded. When we ask Securityfor who? proponents of non-traditional security reply Not justthe state but also individuals orcommunities or indeed all ofhumankind. Non-traditional viewsof security have been calledhuman security or globalsecurity.

Human security is about theprotection of people more than theprotection of states. Humansecurity and state security shouldbe and often are the samething. But secure states do notautomatically mean securepeoples. Protecting citizens fromforeign attack may be a necessarycondition for the security ofindividuals, but it is certainly not

Now we are talking!That is what I call realsecurity for realhuman beings.

The cartoon comments on the massiveexpenditure on defence and lack ofmoney for peace-related initiatives inthe US. Is it any different in our country?

A

ndy

Sing

er,

Ca

gle

Ca

rtoon

s In

c.

Security in the Contemporary World 107

a sufficient one. Indeed, duringthe last 100 years, more peoplehave been killed by their owngovernments than by foreignarmies.

All proponents of humansecurity agree that its primarygoal is the protection ofindividuals. However, there aredifferences about precisely whatthreats individuals should beprotected from. Proponents ofthe narrow concept of humansecurity focus on violentthreats to individuals or, as formerUN Secretary-General KofiAnnan puts it, the protection ofcommunities and individuals frominternal violence. Proponents ofthe broad concept of humansecurity argue that the threatagenda should includehunger, disease and naturaldisasters because these kill farmore people than war, genocideand terrorism combined. Humansecurity policy, they argue,should protect people from thesethreats as well as from violence. Inits broadest formulation, thehuman security agenda alsoencompasses economic securityand threats to human dignity.Put differently, the broadestformulation stresses what hasbeen called freedom from wantand freedom from fear,respectively.

The idea of global securityemerged in the 1990s in responseto the global nature of threatssuch as global warming,international terrorism, and healthepidemics like AIDS and

bird flu and so on. No country canresolve these problems alone. And,in some situations, one countrymay have to disproportionatelybear the brunt of a global problemsuch as environmentaldegradation. For example, due toglobal warming, a sea level rise of1.52.0 meters would flood 20percent of Bangladesh, inundatemost of the Maldives, and threatennearly half the population ofThailand. Since these problems areglobal in nature, internationalcooperation is vital, even thoughit is difficult to achieve.

NEW SOURCES OF THREATSThe non-traditional conceptionsboth human security and globalsecurityfocus on the changingnature of threats to security. Wewill discuss some of these threatsin the section below.

Terrorism refers to politicalviolence that targets civiliansdeliberately and indiscriminately.International terrorism involvesthe citizens or territory of morethan one country. Terroristgroups seek to change a politicalcontext or condition that they donot like by force or threat offorce. Civil ian targets areusually chosen to terrorise thepublic and to use theunhappiness of the public as aweapon against nationalgovernments or other parties inconflict.

The classic cases of terrorisminvolve hijacking planes or plantingbombs in trains, cafes, markets

Contemporary World Politics108

and other crowded places. Since11 September 2001 when terroristsattacked the World Trade Centre inAmerica, other governments andpublic have paid more attention toterrorism, though terrorism itself isnot new. In the past, most of theterror attacks have occurred in theMiddle East, Europe, LatinAmerica and South Asia.

Human rights have come tobe classified into three types. Thefirst type is political rights such asfreedom of speech and assembly.The second type is economic andsocial rights. The third type is therights of colonised people or ethnicand indigenous minorities. Whilethere is broad agreement on thisclassification, there is noagreement on which set of rightsshould be considered as universal

Why do we alwayslook outside whentalking about humanrights violations?Dont we haveexamples from ourown country? He doesnt exist!

Taking the train Tab, Cagle Cartoons Inc.

Security in the Contemporary World 109

human rights, nor what theinternational community shoulddo when rights are being violated.

Since the 1990s, developmentssuch as Iraqs invasion of Kuwait,the genocide in Rwanda, and theIndonesian militarys killing ofpeople in East Timor have led toa debate on whether or not the UNshould intervene to stop humanrights abuses. There are thosewho argue that the UN Charterempowers the internationalcommunity to take up arms indefence of human rights. Othersargue that the national interestsof the powerful states willdetermine which instances ofhuman rights violations the UNwill act upon.

Global poverty is anothersource of insecurity. Worldpopulationnow at 650 crorewill reach 700 to 800 crore within25 years and may eventually levelout at 900 to 1000 crore.Currently, half the worlds

population growth occurs in justsix countriesIndia, China,Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladeshand Indonesia. Among the worldspoorest countries, population isexpected to triple in the next 50years, whereas many richcountries will see populationshrinkage in that period. High percapita income and low populationgrowth make rich states or richsocial groups get richer, whereaslow incomes and high populationgrowth reinforce each other tomake poor states and poorgroups get poorer.

Globally, this disparitycontributes to the gap betweenthe Northern and Southerncountries of the world. Within theSouth, disparities have alsosharpened, as a few countrieshave managed to slow downpopulation growth and raiseincomes while others have failedto do so. For example, most of theworlds armed conflicts now take

Contemporary World Politics110

place in sub-Saharan Africa,which is also the poorest regionof the world. At the turn of the21st century, more people werebeing killed in wars in this regionthan in the rest of the worldcombined.

Poverty in the South has alsoled to large-scale migration toseek a better life, especially bettereconomic opportunities, in theNorth. This has createdinternational political frictions.International law and norms makea distinction between migrants(those who voluntarily leave theirhome countries) and refugees(those who flee from war, naturaldisaster or political persecution).States are generally supposed toaccept refugees, but they do not

have to accept migrants. Whilerefugees leave their country oforigin, people who have fled theirhomes but remain within nationalborders are called internallydisplaced people. KashmiriPandits that fled the violence in theKashmir Valley in the early 1990sare an example of an internallydisplaced community.

The world refugee map talliesalmost perfectly with the worldconflicts map because wars andarmed conflicts in the South havegenerated millions of refugeesseeking safe haven. From 1990 to1995, 70 states were involved in93 wars which killed about 55 lakhpeople. As a result, individuals,and families and, at times, wholecommunities have been forced tomigrate because of generalised

fear of violence or due to thedestruction of livelihoods,identities and livingenvironments. A look at thecorrelation between warsand refugee migration showsthat in the 1990s, all butthree of the 60 refugee flowscoincided with an internalarmed conflict.

Health epidemics suchas HIV-AIDS, bird flu, andsevere acute respiratorysyndrome (SARS) haverapidly spread acrosscountries through migration,business, tourism andmilitary operations. Onecountrys success or failurein limiting the spread ofthese diseases affectsinfections in other countries.

Take a mapof Africa andplot variousthreats to thepeoplessecurity onthat map.

Credit: www.unhcr.org

Security in the Contemporary World 111

By 2003, an estimated 4 crorepeople were infected with HIV-AIDS worldwide, two-thirds ofthem in Africa and half of the restin South Asia. In North Americaand other industrialised countries,new drug therapies dramaticallylowered the death rate from HIV-AIDS in the late 1990s. But thesetreatments were too expensive tohelp poor regions like Africa whereit has proved to be a major factorin driving the region backward intodeeper poverty.

Other new and poorlyunderstood diseases such as ebolavirus, hantavirus, and hepatitis Chave emerged, while old diseaseslike tuberculosis, malaria, denguefever and cholera have mutatedinto drug resistant forms that aredifficult to treat. Epidemics amonganimals have major economiceffects. Since the late 1990s,Britain has lost billions of dollarsof income during an outbreak ofthe mad-cow disease, and bird flushut down supplies of poultryexports from several Asiancountries. Such epidemicsdemonstrate the growing inter-dependence of states making theirborders less meaningful than inthe past and emphasise the needfor international cooperation.

Expansion of the concept ofsecurity does not mean that wecan include any kind of disease ordistress in the ambit of security.If we do that, the concept ofsecurity stands to lose itscoherence. Everything couldbecome a security issue. To qualify

as a security problem, therefore, anissue must share a minimumcommon criterion, say, ofthreatening the very existence ofthe referent (a state or group ofpeople) though the precise natureof this threat may be different. Forexample, the Maldives may feelthreatened by global warmingbecause a big part of its territorymay be submerged with the risingsea level, whereas for countries inSouthern Africa, HIV-AIDS posesa serious threat as one in sixadults has the disease (one in threefor Botswana, the worst case). In1994, the Tutsi tribe in Rwandafaced a threat to its existence asnearly five lakh of its people werekilled by the rival Hutu tribe in amatter of weeks. This shows thatnon-traditional conceptions ofsecurity, like traditionalconceptions of security, varyaccording to local contexts.

How should the world address issues shown here?

Keshav, The Hindu

Contemporary World Politics112

COOPERATIVESECURITYWe can see thatdealing with manyof these non-traditional threatsto security requirecooperation ratherthan military

confrontation. Military force mayhave a role to play in combatingterrorism or in enforcing humanrights (and even here there is alimit to what force can achieve),but it is difficult to see what forcewould do to help alleviate poverty,manage migration and refugeemovements, and controlepidemics. Indeed, in most cases,the use of military force wouldonly make matters worse!

Far more effective is to devisestrategies that involveinternational cooperation.Cooperation may be bilateral (i.e.between any two countries),regional, continental, or global. Itwould all depend on the natureof the threat and the willingnessand ability of countries torespond. Cooperative securitymay also involve a variety of otherplayers, both internationaland nationalinternationalorganisations (the UN, the WorldHealth Organisation, the WorldBank, the IMF etc.), non-governmental organisations(Amnesty International, the RedCross, private foundations andcharities, churches and religiousorganisations, trade unions,associations, social and

development organisations),businesses and corporations,and great personalities(e.g. Mother Teresa, NelsonMandela).

Cooperative security mayinvolve the use of force as a lastresort. The internationalcommunity may have to sanctionthe use of force to deal withgovernments that kill their ownpeople or ignore the misery oftheir populations who aredevastated by poverty, diseaseand catastrophe. It may have toagree to the use of violenceagainst international terroristsand those who harbour them.Non-traditional security is muchbetter when the use of forceis sanctioned and appliedcollectively by the internationalcommunity rather than when anindividual country decides to useforce on its own.

INDIAS SECURITY STRATEGYIndia has faced traditional(military) and non-traditionalthreats to its security that haveemerged from within as well asoutside its borders. Its securitystrategy has four broadcomponents, which have beenused in a varying combinationfrom time to time.

The first component was streng-thening its military capabilitiesbecause India has been involvedin conflicts with its neighbours Pakistan in 194748, 1965, 1971and 1999; and China in 1962.Since it is surrounded by nuclear-

I feel happy when Ihear that my countryhas nuclearweapons. But I dontknow how exactly itmakes me and myfamily more secure.

World Blindness

A

res,

Ca

gle

Ca

rtoon

s In

c.

Security in the Contemporary World 113

armed countries in the SouthAsian region, Indias decision toconduct nuclear tests in 1998 wasjustified by the Indian governmentin terms of safeguarding nationalsecurity. India first tested anuclear device in 1974.

The second component ofIndias security strategy has beento strengthen international normsand international institutions toprotect its security interests.Indias first Prime Minister,Jawaharlal Nehru, supported thecause of Asian solidarity,decolonisation, disarmament,and the UN as a forum in whichinternational conflicts could besettled. India also took initiativesto bring about a universal andnon-discriminatory non-proliferationregime in which all countrieswould have the same rights andobligations with respect to weaponsof mass destruction (nuclear,biological, chemical). It argued foran equitable New InternationalEconomic Order (NIEO). Mostimportantly, it used non-alignmentto help carve out an area of peaceoutside the bloc politics of the twosuperpowers. India joined 160countries that have signed andratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol,which provides a roadmap forreducing the emissions ofgreenhouse gases to check globalwarming. Indian troops have beensent abroad on UN peacekeepingmissions in support of cooperativesecurity initiatives.

The third component of Indiansecurity strategy is gearedtowards meeting security

challenges within the country.Several militant groups from areassuch as the Nagaland, Mizoram,the Punjab, and Kashmir amongothers have, from time to time,sought to break away from India.India has tried to preserve nationalunity by adopting a democraticpolitical system, which allowsdifferent communities and groupsof people to freely articulate theirgrievances and share politicalpower.

Finally, there has been anattempt in India to develop itseconomy in a way that the vastmass of citizens are lifted out ofpoverty and misery and hugeeconomic inequalities are notallowed to exist. The attempt hasnot quite succeeded; we are stilla very poor and unequal country.Yet democratic politics allowsspaces for articulating the voiceof the poor and the deprivedcitizens. There is a pressure onthe democratically electedgovernments to combineeconomic growth with humandevelopment. Thus democracy isnot just a political ideal; ademocratic government is also away to provide greater security.You will read more about thesuccesses and failures of Indiandemocracy in this respect in thetextbook on politics in India sinceindependence.

Compare theexpenditure bythe Indiangovernment ontraditionalsecurity with itsexpenditure onnon-traditionalsecurity.

Contemporary World Politics114

STEPS Narrate the following imaginary situation of four villages settled on the banks of

a river.Kotabagh, Gewali, Kandali and Goppa are villages adjoining each other beside ariver. People in Kotabagh were the first settlers on the riverbank. They had anuninterrupted access to abundant natural resources available in the region.Gradually, people from different regions started coming to this region because ofthe abundant natural resources and water. Now there are four villages. With timethe population of these villages expanded. But resources did not expand. Eachvillage started making claims over natural resources including the boundary of theirrespective settlement. Inhabitants of Kotabagh argued for a greater share in naturalresources, as they were the first settlers. Settlers of Kandali and Gewali said that asthey have bigger populations than the others they both need a greater share. Thepeople of Goppa said as they are used to an extravagant life they need a biggershare, though their population is smaller in size. All four villages disagreed with eachothers demands and continued to use the resources as they wished. This led tofrequent clashes among the villagers. Gradually, everybody felt disgusted with thestate of affairs and lost their peace of mind. Now they all wish to live the way theyhad lived earlier. But they do not know how to go back to that golden age.

Make a brief note describing the characteristics of each village thedescription should reflect the actual nature of present-day nations.

Divide the classroom into four groups. Each group is to represent a village. Handover the village notes to the respective groups.

The teacher is to allot a time (15 minutes) for group discussions on how to goback to the golden age. Each should develop its own strategy.All groups are to negotiate freely among themselves as village representatives,to arrive at a solution (within 20 minutes). Each would put forth its argumentsand counter arguments. The result could be: an amicable agreementaccommodating the demands of all, which seldom happens; or, the entirenegotiation/discussion ends without achieving the purpose.

Ideas for the Teacher

Link the villages to nations and connect to the problems of security (threat to geographical territory/access to natural resources/insurgency, and so on).

Talk about the observations made during the negotiation and explain how similarly the nationsbehave while negotiating on related issues.

The activity could be concluded by making reference to some of the current security issues betweenand among nations.

Security in the Contemporary World 115

1. Match the terms with their meaning:

i. Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) ii. Arms Control iii. Allianceiv. Disarmament

a. Giving up certain types of weaponsb. A process of exchanging information on defence matters

between nations on a regular basisc. A coalition of nations meant to deter or defend against military

attacksd. Regulates the acquisition or development of weapons

2. Which among the following would you consider as a traditionalsecurity concern / non-traditional security concern / not a threat?

a. The spread of chikungunya / dengue feverb. Inflow of workers from a neighbouring nationc. Emergence of a group demanding nationhood for their regiond. Emergence of a group demanding autonomy for their region e. A newspaper that is critical of the armed forces in the country

3. What is the difference between traditional and non-traditionalsecurity? Which category would the creation and sustenance ofalliances belong to?

4. What are the differences in the threats that people in the Third Worldface and those living in the First World face?

5. Is terrorism a traditional or non-traditional threat to security?

6. What are the choices available to a state when its security isthreatened, according to the traditional security perspective?

7. What is Balance of Power? How could a state achieve this?

8. What are the objectives of military alliances? Give an example ofa functioning military alliance with its specific objectives.

9. Rapid environmental degradation is causing a serious threat tosecurity. Do you agree with the statement? Substantiate yourarguments.

E x

e r

c i s e

s

Contemporary World Politics116

10. Nuclear weapons as deterrence or defence have limited usageagainst contemporary security threats to states. Explain thestatement.

11. Looking at the Indian scenario, what type of security has been givenpriority in India, traditional or non-traditional? What examples couldyou site to substantiate the argument?

12. Read the cartoon below and write a short note in favour or againstthe connection between war and terrorism depicted in thiscartoon.

E x

e r

c i

s e

s

Ares, Cagle Cartoons Inc.