National Security as Foreign Policy

February 4, 2014

Overview

Defining/redefining national security

Theorizing national security

Realism and national security

Security studies and national security

National security and American grand

strategy

What is security?

Take a minute and jot down the key ideas that come to mind when you think of concept of security?

Think about how these different ideas might impact the way a decision maker approaches foreign policy

Defining national security

Crucial concept for foreign policy but no universal definition of what it is

Traditional meaning of national security: protecting and securing the physical survival of the state from external (military) threatsProtecting territory from foreign invasion

Security redefined (e.g. Wolfers, Buzan) expanded from military: health, economics, environment, etc.

Whose security and from what?

Clarify the ‘referent object’ of security (whose security?)Human security: individuals as referent object

(and state itself as possible threat)

Threats: (security from what?) subjectively defined, and widened, like security itself

Deepening & Broadening of Security

Thus, see concept of security moving in two directions:

Deepening - from state to individualBroadening - from military threats to

things like health, environment, economy etc.

Theorizing national security

Realism: focuses on the external sources of national security threats (outside the boundaries of sovereign state, from the anarchical system)

Critical Theory: analyzes threats inside and outside the state (Threat of poverty, environmental degradation and domestic repression of essential human rights, all reside inside the state.)

Constructivism: security and threats as social constructions; how we understand these concepts and processes that can change our understanding; envisages security communities whereby states share the collective sense of identity and security

Integrative approaches: combining internal and external factors into a comprehensive national security policy (Leffler)

Realism and national security

For realists, the fundamental national interest of all states is national security. The three S’s’:

Statism: states as central actors; makes security a pervasive element of foreign policy

Realism and national security

Survival: central goal of all foreign policy; use force as a legitimate (element) instrument of statecraft

Power vs security debate (offensive vs. defensive realism)

Realism and national security

Self-help: take appropriate steps to ensure survival, balance of power as enduring structural feature

The security dilemma - efforts to build defensive capabilities in one state can be perceived as threatening to others, which causes them to build their own defenses, which can in turn be threatening to the original state

Security studies and national security

Security studies is defined as the study of the nature, causes, effects, and prevention of war.

The concept of national security rose to prominence during the Cold War, monopolized by Realists.

The concept of human security arose in the early 1990s, which placed individuals at the centre of security strategies.

National security and American grand strategy

Grand strategy is a crucial component of a

state’s foreign policy: it is the overall vision of a

state’s national security goals, and a

determination of the most appropriate means by

which to achieve these goals.

It entails a 3-step process:Determine the state’s vital security goals. Identify the main source of threats to

these goals, internal and external.Ascertain the key political, economic and

military resources that can be employed as foreign policy options to realize national security goals.

American grand strategy

A variety of different grand strategies can be identified for the United States:

• Neo-isolationism: interest based foreign policy

• Liberal internationalism• Primacy

American grand strategy

Neo-isolationism: America should focus on its own national interests.

Activist, globalist role is no longer needed in post-Cold War era.

US is secure from external threats with power to guarantee its security.

Liberal internationalism: an expansive American national interest, (that includes world peace), necessitates multilateral engagement in pursuit of common goals.

The US not immune from military threats. Central: democracy, human rights,

interdependence and role of institutions

Primacy: preserving US power as the undisputed pre-eminent power in the international system.

US must ensure its military dominance, preventing emergence of a multi-power structure.

Institutions seen as restraining unilateral options

Which of the three do you think the US has taken in recent years?

There is a good deal of evidence to suggest that US has based its foreign policy on a grand strategy of primacy

It is worthwhile to ask whether this strategy is sustainable as evidence suggests that attempts to counterbalance the US are underway.

States feel insecure, leading them to increase their military capabilities.

Realists advocate a policy of offshore balancing that attempts to maintain America’s relative power and national security in an emerging multipolar world.

Conclusion

Despite the importance of national security to FP, there is no universal agreement on the concept

Thus, its always important to consider how the concept is being used

Also important to be aware that some of the approaches to security that realism advocates can actually create insecurity.