Energy Security

Energy Security

by Renny Candradewi

The concept of ‘energy security’ is defined by three terms that adequacy ( the aggregate amount to support domestic energy consumption), ‘affordability’ of amount how states pursue to some extent support their energy, and how the state support her economic reliability[1].

Furthermore, the concept of energy security is not merely embedded by the concept of adequacy, affordability, and economic relaibility, but also relfects the independent and dependent economic relationship. This literally means that state can pursue either open economic liberalism or closure economic. Suffix to say, that energy security derives a certain state foreign policy to secure its politic, power, and local needs.

Many fear that the world is quickly using up the vast but finite amount of fossil fuels. Some fear we may have already peaked in fossil fuel extraction and production. So much of the world relies on oil, for example, that if there has been a peak, or if a peak is imminent, or even if a peak is some way off, it is surely environmentally, geopolitically and economically sensible to be efficient in use and invest in alternatives.

Some may argue (ideologically) that markets will solve this problem. However, markets are good for making profit and allocating resources efficiently for that purpose, but that does not always mean that is good for the environment or for society or for other societies in other parts of the world. Furthermore, in reality markets are not perfect, so even if the theory holds, reality sees a mixture of politics, power play and corruption—even in the most advanced countries[2]^.

The amount of energy that supplies and requires the world population. As the increased of population growth will vis a vis the need of energy. The more energy consumption higher, the more demand of energy will be imposed to meet either world and domestic consumption. This will challenge that state remains a important actor responsible to determine what energy policy required to guarantee ‘survival of the fittest’. This policy might be variant into different ideology believed by different countries.

Socialist will see the market mechanism and interaction among countries are seen ‘imbalance and a zero sum game). They have disposition to follow closure market economy. This occurence is best exemplified by Bolivia restrictions towards countries willing to exploit her (lithium) natural resources[3]. This action might be seen internationally as Bolivia attempts to reserve power in the future when the current energy is gradually declining. And to some extent Bolivia will eventually increase her bargaining power and position in world politics.

What this paper is aiming to picture that growing demand for alternative energy will possibly increase the margin power of a state. Bolivia and the US have had thorny relations as the democratically elected socialist and indigenous leader, Evo Morales, has nationalized oil and gas companies[4]^, much to the disappointment of the US, and with general support from his population as he attempts to slowly develop the extremely poor nation.

This means that the European Union and Japan have been trying to court Bolivia in the hopes they can invest in lithium extraction. But geopolitics are again the concern; Bolivia fears that others will exploit it for rich resources, just as most resource-rich nations have been plundered/exploited in the past. It may be that this time the exploitation may not be as violent as during imperial and colonial times, but resource-rich/economically-poor nations like Bolivia are understandably hesitant to give up a valuable resource without local benefits.

So it seems that Bolivia is trying hard to understand the resource more and possibly develop local capacity so that it is not just a raw resource provider, but can go further and process the resources, with much if not all proceeds helping local populations:

 

 

References

 

Anonim. 2010. Globalissues: Social Political Economic and Environmental Issues that Affect US All. Energy Security. [ONLINE] 11 December 2010, [cited 25 december 2010] http://www.globalissues.org/article/595/energy-security

 

Anonim. 2010. Seatlle Times. Lithium as Alternative Energy. [ONLINE] n/a, [Cited 25 December 2010] http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008700362_lithium03.html

 

Anonoim. 2010. Democracy Now. Bolivian president Evo Morales on Indigenous . [ONLINE] n/a, [Cited 25 December 2010] http://www.democracynow.org/2007/9/26/bolivian_president_evo_morales_on_indigenous

 

 

---

[1]

[2] http://www.globalissues.org/article/595/energy-security

[3] http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008700362_lithium03.html

[4] http://www.democracynow.org/2007/9/26/bolivian_president_evo_morales_on_indigenous

 

Economic Security

International Politics: Economic Security

by Renny Candradewi

The concept of economic security has significant similarities with the previous security (human and food security). The core similarity located in the defining term of economic security. Economic security is defined by an assured basic income for individuals, usually from productive and remunerative work, or, in the last resort, from some publicly financed safety net[1]. It also defines an access to economic resources in order to support an adequate standard of living[2].

Another comprehensive definition is “Economic security is the maintenance of those conditions necessary to encourage sustained long-term relative improvements in labour and capital productivity and thus a high and rising standard of living for a nation’s citizens, including the maintenance of a fair, secure and dynamic business environment conducive to innovation, domestic and foreign investment and sustainable economic growth. This is a broad goal sought by all governments[3].”

Economic security also identifies three indicators of economic shared as universal economic norms among nations. Economic security usually indicates the unemployment rate or ‘job security’, poverty, and solvency. Political security, human security, food security and economic security are correlated to one another. Economic security is embedded by steady income allowing people to acquire the food they need to survive. The political security may interfere with economic activity in general; making it harder for people to earn their adequate living[4] (generates poverty and inability to access to job).

Satisfying the ‘basic material needs of humankind’ is not solely an economic task but it is, without doubt, principally achieved by the possession of money, personally and societally. Money is not the root of all of humanity’s ills nor the sole cause of starvation and hunger. On the one hand, droughts and other natural phenomena can disrupt the food supply, and on the other, it is possible to feed yourself without buying the food. Money, however, can be used to secure yourself against natural hazards and insure you against fluctuations in the food supply caused by either natural or economic disruptions. In addition, self-sufficiency in food production, either for individuals or states, is an increasingly difficult means of achieving security. Money, so the saying goes, ‘can’t buy you love’ but it can buy you a certain measure of that other of life’s most precious commodities, security[5].

The  most  obvious  place  to  start  with  on  the  topic  of economic security is the 1994 UNDP Human Development Report.

“Economic  security  requires  an  assured  basic  income  –  usually  from  productive  and  remunerative  work,  or  in  the  last  resort  from some publicly financed safety net.” (UNDP 1994, p. 25)

This defining term can be varied into international scope and both national and individual household. Internationally. There rise questions who responsible for the provision of economic security? Who should provide it? The 1994 UNDP report is very unclear to address above questions. It states that individuals have the main task to ensure their (economic) lives. Internationally how responsibility can be burdened to various actors? In fact, the international community is already strongly engaged in the provision of economic security.  The  Millennium  Development  Goal  No.  1  calls  for  the  eradication  of  extreme poverty and hunger by 2015. In particular, the number of people living on less than 1US$ per day should be halved. However, most of the activity towards achieving this MDG has been focused  towards  food  security  (which  is  not  our  focus  here)  and  to  improve  agricultural exploitation in developing countries. For poor urban populations, which are mostly salary-dependent, not many initiatives have been forthcoming. These parts of the population would however profit most from social insurance institutions related to unemployment, accident, family policy and others. The potential gains in terms of economic security are significant[6].

Nationally, the mean of economic security for a nation is Individually; what it means to be economic security for each individual is ability for each individual with adequate supply money and employment to ensure a standard living.

What role can policy possibly play? This state role can be manifested into multilateral cooperation either into international government such as United Nations. United Nations conveys that economic security can either be achieved through income from work or by a public financed social safety net. National government also must provide a stable income that would generate the economic growth.

Amitav Acharya, 2010, Human Security, Chapter 28, pp. 492-505

Anonim, 1994, UN Declaration of Human Rights

Anonim, 2010, Canadian Security Intellegence Service, Economic Security, [ONLINE] 13-5-2008, [cited December 24, 2010] http://www.csis.gc.ca/nwsrm/bckgrndrs/bckgrndr06-eng.asp

Johannes Ruhl, 2009, Economic Security: providing a social safety net: what role for the international community?, Conference on the Occasion of the 64th Anniversary of the UN Charter on October 23, 2009, UNOG, [ONLINE] October 2009, [cited Desember 24, 2010] http://www.gimun.org/files/GIMUN%20Briefing%20Note%20-%20Economic%20Security.pdf

Peter Hough, 2006, Understanding Global Security, Routledge Pub, London, p. 84

UNDP, Human Development Report 1994, Chapter 2: http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr_1994_en_chap2.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

POSITIONING

1. CONFLICT CAUSES HUNGER
2. HUNGER CAUSES CONFLICT
3. Defining ‘food security’: famine, hunger, depriving accessibility to adequate food.

 

Kelaparan penyebab konflik

1. Natural
2. Ekonomi
3. Perpolitikan menggunakan ‘food war’
4. Interactive

 

Konseptualisasi ‘food security’: famine, hunger, and…

1. Saya ingin mengetahui Bagaimana anda menangkap persoalan kelaparan ini kemudian dianggap signifikan dalam politik internasional secara makro dan politik nasional (dalam kaitan mesti ada respon dari pemerintah terhadap persoalan kelaparan) dan signifikasinya secara mikro?

Conflict: a cause of hunger

Hunger: a cause of conflict

1. Secara mikro, nasional, terjadinya kelaparan baik dalam satu satu regional. Keberadaan pangan sebagai kebutuhan dasar tidak dapat diakses secara bebas (oleh masing2 individual). Persoalan muncul ketika individu (warganegara) dihalangi mengakses makanan untuk menjamin enough life.
2. Secara makro: conflict akan berdampak meluas, orang2 akan berpindah mendapatkan akses yang lebih baik. Mendatangkan masalah ‘orang2 dan pengungsi’. Konflik banyak terjadi di afrika, kenapa Amerika menjadi salah satu negara yang pertamakali memprovokasi ‘food security’. Food security bisa memunculkan aktivitas kriminal terorisme (persoalan munculnya pembajakan laut Somalia).

‘Food insecurity’ di tahun 1974: ‘bebasnya kolonialisasi dari eropa’ (terutama perancis dan inggirs) afrika baru bebas kolonisasi pada 1974, karena selama masa kolonialisasi ‘aksesibilitas terhadap makanan’ itu dimanage oleh negara kolonial.

 

1. Two ways working interactively: ‘conflict: a cause of hunger & hunger: a cause of conflict’
2. Relevansi ‘food security dalam politik internasional

 

 

Some answers

Indikator utama kemakmuran suatu negara (developed, industrialist, least developed): indicator pembangungan berkelanjutan suatu negara

Most conflict occurred in agriculture countries (majorities state in the world)

Main/ basic task of humanitarian intervention: NGO/INGO, OXFAM, HOPE, FAO, World Bank Projects

Most conflict occurred in agricultural country

Food insecurity and ‘food wars’

Policy understanding tidak hanya berkaitan dengan keamanan dan militer. NGO berusaha untuk menyeimbangkan posisi antara peneliti dan …

Meningkatkan ketahanan pangan manusia, indiviudu, dan komunitas. Karena ini melibatkan bisnis yang besar.

 

 

1. Dimensi ‘food security

ü  Availability of food at all times (is sufficient food locally produced or imported to be available at local markets

ü  Access to food at all times (do households have the purchasing power or other entitlements to buy food?)

ü  Use and utilization of food according to sufficient dietary standards (do people prepare nutritious food. Is their state of health able to absorb it?)

 

The relations between Food and security

1. Hunger/ food insecurity is a weapon in conflict
2. Hunger/ food insecurity creates conflict
3. Conflict/ war creates hunger
4. People food insecurity: lacked access to sufficient food to sustain healthy and productive lives
5. Countries in conflict relates to low income food deficit

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Amitav Acharya, 2010, Human Security, Chapter 28, pp. 492-505

[2] Anonim, 1994, UN Declaration of Human Rights

[3] Anonim, 2010, Canadian Security Intellegence Service, Economic Security, [ONLINE] 13-5-2008, [cited December 24, 2010] http://www.csis.gc.ca/nwsrm/bckgrndrs/bckgrndr06-eng.asp

[4] Johannes Ruhl, 2009, Economic Security: providing a social safety net: what role for the international community?, Conference on the Occasion of the 64^th Anniversary of the UN Charter on October 23, 2009, UNOG, [ONLINE] October 2009, [cited Desember 24, 2010] http://www.gimun.org/files/GIMUN%20Briefing%20Note%20-%20Economic%20Security.pdf

[5] Peter Hough, 2006, Understanding Global Security, Routledge Pub, London, p. 84

[6] Ibid., p. 2

 

Food Security

International Politics: Food Security

by Renny Candradewi

The concept of food security has covered lots of meanings. The concept of food security has been initially provoked by The World Food Conference in 1974. From its outset, it has been widely known for various definitions of the term. A UN has defined the need for food security as availabilitiy at all times of adequate world supplies of basic food-stuffs…, to sustain a steady expansion of food consumption.. and to offset fluctuations in production and prices (UN, 1975).  Another definition mentioned by Kracht that ‘food security’ is condition when everyone has enough to eat at any time—so enough to life, health and growth of the young , and for productive effort (Kracht, 1981). Food security also defines an access by all people at all times to enough food (Routlinger, 1985).

There’s assumption that ‘food security’ emerged as the reflection of the nature of in which experienced by poor people themselves.

What role can policy possibly play? As mentioned dealing with human security, we must acknowledge that food security is a subordinate concept embedded within human security. If it’s dealing with human, then government must put up security for its citizens. The problem is ‘food security’ emanated below high politics as many governments of developing countries overlook to. The policy implemented by government then gradually becomes vague and gloomy. However, this problem is not meant to overlook. Why? This global age that has determined by the rapid increase of production and consumptions must be balanced by (all) people accessibility towards adequate food for life, healthy and growth of the young.

What happens today is, globalization has brought the world food into intolerable even a shocked price and the world food system was running out of control (Maxwell, 1996). This problem has been addressed in World Food Conference but its lack of world support. The problem can only be spoken into open forum without actual determination from government to in fact tackle down this issue. In the end, there significant rise towards its implication, but how far government must respond this issue, is yet being questioned.

Simon Maxwell. 1996. Food Security: a post-modern perspective. pp. 155-170

Ellen Meser, Marc J Cohen and Thomas Marchione. 2010. Conflict: a cause and effect of Hunger. pp.1-16

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

POSITIONING

1. CONFLICT CAUSES HUNGER
2. HUNGER CAUSES CONFLICT
3. Defining ‘food security’: famine, hunger, depriving accessibility to adequate food.

 

Kelaparan penyebab konflik

1. Natural
2. Ekonomi
3. Perpolitikan menggunakan ‘food war’
4. Interactive

 

Konseptualisasi ‘food security’: famine, hunger, and…

1. Saya ingin mengetahui Bagaimana anda menangkap persoalan kelaparan ini kemudian dianggap signifikan dalam politik internasional secara makro dan politik nasional (dalam kaitan mesti ada respon dari pemerintah terhadap persoalan kelaparan) dan signifikasinya secara mikro?

Conflict: a cause of hunger

Hunger: a cause of conflict

1. Secara mikro, nasional, terjadinya kelaparan baik dalam satu satu regional. Keberadaan pangan sebagai kebutuhan dasar tidak dapat diakses secara bebas (oleh masing2 individual). Persoalan muncul ketika individu (warganegara) dihalangi mengakses makanan untuk menjamin enough life.
2. Secara makro: conflict akan berdampak meluas, orang2 akan berpindah mendapatkan akses yang lebih baik. Mendatangkan masalah ‘orang2 dan pengungsi’. Konflik banyak terjadi di afrika, kenapa Amerika menjadi salah satu negara yang pertamakali memprovokasi ‘food security’. Food security bisa memunculkan aktivitas kriminal terorisme (persoalan munculnya pembajakan laut Somalia).

‘Food insecurity’ di tahun 1974: ‘bebasnya kolonialisasi dari eropa’ (terutama perancis dan inggirs) afrika baru bebas kolonisasi pada 1974, karena selama masa kolonialisasi ‘aksesibilitas terhadap makanan’ itu dimanage oleh negara kolonial.

 

1. Two ways working interactively: ‘conflict: a cause of hunger & hunger: a cause of conflict’
2. Relevansi ‘food security dalam politik internasional

 

 

Some answers

Indikator utama kemakmuran suatu negara (developed, industrialist, least developed): indicator pembangungan berkelanjutan suatu negara

Most conflict occurred in agriculture countries (majorities state in the world)

Main/ basic task of humanitarian intervention: NGO/INGO, OXFAM, HOPE, FAO, World Bank Projects

Most conflict occurred in agricultural country

Food insecurity and ‘food wars’

Policy understanding tidak hanya berkaitan dengan keamanan dan militer. NGO berusaha untuk menyeimbangkan posisi antara peneliti dan …

Meningkatkan ketahanan pangan manusia, indiviudu, dan komunitas. Karena ini melibatkan bisnis yang besar.

 

 

1. Dimensi ‘food security

ü  Availability of food at all times (is sufficient food locally produced or imported to be available at local markets

ü  Access to food at all times (do households have the purchasing power or other entitlements to buy food?)

ü  Use and utilization of food according to sufficient dietary standards (do people prepare nutritious food. Is their state of health able to absorb it?)

 

The relations between Food and security

1. Hunger/ food insecurity is a weapon in conflict
2. Hunger/ food insecurity creates conflict
3. Conflict/ war creates hunger
4. People food insecurity: lacked access to sufficient food to sustain healthy and productive lives
5. Countries in conflict relates to low income food deficit

 

 

 

 

 

 

International Politics: Human Security

International Politics: Human Security

by Renny Candradewi

 

The concept of human security is a powerful attempt by sections of academic and policy to broaden the meaning of security. Tradtitionally security means an attempt to protect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states from external threats.  In the late 1970’s and 1980’s, academic scholars commence to deliver the concept security in a broader scope as responding for Middle East oil crisis and the worldwide environmental degradation. He advocates of human security points out that the main referent object of security must be individual not the states or government. They state that human must be referent object for it must be protected from poverty, diseases, environmental issues, human rights abuses, and armed conflict. These issues have been brought as the world becomes increasingly globalized.  Therefore, security is made to encompass a broader range of concerns and challenges than simply defending and protecting the state sovereignty from external threat.

When does ‘human security’ begin to matter? The answer has its origin to the publication made by Human Development report of 1994 issued by the United Nations Development Programme (1994). This report defines the seven areas as the human security scope that must be addressed: (1) economic security, (2) food security, (3) health security, (4) environmental security, (5) personal security, (6) community security, and (7) political security[1].

First, human security notion rises due to growing dissatisfaction with the orthodox notion of development, which views it as a function of economic growth. Instead, they proposed the a concept of human development which focuses on building human capabilities to confront and overcome poverty, illiteracy, disease, discrimination, restriction on political freedom and the threat of violent conflict[2]. Second, there’s growing attention that human security requires more resources for development and it implies less for arms. The move of human security is also pressed forward by the work of several international commissions as they offer a broader view of security that look beyond d the cold war on East-West military competition.

There sceptics for human security to be implemented into good policy frameworks. The concept is too broad and vague, it’s almost encompassing everything. Although not significant, it neglects the role of state. It falls to the notion that state remains the main entity that has such power and authority to protect its citizens.

 

Amitav Acharya. 2010. Human Security., pp. 492-505

Anonim. 2010. Human Security., pp. 145-165

---

[1] Amitav Acharya, 2010, Human Security, pp. 492-505

[2] Ibid., p. 492

 

Territorial War

Territorial War

by Renny Candradewi

The territorial war concept turns out to be notion that is not relatively new. Rather being regarded as old, then it undergoes shift that alters almost the whole sense of territorial war and security at once. Globalization has become variable intervenes the current change. Is territory still crucial for states to compete each other when globalization has made the borders relatively vague? This question then will address recent Realist and Globalist position in reshaping security and war?

Territorial war seems to indicate the main role of unitary actor, which is ‘state’. It is hard to ignore that state at rest remains crucial in this sense of international politics, most significantly in securing the homeland. War still becomes effective tool securing the mainland. Border increasingly becomes important due to sovereignty of state.

Previously, war is always characterized and originated by the parties competing for a territorial. It’s increasing matter even nowadays that states are still disputing in their borders, respectively. We could see that the ethnic conflict in Arab-Israeli war is believed to have genesis from territory of Jews and Moslems. So does conflict that exists along borders of Thailand and Cambodia over its Vihear Preah Temple, Indonesia Singapura and Malaysia over a huge surface of water in Malaka Strait, and Spratly Islands. It’s recognized that judging and establishing territory (either above land and water) are not easy tasks.

The genesis of Territory War has a long root ensuing World War I in which geopolitics thinkers such as Alfred T Mahan, Friedrich and friends many refer to as geopolitics factors. Some causes are believed that there’s suspiciousness over other nations that would expand its territory by all reasons. For instance, Germany had followed this pattern to establish a German Empire of almost the entire Europe that will unite all Germans. Meanwhile, United States and Soviet Union during Cold War had altered this pattern that territorial war could mean the spread of sphere of influence, a very vague notion at the very beginning. But this then is realized by the spread of Economic Liberalism, Globalization, Media, Information and Technology, politics and else. Those only are very conceptual influence that reflects the competitiveness of struggling over territory.

Reviewed from:

Andreas, Peter. 2003. Redrawing in the line: Borders and Security in the Twenty-first Century. President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Ruggie, John G. 1993. Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations. University of Wisconsin: The MIT Press ( http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706885 ). accessed 20/04/2010

Territorial War: Land War and Water War”

Keterkaitan dengan konsep geopolitik, geoekonomi, dan geokultural

Konsep: State, Teritori, dan Border

#1. Konsep dasar tentang state, teritori, dan border yang dianut di Asia tenggara

• Misal: Australia banyak didatangi oleh orang dari luar (asia, belanda, Asia selatan, dll), jumlah orang indonesia yang di Australia itu sangat sedikit. Australia takut dengan Indonesia karena Indonesia tidak mengenal teritori, penjelasannya sebagai berikut.
• Australia melihat Indonesia sebagai agensi terkuat. Sedangkan Malaysia melihat Indonesia sebagai negara dengan struktur yang lemah.
• Konsep pemikiran politik Indonesia, Benedict Anderson, bahwa di dalam setiap pemuda di Asia Tenggara, ‘negara adalah pusat, dan pusat adalah negara’.
• Orang asia tenggara umumnya, tidak mengenal teritori. Semakin kuat ‘pusat’, maka semakin kuat ‘negara’. Teritori tidak terbatas pada konsep wilayah, melainkan teritori (oleh kultur Asia Tenggara) ialah seberapa luas pengaruh yang dibawa oleh orang2 tersebut. jadi perkembangan luas teritori itu tidak terbatas pada teritori fisik, tetapi teritori ‘orang’.
• Pemikiran strategis, negara itu melihat jangka panjang, ancaman jangka panjang.
• Pak Basis melihat pemikiran strategis, kuat tidaknya Indonesia dilihat dari potensi jumlah penduduk.
• Center of gravitasi dunia, berpindah2, (maksudnya hegemoni dan dominasinya kali), dari Mesir (Dinasti Fir’aun), Yunani, Itali (Romawi), Inggris (Pan Britannica), kemudian Amerika (Pan Americanism).

Konsep Mandala

Konsep Cakra

#2 Transformasi konsep negara, teritori, dan border

REALIS: negara adalah aktor/ variabel utama dan terutama dalam interaksi antarnegara, dunia ini digerakkan oleh negara

Negara memiliki teritori yang fisik, sehingga dibutuhkan keamanan keluar dan keamanan ke dalam. Oleh karena itu diperlukan post2 keamanan dan sistem penguasaan untuk melindungi negara. Perang, oleh kaum realis, disebabkan karena masing2 ingin mmemperluas teritorinya. Sementara negara lain tidak boleh diambil teritorinya oleh negara lain. Militer dan ekonomi menjadi driving force dalam hubungan dan interaksi negara.

Globalis: pendekatan globalisasi. Mengatakan bahwa karena fungsi (kebutuhan2 dan transaksi ekonomi) maka terdapat intensitas dan hubungan yang melintasi batas2 negara. Ada proses, transborder, tetapi urausan2 mayor, fungsi dari keamanan militer dan ekonomi berkurang. Artinya, penyelesaian menggunakan kekuasaan atau perang fisik menjadi solusi yang usang (obsolete). Perang selalu lebih mahal dan tidak efisien menyelesaikan masalah (I Basis Susilo, 2010, Lecture oh International Security and Politics).

#3. Konsep Teritori berubah secara signifikan (fundamental)

Teritori bersifat keruangan (spatial). Negara itu berupa ide, gagasan, abstrak, bukan konsep yang konkret. Marxist menyebutnya “imagined society”.

Tadinya negara itu dianggap suatu ide, konsep yang abstrak (terdapat keterikatan kultur, kemasyarakatan, pokoknya ada ikatan yang menyatukan komponen2 sosial dalam wilayah tertentu tersebut); sekarang (dengan adanya representasi negara, berupa institusi dan birokrasi yang melaksanakan fungsi kenegaraan) negara dianggap sebagai konsep yang konkret.

Rezim Pemikiran: Regime of Thought.

Globalization and Security

Globalization and Security

by Renny Candradewi

Globalization has brought numerous implications for global and national security. These implications are commonly simplified into positive and negative. To some extent, globalization has several characteristics as its principle. Globalization principles generally includes: (1) the spread of democracy, (2) the acceptance of economic liberalism, (3) low-politics era, (4) the global world of non-state actors, (5) broadening international issue, (6) the growth of political neoliberalism and liberalism, and (7) the increasing demand. Actually, the implications of globalization cover a wide level and dimension that not all will be explained thoroughly here. So I would only address certain things arguably to mark the issue first, if increasing globalization would cause a less global society, and to what extent it would do on the contrast; second, how globalization subsequently would affect the national security dimension and constitute global security on the other hand.

First, let me define the term security because this term will be substantially addressed in this short paper. There are two wide/ major dimensions employed to categorize security: national security and global security. Global security is a term employed to define in which security has become a common interest among states. National security is a term employed to define that security is only an authority belongs to state and other state could not involve in any intervention. Globalization can enhance security globally when there’s cooperation among states to sustain common interest regarding regional security. Before the event of globalization security had only been an interest of one state. It’s familiar being called national security. National security discourse will be impossible for open intervention. Therefore, the security matters is not yet broadened or sustained effectively.

According[RC1] to article in UN General Assembly[1], a number of implications of globalization have questioned the global and national security. The major negative account bridges market forces, state welfare, prosperity and uneven development. Globalization that follows the mark of rapid industrialization, technology inventions, and information changes to intolerable level would create gap between the the developed, developing, and underdeveloped countries. The uneven development could result of increased political tensions and risks of instability[2] as it’s evidently seen in certain Southeast Asia Countries following the aftermath 1997 financial crisis. Globalization also allows for the emerging of states disputes economically, politically, and militarily to compete in the “power-oriented” modern world. This would prove that globalization challenge security both nationally and globally. Suffix to say, globalization unevenly results on political instability and virtually undermines security.

These events somehow identified by the increasing of underdevelopment and massive exploitation, as vested in Marxist and Radical thinkers[3]. Some thinkers believe that globalization advance would only bring about a massive exploitation towards natural endowment and environment. Globalization contains dark side of creating immense demand for particular commodities such as timber, gold, diamonds, drugs, and has provided funds that have allowed factions to sustain fighting over many years. To summarize, globalization challenge to damage environment, and thus to say it would possibly cost environment security in mostly undeveloped and underdeveloped countries[4].

A rapid transfer advanced technology and information as globalization era would enable to, would be an effective tool to create intolerable threats to virtual world. This trend of globalization creates a new form of electronic crime; the evidence is increasingly feasible as (1) US accusation to China over suspected a huge chunk of net traffic in April 2010[5], (2) a Google security breach, (3) a Facebook security breach, and several rising China and Russian “bank account hackers” occurred. These crimes are evident to express that globalization currently possible to create a security leak.

Many people link the current globalization event as important association between the spread of economic liberalism, as somehow it’s been associated. Economic liberalism means open to a new space of US influence unipolarity. As the world becomes more globalized, there is a significant rise on US influence in today international politics and managing decision in supranational organization, within its body. US will use this justification to getting involve in more aggressive acts for example war in Iraq, NATO troops in Afghanistan that’s overall been highly motivated by US interest to tackle political instability. This once again, globalization grows to be an effective ride for Hegemon to direct international politics into their favor.

The positive impact of globalization would only be dealing with the practice of democracy. This thesis has been proposed by the theories of Democratic Peace that democracies almost never fight each other and have far lower levels of internal armed conflict than non-democracies. They argue that insofar as the expansion of market forces facilitates the emergence of democracy, globalization has a positive impact on global security. This links that globalization is the mark of spread of democracy, when democracy is spread then the world will be more stabilized.

 

REFERENCES

 

Karen A Mingst, 2009, “The Essentials of International Relations”, W.W. Norton, London, p.

 

Anonim, 2010. China denies hijacking a huge chunk of US net traffic. BBC News: BBC Technology. [Online] November 18, 2010. [Cited: November 20, 2010.] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11773146.

Anonim UN. n/a. General Assembly Official Records Fifty-fourth Session Supplement No. 1 (A/54/1). Report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Organization: implication of globalization on security. [Online] n/a n/a, n/a. [Cited: November 22, 2010.] http://www.un.org/Docs/SG/Report99/implicat.htm. chapter iv.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evaluasi:

Key: national security, global security, globalization, less secure, more secure, broadening security.

National security: persoalan keamanan yang menjadi urusan negara

Global security: persoalan kemanan yang menjadi urusan non-negara, siapapun selain negara

 

How globalization creates global security?

Globalization aspects that must be addressed in configuring security: (1) technology information, (2) cultural, and (3) international norms (global governance).

 

What is global security and insecurity?

Less war between countries

Less territorial conflicts: ada territorial disputes, but states are uncommonly to go to war, this day

Globalization has increased human traficcking, poverty, and terrorism

Environmental degradation

 

Debate II

Does the National Security exist in the era of Globalization?

What is the relationships between National Security and global Security?

 

Domain

What is domain of national security, international security, and global security?

National security, problems exist within nation and among nation. Military, territorial dispute,

International security, economic barriers, pembajakan kapal tanker di teluk Aden, Somalia.

Global security, problem is multidimensional and exist outside the scope of state actors, and is dealing among non-state actors. For example problems of climate change, human traficking, human rights, woman and children, and else.

 

Conceptual

Traditional concep: highest priority of national interest

Contemporary Concept

1. Realist: state always struggle for power
2. Liberal institutionalist: negara mesti terikat dengan rules
3. Contructivist: states are socially constructed

 

Concept of National Security

Policy is designed to promote demants that are ascribed to the natona rather than to individuals, subnational groups, or mankind as a whole

 

The Linkage

What is the relationship between national security and global security?

 

Ambiguity

Security for and from whom

National security is for the survival of state, not the survival of government.

Global security is for the survival of common interest

---

[1] Anonim, 2010 in UN. n/a. General Assembly Official Records Fifty-fourth Session Supplement No. 1 (A/54/1). Report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Organization: implication of globalization on security. [Online] n/a n/a, n/a. [Cited: November 22, 2010.] http://www.un.org/Docs/SG/Report99/implicat.htm. chapter iv.

[2] Ibid.,

[3] Karen A Mingst, 2009, “The Essentials of International Relations”, W.W. Norton, London, p.

[4] UN. n/a. General Assembly Official Records Fifty-fourth Session Supplement No. 1 (A/54/1). Report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Organization: implication of globalization on security. [Online] n/a n/a, n/a. [Cited: November 22, 2010.] http://www.un.org/Docs/SG/Report99/implicat.htm. chapter iv.

[5] Anonim, 2010 in Ibid.,

 

---

[RC1]How Globalization creates global security?

 

Security Regime in Southeast Asia: a comparison Concert of Europe and ARF

Security Regimes and Order in International Politics: Security Regime in Southeast Asia: a comparison Concert of Europe and ARF

Renny Candradewi 070810532

 

Southeast Asia is a region with typically Asia countries comprise of great variety of nations (so called multiculturalism), states, and policies in relatively moderate size, geography, topography, and history. Southeast Asia region is made of Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Philippines and Brunei. Each nation relatively shares the same history of decolonization (post war era) and post Cold War era. These two events successfully revolutionized the current Southeast Asia distinct characters. First, post war era marks the decolonization and colonial withdrawal from colonies such as England (Malaysia and Brunei), Netherland (Indonesia), United Stats (Philippines), and China (Cambodia and Vietnam). Second, it is fascinating to outline that the aftermath of Cold War has brought Southeast Asia countries into division political ideologies: democratic (Singapore and Philippines), semi-democratic (Malaysia, Thailand, Laos and Indonesia), and socialism (Cambodia, Burma, and Vietnam), and autocratic (Brunei)[1].

Southeast Asia region is not a region without conflict. These two characters—division political ideology and multiculturalism—primarily make unification and political integration become troublesome. Rather engaging in political integration ensuring security, Southeast Asia nation-states relatively busy to attain political stability. For instances, Indonesia has been disturbed by 1997 economic recession (until now) and several separatist movements (GAM-Aceh, RMS, OPM-Papua), Burma has been struggling to survive from humanitarian violation by Junta military and fighting for democracy, Thailand is shaked by the 2010 riots struggling to advocate Ex-PM Thaksin S return back to homeland, Philippines is struggling to tackle down separatist movement MILF. Borders dispute also take into account in heighten tension among neighboring countries such as Malacca Strait (Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand), Spratly Island (Brunei, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam and China) etc.

These countries have been participating to support a regional organization that performs as a joint action managing various and broad regional cooperation. More importantly, in ninth Summit in October 2003, ASEAN has announced its intention to crate an ASEAN Community based upon three pillars: ASEAN Security Community, ASEAN Economic Community and ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community. Particularly, ASEAN Security Community emerged due to the end of Cold War, the advance of globalization and functioning as constructive diplomacy to maintain peace and harmony among members in the region to cope with increasing political and security in a globalised world[2]. Furthermore, ARF is carrying out as the implementation of action plan for the ASEAN Security Community (ASC) that also contributes to peace and security in the Asia Pacific region[3]. Thus we could say that ARF is acting to implement the role of security regime in order to maintain regional security and realize the vision of ASC[4]

These only a few examples of what Southeast Asia countries are experiencing. One solution emanating and interesting to examine is the presence of ‘security regime’ necessarily to guarantee peaceful settlement and peaceful cooperation within the region by collaborating joint action militarily in any implemented policy. This paper is to address whether security regime is necessary to ensure more secure political stability in Southeast Asia (instead of establishing forum accommodating dialogue between members and engagement dialogue partner countries), and how it is effective to play significant role to maintain regional security.

1. 1. Conditions the formation ‘ARF’

In Asia Pacific, the ARF is the first ever, and as of 2004 the only one region-wide inter-governmental forum for security dialogue, drawing together 24 states bearing on the security of the region.[5] ARF is carrying out action plan for the ASEAN Security Community (ASC) that also contributes to peace and security in the Asia Pacific region. Hence ARF is acting to implement the role of security regime in order to maintain regional security and realize the vision of ASC. It is true that ARF remains to function at large as a broad forum for negotiation and consultation[6].  But to say this does not necessarily means that they are not qualified as regimes. Following Robert Jervis’s work, the regimes here are defined as those principles, rules, and norms that permit nations to be restrained in their behavior in the belief that others will reciprocate[7].

ARF is bearing regime structure in which it is embedded by relevant concepts of regime, namely ‘cooperative security,’ ‘multilateralism’ and ‘regionalization’, as the core principles within its structural organization. The conditions which is propitious for the formation of ARF as security regime takes into account one state fears that there is outsider (sphere influence) attempting reach his objectives by sacrificing and leaving others insecure in the borders. It is best exemplified by the future of China and India economic development and the advance of globalization. Many have considered the motive was to build a bulwark against communism, although officially the purpose of the organization was claimed “to accelerate the economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region and to promote regional peace and security.”

By 1997, most of Southeast Asia nations are hit by financial crisis. By 1997, it is discovered that Southeast Asia nations are prone to outside intervention either economically and politically. The 1997 financial crisis has brought end the vision of ASIAN values[8], what has been promoted by former Malaysia PM Mahathir Mohammad in 1990.

The urgency of implementing ARF into the framework of security community must not simply be viewed as Indonesia’s merely intention to share popularity gained by Singapore—due to her notion to secure economic interest by establishing a community, Singapore is the advocate promoting community that is substantially accommodating the trade disputes among ASEAN members[9]. It must be seen that ARF is failing to act as security regime due to state-civil society engagement in the area of human rights, clearly an important aspect in the quest for a security community, remains largely on a national  or domestic level (if at all in some states) rather than on an  regional  plane. This is due largely to ASEAN consensual decision-making targeted at the lowest common denominator and its principle of on-interference in internal affairs of member-states[10]. Hence Southeast Asia countries require a security regime adopting a firm security policy thoroughly. This notion must be integrated and fully supported by enabling internal intervention in outbreak conflict relatively. So this security community does not continuously remain as a wither community actuating merely in the dialogue forum.

1. 2. The Concert of Europe

Concert of Europe, its genesis is rooted from 1815-1823. It is created post devastating Napoleonic War (1789-1802). Concert of Europe is acting as defensive realism. The domestic leaders did not seek to maximize their individual power positions, they did not always take advantage of others’ temporary weaknesses and vulnerabilities, and they made more concessions than they needed to. They also reluctantly to use force when others tried to broke the balance of power. In order word, Robert Jervis describes, their domestic leaders behaved differently from normal power politics that seek to implement ‘offensive realisms’[11]—as Mearsheimer pointed out, state pursuit expansionist policy onto her neighbors mainly because the international system makes them do so[12]. This implies that in the outset formation of Concert of Europe ensuing 1815 until 1823 are consisted moderate leaders. After an early period of success, the Concert began to weaken as the common goals of the Great Powers were gradually replaced by growing political and economic rivalries.

 

Comparisons that we can draw from ARF and Concert of Europe is: first, Concert of Europe and ARF are acting as security regime at their time in which they share common values of regionalization, multilateralism, and cooperative security; second, they both promote to create peaceful and harmony collaboration by balancing powers between their members to prevent future war (Concert of Europe) and to support integrated community (ARF); third, the formation from the outset is based on moderate leaders that pursue defensive realism in order to set up collaboration and coordination. The different is: first, albeit its former institution has demised in 1823, the principle continues to develop and transform into a new body of today we call ‘European Union’. Meanwhile, ARF is still fragile and it is still structurally weak. Concert of Europe is supported by the shared stake that all major powers had to avoid future war. ARF is formed due to consideration the presence of mutual enemy—external influence within its borders. Hence ARF is merely functioning as consultation and negotiation forum. The next question needed to address will be how Southeast Asia then effectively transform this ‘newly born’ ARF into a firmer regional security regime.

Security regime is thus both especially valuable and hard to achieve. However, it is evident that there is demand for security regime in Southeast Asia—as it is known as a very instable region due to military conflict, border dispute and authoritarianism. Security regime ensures more stability by restraining completion among nations.

Conclusion ‘Theoretical Explanation’

Security is defined by the absence of fear—even though the concept of security has been broadening and widening but yet it remains contentious. Meanwhile, regime is defined by the presence of order to regulate and restrain behavior of all international actors[13]. Borrowing defining term of security regime by Bull, the explanation begins with the assumption: that ARF is set of common interests and common values that they conceive themselves to be bound onto set of rules.

Bull’s definition of order consists of goals and set of arrangements. Six goals he posited are preservation of the state system, maintenance of external sovereignty, limitation on violence, keeping of promises[14].  The ARF contents of rules that govern interaction of Southeast Asian countries (members): rules of normative principles, minimum condition, and regulating cooperation. Therefore, in order to survive, ARF must comprise of order that is sustained by contingent common interest and considerations that power play a major role in maintaining order[15], common interests and rules by shared institution that creates the rules, and consensus.

If Bull articulated that order should be maintained, then a regime is another way to sustain order. Regime is dynamics of international organization with organizing principle for instance distribution of power that created by ideational and material factors. Regime applies set of rules enabling international politic to become systemic. Regime maintains order by hegemony, balancing powers, and collective security. As minimalist order, regime is able to impose rules and sanction. We can conclude that as long as those components of regimes and orders still present, there will always be a demand for security regimes by Southeast Asian countries. Hence Southeast Asian members must implement and maintain those components within the structural body and principles of ARF.

However, the presence of uncertain influencing and intervening state behavior to violate agreement makes it hard to achieve. Thus undermines the demand of security regime. The ‘prisoner dilemma’ will also take into account situation in which state tends to pursue rational self interests that leads to ‘zero-sum game’ and chase ‘absolute gain’ rather than ‘relative gain’. Goals may be hard to achieve because of fear that other members may be violating the agreement and attempting to gain short-run security.

Second obstacles is globalization in which: ‘committing ‘security regime’(state-centric) vs globalized world (non-state centric)’[16].International relations realm continuously echoes two main perspectives: whether state remains as unitary actors and whether it will be undermined by the presence of subsidiary actors as the result of multipolarity. The analysis always points on liberalism vis a vis realism excluding critical theories. The landmark of today world politics in the post Cold War era is recognized by the presence of globalization progression changing and adding the fresh components onto international politics. In other word, thing that is previously insignificant, increasingly gains more attention. High politics issues gradually shift into lower politics ground.

The non-state characters are increasingly modernized and globalized. Their main agenda and activity are specialized and narrowed. They moreover pioneer that non-state centric issues determine state performance in front of international politics. Once the world politics become multipolarised, the non-state actor movement is broadened and maximized. They increasingly become more successful to intervene and influence international politics agenda. There are need and urgency for them to move dynamically with contemporary issues such as poverty, education, culture, malnutrition and else.

Studying above case regarding the outset of ARF as ‘security regime’ in Southeast Asia, we can conclude that the demand of security regime will depend on situated condition sets up by member states.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES

Alagappa, Muthia. 2009. The Study of International Order: an Analytical Framework. Australia: ANU

Amartya Sen, 1997, Human rights and Asian values: what Kee Kuan Yew and Le Peng don’t understand about Asia, copyrights at The New Republic, July 14, 1997 v217 n2-3 p33(8), [ONLINE] accessed December 18, 2010., http://www.hmb.utoronto.ca/HMB303H/weekly_supp/week-02/Sen_Asian_Values.pdf

Eunsook Chung, 2005, Cooperative Security Regimes: A Comparison of OSCE and ARF, the 5th Pan-European International Relations Conference held in the Netherlands Congress Centre, The Hague, September 9-11, 2004., p. 182

Johan Saravanamuttu, 2005, wither the asean security community? Some reflections, IJAPS Vol. 1 2005 (Inaugural Issue), USM Press, Malaysia, [ONLINE] accessed 18 December 2010, http://web.usm.my/ijaps/articles/johan2.pdf

Mearsheimer, in Matthew Rendall, 2006, Defensive realism and the Concert of Europe, Review of International Studies (2006), 32, 523–540 Copyright  British International Studies Association doi:10.1017/S0260210506007145, [ONLINE] accessed 18 December 2010, http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/540/1/Rendall_RIS_article_2006.pdf., p. 524

Ong Keng Yong, 2004, Comprehensive Integration towards The Asean Community, Santiago 18 November 2004, Assosiacion of Southeast Asian Nations, [ONLINE] accessed December 18, 2010., http://www.aseansec.org/16570.htm

Robert Jervis, 1982, Security Regime, pp. 357-378

Robert W Compton, Jr., 2004, East Asian Democratization: Impact of Globalization, Culture, and Economy, Praeger, London., pp.1-17

 

 

Words count 2484

---

[1] Robert W Compton, Jr., 2004, East Asian Democratization: Impact of Globalization, Culture, and Economy, Praeger, London., pp.1-17

[2] Ong Keng Yong, 2004, Comprehensive Integration towards The Asean Community, Santiago 18 November 2004, Assosiacion of Southeast Asian Nations, [ONLINE] accessed December 18, 2010., http://www.aseansec.org/16570.htm

[3] Ibid.,

[4] Eunsook Chung, 2005, Cooperative Security Regimes: A Comparison of OSCE and ARF, the 5th Pan-European International Relations Conference held in the Netherlands Congress Centre, The Hague, September 9-11, 2004., p. 182

[5] Ibid., p. 184

[6] Ibid., p. 187

[7] Robert Jervis, 1982, Security Regime, pp. 357-378

[8] ASEAN principle and belief in the existence of Asean countries as a unique set of institutions and governments that reflect region’s cultural, history, and philosophy (Amartya Sen, 1997, Human rights and Asian values: what Kee Kuan Yew and Le Peng don’t understand about Asia, copyrights at The New Republic, July 14, 1997 v217 n2-3 p33(8), [ONLINE] accessed December 18, 2010., http://www.hmb.utoronto.ca/HMB303H/weekly_supp/week-02/Sen_Asian_Values.pdf)

[9]

[10] Johan Saravanamuttu, 2005, wither the asean security community? Some reflections, IJAPS Vol. 1 2005 (Inaugural Issue), USM Press, Malaysia, [ONLINE] accessed 18 December 2010, http://web.usm.my/ijaps/articles/johan2.pdf

[11] Robert Jervis, 1982, op.cit., p.362

[12] Mearsheimer, in Matthew Rendall, 2006, Defensive realism and the Concert of Europe, Review of International Studies (2006), 32, 523–540 Copyright  British International Studies Association

doi:10.1017/S0260210506007145, [ONLINE] accessed 18 December 2010, http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/540/1/Rendall_RIS_article_2006.pdf., p. 524

[13] Robert Jervis, 1982, Security regime, p. 358

[14] Ibid., p.35.

[15] Ibid., p.37.

[16] Ibid., p. 358

 

NARROWING AND BROADENING SECURITY

Devania Anesya/ 070810535

devania.annesya@gmail.com

 

I

nitially, in a narrow realist, or later, neorealist approach, military security was an attribute of relations of a state, a region or a grouping of states (alliance) with other state(s), regions, groupings of states. It was also referred to as “international security”. Security was viewed as an absence of threat or a situation in which occurrence of consequences of that threat could be either prevented or state (region, alliance) could be made isolated from that.

Broadening the neorealist concept of security means inclusion of a wider range of potential threats, beginning from economic and environmental issues, and ending with human rights and migration. Deepening the agenda of security studies means moving either down to the level of individual or human security or up to the level of international or global security, with regional and societal security as possible intermediate points. While broadening can be attributed predominantly to attempts made by representatives of neorealist approach, then parallel broadening and deepening of the concept of security has been proposed by the constructivist approach associated with the works of the Copenhagen School (Buzan et al, 1998). This typology seems representative for most writings discussing reconceptualization of security, e.g. (Krause & Williams, 1996; Knudsen, 2001).

Analytical properties of security should be concentrated firstly on its adequate definitions and interpretations. Following the concepts of broadened and narrowed interpretations of security, each domain – military, political, economic, societal, environmental and informational can have its specificity (Mesjasz, 2004).

“The concept of security must change-from an exclusive stress on national security to a much greater stress on people’s security, from security through armaments to security through human development, from territorial security to food, employment and environmental security” (Human Development Report, 1993 – www.undp.org/hdro/e93over.htm).

For too long, the concept of security has been shaped by the potential for conflict between states. For too long, security has been equated with the threats to a country’s borders. For too long, nations have sought arms to protect their security. For most people today, a feeling of insecurity arises more from worries about daily life than from the dread of a cataclysmic world event. Job security, income security, health security, environmental security, security from crime-these are the emerging concerns of human security all over the world. Most people instinctively understand what security means. It means safety from the constant threats of hunger, disease, crime and repression. It also means protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in the pattern of our daily lives-whether in our homes, in our jobs, in our communities or in our environment (Human Development Report 1994 – www.undp.org/hdro/e94over.htm).

Reviewed from:

Mesjasz, Czeslaw. 2004. Security as an Analytical Concept. Cracow: Cracow university of Economics

Smith, Steve. “The Contested Concept of Security” in Critical Security Studies and World Politics. London: Lynne Rienner Pub

 

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS AND SECURITY IN POST-COLD WAR ERA

Devania Anesya/ 070810535

devania.annesya@gmail.com

 

F

ollowing the end of the Cold War, many analysts expected that regional security would become separate from global security (Lake and Morgan,1997), especially from the concerns of the great powers. This was because the great powers were no longer involved in an intense competition in all parts of the globe, as was the case during the Cold War. The events of 9/11 show, however, that there is a tight relationship between global security, US national security, transnational terrorism, failed states, and issues of regional conflict (such as the relations among Afghanistan, its neighbors, and trans-border ethnic groups; the Pakistan-India conflict over Kashmir; Iraq, Iran, and Gulf security; the Arab-Israeli conflict; and challenges to the stability of Arab regimes and other weak states).

The US 9/11 Commission, set up by the US Congress to investigate the events leading up to the 9/11 terror attacks, agrees. Among its conclusions: “In the twentieth century, strategists focused on the world’s great industrial heartlands. In the twenty-first, the focus is in the opposite direction, towards remote regions and failing states” (Quoted in Financial Times, July 23, 2004). Thus, regional conflicts and their resolution should be addressed not only for their intrinsic importance, but also in order to advance the cause of international security and stability.

Indeed, one major reason why questions of regional war and peace have assumed added importance in the post-Cold War era is the growing salience of regional conflicts as a result of the end of the superpower rivalry, and the potential consequences of regional conflicts for international stability (Miller and Kagan, 1997: 52). Militarily, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery to different regions may eventually pose a threat, if they do not already, not only to regional security, but to global security as well. Regional conflicts can place access to markets and resources at risk – Middle Eastern oil is a good example.

Some argue that the process of globalization has intensified with the end of the Cold War, and that this process leads to greater global uniformity which diminishes regional differences (Clark, 1997). Others, however, point out that the end of the Cold War produced increasing regional variations, especially in the area of security (Friedberg, 1993/4: 5). Indeed, the end of the Cold War has brought to the surface even greater variations among regions with respect to war and peace. In contrast to post-1945 international norms and practice (Zacher, 2001), Iraq, a state with revisionist aspirations, annexed a sovereign neighboring state, Kuwait, in summer 1990. The Iraqi action led to a major US intervention and to the First Gulf War in 1991. Following the 9/11 attacks, the United States came to see the Middle East, particularly Iraq, as a major source of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This brought about the Second Gulf War, in which the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in Spring 2003. This time the United States had a wider agenda, one which called for bringing democracy to Iraq and, coupled with other US diplomatic initiatives, to the Middle East as a whole. Another example is the Balkans where– after forty-five years of relative calm–the collapse of the USSR led to an eruption of violence which eventually brought about US-led NATO interventions in Bosnia in 1995 and Kosovo in 1999. Violent eruptions also took place in other areas of the collapsing Soviet empire (for example, the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan), although they did not bring out Western military interventions.

 

Reviewed from:

Miller, Benjamin. 2007. States, Nations, and Great Powers: The Sources of Regional War and Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

 

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS AND SECURITY IN COLD WAR ERA

Devania Anesya/ 070810535

devania.annesya@gmail.com

 

T

he evolution of the rise and collapse of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union from the end of World War II in 1945 to the implosion of the Soviet Union in 1991 has several properties that recommend it as a test of currently contending security theories. First, the struggle for global dominance between these two superpowers and their allies, clients, and satellites generated incentives for the development of state military capabilities unprecedented in human history. Moscow and Washington constructed three mutually reinforcing military systems. Central was what Herman Kahn darkly characterized as two superpower nuclear Doomsday Machines, each capable of annihilating its rival in less than a hour–and of potentially destroying much of human life on the planet (Kahn, 1960 and Rees, 2003). Linked to these Doomsday Machines was the creation of enormous conventional and regional nuclear forces in the center of Europe, where Western democratic armies met those of the Soviet Union to defeat Nazi Germany. These two competitors for hegemony, much like Athens and Sparta in their struggle for leadership of the Greek peninsula, also enlisted or coercively induced other states and peoples into their global alliance structures. These superpower military systems, if unleashed in a spasm, would have moved rapidly toward the Clausewitz notion of pure war. These three, interdependent military responses to their global struggle were rationalized by both states as mutually reinforcing to support their defense, deterrent, and war-fighting strategies. Dominance at each level of armed conflict was conceived as mutually contingent to produce overall strategic superiority; the synergism was widely believed by decision-makers on both sides to be indispensable to win or prevail in the global competition.

Second, the scientific knowledge, technological innovation, and economic resources mobilized to sustain these superpower systems exposed the shortcomings of classic models of security. Third, the Cold War went well beyond the material dimensions sketched in these security and welfare imperatives. It was also a struggle over legitimacy before the courts of national and world public opinion. Legitimacy as a Cold War imperative compelled the superpowers to justify their conflicting solutions to global security and welfare imperatives and their self-assumed roles as leaders of their competing coalitions. They also had to validate the principles of legitimacy that purportedly conferred on them the authority to rule other peoples and their own populations. Joseph Stalin, the Soviet leader duringWorldWar II, told Milovan Djilas in 1945: “This war is not as in the past; whoever occupies a territory also imposes on it his own social system. Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach. It cannot be otherwise” (Keylor, 2003).

Fourth, the Cold War was truly global, even more extensive in reach and impact than World Wars I and II. Engaged and ensnared were all humans, whether by choice or necessity. This was the first instance in the evolution of the species, since its emergence out of Africa over a million years ago (Diamond, 1992), that all the populations of the world had been drawn into the vortex of a global struggle. For the first time, too, the conflict put into question the very future of the human species, quite apart from the localized national, ethnic, communal interests of the peoples and states striving for ascendancy. The scope of the Cold War engaged all of the actors and principal factors identified (albeit differentially) by the security theories to be evaluated in succeeding chapters. States, the system of state relations, global markets, multinational corporations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), and most of the world’s populations–all were implicated by choice or necessity in the Cold War struggle. The Cold War, if viewed as a set of all conceivable interactions between and among relevant actors engaged in security relations in international relations, offers a sufficiently inclusive set of data to test the security claims of contending schools of thought.

 

Reviewed from:

Kolodziej, Edward A. 2005. Security and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press