A little article presented at Oslo University last year

Guide Question: In what ways - if at all - have the concept of security changed in recent years?

1. Some changes in the security debate

The discussion on security after the end of the Cold War in 1989 has not been properly an area of easy agreement. During the Cold War it was more obvious that the security issues can be reduced to the military question, to the number of weapons, capability of armies and other things related to the military area. This was the national security. After this, and even before since the early 1980’s, the discussion of human security and the wider of the scope of security issues had grown, mainly after the 1989’s events. This, as defined by Barry Buzan, has put in one side the traditionalists, to whom security is a military and state-centered issue, and in the other those who put security in a wider scope of discussion, bringing to its agenda issues like economic development, health, education, environment, etc. Barry Buzan alerts that this new approach on security is more complex and hard to discuss because of its “intellectual and political dangers in simply tacking the word security onto an ever wider range of issues.”[i]

Globalization is an important event in the discussions on security. The concept and the effects of globalization divides the scholars in two groups. The first one argues that the globalization process facilitate the cooperation between states and the interdependence turns more easy the dialogue between nations. On the other hand, other group states that globalization produces more economic inequality, brings the fragmentation and rapid social changes. These negative effects can increase the possibility of conflicts.

One approach that can be linked with the globalization is the Liberal Institutionalism due to the institutionalized cooperation among states. This cooperation can be a wide opportunity to reach high levels of international security. The Liberal Institutionalists recognizes that institutions will not, by themselves, assure a global security, but they are an important actor on achieving states cooperation and, so, minimize tensions and conflict between them. As quoted by John Baylis, the Liberal Institutionalism “argues that international institutions are much more important in helping to achieve cooperation and stability than structural realists realizes”.[ii]

The after Cold War Era may be described, in security issues, as an Era of changing patterns. That means the old threat (of a nuclear war and mass destruction) no longer exists, but new ones are getting in force (mainly the terrorism, and the threats on the Human Rights). To the American policy-makers the new threats are the “rogue states” (such as Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Cuba), the nuclear weapons proliferation (I.e.: the arms race between India and Pakistan and the works of the International Atomic Energy Agency on advertising countries like Iran and North Korea to stop their nuclear programs) and the Islamic terrorism. [iii] This view is closer to the traditionalists approach and puts the state in a center role in security, giving to this a military status only. Organisms like the United Nations are more close to the human security approach. The UN Charter and the main tasks of the institution put the human security in the first place when defending peace and the respect to the human rights.

But, despite the discussions on globalization, one of the most important approaches to the security debate nowadays is the Common Security Doctrine, presented in 1982 by the Palme Commission on that year’s report. The Commission stated that security requires economic growth and the end of military fear. This used to be applied to the so-called Third World countries in the early 1980’s, but today this statement can be applied to all countries where political and economic stability are not in force, like some parts of Africa, Latin America, Asia and Europe. As marked by Amitav Acharya, the importance of people’s security has grown.[iv] It means that security, since the Cold War end, is not anymore a military issue. The dimensions of security includes the points defined in the Human Development Report of 1994, issued by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP): economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political security. This points means that, after Cold War, Human Security has been more important than national security. At least for the international organizations, such as the United Nations.

The critics of the Human Security say that the concept is too broad to be useful as tool of policy-making, the definition is to moralistic, unattainable and unrealistic. But, the most important critic on Human Security tells that this approach does not includes the state as a provider of security. Based on the Unite Nation Commission on Human Security’s report from 2003, that describes Human Security as complement of the State Security.[v] This UN’s statement has been used in defense of Human Security approach as a state allied in security policy-making.

2. A brief view on the South American case

In Latin America, the end of the Cold War clashed with the process of democratization. A major part of the countries, including Brazil, Argentine, Chile, Uruguay and Mexico, were at that time involved with the transition from military dictatorial governments to new democratic states. In some ways, these re-democratization processes means the end of governments that went in force with the United States’ support, in a supposed north-american battle to avoid the “danger of comunism” of invading it’s own backyard, what means Latin America. In Cuba, this intervention has obtained no success.

This transition brings to Latin America some sense of integration or, at least, put the subject in the political leaders, media and academics agenda. South America, for example, is experiencing since the second half of the 1980’s this integration with Mercosul, which involves Argentine, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay. Venezuela may soon join the block. With this new democratic and integration era, countries became more open in its borders. Conflicts between nations, that were present since the independency revolutions period, are now lying under this democratic commitment of national governments. Despite of the recent diplomat incident between Colombia’s president Alvaro Uribe, and Venezuela’s and Ecuador’s, Hugo Chavez and Rafael Correa, after the Colombian army been accused of a one mile invasion of the Ecuador’s territory in the action that killed the second more important member of the FARCs in the Amazon jungle, a democratic peace seems to be in course in the continent.

In this way, the security in South America becomes more a Human Security task than a National Security one. The stabilization of borders and the good level of governments commitment with democratic principles, brings to the light the notion that to achieve security it’s necessary to reach a good economic growth, develop the education and health systems and increase the personal and community security. In other words, this means the stabilization of democracy in the region and the presence of several factors that bring to the analysis a Human Security approach. Beyond the growing democratization, we can include the rising of an economic interdependence, the role of local and international institutions and the diplomatic choice as a form to deal with conflicts instead of the military choice.

2.1. Liberal Institutionalism and Democratic Peace Theory

Why is the Colombian stability important to the United State and to South America? Why is important to the European Union a good control by Brazil of its borders? The interdependence between countries and communities of countries is an important Liberal issue. In the same way Liberal Institutionalists propose that institutionalized cooperation between countries is a form to enhance the international security.

The Colombian political and democratic stability means, among other things, but for example, the country having success against the drugs production and traffic through the Brazilian territory and then to Europe and United States. But, to achieve this a cooperation between Brazil, Colombia and the United States is an important task. And this is actually in force. Here we can see the institutionalized cooperation working to a high security level in the region. To Europe, it is important due to its border with the Brazilian Amazon region. The French department of Guianne Française has a large border area with Brazil, all in the Amazon rain forest. This are some examples on how institutionalized cooperation is linked to the international security.

This cooperation may lead the countries in to a stable democracy status. Here, another Liberal approach for security come in force: the Democratic Peace Theory. According to this theory, democratic states tend no to fight other democratic states. The Democratic Peace sets the democratic representation, the commitment to human rights and transnational interdependence as important things that together explains the tendency for peace of democratic states. In the South American case, the Democratic Peace can be applied to the Mercosul and its democratic clause. This means that all the members, and the countries that want to join the block, must be committed with democratic principles.

3. Conclusion

In fact, the security concepts has changed since the end of the Cold War. All the new approaches on this subject, mainly those that defend the cooperation between states, the economic growth and the defense of human rights as important ways to get a good level of security - as the Liberal Institutionalism and the Human Security - shows that the traditional vision of security as just a military issue is quite narrow to the moment.

The Human Security approach may be one the most important changes in the discussion field of security. Here people is put in an important role when security is discussed, and not only the states and how big are their economies and military forces. Human Security brings to the table the economy (but not only this and this is one important point of analysis in Human Security), health, environment and other issues that represents the human development. Its two conceptions “freedom from want” and “freedom from fear”, despite of different perspectives on how to achieve the Human Security (one proposes the promotion of human development, and the other the protection of people in conflict areas) agree that the individual is the main object in security. As stated by Amitav Acharya “The concept of Human Security represents an important ongoing effort to put the individual in the centre of national and global security concerns while expanding our understanding of the ranges of challenges that can threaten individual safety and well-being to encompass both armed conflict as well as social, economic and ecological forces.”[vi]

This guidelines are followed by the UN and its program for development, the UNDP, and the UN Commission on Human Security. It means unlike in the Cold War era when a military race was in force and the arsenal of a state was it main security guarantee, in the start of 21st century, with the integration and cooperation between nations putting the world in a heavy interdependence, the security discussion has broaden its scope and brought to the focus the individuals security. The human development becomes an important matter for the world security.

[i] BUZAN, Barry. “Ch. 1: Introduction. In (Ed) Buzan et al. Security. A New Framework for Analysis. 1998, p.: 1-20. Page 1
[ii] BAYLIS, John. “Ch. 13: International and Global Security”. In (Ed) Baylis, John et al. The Globalization of World Politics. Page 233.
[iii] COX, Michael. “From the Cold War to the War on Terror”. In (Ed) Baylis, John et al. The Globalization of World Politics.
[iv] ACHARYA, Amitav. “Ch. 28: Human Security.” In In (Ed) Baylis, John et al. The Globalization of World Politics.
[v] ACHARYA, Amitav. “Ch. 28: Human Security.” In In (Ed) Baylis, John et al. The Globalization of World Politics.
[vi] ACHARYA, Amitav. “Ch. 28: Human Security.” In In (Ed) Baylis, John et al. The Globalization of World Politics. Page 504.

4. Bibliographical references

BUZAN, Barry et al. Security. A New Framework for Analysis. Lynne Riener Publishers: 1998. In the Blandingskompendium for the ISSSV 1855 - International Politics, University of Oslo: 2008.

BAYLIS, John; SMITH, Steve; and OWENS, Patricia. The Globalization of World Politics - an introduction to international relations. Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press: New York, 2008.