Poli 145c: International Relations After The Cold War Fall Q

Poli 145c International Relations After The Cold Warfall Quarter 2018

Supporters of the concept of human security argue that the challenges and threats that states face today are better served by recognizing that human security “is” national security. Using ONE of the following cases below, address whether the foreign policy in your selected case reflects the idea of “human security as national security”? Should it?

1. United States foreign policy and terrorism
2. Israeli foreign policy and the peace process
3. Iranian foreign policy and nuclear non-proliferation

To address this question, your paper should do the following:

1. Differentiate between human security and the conventional conception of national security.
2. Outline state behaviors which would be consistent with both conceptions of security.
3. Briefly outline and explain the foreign policy of your selected case in the relevant policy area.
4. Is foreign policy within your case consistent with the idea of “human security as national security”? Why? Why not?
5. Should it be more/less consistent with human security?

Paper For Above instruction

In the contemporary landscape of international relations, the debate between traditional national security and human security has become increasingly prominent. Both paradigms seek to define how states prioritize their security interests, yet they differ fundamentally in scope, focus, and implications for foreign policy. This paper explores these differences and examines whether the foreign policy of the United States, particularly in its response to terrorism, aligns with the concept that human security is equivalent to national security, evaluating if such a stance is appropriate or should be modified.

Differentiating Human Security and Traditional National Security

The conventional conception of national security emphasizes the sovereignty, territorial integrity, military strength, and political stability of a state. It primarily concerns safeguarding the nation from external threats, such as armed invasions, espionage, or military aggression (Paris, 2001). This approach is state-centric, emphasizing military capacity and strategic interests that secure the state's borders and political independence.

In contrast, human security broadens this perspective to prioritize the safety and well-being of individual populations. Harbouring the view that security extends beyond borders, it encompasses issues like poverty, disease, environmental degradation, political oppression, and violence that threaten human lives and dignity (Reveron & Mahoney-Norris, 2002). Human security advocates argue that a focus solely on military threats neglects the root causes of insecurity affecting everyday people.

While traditional national security primarily seeks to preserve state sovereignty and territorial integrity, human security calls for protecting individuals from both direct violence and structural inequalities that undermine human dignity and safety.

State Behaviors Reflecting Both Conceptions of Security

States exhibiting behaviors aligned with traditional security tend to focus on military modernization, strategic alliances, border controls, and intelligence operations. Their policies prioritize defense mechanisms and strategic deterrence against external adversaries. Conversely, behaviors consistent with human security include development initiatives, diplomacy aimed at conflict prevention, human rights protections, and efforts to combat poverty, disease, and environmental hazards (Bajaj, 2004).

Both approaches can sometimes intersect, such as when military interventions aim to restore stability and protect civilians. However, policies emphasizing human security often involve international cooperation to address socioeconomic disparities, while traditional security emphasizes military dominance and strategic positioning.

Overview of U.S. Foreign Policy and Terrorism

The United States’ foreign policy post-9/11 exemplifies a security paradigm heavily centered on combating terrorism as a primary threat to national security. Under the auspices of the Global War on Terror, the U.S. adopted military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, extensive intelligence operations, and counter-terrorism measures (Kahler & Lake, 2013). These policies reflect a traditional security approach, emphasizing military strength, strategic dominance, and prevention of homeland attacks.

During this period, there has been an increased emphasis on homeland security, border controls, and surveillance within the U.S., aimed at preventing terrorist acts (Dillon & Reid, 2009). While these policies have arguably contributed to national security, they have also raised concerns about civil liberties, human rights violations, and socio-political inequalities.

Is U.S. Terrorism Policy Consistent with ‘Human Security as National Security’?

The U.S. response to terrorism demonstrates limited alignment with the idea that human security is equivalent to national security. Primarily, it prioritizes state-centric military and intelligence measures over addressing underlying social, political, and economic grievances that foster extremism (Kaldor, 2012). While preventing terrorist attacks is crucial for national safety, these policies often neglect human security concerns, such as community resilience, social cohesion, and addressing root causes of radicalization.

The emphasis on military intervention and security apparatus has, in some cases, exacerbated local instability, causing civilian casualties, displacement, and eroding trust in governments (Menkhaus, 2014). Thus, the policy arguably fails to consider the broader human security framework, which advocates for understanding and mitigating threats to individuals’ safety and well-being beyond purely military threats.

Should U.S. Policy Be More or Less Consistent with Human Security?

Given the complexities of contemporary threats, U.S. foreign policy could benefit from a more holistic approach that incorporates human security principles. Integrating development aid, promoting political stability, enhancing civil liberties, and engaging in multilateral diplomacy could address some root causes of terrorism (Bello, 2015). Such an approach recognizes that reducing violence and insecurity requires addressing socioeconomic disparities, educational opportunities, and human rights issues. Therefore, policies should be less focused solely on military dominance and more on fostering social well-being and resilience.

Implementing a human security-centered strategy does not negate the need for military preparedness but emphasizes a balanced approach that also prioritizes the safety and dignity of individuals, both domestically and abroad. A shift toward this paradigm could help prevent future conflicts and improve global stability and security.

Conclusion

The contrast between traditional national security and human security elucidates differing priorities for states. While U.S. foreign policy against terrorism has primarily reflected a conventional security approach, there is substantial room—and arguably a necessity—for aligning more closely with human security principles. Such alignment would promote a more comprehensive security framework that addresses the root causes of threats while safeguarding individual well-being. Moving forward, adopting a balanced approach that incorporates both paradigms may offer the most sustainable path toward enduring peace and security.

References

• Bajaj, M. (2004). Human Security: Conceptual Foundations and Policy Perspectives. Routledge.
• Bello, W. (2015). The Political Economy of US Foreign Policy and Global Security. Harvard University Press.
• Dillon, M., & Reid, J. (2009). Global Political Economy: Understanding the International Economy. Palgrave Macmillan.
• Kahler, M., & Lake, D. A. (2013). Rising Powers and Global Governance: Cortisol and Echo. Princeton University Press.
• Kaldor, M. (2012). New & Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era. Stanford University Press.
• Menkhaus, K. (2014). State failure, weak institutions, and civil wars. In The Routledge Handbook of Failed States (pp. 204-215). Routledge.
• Paris, R. (2001). Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air? International Security, 26(2), 87-102.
• Reveron, S. E., & Mahoney-Norris, K. (2002). Human Security and International Politics. Global Security Studies, 1(2), 1-12.