English for Diplomacy: Is ‘security’ now the key word in international relations?

The word ‘security’ in international relations used to have only one meaning - national and military security - the safety of a state from attack or political interference by another state. So a state needed military forces, a police force, a security (secret) service and perhaps membership of an alliance to guarantee its independence and freedom from potential threats from other states. It is in this sense that the Italian Armed Forces, police forces and security services, in cooperation with NATO forces and, in particular, US conventional and nuclear forces (the nuclear umbrella) provided Italy with ‘security’ during the Cold War period, and continue to provide it with all the advantages of an alliance based on collective security and shared values. Developments at the European Defence Agency now offer Italy another parallel line of defence.

National security includes threats in non-military fields, the security of economic infrastructure, such as ports, ships, railways, airports and planes (think of the military targets in World War II) and nowadays, the protection from physical or virtual attacks of systems, such as government and commercial IT and satellite networks. Recently, as well as greater concern about cyber-security and the role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the protection of state institutions and private companies and individuals from cyber attacks, we have seen a growing focus on energy, trade, resource and supply chain security.

Look at these other posts on the blog for:

Cybersecurity - https://youngdip.blogspot.com/2023/11/cybersecurity-and-digital-diplomacy.html

Artificial Intelligence - https://youngdip.blogspot.com/2023/10/artificial-intelligence-and.html

https://youngdip.blogspot.com/2023/11/ai-update.html

5G networks, Europe and security - https://youngdip.blogspot.com/2023/11/5g.html

Moreover, states have usually seen themselves as responsible (where possible and normally through diplomacy) for their citizens’ safety abroad and, to some extent, for the well-being of expatriate emigrant communities in other countries, and these are roles that have grown over time.

https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/common-security-and-defence-policy_en

https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/shaping-common-security-and-defence-policy_en

https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/en/aussenpolitik/europe/gsvp-start/209178#:~:text=The%20CSDP%20enables%20the%20EU,management%20and%20post%2Dcrisis%20rehabilitation.

https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/106337/towards-strategic-compass_en

https://eda.europa.eu/

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forze_armate_italiane

https://www.nato.int/

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/30823/qc7809568enc.pdf

https://european-union.europa.eu/priorities-and-actions/actions-topic/foreign-and-security-policy_en

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_20_2391

Another significant factor is that for many states the traditional concept of security has grown to include asymmetric threats, not necessarily coming from another state but from non-state actors. So in the traditional sphere of security, a distinction should be made between threats to security that could be posed by states (e.g. Iran’s nuclear development programs and suspected nuclear arms ambitions, North Korea's nuclear arms and rocket tests) which can be addressed through the UN and traditional diplomacy, and the asymmetric threats posed by non-state, transnational actors where the threat is not so easily tied to a specific state or location (e.g. a transnational terrorist group like Islamic State). The latter require widespread, intense and continuous cooperation and monitoring by the international community at the level of governments, police forces and security services. There is also an obvious conflict here between a state’s duty to ensure the security of its citizens and its legal and moral obligation to respect international laws and norms regarding privacy and the human rights of its own citizens, of those of other states and of those who are not officially recognized as citizens of any state. Cyber security threats may come from other states, or from non-state groups or individuals. Threats to energy security and economic and trade security may come from other states, non-state actors (e.g. pirates), unsustainable competition for limited resources, natural disasters or unforeseen emergencies (e.g. the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine and the interruption or disruption of supply chains) or simply a mismanaged global economy (e.g. the 2008 global economic crisis).

https://www.difesa.it/EN/Operations/InternationalOperations/SomWatAtaOceShield/Pagine/default.aspx

https://www.ispionline.it/en/pubblicazione/italy-national-security-and-5g-27494

https://www.ispionline.it/en/publication/terrorism-what-italian-intelligence-report-says-29522

https://searcherp.techtarget.com/definition/supply-chain-security#:~:text=Supply%20chain%20security%20is%20the,part%20of%20a%20supply%20chain.

However, today the term ‘security’ can be interpreted in many ways and is being applied more and more widely, mainly because we now think of security as also relating to people rather than simply or only to the state (compare the following ideas, national security, international security and human security). Of course, as mentioned above, states generally did accept that they were responsible for trying to ensure the security of their citizens abroad. An attack on the citizens of a state could have serious consequences for the perpetrator in terms of diplomatic and popular reaction, and in terms or possible material retaliation, sanctions, or even war (think of the First World War, the sinking of the Lusitania and the death of American citizens, the later adoption by Germany of unrestricted submarine warfare and the US entry into the war).

In terms of the wider use of the word ‘security’ today, one way of linking the various current ‘security’ concepts is simply to think of the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights it sets out as belonging to all human beings. If human beings possess such rights, then it is the taskfirst of the state concerned and then of the international community, the members of the UN, to try to guarantee, ‘to secure’, these rights. Thus, the concept of security now includes institutions, systems and operations to safeguard these rights.

First, there is the most basic human right, the right to life. Thus, the vast majority of UN emergency operations, health projects and development programs around the world are concerned with ‘security’ in terms of saving lives and providing sustainable living conditions. An attempt by the UN to mediate in order to prevent a conflict or to end a conflict between two countries or between two groups within a country, peace-keeping, peace-building and peace enforcement operations are all ways in which the UN, and thus the international community, seeks to protect people from war and violence and save lives, and promote their physical security. The same is true for UN attempts to promote and support governance-building in a failed or failing state, for all UN, NGO or bilateral emergency and humanitarian aid programs aimed at providing food, water, shelter, basic necessities and health care, and for longer term development programs to promote sustainable agricultural and industrial development, education and foster more effective resource management. Viewed in this way ‘sustainability’ simply means trying to guarantee security not only for people today but for future generations.

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights goes on to list other rights, civil rights – freedom from slavery, freedom from arbitrary arrest, the right to a speedy and fair trial, freedom of speech, freedom of association and the freedom of the press, and the rights associated with active participation in politics. This suggests that ‘security’ for the citizens of a country means that individuals live in a functioning democracy, under the rule of law as enforced by a democratically controlled police force and judicial system. NATO, for example, exists as an alliance of countries of this kind, committed to guaranteeing to its members the ‘security’ of these kinds of values and not simply security from invasion. Moreover, issues such as human rights in China and, in particular, the civil, political, cultural and religious liberties of ethnic minorities such as Tibetans (Buddhists) and Uighurs (Moslems) and Chinese citizens in general (Hong Kong), obviously do affect relations between China and the West. One can see this in Western concern to promote the security of basic rights in China, and to prevent the Chinese political model (the one-party authoritarian state) from spreading to other states as its economic influence grows along with its support for non-democratic and sometimes repressive regimes in Africa and Asia. Among these civil rights is freedom from ‘arbitrary interference with one’s privacy, family, home or correspondence’. As already noted, with the introduction of stronger anti-terrorist legislation such as the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act in the US many civil rights groups are concerned that the need for the state to provide its citizens with security against terrorist attacks has led to the infringement of privacy rights through the monitoring of phones and internet activity without ‘just cause’ (prior permission granted by a judge in specific circumstances).

Questions relating to the prosecution of the individuals responsible for humanitarian crimes, atrocities, ethnic cleansing and genocide committed by groups or states are all concerned with providing justice (reasserting and ‘securing’ this idea through exemplary trials and sentences) after the framework of basic human rights has broken down or been deliberately ignored. Obviously, because of its fundamental recognition of each member state’s sovereignty as regards its domestic affairs, the UN and its affiliated agencies are often unable to intervene effectively in such cases. As a result, these questions may become the subject of disputes in international relations and ultimately the work of the International Criminal Court in prosecuting individuals, or may never be adequately addressed in an international context because a state is too powerful and can block any legal action, or because a state does not belong to the ICC, or refuses to cooperate with it. Nevertheless, the ICC exists in order to promote respect for human rights as a legal norm towards which all states must work.

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights also says everyone has a series of economic and social rights, such as the right to health care, education, the right to a job, to earn money and to an adequate standard of living (although it is not clear how the international community can guarantee work!) and freedom from unsustainable low-wage economic exploitation. Thus, there are UN welfare programs aimed at providing health and education ‘security’ and economic security in terms of sustainable development. As we have seen, such programs, together with programs for environmental protection, are aimed at promoting future human security in social and economic terms. Another concept here is the right to own property and the security of that ownership, a basic question in relation to civilians in failed states, faced with armed bands, or where there is an absence of the rule of law and the presence of criminal organizations or, more recently, threats from piracy, or exploitative élites (where would-be businessmen and professionals cannot be sure of keeping a reasonable amount of the money they make or the ownership of the business they set up).

https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/2021/01/the-politics-of-economic-insecurity-in-the-covid-19-era/

‘Security’ can be similarly interpreted in terms of the need to guarantee the right to freedom of movement, whether as a necessity (for refugees) or as an opportunity (for migrants).

Questions relating to women’s rights and the rights of children may be in terms of basic human rights (protection from violence and slavery), civil rights (the same civil rights as men) or social and economic rights (education, freedom from exploitation in terms of labor and for women, freedom from forced marriage and forced child-bearing – the right to choose).

All of this is to say that although the international community today seems to see ‘security’ in terms the state (e.g. the question of Ukraine’s sovereignty), or the fight against terrorism, the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological arms, illegal trafficking in conventional arms, drugs, people and organs, and the protection of information systems against cyber-attacks, the term ‘security’ needs a much wider interpretation to be fully understood in today’s world.

Exercise – Consider the following issues: women’s rights in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia and other parts of the Muslim world, freedom of the press and the Kurdish question in Turkey, minority rights in Russia, discrimination and the right to privacy of Muslims and the Roma people in Europe. These are all issues that cannot be ignored at the international level and that may therefore affect diplomatic relations and security issues in the broadest sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_security

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_security

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-terrorism_legislation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_governance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland_security

Some Observations

Foreign policy and domestic politics are no longer completely separate. This is very clear in the EU but is also of growing importance within the international community as a whole, within the UN and other international bodies or in bilateral relations.

120 years ago, the sovereignty of the state was an absolute value. Enhancing the power of the state and guaranteeing the state’s security were legitimate and often primary goals of the state. Compare that with today. The IR environment has changed, partly as a result of the much greater degree of globalized trade and technical development, but also because of the education and information revolutions. Ordinary people can monitor and participate in domestic and international relations much more, and much more easily. As we have seen, they are themselves also the subject of security questions, all those concerning the human individual and many of these are best addressed or can only be addressed now through cooperation at the international level. Global recessions, the Covid-19 pandemic, the danger of the escalation of the war in Ukraine or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, nuclear proliferation and the looming environmental challenges of climate change are all good examples of such threats.

Moreover, where development has failed to take place in one state (and where the rule of law collapses and there is widespread human suffering) this situation may endanger first local and regional security and eventually international security. So military interventions are not purely for tangible national interests but also for the promotion or maintenance of shared values also with regard to perceived future threats (NATO’s recent though largely unsuccessful ‘out-of-area’ operations). Security was previously thought of in terms of military and economic strength, and borders were real and protected. Today security is fundamentally dealt with through coordinated action on the basis of shared values and concerns (e.g. Japanese foreign policy today compared with the 1930s and WWII) across borders and at many levels through many organizations (e.g. the ILO, UNESCO, UNICEF, the World Bank, the IMF). Is it even possible today to think of fighting and ‘winning’ a conventional war in the traditional sense? (Russia in Ukraine?) Traditionally, this meant defeating another state and imposing an advantageous settlement. Perhaps war, at least for the West, is now usually a question of military operations undertaken because of a perceived security threat, in the context of a campaign to maintain public support at home and ‘win hearts and minds’ in the country where the war is fought (e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan). If so, perhaps the UN, as currently constituted on the basis of sovereign states, is out of date and even unreformable, since the subject of IR and broad security questions is now often people rather than states.

One of the main problem for the EU remains that of its future identity. Is it going to stay a group of sovereign states or will it evolve into some kind of federal union? Shared foreign policy, its latest objective, ultimately requires shared sovereignty. The Greek financial crisis illustrated the problems for the EU at the internal level, while on international questions the EU’s more powerful members and its outliers (e.g. Hungary)often speak for themselves and with conflicting voices. The EU’s effectiveness both in guaranteeing economic security for its citizens and in helping to promote human security abroad will ultimately depend on how much political unity it manages to achieve.

Of course, not all states are ready and willing to embrace these new values and this new version of IR. Some still pursue Realpolitik to at least a significant degree, and among these are both some of the world’s most powerful states (Russia, China, and sometimes the US) and some of the world’s least democratic and least open states (North Korea and Iran). Thus, some states which are members of the UN and have signed the UN Charter do not actually share its values and may see it as a Western organization trying to impose Western values. So currently IR is a mix of the traditional goals and methods of foreign policy and diplomacy and the new objectives and methods which are still evolving, but perhaps evolving too slowly to keep pace with a changing world. International relations often run the risk of being an uneasy compromise between genuine idealism, wishful thinking and harsh power politics, based sometimes on interventions, which may no longer be determined simply by the material interests of nation states but by a mix of conflicting values, and sometimes on a failure to intervene (Rwanda, Syria?). The nation state alone is no longer able to resolve global problems through traditional negotiations and Realpolitik, but a world government based on truly shared values and with effective powers does not exist yet. So collective security and human security remain difficult concepts, works in progress rather than a given legally-enforceable framework for international relations.

http://www.fao.org/hunger/en/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_security

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_security

https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/children-human-rights-explained

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_of_person#:~:text=Security%20of%20the%20person%20is,the%20United%20Nations%20in%201948.&text=In%20general%2C%20the%20right%20to,remedy%20such%20as%20habeas%20corpus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_Development_Goals

https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/children-human-rights-explained

https://www.sos-childrensvillages.org/getmedia/313a610a-e688-4347-8921-427ffe0ee4e0/SecuringChildrensRights_GBR.pdf

https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/minorities/pages/minoritiesindex.aspx

https://www.who.int/health-topics/health-security/#tab=tab_1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_security

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_security