By Ozeh, Cornelius Chiedozie
Introduction
The
ever widening interconnection of the economic, technological and
socio-political sectors of the countries of the world necessitated the
redefinition of the concept of security beyond strategic concerns. We are used to think security in terms of
military threats and arising beyond the borders of one’s own country.
Traditionally national security is understood as “the acquisition, deployment
and use of military force to achieve national goals” (Held and McGrew 1998). Walt
(1991) classical view of security promoted a state-centric position that
restricted the application of security to threats in the military realm only.
The
re-conceptualization of security brought about a two dimensional shift from the
original notion of security: broadening,
i.e., consideration of nonmilitary security threats such as environmental
scarcity and degradation, spread of disease, overpopulation, refugee movements,
terrorism; and deepening, i.e.,
consideration of the security of individuals and groups rather than focusing
narrowly on external threats to states such as ethnic conflict, civil war,
environmental threats and survival of individuals (Brown 1994).
Traditional
security has been the focus of scholars and statesmen during the Cold War era.
However, Aydın (2005) chronicled the changes away from the traditional
perspective saying that in the 1970’s and the 1980’s the concern over the
economic and environmental problems, and in the 1990’s the concern over the
“identity” and “transnational crimes”, and in the 2000’s the concern over the
energy, cyber and social security as well as terrorism have broadened the
meaning of security. Already, in the 1980’s Buzan has mentioned about new
security domains beside military such as social, economic, political and
environmental (Buzan 1991). Thus, discussion on the broadening of security has
started towards other domains even before the end of the Cold War era,
indicating that we cannot only focus on military issues.
The
separation of the broadening of security from globalization of security is not
a mean task. As stated by Clark “part of the broadening of the concept of
security can be and has been attributed to the effects of globalization” (Clark
1999). Similarly, Cha (2000) argued that globalization widened the scope of
security.
Globalization
of transformation, communication, information, technology and economy catalyze
some of the dangers such as global warming, ozone depletion, acid rain,
environmental problems as well as terrorism. The danger of terrorism is clearly
seen in the September 11 terrorist attacks. Cha also, indicates that as the
scope of threats are widening with globalization, the targets are becoming
individuals rather than the states (ibid.). Furthermore, in the post Cold War era, the role of states
decrease and change in international relations while the role of multinational
companies, financial institutions and nongovernmental organizations increase
with globalization. The changes are not limited to the financial and economic
spheres. Globalization changes the “very nature of states and political
communities.” Thus, the distinction between international and domestic affairs
decrease and “transnational solidarities” appear (Guehenno,
n.d.).
Foreign
and domestic issues are no longer distinguishable in the era of globalization.
The local issues are becoming global issues such as the poverty in Africa. In
addition, as noted in the SIPRI Year Book 2005, all 19 major armed conflicts in
2004 were intra-state, but have regional and international dimensions. In this
sense, it challenges the classification of security as internal and external (Nilüfer 2006).
In this context, we are entering a new phase. Thus, globalization process has
certain effects on the international security agenda, although it is considered
that it is difficult to conclude as to how globalization increases or decreases
the degree of security.
This
paper focuses on globalization and the new issues of security. It probes into
the implications of globalization on national and international security; x-raying
its advantages and disadvantages. It argues that globalization is both a threat
and an opportunity to the emergent issues of national and international
security.
The Concept of Globalization
Simply
put, globalization generally refers to an increasing interaction across
national boundaries that affects many aspects of life: economic, social,
cultural, and political” (United Nations Poverty and Development Division
1999). The World Trade Organization (WTO) Director-General, Pascal Lamy
proposes that Globalization can be defined as an historical stage of
accelerated expansion of market capitalism, like the one experienced in the
19th century with the industrial revolution. It is a fundamental transformation
in societies because of the recent technological revolution which has led to a
recombining of the economic and social forces on a new territorial dimension (See
http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl16_e.htm). Theoretically, globalization is a
multidimensional phenomenon which covers all aspect of life including
increasing interdependencies among economies through international trade,
international migration, and foreign direct Investment and other capital flows.
It is characterized especially by an intensification of cross-border trade and
increased financial integration, promoted by rapid liberalization and advances
in information technologies, which guarantees economic prosperity, growth and
speedy economic development for less Developed countries (LDCS) (Ogunyomi and
et al, 2013).
The Concept of Security: Old and
New
The
concept of security has undergone changes overtime in the field of
international relations. Traditionally,
the State has been the model of security. The State assumes the responsibility
to protect its citizens and demands their loyalty (IEEE, 2011). This model of
security manifests as the national security which Kennan (1948 in ibid.) defined
as "the continued ability of the country to pursue the development of its
internal life without serious interference, or threat of interference, from
foreign powers".
After the end of the Cold War and as
a consequence of globalization, threats have no longer a purely military
character, extending the concept of security. Global problems, the majority of
which are cross-border, like organized crime, terrorism, deterioration of the
environment, disputes over natural resources, uncontrolled refugee flows,
illegal immigration, poverty and famine have become risks for humanity which
seem as important as the traditional military defence (ibid.). Therefore the
extension of the scope of the concept of security becomes inevitable to
accommodate the emergent issues of security.
Globalization and the Emergent
Issues of National Security
It
has been said above that the meaning of security has broadened and deepened. National security is not simply
securing a nation’s borders and maintaining the power of its military, but also
includes protecting and maintaining a nation’s infrastructure, the workability
of its foreign policies, investments, economy and technology, the civil rights
of its citizens, trade and work availability, healthful environmental
conditions, suitable laws and policies regarding immigrants, asylum and refugee
seekers and, of course, its national sovereignty (Simmons 2006). The wave of
globalization sweeping across the globe necessitated this broadening while at
the same time posing varieties of threats to it. Threats to national security
have become global in scope and more serious in their effects as a result of
the spread of knowledge, the dispersion of advanced technologies, and the
movements of people. These same developments, combined with expanding global
economic interactions, contribute to some of the problems and resentments that
lie at the root of these security threats. But paradoxically, many of those
same aspects of globalization offer new opportunities to achieve economic
growth and democracy, thereby ameliorating the threats as well as some of their
underlying causes (Davies 2003). The dangers were clearly manifested in the
9/11 (2001) terrorist attacks, which showed how the Al Qaeda organization was
able to effectively exploit new communications technologies, global financial
networks, and the ease of movements of people.
The global interconnection leaves
nation states vulnerable to transnational threats. Nigeria was hit by Ebola
Virus Disease (EVD) due to her globalization responsive immigration policy that
allowed the movement of people from one country to another; when Patrick Sawyer
made it into the country with the dreaded disease. Needless to say here is that
several lives were lost in Nigeria to the disease brought in by the immigrant.
While every nation state is at the
risk of transnational threats such as terrorism, environmental degradation,
disease and culture shock due to migration, the developed countries that were
thought to be main beneficiaries of globalization lose much also to
globalization in their security.
Simmons (2006) decried the influence
of immigration on the United State’s security thus:
After WWI & WWII the flow of
immigrants coming into the United States came almost entirely from Europe.
Therefore their ability and desire to integrate into the American culture was
very prominent. Today the primary immigrants flowing into the United States are
from Latin America and they tend to migrate into large ethnic enclaves. When
the ethnic enclaves become large enough the process of integration into the
host country society is substantially weakened.
An
example is the recent brutal execution slaying of Theo van Gogh, a Dutch
citizen born in the Netherlands, by a young Moroccan who was also born in the
Netherlands. Mohammed Bouyeri, the murderer, stated that he executed van Gogh
because Shari’a required him to kill
infidels. Bouyeri attached a letter to
van Gogh‟s slain body which included the phrase “You o Europe will meet with
disaster” (Contemporary Review 2007 in Simmons 2006). This letter made it clear
that Bouyeri believed his loyalty and identity was not founded in the culture
and laws of the Netherlands, but rather to his interpretation of the Islamic
laws of his religion (ibid.).
It
is clear that immigration laws play an intrinsic role in the National Security
regime (Moore and Turner 2005).
In
a similar vein, Lewis (2004) writing on the implications of globalization on
the United States interest with special focus on the emergent security issues,
discussed three problems.
First,
the relative economic strength of the US will decline in relation to other
nations. While the U.S. still produces about a quarter of world GDP, economic
growth in other countries will reduce this share to less than twenty percent in
the next few years. Relative decline is unavoidable, but this need not
translate into a loss of leadership if the U.S takes advantage of and
reinforces a combination factors, it can maintain its global position.
Second
and more importantly, the U.S. relative share of innovation will fall,
potentially affecting technological leadership. Globalization's most
significant effect on the U.S. interests is the leveling of technological
leadership. The increased international mobility of highly skilled labour and
the diffusion of technological know-how means that many countries now can
compete with the U.S in producing cutting edge research and innovation.
U.S.
policy and regulation reinforces globalization's technological leveling. The
U.S. may damage its ability to create new technologies because of funding
decisions for research, new homeland security policies and if it fails to
compensate for decreased manufacturing activity. Federal investment in physical
sciences and engineering has fallen by half since 1970 as a percentage of GDP.
Corporate R&D spending has changed significantly and focuses on development
of new products, in reaction to competitive pressures and the need to show
near-term gains to financial markets. The result is that the U.S. has seriously
underfunded key research sectors....
Finally,
technological leveling and interdependence give opponents new opportunities to
seek asymmetric advantage. The emphasis is to avoid direct engagement with
military forces. Civilian and economic infrastructures are soft targets that
are more vulnerable to asymmetric attack. Nations and groups will exploit
commercial technologies and services to mimic advanced military capabilities
and take advantage of unexpected vulnerabilities to gain asymmetric advantages.
Globalization,
by giving opponents increased access to U.S. critical infrastructure, creates new
set of risks, particularly in information technologies. Intelligence agencies
are opportunistic and foreign production of hardware and software gives them an
opportunity to gain access to information or to disrupt critical
infrastructures. A potential opponent could take advantage of the access
afforded by globalization to intentionally introduce malicious flaws. A few
hundred lines of code hidden in programs with hundreds of thousands of lines
may be enough to provide an advantage, while being very difficult to detect.
Foreign intelligence agencies could exploit opportunities provided by economic
integration to insert or recruit personnel with access to critical functions in
the U.S. (ibid.).
Information technologies and systems
are central features of globalization and have become increasingly important to
the functioning of many critical civilian and military systems of nations:
communications, energy, transportation, electrical, water, and banking. These systems
are highly vulnerable to cyber attacks and disruptions; getting at any of them
means punching national security in the face. The dangers arising from
environmental degradation often cross state borders; the most publicized danger
involves the rising global temperatures that are setting off devastating
droughts, floods, and violent storms. Other environmental dangers include air
and water pollution, the loss of forests and biodiversity, and the potential
introduction of toxic substances into the human food chain. The threat is
growing that infectious diseases will spread globally and quickly, as a result
of increasingly drug-resistant microbes, the lag in development of new
antibiotics, poor patterns of land and water use, shifts in climate, the rise of
mega-cities with severe health care deficiencies, the ease of movement of
peoples across borders, and the growing number of refugees. U.S. intelligence
estimates project only limited gains over the coming 20 years against the
overall infectious-disease threat, with virulent diseases, led by HIV/AIDS and
tuberculosis, continuing to take a significant toll (National Intelligence
Council 2000). Violence motivated by ethnic and religious hatreds is certainly
not a new phenomenon. Today, however, it is often associated with the shedding
of traditional economic structures in the wake of expanding global commerce and
major disruptions in existing patterns of political authority caused by the
spread of information technologies. Such violence can extend easily across
state borders; among its consequences can be large flows of refugees (Lewis,
op. cit.).
Nilüfer (2006) summarized the impacts of globalization on the security
of nation states on general grounds.
First
of all, globalization denotes that nation-state can no longer control
non-physical security aspects, such as protection of information and technology
assets (Cha 2000). According to Kay, the more you protect your information and
technology, the stronger you are (Kay 2004). For example, to have a giant military
power without protecting your information technology is meaningless.
Nevertheless, one of the challenges posed by globalization is that individual
states can no longer control the movement of technology and information.
Furthermore, since the arms industry mostly held by private sectors, it causes
the transnationalization of defense production and reduces the state control
over these productions. Moreover, as noted by Cha, there is
transnationalization of threats, as the individual states can no longer control
the pollution, disease, technology and information transfer as well as
terrorism alone. Transnationalization has blurred the division between internal
and external security, so the states can no longer ignore the effects of
globalization in forming their security policies (Cha, op. cit.).
Second,
in the age of globalization, the emergence of information based-economies
reduces the importance of national industries. For example, the increased
foreign direct investment in local economies by the multinational companies
decreases the state control on domestic economy and makes them more vulnerable
to international crisis and intervention, which is threatening their economic
security. The states are more sensitive to security and military developments in
other regions due to increasing financial, trade and economic relations (Held
and McGrew 1998).
Third,
the advancement of communication technologies created vital effects on certain
dynamics. For example, during the Kosovo conflict, after the broadcasting of
mass deportation and casualties on the television broadcasts, the conflicts
became impossible to ignore creating international public pressure for
intervention. On the other hand, this might be also dangerous in some cases; as
Kay states if there is control on the information and media technology,
powerless can become powerful (Kay, op. cit.).
Fourth, as the nature and strategy
of war have changed, the security threats became more difficult to measure,
monitor or tackle with the globalization process. Agents of threat can be
state, but can also be non-state groups and individuals, such as ethnic
militias, cults, organized crime and terrorism. Similarly, as stated by Cha,
extremist, fundamentalist groups, terrorists, criminals, and drug smugglers
were enhanced by the globalization of technology and information (Cha, op.
cit.).
Fifth,
globalization makes it easy for the states to reach to the weapons of mass
destruction and other technologies, thus the states might pose threats that are
asymmetrical and disproportionate to their size (ibid.). Today the term widely
used is the asymmetrical strategy (asymmetric power) by which a
smaller power would attempt to defeat the largest powers in the globalized
international system by striking against its perceived vulnerabilities
(Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff (2001). Similar to Cha, Kay notes that the
technological dynamics of globalization makes asymmetrical power especially
dangerous with the use of WMD. Thus, globalization can give a chance to the
strong states to enhance their powers; however, it also gives a chance for the
weaker ones to challenge powerful ones. Put another way, the asymmetrical power
provides alternatives for small or weak states to challenge more powerful
states. Furthermore, the technological dynamics of globalization such as the
proliferation of WMD makes the asymmetrical power more dangerous (Kay, op.
cit.).
Finally,
Kronin, A. K. (2002/03) argues that globalization process widened the support
for terrorism. As globalization created negative consequences and
marginalization of some groups and global social and economic inequalities,
terrorism gained more support from many marginalized people in different
nations, and became more global. As stated by Kronin frustrated populations are
against the US-led globalization. Especially people at the lower end of the social and
economic spectrum realized that they cannot have equal shares in the global
world, their demands are not recognized by the strong nations and started to
show reactions. These reactions became threatening as they have started to give
support to terrorism against globalization. According to Kronin, the ones left
behind or threatened by the US-led globalization increasingly felt the need to
assert their identity against the forces of homogeneity threatening by
terrorism (ibid.).
The
Implications of Globalization on International Security
Just like on the national security,
globalization poses serious threat on the international security. Problems are
no longer local; a threat anywhere is indeed a threat everywhere. The wave of
globalization has put the knowledge of destructive weapons development to the
reach of terrorist groups which the same wave also made transnational. In a
recent seminar Mohammed Hafez (CSPAN 2007 in Simmons 2006) has termed them
“Terrorists without borders.” The insurgent enemy consists of a network of
groups who are ideologically rather than territorially based. They are
stateless individuals with a fundamentalist ideology (Simmons 2006). This
development explains why the international community especially, U.S.A can
undertake anti-terrorist campaign even outside their borders. They are not safe
at the presence of terrorism elsewhere. They have launched offensive attacks on
terrorist groups operating in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria and several
other places including Boko Haram in Nigeria. The operation of the
transnational terrorist groups can hit any country directly or indirectly. Even
when ISIS has not made it to U.S.A for instance, several U.S. citizens ranging
from James Foley, Stephen Sotlof, Peter Kassig to Kayla Mueller have lost their
lives in faraway Middle-East to the fundamentalists.
Ivanov
(2003) posited that globalization has made more acute the problems concerning
the buildup of weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons, or their various technical components, may fall into the hands of
terrorist or extremist groups, which intensifies the destructive potential of
international terrorism.
Security
became so complex and multi-dimensional, traditional national border-setting
type of security perception is not capable of recognizing new threats that
transcend the national borders. In this context, international terrorism became
one of the main concerns with its highly complicated characteristics (Erhan,
n.d.).
Thus,
globalized world has to face an immediate threat: international terrorism. This
problem has been recognized not only by one nation, but also in the era of
globalization when the nations became much more connected and interdependent,
it became a threat to international security. Some of the states have witnessed
terrorist threats since many years. Nevertheless, though these states have
already known the pains of terrorism, it became more a concern of many other states
with September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States. This a turning
point for all the nations to see the threat of terrorism. Almost a new
awareness has started, because everybody saw its damages while a lot of people
have died or injured, and unfortunately while terrorist declared their success.
Terrorism became the main topic on the top agenda for many nations and
institutions. Today, global terror is a giant problem for all humanity.
September 11 gave a massage that the target was the main leader of
globalization, the United States. The World Trade Center as one target in the
United States symbolized economic dimension of globalization, while Pentagon
symbolized the political and military dimension. In other words, terrorism has
put globalization among its targets (Nilüfer, op. cit.).
The dynamics of globalization
has added a new quality to the classical problems of international security.
The stability and reliability of the developing global partnership taking shape
at the beginning of the 21st century depend on efforts to maintain and
strengthen strategic stability. In the age of globalization, the role of this
factor – far from decreasing – is growing in many respects.
On the one hand, the maintenance
of stable partnerships between nuclear powers, as well as the prevention of a
return to a strategic arms race, acquires special importance for building
mutual confidence and predictability on the international stage. These are the
main prerequisites for the development of international economic cooperation as
the primary basis of globalization.
On the other hand, the rapid
pace of technological progress, initiated through the dynamics of
globalization, creates an atmosphere for the development of ever more powerful
weapon systems and, as a result, a resumption of the race for the most
destructive types of weapons which precludes the use of these funds for
investment in civil production. Any buildup of strategic arsenals is likely to
provoke a new round in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and
their delivery vehicles. Needless to say, this chain reaction will complicate
the situation in many regions of the world and have grave consequences for
international security (Ivanov, op. cit.). Globalization can therefore plunge
the world into nuclear war which the world came closest to only during the
Cuban Missile Crisis in the 1960s
What Globalization Can Do for Security
It is not all dark about
security and globalization. Globalization however is a well-meaning trend that
only went berserk. Securing a nation’s borders and maintaining the power of its
military, protecting and maintaining a nation’s infrastructure, the workability
of its foreign policies, investments, economy and technology, the civil rights
of its citizens, trade and work availability, healthful environmental
conditions, suitable laws and policies regarding immigrants, asylum and refugee
seekers and, of course, its national sovereignty (Simmons 2006) have benefited
from globalization.
Monitoring of marine, aerial and
terrestrial territoriality of nation states is today done with advanced
technologies which complement if not leading the manual input. Securing the
fundamental human rights of citizens of a country has become a global concern
in a globalized world. Autocratic governments can no longer get away with human
rights abuses she perpetrated within her country. Democracy has been exported
to inconceivable parts of the world with ultra conservative political
ideologies. It swept through the Arabian world in what is known as the “Arab
Spring.” Most of the Arab Spring agitations were aided by the social media.
Successes have been recorded in fighting of terrorism with advanced weapons.
The use of drones against terrorism has reduced the loss of lives of the
military personnel.
The
rise of global finance, the 24-7 global economy, and the ability to hide
financial resources in safe havens… are key manifestations of the globalized (world),
(Williams, 2003).
Conclusions and Recommendations
It
is difficult to make a precise conclusion as to how globalization increases or
decreases the degree of security (Clark, 1999). If security is the quest for
the absence, or lessening, of threats in an anarchic world, globalization might
increase or decrease security outcomes. If security is seen as a
particularistic quest of nation-states to provide for their own defense, then
globalization also provides both challenges and opportunities (Kay 2004). From
every prism of perception, globalization has its bright and dark sides. This
paper takes globalization as a well-meaning trend that went berserk.
It
recommends that the mad dog of globalization should be tamed for security by:
·
Launching
heavier attacks on terrorism in order to expunge its poison from the life
sustaining blood of globalization.
·
Disallowing
the development of ethnic enclaves in foreign lands.
·
Promotion
of more just and equal world in order to avoid frustration and aggression.
·
Greater
funding of research into the treatment and prevention of infectious diseases.
·
Working
out more effective modalities towards ensuring the protection of the ecosystem.
The
many dimensions of globalization call for a new way of approaching security in
the coming decades. The various transnational threats arising out of different
aspects of globalization pose too many risks to be ignored. The United States
and the broader international community must view them as sufficiently serious
to warrant the design of credible preventive strategies and the commitment of
major political capital and resources (Davies, 2003).
References
Aydın, M. (2005),
“Küreselleşme karşısında ulus devlet, ekonomi ve güvenlik”, 11. Mayıs,
Brown, S. (1994),
“World Interests and Changing Dimensions of Security”, in Michael Klare
and Yogesh Chandrani (eds), World
Security: Challenges for a New
Century,
1994, New York: St. Martin’s, p. 1-17
Buzan, B. (1991),
People, States and Fear: an Agenda for International Security
Studies in the
post Cold-War Era,
New York (2nd edition).
Cha, V.D. (2000),
“Globalization and the Study of International Security”, Journal of Peace
Research, Vol. 37, No. 3, 2000, p. 391-403.
Clark, I. (1999),
“Globalization and International Relations Theory,” Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Davies, L.E. (2003), “Globalization’s Security Implications;”
Dougherty, J. E. and
Pfaltzgraff, R. L. (2001), “Contending Theories of
International
Relations: A
comprehensive Survey,” New York: Longman.
Erhan, C. (n.d.), “Küreselleşme Döneminin Tehditleriyle Mücadele”, Stradigma.com
http://www.teror.gen.tr/turkce/makaleler/kureselesme.html acessed 03/03/15
Guehenno, J. (n.d),
“Globalization and Fragmentation”, in Globalization, Power and
Democracy,
Marc F. Plattner (ed.), Baltimore, USA: John Hopkins University Press, p. 14-27
Held, D. and McGrew, A.
(1998), “The End of the Old Order?”, Review of International
Studies,
No. 24, 1998, p. 219-243.
IEEE, (2011), “THE EVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPT OF
SECURITY.”
http://www.ieee.es/en/Galerias/fichero/docs_marco/2011/DIEEEM05-2011_EvolutionConceptSecurity_ENGLISH.pdf
Ivanov, I. (2003), “International Security in the Age of Globalization.”
http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/number/n_627
Kay, S. (2004), “Globalization, Power and Security”, Security Dialogue, Vol. 35, No.1, 2004,
p. 10
Kronin, A. K.
(2002/03), “Behind the Curve: Globalization and International
Terrorism”,
International
Security, Vol. 27, No. 3, (winter) 2002/03, p. 30-58.
Lewis, J.A. (2006),
"Globalization and National Security;"
Moore, J. N. and Turner, R. T. (2005), “National Security Law,” 2nd
Edition, Carolina
Academic
Press.
National Intelligence Council (2000), “The Global Infectious Disease
Threat and Its
Implications for the United States,”
January 2000, pp. 1–5.
Nilüfer, K. (2006),
“Security and Globalization in the
Context of International Terrorism;” in
Review of International Law and Politcs (RILP
- An USAK Publication, Ankara), Vol. 2, No. 5, 2006, pp. 1-17.
Ogunyomi and et al, (2013), “Globalization and economic
security in Nigeria: A reflection of
the Nigerian manufacturing sector performance
(1981-2010). Journal of Economics and International Finance; Vol. 5(7), pp. 293-306, October,
2013
Simmons, A.D. (2006), “Globalization and its Effect on National
Security;”
Walt, S. (1991),
“The Renaissance of Security Studies”, International Studies Quarterly,
No. 35,
1991,
p. 211-239.
Williams, P. (2003), ‘Eurasia and the Transnational Terrorist Threats to
Atlantic Security’, in
James Sperling, Sean Kay & S.
Victor Papacosma, eds, Limiting Institutions: The Challenge of Eurasian
Security Governance. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Websites
http://sgo.sagepub.com/content/4/1/2158244013514062#ref-355
http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl16_e.htm
Comments
Post a Comment