Concept of national security

TODAY, security is a multidimensional concept. The traditional power politics approach has limitations because it does not take into account non-military challenges to security, such as political, economic and social.
Threats to a state may come from within itself. Ethnic or religious conflicts, bad governance, economic insecurity and lack of social cohesion may undermine the existence of a state. For instance, the Soviet Union disintegrated not from war or external threat but from non-military pressures, including the economic and political system. The failure to foresee such metamorphosis indicates that too much emphasis was laid on external threat.

Non-military factors of national security
Although military power has a place in bringing stability in international relations, it has to be complemented with new approaches to security, such as the elimination of poverty, greater participation of people in national government, good governance, elimination of corruption in developing countries, and removal of inequality between rich and poor among, and within, nations.
Military power is only one of the "pillars" on which state security is founded; the other four are political, economic, social and environmental. If any pillar is weak, it may adversely affect other pillars and may eventually undermine the security of the state.
Security depends to a great extent on how states resolve problems within their territories. For example, Bangladesh seceded from Pakistan because of Pakistan's mistaken policy of governance and suppression of political and economic rights of the people of the then East Pakistan.

The transformation of national security
National security has undergone modification in the light of the changing world. The world of the 21st century is characterised by four developments. One: Reduction of sovereignty and increasing role of inter-governmental organisations, including the UN. Two: Interdependence or interconnectedness of states because of economic globalisation. Three: Increase of low-level ethnic conflicts and rise of nationalism in many groups within a state. Four: Attacks from non-state actors or terrorists.
The reason for change the concept of national sovereignty is the increasing number of inter-governmental organisations and transnational corporations intrude into activities that were once confined to the domain of states. The political boundaries of states have little relevance in the days of economic globalisation.

Security of weak/small states
Weak or small states suffer from structural weaknesses -- political, economic and social, which create insecurity for them. Newly independent states have not been able to develop strong political institutions, and the leaders are often dictatorial. They generally behave as though their countries and national resources were little more than their private property.
Small states are largely economically weak because their economic base is very narrow. The overwhelming majority of people live below the poverty line. Unemployment is chronic and disease and hunger are widespread. The gap between rich and poor is staggering. All these factors create frustration and instability.
It is argued in some quarters that economic dependence can lead to vulnerability by creating an opportunity for one state to dominate another, because it can be manipulated in such a manner that decision-makers have no option but to agree listen to foreign donors, even if their policies go against national interests in the long run.
However, there is another view that emphasises that free trade and economic interdependence promote peace, since states want beneficial economic relationship from joint enterprises. If economic relations are interconnected, they argue, war will be less likely because it will interrupt interconnected business and economy.
The Second Gulf War has given a serious jolt to security of small states. The world was sure that no war could be launched without UN approval, and the powerful states agreed under the UN Charter to refrain from armed attack unless they were attacked or under threat of imminent attack. This consensus was destroyed by the pre-emptive attack on Iraq.
The pre-emptive doctrine is dangerous because the distinction between "imminent threat of attack" and "capacity to attack" has been obliterated. This distinction is important for small states, otherwise they may be subject to unprovoked attacks by powerful states since they can no longer count on the UN.

Achieving security for weak/small states
Weak states have used various strategies for their security because they cannot be militarily powers. A few small states adopt a deliberate policy of not arming themselves because they have no way to defend themselves against powerful states. For instance, Costa Rica has decided not to have an army, which deters powerful states from attacking.
Another means a few states adopt is distancing themselves from power politics. For instance, Myanmar did not become a member of the Commonwealth and withdrew from the Non-Aligned Movement. It remained aloof from superpower rivalry during the Cold War. It had maintained "correct" relationship with major powers.
Some states believe in the strategy of mobilisation of their entire adult population to fight against any armed attack. Switzerland has adopted this policy. Every Swiss adult has to undertake compulsory military training and is allowed to keep weapons at home. The policy of neutrality and swift mobilisation of human resources provides security. This policy may be called a "strategy of maximum effectiveness at minimum cost."
Other states have concentrated on diplomacy as a tool to protect their security. They do not open embassies world-wide. They try to maximise their efforts to protect their economic and security interests by opening their diplomatic representations in the capitals of big powers. For instance, Singapore and Jamaica opened embassies in powerful countries and ignored the rest.
In the same way, for social and political stability, Bangladesh needs a limited modern and dynamic defense force, or it can choose any of the above strategies suited to it's population and geo-political location.

S.M. Parvez is a research fellow on international peace and conflict studies. He can be reached at [email protected]