Bottom Line
Evolving notions of security during peacetime
ONE of the fundamental functions of a government is to ensure that human beings be free of fear; that is, they have a right to be secure from psychological and physical intimidation of any kind. According to former US president Clinton: "This places personal security very close to water, food, and shelter on the continuum of basic human needs."
Of course, no government at any level can guarantee complete freedom from fear. A traditional instrument available to a sovereign government to provide security for its citizens is the nation's armed forces. They serve to defend the nation's vital interests, including economic interests and its way of life.
Natural disasters such as, cyclones, floods, and earthquakes tend to destabilise a country. What those in government can do is remove or alleviate the effects as quickly as possible with the available means at its disposal, including deployment of the armed forces.
New emerging security challengesThe explosion of interlocking, if not competing, political, economic, social, and environmental interests are tying together, as never before, the fates of sovereign states.
In turn, the freedom of citizens in an ever-growing number of nations is becoming intertwined in such a way that individual security is becoming increasingly linked to the achievement of security at the international level.
There are many security challenges in the 21st century. Some of them are described below:
First, the lines of external and internal threats have become blurred. It is now generally accepted that security is multi-dimensional in character; that, in addition to external threats, the state's security can be threatened by internal problems.
Second, resurgence of ethno-nationalism within developing countries has emerged after the end of the Cold War. It often takes a violent form. Some ethnic groups have been prepared to pursue their claims for self-determination within the framework of existing states -- treating them essentially as claims for minority human rights protection -- but many others have made clear that they will be satisfied by nothing less their nations becoming states. The proliferating availability of weaponry of every degree of sophistication has provided a new edge to these concerns.
Third, the role of non-state actors (such as extremist elements with a non-achievable goal) is a new threat to states. Non-state actors do not represent any state or authority, but are able to create destruction or fear among the citizens through their acts of terrorism. They are elusive in character, and are believed to have a network in about 60 states.
Accordingly, the conventional power structure that is rooted in states has broken down. Power seems to have shifted from states to no-state actors. Terrorism has demolished the traditional concept of balance of power in international relations among states.
Fourth, since the end of the Cold War, the emergence of failed or fragile states has become the single most important problem for international order. Failed or fragile states are those that suffer from poor governance and have weak capabilities. Often, the legitimacy of their governments is questioned.
Instability is largely caused by lack of democracy and pluralism, or meaningful popular political participation. State collapse or weakness, stretching from the Balkans through Caucasus, the Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia, have created a major humanitarian crisis
Fifth, de-secularisation of politics appears to have created many problems and tensions within a state. Extremist or militants hide under the cover of religion-based political parties. Extremists distort religion and use it for their narrow, selfish purposes.
The Islamic extremsts argue that the solution for the ills of society lies in going back to the "basics of Islam" as interpreted by them. The writings of controversial Islamist, Syed Qutb, an Egyptian hanged by the Nasser regime in 1966, have influenced many of the contemporary radical militants. The extremists find followers amongst the young urban poor who are unemployed and suffer from socio-economic deprivation.
Another probable reason for militancy is arguably the deficit of democracy, i.e. lack of participation of people in running the governments, and the alternative strategy, "go to the basics of Islam," has been packaged in an uncomplicated manner that has gaind popularity and influence among ideologues and the young. Populations are vulnerable to manipulation, exploitation, and abuse by unscrupulous extremist elements.
Strategies of armed forcesDuring peace time, the purpose of deployment of armed forces has undergone a change, from protecting people within the state to addressing the new security challenges and, as a result, different strategies have evolved.
The fight against the threat-elements is unending. It has no fixed period and is a continuing war. Internal conflicts are made more complex and lethal by modern technology, communications and money transfers. It is also complicated in particular by the proliferation of cheap, highly destructive small arms.
Some experts say that the end purpose of military operations is not to seek victory, but to integrate the former enemy within the community by re-educating them to carry out their normal lives. For example, Maoists in Nepal have not been defeated. While its leaders have agreed to form a political party, its armed groups are entitled to join the army, subject to certain conditions.
In the new-style warfare, civil-military cooperation is imperative to root out the threat. Civil society, NGOs and the community have to be directly involved, alongside the military operations. Popular support has to be built up against the security threat.
A regional approach is necessary to wipe-out security threats in the region, and regional legal frameworks or norms must be agreed to in dealing with terrorist violence in all its forms and manifestations.
ConclusionThe role of the armed forces has evolved over the years, and when there is a threat to the security of a country, either from within or from outside, they are called in to help ensure stability in the country.
Furthermore, conflict or internal problem does not arise suddenly. It's a gradual process that takes years to shape. Time and energy are to be invested in peacetime to prevent conflicts, and not when conflict has erupted.
There is historical wisdom in the proverb that during peace one must prepare for war. It is equally true, however, that "the restraining of war is the beginning of peace."
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments