John Borg
The Paradox of National Security and Counter-Terrorism
Something I
noticed this week was what seemed to be an inherent paradox that exists between the two main
themes of national security and the war on terror, one that I believe results
in a decreased ability to combat global threats.
Every
nation seeks security. The main reason for organized government is for it to
provide for the well-being and stability of the citizens over which it rules.
According to Arnold Wolfers, a country is secure if “it is not in danger of
having to sacrifice core values, if it wishes to avoid war, and is able, if
challenged, to maintain them by victory in such a war.” Although very much a
perception of safety rather than any tangible entity, national security has
grown to become a measurable, almost quantifiable, value that, according to
Wolfers, each state individually processes. Many causes can influence a
country’s perceived national security, ranging from economic and political to
diplomatic and military factors both at home and abroad, and can have a broad
variety of affects on a state’s sense of security. However, one of the most
damaging incidents for both the United States’ and the world’s sense of safety
came from the September 11th terrorist attacks. Following the
dramatic attack, coordinated by an Islamic extremist group known as al-Qaeda,
then-President George Bush delivered a speech to the American public, sounding
a call to arms from every nation in the world to assist in the United States’
fight against any terroristic threat; as Bush declared in his speech, “This is
not, however, just America's fight, and what is at stake is not just America's
freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight…Perhaps the
NATO Charter reflects best the attitude of the world: An attack on one is an
attack on all.”
There
are many measures that a country can take to improve their sense of national
security, from enhancing military defenses against foreign attacks or improving
diplomatic ties with another state. But true national security, a goal that's
affects differ for each country, can only be achieved through the cooperation
of the many. It seems as if, in order for any country to feel secure, there
must be a coordinated, multilateral response to any global threat by all actors
in the international system. This realization, which does not seem rather
complicated or implausible, gives rise to a unique set of problems.
In
a class I took last semester, GVPT456: The Politics of Terrorism, we talked in
detail about very similar situations. According the Martha Crenshaw, a
respected researcher on the psychology of terrorism, it is assumed that all actors
in the international system are rational, or that they have preferences that
are ordered and not contradictory, behave purposefully in order to carry out
those preferences, make decisions based on objective cost-benefit analysis, and
make decisions that will maximize gains and minimize losses. As an extension of
this, all rational individuals are inherently “selfish” and put their own goals
before the objectives of the collective group; as examples such as the classic
Prisoner’s Dilemma have established, it is always more beneficial for an
individual to prioritize their desires over the goals of a group. This is why
there is no political structure to govern the international system and
coalitions such as the United Nations have proved to be more of a humanitarian
authority rather than a political force: no nation is willing to forgo its
goals and give up some of its authority in favor of such an arrangement.
Because
national security is innately an individual preference and the fight against
terrorism has been deemed a collective, global plight, both goals are subject
to the same conditions mentioned above. If a nation believes that, from a
national security standpoint, it is within its best interest to open friendly
relations with a terrorist organization, than it would go against the global
community’s desire and undermine its ability to effectively fight and eradicate
the threat the group poses. It is nearly impossible for any state to experience
true national security without the combined effort of every international actor
to engage and remove any threat from the system. However, it is politically irrational
for a county to sacrifice its political goals, which includes national
security, even for increased international stability. The ideal of a united
response to terrorism around the world that President Bush sought in his
September 20th speech is not plausible so long as nations continue
to prioritize their own goals at the expense of the global community.
Certainly a cynical view, but one that I can't really disagree with. I think this is why to a large extent we try to alter incentive structures for countries that harbor terrorists (sanctions, etc). But as you correctly point out, not all actors respond to incentive structures in the way we expect, so this approach is not always effective.
ReplyDeleteHaha it's funny cause I wouldn't even consider myself a cynical person. But, like I said in my blog post, I took a class on terrorism last semester that was so eye-opening about how little we really know about the threats we face and how difficult it is to effectively combat them, especially with a unilateral counter-terrorism strategy. It's been really interesting to see what I learned unfold and just get completely reiterated with situations like ISIS and the Charlie Hebdo shooting.
DeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteThere are a few things I wouldn't mind you defining a bit further.
1) why would a state ally with a terrorist threat? If they aren't threatened by a terrorist group, then are they really going to be a part of any international coalition?
2) you define national security, it seems, as counter-terrorism. This is fine but there are certainly threats that are unlikely to need or see everyone banding together (i.e. a threat from a rival state). So should we move national security from being mainly about threats from rival states to being about threats from non-state actors? Why?
Yeah, no problem Professor Shirk. I think I have to post it in multiple parts, for space purposes.
Delete1)
I admit, I probably could have phrased what I meant a little better. In my blog post, when I said that a state felt that it is "within its best interest to open up friendly relations with a terrorist organization," I meant it in terms more closely resembled by Hitler and Stalin's Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, where both parties would agree to not attack each other. I guess it would be better to say that, if a country were to not necessarily ally itself with a terrorist organization, but were to tolerate it and not actively pursue its eradication, then it would be against the goals of the international community. I'm not an expert on this material, but I believe we saw a similar situation with several Middle Eastern nations during the attempts to destroy al-Qaeda and kill Osama bin Laden.
I regards to the international coalition, I was speaking in very broad terms with the example in my blog post, where the entirety of the global community were to seek the destruction of a terrorist group. The global system experiences peak prosperity when every country is stable and thriving. If we consider this fact, than a terrorist organization's threat to one country is a danger to the stability of every country. In this case, the international community acts as the international coalition. Just because there is no treaty or formal recognition does not mean that the international community lacks a collective goal; the US has gone to fight along side of nations with which it has little to no diplomatic relations, all in the name of ensuring stability throughout the world, and, by extension, at home in America.
I guess, in short, I'd say that, by the mere fact that all nations benefit from international stability, an informal, yet very powerful, coalition exists between every state in the global community.
2)
DeleteI agree that there are situations that can be handled by just one state, but, in this age of globalization, it is nearly implausible to think that a single threat endangers just one country. Today's international system is very favorable to competition and investment. As stated above, the global community is at its strongest when every state is stable. Even a conflict between two states will, eventually, throw off the political, economic and diplomatic efforts of other countries. Thus, every state has a stake in the well-being and success of all the others, and will ensure this happens.
Although there are clearly many other factors, for the purpose of the argument for my blog post, I have included counter-terrorism as a very prominent component of national security. Furthermore, it is generally accepted that terrorism is usually used by non-state actors. Because all governments have a legitimate monopoly of force in their country to maintain order and protect their citizens, terroristic actions are often carried out by those who do not have the political power, or capabilities, to take less extreme measures in order to achieve their goals. For this reason, it is not even usually considered terrorism when such measures are taken by another state; it is considered an act of war. This has caused some concern since, when combating another state, it is customary to engage them in war. Yet, how do you counter a threat that does not even have a military with which to fight?
Terrorism is rapidly becoming the biggest threat that nations are facing in the twenty-first century; just today, even, an attack, which is being labeled as terrorism, was carried out by non-state actors against a satirical French newspaper, resulting in the deadliest act of terrorism in France in decades. As stability and democracy are beginning to spread throughout the globe, it is becoming less likely that states will be in extreme conflict with each other. That's not to say that the United States, or any country for that matter, will never again face a rival state, but direct state vs. state combat, in the traditional sense, is becoming less frequent. It seems that today, we are plagued by less conventional threats; these include non-state actors, such as ISIS, or biological and environmental threats, such as the recent Ebola scare or the ever-present climate change scare. Because of this, I believe it is important to shift the definition of national security to not exclude state actors, but to include a stronger focus on non-state dangers.
I hope this provides a substantial answer your questions.
I think that is hard to say since national security is very much based on an individual's perception, which can differ from state to state and even person to person.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I don't really think its that plausible. I think getting every international actor on the same page about threats is definitely a huge step but, as you said, new dangers pop up everyday and terrorism specifically is a weapon that is highly adaptable to political, technological and economic shifts. It has been used for centuries before and probably will continue to be used for centuries after.
I think Pakistan is a perfect example of a state that chooses to ally itself with certain terrorist organizations in order to advance it's individual goals as a state. For Pakistan;s military India is the number one threat to them and as a result they find it in their best interests to align themselves with the Lashkar-e-Taiba and elements of the Taliban, among other radical extremist groups.
ReplyDeleteThe recent school attack in Peshwar demonstrates, that the tolerance and support of extremist elements is short sighted and likely to back fire. But, I think that elements of the ISI and Pakistani military believe they are acting rationally by supporting these groups if they see a more powerful India as the primary threat to their security.
On another point, couldn't a state harm its security in an economic sense by supporting terrorist groups because of resulting international sanctions? Using the Pakistani example, Pakistan may enhance its physical defense by aligning with terrorists group against India but, if it ever were to face harsh sanctions over this, it would be arguably less secure because of the damaging affects to its economy and international isolation.
Yeah, I was actually thinking about Pakistan when I was writing this!
DeleteBut, yeah, economic sanctions would definitely harm national security, but, for the purposes of my argument, I was really only looking national security in terms of Bush's counter-terrorism perspective from his post-9/11 speech.
I guess my main point was that true national security can only really come from global security: when all countries are on the same page about what constituents a threat to international stability; whether it be terrorism, political turmoil or an economic disaster; and can agree on the appropriate way to handle the situation. However, because each state has their own individual interests, it is impossible to achieve this kind of organization and cohesion, thus making true national security unattainable.