Indian Defence Review

Contextualizing the emergence of ISIS in West Asian political system, the paper tries to debate and challenge the existing notions of state security and human security. The concept of state security is ambiguously constructed and focused only on military-level threats and power dynamics in its epistemological foundation. The criteria and definition of state security is influenced by the establishment of an existential threat with empirical saliency, sufficient to render political effects. Over the past decades, social, economic, political and environment threats have amalgamated into the scholarly diagnosis of the perceptions and debates on the nature of state security, especially in West Asian perspective, leading to serious challenges and extensive debates.

Though, interestingly, both neo-realists like Barry Buzan and post-modernists like Ken Booth, after analyzing the concept of security from their respective lenses have given more precedence to human security than state security. The vertical and horizontal expansion of human security rejects the straight-jacket militaristic approach to understanding the threats of security, especially after the end of Cold War, bringing the human dimension of securitization into perspective. This shift, along with its minute nuances can be further scrutinized in the highly militaristic, dictatorial and coercive state apparatuses which is prevalent in most of the West Asian countries.

The cleavages can be further debated, especially by contextualizing the rise of ISIS in West Asian countries, leading to massive human rights abuse, religious and ethnic fragmentation. The concerns get promulgated with the dangers of human intervention, functional militarism, sectarian fragmentation and entrenched state security. This dialectical understanding questions the sustainability of currently prevalent theories on the state itself.

Currently, the theories dealing with state security and human security play the dual nature of amalgamating both the integrative and repressive origins and functions of state. Such ideation ignores to describe the cumulative causation of existing circumstances, like the rise of ISIS and its future impact on human security. Taking this into account, the paper narrates the lacunae present in this drift from state security to human security, by borrowing the acknowledge metaphor created by W. H. Morris – ‘the play within the play.’ Thus, the paper tries to explain the drift between security state and human security, taking the West Asian perspective into focus with the rise of ISIS in the foreground. It challenges the understanding of human security and reveals how it has also contains loopholes and renders limited utility. The paper strives for a new understanding of human security and security state, revealing the crisis within its functioning, in the current century, taking into account the counter-revolutionary reaction of the uprisings in the Arab world.

State Security: Definitions and Loopholes

For years, the term security has remained an extensively debated concept due to the multiple layers of meaning and history associated with it. Helga Haftendorn (1991) has stated that the term ‘security’ is ambiguous, both in its format and goal. This is precisely because it is difficult to understand whether security is a concept, a goal or a discipline. In addition to it, different philosophical and historical contexts have led to the different views of security national, global or international security.[1] Alastair Buchan in his book ‘War in Modern Society’ (1966) states that ‘security is a word with many meanings.’[2] Generally, the understanding of security deals with the absence of military threat or the protection of the state from external invasion or overthrow. Determining the political and social self-determination has also been included, often in the western discourses related to security.

While, the developing countries focus more on the ‘domestic, economic and social’ understanding of security. M.V.Naidu (2002) defines security precisely as a ‘condition in which the material existence of something has been protected and preserved through physical force.’ Further embedding his understanding with the state centric approach, he too means state security as ‘the protection and preservation of the state through military means.’[3] The 2004 UN Report, based on the commonsense definitions of security, characterized it as ‘freedom from fear.’[4] Robin Luckham opines that security has been used as an ‘abstract noun’ which defines or desires an existential state. But traditionally, the concept of security has been related more with the state rather than the citizens. Baldwin (1997) has stated that security cannot be understood without engaging with the context. For example, while dealing with questions of security, it is pertinent to ask security for whom, from what, amount of security, the values, the threats, the means and at what cost can be the security guaranteed. [5]

Right from the times of 17th century philosopher Thomas Hobbes, security has been epistemologically embedded in the theory and practice of statehood. Worried due to the repercussions of the English Civil War and the probable looming of the State of Nature, he penned down the miserable outcome of ‘state of war of all against all’ in his greatest work ‘Leviathan’ (1651). Hobbes critically argued that human nature would inevitably lead to conflict in the absence of a government. Thus, in the definition of social contract espoused by Hobbes, it was the state that delivered peace and security. Though, interestingly Hobbes used the word ‘security’ quite sparingly, his analysis of political obligation maintains the focal position in the understanding of 21st century security state concept. Thus, it eventually led to the emergence of ameliorative and benign discourses of state in the ‘responsibility to protect’ with concepts such as security state and human security.[6]

So, in the early origins of the concept of security, the state was conceived as an instrument that could aid in producing security for the citizens but later, it led to the further retrenchment and establishment of the state-system itself. The practices of governments have always been directed towards this state-centric and external-directed conception of understanding security. Even the United Nations has institutionalized this concept by emphasizing on traditional borders and sovereignty. [7]

This enormous and yet powerful realist thinking of security with the lens of the state has now lost its earlier commanded monopoly. The realist scholars have not been able to answer the debate that questions that how much power is needed by states to feel secure. While, offensive realists claim that power is a never ending quest, the defensive realists believe that too much of power can be self defeating. [8]

After the end of cold war, a new liberal security understanding has emerged due to several reasons. The transformation in the post-cold war era is due to the redrawing of the traditional boundaries between states, the state and civil society as well as the functional areas of culture, economy and polity. [9]

The ‘things’ to be securitized, under this dynamics are not confined within the security of states, their respective institutions and borders. Increasingly, security is being now viewed as an entitlement of citizens and more predominantly, the human beings. Additionally, the circumference of security now includes ‘freedom from want’, ‘human rights and emancipation’, ‘prevention of diseases’ ‘environmental concerns’ etc. Also, it is not mandatory that security would be obtained even when states are at peace, for example, in cases of social injustice, authoritarian rule and structural violence. This new reframing of security is embedded in the paradigm of liberal world order and most importantly, liberal peace. [10]

The understanding of security state has witnessed paramount debates in the past decades. In an attempt to reduce its complex understanding, the realists define security state as a ‘derivative of power’. This understanding, quite prevalent during the World War years, validated its roots as states were continuously engrossed in the attempt to secure themselves in competition with others in a complicated set of power relations. Interestingly, after the end of Cold War, the concept of security state took a multi-faceted dynamics.

Interestingly, the epistemological debate of security also witnessed the ‘wide’ versus ‘narrow’ debate of security. The debate grew due to several dissatisfactions that were working in tandem, especially in 1970s and 1980s. On one hand, was the nuclear obsession of the cold war and on the other hand was the rise of environment and economic agendas as well as identity issues and transnational crimes. The traditionalists like Stephen M.Walt (1991, validating the so-called ‘narrow’ concept of security stated that the main focus of security continues to be the ‘phenomenon of war.’ He argues that though, military power is not the only source of national security and similarly, the military threats are not the only threats. Thus, other ‘statecrafts’ that can be included for understanding state security includes crisis management diplomacy and arms control. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that all these issues retain the likelihood of war. He clearly states that other horizontal or vertical expansion of the concept of security state might risk ‘destroying the intellectual coherence and devising of solutions’.

Taking this into account, scholars like Barry Buzan in his book ‘People, States and Fear’ rationalized that the very concept of security state was based on narrow foundations, which would eventually face critical questioning.

He states:

“Security is taken to be about the pursuit of freedom from threat and the ability of states and societies to maintain their independent identity and their functional integrity against forces of change which they see as hostile.” [11]

He defines security as ‘pursuit of the freedom from threats.’ His work has predominantly challenged the concept of security, both horizontally and vertically. Horizontally, he states that the concept of security, which has expended a lot in military, should include economic, environmental and societal actors. Vertically, it should include other referent objects, other than the state, such as the individuals, social groups and communities. [12] Like Buzan, the other proponents of ‘wideners’ accept the complaint against the intellectual incoherence but they believe that it is high time that both military and non-military pursuits should be added in the dimension of security. Instead of confining security to the military sector, the entire logic of security should break away from the military and non-military disputes of understanding security. [13]

Other concepts like environment security, societal actors and regional security were discussed to materialize a new concept of security state. Hailing from a neo-realist and constructivist background, Buzan tried to define a new meaning of security state with the concepts of military, political, societal, economic and environmental actors.[14] He makes it a point to look at state security from different angles, be it micro or macro, which can ultimately help in addressing the various social aspects related to security. It would then help in understanding how people in different societies eventually securitize threats. Buzan also states that the understanding of individual security cannot be copy-pasted when understanding national security, as it does not follow a cookie-cutler model. So, what is important is to understand and question the nature of state so that other complicated and related entities can be taken into account.

Turning to another school of thought validated by critical security studies, scholars like Ken Booth who have been called as ‘deepeners’, also questioned the necessity of a state centric understanding of security. Adding another understanding to this dimension, it was opined that it was opined that at times, states cause threats to their individuals. Rather, critical security studies validated that it was important to place the experience of those individuals into focus, for whom the current world order was a cause of insecurity rather than security. Having its roots in the Frankfurt tradition and the Gramscian school of thought, it had a normative approach and perceived security as emancipation. Emancipation, in this context, was the removal of any barriers that prevent the individual from attaining freedom. Rather than analyzing the reality, Booth also believed that it was essential to create security audiences.[15] He even questioned the meaning of words like ‘war’, ‘strategy’ and ‘weapon.’[16] He states that the institution of inter-state war is in historic decline and security must be envisaged through in a holistic manner with a non-statist approach. Taking the example of Iraq’s annexation of Kuwait in August 1990, he reveals that the threats faced by the individuals were due to several other challenges apart from military threat from the neighbor, like political oppression, ethnic rivalry, economic collapse, terrorism, overpopulation, diseases and crime. This case throws light on the fact that security threats of these regimes are more internally driven than due to external interference. Thus, profound significance must be given to emancipation rather than power and order in the new thinking of defining security. After all, emancipation and security are two sides of the same coin. It’s high time, he believes, that states ought to be treated as means rather than ends. Even Hedley Bull in his book ‘The Anarchical society: A study of Order in World Politics’ states that humans are the ultimate referent. [17] In the end, in spite of states being the essential features of world politics, they are often illogical, unreliable and too diverse in their character. [18]

The other challenge to state security came from economic historians such as Robert Higgs, who state those military and economic crises are significant influencers in the growth of the state. Presenting cogent critiques of the government and the defenses of a free society, Higgs states that government is ‘fraudulent, all powerful and unconstitutional.’ [19]