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]

The 2003 Commission on Human Security stated:

‘The state remains the fundamental purveyor of security. Yet it often fails to fulfill its security obligations…. That is why attention must now shift from the security of the state to the security of the people – to human security.’

Post cold-war, the term ‘human-security’ emerged as the buzz word and it visibly started to challenge and question the role of state, institutions and governance. [20]

The United Nations Development Program’s (UNDP) Human Development Report of 1994 defined human-security according to seven different dimensions-personal, economic, environmental, political, community, food, health and security.[21] For the first time, a ‘people-centric’ focus was adopted to deal with the nuances of security. The individual rights and interests were given significance rather than the collective functioning of the international community. Rather than just the military threat being perceived as a powerful antagonism to the main referent the state innumerable other threats were also included like political oppression, hunger, disease, unemployment and environmental degradation.

Over the years, a debate between the ‘East Versus West’ in the understanding of human security has emerged. In the West, human security is understood as a means of reducing the human costs of violence and is used as a strategy by the state to address basic human needs. While, in the East, human security is perceived as another attempt by the Western hegemony to establish liberal values and institutions on the non-western societies. It still remains a challenge for the policy-makers and scholars to find a common conceptual ground for understanding the essence of human security.[22] Rather than confusing human security with human development, it should be understood that it basically means dealing with the ‘vulnerability to physical violence during conflict.’ Sverre Lodgaard states that the meaning of human security is synonymous with the security of the people and its main objective deals with their safety and security. [23]

In the aftermath of 9/11 attacks, human security and the responsibility to protect have been given more value, to justify stabilization missions and foreign intervention. Though, security still continues to be embedded with political power, the emerging paradigm of human security deals with how individuals along with their communities are protected from abuse of power, violence and existential risks. [24]

There are three main debates for understanding the basic aspects of human security. Firstly, viewing human security with the paradigm of national strategic importance, it is a predominant way to reduce the human costs of violent conflict. Secondly, it is a mechanism to address the respective governments for dealing with the basic human needs and placate the inequalities caused by globalization. Thirdly, the framework of human security helps in estimating the risks and vulnerabilities by ensuring social security, especially for people living in deprivation as well as those who have experienced economic loss. [25]

There are several challenges faced by the promotion of human security, especially in the context of West Asia and the emergence of ISIS. To start it, it is perceived that this concept masks the hidden western notions of control, which are quite detrimental to the region. Secondly, the initial concept of state security which is based on the military threat paradigm is still more powerful than the conception of human security. Thirdly and most importantly, human intervention has become the defense for promotion of human security in West Asian countries, which ultimately undermines the regions sovereignty and the basic doctrine of non-interference. All these critical analyses, often forget that human security, stands to be a people-centric approach and a very large part of its functioning also deals with the domestic politics. The implementation of human security needs to be mutually reinforcing and complimentary. Both the referents, which are freedom from want and freedom from fear need to be tackled in a flawless manner, because endowing one in the absence of the other would not have much utility. Thus, it should not be seen as a recent entrant in the line of neologisms that have previously included common security, international security, cooperative and comprehensive security. After all, as Daniel Deudney puts it, ‘not all neologisms are useful and practical.’ [26]

Though, the ambiguity endowed to human security due to the vastness of the fields it encompasses, does create a challenge. So, can any kind of irregular or sudden discomfort conceivably constitute a threat to human security? The drafters of the UNDP report have not validated their definitional boundaries. Instead it continues to be all-encompassing and integrative. [27] All of it merely creates a hodge-podge of the principles and objectives underlying the concept of human security.

Thus, in order to face and obliterate the vagueness of this concept, two serious analytical projects have refurbished that are still in the early days of their development. The first one, dealing with the work of Christopher Murray and Gary King have narrowed down the meaning of human security, in which they give precedence to five main factors health, poverty, political freedom, education and democracy. [28] The second work has been done by Kanti Bajpai who states that there is a need for ‘human security audit’ which can help in measuring the direct and indirect threats to the individual’s freedom and safety. At the same time, it would also differ from society to society, especially when it comes to measuring their potential to deal with crisis and threats. [29]

Security in West Asia: Contextualising the Emergence of ISIS

The rise of ISIS in West Asian countries has led to massive human rights abuse, religious and ethnic fragmentation. The traditional conceptions of state security and human security have become quite redundant due to the changes in the strategic environment of the Arab World. Traditional variables cannot be used to understand the gravity of new security threats. The shift in international system has eventually made inter-state violence redundant. New forms of conflict are proliferating at an unprecedented rate. [30]

The West Asian political system, produced after fighting away with the yoke of colonialism is still an emerging paradigm. In spite of being authoritarian in character and complemented with omnipotent state machinery and institutions, it must be noted that countries in West Asia are essentially described as ‘soft’, especially when it comes to dealings in the strategic area. This ‘softness’ had been a major temptation of the great powers to cause foreign interventions, implementation of neo-conservative ideology or even democracy promotion. And interestingly, this ‘softness’ has been targeted by the ISIS itself, which has done several physical, personal, historical and ethnic harm to the populations of Iraq and Syria. There are several reasons which contribute to such ‘softness’ in the West Asian countries, most of them dealing with the lack of material progress, political underdevelopment, dependent economies and flawed social contracts that lead to ethnic and sectarian fragmentation. Other factors include fatalistic ideologies, age-old poverty, external environment and climate. [31]

For a very long, it has been debated by authors like Tami Amanda, Jacoby and Brent E. Sasley that a ‘people-centered approach is needed’ to understand the security threats faced by citizens of West Asia, emphasizing on the ‘ideas, norms and inter-subjective meanings’ especially when it comes to studying the perspective of security from the side of the participant.[32]This analysis reveals the loopholes in understanding the West Asian political system by the western discourse of state security and human security. The state-centric approach of defining threat, if utilized in the context of ISIS, can be very flawed. To start with, the emergence of Arab Uprisings in December 2010 has been followed by changes in government and the consecutive state machinery. The territory seized by ISIS continues to be greater than many other countries, with around 20,000 foreign fighters travelling to Syria and Iraq to take part in this machinery. The idea of state itself does not continue to persist in Iraq and Syria, which is at present rife with civil war.

Secondly, with the emergence of ISIS, how can human security be understood under the UNDP parameters of personal, economic, environmental, political, food, health and security? In all these parameters, the role and impact of ISIS demands to redraw the understanding of these very concepts and especially re-define who is going to witness the impact in the longer run.

To start with, personal threat would have different meanings for Shias, Sunnis, Alawaites, Coptic Christians, Kurds, Assyrians and other ethnicities. In addition, this parameter does not leave any room for the gender debate. A lot of it varies on the demographic profile of the countries and there is no means, yet applicable to quantify it. Also, in today’s world, the essence of personal threat has also reached the virtual platform of social media, adding further dynamics to it. Along with the citizens of Iraq and Syria being the main victims of ISIS, the personal threat paradigm now includes also foreign hostages who have been kidnapped and beheaded by the organization.[33]

Turning to the economic threat included in human security, it must be noted that it would have a different dynamics in Iraq and Syria respectively. For example, in Iraq, it cannot be judged merely by the growth of oil revenues. If that was the case, Iraq would not have remained in a dichotomous state in 2011 when its output had crossed 2.5 million barrels per day, for the first time after the over-throw of President Saddam Hussein. The inter-communal relations among the ethnic and communal groups had deteriorated, being the main economic threat, even at that time. Between 2010 to 2013, the Iraqi government’s revenue had increased to $100 billion and in spite of it; the wealth was not equally distributed. Thus, the country was already facing the economic threat, in the words of Human Security, long before ISIS invaded. [34] Even in the case of Syria, several tribes pledged their loyalty to the ISIS because of the detrimental aspect of the Syrian government’s economic liberalization policies. In addition to it, the oil-threat being caused by the ISIS would not just affect West Asia but the global oil market prices and availability. The Paris-based International Energy Agency has already stated that initially there were parameters like prices, supply, demand and economic growth. Interestingly, ISIS has now entered into the list of parameters. Such update reveals that human security’s understanding of economic threat does not entail the territorial boundary, a fact that is making its utility even more redundant. [35]

The study of environmental security includes the various interactive dynamics of diverse human and natural networks. Over the years, environment has been envisaged as a significant factor for states that build power through various natural resources like water, oil, gas and others. [36]

There are two major concerns that are emerging with respect to the environmental security threat caused by ISIS. The first one reveals how ISIS fighters have gone on a rampage to destroy historical monuments and antiquities. In February 2015, the ISIS fighters had ransacked the Mosul Museum in Iraq, damaging its historical antiquities and artifacts that date back to the Assyrian and Akkadian empires. [37] They have also demolished Hatra province, one of the UNESCO world heritage sites, which was founded 2000 years back in the Parthian Empire. They also bulldozed the Assyrian city of Nimrud in March 2015. [38]

But the other major concern that emerges is also the environmental threat caused by air-strikes caused by United States and its Arab allies, which are meant to attack oil installations, mobile refineries and modular oil refineries. Such attacks would have damaging consequences on the lives of the Iraqi and Syrian people, declining their productive capacity.[39]

The environmental concerns on the war of Iraq, caused by United States and Britain have not been made public. The huge amount of toxic gas produced due to oil fires had a damaging impact on the climate, vegetation and biota of the region. In addition, the use of ammunition which is tipped with Depleted Uranium also represented a major chemical threat. The fuel used by the coalition during this conflict was enough to supply the economy of 1.1.billion people. [40] Eric Pianin (2003) had mentioned how Iraq war would cause ‘massive and possibly irreversible’ environmental damage. [41]Thus, using the same kind of analysis in the context of ISIS, it would be difficult to figure out which party should be considered the perpetrator for environmental threat.

The political threat posed by Sunni jihadi militancy continued to loom, even before the emergence of ISIS. When the parameter of political threat is being questioned, it is necessary to contextualize it. Few pertinent questions arise like, is ISIS causing a political threat or a global threat, is ISIS against the political legitimacy of rulers of the West Asian region or its effect continues to pose greater security threat to the West? ISIS sprouted in Iraq and Syria, mainly because of the socio-political vacuum that existed in these states after the invasion of Iraq and civil war in Syria, respectively. Since June 29, 2014 when ISIS declared the establishment of a caliphate in Iraq and Syria, it has evolved to contain military, ideological and bureaucratic forms of administration. Currently, out of the 31,000 fighters, approximately 25,000 are full-time loyal members. They have mastered over guerilla warfare, direct and indirect intimidation as well as insurgent warfare. [42]

They have also been carrying out large scale military threat on multiple axes, along with having a large-scale bureaucratic functioning. Rather than relying on the traditional Al-Qaeda model which was dependent on foreign donors, ISIS has multiple sources of income, like oil, extortion, agriculture, antique selling, black marketing and kidnapping. In September 2014, they emerged as one of the wealthiest terrorist organizations in the world which was making $2 million per day.[43]

Amidst regional instability, ISIS has multiplied its international membership, gained military power and also acquired unprecedented amounts of financial resources. Financial Times commentator David Gardner tackled with the topic ‘political threat posed by ISIS’ and stated that ISIS was prepared to rule by terror and is savagely sectarian. He highlighted the political sophistication of ISIS, opined that though they can be driven militarily but the fear that they generate politically cannot be countered. They are going to crack open the divisions which are prevalent even in the neighboring countries like Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon.[44] But what is interesting is to note down that ISIS is not just a political threat to West Asian countries but the western world. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel in August 2014 called ISIS as ‘imminent threat to every interest we have.’ The urgency of this threat was driven by the thousands of foreign fighters that are being recruited by the ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff went ahead to note down that ISIS’s threat is becoming more serious as it plans to remake the middle-east and absorb countries like Israel, Kuwait, Jordan and Syria into its caliphate.[45] Thus, keeping these points in mind, it is necessary to evaluate what kind of political threat does ISIS pose and against whom, predominantly.

The threat of food security in Iraq is under severe threat, with much of wheat production being generated in the Northern part, most of which is currently under ISIS control. The wheat farmers do not have access to the fuel or fertilizers. Due to their fear of ISIS, they have not even planted enough quantity of wheat, leading to lesser output of wheat by Iraq. [46] The southern Iraq where the Ministry of Trade is located, would store the remainder of wheat which will be later distributed by the Public Distribution System. The food security threat posed by ISIS would challenge the movement of wheat from storage sites to the flour mills. [47]

But once again, this food security threat is not just limited to West Asian region. Nigel Maxted, from the University of Birmingham’s School of Biosciences revealed that ISIS captured area has the highest concentration of wild crops needed for producing new food varieties. The fertile crescent embroidered by River Nile to the Tigris and Euphrates has the world’s largest ‘wild crop relatives.” Around 21% of wild crop relatives included in the first comprehensive survey of crops, is currently being threatened with extinction. [48]

During the time of global health crisis due to the Ebola outbreak, the threat of ISIS became more prominent after the World Health Organisation was informed that few of the military fighters were displaying symptoms similar to those of Ebola. The latest WHO figures revealed that Ebola infection has, till March 6th, killed 9840 people and infected 24014.[49]

But what currently is being debated is whether Ebola virus can be used as a biological weapon by the ISIS. In November 2014, Spain’s State Secretary for Security, Francisco Martinez revealed that there were “many examples” of ISIS’s online terrorist chat logs discussing the use of biological warfare against the West. Taking this into consideration, Amanda M. Teckman warned the policy makers that the increase in Ebola outbreaks in the region should not be ignored, especially when it is coupled with the possibility of terrorist group recruiting experts to acquire the virus and get prepared to use it as a biological weapon. The deliberate outbreak of Ebola is a global health and security issue and this ‘bioterrorist threat’ has wide ranging implications. [50]

Capt. Al Shimkus, a retired Professor at National Security Affairs of the U.S. Naval War College stated that an individual who is exposed to the Ebola virus can act as a carrier. [51] If this is the case, it indeed is a grave concern for human security.

The other challenge to confidently validate the health security posed by ISIS is still debated. Jacqueline Badcock, UN’s deputy humanitarian coordinator in Iraq revealed in July 2014 that ISIS had ordered the families to have their daughters undergo female genital mutilation (FGM), in order to prevent severe punishment. Though, this was later dismissed as a propaganda which was based on a fake document. But the editor of Kurdish website BasNews, Hawar Abdulrazaq stated that this ‘fatwa’ which was true would indeed be denied by ISIS. [52] At the same time, it also questions the accuracy and authenticity of the information, revealing how media can create a hype regarding such sensitive issues.

Thus, the issue of health threat included as a parameter in human security poses few challenges in the context of ISIS. Firstly, the official reliable data released by WHO can be questioned because of the lack of communication with the areas held under the control of ISIS. Secondly, health security aims to guarantee a ‘minimum’ protection from diseases and in the case of ISIS, it is quite difficult to quantify what ‘minimum’ would mean.

Political security, one of the important parameters of human security, can be debated in the context of West Asia to a large degree. Firstly, as Pinar Bilgin (2004) points out, the western conception of security adopts a top-bottom approach in which political security is perceived more from the perspective of the external powers rather than the people. [53] The ways to enhance political security has been to build alliances with the West, opt for humanitarian intervention or democracy promotion. For example, the lives of ethnic minorities and women in the context of ISIS, would be made even more insecure not only because of the threat that is caused by it, but also because of the sectarian or conservative character of their own government, which initially administered them.

So, it is quite interesting to question where the sprouting of ISIS in itself challenged the political security of the citizens of Iraq and Syria or did the state machinery too, threatened them from before? So, as a result of militarism or even foreign intervention, the minorities are ultimately the ones who suffer disproportionately. For example, the Baath regime in Iraq was known for infringing upon the human rights of its own citizens, especially in the context of state security. The rebels were marginalized, imprisoned and tortured for questioning the state. Also, it is important to deal with identities while answering the questions related to political security in West Asia. Unfortunately, the identity of an ‘Arab’ still remains ambiguous and contested. Same goes with the understanding of the ‘Islamist perspective’ as it is seen as an anti status-quo factor.

The ‘Muslim world’ which is the main referent in the people-centric concept of political security and human security, still remains debatable. With the emergence of ISIS, it is even more difficult to define what political security means because this organization had emerged in a vacuum of political ideologies. Hence, it is also interesting to question that why political security in West Asia has different meanings for islamist organizations, Muslim world, minorities, women and others. It can also be because of the limited understanding of this region due to the hegemony of the western discourses that are too superficial to understand the cultural cleavages. More scholarly work needs to be done when discussing human rights, human dignity and equality along with security and emancipation when it comes to West Asian political spectrum. Only then, it would be right to debate on political security and the threat posed to it by ISIS.

CONCLUSION

The rise of ISIS has led to massive human rights abuse, religious and ethnic fragmentation which in spite of being threats cannot be understood by the prevailing understanding of state and human security. It is quite essential to understand the rise of ISIS by taking certain other concepts in mind, like the human intervention, functional militarism, sectarian fragmentation and entrenched state security. Meanwhile, ISIS has started questioning out political foundations by few concrete steps.

Firstly, it straight away rejects the notion of state by giving precedence to a ‘Caliphate,’ that is governed by the Sharia law. It is still open to question if the construction of a ‘Caliphate’ which had always been a long time goal of organizations like Al-Qaeda, can function and its political, social and economic impact on its citizens. In addition, the religious fanaticism and military expertise of ISIS is different than that of Al-Qaeda and other organizations, making it difficult to rationalize their origin and its impact on the West Asian political system, especially focusing on Iraq and Syria. The retrenchment and establishment of the state-system has witnessed a counter-revolution during the Arab Uprisings and thus, demands a more competent evaluation. The traditional boundaries between states and human security as well as the functional areas of culture, economy and polity need to be redrawn.

The challenges to state security by ISIS start with the very fact that it is not merely a military threat and in case it is, then it’s time to question that who it poses the maximum threat against. The multiple layers and meanings of threat, security and state need to be interrogated. We cannot continue to use political concepts, ambiguous in their detailing and rendering different meanings for different niches. The ameliorative and benign discourses of state in the ‘responsibility to protect’ with concepts such as security state and human security need to understood again.

Sectarianism, ethnic fragmentation, violence and human rights abuse have been a part of the Arab World and they became even more prominent during the emergence of Arab Uprisings. But we need to question the meaning of words like ‘war’, ‘strategy’ and ‘weapon’ and ‘counter-revolution’ in the context of ISIS and its impact on human security. It needs to be remembered that human security, stands to be a people-centric approach and a very large part of its functioning also deals with the domestic politics. The definitional boundaries need to be clearly understood and marked, so that no scope of ambiguity is retained. This basic analysis then leads us to question the causation of existing circumstances, like the rise of ISIS and its future impact on human security. The challenges to concept of human security, especially with the emergence of ISIS deal with all its aspects personal, economic, environmental, and political, food, health and security. In all these parameters, the role and impact of ISIS demands to redraw the understanding of these very concepts and especially re-define who is going to witness the impact in the longer run.

REFERNCES