Class 12 Political Science Chapter 5 Security in the Contemporary World NCERT Solutions

Q. Match the terms with their meaning:
i. Confidence Building Measures (CBMs)   ii. Arms Control   iii. Alliance  
iv. Disarmament
a. Giving up certain types of weapons
b. A process of exchanging information on defence matters between nations on a regular basis
c. A coalition of nations meant to deter or defend against military attacks
d. Regulates the acquisition or development of weapons

Answer:

Why each pairing.

i-b. The chapter describes confidence building as “a process in which countries share
ideas and information with their rivals”. They tell each other about their military intentions and,
up to a point, their military plans, about the kind of forces they possess, and they may share
information on where those forces are deployed.

ii-d. The chapter’s definition is one line long: “Arms control regulates the acquisition
or development of weapons.” The ABM Treaty of 1972, SALT II, START and the NPT of 1968 are its
examples.

iii-c. “An alliance is a coalition of states that coordinate their actions to deter or
defend against military attack.” Most alliances are formalised in written treaties.

iv-a. “Disarmament requires all states to give up certain kinds of weapons.” The 1972
Biological Weapons Convention and the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention are the chapter’s two
examples.

Q. Which among the following would you consider as a traditional security concern /
non-traditional security concern / not a threat?

Answer:

Why each answer.

(a) Non-traditional. Health epidemics are one of the new sources of threats the chapter
discusses. It names dengue fever among the old diseases that “have mutated into drug resistant
forms that are difficult to treat”, and it explains that such diseases spread across countries
through migration, business, tourism and military operations, so that one country’s success or
failure in limiting their spread affects infections in other countries.

(b) Non-traditional. Migration belongs to the non-traditional agenda. The chapter treats
the movement of people as a source of insecurity and of international political friction, and
distinguishes migrants, who voluntarily leave their home countries, from refugees, who flee from
war, natural disaster or political persecution. It is a concern, but it is not a military threat.

(c) Traditional. A group demanding nationhood for its region is a separatist movement,
and separatism is the internal side of traditional security. The chapter says that “internally, the
new states worried about threats from separatist movements which wanted to form independent
countries”, and that a neighbour might help or instigate such a movement, so that the external and
internal threats merge. It threatens territorial integrity, which is one of traditional security’s
core values.

(d) Not a threat. Autonomy is a demand made within the country, not a demand to
leave it. India’s own answer to such demands, the chapter says, has been to preserve national unity
“by adopting a democratic political system, which allows different communities and groups of people
to freely articulate their grievances and share political power”. A demand articulated through that
system is democracy working, not a security threat.

(e) Not a threat. Criticism by a newspaper is the exercise of freedom of speech, which the
chapter lists as the first type of human right. The chapter opens by warning against exactly this
habit: calling an issue a security issue in order “to stop debate and discussion”, with the
implication that it is too important or secret to be debated openly. In a democracy, it says,
surely this cannot be the case.

Q. What is the difference between traditional and non-traditional security? Which category
would the creation and sustenance of alliances belong to?

Answer:

Where they meet. The two are not opposites. Human security and state security should be,
and often are, the same thing. But secure states do not automatically mean secure peoples:
protecting citizens from foreign attack may be a necessary condition for the security of
individuals, but it is certainly not a sufficient one, and during the last 100 years more people
have been killed by their own governments than by foreign armies.

Where alliances belong. The creation and sustenance of alliances belongs to
traditional security. An alliance is a coalition of states that coordinate their actions to
deter or defend against military attack; it is a military answer to a military threat, and the
chapter lists it as the fourth component of traditional security policy, after deterrence, defence
and the balance of power.

Q. What are the differences in the threats that people in the Third World face and those
living in the First World face?

Answer:

1. The Third World faces its neighbours first. The chapter says the security challenges of
the newly-independent countries of Asia and Africa differed from the challenges in Europe in two
ways. For one thing, the new countries faced the prospect of military conflict with neighbouring
countries. Many of them came to fear their neighbours even more than they feared the US or the
Soviet Union or the former colonial powers, and they quarrelled over borders and territories, or
control of people and populations, or all of these simultaneously.

2. The Third World also faces threats from inside. For another, these countries had to
worry about internal military conflict, particularly from separatist movements which wanted to form
independent countries. Sometimes the external and internal threats merged, when a neighbour helped
or instigated an internal separatist movement.

3. The First World’s internal security seemed assured. After the Second World War it
seemed that, for the most powerful countries on earth, internal security was more or less assured.
After 1945 the US and the Soviet Union appeared to be united and could expect peace within their
borders, and most European countries, particularly the powerful Western European countries, faced
no serious threats from groups or communities living within those borders. They therefore focused
primarily on threats from outside their borders.

4. The First World’s external threat was the other bloc. The period after the Second
World War was the Cold War, in which the US-led Western alliance faced the Soviet-led Communist
alliance, and above all the two alliances feared a military attack from each other. Some European
powers, in addition, continued to worry about violence in their colonies, from colonised people who
wanted independence, such as the French fighting in Vietnam in the 1950s and the British fighting
in Kenya in the 1950s and the early 1960s.

5. War is concentrated in the poorer world. The Cold War was responsible for
approximately one-third of all wars in the post-Second World War period, and most of these wars
were fought in the Third World. Most of the world’s armed conflicts now take place in sub-Saharan
Africa, which is also the poorest region of the world, and at the turn of the 21st century more
people were being killed in wars in this region than in the rest of the world combined.

6. Poverty, disease and displacement fall unequally. Among the world’s poorest countries
population is expected to triple in the next 50 years, while many rich countries will see population
shrinkage. By 2003 an estimated 4 crore people were infected with HIV-AIDS worldwide, two-thirds of
them in Africa; new drug therapies dramatically lowered the death rate in North America and other
industrialised countries in the late 1990s, but these treatments were too expensive to help poor
regions like Africa. From 1990 to 1995, 70 states were involved in 93 wars which killed about 55
lakh people, and the refugees who follow such wars come overwhelmingly from the South.

7. The shared threats. Some threats fall on both. Terrorism, global warming and health
epidemics do not respect the North-South line, and the chapter’s point about the growing
interdependence of states is that borders have become less meaningful than in the past.

Q. Is terrorism a traditional or non-traditional threat to security?

Answer: Terrorism is a non-traditional threat to security. The chapter introduces
it as the first of the “New Sources of Threats”, which belong to the non-traditional conceptions,
human security and global security.

1. Its definition puts it outside traditional security. Terrorism refers to political
violence that targets civilians deliberately and indiscriminately. Traditional security is about
the threat of military force between states; here the actor is not a state and the target is not an
army.

2. The referent is different. The people who are attacked are ordinary citizens in trains,
cafes, markets and other crowded places, and on hijacked planes. The threat is to individuals and
communities, which is exactly the referent that non-traditional security insists on.

3. It crosses borders. International terrorism involves the citizens or territory of more
than one country, which is why it is named among the global threats, along with global warming and
health epidemics like AIDS and bird flu, that no country can resolve alone.

4. But force still has a limited role. The chapter is careful here. Military force may
have a role to play in combating terrorism, and even here there is a limit to what force can achieve.
Cooperative security may involve the use of force as a last resort, and the international community
may have to agree to the use of violence against international terrorists and those who harbour
them, best of all when that force is sanctioned and applied collectively.

Q. What are the choices available to a state when its security is threatened, according to
the traditional security perspective?

Answer: In responding to the threat of war, a government has three basic choices.

1. To surrender. Governments may choose to surrender when actually confronted by war. The
chapter adds one important qualification: they will not advertise this as the policy of the
country.

2. To deter the attack. A state can prevent the other side from attacking by promising to
raise the costs of war to an unacceptable level. This is the choice the chapter names deterrence,
and security policy is concerned with preventing war in exactly this way.

3. To defend itself. When war actually breaks out, a state can defend itself so as to deny
the attacking country its objectives and to turn back or defeat the attacking forces altogether.
This is defence, and security policy is concerned with limiting or ending war in this way.

Why the list is usually given as two. Because no government announces surrender as its
policy, traditional security policy is described as having two working parts: preventing war, which
is called deterrence, and limiting or ending war, which is called defence. Balance of power and
alliance building are then added as the third and fourth components of that policy.

Q. What is ‘Balance of Power’? How could a state achieve this?

Answer:

What it is. Balance of power is the third component of traditional security policy. When
countries look around them, they see that some countries are bigger and stronger, and that is a clue
to who might be a threat in the future. A neighbouring country may not say it is preparing for
attack, and there may be no obvious reason for attack, but the fact that this country is very
powerful is a sign that at some point in the future it may choose to be aggressive. Governments are,
therefore, very sensitive to the balance of power between their country and other countries.

Whom it is measured against. Governments work hard to maintain a favourable balance of
power with other countries, and the chapter names three kinds in particular: those close by, those
with whom they have differences, and those they have had conflicts with in the past.

How a state achieves it.

• By building up military power. A good part of maintaining a balance of power is to
  build up one’s own military power.
• By building economic power. Economic power is also important, since it is one of the
  bases on which military power rests.
• By building technological power. Technological power matters for the same reason, and
  the chapter names it alongside economic power.
• By building alliances. The fourth component follows directly from the third: countries
  form alliances to increase their effective power relative to another country or alliance, and most
  alliances are formalised in written treaties.

Q. What are the objectives of military alliances? Give an example of a functioning
military alliance with its specific objectives.

Answer:

The objectives.

• To deter an attack. An alliance is a coalition of states that coordinate their actions
  to deter military attack, which is the first half of the chapter’s own definition.
• To defend against an attack. The second half of the same definition: to defend against
  military attack once it comes.
• To increase effective power. Countries form alliances to increase their effective power
  relative to another country or alliance.
• To name the threat clearly. Alliances are based on a fairly clear identification of who
  constitutes the threat, and most are formalised in written treaties.
• To serve the national interest. Alliances are based on national interests and can
  change when national interests change.

The chapter’s own example of an alliance changing. The US backed the Islamic militants in
Afghanistan against the Soviet Union in the 1980s, but later attacked them when Al Qaeda, a group of
Islamic militants led by Osama bin Laden, launched terrorist strikes against America on 11 September
2001. The interest changed, and so did the alignment.

An example of a functioning military alliance. The chapter describes the Cold War as a
period in which “the US-led Western alliance faced the Soviet-led Communist alliance”, and above all
the two alliances feared a military attack from each other; it does not print either alliance’s
proper name. The US-led alliance it is describing is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
(NATO), and NATO’s specific objectives fit the definition exactly: its members undertake to
treat an armed attack on any one of them as an attack on all, they coordinate their forces and
planning in peacetime so that the threat of a joint response deters an attack in the first place,
and the arrangement is set down in a written treaty.

Q. Rapid environmental degradation is causing a serious threat to security. Do you agree
with the statement? Substantiate your arguments.

Answer: Yes, the statement is correct, and the chapter itself treats environmental
degradation as a security threat rather than merely an environmental problem.

1. It is one of the reasons global security was invented as an idea. The idea of global
security emerged in the 1990s in response to the global nature of threats such as global warming,
international terrorism, and health epidemics like AIDS and bird flu. No country can resolve these
problems alone.

2. It threatens the very existence of some countries. That is the chapter’s own test for
whether something counts as a security problem: an issue must threaten the very existence of the
referent, a state or a group of people. The Maldives is the chapter’s example, because a big part of
its territory may be submerged with the rising sea level.

3. The scale is measurable. Due to global warming, a sea level rise of 1.5 to 2.0 metres
would flood 20 percent of Bangladesh, inundate most of the Maldives, and threaten nearly half the
population of Thailand.

4. The burden falls unfairly. In some situations one country may have to
disproportionately bear the brunt of a global problem such as environmental degradation.

5. It produces the other threats in turn. Land lost to the sea, destroyed livelihoods and
ruined living environments force whole communities to migrate, and migration in turn creates
international political frictions and refugee flows.

6. States have already treated it as a security matter. India joined 160 countries that
have signed and ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which provides a roadmap for reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases to check global warming, and the chapter lists this under India’s
security strategy, not under its environmental policy.

The qualification worth adding. The chapter warns that expanding the concept of security
cannot mean including any kind of disease or distress, or the concept stands to lose its coherence
and everything could become a security issue. Environmental degradation qualifies because it meets
the existence test, not simply because it is harmful.

Q. Nuclear weapons as deterrence or defence have limited usage against contemporary
security threats to states. Explain the statement.

Answer: The statement is correct, and the reason is that most contemporary threats are of
a kind that nuclear weapons cannot touch.

1. Most of today’s threats are non-traditional. Non-traditional notions of security go
beyond military threats to include a wide range of threats and dangers affecting the conditions of
human existence: terrorism, human rights violations, global poverty, migration and refugee flows,
and health epidemics.

2. Force cannot solve most of them. It is difficult to see what force would do to help
alleviate poverty, manage migration and refugee movements, and control epidemics. Indeed, in most
cases, the use of military force would only make matters worse.

3. Most wars are now inside states. Internal wars now make up more than 95 per cent of all
armed conflicts fought anywhere in the world, and between 1946 and 1991 there was a twelve-fold rise
in the number of civil wars. A weapon designed to destroy another country’s cities is of no use
against a conflict inside one’s own borders.

4. The enemy may not be a state at all. Terrorist groups seek to change a political
context by force or threat of force, and they hold no territory to be deterred over. Even against
terrorism the chapter says military force has only a role to play, with a limit to what force can
achieve.

5. The weapons themselves became a problem to be managed. The superpowers did not want to
give up nuclear weapons, so they pursued arms control instead of disarmament: the ABM Treaty of
1972, SALT II, START, and the NPT of 1968, which did not abolish nuclear weapons but limited the
number of countries that could have them.

6. What does work instead. Far more effective is to devise strategies that involve
international cooperation, which may be bilateral, regional, continental or global, and which brings
in international organisations, non-governmental organisations, businesses and even great
personalities. Non-traditional security is much better when the use of force is sanctioned and
applied collectively by the international community rather than when an individual country decides
to use force on its own.

Q. Looking at the Indian scenario, what type of security has been given priority in India,
traditional or non-traditional? What examples could you cite to substantiate the argument?

Answer: India has pursued both, and its security strategy has four broad
components which have been used in a varying combination from time to time. In visible terms the
traditional component has carried the greater weight, because India has repeatedly been at war;
but the non-traditional components are written into the strategy just as firmly.

Evidence for traditional security.

• India has been involved in conflicts with its neighbours: Pakistan in 1947-48, 1965, 1971
  and 1999, and China in 1962.
• It is surrounded by nuclear-armed countries in the South Asian region.
• India’s decision to conduct nuclear tests in 1998 was justified by the Indian government in
  terms of safeguarding national security. India first tested a nuclear device in 1974.
• The first component of the strategy is named as strengthening its military capabilities.

Evidence for non-traditional security.

• The second component is strengthening international norms and international institutions.
  Jawaharlal Nehru supported the cause of Asian solidarity, decolonisation, disarmament, and the UN
  as a forum in which international conflicts could be settled.
• India took initiatives to bring about a universal and non-discriminatory non-proliferation
  regime in which all countries would have the same rights and obligations with respect to weapons
  of mass destruction, and argued for an equitable New International Economic Order (NIEO).
• It used non-alignment to help carve out an area of peace outside the bloc politics of the two
  superpowers, and Indian troops have been sent abroad on UN peacekeeping missions in support of
  cooperative security initiatives.
• India joined 160 countries that have signed and ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which
  provides a roadmap for reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases to check global warming.
• The third component meets security challenges within the country. Several militant groups from
  areas such as the Nagaland, Mizoram, the Punjab and Kashmir have sought to break away from India,
  and India has tried to preserve national unity by adopting a democratic political system which
  allows different communities and groups of people to freely articulate their grievances and share
  political power.
• The fourth component is developing the economy so that the vast mass of citizens are lifted
  out of poverty and misery and huge economic inequalities are not allowed to exist. The attempt has
  partially succeeded.

Conclusion. India’s record shows a traditional core with a non-traditional frame around
it. The chapter’s own closing judgement points the same way: there is a pressure on democratically
elected governments to combine economic growth with human development, and “Thus democracy is not
just a political ideal; a democratic government is also a way to provide greater security.”

Q. Read the cartoon below and write a short note in favour or against the connection
between war and terrorism depicted in this cartoon.

Answer: The cartoon, by Ares of Cagle Cartoons, shows a huge sow labelled ‘WAR’ lying
down and suckling a litter of piglets, each labelled ‘TERRORISM’. Its message is that war gives
birth to terrorism and then feeds it: terrorism is the offspring of war. In the exam you must take one
side and argue it; both sets of arguments are given below, and each is anchored in the chapter.

In favour of the connection.

• Both take civilians as targets. The chapter says it is unlikely that in a war only
  soldiers will be hurt or killed, and that quite often ordinary men and women are made targets of
  war, to break their support of the war. Terrorism is defined in almost the same terms: political
  violence that targets civilians deliberately and indiscriminately.
• Both work through public fear. Terrorist groups choose civilian targets to terrorise
  the public and to use the unhappiness of the public as a weapon against national governments or
  other parties in conflict. War produces the same unhappiness, on a larger scale.
• The chapter’s own example shows one growing out of the other. The US backed the Islamic
  militants in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union in the 1980s, and later attacked them when Al
  Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, launched the strikes of 11 September 2001. Groups armed for one war
  became the terrorists of the next.
• Answering one with the other does not end it. Military force may have a role to play in
  combating terrorism, and even here there is a limit to what force can achieve.

Against the connection.

• The reasons are not the same. It is now an almost universally-accepted view that
  countries should only go to war for the right reasons, primarily self-defence or to protect other
  people from genocide. Terrorism claims no such reason.
• The rules are not the same. Armies must avoid killing or hurting non-combatants as well
  as unarmed and surrendering combatants, they should not be excessively violent, and force must be
  used only after all the alternatives have failed. Terrorism is defined by doing the opposite,
  deliberately and indiscriminately.
• The actors are not the same. War is fought between states, which are bound by
  international law and norms and can be held to account; terrorist groups answer to nobody.

A suggested position. The cartoon is largely right that the two are connected, because in
both it is ordinary people who pay, and because the chapter’s own history shows one producing the
other. But treating them as identical goes too far, since war is at least bound by the requirement
of a right reason and by limits on its means, and terrorism is not. The lesson the chapter draws is
that non-traditional threats are better answered through international cooperation than by force
alone.