Class 12 Political Science Chapter 5 Security in the Contemporary World Short Notes

Even after all this, the chapter admits that “security remains a slippery idea”. Societies have
never held the same conception of it, and it would be surprising if they did, because there are
nearly 200 countries and 650 crore people in the world. Contexts and situations decide our view of
security.

Human security and state security should be, and often are, the same thing, but secure states do
not automatically mean secure peoples. During the last 100 years, more people have been killed by
their own governments than by foreign armies.

1. Surrender, which no government advertises as the policy of the country.
2. Deterrence, preventing the other side from attacking by promising to raise the costs of
war to an unacceptable level. 3. Defence, defending itself when war actually breaks out.

Deterrence and defence are the two working parts of security policy.
Balance of power is the third component, built mainly on military power, with economic and
technological power as its basis. Alliance building is the fourth and related component.

The international system is a rather brutal arena in which there is no central authority capable
of controlling behaviour. Within a country the threat of violence is regulated by an acknowledged
central authority, the government. The UN is a creature of its members and has authority only to the
extent the membership allows and obeys. So, in world politics, each country has to be responsible
for its own security.

After 1945 the US and the Soviet Union appeared to be united and could expect peace within their
borders, and the powerful Western European countries faced no serious threats from groups or
communities living within those borders. Their external threat was the Cold War, in which the US-led
Western alliance faced the Soviet-led Communist alliance. Some European powers also worried about
violence in their colonies: the French in Vietnam in the 1950s, the British in Kenya in the 1950s
and the early 1960s.

1. The prospect of military conflict with neighbouring countries, whom many feared even
more than the superpowers or the former colonial powers, over borders and territories or control of
people and populations. 2. Internal military conflict, especially separatist movements. The
two merged where a neighbour helped or instigated an internal separatist movement.

Both conventions included all the great powers. But the US and the Soviet Union did not want to
give up the third type of weapons of mass destruction, namely nuclear weapons, so they pursued arms
control instead of disarmament.

Ends. Countries should only go to war for the right reasons, primarily self-defence or to
protect other people from genocide. Means. 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.

Africa 30%, Middle East and North Africa 26%, Europe 17%, Americas 16%, Asia and Pacific 11%.
Source: UNHCR.

Expansion of the concept of security does not mean any kind of disease or distress can be
included, or the concept stands to lose its coherence and everything could become a security issue.
To qualify, an issue must threaten the very existence of the referent, a state or a group of people.
The chapter’s three examples: the Maldives, most of whose territory may be submerged by a
rising sea level; Southern Africa, where one in six adults has HIV-AIDS and Botswana is the
worst case at one in three; and Rwanda in 1994, where nearly five lakh Tutsi were killed by
the rival Hutu tribe in a matter of weeks.

Levels: bilateral, that is between any two countries, regional, continental, global. Which
one depends on the nature of the threat and the willingness and ability of countries to respond.
Players besides states: international organisations (the UN, the World Health Organisation,
the World Bank, the IMF); non-governmental organisations (Amnesty International, the Red Cross,
private foundations and charities, religious organisations, trade unions, associations, social and
development organisations); businesses and corporations; great personalities (Mother Teresa, Nelson
Mandela).

Military force may have a role in combating terrorism or in enforcing human rights, and even
there the limit is real. It is difficult to see what force would do to help alleviate poverty,
manage migration and refugee movements, and control epidemics; in most cases it would only make
matters worse. Force may be used as a last resort against governments that kill their own people or
ignore the misery of populations devastated by poverty, disease and catastrophe, and against
international terrorists and those who harbour them. It works better when sanctioned and applied
collectively than when one country decides alone.

“At its most basic, security implies freedom from threats.”

The 1994 UNDP Human Development Report, on human security: “the concept of security has for too
long been interpreted narrowly… It has been more related to nation states than people… Forgotten
were the legitimate concerns of ordinary people who sought security in their daily lives.”

“So, in world politics, each country has to be responsible for its own security.”

Kofi Annan, on the narrow concept of human security: “the protection of communities and
individuals from internal violence”.

On the non-traditional referent: “Not just the state but also individuals or communities or
indeed all of humankind”.

“In traditional security, force is both the principal threat to security and the principal means
of achieving security.”

“Indeed, in most cases, the use of military force would only make matters worse!”

The chapter’s closing conclusion: “Thus democracy is not just a political ideal; a democratic government is
also a way to provide greater security.”