Week 1: Krause and Williams

As a starting off point, I will set up this first blog as a series of replies to the study questions posed for the week, since I found that to be a helpful format for organizing my reading an analysis of the piece. I will give more time to certain questions, as I see fit, and I will skip those questions which I feel I have given time to in other responses.

Introduction

Q1: How has security garnered attention since the end of the Cold War?
A1: Optimists have newly focused on cooperation through global capitalism and liberal democracy while pessimists became concerned with growing ethnic conflict and fear "an anarchic future" (Krause 33). These people, as well as those who remain neutral in their outlook, tend to agree that the post-Cold War era is one with increased focus on economic and environmental issues, as well as one with more voices clamoring to be heard concerning human rights, labor struggles, minority and indigenous rights, and more. As the world moves further away from the East-West divide, issues are no longer perceived as black and white. Questions concerning the fractionalization of the USSR, especially with regard to the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and growing conflict in Georgia and Chechnya, became matters of concern as ethnic and cultural loyalties became the focal point rather than the natin-state. Around the world the topic of nuclear proliferation came to the fore as talks began among nations to settle agreements concerning demilitarization and the dismantling of nuclear weapons facilities. Beyond issues of military concern there were many whose voices were raised concerning growing environmental awareness and the threat of global warming and with it increased emphasis on carbon emissions. Environmenal concerns also have begun to play a role in the realm of humanitarian work with a growing focus on sanitation and environmental standards to attempt prevention of health problems among people without access to clean water or to sewage treatment systems, among other problems. Human rights in general have grown in scope, and movements and struggles around the world have utilized technology to promote worldwide awareness, communication, and solidarity on issues from the genocide in Darfur to oppression of Falun Gong practitioners in China. Increased technology, the fractionalizing of the USSR, and growing environmental and human rights advocacy have all played a role in the changing face of security studies and of matters of security since the end of the Cold War.

Q2: To what extent is there a consensus on the definition of security?
A2: There is little consensus on the definition of security; however, traditionally, "security studies" have been concerned primarily with the nation-state and militarism. However, as mentioned above, from about 1990 on the scope of "security" has broadened to incorporate more individualized, as well as more "universal" ideas about what is needed to ensure security.

Q5: What is the central conventional argument against incorporating broader questions into "security studies"?
A5: Dorff argues that "problems" are not solid enough to constitute security threats, and thus should not be up for policy consideration. "Problems," as Dorff sees them, are economic, social, and ecological issues not directly related to mililtary concerns. Yet, Krause and Williams hold that claiming that "problems" are outside of current security concepts is a means of avoiding reform and reconceptualization without providing a strong argument against the potential benefits that such restructuring could result in.

Unpacking the traditional Conception of Security: The Evolution of Disciplinary Authority

Q1: What do they mean by "security, after all, is a historically variable condition"?
A1: Ideas of security depend on contemporary politics and are determined by historical specificity in this way. Different pressures and threats, the actors involved, the science, technology and communication - these factors will all depend on the period of history one is referring to, and will then be reflected in the security concerns and definitions of that era.

States are the Subjects: Anarchy is the Condition; Contractarianism is the Solution

Q2: a. In conventional security studies, states are the locus/source of security. From this perspective, what is the assumption made about the security of citizens? b. What does it assume about the realtionships between citizens of different countries?

A2: a. Conventional theory assumes that there cannot be security for the individual without the state because rational beings will live in a natural state of competition unless they can agree to live by a social contract, as argued by Hobbes. Further, Krause and Williams argue on page 41 that, "The declaration that the state is the subject of security, and anarchy the eternal condition of international relations, is premised not on objective facts but is grounded in a deeper set of claims about the autonomous nature of subjectivity and its relationship to sovereignty. This underlying methodological individualist premise is shared by neorealist and neoliberal approaches."
b. Citizens are thus obligated to one another within a states, but will maintain competition with non-citizens, as they are not obligated by the state to coexist under any sort of contract or authority, as they do within their own state. Strategically, this implies that nations, too, will exist in a constant state of competition and stalemate, and it further implies conditions of rationality and objectivity are possible with the assistance of science - a position that those who oppose the traditional conceptions of security are apt to critique, beleiving that even science cannot be objective because rationality does not presuppose objectivity.

Challenges to the Tradtional Conception: Individuals as Persons, Citizens, and Humanity

Q1: Give an example of a type of individual security and how the focus on the individual (rather than the state) highlights the potential conflict with state security.

A1: Threats to individuals as citizens: In this case the state may mitigate the insecurity of citizens, however, it depends on where the treat is coming from. In some cases, the state itself acts against the security of parts of its citizenry, arbitrarily or systematically, which can lead to major human rights violations which often cause problems on an international level with regard to state sovereignty. On the other hand, these threats may come from another state or from a non-state actor, wich poses its own challenges to the state in terms of how the state could defend its citizens against these problems. For instance, in some cases multinational corporations will use threats and violence to crush union organizing, or will refuse to comply with environmental regulations or labor standards. In such cases, they may exploit their role in developing nations where there are fewer regulations in place, and thus are targeting citizens in developing nations or those who work in export processing zones (EPZ) over citizens in industrialized nations where labor standards are higher and where jurisprudence carries more weight. Alternately, we have the very specific case in the USA of the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, which were acts of violence taken by non-state actors against citizens, and these cases are common around the world today, unfortunately, from sucide bombers to larger premeditated acts of violence near embassies and in public areas. These new threats from non-state actors challenge traditional security theory and demand attention and policy reform to protect citizens.

Security, Community, and Identity

Q1: How have security studies that focus on communal identity and culture (as a way to understand security) challenged the idea if state as the source of security?
A1: Competitng claims to national sovereignty put national security into question. For instance, as with the fragmentation of the former Societ Union, and especially with the decentralization of the former Yugoslavia into a number of smaller, ethnically homogneous, states.