Week 7: Haque

The interstate tensions were a new aspect that we have not covered as thoroughly, and one that I am especially interested in, so perhaps it is because I have kept these ideas in the back of my mind that I was not especially cognizant of their sudden predominance in the Haque reading. I am especially interested in the international/universal ideas of security, and how international relations, international bodies, and international policies are affected by the state centered security paradigm.

In Haque's article, the most pressing aspects I noted were from page 220 on, when he begins to dive into the interstate conflict and the need for reevaluation of policies and reform measures, including a revised international relations perspective concerning the idea of security. By incorporating poverty and small arms as well as industrial expansion and the indirect environmental consequences of economic growth and consumerism, Haque lays out a strong argument for changing the status quo concerning security in East Asia. Especially notable is the need, that we have already discussed, for these states to consider the conflict of interest between many new ideas of security, such as alleviation of poverty and provisions for basic needs, with their focus on economic growth and traditional responses to security threats with militarism.

The emphasis on the complex historical relationships that complicate contemporary regional efforts at cooperation is an important emphasis on Haque's part, and it is one we have not spoken of as much, and I hope as we explore the other countries more, we will begin to find more grounds for having discussions concerning the role of regional cooperation, and the complications of international alleigances and antagonisms.

I am, however, even more invested in understanding how we can reform security theory to reflect the changing ideas of what constitutes security, especially noting Haque's call to academics in the end. Today, it seems necessary for states to be central to the shift from state-centered security ideas to more multilateral ideas of security that would include micro/internal issues all the way up to international macro issues, and yet it is states that are most dedicated to national sovereignty, making it difficult to imagine a way for these ideas to truly shift. I think such a change will require a real ideological shift of immense proportions, and such a change seems almost impossible to come by in the face of such a long standing and entrenched notion of security.