An Analysis of Grand Strategy through the Lens of Neo-Security Complex Theory
Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de Wilde attempt to structure a fundamentally new approach to the study of security issues by attempting to incorporate traditional notions of security analysis into a broader understanding of international security that incorporates non-military threats. Their neo-security complex theory does provide substantive insight into how the process of securitizing issues occurs and how one can address non-military existential threats within a security studies framework; however, there are some substantive problems that require greater theoretical precision in order to prevent making the securitizing process they describe nothing more than a residual category. Ultimately, Buzan, Waever, and de Wilde need to incorporate both temporal elements as well as and probability into their approach in order to disaggregate existential threats. Without such modifications, the existential threat posed by an incoming nuclear or chemical warhead is equivalent to increased levels of radon in the home.
In order to show the virtues, flaws, and possible improvements that would allow neo-security complex theory to become a more powerful analytic tool in security studies it is first necessary to briefly explicate the core elements of the approach and show how it diverges from the traditional understanding of security studies. Then one must show how its application would provide substantive insight into particular security practices found in the literature, such as grand strategy. After doing so, we must address substantive problems generated from the application of the theory and then show how various improvements would strengthen the neo-security project.
The neo-security complex theory revolves around an attempt to expand the possibilities of what constitutes a security threat by conceptualizing it as meaning solely a threat to one’s physical existence. While recognizing that there are many threats and vulnerabilities that arise both within and outside military issues, Buzan, Waever, and de Wilde argue that including all such events would ultimately prove the traditionalists’ critique that expanding security beyond military issues inevitably leads to a lack of coherence. The way out of this conceptual morass is to distinguish between political issues and construct security as pertaining to “existential threats to a referent object by a securitizing actor who thereby generates endorsement of emergency measures beyond rules that would otherwise bind.”
Like neorealism, neo-security complex theory relies upon levels of analysis as a means to situate actors, issues that pose existential threats, and the interactions between them that constitute security.
In her essay “We should relinquish some liberty in exchange for security,” Mona Charen, a columnist and political analyst, speaks on the issue of security in the United States of America. She uses many significant techniques in her essay to persuade her readers of her argument. However, I feel that her essay fails to make a great argument because she relies heavily on assumptions, misses opportunities to appeal to pathos and ethos, and overall uses a degrading tone.
Up north all blacks were free. The population of blacks in the north was about 1% in 1860 after the American Revolution. The blacks up north had minimal rights. The blacks could not vote, because of stipulations or they were just told that they could not vote by laws of their area. The New York Convention created one stipulation that was created to exclude blacks from voting in 1821; the law stated that blacks could not vote if they did not own property. Most blacks were having a tough time getting jobs in the south. So if a black person could not generate income how were they supposed to buy a home?
... the need of government to act whenever an issue threatens national security. Mechanisms should be put in place to ascertain the extent of the threat, and the acceptable measures of dealing with it.
On the other hand, in The Slippery Slope to Preventive War, Neta Crawford questions the arguments put forward by the Bush administration and the National Security Strategy in regard to preemptive action and war. Crawford also criticizes the Bush administration as they have failed to define rogue states and terrorists as they have “blurred the distinction” between “the terrorists and those states in which they reside”. In Crawford’s point of view, taking the battle to the terrorists as self-defence of a preemptive nature along with the failure to distinguish between terrorist and rogue states is dangerous as “preventive war
Creon’s declination begins in Oedipus at Colonus when his infatuation with power and control begins to arise, in turn bringing forth a rigid side to his character. The battle over the kingship of Thebes is a pivotal point in Creon’s development. He goes to drastic measures when threatening the lives of Oedipus’ daughters in order to bring him back to Thebes, and in conversation with Oedipus, Creon says, “Your daughters: one of them I have just now / Had seized and carried off; now I’ll take this one” (129). His forceful and domineering actions towards his brother-in-law begin to peel back the layers of his intentions. In Oedipus Rex, Creon did not want the throne, nor did he enjoy attention, but he now finds pleasure in being the head figure of leadership. The first signs of Creon’s craving for personal pleasures are unravelled as he begins to act under the influence of his Id, “a demand to take care of needs immediately” (Boeree). The animalistic tendencies, destructive nature, and amoral actions are all induced by the Id, and Creon unconsciously begins to tap into that part of his mind as he strives to gain power. All other emotions and opinions of others are disregarded and Creon makes it his goal to become king, seemingly stopping at nothing t...
Macbeth, Brutus from Julius Ceasar, John Proctor from The Crucible, Hercules, Sirius Black from Harry Potter, and Spiderman all have a common fate, they are all tragic heroes. A tragic hero is a great or virtuous character in a dramatic tragedy who is destined for downfall, suffering, or defeat. Every hero has a downfall and a purpose; typically it is for the greater good for everyone else. In The Oedipus Plays of Sophocles, there are two characters that could be defined as tragic heroes, they are Antigone and Creon. Bounteous people do not envisage Antigone as a tragic hero, these people believe she was crazy, had no purpose, and did not help the kingdom. Although, countless people do not comprehend that she actually did save the citizens of Thebas, and tried to help Creon.
For the law of the lands was at odds with the law of the gods. Creon was also able to realize his blinded ways, though it did not change the outcome brought on by his actions. Creon seems to battle with his prideful ways more that Oedipus saying, “… Oh it is hard to give in! But it is worse to risk everything for stubborn pride” (Sophocles, S5, pg. 234). Though it was difficult to see past his arrogance, he did all he could to fix the actions that were caused at his hands, however it still didn’t stop the will of the gods. Even after his efforts were not enough, he came to understand his losses was done at his hands for he admits, “Whatever my hands have touched has come to nothing. Fate has brought all my pride to a thought of dust” (Sophocles, Exodus, pg. 245). With both Oedipus and Creon accepting the outcomes of their actions, they both were able to change for the better and be recognized as tragic
Gilbert, P. (1994). Terrorism, security, and nationality an introductory study in applied political philosophy. London: Routledge.
Wendt, Alexander. “Constructing International Politics.” International Security. Cambridge: President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1995. 71-81. Print.
By the end of the Cold War the literature focusing on strategic studies has highlighted transformational changes within international system that affected and altered the very nature of war. As a result many security studies scholars have renounced traditional theories of strategic thought. Clausewitzian theory, in particular, has taken a lot of criticism, regarding its relevance to modern warfare. (Gray, How Has War Changed Since the End of the Cold War?, 2005)
A definition of a “tragic hero” is, “a great or virtuous character in a dramatic tragedy who is destined for downfall, suffering,or defeat.“tragic hero” (Dictionary.com). Another definition of a “tragic hero” and one that Creon fits best is “ a literary character who makes an error of judgment or has a fatal flaw that, combined with fate and external forces brings on a tragedy” (Dictionary.com).
This concept was later expanded upon in the Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson and became the motto of American democracy: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. However, the founding fathers and their influential Enlightenment Era philosophers often referred to blacks as “savages” and “inferior humans”, denying them these “inalienable” rights. It is through this manipulation of language and human understanding that African Americans were denied the most basic elements of freedom. The Constitution itself is highly influenced by Enlightenment thought and meant to serve as the mark of an egalitarian republic. However, it includes no mention of the word “slave”, yet directly condones the foreign importation of slaves for at least 20 years after its ratification. This is evidence that African Americans were marginalized in their aspirations for freedom, strictly because their subjugated position in society benefited
National security undeniably has a preponderant place in the political, economical and military agenda of each state. Therefore, the state has a paramount responsibility in the contexts of its own domestic and transnational security. Whatever may be the way the state adopts in order to protect itself and its citizens, it needs to be accord with an international system. In this sense the state tends to follow a specific model in terms of international relations. Focuses in the case of western societies in general, and more specifically the United States as the iconic model of the western world, states tend to favour a realist perspective in terms of national security. Albeit, what is exactly the realism theory in the national security field? According to Glaser the realist view proposes the achievement of most high standard quality of national security focused on the acquisition of superior grades of power among the relative states sparking the idea of the presence of an anarchical international system .
Whenever world politics is mentioned, the state that appears to be at the apex of affairs is the United States of America, although some will argue that it isn’t. It is paramount we know that the international system is shaped by certain defining events that has lead to some significant changes, particularly those connected with different chapters of violence. Certainly, the world wars of the twentieth century and the more recent war on terror must be included as defining moments. The warning of brute force on a potentially large scale also highlights the vigorousness of the cold war period, which dominated world politics within an interval of four decades. The practice of international relations (IR) was introduced out of a need to discuss the causes of war and the different conditions for calm in the wake of the first world war, and it is relevant we know that this has remained a crucial focus ever since. However, violence is not the only factor capable of causing interruption in the international system. Economic elements also have a remarkable impact. The great depression that happened in the 1920s, and the global financial crises of the contemporary period can be used as examples. Another concurrent problem concerns the environment, with the human climate being one among different number of important concerns for the continuing future of humankind and the planet in general.
People decided that the traditional concepts of national security were not enough, and did not necessarily reflect current values or the needs of the people. Traditional concepts of national security place the nation-state at the center of the playing field, and use military and economic power to protect the state’s political and physical sovereignty from external threats. Human security places individuals at the center of the playing field, and focuses on issues that are both transnational and local.