An operational concept of Security

Clearly, Security is one of the most ambiguous, debated, and contested ideas in the overall conceptual framework of international relations. Concepts evolve with time and change according to circumstances, which, in effect, make it imperative to redefine the concept of security. The effort to conceptualise security and to accommodate the great complexity and diversity of its fundamental elements with impartiality, while preserving its analytical and operational usefulness, is a complex and delicate exercise. Nevertheless, we attempt to do it, based on six major premises:

1) Communities are the references of security;

2) Well being and political survival, considered from a relatively broad but discerning perspective, are the fundamental interests and values of security;

3) Threats and concerns relative to the security of communities do not come only from other States. They may also originate within the States and non-state actors;

4) Competition, cooperation, and the building of communities are equally relevant and may coexist concurrently;

5) The emphasis or priority granted to each dimension/concern/threat, and to each instrument of security, may vary from community to community;

6) The generic concept of security must be abstract, inclusive, and cautious to reconcile complexity, diversity, and change and to allow different levels.

Thus, security means the protection and promotion of values and interests considered as vital for the political survival and well being of the community. The closer the community is to the absence of concerns of political, economic, and military nature, the more safeguarded its security is.

Having the community as reference means that the object of security may be a State, an ethnic group, a transnational group or an international association, while accommodating the problematic nature of States and the existence of other security references "within" the States and/or “above” the States. At the same time, assuming political survival and well being as vital values and interests, allows the broadening and deepening of security beyond traditional dimensions, in a sufficiently inclusive and flexible manner, in terms of its content, threats/risks, and instruments.

Concerns over political survival or well being may, independently or simultaneously, be the fundamental interests communities can ensure, though not necessarily with the same priority, in the same manner, at the same level, or in face of the same concerns: North Korea, Kurds, Palestinians, Iceland, Angola, or the EU, will certainly consider both their survival and their well being in vary different ways. Again, if the State is for some the greatest reference of security, for others it constitutes the major source of insecurity, while for others the major reference is not the State, but rather their ethnic or religious group, or the political elite.

Moreover, if there is a crucial problematic of political survival or of well being, it may not simply result from the conflict of material interests (such as territory, resources, etc.) but arise, primarily or equally, from considerations and perceptions of identity, either of ideological nature of historical and cultural heritage. Such problems and perceptions occur also in very distinct contexts of rivalry, conflict, involvement, and cooperation, which are dynamic and evolving.

Similarly, the safeguard and/or promotion of political survival and well being may imply the orchestration of military panoply but, complementary or independently, may favour internal or international normative/legal frameworks, diplomacy, politics, commerce and economy, or social-cultural aspects and others. Again, it depends on the specific community and circumstances. Accordingly, in the concept we propose, at the same time that political survival and well being limit the spectrum of security (in order to pose a security problem, a concern must, somehow, question values and interests considered to be vital) they are also sufficiently inclusive and flexible to allow a great variety of potential real situations. In similar fashion, the idea of community that emerges in our concept of security not only allows encompassing several levels (infra-state, state, and multinational), but also selecting those communities which may be more relevant and pertinent in terms of the security agenda and of the system, or security complex, under analysis. The same may be said regarding military, political, and economic concerns, since they can only be included in the operational concept of security depending on their relevance to the protection and promotion of interests and values considered vital to the political survival and well-being of the communities in question: of course, there are security concerns that do not threaten basic levels of security of populations, States, or regions; otherwise, we would be inviting a tremendous array of potential communities and concerns that, in fact, are not of equal relevance.

Date: 2015-12-17; view: 709