Description
Hi there, this assignment is based on SEC345e Non-Traditional Security. Attached Question file “SEC345 TutorMarkedAssignment (7Apr22)”. *Please read the attached file carefully*. The requirements for this assignment are: 1. Tutor is required to read and ANSWER QUESTION 1 ONLY!!. 2. Total word count should preferably not exceed 1300 words for the question (excluding figures, tables, and references if any). 3. Answer to be submitted before the due date which is on the 30th March 2022, Wednesday, Singapore Time. Not your time zone but mine. Due to the many experiences with other tutors who do not meet this requirement I had to put this clause in. 4. It is required that the assignment has a lot of research to be done. The recommended reading as follows: Security and suspicion: An ethnography of everyday life in Israel (The Ethnography of Political Violence) (2013). Paperback.Schreurs, M., & Hyun, I. T. (2007). The environmental dimension of Asian security: Conflict and cooperation over energy, resources, and pollution. US Institute of Peace Press.Cavelty, M. D. (2010). Routledge handbook of security studies. V. Mauer (Ed.). New York and London: Routledge.Collins, A. (Ed.). (2010). Contemporary security studies. Oxford university press.Roach, S. C., Griffiths, M., & O’Callaghan, T. (2008). International Relations:: The Key Concepts. New York and London: Routledge. 5. Citation are APA Style. 6. The English language is British English. 7. Course material provided for reference and can be used as. (Study Guide, Textbook). Textbook is 8. Quick response from the tutor is much needed. Please bid this assignment if you are up to the task of Singapore Standard, as I have a few disappointed experiences of only getting 60 marks. I am looking for a 75-80 marks work. The datelines are to be met and if failure to do so, will be requested to cancel. Datelines are in Singapore timeline. Thank you for your kind understanding. I hope to work well with you. Requires a thorough analysis, response, and explanation. Since this assignment requires Turnitin, so the answer cannot copied from other sources. Must be Original, (answers copied from another source will result in a zero).
Course Development Team
Head of Programme
: Assoc Prof Antonio L. Rappa
Course Developer(s)
: Assoc Prof Antonio L Rappa
Technical Writer
: Diane Quek, ETP
Video Production
: Danny Soh, ETP
©
2021 Singapore University of Social Sciences. All rights reserved.
No part of this material may be reproduced in any form or by any means without
permission in writing from the Educational Technology & Production, Singapore
University of Social Sciences.
ISBN 978-981-4685-78-8
Educational Technology & Production
Singapore University of Social Sciences
463 Clementi Road
Singapore 599494
How to cite this Study Guide (APA):
Rappa, A. L. (2021). SEC345 Non-traditional security (study guide). Singapore: Singapore
University of Social Sciences.
Release V1.7
Build S1.0.5, T1.5.21
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Course Guide
1. Welcome…………………………………………………………………………………………………… CG-2
2. Course Description and Aims…………………………………………………………………. CG-3
3. Learning Outcomes…………………………………………………………………………………. CG-4
4. Learning Material……………………………………………………………………………………. CG-5
5. Assessment Overview……………………………………………………………………………… CG-8
6. Course Schedule…………………………………………………………………………………….. CG-10
Study Unit 1: An Introduction to Non-Traditional Security (NTS)
Learning Outcomes……………………………………………………………………………………. SU1-2
Overview……………………………………………………………………………………………………. SU1-3
Chapter 1: Traditional and Non-Traditional Security…………………………………. SU1-4
Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………….. SU1-13
Formative Assessment……………………………………………………………………………… SU1-14
References………………………………………………………………………………………………… SU1-23
Study Unit 2: NTS Theory and the Stakeholders
Learning Outcomes……………………………………………………………………………………. SU2-2
Overview……………………………………………………………………………………………………. SU2-3
Chapter 2: Non-Traditional Security Theory………………………………………………. SU2-4
Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………….. SU2-11
i
Table of Contents
Formative Assessment……………………………………………………………………………… SU2-13
References………………………………………………………………………………………………… SU2-22
Study Unit 3: Terrorism and Piracy
Learning Outcomes……………………………………………………………………………………. SU3-2
Chapter 3: Terrorism and Piracy………………………………………………………………… SU3-3
Formative Assessment……………………………………………………………………………… SU3-10
References………………………………………………………………………………………………… SU3-20
Study Unit 4: Food, Water, and Health Security
Learning Outcomes……………………………………………………………………………………. SU4-2
Overview……………………………………………………………………………………………………. SU4-3
Chapter 4: Food, Water, And Health Security…………………………………………….. SU4-4
Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………….. SU4-18
Formative Assessment……………………………………………………………………………… SU4-20
References………………………………………………………………………………………………… SU4-29
Study Unit 5: NTS and Energy, Environment, and Politics
Learning Outcomes……………………………………………………………………………………. SU5-2
Overview……………………………………………………………………………………………………. SU5-3
Chapter 5: NTS and Energy, Environment, and Politics……………………………… SU5-4
Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………….. SU5-12
Formative Assessment……………………………………………………………………………… SU5-14
References………………………………………………………………………………………………… SU5-23
ii
Table of Contents
Study Unit 6: NTS and Green Politics
Learning Outcomes……………………………………………………………………………………. SU6-2
Overview……………………………………………………………………………………………………. SU6-3
Chapter 6: NTS and Green Politics…………………………………………………………….. SU6-5
Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………….. SU6-11
Formative Assessment……………………………………………………………………………… SU6-14
References………………………………………………………………………………………………… SU6-25
iii
Table of Contents
iv
List of Lesson Recordings
List of Lesson Recordings
An Introduction to Non-Traditional Security, part 1……………………………………… SU1-12
An Introduction to Non-Traditional Security, part 2……………………………………… SU1-12
NTS Theory & Stakeholders, part 1………………………………………………………………. SU2-10
NTS Theory & Stakeholders, part 2………………………………………………………………. SU2-10
Terrorism and Piracy, part 1……………………………………………………………………………. SU3-6
Terrorism and Piracy, part 2……………………………………………………………………………. SU3-6
Food, Water, and Health Security, part 1………………………………………………………. SU4-17
Food, Water, and Health Security, part 2………………………………………………………. SU4-17
NTS and Energy, Environment, and Politics, part 1………………………………………. SU5-11
NTS and Energy, Environment, and Politics, part 2………………………………………. SU5-11
NTS and Green Politics, part 1……………………………………………………………………… SU6-10
NTS and Green Politics, part 2……………………………………………………………………… SU6-10
v
List of Lesson Recordings
vi
Course
Guide
Non-Traditional Security
SEC345
Course Guide
1. Welcome
Presenter: Assoc Prof Antonio L Rappa
This streaming video requires Internet connection. Access it via Wi-Fi to
avoid incurring data charges on your personal mobile plan.
Click here to watch the video. i
Welcome to your study of SEC345 Non-Traditional Security, a 5 credit unit (CU) course.
This Study Guide is divided into two sections – the Course Guide and Study Units.
The Course Guide provides the structure for the entire course. As the phrase implies, the
Course Guide aims to guide you through the learning experience. In other words, it may
be seen as a roadmap through which you are introduced to the different topics within
the broader subject. This Guide has been prepared to help you understand the aim[s] and
learning outcomes of the course. In addition, it explains how the various materials and
resources are organised and how they may be used, how your learning will be assessed,
and how to get help if you need it.
i
CG-2
SEC345
Course Guide
2. Course Description and Aims
Non-Traditional Security (NTS) in late modernity is about how the instruments of NTS
work in modern states. This course explains how the NTS of energy, environment and
health have impacted human life and vice-versa. This NTS course is important for the
student of Security Studies as it will help him or her understand how security issues may
not always arise out of terrorism or war. The student will understand how NTS itself plays
a part in Grand Theory and Empire Building while developing a broader understanding
of “security” beyond the confines of security studies.
CG-3
SEC345
Course Guide
3. Learning Outcomes
Knowledge & Understanding (Theory Component)
1.
Appraise power centres of Non-Traditional Security (NTS) and traditional
security
2.
Distinguish between NTS, the state and non-state actors
3.
Critique the development of NTS theory and security studies concepts
4.
Examine root ideas in NTS
5.
Propose environmental factors responsible for the development of Asian NTS
6.
Arrange the different categories of energy NTS
7.
Judge the value of food NTS in late modernity
8.
Synthesize the impact of health politics on the environment
9.
Assess the inter-connectedness of NTS (energy, environment, food and health)
politics
10.
Construct the circumstances surrounding Civil Society and NTS
11.
Evaluate NTS in terms of Green Politics
12.
Recommend new approaches to understanding NTS
Key Skills (Practical Component)
13.
Apply security studies concepts to seminar discussions
14.
Experiment with work-based problems with concepts in security studies
15.
Demonstrate competence in academic writing (political science)
CG-4
SEC345
Course Guide
4. Learning Material
If you are enrolled into this course, you will be able to access the eTextbooks here:
To launch eTextbook, you need a VitalSource account which can be created via
Canvas (iBookStore), using your SUSS email address. Access to adopted eTextbook is
restricted by enrolment to this course.
Recommended Textbook(s)
Security and suspicion: An ethnography of everyday life in Israel (The Ethnography of Political
Violence) (2013). Paperback.
Schreurs, M., & Hyun, I. T. (2007). The environmental dimension of Asian security: Conflict
and cooperation over energy, resources, and pollution. US Institute of Peace Press.
Cavelty, M. D. (2010). Routledge handbook of security studies. V. Mauer (Ed.). New York
and London: Routledge.
Collins, A. (Ed.). (2010). Contemporary security studies. Oxford university press.
Roach, S. C., Griffiths, M., & O’Callaghan, T. (2008). International Relations:: The Key
Concepts. New York and London: Routledge.
CG-5
SEC345
Course Guide
Baylis, J., Owens, P., & Smith, S. (Eds.). (2010). The globalization of world politics: An
introduction to international relations (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Reference Books
Collins, A. (Ed.). (2010). Contemporary security studies. Oxford university press.
Journal(s) / Magazine(s)
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies Contemporary Southeast Asia (various issues)
Textbook(s): Your Associate Faculty or Instructor will advise you on the specific texts
to focus on for the semester. Students are to note that there is never a single textbook
in Security Studies or Political Science that can effectively capture every aspect of the
academic area or sub-area. Do note that as in all Security Studies courses, the “required
texts” are provided but only a supplement, not a replacement. This is because unlike
other academic subjects, Security Studies and Political Science cannot be contained
within a single book.
Additional Notes
The central concept of Non-Traditional Security lies in the interested parties and
stakeholders or originators of the NTS. Students will acquire a fundamental
understanding of phenomenon that constitutes and can be categorized as Non-Traditional
Security issue(s). NTS are also evaluated within the context of the State, Civil and
International Organisations, national and especially transnational state and non-state
actors that carry out activities leading to NTS. The business case for the Green cause and
its relation to NTS will also be discussed. All these will culminate with suggestions for
alternative approaches to addressing the NTS issues that students and practitioners of
Security Studies may encounter in the course of their professional duties.
By the end of the course, the student will have a familiar grasp of what Non-Traditional
Security issues are, some possible approaches for analyzing these issues, and be able
to comfortably engage in discussions relating to Non-Traditional Security issues. He or
CG-6
SEC345
Course Guide
she will as also be able to embark on a research assignment on a topic relating to NonTraditional Security.
CG-7
SEC345
Course Guide
5. Assessment Overview
The overall assessment weighting for this course is as follows:
Assessment
Description
Weight Allocation
Pre-Course Quiz
2%
Pre-Class Quiz 1
2%
Pre-Class Quiz 2
2%
Assignment 2
Tutor-marked Assignment
18%
Assignment 3
Group-based Assignment 1
20%
Class Participation
Participation
6%
Examination
Written examination
50%
Assignment 1
TOTAL
100%
SUSS’s assessment strategy consists of two components, Overall Continuous Assessment
(OCAS) and Overall Examinable Component (OES) that make up the overall course
assessment score. Both components will be equally weighted: 50% OCAS and 50% OES.
There will be continuous assessment in the form of quizzes, one tutor-marked assignment,
one group-based assignment and class participation. In total, this continuous assessment
will constitute 50 percent of overall student assessment for this course. The continuous
assignments are compulsory and are non-substitutable. It is imperative that you read
through your Assignment questions and submission instructions before embarking on
your Assignment.
Examination:
The final (2-hour) written exam will constitute the other 50 percent of overall student
assessment. All topics covered in the course outline will be examinable. To prepare for
CG-8
SEC345
Course Guide
the exam, you are advised to review Specimen or Past Year Exam Papers available on
Learning Management System.
Passing Mark:
To successfully pass the course, you must obtain a minimum passing mark of 40 percent
for each of the continuous assessments components. That is, students must obtain at least
a mark of 40 percent for the combined assessments and also at least a mark of 40 percent
for the final exam. For detailed information on the Course grading policy, please refer to
The Student Handbook (‘Award of Grades’ section under Assessment and Examination
Regulations). The Student Handbook is available from the Student Portal.
Non-graded Learning Activities:
Activities for the purpose of self-learning are present in each study unit. These learning
activities are meant to enable you to assess your understanding and achievement of the
learning outcomes. The type of activities can be in the form of Quiz, Review Questions,
Application-Based Questions or similar. You are expected to complete the suggested
activities either independently and/or in groups.
CG-9
SEC345
Course Guide
6. Course Schedule
To help monitor your study progress, you should pay special attention to your
Course Schedule. It contains study unit related activities including Assignments, Selfassessments, and Examinations. Please refer to the Course Timetable in the Student Portal
for the updated Course Schedule.
Note: You should always make it a point to check the Student Portal for any
announcements and latest updates.
You need to ensure that you fully understand the contents of each study unit listed
in the course schedule. You are expected to complete the suggested activities either
independently and/or in groups. It is imperative that you read through your assignment
questions and submission instructions before embarking on your assignment. It is also
important that you fully understand the overall assessment weighting of your course, as
listed in Section 5 of this Guide.
Manage your time well so you can meet given deadlines and do regular revisions after
completing each unit of study. They will help you retain the knowledge garnered and
prepare you for any required formal assessments. If your course requires an end-ofsemester examination, do look through the specimen or past year exam paper which is
available on Learning Management System. Although flexible learning – learning at your
own pace, space and time – is a hallmark at SUSS, you are encouraged to engage your
instructor and fellow students in online forums Sharing of ideas through meaningful
debates will help broaden your learning and crystallise your thinking.
CG-10
Study
Unit
1
An Introduction to Non-Traditional
Security (NTS)
SEC345
An Introduction to Non-Traditional Security (NTS)
Learning Outcomes
At the end of this unit, you will be able to:
• Appraise Power Centres of Non-Traditional Security (NTS) and Traditional Security
(TS)
• Define Security, Traditional Security, and NTS
• Define ‘Power Centre’
• Analyse and identify Power Centres of NTS
• Discuss regarding Power Centres of NTS
• Evaluate the various perspectives surrounding NTS
SU1-2
SEC345
An Introduction to Non-Traditional Security (NTS)
Overview
Since the early-1990s, Non-Traditional Security (NTS) and ‘human security’ have
gained growing prominence in both academic and policymaking circles. The United
Nations’ (UN) agenda on human security issues (e.g. war-affected children, racial
discrimination, women’s rights, refugees, etc.) together with the former UN SecretaryGeneral Kofi Annan’s personal interest and commitment to human security issues has
raised these problems to the attention of the international community. NTS arose out of
dissatisfaction with the inability of the state-centric approach of Realism to adequately
explain developments and trends in International Relations and Security Studies. The
basic assumption of NTS is not individuals are important for a clear understanding of
major trends in world affairs, and not the material interests of the state per se. NTS argues
that the right focus should be on the welfare and interests of individuals, precisely because
the state is comprised of individuals and citizens. Unlike Traditional Security, NTS tends to
be people-centric. There is another view of NTS that suggests a certain dualistic tendency.
This refers to the tendency among some NTS scholars to believe that NTS ought to be
about the challenging of borders created by existing traditional security studies disciplines
and areas of interest. This is sometimes known as the defiance of borders argument (Alan
Chong). The other tendency from the dualistic point of view is the idea that NTS involves
the entrenchment of the state and the nation state. The dualistic possibilities of NTS as
a basket of competing ideas are still evolving. This Course on NTS does not claim that
the standard academic view of NTS involves such a dualistic perspective. Rather, a more
conventional view of NTS is presented in this Course.
SU1-3
SEC345
An Introduction to Non-Traditional Security (NTS)
Chapter 1: Traditional and Non-Traditional Security
This unit will focus on the following topics:
a.
Define TS
b.
Define NTS
c.
Security according to philosophers Greek, WW1/1 modern day security thinkers
d.
The first emergence of NTS concept
e.
Recognition of NTS
Define Traditional Security (TS)
‘Security’ is a contested concept. It can mean different things to different people. Whose
security? Should we focus only on the security of states? In contrast, there are scholars
who argue that the focus should be on the ordinary human individual. There are two
different philosophies of security to take note. (Paul D. Williams ed. Security Studies: An
Introduction. Routledge: New York and London, 2008, p. 1).
The first philosophy (Realism) argues that security is the same as the accumulation of
power. Realism was the dominant school of thought during the Cold War power struggle
between the two super powers, the US and the Soviet Union (1946-1991). The key feature
of Realism is that it is state-centric; only states matter. According to Realism, non-state
actors play little or no role in international relations and Security Studies. Realism argues
that mistrust leads to conflict-prone inter-state behaviour, especially among the Great
Powers. The specific issues centre on the use of force in settling international disputes,
obsession with national sovereignty and the protection of national interests, the Balance
of Power, and nuclear deterrence. In TS, the ‘power centres’ are the great powers and their
respective interests. These activities result in two basic patterns of inter-state behaviour:
conflict and/or cooperation.
SU1-4
SEC345
An Introduction to Non-Traditional Security (NTS)
Here, security is seen as a commodity (to be secure from military threats, one must have
more powerful weapons). The Realist perspective on NTS is state-centric. It is mainly
concerned with the interests of the state and the government.
The second philosophy (Non-realist) argues that security need not come from power.
Here, security is perceived as being based on human freedom and emancipation. In other
words, the focus is on achieving justice and the protection of human rights. Security is seen
as a form of relationship, not as a commodity. This philosophy essentially takes a nonstate centric perspective by focussing on the core interests of humans, or better known as
‘human security’. Despite this controversy, a working definition of security argues that it
has to do with the management, reduction, and elimination of threats to cherished- values.
Security is as old as human civilization itself. This is the result of unwanted demands
compared with limited and scarce resources or supply. The welfare and well being of
individuals is not new. Theorizing the meaning and purpose of human existence goes all
the way back to ancient Greece. Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle focussed on a central
question: “What is ‘the good life’?” These philosophers asked a fundamental question that
is characteristic of the modern study of the Social Sciences. The important point to note
is that ancient Greek philosophers focussed their thinking on individuals as the referent
object in their intellectual inquiry. They clearly believed that the rightful focus must be on
the individual, or what we term today as human security.
As a formal academic field of inquiry, contemporary Security Studies first came into
prominence in the US and British universities (Realism) after the end of World War II in
1945, an era dominated by the Cold War rivalry between the US and the communist Soviet
Union. American scholars and policymakers were focussed on how to win and defeat
the Soviet Union. Not surprisingly, the realist focuses on the Security Studies was statecentric. It is part of the Political Science subfield of International Relations.
In the 1950s and 1960s, Security Studies became very popular at the heyday of the Cold
War struggle. During the Cold War, Realism dominated the field of security studies.
Western governments and security scholars shared a close working relationship. These
Western scholars focussed on coming up with theories of nuclear deterrence and how the
SU1-5
SEC345
An Introduction to Non-Traditional Security (NTS)
US can win the Cold War, including the Containment Policy against Soviet expansionism
and aggression. The realist assumption is that the more military power a state has, the
more security there is. This assumption needs not necessarily be true. Paul Williams
pointed out that realist scholars were obsessed with the “S-factors” of (1) state, (2) strategy,
(3) science and (4) status quo. States were assumed to be the most important actors/
players in International Relations. Strategy focused on the most effective way to use
force (coercion) against enemies. The quest among American scholars was to devise a
scientific way to study security studies to come up with rigorous analysis and policy
recommendations. Status quo means preventing the Soviets from using force to bring
about revolutionary change on the world stage.
Even during the heyday of realism’s dominance, there were some scholars who argued
that the key focus of security studies should be on the welfare/interests of an individual
and not on state security per se. These scholars were engaged in ‘peace research’.
A major turning point took place in 1983 with the publication of Barry Buzan’s book,
People, States and Fear. Buzan argued that security was not just about states but is integral
to the well being of humans. This came to be known as ‘human security’.
Buzan argued that human security (and not just states) is affected by factors in the
following five major sectors:
a.
Military: Concerns with the interplay between the armed offensive and defensive
capabilities of states, and states’ perceptions of each other’s intentions
b.
Political: Focuses on the organisational stability of states, systems of government
and ideologies that give them their legitimacy
c.
Economic: Revolves around access to the resources, finance and markets
necessary to sustain acceptable levels of welfare and state power
d.
Societal: Centres on the sustainability and evolution of traditional patterns of
language, culture, religious and national identity, and customs
e.
Environmental: Concerns with the maintenance of the local and the planetary
biosphere as the essential support system on which all other human enterprises
depend (Paul Williams 2008, p. 4).
SU1-6
SEC345
An Introduction to Non-Traditional Security (NTS)
What is a security issue?
“This involves analysing the processes through which threat agendas are constructed. In
other words, who decides which of a referent object’s cherished values are threatened, and
by what or whom?” (Paul Williams 2008, p. 8).
The 2004 UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on threats, challenges and change
identified five clusters of threats facing the world:
a.
Economic-social threats (e.g. poverty, infectious disease and environmental
degradation)
b.
Inter-state conflict
c.
Internal conflict including civil war, genocide and other large-scale atrocities;
nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons; terrorism; transnational
organised crime
d.
Terrorism
e.
Transnational organised crime (Williams 2008, p. 8)
This cluster of issues was not the main concern of Realism. Instead, following the
arguments of Liberal theory, they are the key issues highlighted in NTS studies.
Power Centres of Non-Traditional Security
What is a Power Centre in Traditional Security (TS)?
From a Realist’s perspective, power centres in Traditional Security (TS) refer to the
Great Powers in the international system. They are the hubs and nods of the balance
of power system that may operate to help maintain international peace, stability, and
order. Classical Realism focuses on flawed human nature as the main explanatory factor
for conflict patterns of interstate rivalry, competition, and war in world politics. Realism
sees a perpetual pattern of power struggle for influence and dominance among the Great
Powers. For realists, cases of Great Power cooperation are temporary, few, and far in
between.
Power Centres of NTS
SU1-7
SEC345
An Introduction to Non-Traditional Security (NTS)
For the study of NTS, power centres refer to the key actors and issues, which occupy a
central place and impact human security and ultimately international peace and security.
They focus on issues that are generally downplayed or ignored by the realist’s school of
thought. NTS argues that while power is important in understanding the international
system, there are other concerns, which critically affect international security. These
are linked to issues of international ethics and justice, and the impact of Globalization
on world politics and human security – national sovereignty and the national interest;
the conditions under which humanitarian intervention may be legal and legitimate,
transnational terrorism and cyber-security; and energy-health-environmental security. A
major challenge facing NTS is how the power centres interact with one another and its
impact on the quality of human lives and the prospects for conflict and cooperation in the
world system.
Various Perspectives on NTS
The main perspectives are Realism, Liberalism, Constructivism, Peace Studies, and
Critical Theory.
Realism
There are two different strands of the realist research tradition. They are rooted in different
assumptions and different explanations for the causes and consequences of interstate
conflicts and war.
Generally, the academic study of international relations and security studies is dated
from 1939 with the publication of E.H. Carr’s The Twenty Years’ Crisis. Classical realists
responded negatively to what they saw as the then-dominant liberal approaches to
international relations. The latter was very optimistic that the end of World War I
would usher in a new era of global peace and cooperation through greater economic
interdependence, the spread of democracy, and the pacific effect of international law and
international organisations (like the formation of the League of Nations). Classical realism
argues that the root cause of conflicts and wars is flawed human nature, i.e. the human
desire for more and more power to subdue rivals and destroy enemies. Wars are explained
SU1-8
SEC345
An Introduction to Non-Traditional Security (NTS)
by human failings and the human lust for power. Examples include aggressive statesmen,
or by authoritarian dictatorships. Hans Morgenthau’s book Politics Among Nations: The
Struggle for Power and Peace (1948) was the standard bearer for classical realists.
Neo-realist Kenneth Waltz argued in his book Theory of International Politics (1979) that
the major cause of war is systemic, i.e. international anarchy and not flawed human
nature. According to Waltz, international anarchy means that there is no centralised
world authority able to take action to ensure the survival of states. This means that
the international system will not be able to prevent powerful, hegemonic states or an
expansionist-minded leader from using force against smaller and weaker neighbours.
Realists pointed to the example of ancient Greece when bitter rivalry between Athens and
Sparta led to one of the greatest wars of the ancient world, the Peloponnesian War 2,400
years ago. But liberal critics argued that realism was unduly pessimistic about the ability
of humans to learn from past mistakes and to decisively turn away from destructive wars.
Liberalism
German political philosopher Immanuel Kant is often regarded as the pioneer of the
liberal tradition in Security Studies. In his book, Perpetual Peace, Kant emphasised the
importance of ‘republican’ constitutions in producing peace. Kant stressed the moral
and ethical need for states to abide by the rule of law, the abolition of standing armies,
non-interference in the affairs of other states, the outlawing of espionage, incitement to
treason and assassination as instruments of diplomacy, and an end to imperial ventures.
Basically, Kant assumed that peace would follow from the overthrow of autocracy and the
establishment of constitutional government.
Contemporary liberalism (also known as neo-liberalism) emphasises the pacific effects of
international trade and the role of international law and international organisations in
helping to maintain a peaceful international system (Cornelia Navari, “Liberalism”, cited
in Williams ed. 2008, p. 32).
In contemporary liberalism, the democratic peace thesis (DPT) is a controversial
argument. It argues that liberal states do not wage wars against other liberal states.
SU1-9
SEC345
An Introduction to Non-Traditional Security (NTS)
Michael Doyle first enunciated it in a keynote article in 1983. Doyle argued that there
was a difference in liberal practice towards other liberal societies and non-liberal societies.
Liberal institutions include the broad franchise of liberal states and the need to ensure
broad popular support; the division of powers in democratic states which produces checks
and balances; and the electoral cycle, which makes liberal leadership cautious and prone
to avoid risk. According to liberal theory, liberal states tend to trust other liberal states
and expect to resolve conflict through discussion and compromise. But, equally, the DPT
argues that democratic states do not trust non-liberal states. (Williams 2008, p. 36).
Constructivism
Constructivism, which emerged in the 1980s, has progressed to become a very prominent
theoretical approach to IR. Unlike Realism and Liberalism, Constructivism focuses on the
role of ideational factors and the social construction of international politics.
Constructivism argues that the world is socially constructed through inter-subjective
interactions. Ideas such as norms and identities are assumed to be central to an
understanding of IR. The pioneers of Constructivism include Nicholas Onuf (World of our
Making, 1989) and Alexander Wendt (The Social Theory of International Relations, 1992).
A major assumption of Constructivism is that security is a social construction. The
invasion of Iraq in 2003 showed how the meaning of security is constructed through
different understandings of identity. Why, for example, did the Bush administration
perceive Saddam Hussein as a greater threat compared to the nuclear arsenals of Russia,
China, France, Pakistan, or India? US policymakers saw Saddam’s Iraq as a ‘rogue
state’ (Axis of Evil states) and that Saddam was a serious threat to US regional security
interests, including its ally, Israel. The second assumption of Constructivism is that nonmaterial or ideational factors in general are critical to the construction and practices
of security in world politics. Actors with a particular identity define Norms as shared
expectations about appropriate or legitimate behaviour. Constructivists have devoted
time and effort to explaining how international norms evolve within the international
system.
SU1-10
SEC345
An Introduction to Non-Traditional Security (NTS)
Peace Studies
Peace Studies emerged in the 1950s. American and British scholars sought to establish
fields of conflict research and peace research. Their initial goal was on coming up with
systematic studies of conflict and war. A pioneer was Johan Galtung. The main concerns
of peace studies are the reduction and eventual eradication of war, and the control and
resolution of violent conflict by peaceful means (Peter Lawler, “Peace Studies”, cited in
Williams 2008, p. 74).
Galtung started with two compatible definitions of peace studies. First, peace is the
absence or reduction of violence of all kinds. Second, peace is non-violent and creative
conflict transformation. The main aim of peace work is to reduce violence by peaceful
means. Peace Studies is the study of the conditions of peace work. Some of the initial
peace studies’ theoretical concerns included arms control, analysis of the causes of wars,
critical studies of contemporary wars (including the so-called war on terror), and conflict
mediation and resolution. Since the 1970s, the relationship between violence, exploitation
and development has become a major theoretical concern for peace studies. A new area
of academic research concerns the topic of building positive peace: issues such as human
rights, environmental security, gender and violence, peace education, and explorations of
non-Western thinking such as Gandhian ideas of non-violence and the various branches
of Buddhism as the basis for constructing a non-violent culture (Williams 2008, p. 87).
Critical Theory
The basic unit of analysis in critical theory is the human individual, not the sovereign state
per se. This follows the critical theory’s main assumption that it is the overall welfare of
the individual that really matters in Security Studies, not the material interests of the state
and its ruling elites (David Mutimer, “Critical Security Studies”, in Myriam Cavelty and
Victor Mauer eds. The Routledge Handbook of Security Studies. Routledge: New York and
London, 2010).
Critical theory starts from the assumption that security is a ‘derivative’ concept: one’s
understanding of what ‘security’ is derives from one’s political outlook and philosophical
SU1-11
SEC345
An Introduction to Non-Traditional Security (NTS)
worldview (Pinar Bilgin, “Critical Theory”, cited in Williams 2008, p. 90). An example
would be various Israeli positions with regard to ‘peace talks’ with the Palestinians. One
school of Israeli thought, known as the ‘peace with security’ group, insisted on such an
agreement, which in reality means holding on to the occupied territories in order to gain
‘strategic depth’ for Israel, at the expense of the Palestinians. In the early 1990s, there was
a brief period when the Israelis and the Palestinians seemed to be on the same ‘peace’
track. Members of the Israeli “Peace Now” movement celebrated by putting up banners
that read ‘Peace is my security’ — this view rested on the hope that positive relations with
the Palestinians would provide the kind of security for Israelis that the search for ‘strategic
depth’ had failed to deliver. Essentially, critical theory argues that ‘Israeli security’ is
meaningless unless it applies directly to the well being and security for the individual
Israeli citizen.
Lesson Recording
An Introduction to Non-Traditional Security, part 1
An Introduction to Non-Traditional Security, part 2
SU1-12
SEC345
An Introduction to Non-Traditional Security (NTS)
Summary
First, what is Traditional Security (TS)? The dominant theoretical approach in TS is
Realism. Throughout the Cold War (1946-1991), the bitter superpower rivalry between the
US and the communist Soviet Union facilitated the dominance of realist thinking about
Security Studies. Realism focuses on Great Power political struggles for global dominance.
The ‘Power Centers’ of TS are the policies and interactions among the Great Powers. These
interactions result in either conflict and/or cooperation within the international system.
The basic realist assumption is that in Security Studies, only states, especially the Great
Powers, matter, to the exclusion of non-state actors. This was the situation, which led to the
rise of non-realist schools of thought, including Liberalism, Constructivism, Peace Studies,
and Critical Theory.
Non-Traditional Security (NTS) studies emerged from the Liberal school of thought.
A central assumption of NTS is that to focus exclusively on states is to miss out on
a large and important segment of what really matters in the international system,
especially the impact of Globalization — the impact of the spread of democracy, economic
interdependence, and the growing significance of international law and international
organisations United Nations (UN), the European Union (EU), ASEAN). ‘Power Centers’
in NTS refers to the key actors and the major concerns of this school of thought: Human
Security, Identity and Security, Food Security, Health-Pandemic Security, Energy Security,
Cyber Security, Migration Security, Transnational Terrorism, and Environmental Security.
The key difference between TS and NTS is that the former focuses almost exclusively on
states, and has little or nothing to say about the legitimate needs of the individual human
or citizen of the state. Whereas NTS argues that what really matters is the individual
human being, what is known as ‘human security’? For NTS, the final referent or the object
of our study must be on the welfare and well being of humans, not an abstract entity called
the state. Ultimately, the state consists of humans, and it is their interest that we must focus
on.
SU1-13
SEC345
An Introduction to Non-Traditional Security (NTS)
Formative Assessment
1.
NTS is:
a. State-centric
b. People-centric
c. Class-centric
d. Norm-centric
2.
Realism is a theoretical perspective that involves the following elements EXCEPT:
a. Power-struggle
b. Security Dilemma
c. The Balance of Power and the formation of Alliances
d. Non-use of force
3.
One of the following is NOT a feature of Peace Research:
a. The publication of Barry Buzan’s People, States, and Fear 1983.
b. The publication of Kenneth Waltz’s Theory of International Politics.
c. It first emerged in the 1960s.
d. It highlighted a strong reaction to the intellectual hegemony of Realism.
4.
Barry Buzan has argued that Human Security is affected by the following factors:
a. Socio-economic
b. Political-Military-Environmental
c. All of the above
d. None of the above.
5.
The key difference between Classical Realism and Neorealism is:
a. Flawed human nature is the main cause of war.
b. Human altruism is the main cause of war.
SU1-14
SEC345
An Introduction to Non-Traditional Security (NTS)
c. International Anarchy is the main cause of war.
d. Lack of regional integration is the main cause of war.
6.
The three pillars of the Liberal Peace are the following except:
a. Democracy
b. Sanctions
c. Economic Globalization
d. International Organizations and Law.
7.
Constructivism is closely associated with the following except:
a. Norms and socialization
b. Wendt
c. Power of ideas
d. None of the above
8.
One of the following is not a feature of Peace Studies:
a. Emerged in the 1950s and early-1960s
b. Johan Galtung
c. Belief that war can only be mitigated, but not totally eliminated.
d. Resolving violent conflict only by peaceful means.
9.
Critical Theory consists of the following propositions except:
a. Focus is on the human individual.
b. Assumes that ‘security’ is a derivative concept
c. The Israeli Peace Movement of the early 1990s is a good example of Critical
Theory.
d. Is derived from Marxist theory.
10. One of the following is not a key issue in NTS:
a. Food-Water-Energy security
SU1-15
SEC345
An Introduction to Non-Traditional Security (NTS)
b. Alliances
c. Health-Immigration-Environmental security
d. Transnational terrorism and Cyber Security
SU1-16
SEC345
An Introduction to Non-Traditional Security (NTS)
Solutions or Suggested Answers
Formative Assessment
1.
NTS is:
a.
State-centric
Incorrect. It is Traditional Security (Realism) that argues that only state
security matters. Realism was the dominant theory of Security Studies during
the Cold War period from 1946 to 1991. Refer to study unit 1.
b.
People-centric
Correct. NTS argues that it is the well-being and security of the individual
that really matters, not the state per se. Refer to study unit 1.
c.
Class-centric
Incorrect. Marxist theory focuses on class exploitation between the rich and
the poor. Refer to study unit 1.
d.
Norm-centric
Incorrect. Norms refers to the beliefs, values, and practices of a community.
But it is NTS that argues that it is human security that really matters. Refer
to study unit 1.
2.
Realism is a theoretical perspective that involves the following elements EXCEPT:
a.
Power-struggle
Incorrect. The above is a key feature of realism.
b.
Security Dilemma
Incorrect. The above is a key feature of realism. It arises from the basic
mistrust between states.
c.
The Balance of Power and the formation of Alliances
SU1-17
SEC345
An Introduction to Non-Traditional Security (NTS)
Incorrect. The above is a key feature of realism. The main aim of the BOP is
to prevent a hostile hegemonic power from emerging and threatening your
survival.
d.
Non-use of force
Correct. The very real possibility of the use of force is a central argument
of Realism. Indeed, offensive-realist argues that the state must maximize
its national power to deal effectively with external security threats. In
contrast, Liberal theory argues that security need not come from power.
3.
One of the following is NOT a feature of Peace Research:
a.
The publication of Barry Buzan’s People, States, and Fear 1983.
Incorrect. This was a major landmark in the evolution of Peace Research.
b.
The publication of Kenneth Waltz’s Theory of International Politics.
Correct. Waltz’s book is closed linked to the rise of Neorealism. It argues
that international anarchy was the major cause of war in the world.
c.
It first emerged in the 1960s.
Incorrect. The 1960s in the US was marked by dissent against America’s
growing involvement in the Vietnam War. It was also marked by growing
intellectual ferment and a quest to seek new ways to mitigate or eliminate
war. It was in this context that some scholars turned to the study of Peace
Research to seek solutions.
d.
It highlighted a strong reaction to the intellectual hegemony of Realism.
Incorrect. This was a strong factor in the growing popularity of Peace
Research studies.
4.
Barry Buzan has argued that Human Security is affected by the following factors:
a.
Socio-economic
SU1-18
SEC345
An Introduction to Non-Traditional Security (NTS)
Incorrect. This is only part of all the factors that affect the well-being of
individuals in a state.
b.
Political-Military-Environmental
Incorrect. As in the case of (a), this is only one of the critical factors that
determine the well-being of individuals within a state.
c.
All of the above
Correct. Human Security focuses on the ultimate welfare and survival of
the individual. It is dependent on socioeconomic and political-military
factors.
d.
None of the above.
Incorrect. The interaction of socioeconomic and political-military factors will
determine the extent to which states are able to protect the interests of its
individual citizens.
5.
The key difference between Classical Realism and Neorealism is:
a.
Flawed human nature is the main cause of war.
Incorrect. This is only one of the arguments of Classical Realism.
b.
Human altruism is the main cause of war.
Incorrect. This is only of the arguments of Liberalism.
c.
International Anarchy is the main cause of war.
Correct. This argument was made by Kenneth Waltz. It means the absence
of a world government which can enforce international security and order.
d.
Lack of regional integration is the main cause of war.
Incorrect. Liberals argue that regional integration as in the examples of the
European Union and ASEAN have pacifying effects.
6.
The three pillars of the Liberal Peace are the following except:
SU1-19
SEC345
An Introduction to Non-Traditional Security (NTS)
a.
Democracy
Incorrect. Refer to study unit 1.
b.
Sanctions
Correct. The main aim is to show displeasure with the foreign policy of
the target state.
c.
Economic Globalization
Incorrect. Greater economic interdependence makes war very costly, and
increases the incentives for states to promote mutual cooperation.
d.
International Organizations and Law.
Incorrect. International Law promotes respect for mutually-shared peaceful
values, while socialization between state leaders and officials has pacifying
effects.
7.
Constructivism is closely associated with the following except:
a.
Norms and socialization
Incorrect. Norms refers to the beliefs, values, and practices of human agents.
These peaceful norms of interstate behaviour are spread through constant
interaction and socialization among state leaders and officials.
b.
Wendt
Incorrect. Wendt is the pioneer in the rise of the Constructivist movement in
the 1980s.
c.
Power of ideas
Incorrect. Constructivism is socially-constructed through inter-subjective
interactions. States’ interests and identity cannot be taken as a given.
d.
None of the above
SU1-20
SEC345
An Introduction to Non-Traditional Security (NTS)
Correct.
The
above
three
points
are
integral
components
of
Constructivism.
8.
One of the following is not a feature of Peace Studies:
a.
Emerged in the 1950s and early-1960s
Incorrect. This period highlighted the very real threat of Armageddon arising
from Weapons of Mass Destruction. It was exemplified by the nuclear terror
arising from the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.
b.
Johan Galtung
Incorrect. Galtung was a prolific writer and pioneer in the early days of the
Peace Studies movement in the US and UK.
c.
Belief that war can only be mitigated, but not totally eliminated.
Correct. The eventual goal of Peace Studies is to totally eliminate war from
interstate relations.
d.
Resolving violent conflict only by peaceful means.
Incorrect. This is an integral part of Peace Studies. Its argument is that
durable peace and security can only be achieved through mutually beneficial
cooperation between states.
9.
Critical Theory consists of the following propositions except:
a.
Focus is on the human individual.
Incorrect. Critical Theory argues that State Security is and should not be the
basic unit of analysis in Security Studies.
b.
Assumes that ‘security’ is a derivative concept
Incorrect. A person’s understanding of ‘security’ is derived from one’s
political outlook and philosophical worldview.
c.
The Israeli Peace Movement of the early 1990s is a good example of Critical
Theory.
SU1-21
SEC345
An Introduction to Non-Traditional Security (NTS)
Incorrect. It assumed that durable peace between Israel and the Palestinians
must apply directly to the well-being and security for the individual Israeli
citizen.
d.
Is derived from Marxist theory.
Correct. Critical Theory has no linkage at all with Marxism.
10. One of the following is not a key issue in NTS:
a.
Food-Water-Energy security
Incorrect. This is a key concern of governments in the world today due to the
impact of globalization.
b.
Alliances
Correct. This is a major concern with state-centric Realism.
c.
Health-Immigration-Environmental security
Incorrect. These are increasingly prominent issues that have become
securitized.
d.
Transnational terrorism and Cyber Security
Incorrect. These issues have become major UN concerns.
SU1-22
SEC345
An Introduction to Non-Traditional Security (NTS)
References
Baylis, J., Owens, P., & Smith, S. (2010). The globalization of world politics: An introduction
to international relations (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Collins, A. (2010). Contemporary security studies. Oxford University Press.
Darwall, S. (2000). Normativity and projection in Hobbes’s Leviathan. The Philosophical
Review, 109(3), 313-347.
Dietz, M. G. (1990). Thomas Hobbes and political theory. Lawrence: University of Kansas
Press.
Dunn, C. M., & Mauer, V. (2010). The routledge handbook of security studies. New York and
London: Routledge.
Dyzenhaus, D., & Poole, T. (2013). Hobbes and the law. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press..
Finn, S. J. (2006). Thomas Hobbes and the politics of natural philosophy. London: Continuum
Press.
Flathman, R. E. (1993). Thomas Hobbes: Skepticism, individuality, and chastened politics.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gauthier, D. P. (1969). The logic of Leviathan: The moral and political theory of Thomas Hobbes.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Goldsmith, M. M. (1966). Hobbes’s science of politics. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Griffiths, M., Roach, S. C., & O’Callaghan, T. (2008). International Relations:: The Key
Concepts. New York and London: Routledge.
Hampton, J. (1986). Hobbes and the social contract tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Herbert, G. B. (1989). Thomas Hobbes: The unity of scientific and moral wisdom. Vancouver:
University of British Columbia Press.
SU1-23
SEC345
An Introduction to Non-Traditional Security (NTS)
Hirschmann, N. J., & Wright, J. H. (2012). Feminist interpretations of Thomas Hobbes.
University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Hoekstra, K. (1999). Nothing to declare? Hobbes and the advocate of injustice. Political
Theory, 27(2), 230-235.
Lloyd, S. A. (2001). Special Issue on recent work on the moral and political philosophy
of Thomas Hobbes. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 82(3-4).
Martinich, A. P. (1992). The two gods of Leviathan: Thomas Hobbes on religion and politics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mutimer, D. (2010). Critical security studies. In M. C. Cavelty, & V. Mauer (Eds.), The
routledge handbook of security studies. New York and London: Routledge.
Rogers, G. A. J. (1995). Leviathan: Contemporary responses to the political theory of Thomas
Hobbes. Bristol: Thoemmes.
Rogers, G. A. J., & Ryan, A. (1988). Perspectives on Thomas Hobbes. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Skinner, Q. (1996). Reason and rhetoric in the philosophy of Hobbes. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Sorell, T., & Luc Foisneau. (2004). Leviathan after 350 Years. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Sorell, T. (1996). The Cambridge companion to Hobbes. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Williams, P. (2013). Security studies: An introduction. London; New York: Routledge.
Williams, P. (Ed.). (2013). Security studies: An introduction. London; New York: Routledge.
SU1-24
Study
Unit
2
NTS Theory and the Stakeholders
SEC345
NTS Theory and the Stakeholders
Learning Outcomes
At the end of this unit, you will be able to:
• Distinguish between NTS, the State and Non-State Actors
• Define State Actors and Non-State Actors
• Determine who the State Actors are within the context of NTS
• Determine who the Non-State Actors are within the context of NTS
• Analyse who or what the Non-State Actors are and their roles and impact on NTS
• Define Civil Society
• Determine the role of civil society within the context of NTS
• Identify the impact that civil society has on NTS, whether positive, negative, or both
• Determine the circumstances surrounding civil society and NTS
SU2-2
SEC345
NTS Theory and the Stakeholders
Overview
Over the past few years, the growth of NTS theory and the role of its stakeholders like
State and Non-State Actors have continued to gain daily prominence in the media and
social media. It is, therefore, important that we gain a good understanding of the evolution
of scholars and policymakers’ concerns with the trends in thinking about NTS theory,
including the relationship between civil society and the well being of the state and its
citizens.
Specifically, we will discuss what ‘civil society’ is, and why it is important. At the end
of this unit, students will be able to distinguish between NTS, the State and Non-State
Actors. First, students will be able to define State and Non-State Actors and their roles
within the context of NTS. Second, they will be able to analyse who or what their roles
are within NTS. Third, they will be able to determine the role of Civil Society and their
involvement within the context of NTS.
SU2-3
SEC345
NTS Theory and the Stakeholders
Chapter 2: Non-Traditional Security Theory
• Define State Actors and Non-State Actors
• Determine who the State Actors are within the context of NTS
• Determine who the Non-State Actors are within the context of NTS
• Analyse who or what the Non-State Actors are and their roles and impact on NTS
• Define Civil Society
• Determine the role of civil society within the context of NTS
• Identify the impact that civil society has on NTS, whether positive, negative, or both
• Determine the circumstances surrounding civil society and NTS
State Actors and Non-State Actors
According to Realism, States are the most important and key actors in the international
system. Today there are 192 sovereign states in the world, and they are members of the
United Nations (UN). The UN was set up in 1945 with 50 state members after the end of
World War II. States have a number of features. First, they have a specific territorial space,
like the State of Singapore. Second, states have a stable population within its territory.
Third, states have governments who usually have a mandate to rule over the territory
and its peoples. Finally, a sovereign state is recognised as such by the UN. They extend
diplomatic recognition to one another, thereby facilitating international diplomacy.
The Great Powers are the most important actors within the international system. States
are organised in a hierarchical order. From a realist’s viewpoint, Powers are measured
in a material manner based upon economic and military strengths. Currently, the most
powerful state actors are the US, China, the European Union (led by Germany, France, the
UK), Russia, and Japan. Emerging powers include India, Brazil, and South Africa.
In International Relations and Security Studies, states interact with one another, creating
two basic patterns of either Conflict and/or Cooperation. In the real world, the
behaviour of states exhibits competition, rivalry, and cooperation depending on various
determinants like the nature of domestic politics, governance, and political systems within
SU2-4
SEC345
NTS Theory and the Stakeholders
a state, its foreign policy goals, and the overall political temperature (ideological and
religious struggles), and levels of trust existing at the global level. During the Cold War,
for example, the American leadership generally perceived the communist Soviet Union
to be an aggressive, expansionist Great Power against the West. Soviet dictator Stalin’s
use of the Red Army to expand Soviet influence into Eastern Europe and other regions of
the world had a strong, negative impact on US Presidents Harry Truman and subsequent
US leaders like Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon.
Perceptions and misperceptions by world leaders play a critical role in defining the shape
of our world.
The main Non-State Actors, according to Liberal theory, are International Intergovernmental Organisations (e.g. UN, NATO, EU, ASEAN, Shanghai Cooperation
Organisation, South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, African Union, and
the Gulf Cooperation Council in the Middle East and Persian Gulf region), NonGovernmental Organisations (e.g. environmental groups like Greenpeace; and Red Cross
Movement), and transnational crime and terrorist groups (Al-Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiyah in
Southeast Asia, Abu Sayyaf Group in the Philippines, Boko Haram in Nigeria). The focus
of Liberal theory and Non-State Actors is on Human Security and not state security per
se. Non-State Actors’ activities are premised on the basic assumption that humans and
their well-being matter. Non-Traditional issues that have become ‘securitized’ include the
ideas of identity, role of ethics and international law, food-energy-health security, cybersecurity, and pandemic security.
State Actors and Non-State Actors and their impact on NTS
Within the context of NTS, the important State Actors include governments that are
actively involved in fighting against serious potential threats to regional and international
security. First, states that are strongly engaged in Counter-Terrorism and the Global War
on Terror (GWOT). Such states include the US, Canada, and the EU since 9/11. Southeast
Asia is another major regional front in the war against terrorism. Indonesia, Malaysia,
Singapore, and the Philippines are actively involved in counter-terrorism against Jemaah
Islamiyah (JI) and the Abu Sayyaf Group.
SU2-5
SEC345
NTS Theory and the Stakeholders
In the areas of food-health-energy security, most governments are the key State Actors
involved. Food, health, and energy issues are of major concern to most governments as
it direct impacts the well being of citizens and the political survival of the government
and the state. The safety of food being consumed by citizens is a major concern, as seen
in the negative publicity given to poor-quality and toxic Chinese products (baby’s milk
power, for example) over the past few years. This scandal not only affects the good health
of infants but also China’s export markets on a global scale. The importance of health
issues can be seen in the global concern with HIV, AIDS, and SARS over the past ten
years. Such health issues can spread easily across national frontiers and threaten largescale pandemics around the world, causing global panic. Environmental security has been
on the global agenda over the past three decades. Governments and states have been
actively involved, as well as non-state actors (scientific groups), in trying to raise global
awareness of the urgency of environmental threats to human existence.
Civil Society and its Role and Impact on NTS
What is ‘civil society’?
For the ordinary person in the street, civil society is a confusing place. It is a place that has
multiple definitions including ones that don’t make sense. Civil society might be defined
by the man in the street as the part of society that consists of organizations, communities
and institutions that help persons or care for persons, their social needs and their rights.
Such definitions often include phrases such as “but this does not include the government
or the family” which makes for utter nonsense because how can one take care of a person,
community or group if it does not include that person’s family in some way or form?
This is why we need to turn to Political Science to get to a more intellectual and logical
definition. The political science definition comes from political theory, one of its major
subfields if you are not already aware. And the authors who wrote on civil society would
include often quoted luminaries such as Thomas Hobbes, Machiavelli and John Locke.
Others such as Edmund Burke, John Mill, James Mill (his father) and Jeremy Bentham
only wrote about civil society from an oblique angle. Hobbes is known by some as the
SU2-6
SEC345
NTS Theory and the Stakeholders
world’s first modern political scientist who published Leviathan, his magnum opus, in 1651
(John Wilson, Department of Political Science, University of Hawaii at Manoa).
In Political Science and Security Studies, ‘civil society’ is very closely linked to the state,
stability and security, and especially human security. Within a state, critical challenges
facing a government are to quickly establish domestic political stability, order, and
security. According to the English political philosophical Thomas Hobbes, the citizens of
a state trade their liberty for the guarantee of security that can be provided by a strong
state. Once domestic political stability and security have been established, civil society
can then begin. From a realist’s viewpoint, the normal functioning of civil society would
include the establishment of clear rules which would allow citizens to go about their daily
lives in peace without the fear of uncertainty, the threat and use of force, disruptions to
their normal routines, or arbitrary arrests. A key feature of domestic civil society is that it
is a situation, which allows civilized life to take, place, especially the non-use of force in
human relations. Realists view civil society as an integral part of the sovereign state.
The scope of human security. According to Fen Thompson, there are various distinct
conceptions of human security that shape current debates: One, the natural rights/rule
of law conception is anchored on fundamental liberal assumption of basic individual
rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and of the international community’s
obligation to protect and promote those rights. Second, human security is focussed
on humanitarian concerns, and the need to deepen and strengthen international law,
especially regarding genocide and war crimes. (Fen Osler Thompson, “Human Security”,
cited in Paul Williams ed. Security Studies: An Introduction. Routledge: New York and
London, 2008).
Why is ‘civil society’ important? What is the linkage between civil society and NTS?
There are a number of reasons why civil society is important. First, it is an integral part
of a state’s process of democratic development based on the promotion of the well-being
of all its citizens, regardless of race, language, and religion. It assumes, as in Western
liberal theory, that individuals and the rule of law matter. The government in power
is also assumed to be tolerant of political dissent. Political opponents are not seen and
SU2-7
SEC345
NTS Theory and the Stakeholders
treated as ‘enemies’ to be physically eliminated, but as part of a political maturing process
of respecting alternative viewpoints. In authoritarian and dictatorial regimes, dissenting
views are immediately viewed as serious threats to the regime’s political survival. An
example was during the time of Mao’s China in the ‘Hundred Flowers’ Campaign’ in
which political opponents of the regime were ferreted out and punished. Western critics
argued that Malaysia’s use of the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA) prevented the
growth of Malaysian democracy, especially during the era of PM Mahathir (1982 to 2009).
Second, it helps to inculcate habits of a tolerant and reasonable mindset that is conducive
to the non-violent resolution of disputes and conflicts. The authorities are assumed to
believe that they do not necessarily know what is best to the national interests, and that
the views of most engaged citizen should be heard and respected.
Third, the growth of civil society is linked to the significance of the ‘Democratic Peace’
Thesis (DTP). The DPT argues that democratic states do not use force against other
democratic states in the settlement of conflicts. There appears to be ample evidence of
the validity of the DPT in Western states. What this means is that as more non-Western
states become more democratic, there is a strong likelihood that they will abide by nonviolent ways of settling disputes with their neighbours, thereby enhancing the prospects
for regional peace, stability, and security. A corollary is that democratic states tend to
focus their attention and energies on mutually beneficial economic development and
cooperation with their neighbours. An example is ASEAN. It was formed in August 1967
to bring about regional reconciliation and promote greater regional trade and investment
relations amongst the Southeast Asian states.
An important link between civil society and NTS is that they mutually support and
reinforce one another. There is a clear direct relationship between the growth of
civil society and the increasing relevance of NTS as a field of academic inquiry. The
growing prominence of NTS and civil society indicates that the latter is a pre-requisite
for the continued growth of NTS. For example, authoritarian states do not have the
intellectual space for the growth of civil society with the intolerance for dissenting views.
SU2-8
SEC345
NTS Theory and the Stakeholders
Authoritarian states start from the assumption that a government knows best and is
usually seen as ‘anti-national’. In other words, the civil society tends to be subversive
of the existing domestic political order. The fact is that we find robust and thriving civil
societies in political democracies, especially those in the Western world. In terms of socioeconomic and political development, it is the Western societies that are at the top of the
international hierarchy of states in terms of human freedom and prosperity.
Published in 1651, this picture of Leviathan written
by Thomas Hobbes, does not require any copyright
permission because it has been more than 70 years since
its first publication. Consider the powerful imagery
in the woodcarving rendition above that served as the
cover of his book. Antonio L Rappa
SU2-9
SEC345
NTS Theory and the Stakeholders
Lesson Recording
NTS Theory & Stakeholders, part 1
NTS Theory & Stakeholders, part 2
SU2-10
SEC345
NTS Theory and the Stakeholders
Summary
There are a number of key points to bear in mind. First, NTS focuses on human
security and civil society. It is human-centric, in contrast to the state-centric orientation
of Traditional Security Studies (TS). NTS calls for an expanded understanding of the
meaning of Security, arguing that the traditional meaning of security defined as protection
of state sovereignty from external military threats is no longer adequate in a world of
globalization. To NTS, the human individual is assumed to be the most important unit of
analysis, or the object-referent. For TS, the object-referent is the state. TS focuses on the
material interests of the state, as seen from realist theory. Realism takes on a ‘masculine’
approach, emphasising interstate power struggles and zero-sum mindsets, coloured by
miscalculations, conflicts and wars in the international system. The basic assumption of
NTS is that human security matters, even more important than that of the state; that
protecting people requires going beyond the traditional focus on state sovereignty.
Second, the main Non-State Actors in NTS are Non-Governmental Organisations within
the international community. They contribute to human security in a number of ways:
as a source about conflicts, provides a channel for relief operations, and supports the
government or UN-sponsored peace-building missions. NGOs also play a key role in
promoting sustainable development. Some examples are the International Committee
of the Red Cross, Medecins Sans Frontieres, (emergency medical assistance), Save the
Children (protection of children), and Amnesty International (human rights).
Third, the role of states in human security and NTS remains relevant. The major state
actors here include the UN-affiliated International Criminal Court (ICJ) and the AntiPersonnel Land Mines Treaty. The UN agencies like the UNHCR, UNICEF, and UNIFEM
have been doing very useful work in dealing with human security issues such as refugees
and the rights of children and women.
Civil society, according to Liberal theory, is a pre-requisite for the growth of a stable and
civilized domestic political system and order, which then progresses to the establishment
SU2-11
SEC345
NTS Theory and the Stakeholders
of a durable political democracy in which the protection of human rights is paramount.
The assumption here is that an uncivil society often results in the establishment of
authoritarian dictatorships which relies on the use of brutal force against its own citizens.
A strongly-grounded civil society is an indication that a state has enough political space
to pay attention to human security and human rights concerns. These issues of NTS
include poverty, hunger, development; human rights and humanitarian intervention,
transnational crime; international terrorism; global environmental issues; and the role of
international law in the further promotion of global governance and international peace
and security.
SU2-12
SEC345
NTS Theory and the Stakeholders
Formative Assessment
1.
A ‘state’ has the following features EXCEPT:
a. Territory.
b. Sovereignty.
c. Population.
d. Government.
2.
Realism argues that states, especially _____________, are the most important actors
in the international system:
a. Great Powers.
b. Middle powers.
c. Small states.
d. Superpowers.
3.
One of the following is not a major Non-State Actor:
a. The United Nations (UN).
b. The National Rifle Association (NRA).
c. The European Union (EU).
d. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
4.
‘Securitization’ refers to:
a. The trading of financial securities.
b. Issues have a technical dimension.
c. Issues have an important military dimension.
d. The ideological dimension.
5.
One of the following is NOT an NTS issue:
a. Food security.
SU2-13
SEC345
NTS Theory and the Stakeholders
b. Health security.
c. Terrorism and Piracy.
d. Regional Security Community (RSC).
6.
One of the following is not a major factor in the rise of NTS (Human Security):
a. The end of the Cold War.
b. The fear of nuclear war arising from the attempts by North Korea and Iran to
develop nuclear weapons.
c. The growing attractiveness of Liberal theory
d. NTS is understood as a response to the proliferation of new security threats,
especially in the post-911 era.
7.
‘Human Security’ (HS) is a contested concept for the following reasons except:
a. The state is no longer the referent-object.
b. There is general consensus over which threats should be included in the HS
agenda.
c. The debate is over the issue of which humans are to be protected, when, and
how, as well as on what their security really entails.
d. None of the above.
8.
One of the following is not a major conception of human security:
a. Rule of law conception.
b. Humanitarian.
c. A broader view, which argues that human security should be widely
constructed to include economic, environmental, social, and other forms of
harm to the overall livelihood and well-being of individuals.
d. None of the above.
9.
The boundaries of NTS studies include the following except:
a. A measurable definition of human security.
SU2-14
SEC345
NTS Theory and the Stakeholders
b. Can be expressed as a probability.
c. Other scholars have tried to define human security by integrating its disparate
dimensions.
d. None of the above.
10. One of the following is not an unresolved issue in NTS studies:
a. The relationship between globalization and human security.
b. The old divisions between the advanced western (Global North) economies
and ‘peripheral’ South are breaking down.
c. Critics of globalization have argued that although some states in the Global
South have gained from globalization, many have not and income inequalities
between rich and poor states are widening.
d. Over the next twenty years, globalisation will result in growing income
equality and reduced environmental pressures.
SU2-15
SEC345
NTS Theory and the Stakeholders
Solutions or Suggested Answers
Formative Assessment
1.
A ‘state’ has the following features EXCEPT:
a.
Territory.
Incorrect. The rise of the modern state can be traced to the 1648 Treaty of
Westphalia. It is also known as the territorial-state. This is a key feature of
a state today.
b.
Sovereignty.
Correct. This is not true. It has to gain diplomatic recognition first from
sovereign members of the international community.
c.
Population.
Incorrect. A state has people who are its citizens.
d.
Government.
Incorrect. A state has some form of a centralised political authority.
2.
Realism argues that states, especially _____________, are the most important actors
in the international system:
a.
Great Powers.
Incorrect. This group of important states today include China, Russia, Japan,
and Germany.
b.
Middle powers.
Incorrect. Today, middle powers would include India, Brazil, Indonesia,
Australia, Spain, Portugal, South Africa.
c.
Small states.
SU2-16
SEC345
NTS Theory and the Stakeholders
Incorrect. This group forms a majority of the world’s states today.
Individually, they do not play a critical role in world affairs.
d.
Superpowers.
Correct. During the Cold War (1946-1991), the two superpowers of the
world were the United States and the Soviet Union. Today, the US is often
regarded as the world’s sole superpower.
3.
One of the following is not a major Non-State Actor:
a.
The United Nations (UN).
Incorrect. The UN is the world’s most important Inter-Governmental
Organization (IGO).
b.
The National Rifle Association (NRA).
Correct. The NRA has only some influence within the US.
c.
The European Union (EU).
Incorrect. The EU is the most important IGO within the European Continent.
d.
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
Incorrect. ASEAN is the most important IGO in Southeast Asia.
4.
‘Securitization’ refers to:
a.
The trading of financial securities.
Incorrect. This refers to the trading of stocks and shares, and currencies.
b.
Issues have a technical dimension.
Incorrect. This dimension may be important but not necessarily critical to
national survival.
c.
Issues have an important military dimension.
Correct.
Examples
include
environmental issues.
SU2-17
food,
water,
health,
resources,
and
SEC345
NTS Theory and the Stakeholders
d.
The ideological dimension.
Incorrect. This dimension refers to the power of intellectual ideas, for
example, the type of political system most suitable to the state.
5.
One of the following is NOT an NTS issue:
a.
Food security.
Incorrect. This is a major NTS issue. The problem is not that there is a food
shortage. The issue has to do with the ability to redistribute surplus food in
the West to regions (Africa) that really needs them.
b.
Health security.
Incorrect. Globalization has highlighted the serious threat posed by AIDS,
HIV, and avian flu.
c.
Terrorism and Piracy.
Incorrect. Since 911, transnational terrorism has emerged as a major
international problem.
d.
Regional Security Community (RSC).
Correct. Members of a RSC, for example, the EU, do not wage war against
one another. This is part of Liberal Theory in Security Studies.
6.
One of the following is not a major factor in the rise of NTS (Human Security):
a.
The end of the Cold War.
Incorrect. The end of US-Soviet Cold War hostility in 1991 enabled non-realist
approaches to gain greater acceptability within the scholarly community,
including the emergence of NTS.
b.
The fear of nuclear war arising from the attempts by North Korea and Iran
to develop nuclear weapons.
Correct. This is part of the traditional realist arguments.
c.
The growing attractiveness of Liberal theory
SU2-18
SEC345
NTS Theory and the Stakeholders
Incorrect. One major argument of liberal theory is that non-state actors,
like state actors, play important role in Security Studies and International
Relations.
d.
NTS is understood as a response to the proliferation of new security threats,
especially in the post-911 era.
Incorrect. This is a key consideration in the growing importance of NTS
studies.
7.
‘Human Security’ (HS) is a contested concept for the following reasons except:
a.
The state is no longer the referent-object.
Incorrect. This is a key reason why HS is a contested concept.
b.
There is general consensus over which threats should be included in the HS
agenda.
Incorrect. The NTS threats include food-water-health security, energy
security, pandemic security, transnational terrorism, and environmental
security.
c.
The debate is over the issue of which humans are to be protected, when, and
how, as well as on what their security really entails.
Incorrect. This is a good summary of the major concerns of NTS study.
d.
None of the above.
Correct. The above three points pinpoints the major issues that NTS is
concerned with.
8.
One of the following is not a major conception of human security:
a.
Rule of law conception.
Incorrect. This view is anchored in the basic liberal assumption of basic
individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
b.
Humanitarian.
SU2-19
SEC345
NTS Theory and the Stakeholders
Incorrect. This view informs global efforts to strengthen international laws,
especially regarding genocide and war crimes.
c.
A broader view, which argues that human security should be widely
constructed to include economic, environmental, social, and other forms of
harm to the overall livelihood and well-being of individuals.
Incorrect. This broader view argues these issues are of legitimate concern in
terms of how they affect the ‘security’ of the individual.
d.
None of the above.
Correct. The above three points adequately captures the general
conception of human security.
9.
The boundaries of NTS studies include the following except:
a.
A measurable definition of human security.
Incorrect. Some analyst has defined human security as ‘the number of years
of future life spent outside the state of “generalised poverty”.
b.
Can be expressed as a probability.
Incorrect. The expected number of years spent outside ‘generalised poverty’,
whether for an individual or aggregated across and entire population.
c.
Other scholars have tried to define human security by integrating its
disparate dimensions.
Incorrect. These analysts have explored long term health effects of civil wars
with a cross-national analysis of WHO data on death and disability. An
example would be the immediate harms caused by specific wars.
d.
None of the above.
Correct. The above three points provides a good summary of the
boundaries of NTS studies.
10. One of the following is not an unresolved issue in NTS studies:
SU2-20
SEC345
NTS Theory and the Stakeholders
a.
The relationship between globalization and human security.
Incorrect. There is general agreement that the forces of economic
globalization are transforming international relations and recasting
relationships between states and peoples with important implications for
human security.
b.
The old divisions between the advanced western (Global North) economies
and ‘peripheral’ South are breaking down.
Incorrect. The result is the rise of an increasingly complex architecture of
economic power.
c.
Critics of globalization have argued that although some states in the
Global South have gained from globalization, many have not and income
inequalities between rich and poor states are widening.
Incorrect. The fact is that trade and investment flows are intensifying
between those states that can compete in the global economy, while leaving
behind those that cannot.
d.
Over the next twenty years, globalisation will result in growing income
equality and reduced environmental pressures.
Correct. The most likely trend is likely to be the opposite: growing income
inequality and a growing global environmental crisis.
SU2-21
SEC345
NTS Theory and the Stakeholders
References
Abizadeh, A. (2011). Hobbes on the causes of war: A disagreement theory. American
Political Science Review, 105(2), 298-315.
Armitage, D. R. (2007). Hobbes and the foundations of modern international thought.
Rethinking the Foundations of Modern Political Thought.
Ashcraft, R. (1971). Hobbes’s natural man: A Study in ideology formation. Journal of
Politics, 33(4), 1076-1117.
Baumgold, D. (1988). Hobbes’s political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baylis, J., Owens, P., & Smith, S. (2010). The globalization of world politics: An introduction
to international relations (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Bobbio, N. (1993). Thomas Hobbes and the natural law tradition. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Boonin-Vail, D. (1994). Thomas Hobbes and the science of moral virtue. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cavelty, M. D., & Mauer, V. (2010). The routledge handbook of security studies. New York
and London: Routledge.
Caws, P. (1989). The causes of quarrell: Essays on peace, war, and Thomas Hobbes. Boston:
Beacon Press.
Collins, A. (2010). Contemporary security studies. Oxford University Press.
Collins, J. R. (2005). The allegiance of Thomas Hobbes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Darwall, S. (1995). The British moralists and the internal “ought”, 1640-1740. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Darwall, S. (2000). Normativity and Projection in Hobbes’s Leviathan. The Philosophical
Review, 109(3), 313-347.
Dietz, M. G. (1990). Thomas Hobbes and political theory. Lawrence: University Press of
Kankas.
SU2-22
SEC345
NTS Theory and the Stakeholders
Dyzenhaus, D., & Poole, T. (2013). Hobbes and the law. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press..
Finn, S. J. (2006). Thomas Hobbes and the politics of natural philosophy. London: Continuum
Press.
Flathman, R. E. (1993). Thomas Hobbes: Skepticism, individuality, and chastened politics.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gauthier, D. P. (1969). The logic of Leviathan: The moral and political theory of Thomas Hobbes.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Goldsmith, M. M. (1966). Hobbes’s science of politics. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Hampton, J. (1986). Hobbes and the social contract tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Herbert, G. B. (1989). Thomas Hobbes: The unity of scientific and moral wisdom. Vancouver:
University of British Columbia Press.
Hirschmann, N. J., & Wright, J. H. (2012). Feminist interpretations of Thomas Hobbes.
University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Hoekstra, K. (1999). Nothing to declare? Hobbes and the advocate of injustice. Political
Theory, 27(2), 230-235.
Lloyd, S. A. (2001). Special issue on recent work on the moral and political philosophy
of Thomas Hobbes. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 82(3-4).
Martinich, A. P. (1992). The two gods of Leviathan: Thomas Hobbes on religion and politics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rogers, G. A. J. (1995). Leviathan: Contemporary responses to the political theory of Thomas
Hobbes. Bristol: Thoemmes.
Rogers, G. A. J., & Ryan, A. (1988). Perspectives on Thomas Hobbes. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
SU2-23
SEC345
NTS Theory and the Stakeholders
Skinner, Q. (1996). Reason and rhetoric in the philosophy of Hobbes. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Sorell, T. (1996). The Cambridge companion to Hobbes. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Sorell, T., & Luc Foisneau. (2004). Leviathan after 350 Years. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Williams, P. (2013). Security studies: An introduction. London; New York: Routledge.
SU2-24
Study
Unit
Terrorism and Piracy
3
SEC345
Terrorism and Piracy
Learning Outcomes
At the end of this unit, you will be able to:
1.
Better understand the phenomena and differences of Terrorism and Piracy
2.
Relate these phenomena to Singapore’s security
SU3-2
SEC345
Terrorism and Piracy
Chapter 3: Terrorism and Piracy
Introduction
Singapore is a target for transnational terrorists due to its strong affiliation with the
West and Israel. Airports, shipping ports and other transportation hubs in Singapore
are symbolic features that signify ‘flows’ to globalization, and it is because of this that
Singapore has become an attractive target to terrorists. The absence of a human rights code
has made it in a sense easier for Singapore to apprehend potential terrorists who are not
only a threat to the human communities in the region but also a threat to the environment
as well.
This brings us to a point where we must think about what terrorists who terrorize the
environment look like? They are not sword slashing, turban-wearing, book carrying
megalomaniacal religious zealots but may don corporate suits and work for MNCs that
are terrorizing the environment.
Singapore is considered as a potential target because of its ability to affect regional
financial stability given its strategic location, strong financial hub, and for being a focal
point in the Asia Pacific region and the world. On the same note, Kursener states that
piracy is a significant maritime threat to countries in Southeast Asia as it is home to
the world’s most strategic Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOCs), and also because the
Straits hold strategic sea-lanes, resources and markets, through which 30 per cent of the
world’s cargo and 50 per cent of the world’s oil pass through annually. The problem of
piracy within the Straits of Malacca impedes trade and increases the costs of insurance
for shipping companies. Against this backdrop, there is a need for students to understand
the larger context of terrorism and piracy in order to be able to relate it to the measures
that are required to tackle it. Security measures to curb threats from terrorism and piracy
– which challenge the very notion of security – are critical to the progression of trade as
well as the regional security architecture.
Terrorism
SU3-3
SEC345
Terrorism and Piracy
Terrorism is a key threat to countries around the world. Global and regional terrorist
groups have generally been weakened due to the crackdowns by security forces. Since the
9/11 attack, there have been plots uncovered that indicate terrorists’ intention to attack
Singapore and its airports. Plots by Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) to crash planes into the Changi
airport in 2001 and the 1991 SQ117 hijack , coupled with external events (though not linked
to Singapore) such as the 2009 ‘underwear bomber’ plot, and the 2011 Moscow airport
attack that killed 35 people are grim reminders of the current terrorist threat in the region
and beyond.
We witnessed the killing of Osama Bin Laden in May 2011, and the capture and
neutralization of key JI leaders in the region in the past few years. Terror groups are
now operating in smaller cells and are working more independently to avoid detection.
Regional terror groups, especially in Indonesia, also adopt targeted approaches that
involve attack plots on key personnel, churches, and police stations. The rise of ’lone
wolves’ has also posed new challenges because they are harder to detect and identify.
Despite this change in modus operandi, the intent to target transport systems, in
particular train and airports, remains high on their list. For example, in 2010, Indonesian
authorities found a map that circled the Orchard MRT station in the house of a JI terrorist
during a raid on a terror camp that signified a possible intent to attack Singapore.
The London and Madrid bombings in train stations were also examples of terrorists
targeting transportation hubs. It has become a common problem in the mass media and
in government policy statements.
Southeast Asia has been a region of conflict since the end of the Second World War.
Often viewed as a ’second front’ for terrorist networks to extend their areas of influence,
terrorism in Southeast Asia has a profound impact on the wider security environment.
First, it provides the opportunity to provide a fertile breeding ground for international
terrorists due to its diverse population make-up and porous borders. Second, Southeast
Asia has diverse ethnic and religious make-up that can be easily preyed upon. Terrorist
groups could accentuate differences and conflicts to achieve their agendas.
SU3-4
SEC345
Terrorism and Piracy
Throughout the past five years, there have been significant successes in the crackdown
on terrorism. The arrest of key operatives of JI such as Noordin Top and Abu Bakar
Bashir have been killed or captured by security forces. Separately, new counter-terrorism
agencies have been set up to combat the terrorist threat. With previous large-scale
attacks such as the 2002 and 2005 Bali bombings, and the 2009 Marriot and Ritz Carlton
Hotel bombings, the threat of terrorism cannot be excluded from non-traditional security
threats. Despite these successes, terrorist threat has evolved to include self-radicalized
individuals.
Being a precursor to jihadist recruitment, Jenkins put it that self-radicalization can be seen
as a test to one’s conviction to violent jihad. Al Qaeda cells were known to recruit and
train people in many ways. Some of their cell members recruit through the word of mouth
though ideological indoctrination in mosques and universities, where young minds are
most impressionable. Self-radicalized individuals or lone wolves, where complemented
with the use of computer technology has created an easier approach for internalizing
extremist beliefs. In fact, some of these individuals actually never leave their home country
but are radicalized with the assistance of others who have travelled abroad for training
and indoctrination through the use of modern technologies.
With the ease of communication today, terrorist networks find it easier to meet their
objectives. For example, US soldier Major Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 people in the
US military base, Fort Hood, indicated that no one is immune to the addiction of
ideological influences. Likewise, Singapore has also faced similar threats from homegrown radicalization. This was most vividly seen through the case of Abdul Basheer
Kader, a 28 year old Singapore lecturer, who was about to make contact with the Lashkari-Tayyiba in Pakistan to train for ‘militant jihad’ at the time of his arrest in 2007. According
to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Basheer was affected by radical jihadist discourse read
on the internet. There were also three other Singaporeans caught on 25 January 2008 as
they planned to travel overseas after self-radicalization through voluminous messages on
the web.
SU3-5
SEC345
Terrorism and Piracy
Lesson Recording
Terrorism and Piracy, part 1
Terrorism and Piracy, part 2
Conflation of Piracy and Terrorism in Southeast Asia
Maritime piracy has been on the rise for years. According to the Council of Foreign Relations,
pirate attacks are largely confined to four major areas:
• The Gulf of Aden, near Somalia and the Southern entrance to the Red Sea
• The Gulf of Guinea, near Nigeria and Niger River delta
• The Malacca Strait between Indonesia and Malaysia
• The Indian subcontinent, particularly between India and Sri Lanka
Over the past decade, the Western Indian Ocean has emerged as the largest ‘hot spot’ of
piracy in the world. Shipping companies have been affected as costs – estimated at $5.5
billion have been passed on to them in 2011. Despite the international naval flotilla that
was deployed to provide counter-piracy operations, attacks continued to persist. Pirates
continue to be driven by the lure of large monetary rewards by attempting to hijack ships
as the risk of being shot dead by security guards or forces, but they are not terrorists per
se.
Terrorism and piracy are distinct by nature. Piracy is crime-motivated whereas terrorism
is motivated by political and ideological goals. The common factor is the outcome of
violence and overlaps in the tactics of ship seizures and hijackings. Because of this overlap
in operational methods, short-term countermeasures such as patrols, ship storming and
other methods of defence are useful for addressing both piracy and terrorism. However,
longer term solutions aimed at removing the root causes of the problem should be taken
SU3-6
SEC345
Terrorism and Piracy
into separate contexts. Piracy is largely driven by poor economic conditions whereas
terrorism is largely a conflict of ideological differences and hatred for the West.
Apart from the operational aspects between piracy and terrorism, Young and Valencia
have purported that the definitions of piracy or pirates and terrorism or terrorists
have been problematic for policymakers because of its applicability across piracy-related
incidents across the world. The standard legal definition of piracy is that used in the
1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982, UNCLOS), “Article 101”
defines piracy as violence on the high seas, that is, beyond any state’s territorial waters.
If this definition was applied to piracy in Southeast Asia, such incidents would not be
considered as piracy. It is known rather as crime and robbery. Hence, to address these
problems in definition, the International Chamber of Commerce’s International Maritime
Bureau (IMB) has defined piracy as “an act of boarding or attempting to board any ship
with the intent to commit theft or any other crime and with the intent or capability to
use force in furtherance of that act.” This broad definition covers violence at sea, which
includes those of pirates.
One example of the mix of terrorism and piracy resides in the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)
in the Southern Philippines. This is a group that has both radical ideological motivations
and also a crime-oriented approach, where it conducts terrorism activities and uses
kidnappings from tourist resorts to enable its long term survival. The ASG predominantly,
currently finances its operations through robbery, ransom and piracy. Maritime terrorism
has also created more discourse for this conflation between the latter and piracy. The
2004 SuperFerry 14 incident in the Philippines and the attack on the French super tanker
Limburg in Yemeni waters in 2002 serves as a reminder that terrorism holds several fronts
including those in the maritime domain.
Tackling Evolving Threats and Challenges
Despite regional successes in countering terrorism, there are structural gaps that require
attention. Szyliowicz states that no overall systematic programme has been put in place
to deal with threats of terrorism, and maintains that these gaps are prominent: (1) limited
capabilities and available space (2) economic sensitivity (3) security versus convenience
SU3-7
SEC345
Terrorism and Piracy
and cost, are considered to be weaknesses in institutional structures. More specifically,
passenger screening is not completely effective in airports. ‘Slip-throughs’ are still possible
as in the case of the infamous ‘underwear bomber’ where explosive material was hidden
underwear by a terrorist who failed to ignite the bomb on the plane as planned, in 2009.
On this note, Szyliowicz highlighted that the suitability of airport staff may not be relevant
to new terrorist threats. In addition, manpower issues and trainings are institutional
problems that create barriers to operational efficiency as a whole. The costs involved in
training will not translate into monetary rewards or extend profit margins. In fact, it is
likely to add on to the operating costs of companies, which some private organisations
that feel that such costs should be borne by the government.
On the same note, Kauver proposes that the task of innovative responses to combat
terrorism should be passed on to academics and the private sector. On the contrary,
the costs of terrorism should be shared by all, and a whole-of-society approach could
be adopted. For example, if effective biometrics systems purported by Amoore were
implemented by border security and this information was shared across agencies and
selected business organisations, the threat of terrorism on aviation could be potentially
significantly reduced. This is an ideal situation but there will be tradeoffs involved
that could include trespasses concerning privacy and human rights. Issues that overlap
between crime, illegal immigration and trafficking – that are not predominately terrorism
related – could complicate matters too.
Lessons for Security Practitioners
Terrorism is a real and persistent threat to our societies based upon its recent successes.
Security practitioners should adopt a whole-of-society approach to combat terrorism
while leveraging on combined strengths across sectors. While Al Qaeda is weakened
due to successful crackdowns by authorities, its ideological threat cannot be completely
eliminated. To counter the ideological threat, a community approach is required to
address the problem. With continued emphasis and continuous efforts to streamline
efforts between thinkers and practitioners, the ability to delve into undiscovered spaces
SU3-8
SEC345
Terrorism and Piracy
to combat asymmetrical approaches will become the new norm rather than an old
phenomenon.
It is beyond the scope of this article to address all the concerns on terrorism and counterterrorism options. However, a few preliminary suggestions shall be made. The problem of
security gaps within infrastructure only presents physical weaknesses and not ideological
ones. Part of the…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment