11. The primacy of national security

Author(s):  
Brian C. Schmidt

This chapter focuses on national security, a central concept in foreign policy analysis. A core objective of foreign policy is to achieve national security. However, there is a great deal of ambiguity about the meaning of the concept. Although the traditional meaning of national security is often associated with protecting the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and security of the nation state, this does not exhaust all of the possible meanings. The chapter examines some of the competing conceptions of national security, beginning with the three main assumptions of realism that together help to account for the primacy of national security: statism, survival, and self-help. It then considers the field of security studies before concluding with an assessment of the theoretical controversy about the meaning of national security and how it relates to three American grand strategies: neo-isolationism, liberal internationalism, and primacy.

Author(s):  
Aigul Kulnazarova

The subject of comparative foreign policy security interests concerns itself with at least two separate subfields of international relations: foreign policy analysis and security studies. The foreign policy analysis concerns the decision-making processes of states in their daily interaction with other actors of international relations: state and nonstate, international organizations and individuals. Security studies in a broad sense also refer to the behavior of states, but, in particular, only to those measures that states take to ensure their own security and survival in the international arena. It is not surprising that any such measures have traditionally been viewed as national security interests. The term national security became widely used only after World War II to understand and explain the national interests of the leading powers, which the latter mainly used as a priority of their foreign policy. Often, national security was associated with military/physical security, strategic parity, and confrontation of mutual threat, although some authors, such as Wolfers 1952 (cited under Theoretical Overview), argue that the meaning of the term is not so clear and is, in fact, more complicated. Since the 1990s, due to the changing world order and the growing forces of globalization, the sphere of national security has expanded significantly and now includes nonmilitary or nontraditional security sectors: economic, environmental, societal, political, etc. The consequences of globalization are obvious, as they have influenced further changes in the behavioral tendencies of states in external relations. Old approaches to security no longer meet the challenges of the new millennium. Perhaps the emerging academic subfield of comparative foreign policy security interests will deal with aspects of state behavior and policy aimed at achieving, maintaining, or redistributing the positions of states in the transforming global system. It is possible to distinguish two levels of foreign policy security interests: public and private. While the first concerns the security and integrity of state sovereignty and independence, protected by diplomatic, political, economic, ideological, and military means, the second includes the need for states to establish themselves in international organizations by instituting and promoting relations in scientific, technological, cultural, educational, social, environmental, and other fields with various actors, and participating in the settlement of regional and local conflicts. The protection of security interests at the public level is more stable, while the private level is more variable, and the latter can turn into the public one. One way to understand how states develop and implement their foreign policy security interests is to use a comparative approach.


Author(s):  
Anders Wivel

Realists explain foreign policy in terms of power politics. They disagree on the exact meaning of power and on how and to what extent politics is likely to influence policy. But they all find that power has a strong materialist component and that the influence of domestic politics on foreign policy is likely to vary with security challenges stemming from the external environment. The relative size of a state’s material resources is likely to influence its ability to set agendas and influence specific decisions and outcomes in international affairs. And the nature of the strategic environment, most importantly whether the security and survival of the state is under immediate threat, is likely to influence the relative weight of domestic influences on foreign policy. In sum, great powers enjoy a bigger external action space in their foreign policies than weaker states, and secure states enjoy a bigger external action space in their foreign policies than insecure states. Realism is a top-down approach to explaining foreign policy. Realists begin from the anarchic structure of the international system. They argue that the absence of a legitimate monopoly of power in the international system create a strong incentive for states to focus on survival as their primary goal and self-help as the most important means to achieving this goal. However, “survival” and “self-help” may take many forms. These forms are shaped by mechanisms of socialization and competition in the international system and systemic incentives are filtered through the perceptions of foreign policy decision makers and domestic institutions enabling and restraining the ability of decision makers to respond to external incentives. Neoclassical realists combine these factors in order to explain specific foreign policies. Offensive realists and defensive realists focus on the effects of structure on foreign policy, but with contrasting assumptions about the typical behavior of states: defensive realists expect states to pursue balancing policies, whereas offensive realists argue that only by creating an imbalance of power in its own favor will a state be able to maximize its security. In addition to being an analytical approach for explaining foreign policy, realists often serve as foreign policy advisors or act in the function of public intellectuals problematizing and criticizing foreign policy. This illustrates the potential for realism as an analytical, problem-solving and critical approach to foreign policy analysis. However, it also shows the strains within realism between ambitions of creating general theories, explaining particular foreign policies, and advising on how to make prudent foreign policy decisions.


2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 605-625
Author(s):  
Edward Wastnidge

The question of identity, not only framed within the context of the nation state, but also in terms of wider transnational identities, be they religious, ethnic or political, remains a key feature in the politics of the Middle East. Drawing on contributions from Foreign Policy Analysis and the concept of strategic narrative, this paper explores how identities beyond state borders are utilised as justification for a state’s foreign policy decisions. The states under investigation are Turkey and Iran. The paper shows how appeals to transnational identities have been used by each state in terms of their longer-term cultural diplomacy and ‘soft power’ initiatives, and then at the more immediate or ‘hard’ sense as seen in their recent, ongoing military engagements. It demonstrates how multiple and overlapping identities articulated at the transnational level serve as a vector in which to pursue strategic foreign policy narratives in each country’s perceived sphere of influence.


Author(s):  
Roxanna Sjöstedt

Since it was launched in the mid-1990s, the concept of securitization has consistently been in vogue, at least among European scholars of world politics and security studies. The idea of viewing security as intersubjective, where anyone or anything can be a threat if constructed as such, is both an appealing and useful conceptualization when analyzing security issues beyond the traditional, realist, state-centric view of security being equal to military issues. However, the precise aspects that make securitization appealing have also limited its broader impact on security studies or foreign policy analysis (FPA), as these fields often adhere to the assumption of threats being actor-based and external. Nevertheless, several studies demonstrate that both the theoretical assumptions of securitization theory and prior empirical applications of these assumptions are useful when analyzing different policy and security issues, and the concept can be applied to a broad range of issue areas, contexts, and actors. In order to capture the applicability of securitization theory to the study of foreign policy, this article will set out to describe and review the central assumptions of securitization theory and the different conceptual developments that have taken place since its inception. I thereafter proceed to outline different issue areas to which securitization has been employed, focusing on both domestic and external military and nonmilitary threats. This review of prior works demonstrates that although many studies are not self-proclaimed analyses of foreign policy, they capture important dynamics of the internal-external security nexus that epitomizes politics in the globalized era. The article concludes with a discussion of the added value that a securitization framework can bring to FPA.


2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 245-271 ◽  
Author(s):  
María Catalina Monroy ◽  
Fabio Sánchez

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document