Si-kyoor-i-tee

tSecurity is defined as freedom from danger, risk, etc.  While I feel that there are a number of structural issues that can determine a level of security, I wanted to approach this blogpost from a more non-traditional view point.  I do believe that issues such as economic and military strength, defensive capabilities, and geopolitical influence are all vital facets of ensuring security, but this post will focus on the concept of securitization in international relations.

Securitization is a theory largely derived from constructivist roots.  The basic concept states that actors tend to ensure their national security by securitizing threats worldwide.  For example, whenever the United States sees a problem in the world, we construct that problem as a threat and pursue a policy of engaging these threats.  In certain cases, these problems end up becoming part of a self-fulfilling prophecy as what we perceive to be a threat, whether real or not, inevitably becomes a threat due to the securitizing process.  A popular example would have to be the Iraq war.  We securitized Iraq militarily through claims of weapons of mass destruction within Iraq.  President Bush was able to make broad claims about the security of the United States being compromised by Saddam's regime.  By rallying the popular support of the people, Bush was able to garner the political capital necessary to declare war against Iraq.  Inevitably, to our surprise, no weapons of mass destruction were found.  Yet the securitization process placed us in a long-lasting war.  Additionally, another aspect of the war that was securitized was human rights.  Claims that Saddam's regime was mentioned in order to stir public rationale.  These forms of securitization exist throughout domestic and foreign policy.  If X bill doesn't get passed then our economy will collapse which will result in a global nuclear war because countries will attempt to compete for resources.  If we don't increase our presence in X country our hegemony will decrease which creates a power vacuum which other countries will try to fill in, the U.S. will no longer be able to act a mediator between conflicts and larger countries will expand their spheres of influence which will inevitably collide culminating in global nuclear war.  While I don't discard these claims entirely, there seems to be an underlying mindset of securitization that exists within the world, uniquely though, with the United States.

So what should we do?  I'm not entirely sure.  Various scholars indicate that a mindset shift is required.  Desecuritizing pernicious representations could potentially allow a universal principle to exist within society.  Approaching the world through a universal lens could potentially stop securitization because problems aren't transformed into threats that uniquely compromise the safety of the U.S., but rather, these problems are a universal issue that we can mutually engage with other countries on.  Obviously this approach to the world is utopian, but I believe that balance between hard, falsifiable security policies and the way we approach world politics must exist in order to truly be secure.