Security Policy

Conflict, Peace, and Security Seminar 21

The states principal foreign policy objective remains to

guarantee security

The scope of international security

- Security = protection of hostile forces
- Security also entails resilience (preventing
insecurity?, being able to fight during insecurity?)
- Other forms of security :
- Laws, functioning government
- Hybrid warfare (fake news e.g.)
- What are “hostile forces”? what do you perceive to
be today’s main security threats?
- E.g. fake news, military forces, misinformation
Security is a multi-dimensional concept. It includes:
- International security
- National security
- Societal security
- Human security
The numbers of casualties of armed conflict are
outnumbered by the numbers of poverty and organized
crime
Armed conflict is not the biggest killer
All levels of security are intertwined

What are the risks of “securitizing” issues?

- Use of drastic means, everything is permissible
- Domestically and internationally
- Government imposing a state of emergency ->
looming or actual threat
- Limitations of freedoms -> for the greater good of the
society
- Democratic political system put aside, executive
orders issues ,etc.
- International security is a field of studies, with its own
weaknesses and strengths

The state’s foreign and security policy

Foreign policy = the management of the state’s external
relations, in pursuit of its national interest, founded on its
values
 - National interest = everything that benefits the state
- Ultimate aim of sustaining, promoting and keeping
national security/growth
States wish to influence the behavior of others in their
own benefit
A state is affected by what happens across its borders ,
yet also benefits from relations with the outside world

What factors influence and shape a state’s foreign

policy?
- Economic power, wealth, export -> typically
outweighs the landmass
- It’s history
- Demographic composition
- Power
- Size
- Geographic location
- These are relative notions: how does the state relate
to and compare to the other states?
- Different factors carry different weight
- Geography determines FP to important extent:
“geopolitics”
Who or what determines a state’s foreign policy?
- All politics is local: a states FP is the direct extension
of its domestic policy
States or no monolithic entities
- What are at play within the state that will influence its
foreign policy?
- It depends on the characteristics of the state:
- Its constitutional set up
- Its internal circumstances
- The power of the bureaucracy of civil servants (the
fourth power) -> which is not monolithic either
- Conversely, a state’s FP affects its domestic policy
- A state’s foreign policy is rooted in its identity, i.e.
how it perceives itself
- A state’s identity found in the preamble of their
constitution

How is foreign policy being conducted?

- FP-making involves a means-end reasoning (End:
the national interest, based on national values)
- Means: trade agreements, means of foreign
representation, coercive means , legal agreements,
armed forces, diplomacy
In order to decide on the best course of action, foreign
policymaking includes taking on board all factors
relevant to the situation at hand at that particular
moment:
- The interest at stake
- Relative power
- Legitimacy (broad agreement, broad support)

What means best achieve the end?

- A choice has to be made from the available options
at that point in time
- A cost- benefit calculus is being made: do the
benefits to my interest outweigh the costs of
employing this foreign policy tool?
- The rational actor model of FP v. the cognitive
processes and psychology approach

With a little bit of luck

- Specific circumstances and opportunities that
present themselves play a role in FP
- A state’s foreign policy is not unchangeable (states
need to recalibrate in order to adjust to changing
circumstances)

Foreign policy and deploying state power

- The conventional approach to foreign policy: states,
promoting their national interest, deploy “hard
power” tools (hard power = coercive power)
- What are the limitations and risks of using hard
power?
- The concept of security had broadened and
deepened since the Cold War (hard power has
proven to be not sufficient, effective, or able to
sustain a desired outcome)
- Soft power is needed ( the instruments of
persuasion, and attraction, and to be considered
legitimate, it involves intangibles)

Hard power invites calculations; soft power rewards

imagination

Some states have shifted their entire foreign policy from

hard to soft
- Soft power not unique to western countries

Hard + soft power = smart power

 - The authority and capacity to shape the rules and to
determine how other play the game
- Smart power -> structural foreign policies
- Is conducted over the long term, seeking to shape
sustainable political, socio-economic, security and
legal structures
- Concerns not only states but societies, individuals
and the global system
- Smart power goes hand-in-hand with a
comprehensive approach to challenges

Outcomes are shaped not merely by whose army wins

but also whose story wins

Global governance, and the role of international

organizations in international security
- Global governance= the ways states and the other
actors on the world stage manage their common
affairs
- Government is an institution, governance is a
process to manage common affairs
- GG was coined in response to a range of challenges
the world faced
- GG includes formal arrangements (Greenpeace
e.g.), informal arrangements
- GG is needed only for those affairs that cannot best
be addressed at local or regional level (subsidiarity)

When the system of GG address global challenges, they

can adversely affect states and individuals
- So just like a state government, GG needs to meet
the requirements of:
1. Legitimacy: democratization, ownership
2. Accountability: transparency
3. Effectiveness: and feasibility
4. Compliance: and enforcement

Conflict, Peace, and Security Seminar 22

US foreign and security policy since 1945 and today’s

international security architecture
1. The united states’ identity
a. What would US perception of its identity be?
- Some sort of Eldorado
- Country with the most influence, hard or soft power
- Preamble of the constitution
 - Historical leaders (founding fathers, George
Washington, Martin Luther King, etc.)
- American Christianism
- Capitalism
b. What factors have shaped it?
- Cold war and their “victory”
- Fight for racial equality lead by Dr. King

2. The US national interest, and values

a. What are the American values, and where would
we find them?
b. How do we define the US national interest? Can
it be defined in general terms at all?
- Economic prosperity
- Social stability
- Continued existence of the state
- Soft power to remain the cultural center

3. The means-end reasoning

- FP requires taking on board all factors relevant to
the case t hand: interests, power, legitimacy

4. A cost-benefit analysis
5. The role of opportunity

Case study: the conflict in Afghanistan

Introduction to international relations

Historical development of IR
- Ancient history: the studies of diplomacy and war
(international law)
- IR capitalizes on these older disciplines
- IR was developed in the early 20 century in the
th

West, mostly in the US

- After World War 2: decolonization – development
studies
Although IR has pretentions to be about all times and all
places, in fact it is a rather parochial expression of the
sort period in the world history when the west was
dominant.

Non-western approaches
- IR was primarily driven by considerations of security
(the Great War)..
- But also by economic struggles (great depression)
- There was an interest in improving relations between
 states and peoples on the international plane and to
promote peace: more idealism
- IR expanded: became more inclusive
- WW2 left to shift in thinking and to emerging areas
- Cold war and nuclear weapons -> intl. security
- Decolonization, north-south divide and inequality ->
development studies
- IR is interdisciplinary
➔ What methodology?
- The rise of behavioralism
- IR should distinguish fact from values, and emulate
the scientific methodologies of physical and natural
sciences
- Empirical research
- IR being explanatory and predictive
- A critique of behaviorlism
- The interdisciplinary field of IR has no single
methodology but develops meaning from the
theories and models developed in its constituent
parts

Main theoretical traditions in IR:

- Realism
- Liberalism
- International political economy
- International society

IR theories on the underlying process:

- Rationalism
Whatever happens in international relations can be
explained by the choices of states and individuals.
They can be expected to act rationally and to be
self-interested
- Constructivism
It deals with the meaning of facts and
circumstances. Human behavior is determined by
their identity, shaped by societal values. The
international system is a human invention,
consisting of ideas and norms. It is a system in
which humans participate and which they shape
and develop rather than merely observe
➔ Feminist approach

Conflict, Peace, and Security Seminar 23

Realism
What are its basic assumptions?
- Humankind is capable of everything bad
- Humans, and states are preoccupied with their
interests
- They compete for scarce resources
- Power is necessary
- It is not just a foreign policy tool but a trigger of
human passion
- International relations are inherently conflictual ->
war
- Humans have organized themselves: the state
- A hierarchy of powers
- Evidence?
- -> behavioralism

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The human brain is pre-programmed neurochemically to

seek gratification and “feel good”

Underlying motivators:
- Power
- Profit
- Pleasure
- Pride
- Permanency
History is cyclical and repetitive

There is nothing alive more agonized than man/of all

that breathe and crawl across the earth

Realism
- The goal of the statesperson is to defend, protect the
national interest
- Most fundamentally to ensure the survival of the
state
- Through (hard) power
- Pacta sunt servanda (treaties must be kept)
- If an international agreement (so also: an
international organization) runs counter to the
national interest, it must be sacrificed
International organizations are no more than theatre
stages where the power play unfolds
Key thinkers from history
- Thucydides (civil war in Greece, Athens v Sparta) ->
states must adapt to the reality of inequality
- Machiavelli (the prince) ->the strong leader not
governed by virtue (morally good), but by necessity;
the leader as a lion (embodies of power) and a fox
(embodies deceit); the ends justify the means -> ”
Machiavellism” has become synonym for ruthless
and opportunistic power politics
- Thomas Hobbes -> the human condition
necessitates the state; the state as “Machtstaat”;
the security dilemma in the international arena

Realism
- The rise of Realism in the 20 century
th

- World war 2 and the end of moral idealism

Key thinkers:
- Hans Morgenthau: politics among nations; emphasis
on man’s pursuit of power
- Henry Kissinger: Realpolitik: foreign policy based on
the national interest and calculations of power

Conflict, Peace, and Security Seminar 24

The international relations school of thought of liberalism

– history
- Human potential for progress
- Liberalists argue that human kind is capable of
progress, long-term
- Historical events in the west that inspired liberalism
- The enlightenment theory
- The scientific developments of the 17 century -
th

>empirical research of nature (Galileo Galilei,

Newton -> uncovering the laws of nature)
- A revolutionary approach when the church was the
ultimate authority of right and wrong, true and false
- The enlightenment of the 18 century , was an
th

inspiration to philosophy and political science

- Researchers fundamentally questioning claims that
have been taken for granted for centuries,
questioning the knowledges provided by the church
- -> society moving away from the primacy of the
catholic church
- Individual self-determination
- Science over religion, common sense over emotion.
 One is not replacing the other but hierarchy shift
- Tolerance over fundamentalism, free choice over
dogmas
- Reason became the touchstone to understand
- The industrial revolution (1760-1840)
- New inventions in technology revolutionized
transport, communication
- European societies moved from agricultural to
manufacturing economies
- Mankind as the “manipulator of machines”, able to
improve its own condition and decide its own
destiny

Liberalism
- The state: from a reflection of “the city of god” to a
social contract
- The role of the state should be limited: to protect the
individual freedoms without any further intrusion
- Human progress

The principles carrying liberalism:

- Equality
- Democracy
- Liberty

The great thinkers

- John Locke: the human mind is a clean slate (Tabula
Rasa). Man is not born evil, but has the inherent
ability for reason and the potential for progress
- Immanuel Kant: 18 century German Enlightenment
th

philosopher, Critiques, human nature comes with an

inherent positive morality, acknowledges the
existence of evil but thinks humans can master it
➔ Impact on international relations:
- Progress leads to cooperation and that leads to
independence
- Not denying that conflicts exists but reason
condemns war, aiming for peace (not claiming that
people are peace-loving but that they are able to be
peaceful)-> democracy + state gently pushing them
there + keep the peace together
- Jeremy Bentham: to enable free trade and
international cooperation, a structure or system is
needed -> the law -> “international law”

Liberalism
 - The principles of non-intervention and territorial
integrity are vital to achieve a lasting peace
- The state needs to be republic – a “Rechtstaat” with:
separation of powers, human rights and individual
freedoms, the rule of law
- War runs counter to people’s interests -> people will
choose peace -> free trade -> wealth -> state of
peace
- All Rechtstaten should enter into a contract with one
another -> league of peace -> perpetual peace
- Rational individuals are able to identify interest they
have in common with other -> cooperation ->
greater mutual benefits
- Conflict is not inevitable. Human reason can triumph
over fear and the “lust for power”
- Liberalists: democracies don’t go to war with each
other
- The virtue of compromise
- Peaceful dispute resolution and an impartial judiciary
able to decide a dispute

Liberalism
- Liberalists: this applies internationally as well
- A world of constitutional democracies would be a
world at peace
- However, democracy is under pressure
- Economic cooperation -> international
interdependence -> the cost of conflict for oneself is
too high to risk
- Globalization and interconnectivity to prevent war
- International regimes and international organizations
- Institutional liberalism emphasizes the many
advantages of them, ultimately lowering the risk of
war

Liberalism from the 20 century to today

th

- For the utopian liberalism of the interbellum and

beyond after WW2
- Resurging utopianism at the end of the cold war …
receiving another blow by catastrophic terrorism in
the early 21 century
st

- Neuroscientific findings: the brain is heavily affected

by external influences and is “malleable”
- Al-Rodhan: humans have no innate morality or
immorality; our morality is not static
- The state needs to provide the right conditions
 - Neo-liberalism and neo-realism: closer than their
ancestors

Conflict, Peace, and Security Seminar 25

The role of NATO in international peace and security

What is NATO?
- Civil military organization
- Cooperation between different countries
- Elected officials are in charge of the military

Historical development
- WW2
- Atlantic charter: Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin
- Atlantic charter: non-binding document-> just the
morals what they stand for
- UN Charter and NATO heavily inspired by the
Atlantic charter
- Colonialism is prohibited in the Atlantic charter
- UN Charter -> independence
- Yalta summit and the division of Europe
- Cold war
- Truman doctrine
- Marshall plan
- Containment policy -> to contain communism, to
isolate
- Washington D.C. 1949: North Atlantic Treaty signed

NATO’s purposes, principles and tasks

- Purposes and principles (north Atlantic treaty preamble ->
safeguard the freedom, common heritage, and
civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles
of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.)
- Strategic concept 2022: to safeguard the security and
freedom of the allies, ensuring their collective defense
- Three main tasks:
1. Deterrence and collective defense
2. Crisis prevention and management
3. Cooperative security

Collective self-defense
- One single chain of command
- Article 5 and article 6 in conjunction
- -> only invoked after 9/11

NATO’s structure and decision-making process

 - International staff
- Secretary general
- North Atlantic council
- All states have one permanent representative
- Integrated military structure
- Supreme allied commander Europe (SACEUR)
- NATO decides by consensus

Role in collective security

- With and without UN mandate
- Former Yugoslavia
- Afghanistan

Relationship with third states, Russia

- Cold war
- Soviet-led Warsaw pact
- NATO policy: deterrence, defense
- Détente
- Post cold war
- Engagement and cooperation between NATO and former
Warsaw pact members
- 2002: with NATO enlargement NATO-Russia council was
established
- 2008: Georgian-Russian war
- Growing tensions between NATO, Russia
- 2014: Russian involvement in Ukraine
- NATO’s responses -> condemns the action, confirms that
there is no business with Russia, not a cooperator of
NATO anymore
- 2022: Russian invasion of Ukraine
- International responses -> maintenance of peace and
security is a non-procedural matter
- Development of the war
- NATO’s responses

Conflict, Peace and Security Seminar 26

1. How would realist explain:

a. Why NATO was established
- Humans inherently evil thus war inevitable (they look at
history -> human wage war)
- Humans driven by their self interest
- National interest most important
- While solving domestic security one could create
international anarchy -> security dilemma
- Threat perception of Russia
- Compared to the USSR -> most of us are weak
- Team up with the stronger (USA), permanent alliance
- NATO is an IO -> national interest because Realpolitik of
Kissinger (foreign policy is in
national interest)
- Marshall plan -> we help out if you stay away from
communism
- Machiavelli -> in peace time you should prepare for war
b. Why it is still active today
- Threat of Soviet Union gone
- But new enemy gained
- Terrorist (Al-Qaida)
- Any value of invocation of article 5 of NATO? -> it shows
that the rest rallies behind you

2. How would liberalist explain:

a. Why NATO was established
b. Why it is still active today