Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
National security, historically understood as the protection of a nation’s physical borders and political sovereignty from external military threats, has undergone a significant transformation in recent decades. The end of the Cold War and the rise of globalization, coupled with new threats like terrorism, climate change, and pandemics, have prompted a re-evaluation of what constitutes a threat to national well-being. This has led to a ‘widening’ of the concept, incorporating non-traditional security concerns. However, this expansion raises the question: has this broadening made national security a more ambiguous and less actionable concept, losing its core meaning in the process?
Traditional vs. Expanded Concept of National Security
Traditionally, national security was largely defined through a realist lens, focusing on military capabilities, geopolitical strategy, and the balance of power. The state was the primary referent object, and security was about protecting its territorial integrity and political independence. This ‘narrow’ definition, prevalent during the Cold War, prioritized defense spending and alliance building. However, the limitations of this approach became apparent with the emergence of non-state actors and transnational threats.
Arguments for the ‘Amorphousness’ of National Security
- Conceptual Stretching: The inclusion of issues like climate change, food security, and economic inequality under the umbrella of national security can dilute the focus on core security concerns. Everything becomes a security issue, potentially leading to a lack of prioritization.
- Resource Allocation Challenges: A broadened definition necessitates a wider range of resource allocation, potentially diverting funds from traditional defense capabilities. This can create debates about budgetary priorities and strategic focus.
- Difficulty in Measurement & Assessment: Measuring and assessing threats to economic security or environmental security is far more complex than assessing military threats. This makes it difficult to develop effective policy responses and evaluate their success.
- Politicization of Security: Expanding the definition can allow governments to justify policies under the guise of national security that may be driven by political or economic agendas. For example, trade restrictions justified as protecting ‘economic security’.
Arguments Against the ‘Amorphousness’ of National Security
- Holistic Security is Essential: Ignoring non-traditional security threats can undermine national stability. For instance, a pandemic (like COVID-19) can have devastating economic and social consequences, directly impacting national security.
- Interconnectedness of Threats: Many security threats are interconnected. Climate change can exacerbate resource scarcity, leading to conflict and migration, thus creating a complex security challenge. A siloed approach is insufficient.
- Human Security Perspective: The broadening of national security aligns with the ‘human security’ perspective, which prioritizes the safety and well-being of individuals. This approach recognizes that true national security requires addressing the root causes of insecurity, such as poverty and inequality.
- Evolving Threat Landscape: The nature of threats has evolved. Cyberattacks, for example, pose a significant threat to critical infrastructure and national data, requiring a broader security framework.
Examples & Case Studies
China’s National Security Law (2020): This law demonstrates a very broad definition of national security, encompassing not only military and political threats but also perceived threats to social stability and the Communist Party’s rule. This has been criticized for its vagueness and potential for abuse. The Arctic Council: The increasing focus on the Arctic region by various nations highlights the broadening of security concerns to include resource competition, climate change impacts, and strategic positioning.
| Traditional Security | Expanded Security |
|---|---|
| Military threats | Cybersecurity |
| Territorial integrity | Climate Change |
| Political stability | Economic Stability |
| State-centric | Human-centric |
Conclusion
While the widening of the concept of national security has undoubtedly introduced complexities and potential for ambiguity, it is ultimately a necessary adaptation to the evolving global landscape. The traditional, state-centric view is no longer sufficient to address the multifaceted threats facing nations today. However, it is crucial to maintain a clear analytical framework, prioritize threats effectively, and ensure that the pursuit of broader security objectives does not come at the expense of core defense capabilities. A nuanced and integrated approach, balancing traditional and non-traditional security concerns, is essential for ensuring genuine national well-being.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.