← Back to home

National Security

Honestly, the concept of "national security" is a rather dreary affair, isn't it? All about protecting borders and economies and the like. It’s like trying to keep a leaky ship afloat when you know the ocean is already boiling. But, if you insist on delving into such matters, here’s the breakdown, presented with the bare minimum of enthusiasm required.

Security and Defence of a Nation State

For those of you who find the mundane fascinating, or perhaps are simply morbidly curious, the security and defence of a nation state is essentially the state’s duty to protect its own existence, its people, its wealth, and its institutions. It’s a rather grand way of saying governments are supposed to keep things from falling apart.

"National Defense" and Its Many Guises

The term "national defense" itself is just a facet of this larger, more encompassing idea. It’s not merely about the boots on the ground, or the ships at sea. Originally, it was conceived as a bulwark against outright military attack. But, as you might have noticed, the world is rarely that simple. Now, national security extends its grubby fingers into all sorts of less… explosive aspects of life. We’re talking about protection from terrorism, the tiresome minimization of crime, the rather dull pursuit of economic security, the perpetually precarious energy security, the increasingly relevant environmental security, the fundamental need for food security, and the ever-present specter of cyber-security.

The Expanding Pantheon of Threats

And the threats? Oh, they’ve kept pace with our expanding definitions. It’s not just other states playing their usual, predictable games. Now, we have to contend with the unpredictable chaos of violent non-state actors, the insidious creep of narcotic cartels, the organized machinations of organized crime, the sheer, unfeeling power of multinational corporations, and, of course, the indifferent wrath of natural disasters. It’s a rather messy, interconnected web, isn't it?

The Tools of the Trade

To navigate this delightful mess, governments employ a rather predictable arsenal: political, economic, and military might. They also dabble in diplomacy, which is often just a more polite way of saying talking until someone gives in. And, in a moment of unexpected foresight, they might even try to address the root causes of this constant insecurity, like meddling with climate change, attempting to smooth over economic inequality, pretending to care about political exclusion, and, most optimistically, trying to halt the relentless march of nuclear proliferation.

Definitions

The very concept of national security is as slippery and ill-defined as a shadow in a poorly lit room. It’s evolved, you see, from a rather stark focus on freedom from military threats and political coercion. It’s become this sprawling, amorphous entity, encompassing… well, everything that might possibly inconvenience a government.

  • Walter Lippmann, bless his 1943 heart, thought security meant not having to grovel to avoid war, and being able to fight back if challenged. A rather straightforward, if somewhat aggressive, take.
  • Then came Harold Lasswell in 1950, simplifying it to "freedom from foreign dictation." Less about fighting, more about not being told what to do.
  • Arnold Wolfers (1960) added a subjective layer, defining security as the absence of threats to one's values, and the absence of fear of those threats. So, it’s about what you have and your fear of losing it.
  • Harold Brown, a U.S. Secretary of Defense, offered a more comprehensive view in 1977–1981. For him, it was about preserving physical integrity, maintaining economic ties, protecting institutions from disruption, and controlling borders. A solid, if somewhat bureaucratic, checklist.
  • Charles Maier (1990) broadened it further, seeing national security as the ability to control the conditions—both domestic and foreign—that allow a community to determine its own destiny, prosper, and feel well. This sounds suspiciously like wishful thinking.
  • The National Defence College of India (1996) proposed a rather robust definition: an "appropriate and aggressive blend of political resilience and maturity, human resources, economic structure and capacity, technological competence, industrial base and availability of natural resources and finally the military might." Basically, be good at everything.
  • And finally, Prabhakaran Paleri (2008) gifted us with a mouthful: "the measurable state of the capability of a nation to overcome the multi-dimensional threats to the apparent well-being of its people and its survival as a nation-state at any given time, by balancing all instruments of state policy through governance... and is extendable to global security by variables external to it." Which, if you distill it, means being capable of surviving and thriving by using all your tools, and also considering the outside world. Utterly exhausting.

Dimensions

The threats to a nation's security are as varied as the patrons in a dive bar. You have the predictable jabs from other states, like military or cyber attack. Then there are the wildcards: violent non-state actors lobbing terrorist attacks, organised criminal groups like narcotic cartels causing their own brand of mayhem, and the sheer, unthinking force of natural disasters. And let's not forget the systemic rot that festers across borders: climate change, the gaping maw of economic inequality and marginalisation, the suffocating grip of political exclusion, and the ever-present danger of nuclear proliferation.

Because of this delightful variety of dangers, national security has fractured into numerous dimensions. There’s economic security, energy security, the ever-crucial physical security, environmental security, food security, the ever-vigilant border security, and the digital battleground of cyber security. All of these, rather predictably, correlate with the so-called elements of national power.

Governments, in their infinite wisdom, are increasingly attempting to wrangle these disparate elements into something called a national security strategy (NSS). As of 2017, countries like Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States have apparently managed this feat. Some even appoint a National Security Council and/or a National Security Advisor to oversee this grand strategy, crafting plans for the long, short, and, one assumes, the utterly improbable term. India, for instance, has such a system, established in 1998.

While approaches differ, the usual suspects—military capabilities—remain paramount. The domains of conflict have expanded, however. It’s no longer just land and sea. We're now talking about the air, space, cyberspace, and even the murky realm of psychological operations. These capabilities, mind you, can be used for defense or, more interestingly, for outright conquest.

Physical

The most common understanding of national security, unsurprisingly, revolves around managing physical threats and the military might used to do so. It’s the capacity to deploy forces to defend borders, deter aggression, and repel attacks, whether from other nations or those pesky non-state actors like terrorists. Some nations, like South Africa and Sweden, focus their forces primarily on territorial defense. Others, such as France, Russia, the UK, and the US, invest in more ambitious expeditionary capabilities to project power and sustain operations abroad. It’s all rather dramatic, isn't it?

Infrastructural

Then there's the rather unglamorous but vital business of infrastructure security. This involves protecting the arteries of a nation: airports, highways, rail transport, hospitals, bridges, transport hubs, communication networks, media, the electricity grid, dams, power plants, seaports, oil refineries, and water systems. The goal is to shield these from sabotage, terrorism, and contamination. Governments often establish dedicated agencies for this, like the U.S. Federal Protective Service, or transport police. The disruption of these systems can cripple an economy and essential services, making them prime targets for all sorts of unpleasantness.

Threats to infrastructure include:

Virtual

The digital realm, or virtual security, is now a critical battleground. This encompasses Computer security, also known as cybersecurity or IT security, which is all about protecting our devices, networks, and the vast expanse of the Internet. It’s about safeguarding hardware, software, data, and, rather inconveniently, people. With our increasing reliance on these systems, unauthorized access to critical infrastructure has become a major threat, turning cyberspace into a legitimate domain of warfare. The use of Stuxnet against the Iranian nuclear programme is a prime example of this new form of conflict.

Political

Political security, as argued by scholars like Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, and Jaap de Wilde, is the bedrock upon which national security rests. It’s about the stability of the social order. Others, like Paul Rogers, insist that the fairness of the international system is equally vital. This means adhering to international law (including the laws of war), respecting international political institutions, and engaging in effective diplomacy and negotiation. It also requires ensuring that disaffected groups feel included and that the human security of citizens is a priority.

Economic

Economic security, in the grand theatre of international relations, is the nation's capacity to sustain and develop its economy. Without a robust economy, all other dimensions of national security become rather moot. A strong economy fuels defense capabilities, and vice-versa. Countries like the United States, China, and India demonstrate this correlation. Larger nations aim to secure resources and markets abroad while protecting their own. Developing countries, often burdened by unemployment and low wages, are inherently less secure.

Environmental

Environmental security, or ecological security, concerns the integrity of our ecosystems and the biosphere, particularly their ability to support life. As human impact on the environment grows, so does the urgency of this dimension. Degradation like topsoil erosion, deforestation, biodiversity loss, and climate change ripple through to economic stability and can trigger mass migration, creating further pressure. For developing nations reliant on agriculture, climate change is a direct threat to their economy and, consequently, their national security.

The exact nature and scope of environmental threats to national security, and how to address them, is a subject of much debate. Joseph Romm, in 1993, outlined three categories of impact:

Energy and Natural Resources

The availability of fundamental resources like water, energy sources, land, and minerals is crucial for national development and economic power. The Persian Gulf War of 1991, for instance, saw Iraq seize Kuwait largely for its oil, a resource also vital to the US economy, which intervened to secure it. Water resources, too, are frequent flashpoints between nations like India and Pakistan, and across the Middle East.

The intricate relationship between security, energy, natural resources, and sustainability is increasingly recognized in national security strategies. Resource security is now even a part of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. In the U.S., military bases are installing solar photovoltaic microgrids to ensure power during outages, a practical application of energy security.

Issues

Consistency of Approach

The various dimensions of national security are often in direct conflict, creating a rather precarious balancing act.

  • The sheer cost of maintaining large military forces can drain a nation's economic security, with defense spending as a percentage of GDP varying wildly. Conversely, economic woes can severely limit military expenditure.
  • Unilateral security actions by states, while perhaps appearing decisive in the short term, can erode political security on a global scale by undermining the rule of law and the authority of international institutions. The 2003 invasion of Iraq and the annexation of Crimea in 2014 are often cited as examples.
  • The relentless pursuit of economic security, often through competition, can degrade the global ecological security through widespread topsoil erosion, biodiversity loss, and climate change. Conversely, efforts to mitigate or adapt to ecological crises place a strain on national economies.

Mismanaging these tensions can render national security policies not just ineffective, but actively counterproductive.

Versus Transnational Security

There’s a growing recognition that nations cannot truly secure themselves in isolation. Security is increasingly seen as a collective endeavor, requiring the development of security at regional and international levels. Sweden's 2017 national security strategy, for example, explicitly included protection against epidemics, terrorism, organized crime, ensuring safe transport and food supplies, countering climate change, and promoting peace and global development.

The extent to which this interconnectedness matters, and how best to navigate it, remains a point of contention. Some argue that national security should primarily benefit the nation-state itself, focusing on protective and coercive measures to survive in a hostile world, perhaps even dominating it to achieve strategic supremacy. Others contend that true security emerges from fostering equitable international relationships, reducing antagonism, ensuring basic needs are met, and developing effective mechanisms for resolving disputes. In the UK, for instance, the argument has been made that support for NATO, led by the United States, is the "key anchor around which international order is maintained."

Civil Liberties and Human Rights

The pursuit of national security can cast a long shadow over human rights and civil liberties. The use of military personnel and militarised police forces to manage public behavior, the pervasive reach of surveillance, including mass surveillance in cyberspace with its implications for privacy, military recruitment and conscription practices, and the devastating impact of warfare on civilians and civil infrastructure all raise profound questions. This often leads to a struggle, particularly in liberal democracies, between state authority and individual freedoms.

Even with robust good governance and adherence to the rule of law, there's always the risk that "national security" can become a convenient pretext for silencing unfavorable political and social views. In the U.S., the controversial USA Patriot Act and the revelations by Edward Snowden about the National Security Agency's extensive data collection have brought these issues to the forefront. The fundamental question remains: to what extent should individual rights and freedoms be curtailed in the name of security, especially during peacetime?

Meaning

As Daniel W. Drezner points out, the definition of national security has become so stretched that it "almost beyond recognition," with some now viewing "everything as a national security threat." Policymakers, prone to overreaction, can justify their actions by claiming caution or by invoking a "preparedness paradox" where their very warnings neutralize the threat. The term itself is often described as invoking "an ambiguous foreign threat" and being "exploited to deflect public scrutiny and provide political cover for unpopular policies." This overemphasis on security can also lead the public to overlook diplomatic solutions in favor of more forceful approaches.

By Region

Argentina and Brazil

The ideology of national security, as propagated by institutions like the US Army School of the Americas, played a significant role in the military coups of 1964 in Brazil and 1976 in Argentina. The military regimes justified their power grabs by claiming the existence of an existential threat from the Left to the nation's interests.

China

China's military, the People's Liberation Army, is the largest in the world, boasting 2.3 million active troops in 2005. The Ministry of State Security, established in 1983, is tasked with ensuring state security by combating enemy agents, spies, and counterrevolutionary activities aimed at undermining China's socialist system.

European Union

Within the European Union, aspects of national security and external border control are managed by Frontex, particularly concerning the Schengen area. The EU's security policy is shaped by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, with assistance from the European External Action Service. Europol, one of the agencies of the European Union, coordinates law enforcement efforts across member states to combat various forms of crime. Despite these structures, the EU's security policy has faced accusations of being insufficient in preventing foreign threats.

India

India's national security is a complex interplay of internal stability and geopolitical considerations. Key internal challenges include the separatist movement in Jammu and Kashmir and left-wing extremism in the red corridor. Externally, terrorism originating from Pakistan-based militant groups remains a significant concern. The National Security Advisor of India heads the National Security Council of India, advising the Prime Minister of India on national and international security matters. The Council comprises the ministers of defence, external affairs, home affairs, finance, and the deputy chairman of NITI Aayog, collectively shaping India's security strategies.

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay in the Supreme Court of India aimed to identify and deport illegal immigrants. In response, the Delhi Police reported in July 2019 that nearly 500 illegal Bangladeshi immigrants had been deported in the preceding 28 months. Estimates suggest 600,000 to 700,000 illegal Bangladeshi and Rohingya immigrants reside in the National Capital Region (India) and surrounding districts. Concerns have been raised about fake Hindu identities among these immigrants. In September 2019, the Chief Minister of Haryana, Manohar Lal Khattar, announced plans to implement the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Haryana, establishing a legal framework to update the NRC and identify illegal immigrants.

Russia

Russia has adopted documents such as the "National Security Concept" (1997, 2000) and the "National Security Strategy to 2020" (2009) to define its global position, national interests, threats, and countermeasures. The Security Council of Russia is the primary body coordinating national security policies. The 2020 Strategy defines national security as the protection of individuals, society, and the state from both foreign and domestic threats, ensuring constitutional rights, a decent quality of life, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and stable development.

Singapore

Singapore's Total Defence concept is a "whole-of-society" approach to national defense, rooted in the belief that collective defense is the strongest defense. Adopted from Sweden and Switzerland, it was introduced in 1984, recognizing that military threats could impact the nation's psyche and social fabric. Total Defence emphasizes the resolve of all citizens, alongside the government and armed forces, and has evolved to address threats beyond the conventional military domain.

Ukraine

Ukraine's national security, as defined by Ukrainian law, encompasses a broad range of legislative and organizational measures aimed at protecting the vital interests of individuals, society, and the state. This includes ensuring sustainable development, detecting and neutralizing threats in areas like law enforcement, anti-corruption, border control, defense, migration policy, healthcare, education, science, technology, culture, freedom of speech, information security, social policy, housing, finance, property rights, trade, banking, investment, auditing, monetary policy, fiscal and customs policy, industry, agriculture, transport, communications, information technology, energy, natural resources, ecology, and environmental protection.

The National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine serves as the primary coordinating body for national security policy. It acts as an advisory state agency to the President of Ukraine, developing domestic and international security policy. Established in 1991, it is the highest collegiate governing body for defense and security matters, tasked with protecting sovereignty, constitutional order, territorial integrity, and determining Ukraine's defense capabilities.

United Kingdom

The National Security Council (United Kingdom) is the principal body responsible for coordinating national security policy in the UK, overseeing the production and implementation of the UK's National Security Strategy. Established in May 2010 by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government, it is a committee of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom. This reform also included the creation of a National Security Adviser and a National Security Secretariat to support the Council.

United States

National Security Act of 1947

The concept of national security officially entered U.S. foreign policy with the signing of the National Security Act of 1947 by President Harry S. Truman. This landmark legislation, amended in 1949, was instrumental in shaping the nation's security apparatus. It led to the creation of key institutions, including the precursor to the Department of Defense, placing the military branches under the authority of the Secretary of Defense. Crucially, it also established the National Security Council and the Central Intelligence Agency.

The Act itself did not define national security, a deliberate ambiguity that allowed the term to be invoked against a wide array of threats to state interests, including domestic concerns. The notion that national security extended beyond purely military matters was present from the outset; the National Security Council was established to advise the President on the integration of domestic, military, and foreign policies relating to national security. The Act also mandated the Committee on Foreign Intelligence within the NSC to conduct annual reviews identifying intelligence needs for U.S. national security interests.

General Maxwell Taylor, in his 1974 essay "The Legitimate Claims of National Security," articulated a broad definition of national valuables, encompassing tangible assets like resources and intangible ones like political institutions and international friendships, all of which require protection.

National Security State

The institutionalization of new bureaucracies and government practices following World War II, coupled with a perception of constant vulnerability due to advancements in weaponry, led to the emergence of the national security state. This involved the integration of the National Security Council (NSC), the CIA, the Department of Defense (DoD), and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) for the practical application of national security concepts. As historian David Jablonsky noted, U.S. leaders expanded the concept of national security, adopting the principle of Si vis pacem, para bellum – "If you want peace, prepare for war."

Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer identified seven characteristics of a 'national security state': the military and security establishment exert significant influence over political and economic affairs; they hold ultimate power while maintaining a facade of democracy; there's a preoccupation with external and/or internal enemies; policies are often decided in secret and implemented covertly.

Obama Administration

The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff define the national security of the United States as a collective term encompassing both national defense and foreign relations, characterized by a military or defense advantage, a favorable foreign relations position, or a defense posture capable of resisting hostile actions.

In 2010, the White House outlined a national security strategy that identified "security" as one of four "enduring national interests," emphasizing their interconnectedness. The strategy stated: "To achieve the world we seek, the United States must apply our strategic approach in pursuit of four enduring national interests: Security: The security of the United States, its citizens, and U.S. allies and partners. Prosperity: A strong, innovative, and growing U.S. economy in an open international economic system that promotes opportunity and prosperity. Values: Respect for universal values at home and and around the world. International Order: An international order advanced by U.S. leadership that promotes peace, security, and opportunity through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges. Each of these interests is inextricably linked to the others: no single interest can be pursued in isolation, but at the same time, positive action in one area will help advance all four."

Empowerment of Women

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton championed the idea that "The countries that threaten regional and global peace are the very places where women and girls are deprived of dignity and opportunity." She argued that societies where women are oppressed often struggle with the rule of law and democracy, and that upholding women's rights as equals contributes to overall societal stability and global security. This perspective, often referred to as the Hillary Doctrine, links women's empowerment directly to national and international security.

Cyber

The Bush administration, in January 2008, launched the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI), which aimed to identify cybersecurity threats, address vulnerabilities, and apprehend those attempting to access federal information systems. President Obama declared the "cyber threat is one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation," asserting that "America's economic prosperity in the 21st century will depend on cybersecurity."