National Security as Foreign Policy
February 4, 2014
Overview
 Defining/redefining national security
 Theorizing national security
 Realism and national security
 Security studies and national security
 National security and American grand
strategy
What is security?
Take a minute and jot down the key ideas
that come to mind when you think of
concept of security?
Think about how these different ideas
might impact the way a decision maker
approaches foreign policy
Defining national security
 Crucial concept for foreign policy but no
universal definition of what it is
 Traditional meaning of national security:
protecting and securing the physical survival of
the state from external (military) threats
Protecting territory from foreign invasion
 Security redefined (e.g. Wolfers, Buzan)
expanded from military: health, economics,
environment, etc.
Whose security and from what?
Clarify the ‘referent object’ of security
(whose security?)
Human security: individuals as referent object
(and state itself as possible threat)
Threats: (security from what?) subjectively
defined, and widened, like security itself
Deepening & Broadening of Security
Thus, see concept of security moving in two
directions:
Deepening - from state to individual
Broadening - from military threats to things
like health, environment, economy etc.
Theorizing national security
Realism: focuses on the external sources of
national security threats (outside the boundaries
of sovereign state, from the anarchical system)
Critical Theory: analyzes threats inside and
outside the state (Threat of poverty,
environmental degradation and domestic
repression of essential human rights, all reside
inside the state.)
Constructivism: security and threats as social
constructions; how we understand these
concepts and processes that can change our
understanding; envisages security communities
whereby states share the collective sense of
identity and security
Integrative approaches: combining internal and
external factors into a comprehensive national
security policy (Leffler)
Realism and national security
For realists, the fundamental national
interest of all states is national security.
The three S’s’:
Statism: states as central actors; makes
security a pervasive element of foreign
policy
Realism and national security
Survival: central goal of all foreign policy;
use force as a legitimate (element)
instrument of statecraft
Power vs security debate (offensive vs.
defensive realism)
Realism and national security
Self-help: take appropriate steps to ensure
survival, balance of power as enduring
structural feature
The security dilemma - efforts to build
defensive capabilities in one state can be
perceived as threatening to others, which
causes them to build their own defenses,
which can in turn be threatening to the
original state
Security studies and national security
 Security studies is defined as the study of the
nature, causes, effects, and prevention of war.
 The concept of national security rose to
prominence during the Cold War, monopolized
by Realists.
 The concept of human security arose in the
early 1990s, which placed individuals at the
centre of security strategies.
National security and American grand
strategy
Grand strategy is a crucial component of a
state’s foreign policy: it is the overall vision of a
state’s national security goals, and a
determination of the most appropriate means by
which to achieve these goals.
It entails a 3-step process:
Determine the state’s vital security goals.
Identify the main source of threats to these
goals, internal and external.
Ascertain the key political, economic and
military resources that can be employed
as foreign policy options to realize national
security goals.
American grand strategy
A variety of different grand strategies can be
identified for the United States:
• Neo-isolationism: interest based foreign
policy
• Liberal internationalism
• Primacy
American grand strategy
Neo-isolationism: America should focus on its
own national interests.
 Activist, globalist role is no longer needed in
post-Cold War era.
 US is secure from external threats with power
to guarantee its security.
Liberal internationalism: an expansive American
national interest, (that includes world peace),
necessitates multilateral engagement in pursuit
of common goals.
 The US not immune from military threats.
 Central: democracy, human rights,
interdependence and role of institutions
Primacy: preserving US power as the
undisputed pre-eminent power in the
international system.
 US must ensure its military dominance,
preventing emergence of a multi-power
structure.
 Institutions seen as restraining unilateral
options
Which of the three do you think the US
has taken in recent years?
There is a good deal of evidence to
suggest that US has based its foreign
policy on a grand strategy of primacy
It is worthwhile to ask whether this
strategy is sustainable as evidence
suggests that attempts to counterbalance
the US are underway.
States feel insecure, leading them to
increase their military capabilities.
Realists advocate a policy of offshore
balancing that attempts to maintain
America’s relative power and national
security in an emerging multipolar world.
Conclusion
Despite the importance of national security
to FP, there is no universal agreement on
the concept
Thus, its always important to consider how
the concept is being used
Also important to be aware that some of
the approaches to security that realism
advocates can actually create insecurity.