Foreign Policy
theories •actors •cases
Edited by
Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield, Tim Dunne
r*
<
\
OXFORD
U N IV E R S ÍT Y PRESS
>CJFORD
V K R S 1 T Y l’ R K s S
[ C laren d ou Street, O xford 11x 2 6ni>
ird l'nivcrsil\ Press is a d ep arim en l oi ihe U niversitv o f O xford.
•thers thc U niversity’s obiectiv e o f exccllen ce in rosea re h, scholarship,
;d u catio n by publishing worldwide ¡11
>rd New Y ork
dand C a p e T o w n Dar os Salaam H ong Kong K aracbi
a l.um pur M adrid M elbou rn e M éxico C ity N airobi
Dolhi Shanghai Taipei T o ro n to
1 o ffic e sin
m in a Austria Brazil C liile Czeeh R epublic Prance G reecc
lóm ala H ungary Iialy lapan Poland Portugal Singap ore
h K orca Sw itzerland T hailand Tu rkoy U kroine V ietnam
>rd is a registered li ado m ark o f O xford U niversily Press
ie UK. and in certain o ther co u n iries
lishod in tho U niled Slatos
)xford U niversitv Press In c., New York
xford U niversily Press 2008
m oral rights o f tlie au lh o rs have been asserled
ibaso nght O xford U niversity Press (m aker)
: published 2008
ights reserved. N o part o f tliis p u b lica ro n mav be reproduced,
cd in a retrieval svstem , or transm itied , in anv torm o r by any means,
lout che prior perm ission in w riting o f O xford U niversily Press,
s expressly perm ilted by law, or under term s agroed with iho apprnpriate
ographics rights o rg a n iz a ro n . Enqu iries co n cern m g roproduction
¡ide tho scope o f che above sliould be >ent (o (he Rights D ep artm en:,
ord U niversitv Press, al tho address above
. m usí not a r tílla t e this b o o k in any o lh er bin ding o r cover
yon m u sí im pose tho sam e co n d itio n on any acqu irer
¡sh Librarv C ataloguing in Publicación Data
j available
•arv o f C ongress C aialo gin g in Publication Dala
L-ign policy: theories, acto rs, cases / odited by Steve S m ith , Amelia
Jñ eid , and T im D unne.
p.cm .
iBN 9 7 8 - 0 - 9 - 9 : 1 5 2 9 - 4 (alk. paper)
Internation al relaiious.
2 . In tern ation al relalion s — Research. I.
ith, Steve, ] 95 2 II. Hadfield, A m elia.
III. D u n n e, T im oth y , 1965'I 3 0 5 .F 6 7 2008
27.101 — dc22
2007036876
'esei by Lasorwords Privóte Lim ited, C hennai, India
ited in llaU'
jc id -lr e e paper by
.oprinl S.p.A
■N 9 7 8 - 0 - 1 9 - 9 2 1 329—I
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
etrr.
■nuonsA-nAQo
James N. Rosenau
M y e o n tr ib u tio n to tlie an aly sis o f foreig n p o licy began o n a b la c k b o a r d . I was
p r o m p te d tü clarify fo r stu d cn ts w h at v ariab les w ere ce n tra l to p ro b in g th e d y n a m ics
of to rc ig n p o licy . T h e resu lt was an e ig lit-c o lu m n m a trix that listed th e relative
im p o r ta n c e o f five key v ariab les in eig h l types o f c o u n tr ic s (R o se n a u , 1 9 6 6 ). A nd th at
m a trix still in fo rm s m y te a ch in g and research . lt also in ip licitly u n d erlie s m o re th an a
f'ew o f th e ch a p te rs in th is v olu m e. N eed less to say, I am h o n o u re d th a t th is v o lu m e
tak es n o te o f m y e o n trib u tio n to th e field.
I callee! th e e ig h t-c o lu m n m a trix and th e d e scrip tio n o f it a ‘p r e -th e o ry o f foreig n
p o lic y ’. It p ro v o k e d su fficie n t in terest a m o n g c o lle a g u e s a r o u n d th e c o u n tr y to co n v e n e
a series o f co n fe re n c e s th at ex p lo re d v ario u s face ts o f th e p re -th e o ry , w h ich in tu rn
led to th e p u b lic a tio n o f a c o lle c tio n o f essays p rep a red fo r th e co n fe re n c e s (R o se n a u ,
1 9 7 4 ). T h is c o lla b o ra tio n a m o n g s o r a c tw enty sch o la rs w h o had d ev elop ed a keen
in te re s t in c o m p a rin g foreig n p o lic ies gave rise to the fo u n d in g o f th e In te r-U n iv e rs ity
C o m p a ra tiv e F o reig n P o licy (IC F P ) p ro je c t. T h e m e m b e rs o f IC F P re m a in e d in
c o n tin u a l c o n ta c t fo r s o m e six y ears, th u s d e m o n s tra tin g th at lik e -m in d e d co lleag u es
ca n p o o l th e ir re so u rce s a n d sustain co lla b o ra tio n a cro ss s o m e ten u n iv ersities d u rin g
a p e rio d o f d im in is h in g su p p o rt fo r co m p a ra tiv e a n d q u a n tita tiv e research .
T h e m a trix was im p elle d b y th e m ilieu o f th e field at th a t tim e. It w as a p e rio d in
w h ich c o m p a ris o n w as very m u ch in v og u e and it s ee m ed to m e th a t fo reig n po licy
p h e n o m e n a w ere as s u b je c t to c o m p a ra tiv e an aly sis as a n y o th e r p o litica l p rocess.
In d ee d , I still fin d it re m a rk a b le th at n o p rev iou s an aly st had u n d erta k e n a co m p a ra tiv e
in q u iry o f w h en , how , an d why d iffe re n t c o u n tr ie s u n d e rto o k to lin k th em selv es to the
in te r n a tio n a l sy stem in th e ways that they did.
In re tro s p e c t, it see m s cle a r th at th e o rig in al p r e -th e o ry sp ark ed w ide in terest n o t
o n ly b e ca u se it stressed th e need fo r co m p a ra tiv e an aly sis, b u t for several o th e r reason s
th s t a ls o jjn d e r la y th e en th u sia sm fo r th e IC F P . F irst, th e p re -th e o ry o ffe re d a m ea n s for
-an aly sin g th e c& nd uct o f foreig n p o licy in p rev io u s years as w ell as a n tic ip a tin g fu tu re
d e v e lo p m é n ts ih a c o u n tr y 's ex tern a l b e h a v io u r. S e c o n d , as stressed below , it p rov id ed
a m ean s fo r b rín g in g fo reig n and d o m e s tic p o licy to g e th e r un d er th e sa m e an a ly tic
u m b re lla . T h ir d , it h ig h lig h ted th e v irtu es o f case stu d ies as a basis fo r co m p a rin g ,
a n a ly sin g a n d in te r p re tin g foreig n p o lic y p h e n o m e n a . A llo fth e s e ce n tra l ch a ra cte ristics
o f th e field a re fully re p re sen te d in th e ch a p te rs th at co m p ris e th is v o lu m e.
M u c h p ro g ress has o ccu rre d in th e field s in ce th e fo u n d in g o f th e IC F P . T h e very
fact th a t it is now c o m fo rta b ly reg ard ed as a ‘field ’ is in its e lf in d ica tiv e o f h ow
The primacy of national security
Brian C. Schmidt
C h a p te r c o n te n ts
In tro d u c tio n
156
Realism and natio n a l security
159
S ecurity studies and n ational se curity
162
N atio n a l security and A m erican grand strategy
164
C onclusión
168
Reader's guide
The a im o f th is chapter is to explore th e co nce p t o f n ational security. A lth o u g h
natio n a l se curity is an ¡m p o rta n t and fa m ilia r co nce p t in fo re ig n polícy, it is, at
th e same tim e , an essentially contested concept. This chapter begins by in tro d u c in g
students to som e o fth e c o m p e tin g c o n c e p tio n s o f natio n a l security. In g e ttin g to grips
w ith th e role o f n ational se curity w ith in fo re ig n policy, ít firs t describes th e trad itio n a l
realist u nd erstanding o f natio n a l security th a t has had a s ign ifica nt ¡nfluence on th e
academ ic field o f In te rn a tio n a l Relations, as well as on foreign policy m akers. The
ch ap ter th e n examines key te n e ts fro m th e fie ld o f security studies. The ch ap ter
c o n d u d e s by lin kin g som e o f th e th e o re tica l co ntro versy a b o u t th e m e an in g o f
natio n a l security to th e fo re ig n policy debate co nce rn ing th e best grand strategy th a t
A m erica should fo llo w in th e post Coid War era.
156
B rian C. Schm idt
Introduction
N ation al secu rity is o n e o f th e m o st ¡m p o rta n t co n -
o th e r c o n c e p ts su ch as p o w er, is e x trem e ly broad
cep ts for th ose w ho en g ag e in th e an aly sis o f foreig n
a n d can b e view ed fro m a variety o f c o m p e tin g per-
policy. T h is is eq u ally tru e fo r p r a c titio n e rs w ho
sp ectiv es. W ritin g iu 1 9 8 3 , B arry B u z a n , in his highly
are engaged in th e co m p le x activ ity o f fo rm u la tin g
a cc la im e d b o o k P eople, States, tin d F eiir , re -co n firm e d
th eir respective s ta te ’s fo reig n p o licy ; fo r o n e o f the
W o lfe rs ’ p o in t by a rg u in g th a t sec u rity re m a in ed an
co re o b jectiv es o f foreig n p o licy is to a tta in a sen se
u n d erd ev elo p ed co n ce p t. A key q u e s tio n th e re fo re is
o f n atio n al secu rity . Y et w hile n a tio n a l s e c u rity is
w h at d o we really m ea n by security? Is secu rity lim ited
p a ra m o u n t, th erc is a great dea] o f am b ig u ity ab o u t
to m ilitary c o n c e r n s o r sh o u ld o th e r issues su ch as
the actu al m e a n in g o f th e c o n c e p t. As A rn o ld W o lfe rs
h ea lth , e c o n o m ic s , an d th e e n v iro n m e n t be in clud ed
( 1 9 5 2 ) n oted over fifty y ears ag o, n a tio n a l secu rity
as ‘secu rity issu es’? U n fo rtu n a te ly , the an sw er to
is an a m b ig u o u s sy m b o l. W h ile a key c o n c e p t used
th is q u estio n is d e p en d en t o n how o n e answ ers the
by bo tli foreign p o licy o ffic ia ls an d sch o la rs o f In te r ­
related q u e s tio n o f w hat o r w ho is th e p ro p e r re feren t
n a tio n a l R e latio n s, n a tio n a l sec u rity m ean s d ifferen t
o b je c t o f s ecu rity ; w ho ex a ctly a re w e a tte m p tin g to
th in gs to d ifferen t p eop le an d th ere is n o u n iv ersally
secu re? F ro m th e p e rsp ectiv e o f fo reig n p o licy, th ere
agreed u n d crstan d in g o í w h at th e te rm sig n ifie s. See
a re a n u m b e r o fp o s s ib le re feren t o b je e ts : in d iv id u áis,
B o x 9 .1 . A lth oug h th e tra d itio n a l m e a n in g o f n a tio n a l
n a tio n -s ta te s , reg ion s, the so c iety o f states, and even
secu rity is m o st o ften a sso cia tcd w ith th e n o tio n o f
th e g lob e. A lth o u g h the trad icion al view h old s th at
p ro te ctin g and u ltim ately secu rin g th e ph ysical su r-
th e re feren t o b je c t o f secu rity is th e n a tio n -s ta te ,
vival o f the n a tio n -s ta te fro m ex tern al th re a ts in the
th e re are m an y w h o en d o rse d the c o n c e p t o f h u m a n
fo rin o f a m ilitary a tta c k , th is ce rta in ly d oes n o t ex-
s e cu rity , p o in tin g in stead to th e p o ssib ility o f in d i­
haust the po ssib le n u m b e r o f m ea n in g s. W o lfe rs for
v id u áis b e in g th e re feren t o b je c t o f secu rity . If we take
ex ain p le was co n ce rn e d th a t w h ile th e term ‘ n a tio n al
serio u sly th e idea that the a im o f n a tio n a l secu rity is
secu rity ’ was b e g in n in g to be w idely used by sch o lars
to secu re in d iv id u á is th en a div erse ra n g e o l issues
and policy m ak ers, th e c o n c e p t m ig h t a ctu ally lack
an d c o n ce rn s e n te rs th e fra m e w o rk o f analysis. T h is
a p recise m ean in g . M o re o v e r, h e was w o rried that
in clu d es the p o in t th at th e State itself can rep resen t
the p u rsu it o f n a tio n a l sec u rity was b e in g lim ite d to
a th re a t to th e secu rity o f an in d iv id u al in the form
m ilita ry m ean s w h en th e re w ere m an y n o n -m ilita ry
o f a rb itra ry a rrests, un law fu l d e te n tio n , to rtu re, and
p o licies such as d ip lo m a cy th at co u ld b e em p lo y ed .
lack o f resp ect fo r b a sic h u m a n rig h ts. As B u zan
T h e am b ig u ity s u rro u n d in g the c o n c e p t o f n a ­
re m in d s
lis ,
‘fo r p erh aps a m a jo rity o f th e w o rld ’s
tio n a l secu rity stem s fro m a n u m b e r o f d iffe re n t
p eop le th re ats fro m th e State are a m o n g the m a jo r
facto rs. F irst, the term ‘s e c u rity ’ itself, like th at o f
so u rce s o f in se cu rity in th e ir liv es’ (B u z a n , 199 1 : 4 5 ).
BOX 9.1 C om peting conceptions o f national security
A nation has security when it does not have to sacrifice ¡ts
National security is the preservation o f a way o f
legitímate interests to avold war and ¡s able, ifchallenged,
lif e . . . l t includes freedom fro m m ilita ry attack or co­
to m aintain them by war. (Walter Uppm ann, 1943: 51)
Any fem inlst definltlon o f security must therefore in-
erción, freedom from infernal subversión and freedom
fro m the erosion o f the polltical, econom ic and so­
clude the elim ínation o fa ll types o fviolence, includlng
cial valúes w hich are essential to the quallty o f Ufe.
violence produced by gender relations o f dom ination
(Canadian National Defence College, quoted In Buzan,
and subordinaron. (J. Ann Tlckner, 1992: 58)
1991: 17)
C hapter 9 The p rim a cy o f national security
BOX 9 .1
157
C ontinued
National security is about the protection o f core valúes,
N ational security refers to the preservaron o f the
that ¡s, th e Id e n tific a tio n o f th re a ts and th e adop-
country's highest valúes as these are purposefully
tion o f policies to protect core valúes. (Melvyn Leffler,
threatened from abroad, prim arily by other states, but
2004a: 131)
by other external actors as well. (Nordlinger, 1995:10)
N ational security is the abllity o f a natlon to pro­
tect Its ¡nternal valúes from external threats. (Bock and
Berkowitz, 1966: 134)
Y et even if w e re n iain vvcddcd to th e State as
the tra d itio n a i re feren t o b je c t o t n a tio n a l secu rity ,
d e g ra d a tio n , g lob al p a n d e m ics such as H IV /A ID S,
an d cy b er-w arfa re.
this d o es n o t in im cd i.itcly clarily th e m e a n in g o f
N o t only is th e re a d eb n te a bo u t w hat co n stitu te s a
the co n c e p t. T h e re is a n o th e r c o n ip lic a tin g fa cto r
th re a t to n atio n a l s ecu rity , th ere is also a debate a b o u t
w hich in u st b e c o n sid ered sin iu lta n eo u sly w ith ideas
th e so u rce s o f th rea ts. T h is is o n e o f the reason s why
o f n a tio n a l s ecu rity : th re a ts . T h e c o n c e p t o f secu rity
th e stud y o f fo reig n p o licy is beh old en to th eo rie s o f
only m a k es sen se ag ain st th e b a c k d ro p o f th reats;
in te rn a tio n a l rela tio n s. T h e o r ie s are necessary to help
how ever i f th e re is little ag re em e n t 011 the m ean in g
sim p lify a co m p le x reality and g uide foreign p o licy
o f secu rity , th e sam e is tru e o f th reats. T h e assess-
m ak ers and an aly sts alik e reg ard in g what to focu s
m en t and d e fin itio n o f a th rc a t is alvvays s u b jectiv e
lip ó n , and w hat to ig n o re . As exp lain ed in the n ext
and th is is tr u e fo r b o th in d iv id u áis and state s. In
s e c tio n , realist th eo rie s focu s o n th e ex tern al so u rces
b o th ca ses, fear, w h ich is deeply su b je ctiv e , is the
o í n a tio n al secu rity th rea ts. T h rea ts are seen as em -
m o tiv a tin g fa c to r b e h in d the q u est f o r s ecu rity . In
a n a tin g o u tsid e th e b o u n d a ries o f th e sovereign State
m ak in g th e d is tin ctio n betw een in d iv id u al a n d State
and arisin g fro m th e a n a rc h ic a l in tern a tio n a l sy stem .
secu rity , B u z an draw s n tte n tio n to th e rad ical im -
O th e rs , in clu d in g th o se in fo rm ed by critica l th eo ry ,
p lica tio n s th is h as fo r h ow o n e d e fin es th re ats. It is
e m p h asize b o th th e in tern a l a n d extern al so u rces o f
q u ite p o ssib le, fo r e x a m p le , th at th e m ilita ry m ean s
th re a ts ( B o o th , 2 0 0 5 ). T h e s e th eo ries aim to b ro a d en
a State uses to d efen d its e lf ag ain st a th reat fro m a
w h at th ey p erce iv e as a n a rro w realist agenda fo -
rival State ca n prove to be th e s o u rc e o f an in d i-
cu se d on sta te secu rity a n d m ilitary th reats. In tern al
vidual’s th re a t. F em in ist sch olars, fo r ex am p le , have
so u rce s o f th re ats su ch as e c o n o m ic d ep ressio n , e n ­
show n th at w o m en su ffe r d is p ro p o rtio n a te ly from
v iro n m e n ta l d e g ra d a tio n , an d d o m estic rep ression
large d e le n c e e x p en d itu res w h ich Ireq u en tly resu lt in
o f essen tial h u m a n rig h ts argu ably all reside in -
a re d u ctio n o f so cial exp en d itu res th a t put w o m en
sid e th e State and pose a d irect secu rity th reat to
and ch ild re n in a v u ln erab le and fearful s itu a tio n .'
th e lives o f in dividual h u m a n beings. F o cu sin g on
O n e o f th e d e b a te s a m o n g th ose w h o study n a tio n al
h o w p o litical d isco u rse an d ideas c o n trib u te to the
secu rity to d a y is w hat co n stitu te s th e m o st sig ni-
p rev ailin g m ean in g s o f th ese term s (M cS w een ey ,
fican t sec u rity th re at. T h e tra d itio n a i realist view
1 9 9 9 ), co n stru c tiv ists a rg ü e that b o th security and
th a t th re a ts are d efin ed solely in te rm s o f th e abil-
th re a ts are so cia l c o n stru c tio n s . C o n stru ctiv ists are
ity o f a State t o use m ilitary fo rcé ag ain st a n o th e r
n o t o nly in tereste d in e x a m in in g th e existin g id en -
State seem s, fo r m an y , to b e in cre a sin g ly an tiq u ated .
tities o í a cto rs an d m ea n in g s o f key co n cep ts, bu t
In the c o n te x t o f g lo b a liz a tio n , th re a ts are in cre a s ­
also in the so cia l p rocesses that can lead to ch an ges
ingly being co n cep tu a lrz e d in te rm s o f tra n sn a tio n a l
in th e way we u n d ersta n d co n cep ts such as secu r-
te rro ris m ,
ity. Ideally, c o n stru c tiv is ts lo o k to th e possib ility o f
e c o n o m ic
d e p riv a tio n ,
e n v iro n m en ta l
158
B rian C. Schm idt
US Air Forcé
Source: US Air Forcé photo.
BOX 9 .2 Leffler's national security approach
Thegenius of Leffler's (2004a) national security approach
External threats, Leffler argües, only emerge ¡n relatlon
Is that it simultaneously combines m últiple levels o f ana-
to how a State defines its internal core valúes. Whlle ex­
lyslsand bndgesthedivide between Internal and external
ternal threats are defined in term s o f the rlsks they pose
variables. Leffler's approach draws on the Insights of
to core valúes, they are also influenced by changes In
Wolfers and Buzan and provides a comprehensive frame-
the d istrlbution o f power and events In the international
work for studying national security. He defines security
system. Finally, Leffler also acknowledges the crucial role
as the protection of domestic core valúes from external
that individuáis play In national security policy. Policy
threats. This obllgates students o f foreign policy ‘to look
makers' perceptions matter both with respect to how
at the structure of the international system as well as the
core valúes and national ¡dentity are defined as well
domestic ¡deas and interests shaping policy1(2004: 123).
as how external dangers are perceived and constructed.
To determine core valúes, the analyst must look Inside
Leffler Is thus able to offer an approach to understanding
the State and examine the actors, ¡deas, interests, and
national security th a t incorporates individuáis, domestic
processes that lead to the determ ination o f core valúes
politics, and the international system.
esta b lish in g
B arn ett,
an d
is M elv yn L e ffler’s n a tio n a l secu rity a p p ro a ch th at
1998) w h ereb y states sh are a co llectiv e
‘secu rity
co m m u n itie s ’
(A d ler
sim u lta n eo u sly atte m p ts to in teg rate ex tern a l and
sense o f id en tity and secu rity . F in ally , th ere a re ap-
in tern a l fa cto rs in to a co m p re h en siv e a p p ro a ch to
p ro a ch es th at a tte m p t to c o m b in e th e insights o f the
stu d y in g n a tio n a l sec u rity p o licy . (S ee B o x 9 .2 .)
a fo rem e n tio n e d th eo ries. T h e best ex a m p le o f this
C h a p te r 9 The prim acy o f national se curity
159
Realism and national security
T h e p rim a c y o f n a tio n a l secu rity in th e analysis
W ith in th is te rrito ria l sp a ce , so v ereig n ty d e n o te s the
o f foreig n p o licy ow es m u ch to th e realist sch o o l
su p re m e a u th o rity o f th e s ta te to m a k e an d e n fo rce
o f In te rn a tio n a l R e la tio n s th eo ry . R ealists p a in t a
law s. In te rn a lly , realists o p é ra te u n d er th e a ssu m p -
grim p ictu rc o f w orld p o litics th at re sem b le s T h o m a s
tio n th at th e p ro b le m o f o rd e r and s e c u rity is solved;
H ob b es’ p e ssim istic a c c o u n t o f life in a S ta te o f n a ture,
in d iv id u áis m o s t o f th e tim e d o n ot h ave to w o rry
w hich h e view ed as sy n o n y m o u s w ith a state o f war
a b o u t th eir o w n p erson al secu rity . E x te rn a lly h o w -
o f all ag a in st a ll. In a w o rld w h ere th re a ts lo o m large,
e v e r — in th e re la tio n s a m o n g in d e p en d e n t sov ereig n
realists arg ü e th at all states are co m p elle d to seek
s ta te s — ¡n se cu ritie s, d an g ers, and th re a ts to th e very
pow er in o rd c r to e n su re th eir o w n survival an d se­
e x is te n ce o f th e state a re en d u rin g fea tu res o f ¡ 11-
curity. T h e m o st im p o r ta n t d u ty o f th e statesp erso n
te rn a tio n a l p o litics. R ealists largely ex p la in th is o n
and the c h ie f o b je c tiv e o f fo reig n p o licy is to en su re
th e basis th at th e very co n d itio n fo r o r d e r an d s e ­
the survival o f the State. F o r realists, th e fu n d am en tal
c u r ity — n a m ely , the e x iste n ce o f a so v e re ig n — is
n ation al in terest o f all states is n atio n al secu rity .
m issin g fro m th e in te rn a tio n a l realm .
W h ile sig n ifica n t d iffe re n ces exist a m o n g realists,
A n a rch y is th e term th at realists use to in d íca te th at
D u n n e a n d S c h m id t ( 2 0 0 5 ) arg ü e th at realists o f
in te r n a tio n a l p o litics takes p la ce in an a re n a th a t has
all strip es su b sc rib e to ‘th re e S ’s ’— statism> survival,
n o o v e ra rch in g ce n tra l a u th o rity abo v e th e c o lle ctio n
and s e lf-h e lp — that to g e th e r help to a c c o u n t fo r the
o t so v ereig n states. S tru ctu ra l realists (n e o re a lism )
p rim acy o f n a tio n al secu rity
in p a rticu la r a ttrib u te s ecu rity , co m p e titio n , an d w ar
Statism
d is tr ib u tio n o f p o w er in the in te rn a tio n a l sy stem . F o r
to th e a b se n ce o f w orld g o v e rn m en t and th e relative
s tru ctu ra l realists, the co n d itio n o f a n a rc h y — th a t is,
For realists, th e State is the m a in a c to r and sover-
th e fact th at th ere is n o ‘h ig h e r p o w er’ to en su re
eignty is its d istin g u ish in g trait. As a sta te -ce n tric
p e a ce a m o n g sov ereig n s ta te s — is o fte n view ed as
th eory , realism id en tifies states as th e cen tral a cto rs
s y n o n y m o u s to a State o f w ar. T h is d o es n o t m ea n
in in te rn a tio n a l p o litics, and are u n ite d a ro u n d the
th a t every sta te is co n sta n tly at w ar, b u t ra th e r th at
u n d ersta n d in g that sta te s a re th e re feren t o b je c t o f
w ar is alw ays a d istin ct p o ssib ility , o r in o th e r w ords,
foreign p o lic y in g en eral, an d sec u rity in p a rticu la r;
a d is tin c t fo reig n p o licy o u tc o m e . W a ltz ex p la in s th at
th e o v e rrid in g o b je c tiv e o f n a tio n a l secu rity is to se­
‘c o m p e titio n a n d co n flic t a m o n g states stem d irectly
cu re th e State. In o th e r w ords, it is in th e n a tio n al
fro m th e tw in facts o f life un d er c o n d itio n s o f a n ­
in terest to en su re n a tio n a l secu rity by o rie n tin g fo r­
arch y : States in an a n a rc h ic o rd e r m u st p ro v id e fo r
eign p o licy to th e a ch ie v e m en t o f th at goal. Bu zan
th e ir o w n secu rity , and th re a ts o r se e m in g th reats
agrees th a t th e State is ce n tral to th e co n cep t o f se­
to th e ir sec u rity a b o u n d ’ (1 9 8 9 : 4 3 ) . T h is illu strates
cu rity an d arg ü es th a t n a tio n a l s e c u rity — a c tin g as a
th e realist a rg u m e n t th a t n a tio n a l sec u rity is a per-
co m p a ss fo r th e sta te ’s fo reig n p o lic y — is d ev oted to
v asive c o n c e r n o f states an d ex p lain s w hy survival is
p ro te ctin g th e to u r co m p o n e n t e le m en ts o f a State:
u ltim a te ly th e ce n tra l goal o f all foreign p o licy.
its p h ysical base (p o p u la tio n and te rrito ry ), th e idea
o f the state (n a tio n a lity and o rg a n iz in g id eolo g ies),
its in s titu tio n s (th e m a ch in e ry o f g o v e rn m e n t), and
Survival
fin ally, its so v e re ig n ty (1 9 9 1 : 6 5 - 9 6 ) . Realists argüe
lt is larg ely o n th e basis o f h ow realists d e p ict the
that it is th e attrib u te o f so v ereig n ty th at provides
in te r n a tio n a l e n v iro n m e n t a re th eir co n c lu s io n s th at
b o th sec u rity an d o rd e r to the p o litica l co m m u n ity
th e first p rio rity fo r sta te lead ers is to en su re the
living in sid e th e te rrito ria l b o u n d a rie s o f the state.
survival o f th e ir state. U n d e r an a rch y , th e survival o f
1 60
B rian C. Schm idt
th e State c a n n o t be g u a ra n te ed , b e ca u s e the use o t
n u a n ce d n o tio n o fp o w e r th a t in clu d ed b o th ta n g ib le
to ree cu lm in a tin g in war is a le g itím a te ¡n s tru m e n t
e le m en ts s u ch as g eo grap h y , n a tu ra l re so u rce s, in ­
o l s ta te c ra ft. F o rcé can be used b o th to w age w ar and
d u strial ca p a c ity , and m ilita ry p rep a red n e ss a s well
to th re a ten w ar as an e le m e n t o f c o e rciv e d ip lo m acy .
as n o n -ta n g ib le e le m e n ts such as n a tio n a l c h a ra c -
R ealists argüe th at the e v e r-p re s e n t p o ssib ility o f
te r, n a tio n al m o ra le , q u a lity o f g o v e rn m e u t, a n d the
fo rcé b e in g uscd in th e a n a rc h ic a l in te r n a tio n a l sys­
q u a li t y o f a n a tio n ’s d ip lo m a cy . ln d e e d , M o rg e n th a u
tem ca u ses states to fear o n e a n o tlie r. A lo n g with
sin gled o u t th e q u a lity o f d ip lo m a cy as th e m o st im -
a n a rch y , th ere are tw o a d d itio n a l fa c to rs th at gen -
p o rta n t fa c to r c o n trib u tin g to th e p o w er o f a n a tio n .
era te in secu rity a m o n g states. T h e first is th at m o st
S tu d en ts o f fo reig n p o lic y sh o u ld b e a r in m in d M o r-
states possess so m e o ffen siv e in ilita ry ca p a b ility that
g e n th a u ’s a rg u m e n t th a t o n e o f th e m o s t c o m p lica te d
can p o ten tia lly be used ag ain st a rival State. S e c o n d ,
task s o f fo reig n p o licy an aly sis w as to ev a lú a te how
states a re afflicted by a g reat deal o f u n c e rta in ty a b o u t
th e in d iv id u al e le m en ts o f pow er c o n trib u te d to the
th e in ten tio n s o f o th e r states. W h e n taken to g e th e r,
o v erall p o w er o f o n e ’s o w n sta te as co m p arecí to that
M e a rsh e im e r co n clu d e s th a t sta te s, esp ecially great
o f o tlie rs.
p o w ers, have a stro n g in ce n tiv e to seek a m á x im u m
A secon d c o n tro v e rs y , ro o ted in th e re ce n t d e ­
a in o u n t o fp o w e r in the b e lie f th at th is is the best p ath
b a te betw een d efen siv e a n d o ffe n siv e realists, is the
to secu rity (2 0 0 1 : 3 ). As will b e se e n , gran d strateg y
q u e s tio n o fw h e th e r sta te s a re p rim a rily sec u rity m a x ­
is tile c o n sc io u s ch o ic e to in c o rp ó ra te the g oal o f
im iz ers o r p o w er m a x im iz e rs. T h is d e b a te a lso has
po w er m a x im iz a tio n in to its fo reig n p o licy in o rd e r
d ire ct im p lic a tio n s fo r th e an aly sis o f foreig n p o licy .
to p reserv e its n a tio n al secu ritv .
W h ile realists d o view th e a c c u m u la tio n o f p o w er,
A c co rd in g to defen sive realism (S e e C h a p te r T w o ),
states are fu n d a m e n ta lly secu rity m a x im iz e rs. T h e
esp ecia lly m ilila ry p o w er, as th e b e st fo reig n p o licy
in te rn a tio n a l sy stem , a cc o rd in g to d e fen siv e realists,
ro u te to ach ievin g n a tio n a l secu rity , th is trad itio n al
o n ly prov id es in ce n tiv e s fo r m o d e ra te b e h a v io u r, and
realist fo rm u la is n o t im m u n e fro m co n tro v e rsy .
e x p a n s io n is tic p o licies to a ch ie v e s e c u rity a re g en e r-
F irst, w hile realists largely base th e ir fo reig n p o licy
ally n o t re q u ired b e ca u se th e in te rn a tio n a l system
an aly sis o n th e role o f p o w er, th ere is a g oo d deal
is basically b e n ig n . In o rd e r fo r a sta te to eu su re
o f v a ria tio n in how in d iv id u al realists c o n ce p tu a l-
its ow n su rviv al in th e self-h e lp , a n a rc h ic a l e n v iro n -
ize pow er (S ch m id t, 2 0 0 5 ) . S tr u c tu r a l re a lis ts for
m e n t th e re fo re , a p ru d e n t fo reig n p o lic y is o n e that
ex a m p le d efin e pow er in term s o f ca p a b ilities, and
seek s o n ly an a p p ro p ria te, ra ther th a n a p rep o n d er-
ca lcú la te this o n the basis o f th e su m to ta l o f n a tio n al
a n t a m o u n t o f pow'er. D efe n siv e re a lists arg ü e th at
a ttrib u te s in clu d in g size o f p o p u la tio n an d te rrito ry ,
e x p a n sio n ist a n d ag gressive foreig n p o licies m o s t o f-
w ealth, and in ilitary stre n g th (se e C h a p te r S ev e n ).
ten prov e to b e c o u n te rp ro d u ctiv e b e ca u se they cau se
In th e en d , given th at realists regard fo rcé to be
o th e r states to fo rm a co u n te rb a la n c in g co a litio n . In
th e u ltim a r a tio o r last re s o rt o f in te r n a tio n a l p o lit-
ad d itio n to b a la n cin g , d efen siv e re a lists h ig h lig h t a
ics, m ilita ry p o w er em erg es as th e m o st p ro n o u n ce d
n u m b e r o f in terv en in g v ariab les su ch as geo grap h y ,
fa cto r in assessing the p o w er o f a State an d its re-
te ch n o lo g y , a n d , m o st im p o rta n tly , m ilita ry d o c tr in e
lative p o sitio n in the in te rn a tio n a l sy stem . Y e t this
in arg u in g th a t co n q u e st rarely pays a n d that n atio n a l
ca n prov e to be p ro b le m a tic b e ca u se th ere are m an y
sec u rity c a n b e readily ach ieved u n d er an arch y .
in sta n ces in w h ich a state w ith su p e rio r m ilita ry
R ath e r th a n secu rity m a x im iz e rs, o ffen sive realism
pow er, su ch as the U n ite d S ta te s, d o es n o t ach iev e
arg ü es th at sta tes are p o w er m a x im iz ers co n tin u a lly
its fo reig n p o licy goals, in clu d in g the p reserv atio n o f
se a rch in g for o p p o r tu n itie s to gain m o r e pow er relat-
n a tio n a l secu rity . T h e r e are a lso e x a m p le s o f see m -
ive to o th e r sta te s. U n lik e defen siv e realists, o ffe n siv e
in g ly w eaker states th w artin g th e fo reig n p o licy g oals
realists d o n o t believe th a t secu rity in th e in te r n a ­
o f a stro n g e r m ilitary p o w er. C la ssica l realists such
tio n a l sy stem is p le n tifu l. Ñ o r do th ey believ e that
as H a n s M o rg e n th a u ( 1 9 5 4 ) had a n ex p an siv e and
b a la n cin g b e h a v io u r is as freq u en t an d effic ien t as
C h a p te r 9 The prim a cy o f natio n a l security
defen sivo
realists
co n te n d .
A c co rd in g
161
to
th e in d iv id u al foreig n p o licies. T ra g iea lly the ratio n al
M e a rs h cim e r, th e a n a rc h ic a l s tru c tu re o f th e in ter­
p u is u it o f n a tio n a l secu rity ca n so m e tim e s lead to
n a tio n a l sy stem , co u p le d w ith th e deep u n ce rta in ty
irra tio n a l co lle ctiv e o u tco m e s . T h e best ex a m p le o f
th at states have a b o u t th e cu rre n t a n d fu tu re in ten -
th is is k n o w n as th e secu rity d íle m m a , w here the goal
tio n s o f o th e r sta te s, co m p e ls fo reig n p o licy m akers
o f p u rsitin g o n e ’s ow n secu rity a u to m a tica lly fuels
to m a x im iz e th e ir s ta te ’s relativ e p o w er p o sitio n . F or
th e in se cu rity o f o th e r states. A c co rd in g to W h ee ler
o ffen siv e realists, it is p lain th at the best w ay to
a n d B o o th , secu rity d ile m m a s exist w hen the m ilit­
a ch ie v e n a tio n a l s e c u rity is to be th e m o st pow erful
a ry p rep a ra tio n s o f o n e state c re a te an un resolv ab le
state in th e in te rn a tio n a l sy stem . N a tio n a l secu rity is
u n ce rta in ty in th e m io d o f a n o th e r as to w h ether
a fu n ctio n o f p o w er; as su ch , m o re pow ertul state s are
th o se p rep a ra tio n s a re fo r “ d e fen siv e” p u rp o ses only
less v u ln era b le to b e in g a ttack e d th an w eaker states.
(t o e n h a n ce its secu rity in an u n ce rta in w orld) or
O ffe n siv e realists th e r e fo re c o n clu d e that all states are
w h e th e r tliey a re fo r o tten siv e p u rp o se s (to ch an g e
co n tin u o u s ly s e a r c h in g fo r o p p o r tu n itie s to in crease
th e statu s q u o to its a d v a n ta g e)’ (1 9 9 2 : 3 0 ). T h is
th eir p o w er re lativ e to o th e r states and will em b ed
s ce n a rio suggests th at o n e sta te’s q u est for secu rity is
th ese d y n a m ics w ith in ex p a n sio n ist, even aggressive
o fte n a n o th e r state's s o u rce o f in secu rity . States find
foreig n p o lic y b e h av io u r.
it very d ifficu lt to trust o n e a n o th e r and o ften view
Self-help
m ilita ry p rep a ra tio n s o f o n e state, oven i f they are
th e in te n tio n s o f o th e rs in a n egative light. T h u s the
N a tio n a l s ecu rity , realists arg ü e, is an in d iv id ual ef-
p u rely fo r d e fen siv e n a tio n a l sec u rity p u rposes, are
likely to be p erceiv ed as th re a te n in g and m a tch ed by
fo rt. R e a lists m a in ta in th a t states act on th e basis
n eig h b o u rin g states. T h e iro n y is th at at th e end o f the
o f s e lf-h e lp m e a n in g th at they each m u st tak e the
d ay , states o fte n feel no m o r e secu rc th an b e fo re they
a p p ro p ria te step s to e n su re th eir ow n survival in
u n d e rto o k m ea su res to e n h a n ce th e ir ow n security.
the a n a rc h ic a l in te r n a tio n a l sy stem . R ealists d o not
T h is is th e esse n ce o f th e d ílem m a , and o n e that
believe it is p ru d e n t for a State to e n tru st its safety
realists argü e u n av o id ably arises w h en States pu rsu e
and survival to a n o th e r a cto r o r in te rn a tio n a l insti-
n a tio n a l secu rity in th e a b se n ce o f a ce n tra l au th o rity .
tu tio n su ch as th e U n ite d N a tio n s. R a th e r, secu rity
R ealists re c o m m e n d th a t the best ro u te to n a tio n a l
can o n ly b e realized th ro u g h s elf-h e lp . W h ile each
sec u rity is to a cc u m u la te pow er fo r y o u rself an d e n ­
state m u st u n d erta k e its ow n m easu res to ach ieve
su re th at n o o th e r sta te a cq u ires a p rep o n d era n ce
n a tio n a l secu rity , th e r e is n o g u aran te e th at th is goal
o f p ow er. F o r realists, th e b a la n ce o f pow er is an
will b e a ch ieved . T h e r e are a n u m b e r o f reason s
e n d u rin g fe a tu re o f in tern a tio n a l p o litics, a key c o m ­
why the goal o f p reserv in g n a tio n a l secu rity c a n be
p o n e n ! o f n a tio n a l s ecu rity , and a ce n tra l d y n a m ic in
th w arted . F irst, a sta te m ay h ave an ex p an siv e no-
fo reig n p o licy m a k in g an d analysis. A lth o u g h various
tio n o f sec u rity th a t is sim p ly u n ach iev ab le. Any
m ea n in g s h ave b e en a ttrib u te d to th e co n cep t o f the
state th at p u rsu es a b so lu te secu rity in its d o m e stic
b a la n ce o f p o w er, th e m o s t c o m m o n d efin itio n h old s
o r fo reig n p o licy b e h a v io u r w ill in ev itably b e frus-
th at i f th e survival o f a sta te o r a n u m b e r o f weak
trated . S e c o n d , a s ta te m ay lack the cap a b ilities to
s tate s is th re a ten e d by a h e g e m o n ic sta te o r co a litio n
a ch ie v e its visión o f n a tio n a l secu rity . T h ird , even if a
o f stro n g e r state s, th ey s h o u ld each seek to in crea se
s ta te has a re a so n a b le co n c e p tio n o f n a tio n al secu rity
th eir ow n m ilita ry ca p a b ilities (in te rn a l b a la n cin g ) o r
and p o ssesses th e n ecessary m ean s to im p lem e n t it,
jo in forces by e s ta b lish in g a form a l a llia n ce (ex tern a l
realists h ig h lig h t th e an a rc h ic a l sy stem its e lf as an
b a la n c in g ), see k in g to p reserve th eir ow n in d epen d -
o b sta cle to ach ie v in g security. T h e ab ility o f a State
e n c e by ch e c k in g th e p o w er o f th e o p p osin g side.
to a ch ie v e the goal o f n a tio n al sec u rity is co n tin g e n t
T lie m e c h a n is m o f th e b a la n ce o f pow er seeks to
on th e b e h a v io u r o f o th e r states and yet th e in te r n a ­
e n s u re an e q u ilib riu m o f pow er in w h ich case no
tio n a l sy stem lack s a m ec h a n ism to c o o r d ín a te all o f
sin g le state o r c o a litio n o f states is in a p o sitio n to
162
Brian C. Schm idt
d o m ín a te all the o th ers. T h e co n te m p o ra rv c o n tr o -
p o in ted o u t th a t su ch a strategy is d o o m e d to tail as
versv co n ce rn in g the b alan ce o f pow er is w h eth er
o th e r states w ill m ev itab lv seek to co u n te rb a la n c e the
th e U n ited States is today so pow erful th at b a la n cin g
U n ited S tates (W a lt, 2 0 0 5 ). lrresp e ctiv e o f th is latest
is no lon ger an o p era tin g p rin c ip ie of in le rn a tio n a l
c o n tro v e rsy , th e cru cia l p o int is th a t a s ta te ’s pursuit
p o litics ( lk en berrv , 2 0 0 2 ). W h ile som e A m e rica n fo r ­
o f its n a tio n a l secu rity th ro u g h its fo reig n p o licy is
eign policv o fficials have ¿ulvocated a g ran d strateg y
in flu en ced by th e foreig n p o licies an d a ctio n s of o th e r
o í p rim a cy , w h ich is discu ssed below , o th e rs have
states.
Security studies and national security
In a d d itio n to th e p ro m in e n ce o f the realist sch o o l
re m in d s us th a t betw een the cr e a tio n of th e field o f
o f in tern a tio n al relation s, th e o u tset o f the C o id
In te rn a tio n a l R e la tio n s — w h ich in th e U n ite d K ing-
W a r rivalry betw een the U n ite d States a n d th e S o ­
d o m is co m m o n ly tak en to be the e s ta b lis h m e n t o f
viet U n io n im m ed iately a fte r th e co n c lu s ió n o f the
the W o o d ro w W ils o n C h a ir o f In te rn a tio n a l P o litics
S eco n d W o rld W a r helped to e s ta b lis h the p rim acy o f
in 1 9 1 9 at the U n iv ersity C o lleg e o f W ales, A berys-
n a tio n a l secu rity co n cern s. In 1947, the U n ite d States
tw y th — an d the b e g in n in g o f th e C o id W a r, a fair
C o n g ress passed the N a tio n a l Secu rity A ct that es-
a m o u n t o f a tte n tio n w as d evoted to th e issue o f how
tab lish ed a n u m b er o f new fo reig n policy in s titu tio n s
to ach ieve se c u rity .3 T h is issue w as largely co n n e cte d
in d u d in g the D ep a rtm en t o f D efense, th e C e n tral
to th e q u e s tio n o f how to avoid a n o th e r ca ta cly sm ic
In te llig e n ce A gency, and th e N atio n al Secu rity C o u n -
w orld w ar. R a th e r th an ach iev in g secu rity th ro u g h
cil. T h e s e in stitu tio n s w ere aim ed at p ro v id in g the
m ilita ry fo rcé , in te rw a r sch o la rs tend ed to fo cu s o n
P resid en t and sé n io r foreig n p o licy o fficials w ith b e t-
in te rn a tio n a l in s titu tio n s such as the League o f N a-
ter in fo rm a tio n for p u rsu in g n atio n al s ecu rity . T h e
tio n s, d is a rm a m e n t, co llectiv e s ecu rity , a rb itra tio n ,
a dvent o f n u cle a r w eap o n ry d ram atically elev ated
and v ario u s o th e r d ip lo m a tic in stru m e n ts. T h is focus
the p ro m in e n ce o f secu rity issues that w ere defin ed
o n n o n -m ilita ry in stru m e n ts o f sta te cra ft, o r foreign
a lm o s t exclusively in realist term s o f th e physical
p o licy, began to sh ift in the late 1 9 3 0 s and early 1 940s
survival o f the n a tio n -s ta te fro m ex tern al m ilitary
as w ar en g u lfed the w orld for a seco n d tim e in tw en ty
a tta ck . A lthough realists as far b ack as M a ch ia v e lli
years. A new b o d y o f litera tu re beg an to a p p ea r that
( 1 4 6 9 - 1 5 2 7 ) had m ad e th e survival o f th e state th e
a ccen tu a te d th e c o n flic tu a l n a tu re o f in te rn a tio n a l
essen ce o f sta te cra ft, the e x iste n ce o f th o u sa n d s o f
p o litics and em phasi/.ed the ro le o f m ilita ry fo rcé in
th erm o n u clea r w eap on s in th e arsen als o f th e U n ited
ach ie v in g n a tio n a l secu rity . T h e C o id W a r c o n f r o n t­
S ta te s and the Sov iet U n io n d ram atically raised the
a r o n sym boli'/ed by th e n u cle a r a rm s race served to
stak es of n a tio n al secu rity . As n atio n al sec u rity c o n ­
u n d erlin e the p rim a c y o f n a tio n a l secu rity .
cern s carne to d o m ín a te the fo reig n p olicy agenda o f
It was in th is c o n te x t that th e su b field o f secu rity
the U n ited S tates and its allies, a n e w a c a d e m ic field o f
stu d ies rose to p ro m in e n ce . T h o s e w o rk in g in this
in q u iry w as b o rn : security stu d ies. T ra c in g the ev ol-
new field u n e q u iv o ca lly id en tified the s ta te as the
u tio n o f this sub field is a h elp fu l exercise in co m in g
re feren t o b je c t o f sec u rity and co n ce p tu a liz e d th reats
in m ilita ry te rm s em a n a tin g fro m o u tsid e th e b o r-
to te rm s with the p rim acy o f n a tio n al se c u rity .2
D avid B ald w ín ( 1 9 9 5 :1 1 9 )
is c o rr e c t to p o in t
ders o f the s ta te . M o st em b ra ce d the realist fo rm u la ,
out th at if secu rity stu d ies is ‘defined as th e study
arg u ín g th at th e best ro u te to a ch ie v in g n a tio n a l se­
o f th e n atu re, cau ses, effe ets, and p rev en tio n
of
cu rity was th ro u g h a fo reig n p o licy th at m ade ce n tra l
w ar’, then it is w ro n g to assu m e th at this sub field
the a cq u is itio n o f m ilita ry ca p a b ilities. W ritin g in
o n ly em erged after the S e c o n d W 'orld W a r. B ald w in
1 966, B o c k an d B erk o w itz cla im e d th a t th e field o f
C hapter 9 The p r im a c y o f natio n a l security
163
n ation al sec u rity ‘co n c e r n s its e lfw ith stu d yin g how
U n d e r such a ‘b a la n ce o f te r r o r ’ s ce n a rio , th e a r-
n atio n s p lan , m a k e, and ev alú ate th e d e d s io n s and
g u m e n t was th a t no ra tio n a l a c to r w ould risk using
p o lic ie sd e sig n e d to p ro te ct th eir in tern al valúes fro m
n u cle a r w eap on s b e ca u se it w ould be suicid al. F ro m
ex tern a l th re a ts ’ ( 1 9 6 6 : 1 3 4). T w en ty -fiv e years later,
th is persp ectiv e, a p art fro m a m in im a l d efen siv e
W alt c o n fir m e d th e field ’s realist u u d e rp in n in g s by
ro le in d e te rrin g an a tta c k , n u cle a r w eapon s a ctu -
d a in iin g th at s e c u rity stu d ies ‘m ay b e d efin ed as
ally lacked m ilita ry u tility . Y et a co m p le te co n se n su s
the stud y o f th e th re a t, use, an d co n tro l o f m ilitary
o n this p o in t never ex isted d u rin g th e C o id W a r
fo rc é ’ w h ich 'ex p lo re s th e c o n d itio n s that m ak e the
as o th e r n a tio n a l sec u rity ex p erts so u g h t to retain
use o f fo rcé m o re lik e ly . . . a n d the s p ecific po licios
th e m ilitary u tility o f n u cle a r w eap on s and a ssim il-
that states a d o p t in o rd e r to p rep are fo r, prev en t,
ate th em as usable in s tru m e n ts o f w ar and fo reig n
or en gage in w a r’ ( 1 9 9 1 : 2 1 2 ). F o r foreig n policy
p o licy to o ls o f a last re so rt ( W o h ls te tte r , 1 9 5 9 ; G ra y ,
analysts w ho reg ard ed the use o f a rm e d forcé as a
1 9 8 2 ). F or th ese s ch o la rs h ow ev er, the sc e n a r io o f
leg itím a te m ea n s o f a tta in in g s ecu rity , the C o id W ar
n u cle a r A rm ag e d d o n en v isio n e d by p r o p o n e n ts o f
posod a p a rticu la r co n u n d r u m : did m ilita ry forcé
M A D did n ot p reclu d e th e p o ssib ility o f usin g n u c ­
c o n tin u é to h ave u tility in th e n u clear age?
lear w eap on s in a lim ited an d co n tro lle d m a n n e r
T h e issues su rro u n d in g n u cle ar w eap on s a n im -
(K issin g e r, 1 9 5 7 ). M o re o v e r, th is ‘m a x im a list’ s c h o o l
ated m u c h o fw h a t W a lt refers to as th e ‘G o ld en A g e’
o f n u cle a r strateg ists fo u n d it p rep o stero u s fo r A m e r­
o f sec u rity stu d ies. B e g in n in g w ith B e rn a rd B ro d ie 's
ica n n a tio n a l sec u rity p o lic y to u ltim a tely rest o n a
T he A bsolu te W capon (1 9 4 6 ) , d iscu ssio n was focu sed
p o sitio n o f b e in g v u ln era b le to a S o v ie t n u c le a r a t­
o n th e im p a ct o f a to m ic w eap on ry o n n a tio n a l s e ­
ta c k — t h e c o r n e r s to n e o f M A D . D esp ite th e im m e n s e
cu rity. A c co rd in g to W alt, th e ce n tra l q u estio n in
te c h n o lo g ic a l d ifficu lties, th e m a x im a list s c h o o l ar-
the field w as stra ig h tfo rw a rd : ‘how c o u ld states use
gu ed th a t a ch ie v in g a p o sitio n o f in v u ln erabilU y to a
w eap on s o f m ass d e s tru c tio n as in s tru m e n ts o f [ fo r­
lo n g -ra n g e n u cle a r m issile a tta ck w ould be a su p e rio r
eign ] p o licy, g iven th e risk o f a n y n u cle a r e x ch a n g e ?’
n a tio n a l secu rity strateg y . As ev id en ced by th e U n ite d
(1 9 9 1 : 2 1 4 ) . F o r B r o d ie , n u cle a r w eap on s n eg ated the
S ta te s ’ c o n tin u in g a tte m p t to im p le m e n t so m e so rt
C lau sew itzian p rin c ip ie that w ar was a co n tin u a tio n
o f m issile d efen ce, it is a p p a re n t th at th e q u e st fo r
o f p o litics b y o th e r m ean s, arg u in g th a t th e n u cle ar
in v u ln era b ility h as n o t b e e n a b a n d o n ed .
re v o lu tio n re n d e red o b s o le te tra d itio n a i n o tio n s o f
W h ile th e c o n c e p t o f n a tio n a l secu rity ro s e to
w in n in g o r lo sin g a war. A ny use o f n u cle a r w eapon s
p r o m in e n c e d u rin g th e C o id W a r an d w as seem in g ly
by eith e r the U n ite d States o r the So v ie t U n io n w ould
m o n o p o liz e d by realists w o rk in g in th e su b field o f
result in w hat R o b e r t M c N a m a ra , w ho w as U S S e c re t­
s e c u rity stu d ies, th is is n o lo n g e r th e ca se to d ay . A
a r ) 'o f D efen se fro m 1961 to 19 6 8 , te rm ed m u tu a lly
n u m b e r o f d iffe re n t fa cto rs ex p lain this d e v elo p m en t.
a ssu re d d e s tru c tio n . F ro m B r o d ie ’s p ersp ectiv e as
F irs t, a n u m b e r o f c r itica l sch o la rs n ev er a cc ep te d th e
well as m an y o th e rs in the field , the ro le o f n u cle ar
ra tio n a lity as s u m p tio n th a t u n d erp in n e d th e c o n v e n -
w eapon s was to p rev en t a th ird w o rld w ar th ro u g h
tio n a l th in k in g a b o u t n u cle a r w e a p o n s and n a tio n a l
the p o licy o f d e te rre n ce . T h e th eo ry o f d e terre n ce
secu rity . T h is in clu d ed M ik h a il G o rb a ch ev , th e last
rests o n th e c re d ib le th reat to p u n ish a n o th e r state
P re sid e n t o f the S o v ie t U n io n , w h o co n clu d e d th at
i f it u n d erta k e s c e rta in u n accep tab le a ctio n s su ch as
n u cle a r w eap on s w ere fu tile an d co u ld n o t in fa ct be
a tta c k in g o n e ’s o w n state. W h e n applied to n u cle ar
used as m ilita ry in s tru m e n ts o f p o w er o r b u ilt in to
w eap on s, d e te rre n ce fo rm ed the basis o f the d o ctrin e
fo re ig n p o licy strateg ies. S e c o n d , a new g en e ra tio n o f
o f M u tu a lly A ssured D e stru ctio n (M A D ) w h ereby
sch o la rs en te re d th e field o f sec u rity stu d ies th at w ere
b o th th e U n ite d States an d the S o v iet U n io n w ere
o p p o se d to the realist c o n c e p tio n o f state sec u rity and
vu ln era b le to a m assive re taliato ry n u cle ar attack
th e ir a cc o m p a n y in g view o f ex tern al m ilita ry th re a ts.
sh ou ld e ith e r d e cid e to u n d ertak e a firs t-s trik e blow
A nd th ird , a new set o f secu rity issues in clu d in g civil
against th eir o p p o n e n t.
w ar, e th n ic cle a n sin g , te rro ris m , an d global clim a te
1 64
Brian C. Schm idt
BOX 9 .3 H um an security
The concept o f human security aróse in the early 1990s
the home, in o u r jobs, in our com m unities or in our
and was the coíiectíve result o f efforts to place in d ivid u ­
environm ent' (1994: 23).
áis at the centre o f strategies to achieve security. The
H um an security has been embraced and incorpor-
1993 UNDP Human Development Repon announced,
ated in to the foreign policies o f a num ber o f states
T h e concept o f security must change— fro m an ex­
Cañada, for example, has taken a leading role in prom ot-
clusive stress on national security to a much greater
ing hum an security as a key com ponent o f its foreign
stress on people's security, from security through arma-
policy. In 2003, th e Canadian D epartm ent o f Foreign
ments to security through human developm ent, from
Affairs and International Trade published a report en-
territorial security to food, em ploym ent, and environ-
titled 'Freedom fro m Fear: Canada's Foreign Policy for
mental security’ (1993: 2). In the follow ing year, the 1994
Hum an Security'. The report identified five foreign policy
UNDP's Hum an Development Report was devoted to the
priorities for achieving hum an security: public safety,
concept o f hum an security, which it defined as ’safety
protection o f civilians, co nflict prevention, governance
from the constant threats o f hunger, disease, crim e and
and accountability, and peace and support operations
repression' and 'protection from sudden and h u rtfu l disruptions to the patterns o f our daily lives— w hether in
ch an g o, rose to p r o in in e n c e in th e p o st-C o ld W a r
(www.humansecurity.gc.ca).
rep laced states w ith in d iv id u áis as th e d o m in a n t ref-
era. T o g e th e r, th ese d e v elo p m en ts led to n ew view o f
ere n t o f sec u rity an d focu sed 011 n o n -m ilita ry s o u rc e s
sec u rity th at w as co n cep tu alized in te rm s o f h u m a n
o f th re a ts to th e w elfare o f h u m a n b e in g s. (S ee B o x
secu rity . T h is alte rn ativ e h u m an sec u rity p arad ig m
9 .3 .)
National security and American grand strategy
E ven if we settle on th e m ain stre am u n d ersta n d in g
to b e qu ite d iffe re n t fro m o n e a n o th e r. T h is stem s
o f n a tio n al sec u rity as an a rm ed d e fen ce o f te rrito ry
fro m s o m e o f th e p o in ts raised in th e in tro d u c to ry
and co re valúes fro m fo reig n th re a ts, th is d o es n o t
s e c tio n c o n c e r n in g the d iífe rin g ways in w hich bo th
an sw er th e q u estio n o f th e best strateg y by w h ich a
sec u rity and th re a ts a re co n cep tu a liz ed . It is a lso a
s ta te can p reserv e its n a tio n a l s ecu rity . T h is cru cia l
fu n c tio n o f th e very d iffe re n t ca p a b ilities th at states
co m p o n e n t o f a sta te’s fo reig n p o lic y is te rm ed grand
p o ssess as well as a h o st o f o th e r fa cto rs d e te rm in in g
strateg y , w h ich is defin ed as th e ov erall visión o f a
th e ir n a tio n a l p o w er, in clu d in g th e ir g eo g rap h ical
s ta te ’s n a tio n al secu rity g o als an d a d e te r m in a tio n o f
size an d lo c a tio n (se e C h a p te r S ev e n ). G rea t P o w ers,
th e m o st a p p ro p riate m ea n s by w h ich to ach ie v e these
fo r in sta n ce , ty p ica lly h ave a m o r e ex p a n siv e no-
g oals. G ran d strateg y can b e view ed as a th re e -ste p
tio n o f secu rity an d p ro p o rtio n a te ly face m o re (an d
p ro ce ss. F irst, foreig n p o lic y o fficials m u st d e te rm in e
la rg e r) th re a ts th an sm a ller pow ers. It is a lso the
th e ir sta te ’s v ital secu rity goals. S e c o n d , th ey m u st
case th at in su la r sta tes face a d iffe re n t set o f secu rity
id en tify the m ain so u rce o f th reats (b o th in tern al
th re a ts than la n d -lo c k e d states.
an d e x te rn a l) to th ese goals. A nd fin ally, th ey m u st
S in c e th e en d o f th e C oid W a r th ere has been
a sce rta in th e k ey p o litica l, e c o n o m ic , and m ilitary
a d e b a te
re so u rce s th at can be em p lo y ed as fo reig n p o lic y o p -
U n ite d S tate s to follo w , an d th ree d ifferen t A m e r­
o v er
fo reig n
th e
b est
g ran d
strateg y
fo r
the
tio n s to realize th eir n a tio n a l sec u rity goals. F oreig n
ican
p o lic y o fficials in all states go th ro u g h a sim ila r p r o ­
e m e rg e d : n e o -is o la tio n is m , liberal ¡n te rn a tio n a lis m ,
p o lic ie s — o r g ran d stra te g ie s— have
cess, even th ou g h the resu ltin g g ran d strateg ies tend
an d p rim acy . A lth o u g h th e G o ld w a te r-N ic h o ls A ct
C h a p te r 9 The prim a cy o f national security
165
BOX 9 .4 Th e Bush Doctrine: continuity or change?
The 2002 National Security Strategy, together w ith a
based on freedom , self-determination, and open markets
num ber o f speeches such as one President Bush de-
has changed astonishingly little' (2004b: 22-23).
livered at West Point m 2002, have form ed the basis o f
Daalder and Lindsay argüe yes. George w . Bush has
the so-called Bush D octrine The core elements o f the
launched a revolution ¡n American foreign p o lic y .'. . . he
Bush doctrine ¡nclude a co m m itm e n t to preserving the
discarded or redefined many o f the key principies gov-
pre-em m ent position o f the US, aggressive democracy
e rning the way the United States should act overseas.
prom otion, unilateralism , and a willingness to use forcé
He relied on the unilateral exercise o f American power
preventively. The Bush doctrine has proved to be very
rather than on international law and institutions to get
controversial especially as it provided a key rationale
his way He cham pioned a proactive doctrine o f pre-
for the invasión o f Iraq. But does it represent a radical
e m ption and de-emphasized the reactive strategies o f
departure in American foreign policy?
deterrence and containm ent. He prom eted forceful in-
Leffler argües no. ‘Bush's goals o f sustaining a demo-
terdiction, preem ptive strikes, and missile defenses as a
cratic peace and dissem inating America's core valúes
means to counter the proliferation o f weapons o f mass
resonate w ith the most traditional themes in U.S.
destruction' (2003: 2).
history .. . The U.S. quest for an international order
o f 19 8 6 o b líg a le s A m e rica n fo reig n p o licy o fficials to
C o id W ar m ay have n ecessita ted a m o re activ ist, even
su b m it a N a tio n a l S ec u rity Strateg y (N S S ) to C o n -
g lo b a list role to ach ieve A m erica n n a tio n a l secu rity ,
gress, th e m o s t re ce n t 2 0 0 2 N SS s u b m ittcd b y tlie
n e o -is o la tio n is ts argüe th at this is n o lon g er th e case;
G eo rg e W . B u sh a d m in is tra tio n has n ot resolved the
w h at is re q u ired in stead is a restricted co n ce p tio n
d eb a te o v e r n a tio n a l se cu rity . S o m e analysts co n clu d e
o f th e A m e rica n n atio n a l in terest in te rm s o f the
th at B u sh ’s g ran d strateg y re p re sen ts a radical break
p h y sical p r o te c tio n o f th e te rrito ry and p eop le o f
w ith th e past, w h ile o th e rs arg ü e th at the co n tin u itie s
th e U n ite d S ta te s as well as its co n tin u e d ec o n o m ic
are in o re strik in g tlian th e in n o v a tio n s. (See B o x 9.4.)
p ro sp e rity . T h e co re arg u m e n t o f n e o -is o la tio n is m is
U p o n a ció se readin g o f th e 2 0 0 2 N SS, o n e can
th at th e U n ite d Sta tes is ex tra o rd in a rily secu re fro m
id en tify e le m e n ts o f a v ariety o f d iffe re n t grand
e x te rn a l th re a ts , w h ich th ey argüe is a fu n ctio n o f its
strateg ies th
fa v o u ra b le in su la r p o sitio n , weak n eig h b o u rs to the
lis
raisin g th e q u estio n o f the ov erall co -
h ere n ce o f A m e ric a ’s c u rre n t n a tio n a l secu rity w ith in
N o rth an d S o u th , im m en se m ilita ry ca p a b ilities, and
its fo reig n p o lic y p erim eters.
s tro n g relativ e sta n d in g in the g lob al d istrib u tio n o f
Neo-isolationism
in A m e ric a ’s sec u rity co m m itm e n ts to E u ro p e, Asia,
p o w er, all o f w h ich allow s fo r a d ra stic red u ction
a n d m u ch o f the rest o f th e w orld.
N e o -is o la tio n is m — also k n o w n a s an ‘in te re s t-b a se d ’
A c co rd in g to n e o -is o la tio n is ts , A m e rica has m ore
foreig n p o licy o r a 'strateg y o fr e s tr a in t’— h ark s back
th an en o u g h p o w er to g u aran tee its secu rity , and
to an ea rlier p eriod o f A m e rica n fo reig n p o licy w h en
its o v e rrid in g n a tio n a l secu rity o b jec tiv e sh ou ld be
th e U n ited S ta te s was n ot as deeply iuvolved in m an -
to safeg u ard its p o sitio n by greatly lim itin g its in-
agíng th e a ffairs o f o th e r states, an d liad n ot assum ed
v o lv em e n t in th e affairs and co n tlicts o f states in
the role o f g lo b al h eg e m o n . Like e a rlie r ad v o cates o f
E u ro p e and A sia. In d eed , A m e rica is ero d in g its own
th is view, n e o -is o la tio n is ts are n o t arg u in g th at the
p o w er p o sitio n by c o n tin u in g to un d erw rite th e s e ­
U n ite d S tates s h o u ld cu t its e lf o ff (ro m the rest o f the
c u rity o f o th e r States in E u ro p e and Asia. M o re o v e r,
w orld, bu t ra tlie r that th e best m eth o d o f preserv in g
by sp re ad in g its m ilitary presen ce a ro u n d the w orld
n atio n a l sec u rity is fo r A m erica to focu s first and
an d en larg in g the ta n g lin g a llia n ce th at it created in
forem o.st o n its ow n n atio n al in terests.4 W h ile the
19 4 9 (N A T O ) o th e r states are a ctu ally a tte m p tin g to
166
Brian C. Schm idt
co u n te rb a ía n ce the U n ited States in a m o re sy stem -
n a tio n a l secu rity , a cc o rd in g to lib eral in te rn a tio n a l-
atic fashion than it’ the U n ited States sim p ly focu sed
ists, th u s h in g es o n global se c u rity , re q u irin g it to
on its own backyard. N e o -iso la tio n ists th erefo re re-
activ ely p u rsu e w orld p ea ce, tree trad e, d e m o cra cy ,
co m m en d : the d ism an tlin g o f N A T O , the rem oval
and h u m a n rig h ts. F ro m th e p e rsp ectiv c o t liberal
o f A m erican troo p s fro m states su ch as Jap an and
in te r n a tio n a lis m , a p eacefu l w o rld w ould be o n e
G erm an y , a re d u ctio n o f d e fen ce sp en d in g so that
p o p u lated by d e m o c r a tic sta te s th a t resp ect h u m an
p ressing d o m estic co n cern s c a n be ad d ressed , and
rig h ts and p u rsu e free tra d e; th e U n ite d S ta te s m ust
m o st im p o rtan tly , a renew ed fo cu s o n A m e ric a ’s
th e r e fo re play a p ro a ctiv e ro le in e n su rin g w orld
own needs and in terests in o rd e r to preserve its
p e ace th ro u g h a fo reig n p o licy fo cu sed stro n g ly upon
secu re and p rosp erou s p o sitio n in the w orld.
th is g oal.
Perh aps the biggest criticism o f a n e o -is o la tio n is t
In o rd e r to a ch ie v e A m e rica ’s ro b u st n a tio n a l se­
grand strategy was 9/11, w hich d e m o n stra ted c o n -
cu rity g oals, p r o p o n e n ts o f lib e ra l in te rn a tio n a lism
clusively that A m erica is n o t n early as se c u re as m an y
arg ü e th at th e U n ite d S ta tes m u st in its to reig n p o licy
had assum ed. Yet n eo -is o la tio n is ts have a resp on se,
act m u ltila te ra lly w ith o th e r sta tes in the p u rsu it
n am ely that th ere is a d irect co rr e la tio n betw een
o f c o m m o n g oals. G iv en th e m a n n e r in w h ich lib ­
A m e rica ’s overseas m ilitary p resen ce, p a rticu la rly in
eral in te rn a tio n a lis ts d efin e b o th the g oals o f, and
the M id d le East, and te rro rism d irected at th e U n ited
th re a ts to , A m e rica n n a tio n a l secu rity , it w ould be
States. T h e th reat o f terro rism ca n be g reatly d im in -
im p o s s ib le to ad d ress these in a u n ila tera l m a n n er. A
ished i f the U n ited States ex ercises re strain t, redu ces
sin g le s ta te a ctin g a lo n e is n o t g o in g to cu rb global
its overseas m ilitary p resen ce, an d re frain s fro m m ed -
w arm in g , stem e th n ic c o n flic t, o r th w art a cts o f te r­
dlin g in the afíairs o f o th e r states. In th is m an n e r,
ro ris m . In te rn a tio n a l co o p e ra tio n is n eeded to m eet
iso la tio n ism is a n a tio n a l secu rity strateg y that m ay
co m m o n secu rity ch a llen g es and lib erá is argü e th at
be pursued th roug h a restrain ed fo reig n p olicy.
th is is b est a ch ie v e d by th e U n ited S ta tes w o rk in g
th ro u g h in te r n a tio n a l in s titu tio n s su ch as the U n ited
Liberal internationalism
N a tio n s. [M ultilateral in s titu tio n s ra th e r th an A m e r­
H ro p o n e n ts o f a lib e ral in te rn a tio n a list fo reig n p o licy
ach ie v in g secu rity in an in te rd e p e n d e n t w orld. A lib ­
w ould argü e that n eo -is o la tio n is ts fail to u n d er-
eral in te rn a tio n a lis t g ran d stra teg y is p red ica tcd on
ican m ilita ry m ig h t a re view ed as th e best m ea n s o f
stan d that A m erica is secu re an d p ro sp e ro u s precisely
th e c o n s tru c tio n o f m u ltila te ra l in s titu tio n s th a t are
becau se the U n ite d States has exe rcise d g lobal lead-
be liev ed to p ro v id e co o p e ra tiv e so lu tio n s to p ressing
ersh ip sin ce the end o f the S e c o n d W o rld W a r. As a
se c u rity a n d e c o n o m ic issues. L ib era l in te r n a tio n ­
lib e ra l h eg em o n , A m e rica plays a vital ro le in m ain -
alists re m in d us th a t the U n ite d S ta tes has plaved
ta in in g in tern a tio n a l p eace th at h as d irect ben efits
a k ey ro le in th e c re a tio n o f im p o rta n t m u ltila t­
to b o th the U n ited States an d the rest o f th e w orld.
eral in s titu tio n s su ch as th e U n ite d N a tio n s and the
C o m p a re d to n e o -is o la tio n is ts , a d v o cates o f a lib eral
W o rld B an k , a rg u in g th at su ch in s titu tio n s co n tin u é
g ran d strategy have an exp ansiv e n o tio n o f th e A m e r­
to serve A m e rica n in terests b y p ro v id in g leg itim a cy
ican n a tio n al in terest. In p a rticu la r, this in clu d es an
an d a ru le-b ase d s ettin g fo r .its foreig n p o licy b e h a ­
in terest in w orld p eace, as lib eráis argüe th at th re ats
v io u r. M o re o v e r, th ese m u ltila te ra l in s titu tio n s are
in the to rm o f sm all wars, civ il u n rest, an d h u m a n
in s tru m e n ta l in a ch iev in g the co re liberal n a tio n a l
rig h ts v io la tio n s in o n e place o f th e w orld can qu ick ly
secu rity g oals o f d e m o cra cy , free trade, an d h u m a n
sp read to o th e r p arts. In a g lob alized an d in terd e -
righ ts.
p e n d en t w orld, the U n ited States is im m u n e n eith e r
It sh o u ld be s elf-e v id en t th a t a lib e ra l in te r n a tio n ­
fro m tra d itio n al m ilitary th reats ñ o r fro m n ew er se­
alist g ran d strateg y is firm ly a n ch o re d to th e th eo ry o f
cu rity th reats in clu d in g te rro ris m , w eap on s o f m ass
lib e ralism (see C h a p te r T h r e e ). F u n d a m e n ta lly , this
d e s tru ctio n , and g lobal clim a te ch an g e. A m e rican
strateg y calis o n th e U S to activ ely p r o m o te th e spread
C h a p te r 9 The p rim a cy o f n a tio n a l se curity
167
o f d e m o e ra cy and lib e rty aro u n d th e w orld, view ed
a d v o ca tes o f p rim a c y re c o m m e n d th at th e U S c o n ­
as b o th a m o ra l du ty an d a fo reig n p o licy strateg y
tin u é to c o m m it its m ilita ry p o w er an d a ct as the
that a ctu a lly im p ro v es A m e rica n s ec u rity . T h e U n ited
p a cificr in E u ro p e, A sia, th e P e rsia n G u lf, an d o th e r
S ta tes is b e tte r a b lc to p u rsu e its in terests and red u ce
stra te g ic re g io n s. In o rd e r fo r th e U n ite d S ta tes to
secu rity th re ats w hen o th e r states a re also d e m o -
play th e ro le o f th e vvorld’s p a citie r, it m u st a d h e re to
cra cies. C lo se ly related to th e a rg u m e n t a b o u t the
a g ra n d strateg y o f p rim acy.
p a cify in g e ffe ct o f d e m o cra cy is th e liberal idea th at
W h ile lib eral in te r n a tio n a lis ts and p ro p o n e n ts o f
th e p r o m o tio n o f free trad e in cre a scs th e p ro sp e r-
p rim a c y have a sim ila rly b ro a d c o n ce p tio n o f the
ity o f m o r e a n d m o re p eop le, w h ich in tu rn crea te s
A m e rica n n a tio n a l in terest, th e re a re s o m e im p o rt-
the co n d itio n s for d e m o c r a tic g o v e rn a n ce. F ree trad e
an t d iffe re n ces. M o s t im p o rta n tly , th o se e n d o rsin g
is b eliev ed to fo ste r g re ater in terd e p en d e n ce a m o n g
p rim a c y arg ü e th at lib erá is o fte n put tra n sn a tio n a l
states th a t d im in ish e s th e e c o n o m ic gains th at an y
in te re s ts ah ead o t A m e rica n in terests. In te rv e n tio n s
sta te co u ld e x p e ct to in c u r by g oin g to war. Finally,
to sp read d e m o c r a c y o r d eten d lu im a n rig h ts a re n o t,
th e c r e a tio n o f in te r n a tio n a l in s titu tio n s and n o rm s is
a c c o rd in g to a d v o ca tes o f p rim a c y , vital to A m e rica n
view ed as th e b est m e c h a n is m fo r m a n a g in g the array
n a tio n a l secu rity a n d as su ch sh ou ld n o t be m a-
o f p o litica l, e c o n o m ic , an d e n v iro n m e n ta l p ro b le m s
jo r fo reig n p o licy g oals. A m e ric a ’s in terest in peace
th at arise in an in terd e p en d e n t w orld. In this m a n n e r
is in s tru m e n ta l in th e sen se th a t a peacefu l w orld
th e th re e key ideas o f lib e ral th e o ry — d e m o cra cy , in ­
u n d erw ritte n by A m e rica n p o w er is a stra teg y for
te rd e p e n d e n ce , a n d in s titu tio n s — a re v ital e le m en ts
m a in ta in in g U S su p rem a cy ju d g e d to b e vital fo r n a ­
o f a liberal in te rn a tio n a lis t g ran d strategy.
tio n al secu rity . W h ile a d v o ca tes o f p rim a c y c o n c u r
w ith lib e ral in te rn a tio n a lis ts a b o u t th e b e n efits o f
Primacy
A m e rica n lead ersh ip , they d isa g ree a b o u t th e re co m -
A fo reig n p o licy o f p rim a c y fu n d am e n tally seeks
A lth o u g h
to p reserv e A m e rica ’s p o sitio n as th e u n d ispu ted
u n ip o la r p ow ers h a v e th e b e n e fit o f bein g ab le to act
m en d ed m ean s o f k eep in g A m e rica n u m b e r o n e.
m u ltila te ra lis m
h as certa in
ad v an tag es,
p r e -e m in e n t p o w er in th e in te rn a tio n a l system . B o th
u n ilate rally to a d v a n ce th eir o w n in terests regardless
p e a ce a m o n g th e great p ow ers and A m e rica n n a tio n a l
o f w h at o th e r sta tes th in k . T h u s , w hen th e situ a tio n
secu rity its e lf a re u n d ersto o d to rest o n a p re p o n -
w arran ts ce rta in a c tio n s — su ch as w hen d e a lin g w ith
d e ra n ce o f U S pow er. In the p o st-C o ld W ar era,
ro g u e states arm e d w ith W M D o r th o se a sp irin g to the
th e U n ited S ta te s n ow h o ld s th e p o sitio n o t the so lé
statu s o f reg ion al h e g e m o n — ad v o cates o f p rim a cy
s u p e r-p o w er in the in te rn a tio n a l sy stem . P ro p o n en ts
d o n o t h esitate in re c o m m e n d in g th at th e U n ited
o f p rim a cy view this as an e x trem e ly ad v an tag eo u s
States a c t alo n e. T h e ro le o f in s titu tio n s in a ch iev in g
p o sitio n fo r ach iev in g n a tio n a l se c u rity and arg ü e
A m e rica n n a tio n a l secu rity is also largely view ed as
th a t A m e rica ’s granel strateg y sh ou ld be o n e o f p re-
re s tra in in g ra th e r th a n e n a b lin g A m e rica n pow er.
v en tin g a n y fu tu re great pow ers fro m ch allen g in g
T h e c o rn e r s to n e o f a g ran d strateg y o f p rim a cy is
the p o w er o f th e U n ited S tates. T h u s foreig n p o licy
th e re fo re to keep A m e rica in its p r e -e m in e n t p o sitio n
o p tio n s fo r th e U n ite d S ta te s sh ou ld see it m ilitarily
an d th e rest o f t h e w o rld o f f b a la n ce .
ou tsp en d all o th e r states to p reserve its m ilitary d o m -
T h e r e is a g oo d deal o fe v id e n c e to suggest th at the
in a n ce, c o n tin u é to s ta tio n tro o p s in , an d u n d erw rite
U n ite d S ta te s h a s o rien te d its foreig n p o lic y aro u n d
th e secu rity o f, G erm a n y and Ja p a n , and activ ely
a g ran d strateg y o f p rim a cy . Bu t it is w o rth w h ile to
w ork to p rev en t the rise o f states su ch as C h in a
ask w h eth e r this stra te g y — w h ose u ltim a te goal is to
and Russia th at co u ld p o se a ch allen g e to A m e rican
c o n so líd a te A m e rica n n a tio n a l secu rity — is ach iev-
p rim a cy . A m u ltip o la r w orld is view ed as in h ere n tly
able. F irst, realists re m in d us th a t states fear an y o n e
th re a te n in g an d in im ical to U S in terests. T o prev en t
State h o ld in g a p r e p o n d e ra n ce o f pow er, and m any
th e e m e rg e n c e o f a m u ltip o la r in te rn a tio n a l sy stem ,
p red ict th at m o re a ctiv e a tte m p ts to co u n te rb a la n ce
168
Brian C. Schmidt
the United States are o n th e way. S cco n d , it is e v id c n t
te m p ta tio n o f o v e re x ten d in g th em se lv e s in u n n e-
that the United States’ atte m p t to ach ieve ab so lu te se ­
cessary and co stlv w ars. T h u s ra th e r th a n tryin g to
curity through p rim acv has m ade m an y o th e r states,
p reserv e th e im p o ssib le , n ain ely u n íp o la rity , m an y
particularly Russia, feel in secu re. T h is lias th e p o te n -
re alists a d v ó ca te a p o licy o f o ffs h o re b a la n c in g tliat
tial to fuel an o th er a rm s race that will likely leave
a tte m p ts to m a in tn in A m e ric a ’s re la tiv e p o w er and
evervone feeling less secure. T h ird , as ev id en ced by
n a tio n a l sec u rity in an e m e rg in g n n iltip o la r W orld.
the United States in v asión o f Iraq, states w ith prepond erant pow er o ften su ccu m b to th e im p erial
Conclusión
T h e chapter beg an with W o lfe rs ’ co n im e n t th a t na-
effo rts, w h ich so m e tim o s resu lts in a good deal o f
tional security is an am b ig u o u s s y m b o l; su b se q u en t
in te rn a tio n a l in secu rity in clu d in g a rm e d co n flic t.
section s in this ch ap te r llave a tte m p ted to u n d er-
W h ile realists are a b le to a c c o u n t fo r th e p rin ia cy
lin e this insight. As b o th a co n ce p t a n d a p o licy,
o f n atio n al sec u rity an d diagno.se th e d ile m m a s as-
the m eaning o f n atio n al secu rity is co n tcsted . T h u s
so c ia ted w ith its p u rsu it, m an y c o n te n d that th ey are
b efore assum ing the p rim acy o f n a tio n a l secu rity
n o t very g oo d at p ro v id in g so lu tio n s. C ritic s argue
in th e analysis o f foreig n p olicy, it w ould b e wise
th at the in a b ility to p ro v id e S ol u tio n s stem s fro m
to take a step b ack and critically evalú ate h o w the
th e in ad e q u a cy o f re a lism . C ritics seek to rep la ce the
co n cep t is bein g detined. A lth o u g h fru stra tin g , it
sta te as the re feren t o b je c t o f sec u rity with eith er
m ust be ad m itted th at th ere is n o o b jectiv e, u n i­
in d iv id u áis o r larger co lle ctiv itie s s u ch as World so-
versal u n d erstan d in g o f n a tio n al secu rity . ln d e e d , a
cie ty . T h e y also seek to ex p a n d th e ran g e o f th rea ts
key co m p o n en t o f th e study and p ra ctice o f foreig n
b e y o n d ex tern a l m ilita ry th rea ts. T h e s e ch a llen g es to
policy is d e term in in g h ow to co n cep tu a liz e n a tio n a l
th e realist m o d el are to b e w e lco m e d fo r they fo rcé
security w ith in th e p erim ete rs o f the n a tio n a l in ­
us to th in k ca refu lly a b o u t th e m e a n in g o f n a tio n a l
terest and how to id en tify various th reats in o rd e r to
secu rity . At th e sam e tim e they d o n o t n ecessarily
achieve a sen se o f secu rity . T h ese c ru c ia l q u e s tio n s
refu te the p rim a cy o f n a tio n a l s ecu rity . T h e study
ca n n o t b e answ ered in a v acu u m . In stead , th ey m u st
o f g ran d strateg y rev eáis th at th e re are a n u m b e r
b e co n tem p late d in th e c o n te x t o f in te r n a tio n a l rela-
o f d ifferen t strateg ies th a t states can ad o p t in the
tio ns. O n e o f th e in sig h ts o f realism is th a t a s ta te ’s
p u rsu it o f n a tio n a l s e cu rity . T h e d iv erse strateg ies
n atio n a l security p o licy , an d co n se q u en tly its fo re ig n
reflect d iffe re n t ways o f co n ce p tu a liz in g secu rity and
p olicy beh av io u r, is greatlv im p a cte d by th e p o licies
th reats. F o re ig n p olicy d e m o n s tra te s th at secu rity
and actio n s o f o th e r states. A co re p a ra d o x o f fo reig n
an d th reats, 110 m a tte r h ow they are co n cep tu a liz ed ,
p olicy is th erefo re th a t w h ile state s a re en c o u ra g ed to
are en d u rin g issues th a t a c c o u n t fo r th e p rim a c y o f
pursue their o w n p o licies to ach ie v e n a tio n a l secu rity ,
n a tio n a l secu rity .
th ere is n o m ech an ism t o co o r d ín a te th ese in d iv id u al
m
C h a p te r 9 T h e p rm ia c y o f n a tio n a l s e c u rity
Key points
□ National security is an essentially contested concept, it means different things to different people.
□ The three S's o f realism, statism, survival, and self-help, contribute to the primacy o f national security.
□ The prom inence o f realism and the onset o f the Coid War helped to establish th e primacy o f national security
concerns to both academics and policymakers.
□ Debates about grand strategy are explicitly related to com peting conceptions o f national security.
m
Questions
1. What does Wolfers mean when he wntes th a t national security is an ambiguous Symbol?
2. How does realist theory contribute to the primacy o f national security?
3. How do the three S’s of realism account fo r the primacy o f national security?
4. What is the relationship between the theory o f realism and the field o f security studies?
5. D uring the Coid War, how did scholars conceive o f the relationship between nuclear weapons and national
security?
6. What is the m eaning o f national security?
7. How does a focus on the concept o f human security change your understanding o f national security?
8. What is the best grand strategy fo r the U nited States to achieve national security?
| Further reading
Brown, M. Cote, O., Lynn-Jones, S. E. M iller S. (2000) (eds), America's Strategic Cholees, revised edition
(Cambridge: MA: MIT Press).
An inform ative survey o f the com peting American grand strategies fo r the post-CoId War period
Gray, C. (1999), 'Clausewitz Rules, OK? The fu tu re is the Past— with GPS’, Review o f International Studies 25:
161-182.
One o f the UK's leading strategists arguing for the continuing relevance of realism.
Human Development Report 1994: New Dimensions o f H um an Security (New York: Oxford University Press).
The landmark publication th a t helped to launch the debate on the issue o f hum an security
Katzenstein, P. (1996) (ed,), The Culture o f National Security (New York: C olum bia University Press).
A distinctive constructivist approach to the topic o f national security.
Wolfers, A. (1962), Discord and Collaboration: Essays on International Politics (Baltim ore: The Johns Hopkins
Press).
A timeless collection o f essays that includes 'National Security as an Am biguous Symbol'.
Visit the Online Resource Centre that accompanies this book for more Inform ation:
www.oxfordtextbooks.co.ukforc/smith foreign/
169