Madrid11.net’s Esther Martin-Ortega speaks to Dr Natalie Bormann of the Global Security Program at the Watson Institute, about terrorism, global warming, and why we should reconsider our approach to international security.
How have security themes changed since the Cold War and 9/11? And why? The most common questions that are asked are: ‘What has become the biggest security threat? Or have certain types of security threats replaced other threats since the end of the cold war and since 9-11?’ I’m not sure it is useful to talk about a ranking of themes, or to argue, for example, that global warming has become more of a threat than maybe terrorism. I am sure Putin would say ‘no’, it’s terrorism. And so would Bush. Kim Jong-Il, on the other hand, would say that the greatest threat to international security is the US. I think it’s more interesting to think of how the question has changed. When you look at 9/11, it obviously shows that security is a very elusive concept. But there is more to it. What we should focus on are questions like: ‘What is it that makes us, you and me, secure or insecure?’ ‘Whose security should we be talking about?’ and ‘How does the nature of the question “Who feels threatened?†determine the kind of security we are discussing?’ What threats to international security are currently underestimated? One can start engaging with international security by picking up new themes like global warming, terrorism, or other explanations, such as the fight for resources. But I believe what we really need to do is to look at the ways in which security and insecurity operate. Take the networks of terrorism, for example, the media, IT, or other technologies. In other words, take the focus away from the themes and concentrate on how these themes that we already have operate and function. Do you think states are responding fast enough to new security threats? States do take them seriously, some over serious. We need to think again when we talk about terrorism. We need to recognize there are new and different kinds of actors. There are new networks, new ways of communicating, new ways in which threats can operate, and the new technologies through which we exploit and make security. That is something that has not been fully recognized. Are we spending too much money to counter terrorism? No doubt, there is a lot of money spent on it. In fact, not only are governments spending a lot of money on terrorism, there is also a lot of profit that is being made from terrorism. Especially on the US side, think about all the new technologies, the new strategies, the training of the military, the war games, the private military companies. The same is true for the media, and for the think thanks. There is a lot of money that’s been spent and made. I don’t know whether it is too much or not enough, but the kind of economic system it creates is something we should talk about. Terrorism may not kill many people, but it generates a lot indirect costs. It destroys peace processes, divides societies and makes people feel threatened. Of course, these issues need to be addressed, but counterterrorism also makes people feel insecure, it locks peace processes, and makes societies feel threatened. Again, we should perhaps start thinking again what are the issues and how exactly should we address them. In the US, for example – and this might be slightly different in the UK – the issue has been approached through the debate on war, and this has been very counterproductive. We are locked in a war debate, which is, by definition, a very violent debate. It exploits the language of a certain view on how to address terror, which is very problematic and needs to be re-addressed. Could you elaborate on the issue of environmental security and its future? I certainly think it should be much higher on the agenda. You could link the notion of environmental security with other issues. Some scholars have talked about the notion on how the shortage of resources impacts on the environment and security as such. There are linkages that could be made. That would be one way of addressing it. In other ways, we have to be careful not to drag the environmental debate into a debate of international security and connect it up with the war on terror, or with the notion of threats to international security. Because this would prevent us, for example, from addressing the problem or the impact of environmental degradation.
Dr Bormann, visiting assistant professor at the Watson Institute for International Studies, is author of "US Foreign Policy and Identity: A Re-reading of National Missile Defense" (Manchester University Press, forthcoming 2007)
