Reflection Week 9

With the conclusion of the Diplomatic Risk game and starting the discussion of security, I was reminded of how important survival in this world was. If everyone was allies with each other and there was complete trust between states, then there would be no need for a "national security" despite the ambiguity inherent in itself as pointed out by Wolfers. In the end, despite different understanding of what national security is, it boils down into one basic goal; survival of the state.

As mentioned in my substantive post for this week, survival seems to be the primary goal of a state in order to "win." Therefore, every state would pursue its own survival by any means, and that leads them to adopt national security measures. However, the national security as widely used by everyone, is usually directed against another state or entity (e.g. Al Qaeda) or addresses issues hat are "man-made", as can be seen from NSC-68 and Obama administration's national security strategy we read last week. By the term "man made" issues, I refer to issues such as alliances, human rights, other groups that originated from man. This notion leaves out the natural issues out of the discussion of national security. Aren't hurricanes, volcano eruptions, earthquakes, and (not likely, but entirely possible) meteor strikes that can cause huge destruction, a threat to the national security? Even now, there is another hurricane brewing in the Caribbean that poses threat to many nations, yet, we have never seen these issues fully emphasized in national security documents. These natural disasters may be addressed in the general term of "global environment," but they are never explicitly described as a national security threat. After all, its not as if we can shoot down hurricanes, and hold the Earth still so that it doesn't shake.

So in terms of national security, should natural disasters be incorporated as threat against a nation? This is a question that may draw different reactions; some people may say that nature poses threat, yes, but it doesn't pose a threat that we cannot recuperate from; US have survived Katrina and California still exists despite the frequent earthshakes. In contrast, war and terrorism (terrorism is questionable, but for now, it can be grouped together with war) can actually bring the end to a state. Some could argue that nature is just that, a nature. We can prepare for it, but it doesn't have "evil" intentions. Whatever argument one may make against nature being incorporated into the list of national security threat, it is up to the policy makers to decide, and evidently, they see natural disasters and global warming as a danger, but not dangerous enough to be called national security.

However, the fact that the leaders of numerous discuss the potential threats of global environmental problems and its dangers show that nature is dangerous, yet it is not a national security threat. From this, it is possible to deduce that global environmental problem is not a national security threat, but an international security threat; a threat to the globe. From this, then, we can further deduce that national security is a strictly self-interested goal of a state; if a problem belongs to everyone, then it is not a matter of national security. This notion, then lends more credibility towards realist approach to national security more advisable than any other school of thought's approach.