a Aqjod UOSsUIGoY [Ned Aqunsas jeuoljeusau| jo AseuonsiqCopyright © Paul Robinson 2008, ‘The right of Paul Robinson tobe identified as Author of this Work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs snd Patents Act 1988, First published ia 2008 by Plity Press Polity Press 65 Bridge Sweet Cambridge CB2 1UR, UK. Polity Press 380 MainStreet Malden, MA 02148, USA. All rights reserved. Except forthe quotation of short passages for the purpose ofc snd review, no part ofthis publication may be reproduced, stored in aetievalsyt in any form 0 ISBN-13: 978.07456-4027-3 SBN-13: 978-07456-4028-0 (pb) A catalogue record for this book ie svailble fiom the British Library. pesetter Lid, Hong Kong Printed and bound in Great Britain by MPG Books Ld, Bodmin, Cornwall ‘hat the URLs for external webster ‘eace all copyright holders, but ifany have been inadvertently be pleased to include any necessery credits in any subse. For further information on Polity visit our website: www:poity. co.uk. Contents Defining International Security: A Guide on How to Use this Book A-Z of International Security“FagoAsS: seore ueyan wi SHIYWO Jo SOTEpUMOG euoneurorUy BA HOI systroriar jo ‘soqey8 uoo.jaq Tes Jo wom oy Woy Alayes “SaTE(STT IG] ‘sueaut sry (tied 1ompoue Ui eat] opp apdoad wareATIA ION op pions sig jo vied ato oT wadaey yore SHUM yup ut uoneMIs © sondurrdypmas-yeuoPewISTU, ‘AyuNdas jo woRLuyap siEp UO paseg | —_ (pay kouy Snses aOY SAswoa ‘Sey Aqemse Aavp uray ysureBe uoppsiom PnEy_woy pur S5ey Amide suonmipsuy pue ajdoad SeaTA kuew moy jo woRERTeAA uae se spiom sotpo wt SUITBy SANS “FaELSy SANDATGMS pu SAIAIGO wt AaeMDOs si Bsje we> aug (eATYT WOH WORTATONE S85] 10 S10uH Aums5 30 395185 Buvdzea aaey weD suo ~ WORIPUOD aaa € se erIsA asour st SE ‘70 — op Aatp 10 8B ef) 6H st suo TO STATS ST SUS zy — HNL ‘rapany 1 ayeBnsaautt pure 31do) dy) Jo asuas [RRM auIOS apTEUE WaT dyay oF sjoo) ax s1apeor YO ‘pinoys sry, 3 noge ploy sizadxa quarayTp Pry suorudo ureux stp Jo Areurams v apnput [fia Aqua ayy ‘eouesyrutits 20 Bureau “qns ayp jnoge aoiBesip srefoups way ‘sase> Zo Uy “yer>Vy Ajomd aq yom uonewosey sip ase auos uj “uoRsonb ut ialqns amp jo aouroyrudis ayy pueystopim oy armnbax Aorp yep woREUAIOFUT a1Seq ap srapear saa Aqua ypeg “suonayep Sutatd puodag s208 31 se ‘asuas ypRRs ay ur AreuoNIp & Jou st Yooq aU, “UeaUT PfnoYs 10 suLOUT AyM3as Jey Moe suondaciad uy aBuey> prdex jo pouad e AIH Aepo} sappuro> ALmo—s TeuoHeUIayUT UT sara BuLMor# asneI9q {Aressooatr st uonanponur ue yng “AYMDDs TEUoReUIAIUT JO PTFOM amp ur suonny yue ‘s10}38 ‘sansst ‘s\dadu0> zoleur ayy o} UOHNP: -onur pooiszapun Ajisea uv ya sxopear apraozd 0} stare yooq StL éAquingas st yY/ oog siyy asy 0} MOH UO apIny Vy :AqyNDaS jeuoneusayu] Suluysqvictionary of International Security international tradelor curbing the flow of necessary resources such as oll, or of oppressive government, environmental disaster, ot some other problem causing massive flows of refugees across. borders.) Many other potential threats could be added to this list. On the surface, this seems absolutely clear, Nevertheless, experts bitterly disagree over the scope of international security. Indeed, academics who declare themselves followers of the school of ‘critical. security studies’ argue that the concept of security is ‘essentially con- ¢”."The implication is that there is éomething about the essence of security which ensures that it will never be possible to reach agree- ‘ment about its meaning.) Not everybody accepts this proposition. David Baldwin, for instance, argues that the idea that security is essentially contested is itself contestable.? Certainly, nearly all defini- tions/of security come down to some variation of the words ‘absence of threat’) This can be seen in a list of definitions by numerous authors provided in Barry Buzan’s 1991 book People, States and Fear, Whe list includes such expressions as ‘relative freedom from war’, ‘ability to withstand aggression from abroad’, ‘relative freed and ‘absence of threats to acquired values’) (Security can apply to almost anything or anybody, and to ‘almost anything or anybody which threatens them) Disputes about the concept arguably relate not to its basic meaning ~ absence of threat ~ but to which aspects of security belong rightly within the realm of international security studies) l-health{and unemployment threaten them with some protection from these individuals. States provi threats by means of health care and unemployment benefits) We call this ‘social security’ (but few consider social security to be an appro- priate subject for study under the title of ‘international security’. ) ‘What this example shows is that the disputes are not over the basic concept of security but over the referent object of international secu- rity — who and what is being threatened ~ and over the threats ~ by whom and what they are being threatened (Should the referent object * For discussions of critical security studies, see Keith Krause and Michael C. Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases (London and New York: ty Studies and World Politis (Boulder 2008}, and Richard Wyn Jones (ed), Critical Theory and World Politics (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2001) Defining International Security be the international system as a whole, the nation state, or the indi- vidual human being?) Which of the things we need to protect.should take first priority — national sovereignty, territory, culture and rel con urces, ity ., or something else? Should policy[focus on traditional military matters, or sh broadened to encompass other threats.to well-heing, such as eco- nomic underdevelopment, environmental degradation, human rights abuses, and so on’)Analysts disagree¥fundamentally about the answers, to these questions) and thus about where the focus of international security studies and international security policies should lie. For many years the dominant mode of thought was the one described as ‘Realism’. For Realists, the answers to the above questions were clear] the focus should be on the nation state and on uy threats) There were good reasons for this choice. Nation states were the most powerful actors on the international stage, with enormous potential to cause harm to each other and to each others’ citizens. The most important problem for international secu insignificance in comparison.)In the aftermath of two world wars, and in the face of the threat of nuclear annihilation| during the Cold reinterpretation of international security has grown. Critics of Realism argue that we need to both broaden and deepen our understanding of the subject ~ broaden it to include issues such as environmental secu- il 1 security, and economic security, and deepen it to move f reference away from the nation the level ly to serve individuals, not as ends cies, because states exist s ad the condition of individuals can be themselves) Furthermore, | rational conflict world in general more secure.}National dependent on the human security of people throughout the w ‘This new approach calls in turn for new means and institutions to be created to foster security. It has been argued that a narrow focus (on national security will tend to produce policies which put nation ‘states at loggetheads with one another, States should instead estab- lish new multilateral institutions, or strengthen such institutions as 398-9 a “coor ‘S8014 Ansz04nIN ) zmepsdry “q ayuuoy uy‘ uoneznmo35aq 1 Jo UO|SENDSTp poqPiap BI0U © 103 (sooz 1g 1215) SOOe—SEST “wsOUAL gor fo sued “t>) 5H} [PUOREUIBIL Jo ADUAPIIUT 2H Ho SONSHEAS 30 eyqumyoo 9p0% oN) drunaeg uO ‘( PE HOR eANLINIIG, BABE 3IO 39 ‘omyppeg ov “uaa ysuroseqag eaty 225 rnow wen ‘ayes 249 OU pu [enprarpU axp to Bupsn294 Jo woN>eTy ap aas ue suo apyA “SouEHOduT Arewd Jo sWeU! e suIeUaT roxy Usemjoq PIgUOD Surnpar pue ‘ouans TeuoMEUIIET By uO srodejd yaeprodant A(suren xa Wrewrsz says ‘ony Aenzed st 3131 UAT ‘|qeindsip SP apes UoHed Sif Jo SouSyTUais am pamper sey uonezt qor8 weep BAPE ap ‘woNNppe Uy RydyeyE st streuMY TenpearpUr Jo Bufoq- Tom fexoue8 arp yA wHoLA BunEyUOD “Wiotp ssaxppe or oyod pur Apms jo pjay aleredas Sulos 3q 0} Spoau axoyy, WSK THS Aor hq ‘exam anu0 harp temp S89 94 ABU WisuOLIA puE TeM Jo SWAN Ty, “woqoe yeon2esd 16) stiOHDOMp aprord treo y>IYAA Joo) e aq 1 Sava af ‘ssajSurrubour aq 07 sv BussedutOsua-[e os souoDeq, ida2u0> aYp eI $1 AaUINo9s Jo UoRUYep ap Suxpireda YATRA ISI OWL, (qc1uaudoppaap sip 019 01 Aresso3au sueour arp asn 01 1981 yepads & Burumtepp ‘ear ayPoads v ow ase ze] -nopred atp sonour aapequosaidar as & ,AeanDas, Buikes Ag °° De ypoods, & st ‘raxseq\ a0 04 Smpsoone ‘AyEMDag) urerp SuneurUy> oY soomosar aromrajoxap Kew Kamp ‘kyinoos feuoneuzayu pur feuOREN JO sropeUn se syeantp [eauTuoTaUa preBox 03 popensiad aq we> sraxeUt Aoqiod ‘ooueysur 303 ‘9 [SSSUHIOSST JO WORMATASTpAr & aq qe TATA ay yerp 340q] daou0> arp jo uorsuedsa ue yroddns oy asouf, "(tonezntt 58088, & 0) porayY DATA e) OUSBin sy pute Sore TodUA sit Ioqe HOUTSYeTS v sapreUT aUo ‘ansst AITDas v ass Ue BUATPOqe] kal asa TEDHIfod soaros O5[E Areas yo idaouos ayp yo SuuapEdT Br, ‘WIsuOLIa} Se YPNS StH] -qord 04 suonmnjos Supjaos uo wep sonsst asayy Burssaxppe Ho sn20} 0} xen9q 28j op AqqenBre pmnom Amnoos jeuoneuam pue JeuoneU oq soueyuD 0 Bupjaos stayeundonod (SouTjO" sasne> wy Wt {pms Ayres aamosar o} peal Wed ‘aoUT SUT Jf ‘woHepesBap [EIUOUL suomaua — suiaiqoxd Taiyo aseup JO sionipord ysed wr ‘szoyequourw0> Swios oy Bunp10359 ‘ore an290 op Y>IyAL SI>IyUO TWIfOTA asoxp ‘won -ippe uj “raUuIeUI snotago azour rey e ur apdoad aiour Fe yo Baya. TOM sup wsyeaiip juaumcrox08 asrssarddo pue ‘wonepeiBap feyuouIUONAtia ‘aseastp ‘haiandg ,2fdoad may Kak S| Tey UY BswOUy, “Ayn euonenajuy 3noqe asmonsrp a7qnd wr HoRIsod yweuruAop ¥ pardns0 (s00e ‘seg Astana prop oor wong noes 23meq B85N00) S007 mfieD pw aeag “BNE WORK PO], PHE TEYBIEW 3D ANON, sey 100z @u1s wry palgns & “wstoNE) st rN -we}gord sole amp OU sy seas ‘Buroq Tom exOUdE s,2u0 o} sya ospe sapnppuT nq Dyddad zomoy pute stem roma are ary. f(eOHSHEAS a1qeTEX (01 Buproa2€ 139 Tad 9 Toko Aq)AifeoAburexp paurpap sey ‘TeUuTE;xD ae PemDyUT thoq “PyyUED pousze Jo opmamuBeas arp “TEAK PIOD amp JO ua ap doug “Spoutar are Tem Jo ynsar v se paypiy Buyaq uoszad e yo So>UENP ayy ‘SauNUMoD Four Up UAds9IOSqO st AyrINDas Jo ydasu0D payenuape-Areyyor jeuoRIpen arp yeup aniBre 0} ¥sli9s awios s2yeul ‘quounromat fgrmoos feuonetoytr yuorn9 omp WaAIs w Jo Aymoasuy axp or amnq¢uos eur saxjasuray puayop oy sa Bunqeus yyva Auo sasy wi2IU0> pHnoys AyMD—s eI ufraroy © Aq pene Teay Arp wey a10Ur YNUT aTES UO Ty way aqdoad ‘aqo(8 arp yo sued aBrey wp Jo zo>aI0rd uyeUr axp 1011) -noas ,SenplAIpur 0} sjeautf) UTeui amp WYO are ‘pres sompouzos tod 9g pmnoys AipiaE Tei juauBre ay “BUA UIES ap TV Teuoneuraymr jo Aqqear amp ur syramdopesap yuevroduy asamp sor0ust saqeis Uonet 0} Aumoas yeuoneurayur Jo suorssnosrp SuNDINSOY -aotianiyjar Siise=tour yar ‘suonezrme8ro [BUTT [euoneusen pue ‘sqs1{0U15}‘stuoerod109 feuoneusayUT Se YPNs ‘SIODETTASUON OTE uonew jo siamod amp psonpar seq wonezreqoys yer |e Ney w yeu utp auo ‘idaouos amp-Sauadayp Jo sur) Ty “warp 0} 2180] ypnuTt 51 a1oULL, [ESIOAONUO xe AyyMDas jeuoneusayU Jo ydaou0> ayp Jo adoos ayy Suruadaap pure Buruopeorg yo TORR Ur SIUOUUABE oy ‘Aressanau st Bupjmngasead pue ‘BupfeMMEDesd ‘uornposar oryuo> ‘uonuarard yyyH0> pera uo syseyduio paseaour uy “suiBaq at aouo peads sy mutt] of 20 sidnua 1 axoyaq)PorguaD iuaKdid 0} Apeas ax0ur aq osye pynoys sx9peaT ‘uonise [eqoi8 Aq pasnd oq Ayu ueD ‘suoNTIN Jo saat] ayy uaye=IA Aqenvaiod wprya ‘oBtrexP sTeMNAD se yons surayqord ‘stieaur uN sy Aq Aaiqiaa Jjasit puajap pjndd ajeys v tay ywed aq Aew Skep ayy, ‘suroyqord periinu Jo 3 jersIOOT} se os SEK Apearyesay that strong states are essential to human society, that the one thing worse than an oppressive state is having no state structure at all. Efforts to bypass states in pursuit of some notion of human secu- rity may therefore prove counterproductive. In addition, the human security agenda provides renewed justification for the use of force to end human rights abuses, through military humanitarian interven- tion. While one may see this as a positive development, it is also possible to see it as a negative one, leading to more inter-state war. Securitization is similarly problematic. In the first place, there is no solid evidence that labelling issues as security problems has the desired effect of persuading politicians to devote more resources to them. Second, the security label can_have negative. political conse- quences [Barry Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap de Wilde war that the term ‘national security’ ‘works to silence opposition and has given, power holders many opportunities to exploit “threats” for domestic. purposes, by claiming a right to handle issues with less democratic control and restraint’ /Third] securitization can produce counterpro- ductive solutions./In the example of migration, for instance, one can make a reasonable claim for calling it both a national and an inter- national security issue, Mass movement of refugees across borders. can havea seriously destabilizing effect. Large-scale immigration can Provoke racial tensions, threaten national culture and identity, and provide a conduit for transnational criminal organizations and terror- ists to infiltrate host societies. But calling migrants a ‘Une: ages.people to treat them_as such, hindering 1 -gration into thei new societies and thereby aggravating all the problems men- tioned above. The attitudes engendered by the use of the word ‘secu- rity’ are not always desirable. Contents It is not my purpose in this introduction or in the dictionary to resolve these debates about the concept of security, merely to highlight thern. ‘They are of more than purely academic interest, and can have a genuine influence on the politics of international security. For the ‘most part, states remain wedded to the national security model and the traditional military-orientated view of international security. Secu- rity policies continue to concentrate on issues such as: preventing, 7 Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1998) Defining International Security deterring, and fighting wars; counter-terrorism; and combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Because of this, these issues dominate this dictionary. This is not an ideological endorse- ment of this perspective, merely a recognition of its reality. Despite the continued dominance of traditional thinking, some of the newer ideas of security have begun to have an impact on state practice. A few middle-ranking states, most notably Canada, endorsed and promoted a human security agenda during the 1990s, resulting in the passage of the Ottawa Convention banning landmines and the adoption by the United Nations of the theory of the ‘responsibility to protect’. In Asia, many other states have adopted the concept of ‘Comprehensive Security’. While not ignoring the requirement for military defence, this insists that analyses of national security must include all relevant issues, including economic security, energy secu- rity, environmental security, human security, and societal security (sce the dictionary for definitions). For this reason, this dictionary looks beyond older views of international security and also i entries on such topics. For ease of use, entries in the dictionary appear alphi rather than thematically. Roughly speaking, however, they nine headings: entries relating to types of security, such as collective sect cooperative security, information security, and national, entries relating to concepts often referred to in discussi international security, such as anarchy, balance of power, national ower, and unipolarity; ee —— ical weapons, insurgency, proliferation, and terrorism; entries related to responses to these threats, such as arms control, containment, and regime change: 5 entries related to the main terrorist and non-state organizations which are believed to pose a threat to national and inter security, such as Al Qaeda, Hamas, and the Tamil Eelam; related to peace and peacebuilding, such as conflict pre- mn, peacekeeping, and war termination; 7 entries related to key international treaties and arms control initiatives, such as the chemical weapons convention, missile technology control regime, Ottawa Con security initiative; 7