SOCIETAL SECURITYand its relevance to small states

A talk by Alyson JK Bailes, University of IcelandCSSS Summer School, Reykjavik, July 2014

WHY THIS TOPIC?

• Earlier in this summer school you have heard about small states’ challenges and choices –

- regarding military and ‘hard’ security - regarding specialized dimensions of security - regarding outside ‘protectors’ (states, insts.)• Societal Security offers a ‘package’ approach

for drawing many dimensions together and considering general governance solutions

WHAT IS SOCIETAL SECURITY?Easier to say what it is not....

1. Everything but military – but avoids judgement inherent in ‘soft’; may use armed forces as tool, but is more clearly civil-led than traditional ‘civil-military cooperation’ concept

2. Nation-based, but distinct from state security – types of hazards (internal, transnational), types of actors (range of central/local officials, business and society)

3. (At least in N. Europe) A more ‘liberal’, values-aware, constructive approach than ‘Homeland Security’; more participatory than leaving ‘functional’ security to experts

4. Less focussed on the individual than ‘human’ security, assumes positive social status quo

WHAT DIMENSIONS ARE COVERED?

• ‘Samfunnssikkerhet er et nytt fagområde der en studerer ekstraordinære hendelser or påkjenninger some det moderne samfunnet utsettes for. Trusler mot sikkerhet og robusthet i samfunnet kan være både natur- og menneskeskapte. Eksempler på dette er økologiske endringer som påvirker klima og naturforhold, endringer i infrastruktur som energi- og vannforsyning, kommunikasjon og transport, men også endringer i sosiale relasjoner og atferd som kan føre til organisert kriminalitet eller terrorisme’

• ‘Societal security is a new line of study focussing on extraordinary events and challenges that a modern society is exposed to. Threats to security and to society’s robustness can arise from both natural and human causes. Examples are ecological changes that affect climate and natural processes; changes in infrastructure such as energy and water supply, communications and transport; but also changes in social relationships and behaviour that can lead to organized crime or terrorism’ OTHERS?

AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT?

• Prevention, ´hardening’ ( limit impact)• Readiness (beredskap): includes capability

building, stocks, exercises, training• Event response: situation awareness, event

‘definition’, action and communication (NB poss. International aspects)

• Recovery + reconstruction (‘resilience’) WHO DOES IT?

SHOULD WE WORRY ABOUT ‘SECURITIZATION?’

• The Habermas/Wæver thesis (and its Nordic background)• Subsequent correctives - - Conceptualization/prioritization of non-military threats- Alternative approaches to ‘hard’ issues: can be interactive,

altruistic, or at least non-zero-sum• Main value of concept now perhaps to make us ask ‘Who

defines?’• Are demands/defintitions coming ‘from below’ necessarily

more legitimate?? (EXAMPLES?)

...AND RELEVANCE TO ‘SMALL STATES’?

• Military is not the key: allows more self-provision, national responsibility

• Focus on strength and resilience of society rather than traditional ‘power’

• Focus on successful governance across dimensions and sectors – tests assumptions about small state ‘unity’ or ‘flexibility’

• Still requires international cooperation but in a less ‘Westphalian’ or ‘realist’ setting

CHALLENGES: i) CONCEPTUAL

• What is ‘society’?- inclusion or exclusion- society abroad- more-than-national ‘society’ (EU angle)

• Traps of over-focussing on the extraordinary event, assuming ‘normality’ is ideal and risk-free (‘uninteresting deaths’), lack of foresight/prevention

• Difficulties in practice with cross-sectoral cooperation and societal ‘ownership’ (esp. in centralized states or Nordics with ‘trygghet’ notion)

CHALLENGES: ii) PRACTICAL

• Whether to use this language for a national policy concept – why, and why not?

• How to place/relate to the military element• Central + vertical coordination of government• Priorities and resources: balance of phases• Mobilizing (and disciplining) business• Mobilizing (and disciplining) the public • Choice of foreign partners (states, insts.)

A FIRST EXERCISE

• Identify the problems in the field of ‘societal security ‘ that may be caused for North European small states by the opening up of an ice-free Arctic

• Initial ideas on how to tackle them – esp. external partnerships

(Maybe clear non-societal aspects out of the way first...)

A SECOND EXERCISE

• Imagine a major ‘societal’ emergency in Iceland, caused by a pandemic that puts 30-40% of the population in bed:

challenges and ‘domino effects’tools and solutions: state/non-statecoordination and governance

Does any of this play out differently because the state is ‘small’? Help needed? From where?

IF TIME FOR CONCLUSIONS....

• Nordic cases suggest words/concepts less important than their interplay with the ‘audiences’ (official, non-state, international)

• Merits+limits of regional coordination• Vital to leave room for evolution, adjustment

to further integration/interdependence• For your consideration: the ‘triangles’ of

cross-sectoral practice .....