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 .....