Securitization is always (or at least often) a manipulation

Securitization is always (or at least often) a manipulation Jelena Glišić, BA Introduction After the end of World War II, due to the Cold War tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union, security studies have become a synonym for strategic studies with a distinct focus on the military sector. The traditional view of the sole concept of security has become too narrow after the end of the Cold War (Šulović, 2010:1). The increasingly globalised world and interdependence led theorists to that conclusion. Environmental, societal and economic security has gradually gained the dominance over military security, which, although unprecedented, began to lose its importance in relation to other sectors. My answer to this question was defined following the distinction between “old” (military security) and “new” (environmental, societal and economic security). The objective of this paper is to give an answer to the question of whether the securitization always or at least often means also a manipulation. My answer is based on the securitization theory and two schools of thought and it has been interpreted through common examples from the practice. This paper is divided into two parts: theoretical and “practical”, comprising several sections in which theoretical assumptions and examples were explained in more detail. Concept of securitization and de-securitization Within the Copenhagen Institute for Research of Peace founded in 1985 emerged the Copenhagen School of Security Studies guided by Ole Wæver, in which the securitization theory was developed. (Ejdus, 2017:88). “Security” is the transfer of one political issue beyond the established rules and frames of the issue into the specific kind of politics or above the politics, as defined by Buzan, Wæver and Wilde in their book “Security: A new framework for analysis”. According to the authors, each political issue can be: a) non-politicized – the state does not deal with it and it is not a part of any public debate; b) politicized - the issue is a part of public policy and it requires government decision and resource allocation and c) securitized - the issue is presented as an existential threat, requiring emergency measures, justifying actions outside the normal bounds of political procedure (Buzan, Wæver, Wilde, 1998:23, 24). We can give the example of the situation when the state of emergency is introduced, and certain human rights suspended due to some huge security threat such as terrorist attack. This can be additionally explained on the example of migrant crisis, on one side, and threat of environmental disaster caused by the extensive pollution of the Caspian Sea, on the other side. As far as migrant crisis is concerned, this topic is in the focus of attention and it is addressed in a very intolerant discourse, where all migrants and refugees are seen as a serious threat to the order and stability of Western European countries. This discourse may be true, but not necessarily. Different individuals running away from the war, low quality of life, misery or something else may threaten security of European citizens, but not necessarily and certainly not every person who arrived or will arrive. However, great attention is paid to this issue and many politicians, especially those from extreme right-wing parties, score cheap political points, proclaiming migrants as a threat for national security and survival. On the other hand, the danger from the growing pollution of the Caspian Sea, which causes its decrease and endangers flora and fauna species in the wider surroundings, is not addressed in public discourses of any coastal country or wider regional or global community. The question is “Why?” . Securitization theory gives an answer to this question. This theory explains why some dangers are treated as security threats and some are not. (Ejdus, 2017:88). If we take into account that the representatives of the Copenhagen School consider security as survival, the concept of securitized issue automatically becomes clear to us. The securitized issue is the issue which is regarded as an “existential threat”. (Buzan, Wæver, Wilde, 1998:21). On the other hand, the concept of de-securitization has been also developed. De-securitization is the process of moving back the securitized issue into the sphere of politicized where ordinary political practice is dominant. (Ejdus, 2017:88). For Wæver it is a “long-range option” (Buzan, Wæver, Wilde, 1998:29) Securitization elements Generally there are four basic elements of securitization. The first of them is the securitization act or securitization move. Securitizing act is a discourse by which one issue is turned into securitized from politicized. (Ejdus, 2017:89). For instance, it is a discourse of the right-wing European governments related to a serious security threat posed by migrants. Securitization actors are regarded as the second securitization element. Actors are those who use securitization act to require some kind of action. These actors are the state representatives in the most of cases (head of state, head of government, ministers, etc.), but often also opposition representatives, intellectual elites or religious leaders (Ejdus, 2017:89). Extraordinary measures adopted and implemented in order to protect the political community from the threat represent the third element. It is important to point out that measures which are applied would not be legitimate if the securitized threat was not in question. Such measures can include: use of military force, economic sanctions, suspension of human and civil rights or some other measures (Ejdus, 2017:89). These measures can remain effective until the issue is being securitized. Audience constitutes the fourth securitization element. The audience is essential element of securitization. s Buzan, Wæver and Wilde point out that 'the issue is securitized only if and when the audience accepts it as such' (Buzan, Wæver, Wilde 1998:25). The securitization act is being negotiated between securitization actors and the audience (Ejdus, 2017:90). In the example of the Vietnam War or military invasion of Iraq, we can see that the audience is not a passive but even less the insignificant securitization component. Conditions for successful securitization Three conditions are essential for successful securitization. The first one is referred to the grammar of security. This condition is related to the character of discourse and statements made by securitization actors. The language is dramatic and it is aimed to encourage action and legitimate the measures which are going to be taken. The second condition is related to the social capital of the actors. Without a social capital, the authority will be missing regardless of whether it is moral or expert. In most cases the capital in the security area is possessed by state representatives. The third condition is the general acceptance of some issue as potentially threatening (Ejdus, 2017:90). If at least one of the above three conditions is not met, securitization shall not be established. Welsh school of security studies and economic theory of securitization As a direct response to the Copenhagen school and its widening of security, the Welsh school was established to argue for deepening of security. The deepening was related to the process of finding other relevant subjects which are under the state, such as individuals or some social groups, or above the state – like multinational companies or global society. (Ejdus, 2017:94). The Welsh school gave significant contribution and support to authors of the Copenhagen school. The Welsh school representatives say that “security should be politicized”. This means that a debate should be started on the fact who, by which threats and in which way is really being threatened and not just analyze how security is constructed and deconstructed. They adopt the achievements of social constructivism according to which ideas and values can influence the reality. However, when it comes to security, they adopt objectivist approach. According to this school of thought, there are objective criteria for defining security. They assume that there is an ethical standpoint from which objective criteria are established and this ethical standpoint has a form of human emancipation (Ejdus, 2017:94). Rita Floyd specifies three criteria that render a securitization morally right or justified. These criteria are: a) that there is an objective existential threat; b) that the referent object of security must be morally legitimate; and c) that the security response is appropriate to the threat in question. (Floyd, 2011: 427). Floyd introduced a revision of the theory of securitization, whereby the securitization consists of securitizing act and securitizing practice. By this revision, Floyd gains the ability to determine the sincerity of securitization move (Floyd, 2011: 429). In fact, she points out that we can talk about securitization only when securitization act, i.e. discourse which is addressing an issue coincides with a securitizing practice. It appears that this revision of the original theory contributes to better analysis of the contemporary security threats, especially in today’s world. The actual relationship between Balkan countries is maybe the most appropriate illustration of such assumption. From Serbian perspective, we can identify three directions: a) Serbia – Croatia – Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina; b) Serbia – Albania; and c) Belgrade - Priština. We have an extremely negative discourse between political elites and many social tensions, but from the ordinary practice we can see that the security issue is not securitized at regional level, within the Balkan countries. In the security sector, all disagreements or cooperation, as well as threats or support end with empty words, lacking the practice which would follow them. Are there objective threats? I think that the first criteria indicated by Floyd referred to the objective security threat is not only the most interesting one, but also the most divergent from the constructivist school of thought. Although I do not agree with the position that securitization should fulfill any kind of ethical criteria, I think that indicating the existence of objective threats represents significant improvement in the analysis of securitization theory. Even the sincerest followers of the social constructivism must agree that objective security threats exist, i.e. that they are not always socially constructed, especially nowadays when military security is not the only relevant issue, which I however, consider as constructed by state representatives in its major part. First of all, I think that objective threats exist in environmental security. Water shortage, poor air quality as the effect of the increased pollution, although of anthropogenic origin, are not constructed but objective threats not only for environment, but for societal and economic security with potential ecological migrants, decline in human health, low quality of life, economic instability, poverty, etc. Securitization as manipulation There are a lot of examples of securitization of military and national security issues: the example of Vietnam War (History.com), military invasion of Iraq (Pew Research Center, 2008) or NATO’s attack on Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Skidelsky, 2008). In none of three cases was the security of US threatened. However, the state representatives wanted to securitize these issues in order to realize foreign policy interests. It happened in the first two cases and those two issues were securitized, although for the very short period. On the other hand, in the case of NATO’s attack, the issue was successfully securitized up to the end. From the above three models, we can conclude that securitization was also a manipulation. Socially constructed security threat used to legitimate use of extraordinary means in form of military interventions. Securitization of objective threats Floyd cites the interview which Buzan gave to Canadian Office Foreign Affairs and International Trade in 2010, in which he clearly pointed out that securitization theory is more focused on how security issues are politically and socially constructed, rather than on security threats that objectively exist (Floyd, 2011: 427). From this statement we can see that the amended securitization theory is required for modern times. In regards to environmental, societal and economic security, we cannot deny the existence of different forms of objective threats. I can document this allegation by one expressive but sad example of the Maldives. This country made up of chain of islands is slowly sinking and it can be objectively expected that they will disappear one day (Jarić Dauenhauer, 2017). The issue of the physical survival of Maldives is securitized in this country, but it is certainly not a kind of manipulation. This security threat has been securitized because of the survival of people who live there and in order to turn the attention of the global community to problem of the sea level rise. Conclusion I must frankly admit that I agree on the fact that securitization is always a political act (Buzan, Wæver, Wilde, 1998:29). Securitization always starts by securitized act most commonly carried out by state representatives, especially when military security sector and national interest is concerned. However, it is up to the audience to accept or reject such a discourse (Buzan, Wæver, Wilde, 1998:29) and I believe that it is extremely important to regularly consider securitized issues originating from any security sector. When we ask ourselves if the securitization is also a manipulation, before answering the question, we should make a comprehensive analysis of the security issue. I was very interested in the phenomenon by which the securitization as manipulation almost always occurs in the military security sector and very often, in order to realize some internal objective, state integrity or when the government seeks legitimacy for its future moves, the “external” enemy who represents an existential threat for the country, is regularly being sought. On the other hand, the manipulation is less common within environmental or societal securitization, although they are political acts, too, since the threats in these sectors are more concrete, globalized and common. Finally, the response to my question should be that the securitization per se is not always or often a manipulation and that it depend on security sector to which a particular issue belongs. Only upon the accurate analysis of each individual case, we can give the final answer which would refer only and exclusively to the analyzed case. Bibliography Buzan B, Wæver O, De Wilde J (1998) Security; A New Framework for Analysis, London, Lynne Rienner Publishers, str 21-29. Ejdus F (2017) Međunarodna bezbednost: Teorije, sektori i nivoi, Beograd, Fakultet političkih nauka, Univerzitet u Beogradu, str 88-90; 94. Floyd R (2011) Can securitization theory be used in normative analysis? Towards a just securitization theory u Special Issue on The Politics of Securitization, Sage Journals str. 427-429 History.com, http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/vietnam-war-protests Pew Reasearch Centre (2008) Public Attitudes Towards the War in Iraq 2003-2008 http://www.pewresearch.org/2008/03/19/public-attitudes-toward-the-war-in-iraq-20032008/ Dauenhauer N (2017) On front line of climate changes as Maldives fights rising seashttps://www.newscientist.com/article/2125198-on-front-line-of-climate-change-as-maldives-fights-rising-seas/ Skindelsky R (2008) The Kosovo Effect, The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/apr/21/thekosovoeffect