Understanding Security Community In Political Science

Relevance

Discuss about the Report for Political Science of Eminent Political.

Security Community refers to an area in which war does not take place and even the people living in this region could not even think of indulging into warfare. According to Bremberg (2015), in 1957, eminent political scientist Karl Deutsche coined the term. It is a group of people or region making an agreement of peaceful change of any critical situation. The agenda is to avoid war at any cost. By referring to the term “peaceful change” Deutsche pointed out that there will be no physical force while soling any problem. The people in the security community should have a sense of community, trust and mutual sympathy, and common interests. There exist two types of security communities- the amalgamated security communities, and the pluralistic security communities. One can find the existence of amalgamated security communities rarely. It is created when two or more independent states come together to form a government. However, amalgamation is not always successful because it needs mutual securi8ty and understanding between the nations.

As discussed by Ruzicka (2014), about forty years ago, Deutsch propounded the concept by opining that existence of security community is felt whenever the state needs its entire people to integrate and assure the settlement of war. These states with a strong security community enjoy an edge over other states regarding peace and international security. As discussed by Deutsch (2015), it seems that every policy maker and defense official speculate about a world without violence and compare the present situation with the imagined one. It is seen as the best way to create stability and peace across the globe. What matters most is the development of a qualitative community within a state in which security lies at the core. However, with the passage of time the concept of security and community has undergone many changes. Some states conceptualize security as military security whereas; most of the states consider that the term ‘security’ encompasses economic, social and environmental concerns. Moreover, the notion of transnational community gained value among the Deutschian policymakers that means they are trying to blend the old ideas with the new one as an experiment to find out a proper solution relevant to the modern age. Some scholars seem to deviate from realist-based approach to focus on the present and future security issues. Some arguments have highlighted that the realist dimension might look interesting as a theory but they are incapable of giving any practical solution.

The inhabitants including the university students should care about the issue of security community because Australia went through this issue during the 1990s. By focusing on Australian security communities, the students will get to know various aspects of the concept because Australia constantly changed its place in the global politics. As discussed by Ruzicka (2014), with this change, some political communities also started relocating themselves in diplomatic, economic and political terms that Australia did during the 1980s and 1990s. The Australian Labor Party (ALP) started moving Australia from being a western country to a country belonging to the Asia pacific.

Types of security communities

By analyzing the political changeovers in Australia, the students will understand various foreign policy transformations. Russett (2015) stated that at present, the Australian National Security Community (NSC) includes the intelligence, law, defense, infrastructure development, border protection agencies, diplomatic and the intelligence of Australia. With the passage of time, the security communities have went through many changes according to the challenges the nation faces. According to Hyde-Price (2015), now, Australian NSC interconnects both the government and non-government industry for a fully enabled security platform. The students and the inhabitants should have the clear idea of how it works as it is related to their security. In Australia, cultural diversity is a major reason of conflict. Therefore, both the external and the internal securities should be maintained to prevent war. As Langton et al (2014) opined, the organized security communities present in the country tries to maintain this diversity and ensures security of all the people. Therefore, the concept is a major one.

The article named ‘Security communities’ by Adler & Barnett (1998) discussed various aspects of security communities. It discusses the concept of security community in terms of Australian society. The argument is based on case studies in Australia and it analyses the foreign policy transformations. They have pointed out how post-imperial history, national politico-economic growth and geo-strategic locations have influenced the liberal foreign policy of Australia after the post-Cold War age. The author have contrasted the former rules and norms followed by Australian security with the new and modern one.

As discussed by Adler & Barnett (1998), the security community is built merging people from previously independent states with similarity in government policies. Deutsch’s ‘transactionalist’ point of view is highlighted. Cooper et al (1993) also made his point on “transactionalism” as they found it to be relevant to the legitimacy of European Union. However, Bremberg (2015) explained the resurgence of Deutsch’s theory, which Adler & Barnett (1998) brought out precisely. They described the reasons behind this resurgence. However, as Bremberg (2015) stated that this resurgence involved modifications to overcome some of the methodological and conceptual barriers. Cooper et al (1993) opined that International relation theories started explaining the phenomenon of absence of war from various perspectives such as neo-realism, Neo-liberal institutionalism, Society of states, Kantian perspectives, and Constructivism. Stephen Walt’s arguments are discussed here.

This article by Adler & Barnett (1998) can be compared with Andrej Tusicisny’s article entitled as ‘Security Communities and Their values: Taking Masses seriously’. The author here paid attention to the political and social values of those people belonging to the security community. He analyzed the social norms of those states where there are fewer occurrences of violence and war. According to Drulák & Druláková (2014), it is mentioned that most of the analyses try to find out the nature of interstate war focusing mainly on the elites. They do not consider the mass. This article tries to overcome this limitation by taking into consideration those areas that are outside of the interstate war. The difference with the previous article that has been discussed is that here there is no comparative study between ‘logic of anarchy and logic of community’. However, both the articles are necessary and relevant for the learners as they comprise different researches and try to analyze security community from different perspectives. The article by Adler and Bernett tries to cover as much areas as possible to reach to the important aspect whereas, Tusiniscy’s article focus mainly on the peaceful states. The territories discussed in Adler and Bernett’s article tries to consider geographic, conceptual and historical aspects to make one understand how security community can be measured. There are chapters in this book covers places such as Southeast Asia, South America and the security communities of those areas are contrasted with that of European countries. It also focused on the different phases of security communities developed in those areas. According to De Mesquita (2013), another important element is the mentioning of various international organizations that have contributed to strengthen security communities. Academic students and interested learners will get to know in detail through this article how the organizations that are still working internationally actually exercise their influences in international relationships. As discussed by Adler (2013), he scrutinized the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s functional activities the object of which is to widen the new norms and develop transnational identities. Bernett took to depict the situation present in the Gulf Cooperation Council, which is not a security community, but the concept has influenced this organization. US-Canadian relations, US-Mexican relationships are also discussed. According to Russett (2015), Tusiniscy’s article examined Deutsch’s theory extensively. Deutsch’s points are discussed in detail in this book. It dealt with values and trust associated with the concept of security community. It is mentioned that mass is a major factor here because public opinion influences policymaking. The relation between policy makers and public are termed as a ‘two-level’ game. The leaders operate both domestically and internationally within the social structure. Democracy and democratic peace theory is given importance in this article while analyzing Deutsch’s theory. The article also provides factual examples regarding the support for democracy and tolerance of Out-Group.

However, the article by Cooper et al (1993) evaluates the ASEAN community in terms of regional, national and sub-regional level. As discussed by Acharya (2014), it has emphasized on the constructivist theory, the practice of which generates a network among the people. The articles are interrelated yet they are different in their approaches. While the first article the focus is mainly on Australia, in the second article the author has tried to generate a wide view.

Reference

Acharya, A. (2014). Constructing a security community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the problem of regional order. Routledge.

Adler, E. (2013). Constructivism in international relations: sources, contributions, and debates. Handbook of international relations, 2, 112-144.

Adler, E., & Barnett, M. (1998). Security communities (Vol. 62). Cambridge University Press.     

Bremberg, N. (2015). The European Union as Security Community‐Building Institution: Venues, Networks and Co‐operative Security Practices. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 53(3), 674-692.

Cooper, A. F., Higgott, R. A., & Nossal, K. R. (1993). Relocating middle powers: Australia and Canada in a changing world order (Vol. 6). UBC Press.

De Mesquita, B. B. (2013). Principles of international politics. Sage.

Deutsch, K. W. (2015). Political Community and the North American Area. Princeton University Press.

Drulák, P., & Druláková, R. (2014). The richness of the liberal tradition in international relations: Karl Deutsch on political community and the European integration. International Relations, 28(3), 333-349.

Hyde-Price, A. (2015). Security Communities. Democracy, Peace, and Security, 25.

Langton, M., Palmer, L., & Rhea, Z. M. (2014). Community-oriented protected areas for indigenous peoples and local communities. Indigenous Peoples, National Parks, and Protected Areas: A New Paradigm Linking Conservation, Culture, and Rights, 84.

Russett, B. M. (2015). Transactions, Community, and International Political Integration. In Bruce M. Russett: Pioneer in the Scientific and Normative Study of War, Peace, and Policy (pp. 53-73). Springer International Publishing.

Ruzicka, J. (2014). A transformative social scientist: Karl Deutsch and the discipline of International Relations. International Relations, 28(3), 277-287.