Obama’s national security speech encompassed an extremely broad range of threats to be considered in planning national security policy. He mentioned terrorism, nuclear proliferation, violent extremism, cyber warfare, climate change, global health, violations of universal human rights, and a changing global economy.
Determining what the exact boundaries to security policy are depends on how one defines security. National security means maintaining the existence of the nation state through economic, military, and political power. If something impinges on the economic, military, or political security of a nation, or impinges on the values at the core of the nation, then it is considered a threat to security.
With this in mind, something like fighting disease would not be within the boundaries of security policy. Although it does threaten the safety of citizens, it is not something that is a threat to the economic, political, or military security of a nation, nor does it pose a danger to our values. Also, disease doesn’t need to be on the radar 24/7 (except for preventative measures) but can be focused on when an outbreak occurs. Climate change is beyond the boundary of security for similar reasons. Yes, it is dangerous in the long term and yes, preventative measures need to be taken, but with more pressing matters at hand, such as the increasing presence of terrorist organizations which pose an immediate threat, national security strategy cannot spread itself to cover every single problem or it would be sacrificing attention that is much needed elsewhere.
I guess that administration needs to be aware of things like disease and climate change because they do pose a danger to our safety, but they should not be trying to deal with these in addition to the more urgent threats. There are different levels of threats and terrorism, violent extremism, nuclear proliferation, and cyber warfare come first and foremost in protecting our nation.
I think that Obama’s laundry list of threats weakened his overall argument and that focusing his attention on the current critical challenges would have been more effective. Administration should be mindful of things that are dangerous to humanity in all areas, which is why it is good that Obama recognized and mentioned all of these things, but being too inclusive is going to be problematic because certain threats need more attention, even undivided attention, over the others.
Giuliana,
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that Obama's National Security Strategy was too broad. However, it may have listed so many objectivies in order to cover itself in a changing, constructivist world. Its current and supposedly most important threats are the Wars in Iraq/Afghanistan as well as the general "War on Terror." Yet, if something as obscure as cyber attacks come to the forefront in a few years, the administration will have to readjust its plans.
What intersted me most was the U.S.'s foreign policy agenda. As you pointed out, it did not mention domestic concerns such as sickness, or universal (though inevitable) threats such as global warming. To a certain extent, I feel this may be impractical. Though reputation and peace through democracy are crucial things, the American population is vulnerable in other, more personal ways. Like in the game of Diplomatic Risk, we may become too concerned with what is happening externally and in the short-term, and let the world fall to a catrosphe like disease.
An interesting post to consider may be Fiona's (http://worldpolitics-birthofanotion.blogspot.com/2010/11/problem-with-lines-we-draw.html).
~Rachael W.
I too agree that Obama's 2010 Security Strategy was rather broad and in some ways non-specific. Additionally, I agree with your claim that climate change does not fall within the boundaries of security policy.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I disagree with the opinion that combating disease does not fall within security policy. In the event of a large epidemic, the infrastructure of the United States could be brought down. Our army could be wiped out, the agriculture industry could suffer, and the economy could ultimately fail as entire markets would have the potential to be wiped out. Additionally, the threat of disease could threaten our military abroad as they are exposed to unfamiliar diseases (this could result in the shutting down of an entire base).
So while "more pressing" threat such as cyber warfare and terrorism are important, I believe that the prevention of disease is equally important and must be included in our security strategy to ensure the safety of American citizens.