Understanding Security and Its Distinctive Threats

Security involves protecting a referent object—such as an individual, society, environment, or state—against specific threats, with each object facing a distinct set of security challenges. Reflecting on the perception of security Theoretically, security is defined as the protection of a referent object against a nature of threat. The referent object refers to the object that is being protected, and the nature of the threat refers to a particular threat against which the object is being protected. The referent object can be anything. It can be an individual. It can be an environment. It can be a society. It can be a state. The interesting part is that each referent, if it needs protection, has a distinctive set of threats, and it must be protected against that set of threats for security to be actualized. With the passage of time the narrow scope of security was questioned and all the scholarship that emerged in the security domain later on leaves us with one message that provision of security to one referent object cannot be equated to covering the full spectrum of security However, the question is whether provision of security to one referent object, as per the definition of security shared above, can be equated to provision of security to all referent objects. The answer is no, and this leads us to the evolution of the security domain in International Relations and later on its emergence as Security Studies. Theoretical discourse around security started developing in the 20th century, especially in the aftermath of World War I, which ended in 1918. The discourse was set by liberals. The liberal security paradigm conceptualized the state as a referent object, the nature of threat as war, and prescribed a coping model for avoiding wars or for the construction of peace that advocated for the promotion of democracy and trade among states, along with the creation of international platforms where states can interact with each other for the resolution of issues. The League of Nations was established especially for the latter purpose. The liberal security paradigm dominated security discourse for some time after World War I, but lost relevance when the world saw World War II knocking on its door within two decades. Theory usually becomes irrelevant when reality does not support it, and the same thing happened with the liberal theoretical discourse around security when all its premises got challenged in the real world. For example, the liberal security paradigm had pinned a lot of hopes on the creation of empowered international institutions for the resolution of conflicts among states, and with this hope, the League of Nations had been established, but in the real world, the League of Nations could not stop Germany's aggression, which became a leading cause for World War II. In the same way, the other pillars of the liberal security paradigm, like promotion of democracy and trade among states, could not stand the test of reality. Thus, the liberal security paradigm after World War I could not stand the test of time, and the whole model was termed utopian. The space which liberals had tried to fill through their security paradigm in the aftermath of World War I, was now vacant when the world moved towards World War II, which lasted from 1939 to 1945. The question in the theoretical discourse around the understanding of security was once again alive, asking that if the liberal security paradigm was not a solution for the attainment of security, then what can be the solution? To answer this, Realists came to the fore. They remained on the same page with liberals as far as the conceptualization of the referent object and nature of threat were concerned; however, Realists prescribed a different model for dealing with the threat. According to the Realist Security paradigm, the state is the referent object, the nature of the threat is war, but the best way to cope with the threat is not reliance on the liberal utopian model; rather, states should go for power maximization. Theoretically, Realists' main point is that war is the reality of the world, and the best way for states to defend themselves against war should be power maximization rather than relying on liberal models to avoid wars. Realists ruled over the theoretical discourse of security for a major part of the 20th century, including the Cold War that lasted from the aftermath of World War II till almost 1991. Both Liberal and Realist security models in International Relations are generally termed as traditional security frameworks. They are termed traditional because, in both theoretical frameworks, the state is considered as a referent object, and both believe that providing security to the state is actually tapping the essence of security. At the time when Realists were defining the security discourse, and this time lasts from World War II to the end of the Cold War, the domain dealing with security in International Relations came to be known as Strategic Studies. However, just as the Liberal security paradigm became questionable with the world moving towards World War II in its presence, though the liberal security paradigm had promised that that model would not allow the emergence of another big war; similar anomalies appeared in the way of Realism which brought questions about the realist security paradigm. Many anomalies can be highlighted in the real world that brought question marks over the rule of the Realist Security Paradigm in the theoretical domain. Not all of them can be shared here, but one key development in the real world that left the realist paradigm blank was the way the Cold War ended between the USA and the USSR. A key premise of the Realist paradigm is that war is the reality of the world and thus states, for their survival, are in constant competition. If this premise of Realists is placed against the peaceful end of the Cold War between the USA and the USSR, Realists were found clueless. Around the end of the Cold War and especially after the end of the Cold War, the Realist Security Paradigm started getting challenged not only for being unable to explain the realities of the world but also for keeping the state as a sole referent object and equating the provision of security to a state against a particular threat as security for all referent objects. In the theoretical domain, scholars started questioning the narrow scope of security theorized in the traditional security framework and started advocating for the reimagining the existing theoretical frameworks in a way that they cater to all referent objects against all sets of threats. This gave birth to Critical Security Studies, in which scholars were critical of traditional security frameworks and advocated for theorizing security in a way that not only dealt with state security but also dealt with human security, environmental security, and the gender dimension of security. In the aftermath of the Cold War, since traditional security frameworks had come under scrutiny and many critical theoretical frameworks had appeared to expand the scope of security. I usually teach Security Studies to undergraduate students, and in the course, along with many other objectives, my key objective is to help students understand that security is a multi-layered concept and, in IR, various theoretical frameworks have been developed to make sense of its various layers. This is evident from the theoretical evolution of security in IR. Initially, security was conceptualized with the state as a referent object battling against a particular nature of threat, namely war, but with the passage of time this narrow scope of security was questioned and all the scholarship that emerged in the security domain later on leaves us with one message that provision of security to one referent object cannot be equated to covering the full spectrum of security. I want to leave the reader with some questions for reflection. What is the general conception of security in Pakistan? To what extent do the policy circles in Pakistan accept the multi-layered nature of security, and whether all aspects of security are equally prioritized? Do think about them, and also think about how the policy circles can be made sensitive to various referent objects— be it state, society, individual, or environment- if we want to tap the true essence of security. Perhaps the answer to the latter is understanding how the theoretical framework of security in IR got expanded through critique. The same approach we can follow if we want to make policy circles sensitive to all aspects of security, but the walk along that path of critique should be steady and with perseverance. We need to be vocal about various aspects of security nonstop.