Should everything be object of securitization?

Résumé du document

On 10 January 2000, the Security Council of the United Nations chose symbolically, to dedicate the first meeting of the new millennium to the issue of AIDS in Africa. For the first time, it has labelled a pandemic as 'threat to international peace and security'. The underlying idea of talking about a 'security crisis' instead of 'health issue' was clear, the struggle against AIDS should become a political priority, because of its disastrous effects at all levels (human, regional, national, and global) . By transforming a 'health issue' into a 'threat', the Security Council offers a relevant example of what Waever calls 'a securitizing move' . In the securitization theory, it is the designation of an 'existential threat to a referent object', that legitimates the use of exceptional measures and 'extraordinary means' to eliminate the so-called threat. In this 'securitizing move', one can see the importance of the 'securitizing actors', they can be state representatives but not only them. But as Waever points out, 'the issue is securitized' only if 'the audience accepts it as such'. Securitization needs negotiation, persuasive discourses, and consent. In short, here are the three steps of securitization (1) designation of an existing threat; (2) measures to eradicate the threat; (3) 'effects on interunit by breaking free rules' .

Extraits

[...] Therefore, to answer the question “should everything be object of securitization?”, maybe we should evaluate if this approach is efficient. The Means: Is Securitization Efficient? In a situation of war, is, in fact, not the particular means (military) that define a situation as war, it is the structure of the Waever says. Military technologies are just one means among others. Similarly, the exceptional measures taken during the “securitizing move” will differ depending of the threat that is to be eliminated. [...]

[...] During a press conference, he explains some emergency measures that will be taken to eliminate this threat. Some special sites “will become virtually military zones and will be guarded by soldiers to ensure that they can be cleared. They will become areas of strategic national interest. Whoever tries to stop the management and disposal of the waste will face a prison sentence"[11]. Moreover, Guido Bertolaso, current director of civil security became a state secretary especially dedicated to the rubbish issue. [...]

[...] The question is highly political: which issues should be framed in terms of security and which not? Answers should be issue-dependent; they should implied the collaboration of as many actors as possible and they should proceed from a very accurate analysis of the dynamics of the issues. Most of the time, an issue can be decomposed in many components. For example, the issue of immigration encompasses political, social, economic and cultural dimensions, so it needs to be considered through a diversity of approaches. To conclude, everything should not be object of securitization. [...]

[...] No matter that this so-called group is in fact very heterogeneous; its designation as an unifies it, at the same time that it unifies the rest of the population. The two are defined, so the war can start. Paradoxically, the Janus-faced of securitization engenders a feeling of insecurity in the population. New “threats” can emerge from anywhere. How to Limit Securitization and for Which Alternatives? Since everything should not be object of securitization, we should find some ways to limit it. It seems to me that it is mainly a question of responsibility and knowledge. [...]

[...] If it helps to solve the issue, to eliminate the threat, where is the problem? Why securitizations should be limited? Why and How Securitizations should be limited? Even if the securitizing approach is tempting, every issue should not be framed in terms of security. According to Waever, “security should be seen as a negative, as a failure to deal with issues of normal politics.”[14] The idea that securitization is not always for the best is counter-intuitive; especially when it concerns issues that particularly affects our emotions or our core values. [...]