National Security as an ambiguous symbol, by Arnold Wolfers

Résumé du document

In this text written in 1952, Arnold Wolfers tries to point out the scope of the concept of national security, its meaning and its various implications as well as the way the states deal, and should deal, with it. We will first clarify the evolution of the notion of national interest, which encompasses the notion of national security, before discussing the implementation and the moral scope of a national security policy. The national interest can be seen as the pre-eminence of the interests of the nation, which can be understood as its main values (sovereignty, independence?). According to Wolfers this concept has faced two main evolutions. First of all it tends to be outweighed by the "mankind interest?. It seems very topical nowadays with the European integration and the dilution of national power. Secondly Wolfers asserts that there is a shift from a welfare society to a security conception of national interest. To finish, Wolfers stresses the importance of moral dimension in national security. When statesmen call for a security policy, they call for the sacrifice of some values (individual liberty) in the name of another (democracy).

Extraits

[...] National security is based on the world stability. It explains why France, which is a middle range power, relies mostly on alliances, bilateral agreements, european institutions, international organisations (Union of Occidental Europe, North Atlantic Alliance, Conference for European Security and Cooperation, North Atlantic council of cooperation ) to promote its national security and interests. France core values and interests are ensured by european and world stability, which explains for example its numerous participations to humanitarian and peacekeeping missions in the world (lebanon, Ivory Coast, Congo Secondly Wolfers asserts that there is a shift from a welfare to a security conception of national interest. [...]

[...] The idea of security has an objective dimension (absence of threats to acquire values) and a subjective one (absence of fear that such values will be attacked). This twofold aspect explains why states act differently towards security. Nations have different degrees of insecurity feeling, depending if they have experienced an attack in the recent past or if they have been attacked suddenly after a period of high degree security. This is particularly relevant in the case of the United State, which had never faced real external attack before 9/11. [...]

[...] If the states have different senses of unsecurity, they also have different choices as for the means to reach security. They can rely on non- military means as well as on coercitive power. But Wolfer underlines that there is a global quest for coercitive power, for it is logical to use force to resist an attack or deter a would-be attacker. Nonetheless he explains that when the opponents behavior is not beyond influence, the most efficient thing to do is to induce him to give up his agression intentions. [...]

[...] This is still the case nowdays with more and more states trying to develop the nuclear weapon. To finish Wolfers stresses the importance of moral dimension in national security. When statesmen call for a security policy, they call for the sacrifice of some values (individual liberty ) in the name of another (democracy A security policy entails a comparison and a weighing of values, to decide which ones deserve protection, which one can be sacrified. Kennedy justified its stance in the Cuba missiles crisis by saying that liberty was the most important value, Israel attacked Lebanon in July 2006 to protect its national integrity America launched war in Irak on behalf of democracy (with the main idea that democracies are not a threat to each other, based on the theory of democratic peace) : in this case the use of preventive war may lead to the accusation of agressive policy instead of being seen as defense policy, especially since it has been proved that Saddam Hussein was not a real threat to America (see the article of J Mearscheimer Can Saddam be contained ?history says yes and that it did not possess weapons of mass destruction. [...]

[...] This analyze is still particularly relevant nowadays. Thus french security policy is based on nuclear detterence as much as on negotiation, especially among international organisations (UN Security Council The states must nonetheless be carefull not to make their ennemy stronger through their concessions (see Munich agreements). Moreover the states has to define what level of security they want, and the need, for efforts of security are bound to be considered as a burden The gains of security policy must outweigh its costs (tax fees, the dead in case of a war The increasing costs (in terms of money, men, image abroad ) of the war in Irak explains why Georges Bush's policy is being questionned by amercian citizens (see the mid-term elections). [...]