Too often, the notion/concept of national security is “misinterpreted” and made too narrow. It’s a common belief of many that national security only entails the protection of states borders from outside threats. In recent times, this seems to not be the case, since the dangers that states faces now threatens the life of the individual, therefore, protection of the citizens, their wellbeing, and the laws of the land becomes a priority which links it or makes it human security. States like the US are adjusting their foreign policies to fit this new human security as national security approach. Also, with the world becoming a small global village, states are using less military force to settle dispute. They are reducing the amount of violence they use against one another. Everyone seems to be embracing the notion of peace rather than war and I believe this is so because nations do not want to go back to the hostility and instability of the Cold War era. Using the United States foreign policies (past and current) regarding terrorism, I will be analyzing how they fit or do not fit into the spectrum of human security as national security.
According to Roland Paris, human security does not have one explicit definition. Different nations and organization define this concept differently; each according to its view, policies, interests, and goals. Paris compared the concept to standard developmental goals, in the sense that though most (if not all) nations desire it, only a few knows
Foreign and domestic policies are not linear, rather the policies are connected in a circle, with each policy reinforcing the values of another. Domestic American terrorism in the prison and detention systems and governmental reforms are influenced by the mobilization and ethnocentrism abroad. The militarization internationally is justified by the domestic handling of the same cultural issues within the United State borders. The United States has strangely used a near Catch-22 to handle dilemmas. The United States has allowed perspective to become reality, whether with oneself or regarding issues abroad, specifically in the Middle East. Terrorism is the use or threat of fear for political or economical gain. An internal characteristic of terrorism is how dependent it is of perspective, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. To understand “terrorism,” a focus must be applied to the history, what drove an organization to commit such acts. Respectively, the Middle East has been a hotbed for the key word “terrorism,” especially because of 9/11. Subsequently, Muslims have been stigmatized by the United States as terrorists. The consequences spawned because of 9/11 require a look to the past to understand the present.
Terrorism is a major threat to national and global security that encompasses more than violent means by foreigners and Islamic extremists. This is mainly because most of the recent terror acts in America have been carried out by single-issue individuals and special-interest extremists with the intention of protecting the environment and animals based on their beliefs. Actually, terrorism is described as the illegitimate use of extreme violence and force with the intention of coercing a
So far, terrorism has been a key obstacle to many foreign nations, as they are struggling to prevent terrorist attacks. From the year of 1997 up to the year of 2003, international terrorist attacks have gone from less than 500 to almost 3000. Overall, global terrorism has grown by almost 1200% from 1997 to 2003. (Johnston 1). This massive increase in terrorism reflects on other nations' lack of control of the safety of their nation. These statistics also show that something needs to be done to protect the
The dilemma facing state leaders for the past decades has been whether to respond to terrorism through a criminal justice approach or a more involved military approach. The criminal justice approach treats terrorism as a law-and-order problem in which the main burden is placed on the judiciary and police. In contrast, the military approach treats terrorism as a perilous threat to the national security of the state, which can only be countered with military force and wartime procedures. The argument of this paper is that military procedures are not warranted in dealing with terrorism because the terror threat is not lethal or influential enough to threaten our democracy, and even if it was, military action has proven itself to be so fraught with problems and costly risks in past interventions that continued use of such a tactic would not only harm our national security, but also could precipitate the fall of the American Empire. Instead, law-enforcement has proven itself to be an efficient counter-terrorism tool that results in the capturing of terrorists, acquisition of intelligence, and spurring of cooperation with allied countries.
The national security of the United States takes on many ideas. It is not only protecting out boarders, but also deterring and defeating an enemy before they come to the United States. Today the U.S. biggest threat is defending terrorism; either by a foreign group or from within our boarders.
In Bellavita’s article, “Changing Homeland Security: What Is Homeland Security?”, he expounds on what homeland security is. With keeping security, resilience, and customs and exchange as the basic concepts of homeland security as its foundation; Bellavita highlights the definitions of terrorism, all hazards, terrorism and catastrophes, jurisdictional hazards, meta hazards, national security, and security über alles and its relation as well as its challenges to homeland security.
This paper is aimed at outlining the events of the Terrorist attack against America, the results and actions taken by the United States Government in retaliation to the attacks. There is no way to legitimize terrorism, although deeply rooted in religion; there can never be a valid excuse to victimize innocent people. Terrorism is never easily defined and many individuals have an obscure idea of what it really is. Terrorism is a premeditated act of violence, geared at bringing about political change by intimidation; it is disruptive in nature and is intended to have an impact outside of its intended targets. Acts of terrorism are responsible for thousands of deaths, increased security measures and negative impacts to the budgets of many countries including America.
Bellavita Christopher is the Director of Programs for the Naval Postgraduate School’s Center for Homeland Defense and Security. Also, from 1998 to 2002, he was the planning coordinator for the Utah Olympic Public Safety Command. The author focuses on the fact that homeland security faces a variety of threats. Many factors such as the economy, weapons of mass destruction and a lack of moral compass pose potential challenges to homeland security (Bellavita, 2009). The terrorist attacks such as the one in Mumbai, the economic meltdown, the disaster on the borders remain potential malefactors to the U. S. homeland. And to no surprise, the threats are gradually transforming into a more complex tactics. Bellavita takes aim towards a realistic assessment
Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the United States (US) government has focused on terrorism as the biggest threat to stability and national security in the homeland. There have been controversial laws enacted which tested an individual’s Constitutional rights versus the security of the country as a whole, military engagements in foreign countries designed to stop terrorism overseas before reaching the homeland, and a number of law enforcement and government initiatives implemented to identify and investigate terrorists before they commit acts of terrorism or pursue material support activities in support of terrorism. Federal law enforcement agencies have been criticized recently for failing to predict when homegrown violent extremists
With the emergence of the 21st century the necessity for a broader understanding of security have said present. The world has experienced a variety of new security challenges that have put at stake human safety and have made policymakers all around the world rethink their approach and strategies when it comes to the decision making process. The rise of terrorist organizations in the international arena as well as the development of extremist groups has offered extreme significance to the quest for power and the search for peace, while requiring us to look back and examine our achievements and failures in the analysis of terrorism, extremist groups and our counterterrorism efforts since 9/11. It is essential for all Americans to understand
In most of the cases opposing the concept of human rights to national security is erroneous and unreasonable construction because the national security is the concept which precludes the physical and mental security of all members of the society, and therefore includes and predetermines the possibility of exercising human rights and freedoms. Without security the well-being is impossible.
All these important questions about terror and insecurity are a considerable part of the subject of international politics. In this regard, scholars have dedicated decades for understanding the relations between states in political, economic, social, and other
are critics of the concept of human security which claim that if all the components of well-being are
The traditional security paradigm is focused on physical and external security threats to states. It promotes that security should be state centred and national security is primary over other securities, such as human security. States must defend their territory and authority from external, foreign threats, by physical means, such as increasing the military or
The rise of terrorist organizations post 9/11 has challenged nation-state borders and their sovereignty. The presence of insurgencies and terrorist organizations has begun to affect the legitimacy of governments externally and their internal sovereignty.