America’s Outlook on International Security

 

Definitely international security and United States’ security are the most strategic issues for all actors of the global diplomacy. The key features of the relation between United States and international security emerge from our answer to two basic questions: how does America view international security and how does it act this area? And how do other actors see the position of United States in international security and how do they treat United States?

 

To answer the first question, i.e. how America thinks and acts as to international security, first we must put two concepts forward to discuss United States and international security. First is the concept of ‘uncertainty’ in international security. Before it collapsed, the Cold War global order which sustained for 4 decades had secured clarity and certainty for US frames of analysis in international security and its strategic measures to ensure international stability. They knew who the enemies are, how they acts, and how they should be treated. There was a broad but somehow clear strategic and security literature which formed the US international outlook and prepared the grounds to devise military plans and detect likely points of clash. But this certainty is missing in post-Cold War era and America experiences a high degree of uncertainty when it assesses strategic threats and intends to return appropriate response.

 

The second concept is securitization of phenomena, movements, figures and identities. In security literature of recent years, it is discussed that security threats do not only concern what is objective, but also heavily depend on the attitude and analysis of the elite of states. They are the ones who ascribe a security nature to political and social phenomena with their theories. They demonize some figures and represent not only countries, but also the identity and existence of ‘others’ as a security threat. In general, this process which mainly relies on mental and cognitive processes is called securitization.

 

These two concepts considerably help us to understand United States’ view towards international security. When talking about US international security, uncertainty in the area of international relations is a key concept. Uncertainty has raised the importance of elite in threat analysis. Note that we can’t consider US national security theorists a homogeneous group, but there’s relative unanimity among Americans in considering terrorism as the main threat to international security. What happened in 11^th of September 2001 was a turning point in America’s view towards international security. Since then, international terrorism has turned into glasses through which everything in the area of international relations is traced, analyzed and planned.

 

But war against terrorism is not merely something subjective: lucrative benefits are gained when this idea is promoted. There are a broad range of corporations and governmental and non-governmental institutions in United States whose survival depends on continuation of war against terrorism. That is what we call ‘fear industry’.

 

Fear industry is active in both theoretical and practical areas. There are tens of research institutes that interminably create fear from terrorist threats to US international security. Hundreds of enterprises that directly or indirectly gain considerable benefits by offering security services in war against terrorism are a part of the fear industry. Note that never throughout America’s history there have that much private security corporations. Controversy around Blackwater Company, which had signed a contract with US government in Iraq, is an epitome of how the fear industry is spread and how lucrative the benefits in this industry are. Meanwhile we shouldn’t forget that terrorism and struggle against terrorism are the main reason why governmental institutions involved within security issues have become so powerful.

 

Beside the threat of terrorism, gradually WMD proliferation is regarded as a serious threat for international security among the elite of United States. Grouping of WMDs with terrorist activities compounds the threat stemmed from this weapons according to American strategists.

 

Another threat for US international security highlighted by national security experts lies in the situation of ‘failed states’. About 20 countries around the world are deemed as failed states. These are states that can’t establish security in their territory. Therefore, their country has become a haven for terrorists, from which they threat America’s international security.

 

These are the threats in a macro scale, but to identify the instances and the way to deal with them extensive debates are going on in America. To stand against these threats America follows a series of intelligence, security, military and diplomatic measures of which the most important are: reinforcement of military forces, forming coalitions, bilateral treaties and multilateral initiatives.

 

The strategic elite of United States believe that America must be the dominant power of the global system and never a global or regional power must reach to a level that can challenge United States’ hegemony in the international system. That’s why America tries to hold an upper-hand in spatial security, contain Russia and China, integrate a rising power such as India in US-centered system of international relations and quell radical Islamic movements and that the reason why Iran-US face-off in Middle East has turned into one of the most strategic struggles.

 

According to some experts in strategic affairs the future of Iran-US ties will fundamentally influence the future of power and strategic equations in West Asia, which will consequently affect international security substantially.

 

The occupation of Iraq and its regional and international consequences must be also analyzed within the explained frame of concepts and measures. The future of United States’ appropriate international security is tied to Iraq.

 

United States’ attitudes and measures as to international security were addressed but the key question here for American strategists is whether the country has succeeded in establishing its favorable international security or not and what the reasons for this success or failure are. There is no single answer for this question but two important points must be considered. First is the situation of American military forces and their deployment aimed to maintain United States’ international security. Here there’s a strong dispute between strategists, especially with regard to what is going on in Iraq. The punch-line of these disputes is that military power is not enough to secure United States’ hegemony throughout the world. Other solutions such as multilateral diplomatic measures and use of soft approaches must be also taken into consideration. Also let’s not forget that the zenith neo-conservatives rule that relied on military power to enforce America’s international security is reaching an end. Within a year a new president will enter the White House.

 

But does the new power arrangement mean a fundamental change in United States’ view towards international security? The answer is no. Strategic outlooks of United States will continue to exist. The new president will probably follow a different course to establish international security and will focus on collaboration, diplomacy, multilateral measures and soft approaches, and the fear industry will struggle to survive.

 

The question on America’s attitude towards international security was answered. Now we should move to the second question: how do other actors see the position of United States in international security? The answer is international actors are quite diverse and significantly different with regard to their power and potentials.

 

But firstly, for nearly all actors, United States is the key strategic issue of global diplomacy. These actors include friendly and enemy states and non-state actors. Secondly, judgments on the position of United States in international security are diverse and contradictory. Industrial and European countries believe in structural interaction and moderation of United States’ behavior in international security. Reinforcement of West-centered multilateral mechanisms, especially NATO, can be analyzed from this point of view. Another group of countries such as China and India, while keeping an eye on hegemonic inclinations of US in the international system, tend to contain the country through a combination of cooperation and opposition.

 

Non-state actors who have chosen asymmetrical solutions believe that United States is vulnerable and weak. They have put opposition with US and its following countries on their agenda.

 

A rainbow of religious and nationalistic movements that range from Eastern Europe and Russia to Muslim countries see themselves in an all-out, deeply battle of identity with hegemonic tendencies of United States. The whole dynamic will determine the future of United States’ international security. We can’t elaborate on these forces, their outlooks and reactions in this article, but it is highly important to consider all of them when assessing the relation between United States and international security. In other words, this relation is not a one-way road that is formed merely based on the analyses, outlooks and measures of US but what other actors think, act and react is also important.

 

Discussion on US and international security is centered around hegemony and resistance. America seeks to achieve full hegemonic position and determine all relations of international security with regard to its interests and attitudes. But wherever there is hegemony there is resistance, but their degrees vary.