With the end of the cold war, there came a lot of pressures to widen to scope of International Security Studies, to include other forms of security rather than dwelling on the traditional approach of military defence of state territory and state interest. With the emergence of new threats and challenges to security, sparked a lot of debates for the redefinition of the concept of security. Ranging from environmental security to human security, to economic security, military and so on. The major and central focus of the debate for policy makers and scholars was the question of how to broaden and deepen the concept of security without losing its meaning. Stephen waltz gives the strongest statement on the traditionalist approach he says that security studies is the phenomenon of war defining it as the study of threat, use and control of military force. some writers such as (Buzan,1983) and(Brown,1989), (wideners) have argued for the widening of the concept of security to include subjects such as poverty, Aids, drug abuse. Waltz argues that doing so runs the risk of expanding security studies excessively, by this logic, issues such as pollution, disease, child abuse or economic recessions could all be viewed as threats to security he says defining the field this way would destroy its intellectual coherence and make it more difficult to devise solutions to any of these problems (Waltz,1991, p.213).
ken Booth an international relations theorist bringing a theoretical and critical background into his perspective on international relations, poses the question of whose security is being threaten and supports the intense debate that pushes for the redefinition of security that focus on individuals rather than the state. In this paper I will outline some of the key focal points of booths article and his argument, I will argue on his view that states should not be approached as the primary referent, I will try to show that his definition of security and emancipation cannot be called a methodologically sound definition and finally I will look at the issues crated by mixing realism with idealism what he called utopian realist approach, I will then conclude by evaluating that booths article inserts some theoretical insight into the wider debate that encourages state focus on individuals and emancipation. nonetheless, in practice the emancipation of humanity could create an anarchic state where violence is legitimized.
Booth’s article attempts to explore the concept of security in new times and what led to the pressures to broaden the concept of security. He clearly pin points the reason for the shift (p.318) Booth explains what emancipation is about and why it should be given precedence in our thinking about security (p.319).However, his article attempts to contribute to the growing debate by giving emancipation a place within international relations discourse. Booth breaks down his article into five main sections. Part 1 examining world problems and world problems, part 2 attempting to provide his reader with some context he explores the interregnum a useful way to think about the present, Part3 presenting the reader with what security is in new times, part 4 defining security and emancipation versus power and order, part 5 examining the teachings and practice what is to be done (p.322-326).
Booth argues that states should be treated as means and not ends, Individual humans are the ultimate referent he notes states are unreliable, illogical and too diverse in their character to be the primary referent objects of security. firstly, the state is made up of persons to serve their purposes as such they are only instruments and noting more, secondly states are not always those who guarantee security for individuals but most often they are the main offenders of security of their citizens, thirdly there have been too many entities called state since ancient times till now, there were to many different types of them to build a coherent theory on the concept of the state.to support my argument in Buzans people, states and fear. Though written in earlier times, Buzan agrees that the state is a major source of both threats to and security for individuals. He summons the great potency of Hobbes image of the state of nature to explain that security can be maximized only by giving up some of their individual freedom. Buzan recognizes that it is a paradox that states which were created to secure individuals from each other, itself becoming a source of threat to individuals. nonetheless he asserts that “whatever threats come from the state will be of a lower order of magnitude than those which would arise in its absence” (Buzan,1991, p.51) this grows in force as society develops around the state. On this logic he maintains that the state is irreversible, there is no real option of going back and therefore the security of individuals is inseparably entangled with that of the state. Also the need to take into cognisance that individuals most times put their lives at risk in pursuit of other values, as thus it is unusual for individuals to be dependent on the state for maintenance of their general security environment, while at the same time seeing the state as a source of threat to their personal security.
Booths defines emancipation as the freeing of people as individuals and groups from those physical and human constraints which stop them carrying out what they would freely choose to do (Booth,1991, p.319) security and emancipation are two sides of the same coin and emancipation produces true security. However according to Tarry Sarah (1999, p.8) she asserts that booths definition of security as emancipation is not a methodologically sound definition, as it fails to meet the two criteria’s of a methodologically sound definition which is booths definition failed to provide a clear delineation of those cases which are included and those excluded from being a security concern, secondly the categorization of his definition is not mutually exclusive, thereby eliminating ambiguous cases that could fit in both or neither category.By locating security and insecurity at the individual level,Booth does not satisfy the first criteria of a sound definition such an inclusive conception prevents it from being analytically meaningful, as the individual preferences of all people could not be taken into account. Moreover, how can the inevitable situation of one person’s freedom contradicting another’s be resolved without further increasing the insecurity of both (Tarry,1999, p.8) hence due to this ambiguity booths definition also fails to meet the second criterion. Tarry gives an illustration in Canada. Booth’s definition would identify the federal government as the primary security threat for Québec sovereignists who freely choose to separate.He sees states as being means and not ends & would consider the Canadian state to be a threat to the distinct Québecois.This emancipation of the sovereignists would,be in fierce opposition to Québec nationalists & the ROC who would freely choose to have Québec remain federation.Both choices equally legitimate among equal individuals,it is difficult to imagine how this contradiction could be solved in such a manner as to not make all Canadians more insecure.
Additionally, Booth’s mixture of realism and idealism in what he calls “utopian realism” means that the actual endpoint of what is proposed might be categorized as utopian but realistic processes towards the goal of greater emancipation can be implemented both comprehensively and at once. Anthony burke (2007, p.9) argues that booths proposed mixture of ontological realism and ontological idealism under the title of utopian realism can possibly make his expressed end goal of emancipation more hardly achievable. Booth in his article holds to the constructivist arguments in his article such as “we are the creatures of the words as well as their creators (p.314) and “there is always a dynamic interplay between image and reality in human relationship” (p.315) however, he can be brand an ontological realist when he argues in favour of an objective definition of security insofar as the critical security theorist can determine which security problems are particularly life threatening, and a subjective definition insofar as a individuals own definition of security problems should be taken into account(Buzan,2009,p.207). There is a residual ontological realism at work in his thinking here that works against the constructivist basis of his theorising, and it runs the risk of being both disabling and disingenuous, because it risks forcing an emancipatory politics to choke off its effort of critique and imagination prematurely, to accept the boundaries of the given at some level. (Burke,2007, p.9)
On balance, Booths contribution towards the wider debate of the place of security and emancipation in international relations is relevant as his views differs from all other approaches to security and his fellow colleagues in the field of critical security studies, thus while booths equation of emancipation and security has intrinsic and emotional appeal as to why we need to continue striving for emancipation, however in a way it seems that he tries to promote normative values of superiority of freedom and liberty over order