Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Written by: critical (on Scribd.com), for Professor D. Carment and Amir in course
47.260 (Political Studies).
DEC 94
Security: Challenges For A New Century, edited by M.T. Klare and D.C. Thomas, the
post Cold War era has resulted in the rise of new security issues (ch 1 K&T).
Seyom tries to establish that these new security issues are more complex and
multi-dimensional than the security issues that dominated the Cold war era, and
that they are in fact entirely new. This article will be dealing with the 'new'
Seyom argues that the old realist paradigm is no longer valid in an increasingly
complex post Cold-war era. He argues further, that the 'new' security issues of
arms trade and the environment (to name just two) are to complex for individual
states to adequately address alone or even in alliance with other states. What is
needed, he says, to adequately address these 'new' issues is some form of world
organization, that will replace the inadequate anarchical world system as a system
of government that will accommodate the needs of the citizens of the whole world.
conceptualization of 'new' issues should not be a difficult task, he has made little
attempt to establish evidence beyond the use of adjectives like 'more complex'.
In considering the 'new' security issue of the post Cold-war arms trade, one is
drawn to make an analogy between the present and the past. The proliferation of
Nuclear arms during the Cold-war was certainly not less complex or threatening to
the world as a whole than is the current arms trade and the current spread of
Nuclear arms (from the former U.S.S.R abroad). One could argue that the current
arms trade (including the spread of Nuclear arms) is less potentially dangerous,
than was the Cold-war proliferation of arms, due to the shift from a bipolar world
order (Cold-war era) to the current multipolar order (post Cold-war era). This
coalition pattern is more stable in terms of containing war to local regions than are
in the post Cold-war era than it was during the Cold-war era, this flies in the face
The 'new-ness' of the security issues of the environment can also be shown to be
the waters of rivers, lakes, or seas used in common by various countries we now
have added conflicts over the pouring of effluents in such bodies of water that can
degrade their value for other users. ...In addition ,transborder injuries caused by
further expose the inadequacy of the existing political/legal order to handle the
(Seyom p 17).
There is absolutely nothing new about the 'pouring of effluents' into bodies of
water that transcend national borders, this sort of thing has been going on for
literally centuries. Consider the river Thames in Britain. At one time from 200
years ago until approximately ten years ago this river was a vile sewer. As of ten
years ago the U.K. government had cleaned up this river sufficiently for Salmon to
nuclear warhead detonations during the entire nuclear age by all of the nuclear
the less major accidents. And yet a treaty was signed between the nuclear powers
In the above paragraphs counter examples have been raised to contend with
conceptualization of both the environment and arms trade as 'new' security issues.
Despite what Seyom has said it is clearly evident that the old world order of
individual nation states working to solve their common problems have actually
succeeded from time to time. Examples of The ban on nuclear testing and a
The conventional arms trade as a security issue has been with us for a very long
time. The nature of the arms trade as argued above is little different now from
the way it was in the Cold-war era. Today however the world order is undergoing
change, the end result of which we do not have the ability to predict. As the
alert to how this change affects the various issues of importance to the
international community (K&T p137). Klare in chapter seven of the text cited
above, outlines what he considers to be the three most important new shifts in
arms trade:
(1) the reinvigoration of the Middle East arms race; (2) the emergence of a major
new arms race in the pacific Rim area; (3) and the growing intensity of ethnic,
In regards to the first area of important changes Klare explains how initially
during the post Gulf war period, the U.S. made a great deal about the need for
arms control in the Middle East. The dictations of the market and of state
security interests overturned this initial policy however and the arms race is back
Klare's allusion to the emergence of a 'new arms race in the pacific rim' is
somewhat mysterious however. On the one hand Klare claims the Pacific Rim has
been involved in the arms trade since well before the 1980's without a
corresponding drop in the market during the 80's depression. While on the other
hand Klare claims there is something 'new' about the arms race. Perhaps he is just
getting a little excited about the $1 billion/year increase in arms trade to the
Pacific Rim between 1981-86 and 1987-89. After all what is a 12% increase among
the entire group of East Asian countries? It is a mere drop in the bucket.
The third area of change Klare has noted seems the most important. One of his
examples is the intensified ethnic conflicts, like the struggles of the various
groups within the former Yugoslavia (K&T p146). Further, Klare notes this war
ensuing in the former Yugoslavia is subsisting solely on the black market for its
Earlier in his article Klare mentioned the effect that the 'demise of the Cold war'
had on the international community was to allow us to refocus our attention on the
rest of the world. Perhaps in this case Klare is missing the point. Is the world
really becoming worse and more complex and spiraling into a grip of doom and
death, as most of the articles in this text indicate? Or alternatively now that the
community is doing, to come to grips with the dangers of an expanding world arms
trade is basically very little. According to Klare the advantages of the arms trade,
instability. The situation mentioned above of the U.S. reneging on its self-imposed
Since the world that is revealed to us in the post-Cold war era is extremely
in terms of our usual us-and-them mentality. The problem arises in that we do not
know which group to call 'us' and which group to call 'them'. For example consider
the former Yugoslavia. Who can we identify with in the conflict of the Yugoslavia
region; the Croats, the Bosnians, or the Slovenes? The answers which might come
most easily to the mind is, which one represents democracy? Or which one
represents the most likely benefit to my country? Well, we have come to the key
none of them represent a specific benefit to us if they win or lose. As a result our
conflict in which we can not determine our role as readily. The world and the
conflicts of the world are not in themselves becoming more complex we are merely
beginning to see the true complexity which has always been there.
The 'new' security issue of the environment is clearly no more new than is the
issue of the arms trade. Our perceptions of the importance of these issues are
changing but the issues themselves remain basically the same. Specific to the
Under the area of scarcity conflicts Homer-Dixon explains three main types of
resources that are of most importance: river water, fisheries, and food cropland.
At the current rate of population increase these resource scarcities will become
more frequent resulting in more major conflicts. Although our class discussions of
water among various nations in the Middle East: Israel, Syria, and Jordan. The
solution of the conflict between these nations would result from a complex
infrastructure of interdependence between them.
"we" and "they" mentality (this is what I have called the "us-and-them" mentality
insurrection.
Homer-Dixon cites is the Rio de Janeiro conference on the environment in 1992 his
This was the largest and most inclusive international negotiation in history. In
arduous meetings leading up to the conference, delegates from rich and poor
nations tried to work out preliminary agreements to protect biodiversity, ... (K&T
p308).
This then is one of the few things that is new about this entire issue of security
issues. An unprecedented world meeting on an unprecedented topic, the
environment. Unfortunately the result was once again quite predictable, consensus
was not achieved and many agreements that were tabled, were left unsigned mostly
It is interesting to note that Seyom's approach to the political world system very
example of one of these theories is the Land Ethic, proposed by Aldo Leopold in,
People, Penguins, and Plastic trees, edited by D. Vandeveer and C. Pierce. In his
theory Leopold posits the interconnectedness of all things on the earth. The
Seyom and Realists. Holistic theorists propose that by looking after the whole
globe as an entity all of the individuals of the world will also be taken care of.
Individualist theorists propose that by dealing with the individual the entire world
will be taken care of. Consider the analogy between holistic theorists and Seyom's
call for world order and organisation on an international level. The individualist
important actors in the world scene and given human nature this can not change.
One must look at these two conceptualizations and realize that neither will ever
exist as reality. They are two side of the same coin. International organizations
have had a very important role in the world over the last 40 years and are slowly
gaining legitimacy in the world scene. Some believe international organizations are
the only entities capable of dealing with issues that are increasingly trans-national.
cooperative efforts such as treaties (ban on nuclear testing) and coalitions (like
the U.N. and N.A.T.O). In this situation organisations like the U.N. and Nato are
not really international entities because for example the U.N. is susceptible to the
whims of each member of the security council, and has been largely controlled by
the hegemon the U.S.A. for its entire history. Increasingly we will find that utter
reliance on one or the other paradigm will lead us from false assumptions to false
conclusions. The reality of the world is somewhere between these two opposing
paradigms, and the most useful conclusions we can come to will be provided by some
sort of synthesis of the two.
WORKS CITED
M.T. Klare and D.C. Thomas, World Security: Challenges For A New Century, New
York: St. Martin's Press, 1994.
D. VanDeveer and C. Pierce, People, Penguins, and Plastic Trees, Oxford: Oxford
Press, 1989.