This paper had been written in April 2007 in cooperation with Maris Cepuritis (theory of NATO like a medieval city/fortress) and Liga Berzina
What does NATO mean to you? Military organisation, defense Alliance, collective defense organisation or collective security organisation? This was the topic of discussions on the usual meeting of the Latvian team of the Community of Democratic Choice Youth Forum. Two views/allegories deserve our attention, which basically reflect the opinion of all of us.
First allegory is about NATO as a security umbrella that keeps all NATO members safe from direct military threats. This is possible because every aggressor knows that by attacking one of member states, it automatically is in a state of war with all member countries, which together form a great military force. The second point of view is by comparing NATO to medieval fortress and medieval city. NATO should be not as medieval fortress with high and thick walls, which is built on the edge of unattainable cliff and is reachable only by small and dangerous pathway. In our mind NATO should be more like medieval city which is a cultural and economical centre and also a seat of learning for surrounding territories, and in the times of peace is accessible for people of different backgrounds and different cultures to trade, share their culture, knowledge and basically to socialize. But during the times of crisis (war) this city still can protect itself by closing all the gates and putting their garrison on the walls and in the towers. Of course, fortress also can protect people of surrounding territories from foreign invaders, but fortress is advantageous only in times of military crisis, but city shares its benefits all the time. This distinction between medieval fortress and city better shows us that NATO should not only build walls and be a fortress; it must be more flexible and embrace much more diverse and broader cooperation, thus, developing cooperative security principle.
In the light of aforementioned, we propose to use more the concept of cooperative security in our discourse, when speaking about NATO. It has been generally used to describe a more peaceful, but rather idealistic, approach to security through increased international harmony and cooperation, and includes four concentric and mutually reinforcing “rings of security”: individual security, collective security, collective defense and promotion of stability. Individual security stands at the centre of any real international security system built around liberal democratic ideals. It is the essential basic value upon which a Cooperative Security rests. Collective Security looks inward to attempt to ensure security within a group of sovereign states. But a Collective Defense organisation looks outward to defend its members from external aggression, to defend the Self (group of states with collective identity, sharing common values) from the Other. The fourth and outer ring of Cooperative Security is the active promotion of stability outside the boundaries of the states forming this Cooperative Security system.[1] On the one hand, NATO already is a practical example of cooperative security – community of values, promoting stability in its extended neighbourhood. But on the other hand, it still has division lines. So, it is crucially important to promote this stability, not excluding, but including Others, especially significant Others. We do not need the emergence of a new dividing line in our discourse and our actions.
Nowadays we face a world where the very nature of threats to the security of states has changed - non-state actors like international terrorist groups have come forward and states do not pose an immediate threat to the survival of other states. Moreover, in the beginning of 21st century the concept of security has become more complex and must be understood beyond military terms, including also economic, social and environmental dimension. The world has “shrank” to global village, “flat” and interdependent area, making the need for cooperation and not confrontation a matter of development and survival, a chance to secure safe and stable environment for the future generations.
Since now NATO has been and has been seen as a collective defense organisation, which implies the Alliance of states, which poses collective identity, directed against Other(s). We believe this perception makes a physical and psychological division line between the common Self and Other(s), thus decreasing its contribution for development of safe and secure environment and in fact making it more insecure.
Wording, language and discourse have been underestimated not only in the analysis of the foreign policy of actors of the international relations, but also by these actors themselves. They have not paid sufficient attention to importance of social constructs. We believe that language is one of the instruments for construction of the social reality. “Language is not seen as describing a pre-existing social reality, but as a medium through which reality is created and the material world is given a meaning.”[2] It is crucially important not only how we act, but also how and what we are speaking about. Thus, building of identity (image) of a state (or another actor of the international relations) is a discursive practice. Although state identity (let’s take a state as a basic unit of the international system, although some scholars can disagree) derives from many resources, it reflects what others say about it and how they respond to it. This is known as the principle of Alexander Wendt “reflected appraisals” or “mirroring”, because it hypothesizes that Self (a state or group of states with collective identity, sharing common values) come to see themselves as a reflection of how they think Others see or “appraise” them, in the “mirror” of Other’s representations of the Self. If Self treats the Other though it were an enemy, then by the principle of reflected appraisals the Other is likely to internalize that belief in his own identity vis-à-vis the Self.[3]
“The Russian media exploded in anger at the news of U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ testimony before Congress on February 7. Presenting the defense budget for Fiscal Year 2008, Gates argued that Russia and China are “pursuing sophisticated military modernization programs” that could pose a threat to the United States. Russian commentators grabbed that comment and ran with it, declaring a re-launch of the Cold War at a time when feelings in Moscow are already running high about NATO’s plans to deploy missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic.”[4]
If we use the concept of “reflected appraisals” or “mirroring” in the instance, we see that not only actions, but also discourse, wording of the Secretary of Defense of the United States (member of NATO) facilitates the creation of the image/identity of Russia as the enemy state, which makes our “common neighbourhood” more insecure, and force Russia to behave and act in this way. Moreover, by heavily relying on the old scheme of inclusion/exclusion, a new dividing line emerges between us and them. By reflecting on NATO and calling it as the Alliance and collective defense organisation, we again draw the new diving line, including some and excluding others.
“Common vision for common neighbourhood” – we would like to hear in the rhetoric of our officials. Cooperation for security – we would like to see in the actions of our governments. Enlargement of this community of values, cooperative security organisation is a logical consequence, embracing new states, “news democracies”, which share common values and ideals. However, this democratic rhetoric has to be seen in the actions of the governments. There should not be a gap between words and deeds, no more double standards. Accession to NATO requires from the states not only the reformation of the military sphere, but also ensuring the rule of law and respect of the human rights, which are the basic tenets of democracy. Thus, NATO plays an important role in the sustaining of democratic reforms and democratic development of these “new democracies” as they aspire to join this cooperative security system. However, these “new democracies” should not create their own diving lines.
“For Georgia the whole of this year has been a year of good fighting evil, truth fighting falsehood and freedom fighting tyranny. They have tried a lot to make it a year of Georgia's destruction but you have made it a year of Georgia's construction. They wanted 2006 to be a year of Georgia's blockade and isolation, but you have made it a year in which Georgia has more allies and friends than ever before in its entire history,”[5] stressed the president of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili in his New Year speech. And this is only one example of the prevailing discourse among Georgian officials, which makes the distinction between the Self (Georgia) and the Other (Russia) and establish a boundary between them, constructing the external realm as different, inferior, threatening. But these discursive practices do not only contribute to the secure “common neighbourhood”, but even do not contribute to the peace and security of the community of values – NATO. According to the National Security Concept of Georgia, “Georgia views NATO as an organisation of collective defense that is the central mechanism for providing security and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area.”[6] Thus, it views NATO as an organisation, which looks outward to defend its members from external aggression. And the aggressor is obvious – the Russian Federation. According to the theory of “reflected appraisals”, more the Self is engaging in the antagonistic rhetoric, more antagonistic is becoming the Other. Does it make our ‘common neighbourhood’ more secure? The answer is no. Instead of spending their times on creation of new boundaries, “new democracies” should engage in cooperation for security. As a result their efforts to join NATO will not be perceived as a headache for the members of this community of values, instead their integration will be perceived as an asset for ensuring stable, secure and peaceful environment. Rationalists can point, that in order to define yourself, you should say who you are not, that the definition of difference is a requirement built into the logic of identity. But is this creation of boundaries between states the best way to ensure security and stability?
Going back to our second allegory – medieval fortress/city – we would like to stress that in our mind NATO should lower its walls and towers in the same time broadening its territory and focusing on other aspects of life so it would become a more friendly place for sharing different views, knowledge, culture and wealth and become a centre for promoting cooperation, stability, knowledge, and universal values – so NATO could truly become a cooperative security organization.
First allegory is about NATO as a security umbrella that keeps all NATO members safe from direct military threats. This is possible because every aggressor knows that by attacking one of member states, it automatically is in a state of war with all member countries, which together form a great military force. The second point of view is by comparing NATO to medieval fortress and medieval city. NATO should be not as medieval fortress with high and thick walls, which is built on the edge of unattainable cliff and is reachable only by small and dangerous pathway. In our mind NATO should be more like medieval city which is a cultural and economical centre and also a seat of learning for surrounding territories, and in the times of peace is accessible for people of different backgrounds and different cultures to trade, share their culture, knowledge and basically to socialize. But during the times of crisis (war) this city still can protect itself by closing all the gates and putting their garrison on the walls and in the towers. Of course, fortress also can protect people of surrounding territories from foreign invaders, but fortress is advantageous only in times of military crisis, but city shares its benefits all the time. This distinction between medieval fortress and city better shows us that NATO should not only build walls and be a fortress; it must be more flexible and embrace much more diverse and broader cooperation, thus, developing cooperative security principle.
In the light of aforementioned, we propose to use more the concept of cooperative security in our discourse, when speaking about NATO. It has been generally used to describe a more peaceful, but rather idealistic, approach to security through increased international harmony and cooperation, and includes four concentric and mutually reinforcing “rings of security”: individual security, collective security, collective defense and promotion of stability. Individual security stands at the centre of any real international security system built around liberal democratic ideals. It is the essential basic value upon which a Cooperative Security rests. Collective Security looks inward to attempt to ensure security within a group of sovereign states. But a Collective Defense organisation looks outward to defend its members from external aggression, to defend the Self (group of states with collective identity, sharing common values) from the Other. The fourth and outer ring of Cooperative Security is the active promotion of stability outside the boundaries of the states forming this Cooperative Security system.[1] On the one hand, NATO already is a practical example of cooperative security – community of values, promoting stability in its extended neighbourhood. But on the other hand, it still has division lines. So, it is crucially important to promote this stability, not excluding, but including Others, especially significant Others. We do not need the emergence of a new dividing line in our discourse and our actions.
Nowadays we face a world where the very nature of threats to the security of states has changed - non-state actors like international terrorist groups have come forward and states do not pose an immediate threat to the survival of other states. Moreover, in the beginning of 21st century the concept of security has become more complex and must be understood beyond military terms, including also economic, social and environmental dimension. The world has “shrank” to global village, “flat” and interdependent area, making the need for cooperation and not confrontation a matter of development and survival, a chance to secure safe and stable environment for the future generations.
Since now NATO has been and has been seen as a collective defense organisation, which implies the Alliance of states, which poses collective identity, directed against Other(s). We believe this perception makes a physical and psychological division line between the common Self and Other(s), thus decreasing its contribution for development of safe and secure environment and in fact making it more insecure.
Wording, language and discourse have been underestimated not only in the analysis of the foreign policy of actors of the international relations, but also by these actors themselves. They have not paid sufficient attention to importance of social constructs. We believe that language is one of the instruments for construction of the social reality. “Language is not seen as describing a pre-existing social reality, but as a medium through which reality is created and the material world is given a meaning.”[2] It is crucially important not only how we act, but also how and what we are speaking about. Thus, building of identity (image) of a state (or another actor of the international relations) is a discursive practice. Although state identity (let’s take a state as a basic unit of the international system, although some scholars can disagree) derives from many resources, it reflects what others say about it and how they respond to it. This is known as the principle of Alexander Wendt “reflected appraisals” or “mirroring”, because it hypothesizes that Self (a state or group of states with collective identity, sharing common values) come to see themselves as a reflection of how they think Others see or “appraise” them, in the “mirror” of Other’s representations of the Self. If Self treats the Other though it were an enemy, then by the principle of reflected appraisals the Other is likely to internalize that belief in his own identity vis-à-vis the Self.[3]
“The Russian media exploded in anger at the news of U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ testimony before Congress on February 7. Presenting the defense budget for Fiscal Year 2008, Gates argued that Russia and China are “pursuing sophisticated military modernization programs” that could pose a threat to the United States. Russian commentators grabbed that comment and ran with it, declaring a re-launch of the Cold War at a time when feelings in Moscow are already running high about NATO’s plans to deploy missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic.”[4]
If we use the concept of “reflected appraisals” or “mirroring” in the instance, we see that not only actions, but also discourse, wording of the Secretary of Defense of the United States (member of NATO) facilitates the creation of the image/identity of Russia as the enemy state, which makes our “common neighbourhood” more insecure, and force Russia to behave and act in this way. Moreover, by heavily relying on the old scheme of inclusion/exclusion, a new dividing line emerges between us and them. By reflecting on NATO and calling it as the Alliance and collective defense organisation, we again draw the new diving line, including some and excluding others.
“Common vision for common neighbourhood” – we would like to hear in the rhetoric of our officials. Cooperation for security – we would like to see in the actions of our governments. Enlargement of this community of values, cooperative security organisation is a logical consequence, embracing new states, “news democracies”, which share common values and ideals. However, this democratic rhetoric has to be seen in the actions of the governments. There should not be a gap between words and deeds, no more double standards. Accession to NATO requires from the states not only the reformation of the military sphere, but also ensuring the rule of law and respect of the human rights, which are the basic tenets of democracy. Thus, NATO plays an important role in the sustaining of democratic reforms and democratic development of these “new democracies” as they aspire to join this cooperative security system. However, these “new democracies” should not create their own diving lines.
“For Georgia the whole of this year has been a year of good fighting evil, truth fighting falsehood and freedom fighting tyranny. They have tried a lot to make it a year of Georgia's destruction but you have made it a year of Georgia's construction. They wanted 2006 to be a year of Georgia's blockade and isolation, but you have made it a year in which Georgia has more allies and friends than ever before in its entire history,”[5] stressed the president of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili in his New Year speech. And this is only one example of the prevailing discourse among Georgian officials, which makes the distinction between the Self (Georgia) and the Other (Russia) and establish a boundary between them, constructing the external realm as different, inferior, threatening. But these discursive practices do not only contribute to the secure “common neighbourhood”, but even do not contribute to the peace and security of the community of values – NATO. According to the National Security Concept of Georgia, “Georgia views NATO as an organisation of collective defense that is the central mechanism for providing security and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area.”[6] Thus, it views NATO as an organisation, which looks outward to defend its members from external aggression. And the aggressor is obvious – the Russian Federation. According to the theory of “reflected appraisals”, more the Self is engaging in the antagonistic rhetoric, more antagonistic is becoming the Other. Does it make our ‘common neighbourhood’ more secure? The answer is no. Instead of spending their times on creation of new boundaries, “new democracies” should engage in cooperation for security. As a result their efforts to join NATO will not be perceived as a headache for the members of this community of values, instead their integration will be perceived as an asset for ensuring stable, secure and peaceful environment. Rationalists can point, that in order to define yourself, you should say who you are not, that the definition of difference is a requirement built into the logic of identity. But is this creation of boundaries between states the best way to ensure security and stability?
Going back to our second allegory – medieval fortress/city – we would like to stress that in our mind NATO should lower its walls and towers in the same time broadening its territory and focusing on other aspects of life so it would become a more friendly place for sharing different views, knowledge, culture and wealth and become a centre for promoting cooperation, stability, knowledge, and universal values – so NATO could truly become a cooperative security organization.
[1] Richard Cohen, „Cooperative Security: From Individual Security to International Stability” in Cohen R., Mihalka M., Cooperative Security: New Horizons for International Order. The Marshall Center Papers, No. 3, 2001. http://www.marshallcenter.org/site-graphic/lang-en/page-pubs-mcpapers-1/static/xdocs/coll/static/mcpapers/mc-paper_3-en.pdf
[2]Peter Wennersten, “The Politics of Inclusion. The Case of the Baltic States.” Cooperation and Conflict, vol. 34, no.3 (1999): 274
[3] Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge, NY, Melbourne, etc.: Cambridge University Press, 1999): 327
[4] Rose Gottemoeller, Bob Gates and the New Russia Threat. Carnegie Moscow Centre, 15.02.2007.
http://www.carnegie.ru/en/pubs/media/75569.htm
[5] The New Year message of the President of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili. 01.01.2007. http://www.president.gov.ge/?l=E&m=0&sm=1&st=30&id=2114
[6] National Security Concept of Georgia. http://www.mfa.gov.ge/?sec_id=24&lang_id=ENG
1 comment:
Good for people to know.
Post a Comment