[i]

Deborah Avant

Transnational nonstate actors working in parts of the world where the state is weak have become an important part of the increasing trend toward the privatization of security. An increasing security role for these actors may transform the conceptualization of security and the use of force more generally. In particular, there is evidence that international NGOs and transnational corporations think about security and how to achieve it differently than states have traditionally, and these differences have consequences not only for which problems are addressed but for whether and how force is used in the communities where they operate.

The 1990s witnessed a debate on how to define security and its study. At one extreme were traditionalists who argued that security was a fixed concept intimately connected with states and their use of violence [ii]. At the other, arguments built on the assumption that security was a social construction and thus who was secured and from what depended on the social context [iii]. In different contexts, security was said to entail economic opportunity, environmental preservation, access to health care and much more. Many claimed that broadening the conception of security could inject new resources, energy and drive into important issue areas as well as potentially redraw relevant political boundaries [iv].

What has become known as the Copenhagen School took a position that drew from both sides of this debate. They argued that security was socially constructed, through speech acts. The process of making something a security issue, what they termed “securitization,” however, brought a fixed conception of security in contact with new issue areas. The concept of security, they claimed, “carries with it a history and a set of connotations that it cannot escape” [v]. Once “securitized”, an issue will evoke images of threat, enemies and defense and allocate the state an important role in addressing it. As a result, the politics surrounding the issue will be transformed.

Securitization is at once a theory about the process by which issues move in and out of the security realm and a critique of those who argue for too quick a move to broaden security. The Copenhagen School argued that successful securitization contained threats. By evoking the possibility of violence and implying a “them” against which violence might be employed, securitization portends an instability, intolerance and enmity that renders it a morally questionable strategy for many issues [vi]. Following this logic, we might expect that if private actors successfully invoke the discourse of security surrounding their issue, it will likely to lead to a different politics with less tolerance, more consideration of the use of violence and more enmity between those on different sides of an issue.

Others, however, suggest that an actors’ identity might affect its conceptualization of security [vii]. While states’ identities have historically revolved around the creation of political communities of “us” and “them”, many nonstate actors have mandates that stand in explicit contrast to that notion. For different reasons, both NGOs and corporations have specific commitments to “apoliticism”; the fulfillment of their respective mandates requires that they not make enemies or take sides [viii]. One might imagine, then, that this commitment might lead nonstate actors – even those facing violent threats – to think of security and how to generate it in a different way.

The unfolding of debates about security among NGOs and then corporations in the last couple of decades suggests that as nonstate actors wrestled with security issues, they increasingly rejected traditional notions of security. NGOs, particularly, but also some corporations increasingly attempted to transform the language of security and the political processes that surround it rather than allowing a “securitization” of their issue areas. In particular, the efforts of nonstate actors to treat protection from loss as “apolitical”, rather than taking sides, have yielded a more inclusive and process-oriented conception of security that rests on the notion of a security triangle – which is quite different from the absolute divides, enmity and emergency powers associated with state-based security [ix]. Because of what they see as the limits to their legitimate claims and actions, non-state actors have used the language of security differently in ways that also portend different behavior. Private security companies that want to cater to these actors also increasingly adopt different language and different behavior. For instance, ArmorGroup makes specific reference to its cultural sensitivity in supporting development and reconstruction in post-conflict zones and has reconsidered the use of things like fences and/or barbed wire given its impact on local perceptions.

This suggests potential for the idea of security itself to be transformed where nonstate entities play a larger role as they currently are in Sudan. The privatization of security may not only diffuse control over violence, it may simultaneously encourage appeals to different principles – universal processes to resolve conflicts without the use of violence rather than notions of us and them. This trend can be seen not only in the NGO community, but also (in the wake of NGO pressure) among some transnational corporations. The experience of Shell in Nigeria is a paradigmatic example of this but broader buy-in is suggested by the development of the “Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights”. This is a multi-stakeholder initiative supported by the US and UK governments designed to guide oil and mining companies in maintaining the safety and security of their operations in developing countries while also fostering respect for human rights [x].

[i] The following is excerpted from, “NGOs, Corporations and Security Transformation in Africa,” International Relations Vol. 29, No. 2 (2007).
[ii] Stephen Walt, ‘The Renaissance of Security Studies,’ International Studies Quarterly Vol. 35, No. 2 (June 1991), 211-40; Richard Betts, ‘Should Strategic Studies Survive,’ World Politics Vol. 50, No. 10 (October 1997).
[iii] Jessica Tuchman Mathews, ‘Redefining Security,’ Foreign Affairs Vol. 68, No. 2 (spring 1989), 162-188; Barry Buzan, People, States and Fear, (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1991). See also review in Roland Paris, ‘Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?’ International Security Vol. 26, No. 2 (fall 2001).
[iv] Tuchman Mathews, ‘Redefining Security’.
[v] Ole Weaver, ‘Securitization and Desecuritization,’ in Ronnie Lipschultz, On Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995), p. 47.
[vi] Weaver, ‘Securitization and Desecuritization’; Barry Buzan, Ole Weaver and J. de Wilde, Security: a New Framework for Analysis, (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1998).
[vii] See for example, John Ruggie, ‘Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity: Toward a Neorealist Synthesis,’ World Politics, Vol. 35, No. 1 (January 1983); Ronald Jepperson, Alexander Wendt and Peter Katzenstein, ‘Norms, Identity and Culture in National Security,’ in Peter Katzenstein ed., Norms and National Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996). For arguments about identity related to actors other than states, see Margaret Keck and Katherine Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998); Michael Barnett and Martha Finnemore, Rules for the World: International Organizations in World Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004).
[viii] An organization’s mandate refers to its overall purpose and is often distinguished from its mission, which refers to its reason for operating in a particular situation.
[ix] With acceptance at one corner, protection at another and deterrence at the third, the security triangle attempts to merge classic NGO acceptance strategies with pragmatic steps to protect from loss and the use of leverage – even if only diplomatic – to ensure security. The traditional view of state security is stylized here. Though it may not be a good reflection of security as practiced by states in the current era, it is a longstanding view of the essence of security among states.
[x] http://www.voluntaryprinciples.org/. Bennett Freeman, ‘Managing Risk and Building Trust: the Challenge of Implementing the Voluntary Principles on security and Human Rights,’ remarks at Rules of Engagement: How Business Can Be a Force for Peace conference, The Hague, 13 November 2002.