Chair: Prof PR Chari
Speaker: Prof TV Paul

PR Chari:

I welcome Prof Paul to the IPCS. He is no stranger to the institute and has been with us in the past. Globalization has a long history; it has been traced to the Industrial Revolution, European colonialism and the maritime trade. The result of globalization, an ongoing and constantly evolving process is the shrinkage of international space due to developments in technology, communications/information revolution and so on. Nation-states need to recognize that globalization is an unstoppable process.

This process has its upside and downside, it all depends on your point of view. For example, from information technology can be viewed as positive when it improves the quality of life, but can also be viewed as negative, since it permits cyber crime. These examples can be multiplied.

The changing nature of security derives from a broadening of its ambit from traditional/military security to include non-traditional/non-military security, as also human security. The IPCS has undertaken number of projects in these extended areas of security, more precisely; we have done studies on migration issues, energy security, human security, and the linkage between governance and security. Our latest publication on Alternative Approaches to Security focuses on identity, governance and generic issues relating to non-military security. All these studies focused on India, more generally South Asia, but they were cognizant of the process and effects of globalization.

Prof TV Paul:

Thank you, Prof Chari. It is always a pleasure to be back here at the institute, which is a place I keep coming back to. My talk is based on a joint project that will be published in the form of a book.

There is an increasing proliferation of literature to argue that the process of globalization has weakened the national security state. The core functions of the state viz. provision of security is increasingly under threat, but the state as a welfare provider and guarantor of security is losing its relevance. There are various factors to justify this point of view; some of them are: the absence of major inter-state wars in past decades, the avoidance of balance of power strategies by states, the decline in military expenditure and the rise of transnational challenges like terrorism, AIDS and environmental issues. These factors challenge the nation-centric focus of security.

The current project is to assess the challenge to the nation-state and assess its response to globalization. Various aspects of globalization, especially its economic aspects are probably the most important dimension of the globalization process. They have increased economic interdependence and transnational linkages, the movement of capital across nations, and the reach and revenue of transnational corporations (TNCs). There are revolutionary changes also in communication technologies.
 

The process of globalization has tied to capitalism. Money markets have been internationalized; TNC's reach has extended as also their influence. At the same time there is a widening disparity between the rich and the poor. In the cultural sphere, there is a simultaneous trend towards identities becoming problematic as well as the notion of a common world culture. Therefore, globalization should be seen as a multi-faceted phenomenon with intensification of its economic, political and cultural aspects.

National Security States

The traditional function of the national security state has primarily been protection of its territorial borders and core values by military means. The state has been the referent of security to provide security for the state. States focus on threats from other states and view them through the prism of military power. States trade with each other but the process is geared towards increasing national power. The national security state works with the logic of self help, relative gains are important in these games, and war making is a function of the state.

The question this project asks is has globalization affected the parameters of this traditional national security state?

The available evidence suggests that:

1. There is a shift from inter-state wars to civil wars, ethnic wars; Clausewitzian war is declining and the notion of national security is increasingly seen as being wide;

2. National conscription is now obsolete all over the world;

3. Defence spending: When we began the project there was a steady decline all over the world. Though now we believe that defence spending is increasing;

4. Most military doctrines are defensive in nature, rather than offensive;

5. There are no more intense BOP politics, but there is evidence of soft balancing;

6. Military forces are increasingly being deployed on policing functions;

7. States are privatizing security. This is true is especially true in Africa, where non-state actors are increasingly important participants;

8. There is a tendency for regional organizations to ensure security;

So there are signs of the national security state being undermined. For this we created a systemic framework:

1. Major Powers:
   United States - Ascendant Power
   China - Rising Power
   Russia - Declining Power

2. Cooperative Regional Sub-systems:
   Europe
   ASEAN
   Mercosur

3. Competitive Regional Sub-systems:
   South Asia
   West Asia

4. Failing States:
   Most of Africa

We have arrived at two main conclusions. First, that globalization has not weakened the nation-state and their functions remain the same, viz. the endeavour to protect. Defence spending has actually increased over time. Globalization has affected the security of states, but only on the margins. It has expanded the scope of threats, which has had little effect in stable areas. For weak and failed states, while being heavily influenced by globalization, they derive no benefits from the process. This is not to say that globalization will not change the character of the national security state, but right now it is difficult to hazard how much.

PR Chari:

While defence and deterrence are animating South Asia's military establishment, it is 'offence' that is increasingly being stressed now, for example Kargil. Despite the changing nature of security threats, the emphasis remains on military security. Is it the military-industrial complex which drives the security discourse away from its human and non-military dimensions to focus on the military function?

Discussion

Question:

There has been a basic change in thinking about security, strategic objectives have changed. In this era only limited war is possible; so and there is a change in attitude due to globalization, now the aim is not to fight and win a war but to avoid wars.

TV Paul:

The avoidance of long wars in general can be traced to economic reasons, of states losing markets and being left behind due to economic damage.

Question:

Prof Paul, your conclusions are not based on your exposition. The deterrence bit is only functional in the nuclear arena. All plans, military doctrines are offensive in nature. You mention there are no large scale conventional war, then what about Iraq. In Asia, the role of the state has not diminished, at least not in China, Japan and India. The reasons for the limitation of wars are economic as also due to unbearable international pressures. What about the religious challenges to globalization? The categorization of India is difficult. How would Thomas Friedman categorize the United States in America?

TV Paul:

It is difficult to focus on every aspect of any phenomenon. Globalization has different perspectives and states are reinventing themselves. As for the location of India in the framework constructed for this study, it is difficult to place it; it is at the level of a rising power, but is not yet a major power.

Question:

The national security state will not disappear, it is not possible. If states can dominate, they will. It is difficult to locate India as it has no vision of a rising power, all we have are attributes. Has globalization weakened the state? South Asia is not globalized, will the process lead to absence of war through pipelines and economic integration? Globalization lead to threats of a non-traditional nature, capital flows, HIV concerns.

TV Paul:

It is difficult to believe why water sharing has not been as acrimonious as was predicted. Chinese nationalism is the strongest nationalism anywhere in the world, a Machiavellian real-politic world. What does China want? It is a complicated rising power; there is no vision on the part of China; what do they offer to the world?

Question:

The process of globalization affects states differently. It appears to depend on from which level the states make an entry into the process. A good example is the failed and the failing states in Africa. Another example is Greece, which has had to contend with decreasing military budget to get its finances straight for the entry into the EU and on its need to have good defences vis-à-vis Turkey. So for a time there was a competing needs on both fronts which had to be managed.

TV Paul:

Yes, the Greek example is perhaps unique and a very good case of a rapprochement of conflicting objectives under pressure of globalization.

Comments:

Within the states, non state actors are becoming more significant, in certain areas like water resources. Energy and water issues are becoming more relevant. The notion that democracies do not go to war needs to be questioned. The Indian Prime Minister’s US visit is related to energy needs that affects the globalization process…water wars which were predicted have not happened, solutions have come up and it needs cooperation. As for the energy deficiency staring at the world, the China-US competition maybe linked to fossil fuels and control of natural resources as well as Taiwan. Globalization implies free flow of goods and capital. The best security is to improve the lot of the people and this includes greater economic development and raising the standards of living.

Concluding Remarks

PR Chari:

Thank you, Prof Paul, for a very perceptive talk. The most significant lesson to be derived from the process of globalization and the changing nature of security is that new and emerging security threats require nations to cooperate meaningfully with other nations. This is not happening due to many reasons, one of which is the unilateralism pursued by the world's sole hegemonic power. The United States cannot expect multilateral cooperation on a selective basis from other states while pursuing its own interests, logic the Bush administration seems to be oblivious about.