John J. Herz's essay "Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma", is of great ontological significance and has laid the groundwork for many International Relation theorists to understand that why, in spite of the emergence of states and governments, is man perpetually insecure and why is a man unable to be virtually free. He provides a "Realist Liberalism" explanation to the security dilemma the global community faces today which takes a more nuanced approach in trying to find the balance between Political Realism and Political Idealism.
Political Realism is contingent on the idea that man preys on man "homo homini lupus", where the main threat to the security of a man is another man. This approach has been taken by many Realists, like Morganthau, who owe the pending security crisis in the world to the 'evil inclined' agency of a man. Idealists on the other hand accept that there is a state of harmony which can be realized through a 'leap into the realm of freedom'.
Herz assumes socially conditional concepts like nationality, freedom and harmony to be natural units which man constantly tries to internalize by employing idealist or integral nationalism. By taking a corrective approach to the idealistic and utopian perception, Herz contradicts the idea that internal anarchy can be isolated from the internationalist forum. On philosophical and moral grounds, he contests the idea that Revolutions are isolated events - in fact, Revolutions, which are more than often inevitable consequences of mass security dilemmas, can create a domino effect of intellectual stimulation which can offset nations on end to test and question, how much freedom and security is enough? Moreover, how far can harmony be measured and implemented in a classless society? What seems to be the problem perhaps is the realization, not that the security dilemma is a relevant issue, but more that freedom and security are not interdependent; instead, they are inversely related.
Currently, there has been an upsurge in terrorism which has manifested itself in a global security dilemma rather than an internal or national security dilemma. Through the lens of Realism, we seem to be stuck in a security crisis, 'a vicious circle' and we seem to know no way out of it. The 'freedom' fighters, have claimed to fight for their freedom, but what has blurred the distinction between freedom and war is the fact that these freedom fighters have become a threat to not only their own freedom but the security and freedom of the international community. Assuming that Revolutions and wars have no boundaries, what perhap s has accentuated the potential threat to security is the idea of limitless freedom.
Political Realism is contingent on the idea that man preys on man "homo homini lupus", where the main threat to the security of a man is another man. This approach has been taken by many Realists, like Morganthau, who owe the pending security crisis in the world to the 'evil inclined' agency of a man. Idealists on the other hand accept that there is a state of harmony which can be realized through a 'leap into the realm of freedom'.
Herz assumes socially conditional concepts like nationality, freedom and harmony to be natural units which man constantly tries to internalize by employing idealist or integral nationalism. By taking a corrective approach to the idealistic and utopian perception, Herz contradicts the idea that internal anarchy can be isolated from the internationalist forum. On philosophical and moral grounds, he contests the idea that Revolutions are isolated events - in fact, Revolutions, which are more than often inevitable consequences of mass security dilemmas, can create a domino effect of intellectual stimulation which can offset nations on end to test and question, how much freedom and security is enough? Moreover, how far can harmony be measured and implemented in a classless society? What seems to be the problem perhaps is the realization, not that the security dilemma is a relevant issue, but more that freedom and security are not interdependent; instead, they are inversely related.
Currently, there has been an upsurge in terrorism which has manifested itself in a global security dilemma rather than an internal or national security dilemma. Through the lens of Realism, we seem to be stuck in a security crisis, 'a vicious circle' and we seem to know no way out of it. The 'freedom' fighters, have claimed to fight for their freedom, but what has blurred the distinction between freedom and war is the fact that these freedom fighters have become a threat to not only their own freedom but the security and freedom of the international community. Assuming that Revolutions and wars have no boundaries, what perhap s has accentuated the potential threat to security is the idea of limitless freedom.
In the globally integrated economic conditions of today, the concept of freedom is a fabricated illusion. Interdependence between states and even more crucially dependence on economic hegemons by weaker countries means that true sovereignity is almost impossible to acheive. Perhaps the wave of neoliberalism has left the world more open to trade but also more insecure. With economic exploitation comes the need to be free, not the kind where one would do what he\she wanted if there were no consequences, but of the sanctions themselves.
ReplyDeleteThis is a bold statement to make: "...but more that freedom and security are not interdependent; instead, they are inversely related." Here I'd push you to reconsider your argument. Aren't these systemic issues that make the two appear inversely related when, in fact, the two are actually interdependent?
ReplyDeleteIn terms of terrorism, although it is a more pronounced problem here in Pakistan, in the grand scheme of things, it really isn't a major, systemic problem. Instead it is actually a small problem of the garden-variety type.