Thursday July 30 th, 2015

 Defining Security: ◦ “a relatively low probability of threat or damage to citizens, government, territory, resources, wealth and even values such as culture or identity” ◦ Security, then, a wide ranging concept  Both security and insecurity can often be imagined and unclear ◦ Canadian attitudes towards terrorism ◦ American experiences with Boston Marathon attacks and 9/11

 Geopolitics: “Association between a state’s political relationships and its geographical location”  North America, previous to the modern age, considered relatively safe ◦ Ease of travel, impact of computer, internet and hackers suggests that this could be changing  Security can also be associated with natural resources

 “Threats to physical place, person, or group or to important values felt by the community” ◦ Individual or group  Variety of threats ◦ Violence, military, economic, political, cultural, environmental  Universal insecurity versus local/regional insecurity  Conflict and an anarchic international order  Insecurity and the security dilemma ◦ Finite resources in the world

 Is conflict natural?  Conflict and war aren’t synonymous in this case ◦ War is actual fighting, conflict is everything but  Clausewitz: War is an extension of politics ◦ Must be governed by rules ◦ This definition, though, focuses on a response to insecurity, not aggressiveness

 Significant global divergence of experiences of terrorism around the world ◦ Many states in Africa, Asia, Europe and South America experience terrorism regularly ◦ Other European, North American and Australasian states have experienced it rarely  Both 9/11 and fall attacks in Australia and Canada have changed the interpretation of the threat (rightly or wrongly).  Illegitimate actors ◦ Sometimes state-sponsored (…though what this means is variable as well)

 Terrorists are typically politically alienated ◦ No trust in the system, no efficacy in the system ◦ Only way to be heard and make change is violence  Terrorism can be difficult to stop ◦ Can be effective method of changing systems  Responses of democratic states are often antithetical to the expectations of a democratic society ◦ Judiciary will often uphold laws of questionable constitutionality due to general fear of citizens and need to appear legitimate

 Intervention in another state’s affairs to alieve suffering of that state’s citizens ◦ What is defined as suffering can lead to abuses ◦ The “humanitarianism” of Empire  Takes on a new urgency in aftermath of WW2  The Responsibility to Protect (2005) ◦ The government and the individual in the eyes of the UN  What, though, is a legitimate intervention? ◦ Certainly to avoid a genocide, but logistical issues ◦ More imperialism?

 Negotiation, Mediation and Arbitration ◦ Hard to enforce decisions ◦ Also, in the latter case, often no one’s happy  Peacekeeping ◦ “Canadian invention” ◦ Lightly armed individuals whose role is to ensure maintenance of a ceasefire (usually ill-equipped to deal with fallout if fighting resumes) ◦ UN sanctioned – local is usually better  International governmental organizations are engaging peacekeeping more regularly.