Relative Security

Post #2

The concept of security can be interpreted in many different ways. Is someone secure if they seal themselves off from the rest of society, or if they have the power to protect themselves from any external or internal threat? Is a remote Amazonian tribe more secure than the United States? The threat that faces them is a much different threat then what the President is briefed on, but does that makes their threat less dangerous? While a realist perspective might not give much credit to a relative gain or threat, I buy more into the constructivist school of thought. The threat that faces the United States such as nuclear war or the current crisis in the Ukraine is something that is very dangerous, but the threat or deforestation or local warfare that could face a tribe or village that nobody has ever heard of is relatively just as dangerous. In both cases, the way of life of both societies can be put under threat, and that makes them the top priority for people living within those respective societies.

            When examining security on a global scale between the major actors, the stakes are obviously much higher for who it effects. That is because the paradigm that these world leaders are living in is that their decisions will effect every single person in the world. They are not incorrect in assuming this, as a nuclear war would undeniably disrupt the world and what people do in some way or another. In a global community the consequences are felt globally, and these leaders are aware of that when measuring how much security they have. In current events, the intervention of Russian troops in Syria by Putin is a way of expanding the sphere of influence of Russia. He is making a clear statement of this falls within Russia’s hegemony, and they have a clear security intention in this. If American troops put troops and military bases in Syria, that is dangerously close to the Russian border, so Putin makes it clear this is his area to intervene. With the global powers, the actions they take to protect their own security will have ripple effects throughout the world and many other countries, and it could possibly threaten the ways of life of some of the people that they are interfering with.

            Comparatively, if a small tribe in the middle of a jungle is at odds with another tribe, the threat is relatively just as big as the United States having a base next to the Russian border. In both cases, one society is under threat from the other. If you were to ask a leader of the tribe how serious this potential war is, it would clearly be very serious. Similarly, if you asked Putin how serious it would be to have United States soldiers in Syria, his answer would be very serious. In both cases, the relative threat is the same.

            While the possibility of a war between the United States and Russia is clearly a bigger danger to the world than a small tribal war, the relative threat for the people living in these societies is the same. A loss could mean the end of their way of life and all they hold dear.