In the globalizing world, Realpolitik-oriented and authoritarian state paradigms have been gradually shrinking. The phenomenon is recognized as a Post-Westphalian principle of the state which was leading to evolving of the state into a more transparent model and declining in statism.
Within this framework, obsolescence of statism has prompted the creation of unprecedented outlooks transforming ‘traditional security’ perspective to broad apprehension: New security challenges. These concepts can be extended from environmental security to identity protection. Nevertheless, the state is still playing a crucial role in the international system and obliged to be a safeguard for its citizens under the umbrella term of ‘human security’. In order to follow this agenda, the state has to generate efficient ways combating with new security concerns like climate change, illegal migration, public health. However, the most critical development posing a unique threat to human security is global terrorism because terrorists operate beneath the sensor of the international system and can exercise state-like destruction without bearing the burden of state-like responsibility. In this context, conventional security studies cannot serve the state to eliminate terrorism because contemporary terrorist groups exploit state indecisiveness and governmental toleration. By two different ways, it provokes capable countries to authorize their enforcement mechanism on behalf of the new human security outline situating retrograding ‘nation-state’s sphere of influence even worse. The first method is imposing sanctions via strong unilateral designations. Second encapsulates direct intervention to the nation state by labelling it as a ‘terrorist hideout’.
A Competent Way to Neutralize: Sanctions
Security relations today are about the divergences between old security mentality and new security dilemmas. Human security is also an equally complex issue as changing paradigms in security logics composing of compact layers. Nonetheless, the military branch of human security has been prioritized especially after 9/11 event. Recent tragedies have exacerbated the situation. Currently, citizens request their governments to act as the frontline respondent to new security threats. Thus, citizens have bequeathed their private security to the state and, in response, the state is expected to practice its prerogatives to their benefit. Imposing sanctions have become a prominent instrument in this manner. Although the fundamental modifications in legislation have enacted in 2004, the US Department of State has been designating countries like Sudan, Syria, Iraq and Cuba to “State Sponsors of Terrorism” list via analysing states’ direct relations with global terrorism since the 1980s. According to the act, countries which were categorised as terrorist supporters are penalised by three laws: Section 6(J) of the Export Administration Act, Section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and Section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act. These unilateral restrictions include prohibition over weapons exports, financial pressure and even full-scale embargo. Furthermore, as strategic partners of the military-industrial leader, Western allies and NATO members also internalize these patterns. In this new security circumstance, Cuba has been encountered with substantial processes under the US sanctions until 2013. Cuban economy and foreign affairs have been under severe sanctions since 1982 by being accused of harbouring Columbian and Spanish left wings groups. The nation could not achieve long-term development owing to the US’s and its collaborators’ complaints. Finally, in Country Terrorism Report of 2013, the US has decided that there has been no concrete indication revealing the Cuban government providing weapons or paramilitary training to terrorist groups in Colombia and Spain but simply the US’s providences hence the sanctions are no longer valid. Therefore, Cuban national authority was discounted and its economics was suffered quite a while by the wrong analyses of the US under human security concept.
Intervention: An Alternative to Sanctions?
In comparison to legal sanctions, military operations provide the state to interfere human security cases in a more direct way since it can be justified under international law since the security concepts are still at the core position in the state system. Moreover, anarchic conditions and obsolescence of the nation state escalate the situation. From this perspective, “War on Terror” case can be descriptive. President Bush declared, right after 9/11, that the US would ‘make no distinction between the terrorists who committed the attacks and those who harbor them’. Then, global campaign against terrorism was introduced by the US. Within a short time, Ba’athist Iraq was targeted as states constituting safe heaven and providing potential ‘nuclear warheads’ to terrorists. Consequently, while aiming to eradicate Iraqi network of al-Qaida, legitimacy and security concerns of Iraq were not highlighted even though there was no proof of practical cooperation between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi regime. After eight years, Iraq was separated into two parts and internal instability of the nation have prepared a basis for further human security threats by the new terrorist group similar to al-Qaida but with a different name this time: ISIS.
Conclusion
Global terrorism has become an outstanding risk against human security because deepened globalization has offered terrorists new instruments and extraordinary profile. States seek to combat with the issue, however, terrorists abuse highly interconnected world environment and use countries as hideouts. This problematic nexus between the decadent nation-state and terrorist groups encourages powerful states to exploit nation-states’ legitimacy and security by force and legislation power without considering the target countries’ real features and dynamics sincerely.
