Dealing With Emerging Powers, Essay Example

Abstract

The contemporary world is characterised by the dominance of uncertainty. Thus, the system of homeland security has to address various potential threats and factors that might undermine its efficiency. The aim of this paper is to analyse the challenge of emerging powers for the US homeland security. In this regard, the issue is analysed in terms of the security response to the matter and the rationale for this type of strategy. Moreover, the cost-efficiency and potential consequences of this strategy are also outlined.

Key words: homeland security, strategy defence issues, emerging powers.

The Issue of Emerging Powers

After the end of the Cold War, the world did not become safer irrespective of the expectations of many stakeholders. The bipolar stability of rivalling blocks was no more, and the age of global uncertainty, and unpredictable security issues began. In this regard, various national security strategies had to evolve together with the changes of the global and strategic environments. While some challenges like interstate conflict were more predictable terrorist attacks on the American mainland were less so. However, in a long run, there are certain features of the global development that might become a potential threat to the national and global security if they are not addressed accordingly at their current stage of development. One of such ambiguous phenomena is the aspect of emerging powers. The aim of this paper is to address the issue of emerging powers in the framework of the American strategic dealing with the issue and its on-going or ad hoc nature.

The issue of emerging powers was addressed in terms of defence context on the early stage of the issue development. Already in 1999, the potential of new rising powers and consequent change of status quo on the global scale became evident. This concern was triggered by the events in Bosnia and Kosovo, together with the uncertainty of international perception of the newly created independent state (Nicholson, 2005). In this regard, the new type of conflicts and their peace-support element made the conventional military actions less effective in the achievement of the new objectives and the role of new global actors and those that were gaining power became more evident. On this matter the national assessment of the global environment of 1999 stated:

“The United States will be both absolutely and relatively stronger than any other state or combination of states. Although a global competitor to the United States is unlikely to arise over the next 25 years, emerging powers – either singly or in coalitions – will increasingly constrain U.S. options regionally and limit its strategic influence. As a result we will remain limited in our ability to impose our will, and we will be vulnerable to an increasing range of threats against American forces and citizens overseas as well as at home.” (New World Coming, 1999).

Consequently, the primary implication of the issue of global emerging powers is in the uncertainty of the path of their development and the ideal and values they would acknowledge and follow. In this regard, the multiplication of emerging regional powers could result in the destabilisation of various regions of the world and consequent destabilisation of the global security. Moreover, due to the endurance of the principles of the international law and merging of the peace support operations with the counterinsurgency realities, the use of military means alone without the support of international community and the emerging regional powers would simply undermine the American status on the global arena without achieving posed objectives (Alperen, 2011). In this context, the different means were to be applied in addressing the issue of the emerging powers.

The solution found was not an ad hoc decision but was conditioned by the American strategy of cooperation with the post-Soviet countries and spreading of democratic values. In this regard, the addressing of the problem was viewed form the systematic and positivist perspectives. In other words, instead of treating emerging powers as a direct source of threat for the American global dominance, the emerging powers were perceived as a source of the future strengthening of the global security and safety (Lennon and Kozlowski, 2008). The stress was placed on assisting countries in the development of democratic values as a way of the future cooperation with emerging powers and making them allies in building strong international and regional security. This could be achieved only through a constructive dialogue and involvement of the emerging powers into the resolution the security matters (Reveron, Gvosdev and Mackubin, 2014).

Another consideration of the strategic assessment of the emerging powers is in their potential of sharing the burdens of the regional and global securities. In this regard, due to the budgetary constraints of defence sector in most of the western countries including the US, the emerging countries that request more participation in the global affairs are suggested to take more responsibilities in terms of stability and security concerns (Reveron, Gvosdev and Mackubin, 2014). With the on-going national defence budget undercuts international coalitional contingent operations are inevitable and require substantial support from the emerging powers:

“We must be clear-eyed about the factors that have impeded effectiveness in the past. In order for collective action to be mobilized, the polarization that persists across regions, race, and religion will need to be replaced by a galvanizing sense of shared interest. Swift and effective international action often turns on the political will of coalitions of countries that comprise regional and international institutions. New and emerging powers who seek greater voice and representation will need to accept greater responsibility for meeting global changes. When nations breach agreed international norms, the countries who espouse those norms must be convinced to band together to enforce them”  (The White House, 2010, p. 13)

Consequently, the American approach to the issue is systematic assistance in the participation of the emerging powers in the resolution of the security challenges through the principles of the international law. This is meant to be achieved through the encouragement of cooperation between various states, development of a functional dialogue and exchange of experience on various levels (Nicholson, 2005). This strategy was evolving gradually and gained its systematic nature after a decade of modifications. Thus, it was well-developed strategy rather than an ad hoc reaction to an unpredictable situation.

Regarding the cooperation of departments in the implementation of the strategies regarding the emerging powers, the primary responsibility was placed on the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and DoD. The nature of the cooperation between the two departments was in combining the common understanding of how emerging powers were transferred from the category of a threat to an asset (Chertoff, 2011). In this regard, the distinction was made between allies and potential partners on the regional scale. While the DoD would expand the cooperation with allies in a more military design, the Foreign Affairs department   had to work on the use of non-military means of regional and international cooperation, creation of forums for the emerging countries to take part and spread common security values (Nadkarni and Noonan, 2012).

In terms of spreading common democratic values, the Department of Foreign Affairs had to work closely with the Department of Education, since various educational programs were launched in the framework of global cooperation and partnership with the emerging powers. For instance, one of the educational initiatives was between the US and UK in 2013 aimed at encouragement of university collaboration with the emerging powers aimed at strengthening of common values and shared view of the future of the globalised world (Reveron, Gvosdev and Mackubin, 2014).

Since the issue of emerging powers has an ambiguous nature in terms of security, meaning it might be an asset or a threat depending on the developmental features of each country separately, the cooperation between different agencies remains more indirect rather than single-targeted. In this regard, various departments can be involved in a single project that aims at emerging powers, as in the case of US-UK cooperation, however due to the indirect nature of threat emerging powers can pose and the choice of diplomatic approach to interaction with these countries, the primary authority over this issue is in the realm of the Department of Foreign Affairs (Nicholson, 2005).

In terms of the variables that explain the strengths and weaknesses of the response, the primary variable is the lack of certainty in the potential threat emerging powers can pose in the future. In this regard, treating them as a direct threat would be counterproductive and would make them a threat with any pre-emptive measures such as the current strategic approach to them.  Thus, the application of the positive response of the potential threat creates an opportunity to change it from a threat into an asset, which is particularly functional in the case of an indirect threat or limitation of action (Lennon and Kozlowski, 2008). In this regard, by approach emerging powers in diplomatic and mutually beneficial developmental ways, encouraging their participation, leadership and responsibility of regional and international matters, US can achieve more positive results than by the application of the coercion of any form (Chertoff, 2011).

Moreover, another factor in this regard is that, nowadays, with the hybridisation of warfare and increased pressure on the defence sector, the use of non-military means often can achieve more, particularly in the case of regional security. Another consideration related to this one is that contemporary military actions are extremely expensive and unpopular among the American population (Morag, 2011). Although in some cases, coercion might function, without the support of regional allies and present emerging powers the political implications of the intervention can undermine military success achieved on the ground. The same can be the case due to the budgetary considerations:

“The most urgent pressure on current defence plans is fiscal. Whether or not the recent sequestration process persists, the core defence budget will shrink from its recent peak. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concludes that, under sequestration, future defence budget (in 2013 dollars) will decline from DoD planned levels of roughly $530 billion per year between 2015 and 2021 to amounts beginning at $475 billion in 2015 and climbing only gradually to $489 billion in 2021” (Mazarr, 2013, p. 2).

Consequently, the crucial factor emphasising the strengths of the given response is that it more cost-effective than direct military actions without a support of allies and emerging powers in consequent regions. From a long-term perspective, it is more effective to create a favourable environment of cooperation and sharing security responsibilities in various regions rather than going after the threats to the American security on its own (Alperen, 2011).  Furthermore, the American presence in various regions is largely conditioned by the absence and reluctance of the regional emerging powers to take responsibilities by themselves. Consequently, by encouraging more vibrant regional security cooperation, the US would be able to decrease its practical presence in various regions and concentrate more on the national security and other matters (Morag, 2011).

In terms of the overall costs of this response, as it was mentioned above, due to its indirect nature to security, it is not part of the security budget concern but is a part of foreign affairs cooperation program, which involves multi-faceted cooperation with diverse countries aimed at stabilisation of regional development and security (Nicholson, 2005). Therefore, instead of spending money on separate program that would most likely duplicate existing developmental and partnership initiatives, the response through the encouragement of cooperation and exchange of experiences proves to be cost-effective and systematic in its nature (Reveron, Gvosdev and Mackubin, 2014). Another crucial element of this type of responses is that the US aims to demonstrates emerging powers that being leader does not only mean a stable economic growth and military potential, but also contribution to the regional security and taking responsibilities for the regional trends of development and stability (Alperen, 2011).

In terms of the diplomatic perspective, this response demonstrated the necessity of a constructive dialogue between various nations and the key role of diplomacy in it. Although it could have been argued that such a resolution of the issue would create an extra pressure on the diplomatic service, in fact, it is not so. The rationale is that the emerging power initiative fits perfectly well into existing direction of global cooperation and stabilization of security and achievement of developmental goals (Chertoff, 2011). In a long run, the implication of this response is the sharing of the burden of regional and global security between the US, it allies and emerging powers.

Overall, from all mentioned above, it can be concluded that the American strategy in response to the emerging powers issue passed various stages until its present crystallisation. However, it was not an ad hoc decision, but well-analysed strategy. The choice of this response was largely conditioned by the changes in strategic and global political environments and already high costs of the defence sector. This response was the most rational since it has an opportunity to change potential challenges into assets and partnerships.
References

Alperen, M.J. (2011). Foundation of Homeland Security: Law and Policy. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Chertoff, M. (2011). Homeland Security: Assessing the First Five Years. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Lennon, A. and Kozlowski, A. (2008). Global Powers in the 21^st Century: Strategies and Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Mazarr, M.J. (2013). Discriminate Power: A strategy for a Sustainable National Security Posture. The Philadelphia Papers, 2. Retrieved from https://www.fpri.org/docs/Discriminate_Power_Mazarr_et_al.pdf.

Morag, N. (2011). Comparative Homeland Security: Global Lessons. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Nadkarni, V. and Noonan N. (2012). Emerging Powers in a Comparative Perspective: The Political and Economic Rise of the BRIC Countries. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic.

New World Coming: American Security in the 21^st Century (1999). Report of the United States Commission on National Security/21^st Century. Retrieved from http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/nssg/NWR_A.pdf.

Nicholson, W.C. (2005). Homeland Security Law and Policy. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas Publishing.

Reveron, D. Gvosdev, N. and Mackubin, T. (2014). US Foreign Policy and Defence Strategy: The Evolution of and Incidental Superpower. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

The White House (May 2010). National Security Strategy. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf.