The NATO Citizen
2004-10-28 20:50:45 UTC
Toward the sociological study of NATO and security communities.
Thu, Oct 28 2004
by ESLaPorte
http://www.pronato.com/commentary/index.htm
While this Author was critical in the past of the security studies field,
it was meant to point out that there are other viewpoints in NATO and
security community studies. The problem is that the military security field
continues to dominate and appears to systematically exclude other viewpoints
and other fields that study NATO and security communities.
The revelation is that one can study NATO and the Atlantic Community as a
security community in a non-military prospective and with a theoretical
framework that has nothing to do with military strategic studies.
The first reason is that part of the definition of "security community," as
given be Adler and Barnett (1998) and was defined by Karl Deutsch as "a
group of people that had become integrated to the point that there is a real
assurance that the members of that community will not fight each other
physically, but will settle their disputes in some other way" (p. 6). This
definition also includes a common identity and that social problems are
resolved without the use of force. The establishment of a security community
does not occur only and exclusively through the perception of an external
threat. Likewise, the maintenance of a security community does not require
an external threat or some new "security dilemma," and a security community
does not depends upon military integration.
The second reason is that NATO is a security community. Fotios Moustakis
(2003) points out that NATO has never been just an "anti-Soviet" alliance,
but a pluralistic security community (an intergovernmental type SC) who's
job during the Cold War was not only defense against Soviet aggression, but
to prevent force among NATO members, which includes France and Germany.
NATO, argues Moustakis, who's study is focused on the Greek -Turkish
conflict over Cyprus, admits that a sense of community and common
non-military interests play a part in defining NATO as a PSC.
What is troubling is that the study of security communities as non-war
communities that have more than some external threat "holding them together"
has not just been neglected. This viewpoint and theoretical framework appear
to be systematically excluded in NATO and transatlantic studies in favor of
the Cold War military-defensive framework, which is still dominate,
including in NATO itself. Our Alliance needs to have an understanding that
the Cold War military-defensive framework is not the only framework that
defines the North Atlantic Alliance.
Well, it is about time that the other sociologically-oriented, framework is
considered as part of the discussion in NATO studies. The equal
consideration of the sociologically-oriented framework is not only part of
academic freedom and expression, but this theoretical framework can help our
NATO Alliance understand what it is as a social and political entity, and
can help our Alliance greatly understand that it is more than just defining
threats and military defense.
Thu, Oct 28 2004
by ESLaPorte
http://www.pronato.com/commentary/index.htm
While this Author was critical in the past of the security studies field,
it was meant to point out that there are other viewpoints in NATO and
security community studies. The problem is that the military security field
continues to dominate and appears to systematically exclude other viewpoints
and other fields that study NATO and security communities.
The revelation is that one can study NATO and the Atlantic Community as a
security community in a non-military prospective and with a theoretical
framework that has nothing to do with military strategic studies.
The first reason is that part of the definition of "security community," as
given be Adler and Barnett (1998) and was defined by Karl Deutsch as "a
group of people that had become integrated to the point that there is a real
assurance that the members of that community will not fight each other
physically, but will settle their disputes in some other way" (p. 6). This
definition also includes a common identity and that social problems are
resolved without the use of force. The establishment of a security community
does not occur only and exclusively through the perception of an external
threat. Likewise, the maintenance of a security community does not require
an external threat or some new "security dilemma," and a security community
does not depends upon military integration.
The second reason is that NATO is a security community. Fotios Moustakis
(2003) points out that NATO has never been just an "anti-Soviet" alliance,
but a pluralistic security community (an intergovernmental type SC) who's
job during the Cold War was not only defense against Soviet aggression, but
to prevent force among NATO members, which includes France and Germany.
NATO, argues Moustakis, who's study is focused on the Greek -Turkish
conflict over Cyprus, admits that a sense of community and common
non-military interests play a part in defining NATO as a PSC.
What is troubling is that the study of security communities as non-war
communities that have more than some external threat "holding them together"
has not just been neglected. This viewpoint and theoretical framework appear
to be systematically excluded in NATO and transatlantic studies in favor of
the Cold War military-defensive framework, which is still dominate,
including in NATO itself. Our Alliance needs to have an understanding that
the Cold War military-defensive framework is not the only framework that
defines the North Atlantic Alliance.
Well, it is about time that the other sociologically-oriented, framework is
considered as part of the discussion in NATO studies. The equal
consideration of the sociologically-oriented framework is not only part of
academic freedom and expression, but this theoretical framework can help our
NATO Alliance understand what it is as a social and political entity, and
can help our Alliance greatly understand that it is more than just defining
threats and military defense.