I have recently been asked by Dave Frame whether there are states which do not threaten violence when they are threatened, and whether these threats do not keep the people in these countries ultimately safer.
There are many possible approaches to answering these questions and I will try to cover a few different angles here.
Are states always violent?
Some have argued that the state as an institution is prone to the use of violence. Charles Tilly said
‘War made the state and the state made war’
The idea is that there may be a connection between the organised use of force and the emergence of the modern state. This particularly targeted at European state formation. For example after the French revolution, France was able to raise a citizen army, bigger than the previous professional armies, which revolutionised warfare. Since then war became more and more “total”, especially with the involvement of strong fascist states until World War II.
If the state is the problem by definition, then perhaps it is worth considering the state as the primary unit of international politics, can we change it? Can we change the institutional structures in which international politics is conducted? If so, in what way? Some people argue that the state in its current form is losing power anyway, to international organisation and regimes.
What exactly do states protect?
We also need to consider that the safety of the people is by no means synonymous with the safety of the state. In fact, the state can be the greatest threat to the security of its people, e.g. through human rights violations. As a result the term “human security” has been introduced to capture the idea of keeping people safe.
It has been argued that above all the state defends itself as an institution, mainly consisting of its governance structures and clearly defined territory. Noam Chomsky suggests another interpretations, that
‘States are violent to the extent that they have the power to act in the interests of those with domestic power … ‘
What I’m trying to say here is that we need to nuance our idea of what the state is, what it protects and which means it is willing to use to protect what or who.
Does the use of force make people safer?
So, depending on the threat a state is responding to and for whose protection this could make the countries’ people more or less safe. We just need to think about a few examples:
Is Ukraine’s “civil war” fought to protect the Ukrainian people? Who are the Ukrainian people? From what are they protected, e.g. violence in general, Russian control, self-determination (depending on standpoint)?
Did the war on terror make American citizens safer? From terrorism, from attacks in the Middle East or in their own ideology, lifestyle? Did it strengthen the American state, its government? Did that make the people safer?
I think it is possible that in certain instances the aggressive behaviour of states can ensure their citizens physical safety. However, I would point to two limitations of that approach:
- State aggression will not lead to a more harmonious relationship with other states and societies, so the safety that can be achieved through violence is very limited. This point also leads back to what security you think is possible based on your view of human nature, see my post on Are humans naturally violent?
- It is also worth pointing out that the aggressive behaviour of states equally leads to the escalation of conflicts which endanger their citizen, such as in the case of World War I.
Thus I think where you stand on this question depends on what sort of security you’re aiming at and whether you think aggression is more likely to protect people than to endanger them unnecessarily.
Are there peaceful states?
Even though states are generally quite aggressive, there are instances when states do not respond violently to issues which most states would respond to violently.
One example is the UK accepting the prospect of losing a substantial section of its territory based on a popular vote. Secessionist struggles around the world lead in most cases to a violent response by the state, because territory is as mentioned above such an integral part of the state as an institution. However the UK does not consider Scotland’s secession a threat. Arguably democratic states in general seek other ways of dealing with this issue, think of Canada and Quebec.
So really, it comes down to what the state sees as an existential threat. George W Bush labelled international terrorism and existential threat and tried to use force to stop it. Many states consider threats on their people a threat, in some cases they don’t. This leads us to the issue that really whether a state uses force in response to something depends on how it constructs reality, what is a threat and what is not. If it is a threat how dangerous is it.
What about the people in other states?
Here we come to another issue. While states may care about protecting their own people, there are intense arguments as to whether they are also responsible for the lives of people beyond their borders. This is typically understood in the context of humanitarian interventions and a UN document called the Responsibility to Protect, which demanded international intervention when governments violently abuse the rights of their populations, suggesting other states do have a duty to protect people outside their borders.
This responsibility can be understood in two ways, either it gives states to duty to use force against those who are seen to threaten the populations of other states. Or, it gives them a duty to also consider the citizens of other states when they are using violence to defend their own populations.
So …
I think Dave is right, states do tend to behave violently when they are (or consider themselves to be) threatened. However sometimes they don’t feel threatened even when their core defining characteristics are on the line. States do not always make threats when their citizens are in danger; in fact, often they put them in danger themselves.
Whether the threat or use of violence is really any good at protecting a state’s citizens really depends on how you compare this possibility to the danger of creating a violent confrontation out of nowhere, thus endangering your citizens. It is also a question of what sort of security you want to realise. You might be able to secure the physical security of a people but perhaps there will never be a positively peaceful relationship.
Sorry, I realise I got a bit carried away here, I still think I’m only scratching on the surface here …
Sources:
http://billtammeus.typepad.com/my_weblog/2014/08/8-22-14.html
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
Picture:
Ask a Pacifist 