National Security and Society

I want to present two videos today that demonstrate how national security is reflected in the media. It is not only those in power, ie. the government, that define the term national security, but the media has a powerful role here as well. In the first video, the pertinent part of it is at the beginning where Senator Hart describes the expanding nature of national security so that it is no longer simply defined in military terms, but economic and environmental terms too. The second video is a Fox News report where the host proclaims near the end that the actions of the environmentalist group preventing the oil drilling are a threat to national security. In this case, he is discussing national security in terms of economic security as well.

I will present these videos as they are today. In the next entry, I will present Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky's propaganda model to try and deconstruct this news report. In the meantime, I want you to be aware of some of the systematic biases that may exist in mass media and consider where these biases may come from.

After one week of working on this I just wanted to clarify some questions or issues that were raised to me concerning the blog in its first week.

Several people that have visited have said that they "don't have anything intellectual to say" or they are "having trouble coming up with something to say." Assuming that this is not due to my inability to convey my thoughts in writing, I wanted to clarify this issue. Although this is a major project for a 4th year class, it is not intended to merely engage with those in the class or those in a legal studies program. It is designed to engage readers from every field of study and work. This entails asking questions that not only have to do with the discussion at hand, but also asking questions regarding some of the underlying concepts that you may be unsure of or some definitions that need to be clarified.

With that said, I have had a few discussions about last week's blog post via e-mail and IM with some people. This ranged from some spelling and grammatical errors that I had, which needed correcting, to actually discussing the analysis at hand. I would encourage this to continue but would also like to further this blog by having you post any questions sent to me personally be posted in the comments section of the entries as well.

Last week’s article and discussion laid the groundwork for understanding how national security can be used as an ideological tool. In Robin’s article from last week, he made mention of President George Bush’s State of the Union Address before the invasion of Iraq. For this week’s analysis, I thought it would be useful to look at that important address before the invasion and look at how the threat to the United States was defined. After all, the concept of national security implicitly requires a related threat to that security.

For this week, the related item that will be analyzed (President George Bush's State of the Union Address in 2003) is available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

The threat, whether it is the much talked about terrorist threat of present day or the communist threat of the past, seems to have some common elements to it. One of these elements is the omnipresent nature of the threat. A supposed threat that has no geopolitical centre or transnational in nature seems all the more menacing as the threat cannot be definitively constructed. If that is the case, the threat can never be truly eliminated and as a result there is always a fear in the back of the minds of everyone in society that the threat could emerge at any time. As Bush said, “Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.” In essence, what is conveyed to the public is an omnipresent threat, which in reality may or may not exist but nonetheless could strike at anytime. Thus, the threat nipped at the bud and taken care of before it can emerge.

Another criteria that these threats to national security seem to possess is an unusual desire to subvert the underpinnings of a society without any limitations on their means of doing so. That is to say, those who are defined as a threat are somehow different in nature to the rest of the population because they only possess murderous intentions. This is evident in Bush’s speech when he said that this new threat had “ambitions of cruelty and murder [that] had no limit.” Hence, once the threat becomes defined in such a menacing fashion, people naturally look to defend themselves from this threat.

Once the threat is defined, this is where the concept of national security begins to emerge. As soon as people accept the belief in the existence of an omnipresent and menacing threat, they look for protection against this threat. In stark contrast to the so-called villain in this scenario, those in charge of protecting society, in this case it is the government, are cast under a very different light. This stark contrast in roles is evident in Bush’s State of the Union Address when he stated that, “…we [the United States government] are called to defend the safety of our people, and the hopes of all mankind,” as well as assuring that he “will defend the freedom and security of the American people.” Consequently, two images emerge. One of the vicious terrorist focussed on destroying Western society, and the other image of a heroic President and his government there to protect mankind.

As a result, it is this seemingly heroic government that casts itself in the role of defending a nation’s security. There is little if any objection to the government’s role in this situation. After all, individual citizens are not likely to possess the tools necessary to protect themselves from such an ominous threat. Additionally, if this threat is so potent, then people are willing to impose some restrictions on themselves in order to combat this threat. In the minds of the people, longer waits at airports and the targeting of certain groups deemed to be a threat becomes an acceptable consequence if the other option is impending disaster at the hands of these “outlaws.”

For background on the following discussion, please refer to:

Robin, Corey. “The Language of Fear: National Security in Modern Politics.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Hyatt Regency Chicago and the Sheraton Chicago Hotel and Towers, Chicago, IL. 30 Aug. 2007. <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/1/1/5/5/p211551_index.html> [15 October 2008].

What makes the term national security such an easy term to wield and manipulate is the perceived objectiveness behind it. As Robin notes in his article, there is an inherent controversy in something like morality, religion, and politics that makes it difficult for those in power to use these terms in such a way as to gain the consent of the general population. The term national security, or even security in general, has more of an objective nature to it. That is, it is difficult for one to argue against the protection of individuals and the sovereignty of a nation.

To this end, society in general chooses to hand this protective role over to the state. From this point, it is up to the state (those who are in power) to protect national security. It is here where the ideological nature of national security emerges. The first step in protecting a nation’s security begins with identifying what the threat is. From here, a lot of discretionary decision-making occurs and for the most part, who is determined to be a threat to national security is usually who the government can pander the most fear towards.

As Robin discusses, the state provides its’ population with a lens in which they look through. This lens gives the population a perspective in which they see things, with different lenses providing different perspectives. As history has demonstrated, the state often switches lenses and different groups of people are cast as threats to national security, depending on which lens is being applied.

Before this so-called terror threat to Western society, there was an alleged communist threat that would threaten to undermine the national security of these Western countries. Many parallels can be drawn from the "Red Scare" era and this post-9/11 era. One of them is the identification of the enemy, or more appropriately, the perceived identification of an enemy. It is important to look at how the House Committee on Un-American Activities distinguished between a communist and a non-communist. What factors were used in determining communist from non-communist? In present day, the question would be how to distinguish between a terrorist and a non-terrorist. How does one distinguish between the two? Consequently, how the threat is identified is determined by those in charge of protecting society from that threat.

Likewise, even if the criteria used in determining the type of person who is a threat is properly identified, one must ask whether these people are a legitimate threat to national security to begin with. That is to ask, was this so-called communist threat capable of subverting national order in much of the same way, as we would ask if this so-called terrorist threat is capable of subverting the national order?

In this sense, what I have illustrated to you is that the term national security is not as objective as the protection of Canadian safety, but rather it is a politically constructed term. If we look at the rhetoric surrounding national security today and replace the term “terrorism” with the word “communism,” we see an almost identical framing of perceived threats to national security. There are always groups on the outside who are deemed as threats to the well-being of those who are on the inside. These threats are capable of being embellished so as to justify certain preventative measures, which often involve surrendering some civil rights. Yet, this surrender is accepted because it is perceived to be a necessary sacrifice in protecting national security. As Robin notes on page 15 of the article, “Security is an ideal language for suppressing rights because it combines a universality and neutrality in rhetoric with a particularity and partiality in practice.”

Beginning this week, I will be making periodic entries in this blog. Taken straight from my major project proposal, "One of the primary goals of this project will be to look at the extent to which political activism can be curtailed and other civil liberties diminished in the name of national security. To this end, it will be important to discuss how the term national security is constructed and who is responsible for constructing it. Overall, the blog will demonstrate how state actions that would otherwise likely be unacceptable to the majority of the population are instead accepted as a means to protect national security."

While I will be analyzing resources such as academic articles and media items in my blog entries, it is hoped that you, as the reader, contribute as much to this project as I will. This entails you, the reader, to engage in the discussions that are taking place. I will be using a very journalistic style of writing that takes a particular stance on something. That way, individuals from all fields of study and practice will be able to participate and ultimately, it is hoped that a discourse will be generated.

Whether you agree or disagree with my analysis, have questions (whether something needs defining or if you need clarification on something discussed), have contributions to the layout of the site, or have feedback on what issues I should discuss in upcoming blog entries, I encourage you to leave me a comment in any of the entries. What you, as the reader, contribute will be as much a part of this blog as my analyses are.