Unique Regional Security Challenges

In the realm of international relations, security is a word without a universally accepted definition. Most scholars agree that it implies freedom from threats to core values, for both individuals and groups, but there is a major disagreement about whether the main focus of inquiry should be on individual, national, or international security (Lamy). Adding to the disagreements stemming from the idea of security is the question of whether specific regions of the globe have their own unique set of security challenges. Structural realists assert that all states respond to anarchy and the security dilemma in the same way, while the constructivist viewpoint would say that regional history and culture would dictate very different reactions to the security dilemma.

                To a structural realist, there are no differences in the way that states in any area of the world would handle the conditions of anarchy or the security dilemma. Each state should react to these situations in the same way due to the way the international structure acts as a constraint on state behavior. It does not take into consideration human nature or the strategies and motivations of certain actors, but rather values the restrictions of international society and hierarchy. The opposition from constructivists takes into consideration the cultural and historical backgrounds of the region. It places a high value on what motivates certain actors to take certain actions, instead of the rigid constraints of the international structure.

                The theory of the structural realists, while interesting to study, is not necessarily a theory that is valid in the context of today’s global society. The vast regional differences between various areas of the globe are more evident than ever, and differences in security problems are reflective of these differences. There are many more factors influencing the security of certain regions of the world than can be explained by simply citing the alignment of the international structure. These include the technological gaps in security issues faced by certain regions, as well as the problems created by individual states that comprise the regions.

                It is a fair assertion to make that countries perceived as more developed tend to have a technological advantage when compared to other nations who are not perceived in that way. For instance, such developed nations as Japan, the United States, China, and most Western European nations are consistently the leaders in patent applications and patents granted. According to the most recent data from the World Intellectual Property Organization, the nations with the most international patent applications are the United States, China, Japan, and South Korea. In contrast, some of the lowest application figures come from nations such as Madagascar, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, and Kenya, all nations that are not exactly the embodiment of developed states.

                By continuing to grow technologically, developed nations gain a decided military advantage over non-developed nations. The patents granted to high-tech firms in the United States and other nations can often be used to develop military strength through new technological engineering, resulting in increased weapons systems and equipment for soldiers in the field. In comparison, the nations who lack the ability to innovate technologically are pushed further and further into military irrelevance as the rest of the world moves toward new modes of warfare. This can create a huge security issue for a less technologically developed nation that is bordered by or in close proximity to a nation that is highly technologically developed and that has a strong military equipped with highly technical weaponry. However, this situation is not applicable to every region, which makes regional differences in security issues a very diverse field.

                Additionally, the specific nations comprising the regions are a factor in the security issues faced by a region. If a region is made up of states that face massive internal distress, such as revolutions or other forms of instability, the region will inherently become unstable as well (Acemoglu). Conversely, if a region is composed of stable states facing few to no internal challenges, it will most likely be a stable region as well. This can be seen in the region of Eastern Africa, where the conglomeration of weak and unstable states like Sudan, South Sudan, and Somalia destabilizes the entire region and creates a nightmare for security concerns in the region (Fatau Musah).

                Obviously, with some regions experiencing such diverse challenges, there can’t be just a one-size-fits-all response to every security issue encountered by every nation in the world. The structural realist perspective of all security dilemma resolutions being resolved in the same way is just not practical when all of the unique regional and state factors are taken into consideration. The constructivist theory of regional history, cultures, and additional factors playing a key role in state reactions to security challenges makes much more sense when examining the actions taken by and the motivations of specific states.

Bibliography

Acemoglu, Daron, and James A. Robinson. Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty. New York: Crown, 2012. Print.

Fatau Musah, Abdel. West Africa: Governance and Security in a Changing Region.Africa Center for Strategic Studies. International Peace Institute, 2009. Web. 1 Dec. 2012.

Lamy, Steven L., and John S. Masker. Introduction to Global Politics. New York: Oxford UP, 2011. Print.

WIPO IP Facts and Figures, 2012 Edition. Statistics on Patents. World Intellectual Property Organization. Web. 1 Dec. 2012.