The concept of security and Canadian defence policy
Date
1991
Authors
Young, Jennifer Mary
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Conventionally the concept of security has been defined as the ability of autonomous states to protect all national interests by whatever means considered necessary. Sovereign states were seen to have the right to protect their territory and citizens from internal instability and especially external threats. This conception has been viewed as increasingly problematic. Many have argued, for example, that the traditional conception of security does not take into account the increasing permeability of states economically, environmentally, technologically and culturally. Consequently, unless a revised concept of security has been developed it is difficult to conceive of policies that might generate more effective forms of global stability.
This analysis is less concerned with developing a new or revised concept of security, than with an analysis of the limits of the present conceptualization. The approach taken in this thesis involves an examination and use of the concept of security, through a form of discourse analysis in both an official state policy position paper (the 1987 Canadian White Paper on Defence Policy) and in a theoretically sophisticated reappraisal of the concept of security by Barry Buzan in People, States, and Fear; The National Security Problem in International Relations.
In order to situate these two works, the thesis begins with a broad assessment of contemporary theories of international relations and their assessment of the concept of security. The thesis then goes on to analyze, compare, and contrast the four Canadian government White Papers on Defence Policy issued since the end of the Second World War, exploring how the 1987 paper fits into the overall policy direction of the successive Canadian governments. In each of these White Papers, the concept of security has been presented in the conventional sense of protection of sovereignty, territorial integrity, participation in collective security arrangements (NATO and NORAD), prevention of internal strife, and participation in global peacekeeping.
This thesis shows the limitations of the discourse used by both the White Paper and by Buzan and how this has the effect of marginalizing positions that are critical of the security. Building on assumptions that are taken for granted, but which express an understanding of political life that is arguably inconsistent with contemporary realities, these texts simply reproduce the problems they seek to resolve.