Importance of National Security Essay Sample

A national security program is an endorsed explanation of how a state aims to guarantee its security and that of its population: it imitates the national comprehension of the risks and menaces to the security atmosphere, as well as the principles and beliefs that should guide the state to preserve the nation’s security. State security policies take into account national values and concerns, governance structures and decision-making processes, and generally lead to a continuing vision of the state security. State interest is a reasoning of the leadership referring to the aspirations and purposes of an autonomous state, whether financially viable, military establishment or cultural. The "national interest" is an inherent part of the sphere of international relations, as its emergence has seen the progress in various ways of managing state-to-state relations, as well as "political arithmetic". The quest of the national interest is the foundation of the realist school of international relations. According to Morgenthau, the national interest is also explained in terms of power. Morgenthau also argues that all actions taken by a state are for the sole purpose of demonstrating, preserving and increasing its power. Therefore, there is a connection and tension between national security, national interest and power. Due to the tension between national security, national interest and power, it is evident that a state's quest for security can be destabilizing even though international structures can sometimes assist with mitigating the pernicious effects of the security dilemma as cooperation evolve from state-to-state interactions.

Being on their own in a cutthrough world which is an anarchy, nations leverage self-help since they are to take part in contests, oppositions, and skepticism. Thus, national interest is the ambit of every nation to keep breathing.  National interest is recognized as economic, cultural, religious, military, or political objectives and aspirations communicated through policy makers to head of states. it is a set of first principles for a state. It makes up the essence of foreign policymaking. Evidently, states are dedicated to securing the goals of their national interest. Morgenthau, declared the significance of national interest is survival, the defense of natural resources, political and cultural identity against infringements by other nation-states. Morgenthau also depicted two categories of national interest, vital and secondary. Vital concerns survival of the state (including war if necessary) and secondary pertains to anything the state maybe willing to compromise on. 

As such, it is clear national interest is inherently a question of security. In this context, nations need protection against external threats or other nations. They may be a nuisance to their survival. National interest is shaped by geopolitical issues which also affect the relations with other states. Another important element to point out is the fact that capabilities across the states are not allocated evenly and this is correlated to the geopolitical circumstances. This is due to how power associations were established in the world. Consequently, states act to demonstrate, preserve and increase their power. Some states are thus dominant while others are less powerful. Therefore, national security is persistence and can be disrupting. This means that there is a struggle of power between states to get to a safer place. In an anarchy, power is scarce which makes it a vital source for security. Ultimately, this quest for power and security produces a security dilemma which is when one state's efforts to increase its own security causes other states to fear a decrease in its own security, thus decreasing the originals state's security. This can result in conflict even when states are actually rational and not essentially acting out of anger.

Since power is the foundation of stimulus in security in an anarchy, most states came to the realization that international structures could help in protecting their interests and the international interest with the stronger states as leaders in that structure. With a strong hegemonic commitment, a strong common interest, rules that are followed and violations that are punished, international structures can mitigate the pernicious effects of the security dilemma. However, the international regime can be weakened by a lack of a strong hegemonic dedication.  It is evident that international structures do not work all the time due to many factors including: the lack of central authority, states still maintaining their offensive military capabilities, states not having the assurance that other states will not attack. As such everyone is in survival mode even though they are in a group that is supposed to lessen the risks of being in an anarchy. For example, there have been numerous cases of violation by certain States of Security Council (at the UN) resolutions, which have gone unpunished. Also, there was a lack of commitment of the United State after the 2001 attacks which were considered attacks on American values for which the United States reserved the right to respond by exercising its right to self-defense. As a result, neither the UN nor NATO were not called upon in the fight against "international terrorism". Indeed, in the name of the right to self-defense, the United States (one of the states with greatest power) gave itself the power to act unilaterally and to take preventive action where it deemed it necessary. This, regardless of whether or not there was a real threat. This constituted a factor of instability, because:

• It rehabilitated war as a means of politics and plunged the international system into a permanent state of war.
• American unilateralism and preventive war also worried American allies.
• Preventive war constituted a calling into question of the structures of the international system of which the United States were the architects and which, however, have never served their interests.
• The feeling of mistrust with regard to possible American strikes against a country suspected of developing weapons of destruction massive (ADM), could increase concern and discredit any possibility of diplomatic settlement of the matter.

Thus, within this framework, cooperation is not excluded, but it is not a priority. It is therefore almost never global or permanent, but restricted, particularly in the area of international security, within circumstantial alliances, dangerously rivals and inevitably in cyclical conflicts. In reality, it just shows that collective security does not work all the time to minimize the security dilemma in all situations, but it does not undermine it. In this case, one of the main current threats to international security is nuclear proliferation against which all the superpowers and the considerable number of States cooperate.

It is fair to say that the quest for security is destabilizing for the international security because of the security dilemma that is increased when states look at increasing their amount of power even if it is to defend themselves. International structures can help with mitigating the security dilemma however, the greatest power in those organizations will have to be committed to the cause and not take advantage of their own power to do whatever they desire when they believe it necessary. Finally, even though a hegemony may be powerful, it cannot do without others. Especially since nowadays, there are threats that require the mobilization of all States and in the face of which international consultation becomes imperative. This is the case with climate change, weapons of mass destruction and international terrorism.