National Security v. National Interests - avq

National Security v. National Interests

I believe that national security correlates with what both the government and society perceives to be relevant and pressing at that particular given moment. In other ways, you could even say that my perception is that of a constructivist. There is no predictable outcome since international politics are ever so changing. For instance, you cannot say that current issues were the same twenty years ago. They may perhaps have a similar matter. However, if you were to inspect the correlation between the year and historical context, it is visible that national security usually ties with the national interest. A great example of this is the Vietnam War. The US’ objective was to prevent the spread of communism in the South-Eastern Asian countries, which led to millions of men combating against the ideology of communism. Was this a national security threat? Not really. Was this a national interest? Hell yeah, it was. If the US were to win, then the US could achieve its underlining goal of globalization. Also, the US would have a better foothold among the super nation community. 

Another example of national security and interest in the post 9/11 effects. For instance, after the attack, citizens were fearful of another assail, and in order for the government to assure that the US is still active, the Senate ratified the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. In layman’s term, the US government is allowed to infringe on certain individual rights if it aids in preventing attacks. This act was for national security. However, since national security generally correlates with national interests, the US began to blur the fine line between security and privacy. This correlates with Wolfers’ argument that national security can signify anything that the leader defines it to be. If the nation’s security is to ensure that the government is capable of identifying domestic threats via infringing personal privacy, then the government believes that they have all the right to do so. Hence, it becomes the national interest in hailing transparency. 

Security tends to be one of the government’s foremost critical objectives in the country. Throughout the years, the world has drastically changed from a world where communication came via letters and in-person conversations to sending a SnapChat and instantly being able to reply. The new world that we are living in requires a new definition of security. Not only are governments faced with traditional security threats such as territorial attacks, but also economical attacks and, most importantly, cyber attacks. We are in a new dawn of technological innovation that without regulations, the future of cybersecurity will become challenging to manage. 

All in all, national security is merely identifying ways to attain safety. Of course, the objective per country is not entirely similar. However, the goal for these countries is protecting the state—and depending on the political climate, also protecting the individuals, it would be difficult to narrowly define security since I mentioned that it all depends on the needs of each country. ☼