Cahiers de la sécurité, Special issue, 2010.

Our choice of articles from last year’s « Cahiers de la Sécurité – Security Notebooks » shows that our Review continues to address the scientific developments made to cope with the problems of « global security ». Furthermore, the Review is open to all scientific researchers interested in developing this programme of research, subject to standard university article selection criteria. 

Our choice of paradigms demonstrates the distance covered and progress made in the areas concerned: an article on the theory of global security; on prison, which is classically considered as coming under the umbrella of « security »; the intelligence services, usually and traditionally included in studies concerning international and strategic relations; and sport, normally considered incongruous to the field of political science. 

It must be said that it is not always easy to adopt a scientific standpoint which goes against positivist thinking. For example, by reintroducing a form of hybridization or re-establishing the link between science and morals, which was pushed aside by modernism. There is still a great risk of continuing to use outdated and bankrupt paradigms and theories, even given the gnoseological impasses they have created. This is because of the fear that with a new notion of « global security » we will lose our reference points and bearings. A notion successfully expounded by Thomas Kuhn was that theoreticians of knowledge, or, as the French would say « epistemologists », are fully aware of the brakes put on any such « scientific revolution ». The benchmarks used by so many laboratories as the bases for their work and a considerable number of papers and texts which have been produced, are, in fact conducive to intellectual laziness and a lack of understanding. Moreover, they have a tendency to create friction and resistance from other interested parties and groups with different and rival paradigms. This resistance to scientific advancement is such that we seem to be losing more than we gain. For example, it is easy to imagine that a country with nuclear weapons is in a relatively comfortable position to defend its borders. It can easily make the distinction between internal and external, public and private security. Furthermore, its position facilitates international cooperation and tends to favour national egoism, power and force.

It is interesting to try and create ad hoc hypotheses to maintain the theoretical matrix. This can be done by trying to adapt it to the vulnerabilities brought about by globalisation, the development of new technologies, particularly nanotechnology, new risks and new threats. 

Even though it might have social consequences for some laboratories, in science it is important to have the courage to take this type of risk. In doing so, however, it is essential that we are fully aware of the insufficiencies of our approach in the elaboration of the disciplinary matrix, in terms of symbolic generalisations, metaphysical and heuristic models, values, methods and exemplary successes. Nevertheless, there are a certain number of elements in our favour: we have already put in place the disciplinary matrix and had a number of successes; scientific advances have been made; a new scientific community has been created, even given the hesitations and processes of trial and error involved, let alone the opposition it generated. All the components of a veritable science of «global security» are now in place. 

The review›s choice of scientific subjects was based on their specific contexts. How is it possible not to put global security at the heart of any reflection and simply think about it? Imre Lakatos would have said that the «conceptual context» constrains the open minded to make such a scientific choice. The development of information technology, computer science and nanotechnology, the fall of the Berlin wall and globalization, all seem to be nodal elements in a profound transformation of our conception of political space and the security of living space. These three phenomena have a number of visible consequences: the free-market system; the opening-up of political systems; the development of transnational communication companies which drive the exchanges in goods, people and signs; and the sudden emergence of new powers like China, India, Brazil and Indonesia.

This created a new dynamic, which in turn has itself created a number of important consequences. For example, developing a new conception of the way we think and live, or the way we look at space and time. But they could also drastically change many other things: the way we exist; our system of values; the way we organize work and labor; and even the roll of politics, meaning also the roll of the State, including even the State›s «regalian» functions. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, we are forced to place human concerns at the heart of science. 

It is not anodyne that in this new world the concept of « global security » has taken a central role. It defines a set of problems and issues which did not formerly exist, when modernism imposed its own rules and regulations. They include, but are not limited to: State sovereignty; the classic conceptions of the external as opposed to internal, exterior and interior; the functional separation of security and defence; the mutual opposition or ignorance of the private and public sectors; « disciplinary » studies; looking for central control systems… In this new world the State becomes porous and fragile when faced with its vulnerabilities, risks and threats. Or, to be more precise: security, the natural rights of individuals to seek happiness, and the life of a nation, must be rethought to take into consideration the vulnerability and interdependence of the infrastructures, and the multipolarity of risks and the transnational nature of threats. 

This shows just how difficult it is to take a new approach to reflection, serious thought and consideration. The “Déclaration des Chefs d’Etat et de gouvernement sur la sécurité de l’Alliance – Heads of State and Governments Declaration on Alliance Security » of 4 April 2009, clearly indicates that rethinking security, introducing the dimension of globalization and conceptually rethinking strategy, are in fact the same objective. From the present reflections on NATO’s « strategic concept » to the questions raised throughout Europe concerning a real EU policy after the three pillars embodied in the Treaty of Maastricht were abandoned, all require that scientists react. But they must at all costs avoid the impasse created by old paradigms incapable of adapting to the new context and situation. 

This is why our Review is very open to research programmes which ask upfront questions in terms of global security. Furthermore, we stubbornly refuse to install the illusion of a continuum of paradigms and theories which refute the concept. Certain quarters attribute the origin of the concept of global security to the works of Kenneth Waltz and Barry Buzan, and the Palme commission in 1982, which evoked “common security” and taking into consideration a growing interdependence. It is also worth looking at the work of the Ramphal commission in 1992 on «global security governance», which was undoubtedly a precursor in this field. 

Nonetheless, all of the above is true, and also false at the same time. Intuition or recommendations do not constitute a real research programme. « Common security » is not « global security ». Unless, however, if you look at the work of Antoine-Henri de Jomini on the diplomatic element of the concept. Or even the reflections of Karl von Clausewitz on its political dimensions. In fact it is worth looking at the works of anyone who has considered as elements of power, the economy, demography, the state of mind, even of a country, or the announcement of a global security programme. Doing this though would completely miss the essential elements of the concept. 

It must be made clear that our Review takes the scientific stance of refusing positivism. We prefer to reintegrate a humane dimension and a humane humanity point of view at the heart of science. By taking this moral stance, we have created a universe where the three key concepts 

are global security, human security and sustainable development. In doing this we contribute to the progress of research programmes which place global security at the very center of their reflection. It must be said, however, that the terms of such programmes are not always well organized and their conclusions not clearly stated. 

Such research programmes do, however, have a prime characteristic. They question the classic, originally realistic, vision of things. Even though this vision has been « improved » somewhat by ad hoc hypotheses, it remained for a long time relatively hegemonic. It continued to produce research whose paradigm made the distinction between « internal » and « external », « interior » and « exterior », « security » and « defense », « public » and « private », « self-interest » and « morality »… with the corollaries we already know. These « improvements » resembled, to some extent, those in astronomy which permitted the geocentric theory of Hipparchus and Ptolomy to be preferred and maintained over the heliocentric theory of Galileo. They were, however, difficult to actually include in the theory or paradigm. To consider security in this manner is obviously inefficient for combating terrorism or breaking up organized crime networks. Furthermore, it does not justify any humanitarian intervention whatsoever to help cope with the risks, dangers and catastrophes involved. These ad hoc hypotheses sometimes permit the reintroduction of transnational and economic forces with a few advantages. But the schema remains weak for a State, subject or control center, in conformity with Thomas Hobbes’ model for the state of nature, or Jean Bodin’s theory of sovereignty, or that of Nicolas Machiavel for political games without morality, but with « virtù » and « Fortuna ». If Hans Morgenthau›s paradigm, or even that of Raymond Aron, explains the interest in taking into consideration the economy and globalization, it is worth noting that the latter comes too late to radically change the theory. 

The Review also looks critically at the transnationalist movement which dominated scientifically the weak realist movement for a number of years. It upgraded the transnational forces and reintroduced a dimension of porosity and insecurity into the political system. This gave sense and direction to any analysis of the non state actors. At the same time, however, it raised sufficient doubts about the plans of the competitor realists that the State, as a participant, saw itself reduced to the role of an « actor just like any other », or even less important. This led to such an impasse that the inventors of the theory were themselves forced to appreciate the situation and change to a neorealist scheme to once again try and save the State’s hypothesis. 

Even before the theoretical explosion correlated with the arrival of new technologies, security was already a pertinent and timely topic which opened the way to serious thought on the new situation. The neorealist model had, in part, been created by the authors of the transnationalist model. Like Barry Buzan, it was capable of facing up to modern challenges. It included a number of theories which started to provide answers to the ongoing changes by reintroducing new transnational features. The International Political Economy, where the State plays a central role, is prevalent in the work of Robert Gilpin, for example. On the other hand, Susan Strange demonstrates that power should be diffused, insisting on the roles of economic and financial structures, and the difficulty of the State to ensure security and justice and protect wealth and liberty. It also believes that security can no longer be considered just in terms of the military and police, and that it is legitimate to also take into consideration its economic, cultural and environmental dimensions. 

But the new situation required even further changes, expressing a new set of problems and issues, new values and concepts and investigative resources. Moreover, it became necessary to get away from the too disciplinarian vision of security. It needed to be considered not in terms a specific territory, but in terms of its population and inhabitants, and their solidarity with other citizens in other nations. This was essential if we were to respond scientifically and efficiently in terms of resilience, risks, menaces and threats. For example, terrorism, AIDS and the Chernobyl radiation cloud did not stop at border customs controls. 

These concepts are at the heart of our Review, and they must be at the center of any research programme which looks at global security. Nevertheless, the concepts of vulnerability, risk, menace and threat still need to be defined clearly. 

Vulnerability cannot be explained without going into detail about a particular part of a system. Furthermore, the term vulnerability itself means the existence of a possible change in the system which could be used to undesirable ends. It does not necessarily emanate from a design or operational error, but from a necessary part of the way the system works. 

Risks can be distinguished from threats by their contingent aspects: accidental and unintentional, whether of human origin or not. A threat reflects the presence of a phenomenon, organization, or individual. Such an element can exploit a particular vulnerability to influence the behavior or functioning of a system for its own purposes, thereby altering the system’s original objectives.

The notion of risk is only valid if it relates to a particular thing, in the largest sense of the word. It could be something material or something spiritual rather than physical, like a reputation, or a service. A particular risk concerns a particular event. It is generally considered as a combination of the possibility of something happening and the quantification of its impact on the subject in question. 

Once these three central concepts have been defined, the research programmes concerned with global security can concentrate on those fields which have particular characteristics, or « explananda », or generally recurrent series, which enable a hypothesis to be verified. These « domains or fields », defined as vulnerability, risk and menace or threat, are also limited and defined by their particular dynamic forces. They are studied in the « dossiers, papers and articles » published in the Review, as well by the Institut National des Hautes Etudes de Sécurité et de Justice – the National Institute of Advanced Studies in Security and Justice, of which the Review is part, as well the Review’s affiliated laboratories. 

We can start by defining those domains of fields concerning the concept of the « menace or threat », being those processes provoked by human desire. 

The security of a nation, a social group or an individual, can be the target for attacks by malevolent, fragile or bankrupt states during a high intensity conflict. Such attacks can take the classic forms of aggression. But such aggression can also take new forms, for example by attacking digital communications networks, destroying their infrastructures or physically taking control of them. In the same way, they can attack and destroy groups or companies involved at the very heart of a country›s security. They can also take control of management structures and even managers, engineers, technicians and specialists working in the security and control areas of digital IT networks. 

Other threats must be added to this classic example, which has been « revisited » by the notion of global security. For example, the threat of asymmetric wars, not simply limited to radical Islam. Unfortunately, they can also be coupled with high intensity conflicts. Terrorism itself is a hybrid phenomenon with multiple facets, which can only be studied in a hybrid and multidisciplinary manner. These types of threats can be particularly devastating and lethal if they combine to attack communications networks, their vital infrastructures and operating staff and management. They are often associated with organized crime, both in terms of resources and objectives. Furthermore, such attacks can hit multiple targets at the same time, in different locations, in very short time horizons. They can originate from and be based inside the targeted country, or be somewhere else completely. By this they add an unpredictable, transnational and multipolar dimension to the incertitude of their actions. This forces the target to conceptualize not just in terms of protection and anticipation but also in terms of the best forms of resilience. Terrorism has a trans-disciplinary dimension. This is why it is often the subject of the articles and papers published in the Review. We have decided, therefore, to publish a special comprehensive and in-depth article on Terrorism in the near future. 

Global security must, therefore, take into account the menace of new forms of organized crime. Obviously, organized crime is not something new. But, as shown in the special edition of the Review on the subject, the global economy and the globalization of international law has changed the situation qualitatively, and not just quantitatively. Digital information networks and the Internet are virtual spaces where criminals can become organized and develop their activities, from selling adulterated medicines to setting up pedophile networks. Drugs, arms, human trafficking, immigration, piracy, there are very few global security threatening criminal activities which have not developed and expanded on the Internet and in digital information networks. Some of them were even created specifically for this medium. Furthermore, they are often based in different countries and time zones from their targeted activity. We have covered these developments in our articles on organized crime, the illegal drugs trade and human trafficking, and have quoted various extracts from these articles in this paper. 

Global security must, therefore, take into account the menaces from « soft power ». Imagination is at the heart of both security and insecurity. This is where a country’s government, authority, legitimacy, law and culture are undermined by sundry political associations, parties and groups by using the media and the Internet. Such threats initially try to destabilize state authority in zones of influence. Often, they use the Internet to network disinformation and mobilization. Government or state policies can be targeted by attacking their support bases, for example the support for global security policies. In essence, both public and private research centers, companies and State authorities and administrations can be subject to espionage. This is why our Review has put the question of imagination at the center of its reflection on this subject. 

Global security also means real « cyber » threats which can define new territories by transforming living areas without destroying anything. We have included some extracts from the issue « New territories for security » where they demonstrate scientifically that believing that new virtual spaces will eventually lead to the abolition of local living areas and human territorialization is purely an illusion. Mobile phones, global navigation satellite systems, wireless networks (Bluetooth, WiFi, WiMax), Internet, IT systems, routers, computers, land-line telephones, TV decoders, Personal Digital Assistants, operating systems, computer programs, and digital social networks are all services used in daily life in our towns and cities. In fact, nowadays very few activities can escape or avoid using such networks, particularly vital and essential services. Individual threats, destroying a system, group threats (groups, states, countries), industrial espionage, destruction of material or immaterial goods, cyber-attacks against basic infrastructure whether vital or not, can take various forms, such as a virus, Trojan horses, phishing, hacking, botnets. They can also be coupled with destructive attacks on decision making centers. Cyber-attacks can be made against individuals, management, companies or even whole countries. For example, country wide or national cyber-attacks were made against Estonia in 2007, and the French army in 2008. Companies are attacked every day around the world. Large attacks are often covered in the media: for example, the attacks on Twitter and Google at the beginning of August 2009. Most attacks, however, are never reported in the media, to the extent that such threats are now considered banal. The actual cyber-attacks, however, are constantly increasing in complexity and intensity. They are normally carried out for financial gain or for political reasons. Having become formidable and much feared weapons, a market has been created where attackers, and those in fear of being attacked, are prepared to invest and spend considerable amounts of money to achieve their objectives. The particular targets involved are computer system vulnerabilities, faults in computer security systems and faults in design and configuration. It is understandable, therefore, that our Review regularly revisits this highly sensitive subject. 

Taking into consideration global security also means appreciating the risks involved. Once again, the « Cahiers de la sécurité – Security Notebooks » takes this subject very seriously in its treatment of the issues involved in global security. 

These risks are, in the first place, those directly linked to globalization. Scientific and technological development have reduced and relieved suffering and permitted countries to also reduce misery and poverty, such as China and India. But such developments also bring dangers which, for the time being are unknown. Human error can have disastrous consequences in all walks of life: whether in the nuclear industry, in medicine, in transport or water management. The increase in the purchase and sale of goods over the internet, the proliferation of financial transactions, the invention of financial tools linked to new technologies, all bring their element of risk, which may be dangerous locally, regionally, nationally or internationally. A good example is the present global financial crisis. Insecurity is increasing, whether due to a lack of controls, a lack of ethics or simply by accident. 

Global security also means taking into consideration health, food and transport risks. In general, risks increase with globalization. Whether the risks of a pandemic disease, health problems linked to natural catastrophes or armed conflict, the effects of irresponsibility concerning the sales of all sorts of food products over the Internet, and similarly, even the sale of medicines. Even the transport of goods by air, sea or land, which have to some extent become safer, run the risk of human error and the structural vulnerabilities of the Internet, digital information networks and computer systems. 

Global security must also take into account environmental and technological risks. Natural and industrial catastrophes, demographic evolution and population flows, toxic emissions… The Review published a special edition covering these topics. Certain elements of global security find a correlation in the security of digital networks. They are often the source or cause of environmental and technological insecurity, but are always at the center of crisis management. 

The Review made a corporate survey which showed that if a conceptual distinction needs to be made between risk and threat, it could lead to a lethal dynamic. Which is worrying from a scientific stand point! A terrorist group could try and bring about a health crisis by using biological weapons, such as bacteriological or virological weapons. This type of operation could easily be organized via the Internet. Any use of weapons of mass destruction, whether biological, chemical or nuclear, could generate all sorts of risks, both natural and human, and have a devastating effect on the population. Digital networks are at the heart of any risk prevention or management activities, but as vital elements of the infrastructure, they are also potential targets. 

The Review has shown that even faced with these risks, menaces and threats and in this context of new vulnerabilities, research programmes exist which take global security seriously and prove the existence of new actors. 

It is certainly the case that the classic institutions involved in security still remain influential: elected politicians, the army, the Gendarmerie in France, the police and the judiciary. The generators and perpetrators of insecurity arising from these « menaces and threats » are also, in turn, the subject of classic analyses and studies: different political groups, dangerous states and countries, terrorist groups, sects, the Mafia, malevolent individuals or companies involved in espionage or intelligence services. But the conception of global security renews the studies of these actors and analyses the rhizomatic structure of their relationships and systemic connections with the global network. At the same time, and in the same perspective, other actors of security and insecurity are also analyzed. 

The first actor to be « recreated » is the world of associations and organizations. Churches, consumer organizations, environmental organizations, NGOs, trade unions… all play a major role. In the new scientific conception of things, they are no longer considered as separate entities but as domains and elements capable of working together in a crisis context. For example, they may be involved in crisis or post crisis management, or organizing forms of resilience, both for and against, or involved in local AND virtual spaces and activities, whether in an official, local or transnational capacity. Their presence, particularly via Internet networks, and activities can be studied to see how they approach security using « soft power ». On the one hand are the spiritual phenomena they induce, and on the other the motivation or demotivation they might encourage. 

The second recreated actor is the corporate sector, both private and public. The increase in the number of security companies is a major specific subject in scientific studies of global security. It is a sign and symptom of the business and the public sectors› decision, and need, to externalize their security requirements. Furthermore, it is particularly revealing about the new situation and conditions experienced by countries and states: the new conception of sovereignty, the development of hybrid forms of security, the evolution of certain hybrid political structures, such as the European Union. Other companies, however, can be actors of insecurity. They are often linked to industrial or political intelligence and are themselves victims. This provides them with a major role in the reflection and consideration of corporate security, either due to their specific activities, or the attacks they have sustained themselves; for example, the Valéo affair in 2005. Because of their particular business sector and development, many companies have purposefully reconsidered their approach and the resources they allocate to the security of their activities. This might also include the security of their personnel, their research activities, patents and intellectual property and even their computer and Internet systems. The State is also interested in providing security to both the public and private sectors to protect its authority and activities. This is particularly the case when private companies are involved with vital services and infrastructures. Such a situation provides an interesting opportunity to study the convergent and conflicting interests involved. Private and public security policies can be analyzed to demonstrate their efficiency and coherence. It is not surprising, therefore, that various editions of the Review have invited both public and private sector researchers to try and define public policy. 

The new scientific conception of security has helped and boosted researchers involved with global security in both public and private research centers. These actors can provide both new concepts and new methods. They can also produce patents and intellectual property, which are motors for development and job creation. Historically they created the Internet, computer systems and digital information networks, which they continue to modify and develop. Unfortunately, this puts them at the center of commercial and technological competition and warfare, and makes them a focal point for political and military conflict. Their work consists of devising and using abstract, mathematical or physical models, creating databases, exchanging information and debating with other laboratories or research centers. The Internet, computer systems and digital information networks form an integral part of their activity. Not only did they create them, but they, in turn have now become key elements in the progress and development of science. This is why research centers and laboratories play an ever-increasing role in the Review’s collaborative activities and management. 

Global security and globalization require strengths in mediation and communications. Given the pressures such menaces and threats apply to a nation, the spirit and mood of the population is key to coping with global security, as it was previously with other forms of security. Alerts, manipulation, information, disinformation, the roles of certain institutions, motivation, demotivation: the classic resources and methods born from Gutenberg›s genius, as well at digital information networks born from the technological revolution, all have an effect on a country’s spirit and mood. E-mails, blogs, social networks, on-line diaries, TV online, cell phones: they all play a major role during a crisis, from prevention to management. Furthermore, scientists now witness the sudden appearance of a public « opinion », which can be local, regional, national and even global. It can intervene directly or indirectly via elected representatives, and can concern subjects as diverse as a company or an affair of state. 

The issues raised by global security require that « revisited » international and regional actors are taken into account. Global security must also be combined with human security and sustainable development. Everything must then be networked on a global basis. Examples of the use of this strategy are the UN, NATO, the European Union, the North American Free Trade Agreement… as well as organizations such as the International Organization for Standardization and the International Electrotechnical Commission. The Review will cover this problem in a future edition. 

These issues raised by global security require and impose not only new and revisited concepts and actors but also new methods of research. There can be no resilience without foresight and the prior application of the necessary resources to manage the unforeseeable or unpredictable. This requires using the hybridization of skills and interdisciplinarity as the keystone for future knowledge. 

To be convinced, one has only to think of all the different actors concerned and involved in a health scare or crisis. As well as the different health specialists such as general practitioners, hospital doctors, pharmacists, biologists and nurses… we can add the state services such as the health and social care services, and, in France, the Prefectures… Then there would be the military, including the military health service, and a plethora of specialists either directly or indirectly involved, such as psychologists, sociologists, lawyers, political scientists and politicians, transport and travel specialists, teachers and journalists… From this we can see that a health scare, what we thought was a limited phenomenon, can in fact take on a global aspect and require a global response. 

The methodology dictates, therefore, that a hybridization of skills takes place and is used. No one can carry this out alone and no discipline can manage it all on its own. Once achieved, the conditions can then be created to analyze infrastructures, find vulnerabilities, particularly by intrusive prospection, take preventive action, make reactive system models and create processes to develop resilience. 

The objective is to create a scientific community which is an « open society », as succinctly expressed by Bergson and then used later by Karl Popper. A humane society open to humanity, with its own ethical and scientific demands and requirements, with a touch of spirituality Remember the hatred which manifested itself during the 20th century, emanating from certain states supposedly considered as the most «progressive» on the planet, such as Germany, Austria, Italy and Japan. Then there was the toll of positivism and productivism based on the present sacrifices, it ruined humanity’s future. These events remind us of Francois Rabelais› phrase from his book Pantagruel: that « science without a conscience is the ruin of the soul ». 

Global security is an empty dream if it does not have a number of important caveats, such as, important social development in poor suburbs, and compassion for all democratic countries. It must also take into account sustainable development through a transnational vision. But most importantly it must provide security for humanity through the universal perspective of a humane society with humanity at the center of scientific progress and development. 

©YvesRoucaute 

Full University Professor, Paris X, Director of Cahiers de la sécurité