DEPENDENT STATE SECURITY: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PAKISTANI TERRORISM THREAT AND CHINESE STATE SECURITY.

• Author: Khan, Irfan Ullah
• Position: Report

1. Introduction

   The significance of global change cannot be ignored by any member of the international community. It can impact not only a single state but also many territories beyond national frontiers. Just as the world is no longer merely a geographic object, and the population, economy and territory also no longer solely represent a modern country's strength. Today, the strength of any state can be measured by the level of its collaboration, that is, the quality and number of relationships and contacts established with partners, allies and friends. The merging of international and domestic issues has had a remarkable impact on the diplomatic, political and economic foundations of states and governments. However, the stimulation of globalisation, as brought on by the free flow of people, goods, ideas, information and technology, etc., has carried with it many new security threats and challenges, creating a security environment in which no country, regardless of its power and size, can be confident in its security. Therefore, security matters gain priority for states, individuals and the world overall.

   Since its inception, security studies have represented the core of international relations, predominantly dealing with issues of war and peace. Academic circles have deepened, expanded, and reconstructed the concept and theory of security. During this time, the concept of state security has also taken shape, generally referring to a nation's ability to 1) preserve its physical integrity and territory; 2) maintain its economic relations with the rest of the world on reasonable terms; 3) protect its environment, institutions, and governance from outside disruption; and 4) control its own borders (Brown 1984).

   Understanding the concept of a notion and its determinants is a fundamental intellectual exercise, which is different from specifying the conditions under which security may be attained. Indeed, clarification of the concept logically precedes the search for the necessary security conditions, strategies and actions because the concept of security presupposes their identification. Thus, in our research we introduce a new perspective on security, which we have labelled the relations of state security (independent state security, inter-dependent state security, co-dependent state security, and dependent state security), emphasising the previously non-existent concept of dependent state security. This perspective is grounded in the practical case study of the relationship between dependent state security of China and the threat of terrorism in Pakistan.

   Over many years, cooperation between Pakistan and China has become very upbeat, covering political, economic and military sectors. With escalating Chinese investment and the growing complexity of its foreign policy agenda, the existing theories of security based solely on the traditional view of the Pakistan-China relationship must be revised. After the superpower rivalry gone at the end of the 20th century, there is a more regionalized international security order (Buzan 2003). As Buzan states South Asia is a clear example of a security complex. Regional Security Complexes are generated by the states by their security perceptions of, and interactions with, each other. They are formed by local groupings of actors and not only play a central role in relations among their members, but also crucially condition how and whether stronger outside powers penetrate into the region (Buzan 2003). Thus deep understanding of the regional inter-state security relations has gained exceptional importance in order to decide on the most accurate and efficient threat response strategy.

   The theoretical conceptual framework and practical case study, discussed in this paper, show that the dependent state security perspective opens the way for new security viewpoint on inter-state relations, significantly impacting opportunities to resolve long-lasting security issues and to opt for the different threat response measures. Therefore, the implications of dependent state security should be regarded as an 'essential new concept', elaborated upon in this research.

2. On the theories and classifications of security

   Security studies have constituted strategic, central focus of international relations for decades and a clear and precise definition of its scope and classification are crucial to conducting empirical observation and analyses of security phenomena. Arnold Wolfers 1952 noted that "Security, in any objective sense, measures the absence of threats to acquired values, in a subjective sense, the absence of fear that such values will be attacked" (Wolfers 1952a). The latest Buzan definition of security is the "pursuit of freedom from threats" (Buzan 2016). The terms security and security classification are among the most challenging objects of international security studies (Buzan and Hansen 2016) and still lack a common definition and paradigm. Since the 1940s, when security studies emerged, various security concepts have been grounded theoretically, and many outstanding scholars have contributed valuable findings. However, the concept of security has always remained ambiguous and value laden (Milner and Baldwin 1990).

   International security studies under the academic debate include various security research schools, comprising the constructivist, post-colonialist, human, critical, feminist and poststructuralist security studies, along with the Copenhagen school, globalism and peace-cooperationism, which represent the prominent academic concepts pertaining to security (Buzan and Waever 2009). Nevertheless, most efforts to redefine security are more concerned with redefining the policy agendas of nation-states than with the conceptual analysis or classification of security itself.

   Conceptual analysis is not directly concerned with hypothesis testing or theory construction, though it is relevant to both, as it clarifies the meaning of concepts. Some would consider conceptualisation 'mere semantics'. However, without clear concepts, scholars' discussions become mere, and policy-makers have difficulty distinguishing between alternative strategies. On the other side the aspect of understanding notions and concepts in political science is by no means just a semantic exercise; rather, it is a most effective way to generate substantial solution-focused research (Greenstein and Polsby 1975). The conceptual explication specifies the logics and structure of notions under consideration. Thus as soon as the meanings of terms become customary, understanding is enhanced, increasing explication and decreasing the ambiguities, limitations and inconsistencies of their usage and reinterpretation. This, in turn, heightens the clarity for everyone involved and helps establish precise usage of the concept's meaning together with its ability to serve predictive and explanatory functions in theories and hypotheses (Hempel 1972).

   The scientific literature has a number of valid and versatile findings on national and international security and different classifications on its internal and external paradigms, which are within the area of our research. From the point of view of Wolfers, security is classified as objective and subjective. The objective dimension deals with the determination of no threat to the object we are securing. In this domain, we can specify human security, as well as property security, social security, environmental security, state security, etc. The subjective dimension of security refers to the psychological component linked to feelings of anxiety and safety. This draws heavily on the circumstances of the one whose values are being secured; in other words, it is the absence of fear that such values will be attacked (Wolfers 1952b). Later, the inter subjective dimension of security was enclosed to this classification, denoting a state of absence of inter subjective conflicts, which carries more social interactive meanings and reflects the absence of fear in interstate relationships (Yu and Xie 2015).

   Another classification represented in Baldwin 1997 comprises specifications for security studies, previously discussed by Buzan, Wolfers, and Knorr. The author outlines not the types of security issues but a list of questions to be answered in any security research: whose values are being secured, which values are concerned, which kinds of threats are involved, the means that are available and necessary for coping with such threats, the costs of threat diminution, and the relevant time period (Baldwin 1997).

   2. M. Udgaonkar argues that one should keep the internal and external dimensions of national security in mind. The internal dimension of this classification includes a lack of education, poverty, poor health care or unjust social order, large-scale unemployment, corruption, a nexus between politicians and criminals, domestic terrorism, and ineffective legislative system. Externally, security dimensions may include military confrontations, international debts, adverse terms of trade, dependence on financial aid or imported technology, necessity of importing non-renewable resources, ecological threats, international terrorism and influence of 'globalisation', 'liberalisation' and neo-colonialism forces (Udgaonkar 2001). On the other hand, in a study of EU security policy, U. Schroeder addressed the field of security holistically, arguing that the internal and external dimensions of security are increasingly difficult to separate, which, according to her study, led EU policy makers to demand a comprehensive approach to the provision of security (Schroeder 2013).

   One of the commonly applied classifications of security are the dimensions of traditional security (TS), non-traditional security (NTS) and interwoven security (IS). TS includes state actors and military security; NTS is observed when non-state actors and non-military security are involved, and IS encompasses both TS...