SOCIETAL SECURITY and its relevance to small states

1. SOCIETAL SECURITYand its relevance to small states A talk by Alyson JK Bailes, University of Iceland CSSS Summer School, Reykjavik, July 2014

2. WHY THIS TOPIC? • Earlier in this summer school you have heard about small states’ challenges and choices – - regarding military and ‘hard’ security - regarding specialized dimensions of security - regarding outside ‘protectors’ (states, insts.) • Societal Security offers a ‘package’ approach for drawing many dimensions together and considering general governance solutions

3. WHAT IS SOCIETAL SECURITY?Easier to say what it is not.... • Everything but military – but avoids judgement inherent in ‘soft’; may use armed forces as tool, but is more clearly civil-led than traditional ‘civil-military cooperation’ concept • Nation-based, but distinct from state security – types of hazards (internal, transnational), types of actors (range of central/local officials, business and society) • (At least in N. Europe) A more ‘liberal’, values-aware, constructive approach than ‘Homeland Security’; more participatory than leaving ‘functional’ security to experts • Less focussed on the individual than ‘human’ security, assumes positive social status quo

4. WHAT DIMENSIONS ARE COVERED? • ‘Samfunnssikkerhet er et nytt fagområde der en studerer ekstraordinære hendelser or påkjenninger some det moderne samfunnet utsettes for. Trusler mot sikkerhet og robusthet i samfunnet kan være både natur- og menneskeskapte. Eksempler på dette er økologiske endringer som påvirker klima og naturforhold, endringer i infrastruktur som energi- og vannforsyning, kommunikasjon og transport, men også endringer i sosiale relasjoner og atferd som kan føre til organisert kriminalitet eller terrorisme’ • ‘Societal security is a new line of study focussing on extraordinary events and challenges that a modern society is exposed to. Threats to security and to society’s robustness can arise from both natural and human causes. Examples are ecological changes that affect climate and natural processes; changes in infrastructure such as energy and water supply, communications and transport; but also changes in social relationships and behaviour that can lead to organized crime or terrorism’OTHERS?

5. AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT? • Prevention, ´hardening’ ( limit impact) • Readiness (beredskap): includes capability building, stocks, exercises, training • Event response: situation awareness, event ‘definition’, action and communication (NB poss. International aspects) • Recovery + reconstruction (‘resilience’) WHO DOES IT?

6. SHOULD WE WORRY ABOUT ‘SECURITIZATION?’ • The Habermas/Wæver thesis (and its Nordic background) • Subsequent correctives - - Conceptualization/prioritization of non-military threats • Alternative approaches to ‘hard’ issues: can be interactive, altruistic, or at least non-zero-sum • Main value of concept now perhaps to make us ask ‘Who defines?’ • Are demands/defintitions coming ‘from below’ necessarily more legitimate?? (EXAMPLES?)

7. ...AND RELEVANCE TO ‘SMALL STATES’? • Military is not the key: allows more self-provision, national responsibility • Focus on strength and resilience of society rather than traditional ‘power’ • Focus on successful governance across dimensions and sectors – tests assumptions about small state ‘unity’ or ‘flexibility’ • Still requires international cooperation but in a less ‘Westphalian’ or ‘realist’ setting

8. CHALLENGES: i) CONCEPTUAL • What is ‘society’? - inclusion or exclusion - society abroad - more-than-national ‘society’ (EU angle) • Traps of over-focussing on the extraordinary event, assuming ‘normality’ is ideal and risk-free (‘uninteresting deaths’), lack of foresight/prevention • Difficulties in practice with cross-sectoral cooperation and societal ‘ownership’ (esp. in centralized states or Nordics with ‘trygghet’ notion)

9. CHALLENGES: ii) PRACTICAL • Whether to use this language for a national policy concept – why, and why not? • How to place/relate to the military element • Central + vertical coordination of government • Priorities and resources: balance of phases • Mobilizing (and disciplining) business • Mobilizing (and disciplining) the public • Choice of foreign partners (states, insts.)

10. A FIRST EXERCISE • Identify the problems in the field of ‘societal security ‘that may be caused for North European small states by the opening up of an ice-free Arctic • Initial ideas on how to tackle them – esp. external partnerships (Maybe clear non-societal aspects out of the way first...)

11. A SECOND EXERCISE • Imagine a major ‘societal’ emergency in Iceland, caused by a pandemic that puts 30-40% of the population in bed: challenges and ‘domino effects’ tools and solutions: state/non-state coordination and governance Does any of this play out differently because the state is ‘small’? Help needed? From where?

12. IF TIME FOR CONCLUSIONS.... • Nordic cases suggest words/concepts less important than their interplay with the ‘audiences’ (official, non-state, international) • Merits+limits of regional coordination • Vital to leave room for evolution, adjustment to further integration/interdependence • For your consideration: the ‘triangles’ of cross-sectoral practice .....