The Catholic University of Eastern Africa A.M.E.C.E.

Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences

Department of Social Sciences

National & Strategic Security Studies SPO 443

Instructor: Mrs. Maristella Moraa Student: Umba Peter Bosco 1016101

Date: 15th November 2011

Clearly elaborate on the effects of national insecurity on international economic system It is argued that insecurity within a country can potentially injure the economic system at the international level in a number of ways; these include the following; Post election violence In the recent years especially in 2007/8 Kenya experienced a security crisis situation when the results of the general elections were released. This had a negative impact on the economy of the country as well as the international economy. Crimes committed by organized gang groups and erecting of illegal road blocks hindered the mobility of business men as well as deterring the flow of foreign entrepreneurs into the country. Road blocks were also used to illegally tax traders hence creating an unfavorable environment for business both at the national and global level. The fact that Nairobi was enjoying dominance in terms of earning revenues for being used as the only strategic route for communication, transport and financial hub, it was no longer the case after the post election violence. This situation did not only affect Nairobi but East African as a whole. In addition this instability made people to trade in arms other than essential goods hence destabilizing business activities at the international level. Geopolitical risks Another problem that national insecurity poses as a threat to the international economic system is geopolitical. It is usually pointed out that weak and poor political institutions of a country will have negative impacts on the national economy as well as the global economy. For instance fragile states characterized by conflicts, presence of illegal weapons of mass destruction, terrorism acts etc will leave the country in security crisis including the neighboring societies. This therefore creates an environment unfavorable for trade since investors will not be willing to come and establish businesses in such areas. It is also argued that control over water bodies such as oceans and seas if not well managed usually leads to the eruption of conflicts between and among nations. This therefore threatens trade along ports and on the seas and oceans.

Funding wars in neighboring countries Governments position of tit-for-tat in trying to supply arms to rebels in neighboring countries has also become the trend in the current relations among countries. This kind of relations is potentially dangerous and flammable in terms of security in a country hence leading to destabilization of stability among countries likewise trade. Therefore these relationships always lead to destabilization of peace, security and stability within the region hence affecting the conduct of trade across boundaries. For example due to terror threats in Kenya most foreign investors including tourists are scared. Kenya and Eritrea are currently in a security crisis due to the accusations against Eritrea about the support given to the Al Shabab in Somalia. Beside this the relations between Kenya and Somalia is too fragile that no single foreign investor is willing to establish any business at the border i.e. between Somalia and Kenya. Environmental and climatic risks Environmental and climate issues such as drought, floods and industrialization have made it difficult for farmers and cattle keepers to effect productivity. For instance agricultural productivity as well as livestock outputs and industrial productivity have altogether reduced. In deed heavy rainfalls have destroyed crops on one hand while industrialization has affected the climate negatively hence cause drought across the globe. Therefore the decrease in both agricultural and industrial productivity can be blamed on these two variables. However in the international market system raw materials from agriculture and animals have generally become scarce meaning that industrial inputs have also become rare hence leading to an increase in the cost of production thereby making traders to charge high prices for their commodities. Restricted mobility It is argued that restrictions on mobility in northern Kenya especially in Turkana has affect trade and other kinds of businesses. The cattle keepers suffer from drought as well as farmers. However due to confinement to one area that is poor in pasture and water the health of the crops and animals is affected likewise the productivity levels have decrease. As such difficulty in accessing pasture lands and agricultural farmlands is the main problem.

The destruction of bridges and other transport facilities during war times further affects international trade. This is because the movement of goods and services has become difficult and rather expensive across borders. Similarly in El Salvador and Nairobi the overall climate of insecurity resulting from the randomizations of criminal violence and highly visible gang activities has severely hampered peoples movement including business men and tourists across borders (11No). Technological threats Technological threats to national security have also extended some form of inconvenience to the conduct of international trade. For example cyber crimes, the failure in critical information infrastructure, sharing of unhealthy data and information online concerning business matters has become so unsafe today. For example most people have fallen victims of human trafficking due to positively responding to messages about job opportunities, business opportunities etc over the internet. In a nutshell the insecurity at the national level can negatively influence the international economic system. For instance threats from environment and climate, geopolitical issues, technological risks, cross boundary conflicts resulting into restricted mobility etc; all have a devastating impact on the conduct of trade. Compare and contrast the liberal and realist theories in their application to security studies A point of agreement between theorists of realism and liberalism is that of balance of power. This means that there should be a point of agreement on the amount of power a state should posses in the relations with one another. As such both states should come up with rules and regulations to guide this relation so that any deviant behavior by one state becomes unlawful and punishable. However equal distribution of power leads to the suppression of the emergence of dominant states within a particular region hence easing the prevalence of security and stability. Another similarity between liberalists and realists is that both urge states to use deterrence methods in their quest for peace, stability and security within a particular region. Although is advisable to force to deter a state the technique should also be carefully employed. For instance

the deterring state should implement the technique with full knowledge and lawfulness of the action such that it does not inflict devastating effects on other states that will instead trigger further bitterness. It also stresses the undertaking of rational decisions. Therefore the rational choices taken by the realists make them similar to the liberalists in their approach to security especially in their use of deterrence. Despite the above outstanding similarities between the two theories some differences can still be distilled in their approach to security. The realist theory is much more of the use of force than any other means to achieve peace and security in a particular region while liberalists argue that the use of force and aggressive means is more dangerous as it may at times fuel an already existing situation of conflict between two or more states. Therefore realists only have the option of using force as opposed to the employment of other alternatives such as negotiation by liberalists in the search for peace and security. Realists argue that interaction among states is only dependent on the level of power i.e. military, political, economic, social etc. As such a state with excess power is always in good position of defending herself adequately as well as suppressing others if it intends to bring peace and security. On the other hand liberalists argue that power is not the sole determinant of relations among states. They point out that similarities in cultural aspects such as language, behavior, tribal values etc. can be very important in determining the relationship between states. As such these traits can help countries reach to peaceful settlement of differences in times of crisis. Therefore states will just opt for peaceful co-existence and mutual relationship when they share similar cultural aspects. According to realists states are the main actors in their relations with others. For instance they argue that in times of fragile relationships it is only the state and the regime officials who are responsible for bringing about peace and security. States officials are however tasked to sit on table and negotiate with the other side to device appropriate mechanisms of solving a particular dispute. However liberalists contend this argument by saying that other actors like international organizations and private individuals can as well act as mediators between states that are in conflict with one another. This means that these actors can talk on behalf of the states they

represent and this technique is however capable of avoiding embarrassments such as impatience and intolerance that might escalate the conflict further if it were the states that are engaged in the negotiation process. The realist theorists do not also take into account the implications of their use of force against other states. However the failure to use diplomacy in negotiation usually ends up inflicting more pain and other devastating effects like the desire to retaliate etc. hence the continuation of conflict other than its end. Therefore insecurity becomes a continuous trend of relations between states. On the other hand liberalists rational choices always extend as far as considering what would happen in the long run if they take a particular action against another state. Therefore they are always guided by the fear of a very frustrating impact of their actions. However liberalists are careful and capable of making wise decisions that can lead to lasting peace and stability at the least possible alternative. In conclusion, both the liberal and realist approaches to security share the aspect of rationality especially in the notion of balance of power and deterrence since both approaches consider taking of rational choices before acting. On the other hand, they differ in that while the liberalist theory considers other actors in enhancing security the realist does not. Other differences include failure by the realists to foresee the consequences of their actions which the liberalists do. Power according to realists is one other area of disparity between the two approaches.