1. Deniz Çalık
1860998
SECURITY

2. International security from different approaches
• In Realist approach, each state is seen as a rational actor who always pursues
self-interest, and the primary goal of each state is to ensure its own security. In
the pursuit of that security, states will attempt to amass resources, and relations
between states are determined by their relative level of power in terms of military
and economic capabilities.
• Neoliberalism defines "security", often arguing that factors such as health,
welfare, and environmental issues need to be included in institution-building
efforts, whether passive (non-interventionist) or active (interventionist).
• In Liberal approach, states rely on mutual cooperation to tackle global issues.
Managing security issues according to this theory requires the involvement of
international institutions, along with the cooperation of states to achieve this.

3. QUOTES
• The central point was lucidly explained in an internal document written in 1948 by George
Kennan, head of the State Department planning staff in the early post-World War II period:
"...we have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population...In this situation, we
cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to
devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity
without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all
sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrate everywhere on
our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today
the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction...We should cease to talk about vague and--for
the Far East--unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and
democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power
concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.”
George F. Kennan

4. Thomas HOBBES
• “Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man
is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men
live without other security than what their own strength and their own
invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for
industry... no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no
arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and
danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish,
and short.”
― Thomas Hobbes

5. • A foreign policy aimed at the achievement of total security is the one thing I can think of that
is entirely capable of bringing this country to a point where it will have no security at all. And a
ruthless, reckless insistence on attempting to stamp out everything that could conceivably
constitute a reflection of improper foreign influence in our national life, regardless of the
actual damage it is doing to the cost of eliminating it, in terms of other American values, is the
one thing I can think of that should reduce us all to a point where the very independence we
are seeking to defend would be meaningless, for we would be doing things to ourselves as
vicious and tyrannical as any that might be brought to us from outside.
• This sort of extremism seems to me to hold particular danger for a democracy, because it
creates a curious area between what is held to be possible and what is really possible — an
area within which government can always be plausibly shown to have been most dangerously
delinquent in the performance of its tasks. And this area, where government is always
deficient, provides the ideal field of opportunity for every sort of demagoguery and mischief-
making. It constitutes a terrible breach in the dike of our national morale, through which
forces of doubt and suspicion never cease to find entry. The heart of our problem, here, lies
in our assessment of the relative importance of the various dangers among which we move;
and until many of our people can be brought to understand the what we have to do is not to
secure a total absence of danger but to balance peril against peril and to find the tolerable
degree of each, we shall not wholly emerge from these confusions.
• Radcliffe Commencement Address (1954-06-16), published as "The Illusion of Total Security"
in The Atlantic Monthly, # 194 (August 1954)
•
George F. Kennan

6. • "Memo PPS23", written 28 February 1948, declassified 17 June 1974
• We must be very careful when we speak of exercising "leadership" in Asia. We
are deceiving ourselves and others when we pretend to have answers to the
problems, which agitate many of these Asiatic peoples. Furthermore, we have
about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3 of its population. This disparity is
particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation,
we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the
coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships, which will permit us to
maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national
security. To do so we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and
daydreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our
immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford
today the luxury of altruism and world benefaction...
In the face of this situation we would be better off to dispense now with a number
of the concepts which have underlined our thinking with regard to the Far East.
We should dispense with the aspiration to 'be liked' or to be regarded as the
repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting
ourselves in the position of being our brothers' keeper and refrain from offering
moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague — and for the
Far East — unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living
standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have
to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are hampered by idealistic
slogans, the better.
•
George F. Kennan

7. John mEARSHEIMER
• The optimists' claim that security competition and war among the great powers
has been burned out of the system is wrong. In fact all of the major states
around the globe still care deeply about the balance of power among
themselves for the foreseeable future.
• Chapter 10, Great Power Politics in the Twenty First Century, p. 361

8. IN MY OPINION…
I think realist approach to security is better than others because realists argue that human nature is
insatiable and selfish. Individuals only care about their personal interests. This theory assumes that the
international system is mainly anarchic because there isn’t a central authority. Consequently, states must
protect their national security. Also the states should protect the needs of citizens by any means
necessary. There are two key security management techniques. One is balance of power and the other
is deterrence method. From realist perspective security management centers largely on balance of
power within the international system. This fundamental term refers to system polarity. System polarity is
a number of potent states apply power in the international system. In a balance of power, states must
hold a continuous level of equilibrium by negotiating . Thus by keeping the balance of power, the
emergence of a ‘hegemon’ or dominating state is being avoided. According to realism, in the international
system, a lack of stability in a equilibrated system leads to insecurity. To secure each others interests,
there must be a stability between states. Thus this prevents the need for war. In deterrence theory,
realists think that to threat a state to use force may preclude war. For this to succeed, aggressors must
be made cognisant of the possible threat which is posed by the opponent states. There are some
fundamental assumptions that realists make about this method of security control:
•Decision makers are reasonable and they perpetually want to avoid prevent war through alternative
methods.
•Logical decision makers will not attack nuclear states. These kind of states pose a far greater and
annihilating threat.
•A prosperous intervention by logical decision makers can be possible if the aggressor-threat is
momentous and extensive.
So it’s the best way to maintain the security and preventing wars since the individuals are mean and the
states would do anything for money and success in our days. In other words, it is essential to provide
self-help, deterrence and balance of power to provide security.

9. Sources
• http://suite101.com/article/liberal-and-realist-theory-perspectives-on-international-security-
a325691
• http://www.cssforum.com.pk/css-optional-subjects/group-f/international-relations/14612-some-theories-in
relations.html
• http://cyberschoolbus.un.org/dnp/sub1.asp?ipage=sectheories
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations)
• http://www.drtomoconnor.com/3040/3040lect02a.htm
• http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_F._Kennan
• http://www.quotesstar.com/quotes/w/we-must-be-very-careful-86852.html

10. Sources
• http://suite101.com/article/liberal-and-realist-theory-perspectives-on-international-security-
a325691
• http://www.cssforum.com.pk/css-optional-subjects/group-f/international-relations/14612-some-theories-in
relations.html
• http://cyberschoolbus.un.org/dnp/sub1.asp?ipage=sectheories
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations)
• http://www.drtomoconnor.com/3040/3040lect02a.htm
• http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_F._Kennan
• http://www.quotesstar.com/quotes/w/we-must-be-very-careful-86852.html