THE word ‘Security’ is derived from Latin word ‘Securus’ which means ‘free from care’. It is ‘the state of being free from danger or threat’. The terms such as ‘Surety or Protection’ have also been used to express the various ambits of security. Earlier, different terms have also been coined and developed by social scientists over the centuries to define security. Various prefixes, such as National, Human, Economic, Food, Maritime, Internal and External etc., with the word security remained in use for defining different shades of security.
Historically, maritime security has been defined in traditional and non-traditional security ambits. The word “Traditional” draws its linkage from traditions and heritage, where practices &customs of a particular area, state, nation or group of people who followed their beliefs, over the years became traditions. These customs and traditions also provided the foundations for Customary International Laws. International Humanitarian Laws (IHL) have also been derived from customs & traditions.
Traditional maritime security is associated with interstate conflicts & dominance, control of seas & oceans, management & control of waterways & chokepoints, safety & security of sea lanes of communications (SLOCs) against outside interference, securing maritime zones & boundaries etc. In this, States have been the sole authority to manage security challenges.
Non-traditional maritime security deals with terrorism, piracy, human trafficking, narcotics, goods &ammunition smuggling, pollution, nuclear waste dumping into sea, ecosystem degradation, environmental threats including climate change, food security, safety of life and property at sea, and illegal, unregulated & unreported (IUU) fishing, etc. Recently, a new maritime challenge in the shape of illegal movement of active nuclear material has also been reported, which is a potent threat to entire humanity. All these challenges are usually dealt at state level. However, the active role of concerned stakeholders in coping with these challenges has not been understood yet.
During the 21st century, some new challenges; outside of traditional and non-traditional maritime security domains, have surfaced which needed the attention of maritime professionals, social scientists, and security experts. With the arrival of non-state actors (enemy-sponsored elements, International Non-governmental Organizations (INGOs),multi-national organizations, pressure groups and business interests, media houses etc.), the type and challenges in the security realm have further exacerbated over land and at sea. Similarly, hybrid warfare or 5th generation wars need a combined response the state and people. Similarly, geo-economics is being practiced as a warfare tool to influence the population of targeted states or nations.
The prime example of such challenges in the maritime arena is global warming causing sea level rise, which necessitates a global response. Other such challenges also include the impact of urbanization& increase in the number and size of mega-cities on coast belt, exploration and management of sea-bed resources, coastal developments, increasing acidity in sea waters, change in behaviours of marine life due to pollution, anthropogenic-sustainable exploitation of marine resources and increase in underwater noise level interfering with biological and navigational aspects, dumping of untreated nuclear, chemical, plastic &man-made wastes into rivers and seas, etc.
It is a fact that such challenges neither respect the inter-state physical boundaries nor remain confined to geographical areas. Control of air pollution in Lahore, despite the government’s sincere efforts, is not possible until and unless pollution is controlled in the adjoining areas in Indian Punjab. Similarly, marine pollution impact due to oil spillage during Tasman Spirit grounding in outer channel of Karachi Harbour in 2003 also threatened the adjoining Port Qasim and mangrove forests to the east. Even India was also worried about the possibility of this challenge. During Chornobyl nuclear leaks, the impact was also observed in Canada and Iceland. Earlier in July 1979, falling of US first space station “SKYLAB” from space to earth was also a global concern which prompted inter-state cooperation. No single state could handle the magnitudes of these challenges, thus necessitating multi-layer inter-state collaboration and cooperation at the global level. In recent times, the Russia-Ukraine conflict has restricted the grain supply chain to world markets in addition to an increase in fuel prices around the globe. All these challenges are of “Global Concerns” needing a collective response.
All those challenges which can be traced back in human history like piracy, pollution, smuggling, IUU fishing, etc., need to be clubbed with the traditional security paradigm, where a state-sponsored response is needed. Whereas, the state(s) alone cannot address the challenges thus active support of the people is considered essential. Another option can be a hybrid response comprising of the state & people. The same arguments and logic must also be used to define challenges, both over land, air and space domains in 21st century. It is also high time to give due importance to human security, where a people-centric approach can address these challenges. A debate is therefore recommended amongst the social scientists and policy scholars to further crystalize the concept of traditional and non-traditional security vis-à-vis roles &responsibilities of the state and the people.
—The writer is associated with Islamabad based think tank.
Email: cdrbaber@yahoo.com
