5.3.2. Internal Security

By now you will have asked yourself: doesn’t security depend on internal peace and order? How can a society be secure if there is violence or the threat of violence inside its borders? And how can it prepare to face violence from outside its borders if it is not secure inside its borders?

This chunk raises questions about the relationship between internal security and overall national security. It argues that for a nation to be secure externally (from threats outside its borders), it must first be secure internally. If there is internal violence, it can severely weaken a nation's ability to respond to external threats. For example, a country embroiled in civil unrest might find it challenging to defend itself against foreign invaders.

Think of a house with broken locks and windows. If someone is trying to break in from outside, it's much harder to protect it if the inside is chaotic. Similarly, countries facing internal issues, like protests or violence, may struggle to defend against external threats.

After the Second World War it seemed that, for the most powerful countries on earth, internal security was more or less assured. Most European countries, particularly the powerful Western European countries, faced no serious threats from groups or communities living within those borders. Therefore, these countries focused primarily on threats from outside their borders.

Post-World War II, many powerful countries felt a sense of security within their borders, which led them to focus on external threats. This shift occurred because they faced fewer risks from internal dissent compared to past conflicts. As a result, their attention turned mainly to military threats from other nations rather than internal issues.

Imagine a town that has successfully resolved its crime issues. The residents can now focus on protecting their town from storms or floods instead of worrying about getting robbed or having violence break out within. That’s how post-war Europe felt secure and directed its focus outward.

Traditional security must also, therefore, concern itself with internal security. The reason it is not given so much importance is that after the Second World War it seemed that, for the most powerful countries on earth, their security concerns were often similar to that of the European powers.

This chunk emphasizes that internal security should be a significant part of traditional security concerns. However, after World War II, many nations believed that they were not vulnerable to internal threats, which led them to prioritize external military threats. This oversight could create vulnerabilities in the long run, as ignoring internal issues might allow them to escalate.

Consider a car owner who only focuses on maintaining the exterior of their vehicle while ignoring engine issues. Over time, the engine could fail, making the car unusable despite its shiny exterior. Similarly, countries that neglect internal security might find themselves unprepared when internal strife arises.

Internally, the new states worried about threats from separatist movements which wanted to form independent countries. Sometimes, the external and internal threats merged. A neighbour might help or instigate an internal separatist movement leading to tensions between the two neighbouring countries.

Newly independent states often faced threats from internal groups pushing for independence, which endangered national stability. External threats occasionally compounded these internal issues; for instance, neighboring countries might support separatists to weaken a rival state. This interaction between internal and external threats complicated security dynamics for nations.

Imagine two neighboring schools that compete in sports. If School A's team encourages a faction within School B to break away and form a new team, it not only destabilizes School B but also creates rivalry between the two. In international relations, similar dynamics can occur when outside forces exploit domestic discontent.

Internal wars now make up more than 95 percent of all armed conflicts fought anywhere in the world. Between 1946 and 1991, there was a twelve-fold rise in the number of civil wars—the greatest jump in 200 years.

This chunk discusses the alarming trend that most conflicts today are internal rather than between countries. The period mentioned saw an unprecedented increase in civil wars, indicating that issues within nations are becoming more common and severe. This shift highlights the need for improved internal security measures to prevent conflicts from escalating.

Think of a neighborhood with frequent altercations between families rather than outside burglaries. If families can’t resolve their issues, the neighborhood becomes unsafe for everyone. Similarly, if countries can't address internal disputes, they may experience significant conflict.

--