Other good analysis about the security in the Americas. Attention should be paid to these words: The discussion of security issues, at least since September 11, 2001, has fluctuated among three modalities: strategic/theoretical, tactical/technical and ideological/emotional. Little attention is paid to such fundamental considerations as definitions. In fact, there is no generally-accepted definition ofeven such a constantly-used concept as “national security." The most common confusion is that of national security with national interest.
The difference is profound, however. Countries have many national interests: political, economic, diplomatic, social, environmental, cultural, etc., and pursue these interests through a variety of means: political, diplomatic, economic, informational and cultural. The concept of security however implies a threat to the integrity of the entity involved, be it a person, a family, an organization or a country. National security concerns are a subset of national interests and imply a threat to the security of the state. It is only these concerns that will be addressed not only by the means mentioned above, but also through subversion, military display and war.
In this paper I will argue that the pursuit of hemispheric security suffers from a variety of obstacles, including organizational, political and strategic. Most significant, however, is the lack of an operational definition of hemispheric security common to at least the most important countries of the region. US leadership will be sorely tested by these factors and may have to settle for incremental progress, often through bilateral agreements among agencies and departments of government, rather than hemisphere-wide agreements among states.
Contrast it to the lecture quoted in the last post. They are both good material to start thinking about the real problems of security in our continent.
