Explaining the security of the global South: Western and Non-Western approaches

Abstract

Dominant security theories, being mostly Western by their origin, are concentrated on the Western experience and security models, with minimal attempts to analyze the postcolonial security landscape of the global “South” which heavily affects the security agenda. The predominant part of modern conflicts (with some exceptions) take place precisely in the developing countries of the global South Western and non-Western approaches to security are distinguished by an expanded (comprehensive) understanding, but in both cases the emphasis is different. Various readings of security create a conflict of perception and, according to many non-Western experts, reflect the Western strategy to initiate a new colonization. At the same time, neither Western understanding nor alternative non-Western critical security theories can claim to be universal. The article describes the dynamics of theoretical approaches to the conceptualization of security, mainly in the context of the dominant Western school of International Relations, demonstrates and explains the marginality of non-Western security issues, and provides an overview of key security issues and threats to the developing world. In addition, relatively new Western concepts of security (humanitarian intervention, human security, responsibility to protect) are being analyzed, which cause strong opposition from the entire developing world and are perceived by non-Western societies as a direct threat. The weakness of the “postcolonial” states, their apparent inability to cope with internal development problems and disorders, and to ensure the safety of the population within their borders, serve as a reason for becoming an object of political influence and interference. At the same time, the West and the non-West are making efforts to speak the same political language of security because of the indivisibility of the current threats. However, the Western practice of world regulation is rejected by the developing world, especially by rising powers. Considering the weight and significance of “the rest of humanity” in such conditions, it is difficult to hope for a rational dialogue on global issues if the discourse, interests, and ambitions of the two poles differ considerably.