Power positions and political interests often outweigh security concerns in security policy
In her doctoral dissertation in international relations, Elina Eloranta identifies four basic strategies through which states pursue security: defence, offence, the building of cooperative relationships, and different forms of assimilation. Finland’s policy of adapting to the Soviet Union’s interests during the Cold War, referred to as Finlandisation, is a classic example of producing security through assimilation.
“In security policy, reinforcing existing power positions and advancing political interests is often more important than enhancing security,” says Elina Eloranta, a Doctoral Researcher at Tampere University.
“States may pursue courses of action that are politically advantageous, even when they are not the most effective options from a security perspective.”
Security rhetoric serves as a powerful means of legitimising policy choices.
“It is very common for offensive actions to be framed as defensive,” says Eloranta. As examples, she cites Russia’s war against Ukraine and the United States’ interest in acquiring Greenland.
Our understanding of security is at risk of becoming increasingly narrow
The dissertation also examines the security dilemma, whereby measures taken by one state to enhance its security prompt others to respond. Eloranta argues that this ultimately reduces security for all the parties involved.
“Many countries are currently developing their military capabilities for serious and legitimate reasons. At the same time, however, we are drifting towards an arms race in which few states will see any increase in their overall security,” Eloranta warns.
A broader understanding of security has largely been overshadowed by military considerations that once again dominate political decision-making and public debate.
“Weapons are necessary, but they do not produce security on their own,” reminds Eloranta.
In her view, measures that strengthen cooperation and build trust between states often provide the most effective basis for genuine security. For this reason, she advocates continued commitment to arms control and international norms, even in the current geopolitical environment.
Practical experience brought a real-world perspective to the research
The dissertation draws on Eloranta’s extensive professional experience in conflict zones, diplomacy, and EU and NATO crisis management missions.
This practical background is reflected both in her research design and the study’s conclusions.
“I wanted my research to resonate with reality. In conflict zones, it quickly becomes apparent that not all security threats are rhetorical, but it also becomes equally clear that a wide range of objectives can be pursued in the name of security.”
How the research was conducted
- In her qualitative study, Elina Eloranta proposes that different approaches to producing security can be analysed in terms of their response to potential security threats.
- Eloranta develops an eclectic analytical framework that combines multiple theoretical perspectives and illustrates the security choices made by states.
- The dissertation contributes to a deeper understanding of how states seek to create security and why they pursue specific courses of action or non-action.
- To test the framework, Eloranta assesses the EU’s claims regarding the comprehensive nature of its counter-terrorism policies. Her empirical data consist of policy documents and interviews.
- The theoretical analysis is supported by practical insights gained through Eloranta’s extensive professional experience in conflict zones, diplomacy, and crisis management missions undertaken by the EU and NATO.
