David Kennedy's Threat Rankings

Professor David Kennedy’s threat rankings on the global security matrix seem to have been based primarily on his conception of the state and system as needing several components in order to sustain itself. Thus, whereas a different interpretation of the matrix might have led to a perceived high level of threat to the state from terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, his interpretation of terrorism and WMDs as necessary to the existence and continuation of the state and the state system is distinctive for his systemic view of threats to global security.

On the human level, Kennedy encountered difficulties in distinguishing between threats to the individual in different contexts. Whether he provided an interpretation of perceived threats from an individual living in a nation such as the U.S. or whether he tried to average the perceived level of threats to individuals across the world was unclear. Based on his threat rankings, the highest threats to individuals, those of resource conflict and environment, seem to apply to all individuals regardless of the strength or economic power of the nation from which they come. His discounting of warfare and failed states as significant threats indicates that he interpreted threats at the individual level from a more outsider-looking-in perspective, one in which the threats to an individual living in a warring state are canceled out by the greater majority of individuals that do not face this threat.

His ranking of threats at the state and system level are based more on what he sees as the central factors that feed the state or system’s survival. From this view, whereas destruction from warfare is still a significant threat at all levels, the possibility of terrorism/crime or WMDs is not in itself a threat to the continuation and existence of the state or system of states. Kennedy’s comment that states want terrorism, or at the very least to convince their citizens of the threat of terrorism, seems in line with the view that external threats can foster a government’s role of providing security. Terrorism seems to be equated with a ‘threat of war’ that can foster a state’s survival, although warfare itself poses a higher level of threat.

Kennedy’s questioning of whether failed states are endogenous or exogenous to the system of states, is also an important consideration in interpreting the threat of failed states that deserves consideration. From his ranking of states at risk to the system, he determines that states at risk are exogenous to the system. Thus, Professor Kennedy sees the threat of environmental degradation, pandemics, and resource conflict as the biggest threats, as these threats actually threaten the very existence of the system, whereas the threat of terrorism or WMDs that select states encounter is not as significant to the continuation of the state system.

This view extends to the threats that networks (international organizations, think thanks) perceive, because perceived threats such as environmental degradation could actually foster more connections and networking among institutions, thereby strengthening the role of these very networks. Thus, the threats that networks perceive to global security is seen as distinct from what the networks need to sustain themselves. Thus, he adds an additional level to the interpretation of threats, one in which networks themselves have separate interests from global security.

On the global level, Kennedy distributes the threats evenly, with the notable exceptions of WMDs and Infowar. Kennedy did not seem to consider the cultural factors from an Infowar as a significant factor, either due to the belief that information disseminated for specific interests could not affect state capabilities, or due to a misunderstanding of the concept of Infowar.

Thus, Kennedy’s threat rankings coincide with the view that if states were not rational actors seeking to maximize their gains, there would be no need for an international system of states. The system of states provides a means through which states can foster their role as security providers and assure their future existence. However, Kennedy’s discounting of WMDs as a significant threat overall is puzzling in light of the threats that nuclear proliferation or weapons trafficking could pose to regional and global security. It is unclear whether his low ranking of the threat from WMD proliferation derives from a belief that nuclear deterrence has been effective or whether the threat of WMD proliferation has been embellished to foster alliance-formation or domestic agendas (an interpretation more relevant to the U.S.) The low threat ranking of WMD proliferation overall contrasts with the high level of threat that warfare poses at all levels. For example, how could the current North Korean nuclear crisis, with its potential to trigger regional militarization and security buildup, be explained by this global security matrix? North Korea’s nuclear crisis can also be seen as the ‘last gasp’ of a state acting out on the brink of its collapse, which raises questions for the overall low threat ranking given to states at risk and the threats they pose to regional and global security (North Korea’s nuclearization triggering Japan’s military normalization, which could produce parallel buildups in China’s military, creating further competition between the U.S. and China for authority in the region).

Posted by Joanne Park on October 17, 2006 12:03 PM | Permalink

« My Interpretation and Critique of Lene Hansen’s Threat Assessment | Main | Prof. Kennedy's Rankings Analysis »