Transnational Civil Society Activism and International Security Politics: From Landmines to Global Zero
| Published date | 01 May 2014 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12115 |
| Date | 01 May 2014 |
Transnational Civil Society Activism and
International Security Politics: From
Landmines to Global Zero
Keith Krause
Graduate Institute, Geneva
Abstract
Effective civil society activism in the high politics realm of international peace and security has not received sustained
scholarly attention, and, at least until recently, was considered a ‘hard case,’compared to other issue areas. This article
reviews recent civil society efforts and assesses, in a preliminary fashion, some of the preconditions and constraints on
transnational civil society activism in a range of security issues, from antipersonnel landmines to antinuclear campaigns.
It concludes that high levels of policy uncertainty, the possibility of issue reframing, significant resources, and strategic
partnerships are all key ingredients for effective civil society engagement. Conversely, vague or diffuse goals, the
absence of state engagement, and policy stovepipes, all stand as obstacles to transnational activism.
Policy Implications
•Civil society actors in the security arena are usually only effective in partnership with ‘like-minded’governments,
and must cultivate (and catalyze) political constituencies in these states.
•Expertise is a prerequisite for effective NGO engagement on security issues, but traditional advocacy (pressure, coa-
lition building, lobbying) is also crucial for sustained support from civil society and governments.
•So-called small and middle powers should recognize the ‘force multiplier’value of working with transnational NGOs
on nontraditional security issues, and create ways to support their parallel efforts.
Two things are noteworthy in any discussion of the role
of transnational civil society activism in engaging with
contemporary global security challenges. First, when
scholars began seriously examining the role of transna-
tional civil society in the mid-1990s (Lipschutz, 1996;
Smith, Chatfield and Pagnucco, 1997; Florini, 2000),
almost none of them thought to look at the realm of
high politics and global security challenges to find effec-
tive action by NGOs and global civil society. There were
some exceptions, most notably the European anti-nuclear
movement of the 1980s (Fierke, 1998), but by and large,
the most significant global civil society activism revolved
around human rights advocacy or environmental chal-
lenges such as ozone depletion, biodiversity and climate
change, and more recently global economic concerns.
Issues of weapons and war were, however, generally con-
sidered to touch upon the core national interests of
states and to have expert knowledge and issue framing
concentrated in and controlled by the state (including
civilian as well as military experts), and thus to be less
susceptible to the kinds of knowledge or advocacy that
could be brought to bear by civil society organizations.
This view turned out to be somewhat mistaken
though, and since the late 1990s there have been some
high-profile transnational activist campaigns on interna-
tional security issues. In particular, the successful cam-
paigns to ban antipersonnel landmines and cluster
munitions, as well as ongoing work towards a global
Arms Trade Treaty, suggested that security politics were
susceptible to large-scale and effective civil society activ-
ism (Price, 1998).
1
But the somewhat less successful
efforts to deal with small arms and light weapons, armed
violence, biological weapons, and perhaps the Global
Zero antinuclear campaign and civil society activity
around peacebuilding, have highlighted that many chal-
lenges to civil society influence remain in areas where
power and the use of force remain of paramount impor-
tance to some global, national and local actors.
In this brief piece I will review the institutional conditions
for effective civil society participation in security –and in
particular arms control and disarmament –policies, as well
as highlight the internal limitations of civil society engage-
ment, and some paradoxes or criticisms that can be made
of the role of civil society in the politics of war and peace.
Global Policy (2014) 5:2 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12115 ©2014 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Global Policy Volume 5 . Issue 2 . May 2014 229
Special Section Article
To continue reading
Request your trial