Impact of societal groups on security policy
Societal groups have divergent ideas, interests, and strategies in solving security menace in respective countries. The most affected areas are Southeast Asia, Burma, Thailand, and Cambodia in particular. The extent of security has widened broadly since ancient times of the Cold War. Security procedures depend on diseases, criminal rates, pirates, illegal migration of non-citizens, and environmental degradation. The paper focuses on the effects of human security and the conduct of security policies in Southeast Asia.
This conflict determines proper state operations to comply with resistance from activists and groups. From an opinion, threats are not ordered by producing an understanding of the issue that is very threatening. State elites identify problems threatening to convince political gatherings to show suspense of politics. Securitization is used by analysts supporting contemporary security issues and applied to Southeast Asia depicts several matters.
Security policymakers are not answerable to anyone why other issues are being securitized compared to others. The core value of the policy is the way securitization advances the interests of specific groups by suspending reasonable guidelines of systems. Studying the choice of issues to be securitized requires a connection between procedures to self-interests and why influential people make sure particular security procedures are enabled. Securitization experts have not revealed the state secrets and explain the reasons behind individual questionable decisions.
Considering ownership and controlling resources is the first task. The pattern implies a difference in wealth, connection to leaders, and personality, therefore, showing inequality for competing in the same lane in state control. Power distribution in Southeast Asia is determined by legacies from colonies, strategies of the cold war, and state developments economically. State capture by few people has led to the denial of developing ideas with less fortunate to drive their agendas. State development has produced elites, but they still rely on the government for jobs. Societal groups also differ in inaccessibility to instruments of power.
From my point of view, several state ministers assigned big tasks such as foreign docket colluding with immigration officials may decide to securitize some issues. PR stunts with little influencing forces are the order of the day, knowing that implementation is impossible. In several Southeast Asia countries, powerful and corrupt officials hold the government in captivity through corruption. The rich have their way, therefore, controlling the state and enriching themselves. In Thailand, wealthy politicians tried to overthrow the Cambodian administration to advance his business and his associates.
Conflict on state power is a hindrance to security policies even without cartels’ influence. Activists and fascists have overthrown the government after the economic recession. Foreign policies should improve the existing wellbeing of members of society. In case of contradiction, benefits are eroded, and resistance is expected. Groups in a state may decide to resist a policy if it is colliding with their interests. For instance, the Cambodian civil war continued despite government and United Nations bid to stop it because business people who were benefitting from the supply of armaments undermined it and even used the military to transport arms.
In conclusion, I have written on an understanding of state secrets being impossible. Interests of dominant forces are taken care of by every policy formed. Divergent views by different groups have led to the undermining of systems. Groups are also halting security because other groups overthrow administration and undermine developments. Groups can also shape countries’ security policies in terms of hardships by airing their views.