Dr. Muhammad Akram Zaheer
National security in principle should be a straightforward concept. For a country like the United States, national security concerns arise whenever a transnational threat or an emerging global power directly challenges the nation’s sovereignty, survival, or vital interests. Traditionally, powerful foreign militaries have been viewed as the most apparent threats to national security. However, the scope of what constitutes a threat has expanded significantly in the modern era.
Beyond military might, various other challenges can jeopardize national security. For example, vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure such as ports, energy plants and the broader economic infrastructure pose significant risks. If these key assets are compromised, it could severely disrupt the nation’s economy and overall stability. For instance, an attack on the nation’s energy grid could cripple essential services, leading to widespread chaos and undermining the nation’s ability to defend itself.Moreover, climate change has emerged as a considerable threat to national security. The potential impacts of climate change are vast and multifaceted, with the ability to undermine the economies of major coastal cities like Miami and New York. Rising sea levels, increased frequency of extreme weather events and other environmental shifts could lead to significant economic losses, displacement of populations and increased strain on national resources. These consequences could weaken the United States’ ability to respond to both domestic and international threats, making climate change a critical issue within the realm of national security.Despite these clear examples, not all public policy issues should be conflated with national security. There are certain debates that, while intense and significant in their own right, do not directly pertain to national security. For example, the promotion of transgender rights or the controversy surrounding the teaching of critical race theory in schools, though important social issues do not constitute national security matters. These are domestic policy issues that, while they may influence the social fabric of the nation, do not pose direct threats to the sovereignty or survival of the country.
In practice, Americans have often struggled to maintain a clear and focused understanding of national security. Historically, the concept of national security has sometimes been broadened to include a wide array of issues and diluting its core meaning. This tendency to expand the definition can be traced back to the early days of the United States.George Washington in his first State of the Union address to Congress and provided a foundational perspective on national security. He barely mentioned external threats to the young republic, focusing instead on the importance of preparation and deterrence. Washington emphasized that the United States should be well-prepared to face any potential threats by ensuring that its soldiers, officers and diplomats were adequately paid and equipped with the necessary resources. His famous assertion, “To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace” encapsulated his belief that a strong defense was the best way to ensure national security and maintain peace.Washington’s approach underscored the importance of readiness and the ability to deter threats before they materialize. By focusing on the essential elements of national security adequate defense, strategic preparedness and the ability to respond to potential threats he laid the groundwork for a national security strategy that would serve the United States well in the years to come.
Washington’s sentiments in this speech resonate with many foreign policy experts, reflecting his deep concern for the nation’s future. However, his second State of the Union address, delivered in 1790, remains relatively obscure compared to his more famous pronouncements. This address is particularly significant because it reveals Washington’s detailed assessment of the challenges facing the young United States at that time. In this message, he outlined a wide range of “aggravated provocations” that threatened the stability and security of the nation. These provocations included the resurgence of violence by Native American tribes on the western frontiers, a situation that was both a domestic and foreign policy challenge for the fledgling government. The Native American resistance to American expansion was a serious issue, as it threatened the safety of settlers and the government’s ability to extend its control over the frontier territories.In addition to the domestic unrest, Washington highlighted the turbulent situation in Europe, where the balance of power was precarious, particularly among the great maritime powers. The late 18th century was a period of significant geopolitical tension in Europe, with the aftermath of the American Revolution and the early stages of the French Revolution contributing to an unstable international environment. The European powers were deeply entangled in rivalries and conflicts that had the potential to spill over into the New World, affecting the United States interests. Washington was acutely aware of these dangers and his address reflects his concern about how these external pressures could affect the young republic.
Despite these concerns, Washington recognized that the geographical separation of the United States from Europe by the vast Atlantic Ocean offered a degree of protection from the immediate threats posed by these foreign powers. As the United States began to expand westward, eventually reaching the Pacific Ocean, it became even more insulated from the direct influence of European conflicts. The nation’s vast landmass and its distance from other major powers allowed it to develop in relative peace, free from the constant threat of invasion or interference that plagued European nations.This period from 1820 to 1900 was characterized by what scholar Arnold Wolfers described as a time when U.S. policy could afford to focus primarily on the protection of the foreign investments and markets of its nationals. The United States, during this era, was largely concerned with securing its economic interests abroad rather than engaging in the complex and often dangerous power struggles of the European continent. The Monroe Doctrine articulated in 1823 is a prime example of this approach, as it asserted that the United States would oppose any European intervention in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere while also avoiding entanglement in European conflicts.
Washington’s second State of the Union address offers valuable insights into the early foreign policy challenges of the United States. It highlights the dual concerns of domestic instability and international turmoil, while also recognizing the unique advantages afforded by the nation’s geographic isolation. This address underscores the cautious yet forward-looking approach that would come to define American foreign policy in the 19th century, as the country sought to protect its interests while avoiding the pitfalls of European-style power politics.
