Identifying new paths and new approaches to researching global security through the life sciences in the years to come is indeed a daunting challenge, for two major reasons. The first is a shift in the perception of security. The second is related to the recent involvement of new disciplines in this field, while, at the same time, it has also been necessary to adapt traditional security research to the new perception.

Aware of the importance of that endeavor, NATO and ESF (European Science Foundation) have created a joint program aimed at identifying the various areas for research. L'Institut Français d'Analyse Stratégique (IFAS) has been commissioned to organize a number of activities for that purpose, the findings of which result in the present report.

Our task is - and will continue to be - to identify all the paths for security research for the next generation. Of course, the life sciences will continue with their ordinary activities and research according to their own nature and goals, but it is the intention to create an additional security-oriented sector. Creating such a sector suggests that each discipline will contribute its own knowledge and specific methodologies, bearing in mind that a security orientation will help to create an innovative, cross-disciplinary approach. History should collaborate with geography, ethnology needs psychology, and vice-versa. Together they will interact with sociology, anthropology, philosophy and many other disciplines under the umbrella of security.

Having recognized that general proposition as the fundamental principle of our activity, we need to consider several adjustment variables related to the general transformation of a post Cold War world.

The Cold War was characterized by an ambiguity in the field of security and defense studies. Military studies were clearly limited to large-scale operations and tactics, sometimes they could reach strategic level, but they were all about war: conduct, preparation, planning. The nuclear dimension was a major area of study, and technology was seen as a crucial factor for more efficient, more lethal, weapons systems.

In parallel, some countries, particularly in the northern part of Europe, developed specific security studies for arms control and peacekeeping operations, according to their culture and national interests. Those nations were more inclined to consider a broader if not softer concept of security, military concerns being only part of it. For example, in the former Federal Republic of Germany, the notion of Sicherheit competed with defense studies in the context of the Ostpolitk initiated by Chancellor Helmut Schmidt. Several institutes emerged with the sole purpose of establishing knowledge, data and analysis which differed from the bipolar sources of information. Therefore, security studies developed in the civilian academic world, but they hardly acquired full recognition as an autonomous discipline. One of the main reasons for this was the traditional existence of specific military training dedicated to the development of high-ranking officers and including training specific to their role. A second major reason is related to the desire of existing disciplines to maintain a security component: law, history, sociology, psychology and others traditionally dealt with war, peace and security and were very reluctant to allow security studies to attain full autonomy. That situation still prevails to some extent. However, there are strong incentives for structural reform.

Such trends have been paralleled by the evolution of NATO as a military organization. WMD, energy security and communications security have evolved a higher profile far beyond the traditional concern about logistics and supply for military operations.

Non-conventional security issues, including human security, have expanded the notion of security, creating an interaction between individual and global spheres. Many companies which traditionally were purely oriented towards military business have reoriented their activities towards security, or created new units aimed at satisfying the new security needs of counter terrorism. Many of those approaches were, locally, based upon technology as the main, if not the only, response to security concerns.

A major shift in the relationship between security and defense includes two key factors: first, the individual dimension (human security), second the ‘planet dimension’ of the ‘global village’ or ‘Earth Security’, and the related perception of connections between mankind and a fragile environment.

Those two topics are becoming more and more interdependent and interactive. As a result, non-traditional security studies are on the increase all over the world. These mutations, which are a combination of long-term and short-term concerns history, geopolitics, ideologies and the related mutations in the balance of power, need to be addressed through a variety of structures.

Events

Since the end of the Cold War, the concept of security has made a great leap forward which can be divided into two periods.

First, the impact of the Balkan wars (1991-1999). New responsibilities arose for the EU as it addressed a new kind of security matter: peace building through civilian/military cooperation, and the step by step introduction of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the Common Security and Defense Policy (ESDP).

Second, 9/11/2001 and the subsequent terrorist atrocities in London (2003) and Madrid (2004), generated a major and irreversible shift. The strategic concept of the EU put forward by Mr. Solana, former Secretary General of NATO and elaborated by a team chaired by General Naumann, former Chief of Staff and head of the NATO Military Committee, addressed the new challenges, bringing together security and defense. In countries like France, new white papers addressed defense and security as deeply interwoven topics in order to create a continuum which can meet the challenges of another continuum: risk, threat and danger.

Organizations

EU, NATO, ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations), SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization), etc. have modified, or are in the process of modifying, their missions according to new questions and concerns of various natures, with international terrorism, pandemics and natural disasters being on the list.

Some organizations approach security from a different perspective. The background of NATO is military defense, and it is considering security in a new way, giving priority to ‘hard security’, i.e. WMD and terrorism. Other organizations, like the EU, have gradually integrated security as a new dimension to their activities because of terrorism and the need to address all forms of disaster. As a new regional body, the SCO has its own agenda, subject to many adjustments.

In addition, we must take into account the significant gap between those who belong to the ‘defense and security’ community because they have made their entire career in that field, and those coming from the outside, who have a new interest in this field. They discover that things have been in motion for sometime.

Generations

Most, if not all, of the members of our committee must recognize that they belong to the Cold War or immediate post Cold War generation.

The new generation (45 years old and younger) have a different perception, but are ignorant of some fundamentals of security and need to be educated – at the same time we must also learn from them.

Countries

Most of the nations belonging to NATO and the EU share the same history. Although Western Europe and Eastern Europe see their security interests differently, they share a common and sometimes painful legacy.

But cultural perceptions remain strikingly different, if not divergent, when it comes to the different domains of security. Those variables have shaped our approach in terms of security research.

We must take into account what has been achieved - what has become or is the state of the art - but at the same time we are obliged to consider all the variables and address them as properly as we can.

Taking into account the basic principle and the variables, we should work together in order to define bold new paths and areas for research for all the institutes, think-tanks and individuals who are willing to join us and to integrate the research network we have already begun to build.

Such a network should not be restricted to EU and NATO members. It should encompass other areas in the world - notably the emerging countries - and/or connect with existing networks already operating in different parts of the world, for example in South East Asia (through ASEAN).