Due to the discontentment with the conventional concepts of security, the research schedule based on these conventional concepts, associated theoretical debates and their impact on policy, have given rise to the idea of non-traditional security. In the present era, it is universally acknowledged that security possesses multifaceted characteristics. Growing from the components of military and political units of the days of the Cold War, it has presently come to achieve new magnitude i.e. which is composed of economic, social, environmental based and educational oriented. These are not brought together under the military characteristics of security and they encompass a whole lot, ranging from macroeconomic equilibrium to environmental based.
Non-traditional security risks like extremism or terrorist activities, weapons which lead to mass destruction, crimes which are done in an organized fashion, and environmental hazards continue to plague the European Union. These irregular dangers are the most troublesome as they are difficult to discover, prevent and shield against. Following the shielding of U.S. from all fronts, the conventional fear of the present world from military attacks looks to have vanished for a considerable period now. While describing dangers to Europe, it is pertinent to bear in mind that pacification, particularly during the interwar periods, was an overriding strategy of the leading West European countries. The dangers are to be eliminated by describing it out of being, through pacification and adjustment.
The most exhaustive study of the notion of security in the international relations writing has been given by Barry Buzan. Maybe the most continuing facet of Buzan's involvement to the discussion over security has been his splitting up of the security plan into five spheres. Political-based, Military-based, economics, social and environmental are the five spheres. He reasoned that the state can be subjected to dangers from each of these spheres, and that the state can be exposed to a varied measure to these diverse sectoral perils. We are all conversant about the conventional approach to security which is military threats and military security that is simple to judge. It has been identified by Buzan that military intimidation are specifically vital to states, and due to this, security relating to military has been revered as bearing an important position in the research of security. He consents with this, to an extent, since military danger can overpower any of the remaining sectors, by involving aggressive pressure. (Buzan, 1991, p.61) vital premise of his debate, however, is that security perils i.e. defenselessness has many forms than the military only. Buzan argues that political hazards are those directed at the steadiness of the state, in terms of organization. They can assume from an insignificant type of force for change of guard, and vary up to form a separate state, or even engineer an uprising. Buzan identifies this type of threat with the ideological rivalry between the U.S. And the Soviet Union at the time of Cold War. The legality of each state was founded on political principles basically in variance from the other. The leap, thus, of the beliefs of each one caused a danger, which could be very true in fact. The crumbling of the Eastern Europe, bear in mind, is comprehended, in a small measure, by the discouragement of the legality of the states in Eastern part of Europe. Whether they appreciate it of not, these states was confronted with a very strong political danger by the notions of liberal democracy of the western part of Europe. Intimately related to similar political dangers is what Buzan regards societal dangers, the dangers which intimidate the solidarity of the society, although the organizational veracity of the state itself is not at peril. In this class, for instance, Buzan adds the danger to Islamic cultures caused by the Western concept and also the danger to the culture of France caused by the globalization of the U.S. culture. (Buzan, 1991, p.80)
Buzan's fourth sphere of threat is economic threat. He identifies that difficulties exist with the concept of economic-based security, but wishes to remain with it till the uprightness of the state can depend on its economic state of affairs. Hence dangers to the economy of a sovereign state or society can render the integrity of the state vulnerable, and hence could be assumed difficulties of security. The concept of economic security was thought provoking while Buzan was authoring, when the oil shortages of the 1970 had come to light regarding the defenselessness of the supposedly influential states were in this sphere. Buzan in his ultimate sector of analysis defines the environmental sector wherein the states are confronted with the threats from the degeneration of the environment that can influence their organizational steadiness, legality and economic-oriented security. (Buzan, 1991, p.146)
Thus, Buzan debates, that it is necessary to see that these ecological dangers are regarded as a distinct sector on the security plan. It is pertinent to bear that the spotlight of Buzan's apprehension is still the security of the state. Buzan continues to debate in his discussion about the environmental security that it constitutes a security problem when it places the state at peril. Finally, Buzan's involvement of the security question is to widen the plan instead of modifying it basically. The conventional idea of security envisioned threats totally in military language. Buzan extends that notion to visualize threat and susceptibility from a multiplicity of elements. (Buzan, 1991, p.253)
An important non-traditional security threat affecting the European Union is that if terrorism. The dangers of disastrous extremism are not limited to the U.S. Or the Arab world. Europe has become the clandestine origin where the strategy for extremism to start. Terrorism, in Europe has been observed as an internal crisis. (Black, 2004, p.5) The menace of extremism in Europe in the past has not come from the Arab world, but from internal sources, such as Irish Republican Army in Ireland or the German Red Army. This implies that several Europeans believe combating extremism is not the lookout of the military, but the job of the legal enforcement bodies. (Vercher, 1992, p. 137) The events in U.S. On the September 11 transformed that attitude only in a small measure. United States was by far the target of the assault and not Europe.
As the Europeans do not have the type of military deployments that America have, European administrations and citizens consider that their nations are less vulnerable to global terrorism. Besides, Europe does not possess the prevailing and all-encompassing cultural impact that the U.S. boasts, and Muslim fundamentalists loathe and speak ill about. This unconcerned attitude might transform if extremists in their next attack eye upon any city in Europe, which is not unthinkable. Previously, a bomb detonated in Tunisia evidently focused Germans rather than Tunisians with the Synagogue that was attacked were mostly visited by the German citizens and those killed were in fact Germans. Legal enforcement activities in Europe also exposed tactics to attack some of the prominent historic structures like the Eiffel Tower and so on. (William, 2003, p.16)
Every European country despite their support or otherwise to the Iraq war was confronted with threats of assault. Imprudent persons, religious fundamentalists, co-called campaigners and agents of national or insurgent groups could and do function everywhere and have the potential to launch an offensive virtually anywhere and at any moment. Any European nation could be struck down by an assault. Every country of the EU is susceptible, despite their influence in Iraq or not. The extremists generally use bullets and bombs, but several in the deadly type of extremists openly employ chemical or biological arsenal. Several others have the potential of causing stray damages by assaulting our data and information network installations. Europe, which in the earlier years had been vulnerable to internal extremist outfits like Ireland's IRA and the terrorist organizations in Germany and Spain, presently confronted a fresh danger from Islamic fundamentalists groups. (Moller, 2004, p.3)
The present extremist outfits seem too bent on employing limitless aggression and inflict colossal fatalities. The universal terror unleashed by the groups like the Al-Qaeda characterized a new type of combat. Osama Bin Laden or extremists of similar nature have the power to wipe out thousands and inflict mayhem throughout the globe by blowing off a simple nuclear gadget in central Europe, alerted by experts of security. Al-Qaeda found the potential to employ weapons of mass destruction in their assaults. (Evans-Pritchard, 2004, p.7) Bin Laden has given himself the responsibility to amass nuclear weapons. Administration under the EU are worried that no country is immune from Al-Qaeda in spite of their standpoint in the America sponsored war in Iraq and that the cartel should ensure solidarity to thwart a perilous new enemy unleashing wanton homicide. (Joshi, 2004, p.6) Although Europe has witnessed sporadic attacks by internal extremist outfits that have taken the lives of few people,…