Intelligence is a very important factor in security. It exists at three levels or in three forms, thus as a product, and organization in the institution of security, and as operations (Barry, Wæver & Jaap, p 45)
As a process, intelligence begins with its need, or demand, assembling or collection, understanding of its implications (interpretation and analysis), its production, thus use in real context to solve security issues and dissemination which involves its widespread usage (Barry, Wæver, & Jaap, p 98)
Intelligence is applied in solving security problems with preferences, especially in the western world, where the major areas where it is used is in solving terrorism threats for instance in the resent killing of Osama Bin Laden by the American security agencies; and as was used during the antiterrorist activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. These antiterrorism activities are at both the national and the global levels. For instance, the UK made a move of coming up with an antiterrorism act of 2006. This act made it an offence even to plan for terrorism. It also specified the adequacy of the power of the police in dealing with terrorism. In the war against the ‘Jihad’ terrorist activities, important factors needed intelligence interpretation. Such factors included the ideology behind the activities, the technologies used by the group to facilitate their activities, and an understanding of radicalization, how the people come to support such inhuman activities. (Diamond, & Jared. P. 34)
The Copenhagen school of security studies emerged to impart the necessary knowledge and skills that could be used by security bodies/agencies. The school offers its perception of security and defines it as “a derivative concept; it is in itself meaningless”
The school has three major approaches in the study of security; namely the “inter-subjectivist-constructivist”; “the subjectivist-critical”; and “the Normative critical” approaches. According to the first approach, security is perceived as an issue that concerns survival. As such lack of security posses a threat on the existence of the people who are targeted by the insecurity. This is a view held or emphasized by the Copenhagen school. The school in Paris however, perceives security from the second approach which emphasizes that the subject of security is simply about security. This school avoids an in-depth perception assuming that security is a layman term which can be understood by anybody. The third approach also known as the emancipatory approach, views emancipation and security as “two sides of the same coin”, where emancipation is theoretically considered as security. (Matschulat, & Austin, p. 97)
Non-violent resistance is simply the resistance which does not involve destruction of any kind- of humanity or structures. Thus resistance in a very peaceful manner e.g. the use of conflicting ideology as was seen in the cold war. This war was simply an ideological war where different powers conflicted in their ideologies hence were seen as a war of words and not weapons. Absolutely no structures were destroyed during these wars. (Mutimer, D, p. 210). Non violent resistance is widely encouraged in situations where resistance is inevitable. The main advantage of this kind of resistance is the fact that no physical loss of either human life or property is realized though psychological loss comes with it, especially on the party that looses on the war. Looking on the contrary at violent resistance, a lot of losses are realized in the process and at the end of the resistance. Such resistances are accompanied by inhuman activities like bombing, hacking, burning of property among others.
In summary, security is an issue that concerns both the nations as individuals and the globe at large. The major anti-security activity which threatens security at the two levels is terrorism, which at the moment has soared the relationship between the Arabic countries e.g. Afghanistan and Iraq and the western world, with America, the main country targeted by the terrorist activities (Lindsey & Robert, p. 83)
The main factor that motivated the emergence of the school of security studies at Copenhagen was the emergence of global war fares and terrorist activities which widely threatened national and global security (Lindsey & Robert, p. 107).
Non violent resistance should be encouraged in situations of conflict, both locally/nationally and globally, as it safeguards property and humanity against loss yet the resistance is expressed and solutions reached.
Works cited
Barry B., Wæver, O., & Jaap W., Security: A New Framework for Analysis, Lynne Rienne, 1998.
Bill S., ‘Identity and security: Buzan and the Copenhagen school’, Review of International Studies. 1996.
Diamond, & Jared Guns, germs, and steel: the fates of human societies. W. W. Norton & Company. 1997.
Dulles, & Allen W., The Craft of Intelligence. Greenwood publishers. 1997.
Matschulat, & Austin B. Coordination and Cooperation in Counterintelligence. CIA-Matschulat.1996.
Mutimer, D. Critical Security Studies: A Schismatic History in Contemporary Security Studies, A. Collins (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2007.
Lindsey, Robert The Falcon and the Snowman: A True Story of Friendship and Espionage. Lyons Press. 1979.
Littell, Eliakim; Littell, & Robert 1846. The Living Age. Littell, Son and Co. 1846.
Rawlings-Way. New Zealand. Lonely Planet. 2008.
Van C., Michelle K. Counter-intelligence and National Strategy. London: Routledge publishers. 1998.
Wisner, & Frank G., On the Craft of Intelligence. CIA. 1993.
US Department of the Army. Field Manual 34-37: Echelons above Corps (EAC) Intelligence and Electronic Warfare (IEW) Operations
http://books.google.com/books?id=z4EfAAAAYAAJ&printsec=titlepage#PPA410,M1.