Kafkaesque Security Policy

Jon Nakapalau, CPO, CHSO

The Great Wall of China by Franz Kafka

“Now, at first one might think it would have been more advantageous in every way to build in continuous sections or at least continuously within two main sections. For the wall was conceived as a protection against the people of the north, as was commonly announced and universally known. But how can protection be provided by a wall which is not built continuously? In fact, not only can such a wall not protect, but the structure itself is in constant danger. Those parts of the wall left standing abandoned in particular regions could easily be destroyed again and again by the nomads, especially by those back then who, worried about the building of the wall, changed their place of residence with incredible speed, like grasshoppers, and thus perhaps had an even better overall view of how the construction was proceeding than we did, the people who built it.”

“Now, at first one might think it would have been more advantageous in every way to build in continuous sections or at least continuously within two main sections.”

• Often we look at what seems advantageous via a security stance without taking into account the continuously changing dynamics of differing perceptions held by ideological groups.

• Opposition to a given perspective often leads to more and more questions as the wall continues to be built with outdated plans.

• If at some point the wall is built in continuity without taking into account the changing nature of the builders then there is the possibility that sections of the wall may isolate the builders from each other.

• This problem “mortars” the wall with weakness.

“For the wall was conceived as a protection against the people of the north, as was commonly announced and universally known.”

• “Universally known” can have implicit meanings to different groups; what I may assume as a universally known concept may not be universally interpreted by everyone in the same way.

• Protection can be conceived by some as aggression if the protection in question does not protect everyone who needs it.

• Commonly announced can mean different modes of communication based on the selection of disseminated information.

• When does the concept of protection become dangerous to the very groups that seek it?

“But how can protection be provided by a wall which is not built continuously? In fact, not only can such a wall not protect, but the structure itself is in constant danger.”

• A major point of contention with many current IR theories is the premise that all actions that are taken presuppose a rational perspective by both leaders and societies.

• History tells us that this is not the case; many societies fail to look at conflict in a rational way and then follow leaders who have agendas which will result in suffering and pain for the people they are leading.

• If the ability to build walls is predicated only on a political blueprint that is not continuously reviewed then the very structure that is built to protect may lead to “ideological confinement.”

• This confinement may lead to further conflict.

“Those parts of the wall left standing abandoned in particular regions could easily be destroyed again and again by the nomads, especially by those back then who, worried about the building of the wall, changed

their place of residence with incredible speed, like grasshoppers, and thus perhaps had an even better overall view of how the construction was proceeding than we did, the people who built it.”

• We often forget that this process is being viewed by two different groups: the “builders” and those “forced to change their residence.”

• The same wall will look very different depending on what overall view I have relative to the placement of the wall.

• If one group views the wall as protection is it possible that another group could view the wall as containment?

• Once abandoned there is the possibility that regions may become even more ideologically isolated; the parts of the abandoned wall may serve as a monument to leaders who wish to keep their people under their control.

Bridges or Walls

The next 20 years will have only two metaphysical blueprints as globalization continues: bridges or walls.

Walls are very easy to build…they require only that a group of people decide to erect them. But for each wall that goes up there is another wall that will also go up as another group perceives the first wall as confinement.

Bridges require that both parties agree on the place and design of the bridge; that in turn requires communication during the design phase.

It is naïve to think that walls never need to be built for protection. But it equally naïve to think that a world that erects only walls will have time to build bridges once conflict begins.

The end...