Research Vice-President of the Research Institute of Strategic Studies
The notion that the state is in the center of national security equations, though has been occasionally criticized, still enjoys prominent validity; thus a large number of analysts and decision-makers in the field of security issues have consensus over the unique place of the state in the definition and identification of the secure situation. However, the acceptance of the important place of the state in the process of security building cannot be taken as evidence for the centrality of this institution in the formation of the meaning of security.
In the light of this aspect of the issue, this article proposes the question of the secure situation in the following way: “Are the states able to create the same meaning of the secure situation envisaged by them as the desirable norm in the minds of their audiences – i.e. people? The author’s semiotic analysis derived from the analyses found in the linguistic field indicates that the state is identified with four features in the area: expression, decision, conduct and feedback. In other words, the meaning of security is not merely inferred from the state expression; so one can expect that in many cases the implication of security affected by other signs – such as decision, conduct and most importantly feedback – finds an implication entirely different from one envisaged by the state. The author attracts the attention of the power holders to the important point that the implication of security is largely influenced by the states’ decisions and the feedback thereof.
)