The debate over whether epidemics are considered a safety issue or not has been on the agenda again these days when the corona virus (Covid-19) has taken thousands of lives worldwide. Such discussions, are such infectious diseases are a security thread, have recently been on the agenda since diseases such as the Ebola epidemic in West Africa (2014), the SARS (2003-Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) and the H1N1 flu pandemic (2009) outbroke. This report evaluates the effects of epidemic diseases on the armies and wars from past to present, the role of the armies in fighting these diseases and the evolution of this role over time, and finally the positive and negative consequences of the security (or re-securitization) of such health problems.

The use of the term “fighting” is a very common discourse to face the challenges. Nowadays, we hear the term “war against the corona virus” alot. However, compared to other issues, the corona virus epidemic and the measures taken to fight such epidemic diseases are similar to those taken in the classical sense. First of all, the difficulties faced by the society and feelings such as fear, togetherness, expectation of hope, and uncertainty are similar in classical war times and in times of struggle with epidemic diseases. The existence of the threat and its direct threat to survival, and the measures taken against this existential threat to take precedence over other issues and the legitimacy of extraordinary/illegitimate measures against these threats can be counted from these similarities. With a more concrete example, triage practices, which cannot interfere with all patients due to the presence of patients in the capacity of hospitals and other health institutions, are a method that has to be applied both in war and in fighting epidemic diseases.

On the other hand, there are aspects of fighting epidemic diseases that differ from the classical war. As in the classical war, it is not possible for a different state or group to attack as an enemy. At the same time, the means of struggle also differ. Weapons, which are the basic devices of classical warfare, are replaced by drugs and soldiers, which are the main actors of classical warfare, are replaced by doctors and other healthcare workers in the fight against epidemics. An important difference is that solidarity and common struggle are possible worldwide due to the global character of fighting epidemics.

Although corona-like epidemics have been left out of the agenda and forgotten at normal times, similar and far more deadly pandemics have occurred in history. The most deadly of these is the black death (black plague, big plague) plague that took place in the 14th century and cost the lives of 75 to 200 million people. This epidemic, which is thought to have been born in Asia, first reached Crimea through silk road and then to Europe via Italy via merchant ships. Approximately half of the European population died in this bacteria-based outbreak. Although there is no complete consensus on how the outbreak ended, the idea that quarantines applied are effective in ending the plague is the dominant view. When looking at virus/flu-based outbreaks, as in the current Corona epidemic, it is known that the first known flu pandemic affected England, Germany and Italy in the 11th century. Then, until the Spanish flu pandemic that occurred during the first world war, in 1510 1580, 1729--1730, 1732-1753, 1781-1782, 1830-1831, 1833-1834, 1850-1851, 1857- 1858, 1874-1875, and 1889 fatal pandemics have been observed. Especially until the Spanish flu that emerged during the First World War, although the effects of diseases such as cholera, smallpox or typhoid on the armies and wars were examined, there aren’t many records regarding the effects of virus-based outbreaks on wars and armies and the role of the armies in fighting these epidemic diseases. The first of these rare records is about postponing the advancement of the army in England in 1485. Afterwards, it was recorded that the virus-based pandemic in 1781-2 was effective on soldiers in certain garrisons in England, and then it was much more deadly on soldiers. Following the problems, Britain determined the flu epidemic as a threat to the level of preparedness of the armed forces in 1859 and decided to keep standard statistical data in this regard. From the same dates, military vets started to work on the healing of this disease.

The emergence of the lethal effects of the flu epidemic on the armed forces led to measures taken in the armies of other countries in the same years. For example, in 1863, the American army carried out new barracks architecture and construction work to prevent patient transmission in the flu epidemic. In other countries, the disease was tracked and reported statistically in the armed forces, and clearer information about the disease was obtained. Despite all these developments, the viral flu epidemic was called the “war disease” in the late WWI, in 1918, after the Spanish flu. The outbreak caused by a variant of the H1N1 virus has cost the lives of 40 to 50 million people and was particularly effective against people aged 25-45. The harm caused by this epidemic to the soldiers was much higher than the damage done to civilians. For example, studies conducted in the USA have shown that the death rate among soldiers of the same age group is two times higher than civilians. When looked at today, it can be understood that the reasons for this high sickness and death rate in the soldiers are the conditions such as collective living conditions, low hygiene and ventilation conditions in the barracks, exposure of the soldiers to the cold. The fact that the death rate of the soldiers in the barracks in the US are much lower than soldiers in European front is another indicator of the effect of the barracks on the outbreak. Looking at the soldiers on the battlefield, both sides of the war were negatively affected by the epidemic. During the epidemic, the losses experienced by the German and allied forces on the European front over the epidemic exceeded the deaths caused by the conflict. After this epidemic, the pandemic flu started to be seen as a disease caused by military conflict.

In addition to the disproportionate effects of the pandemic on the soldiers, the work carried out within the armed forces also played a pioneering and dominant role in the studies against this epidemic disease. The presence of a large number of personnel in the armies also led to the existence of a suitable test mass. Due to the belief that pandemic flu is caused by armed conflict, in the second world war period, the treatment and vaccination researches against the epidemic have intensified within the armed forces. In 1941 and 1942, resource allocation for military medical research in the USA doubled compared to previous years. In 1941, Armed Forces Epidemiological Board (AFEB) was established in the USA in order to conduct research on the flu and other epidemics. As a result of the studies and tests carried out in 1942 and 1943, the board found the vaccine that protects against A and B type virus. In this context, by 1945, seven million American soldiers were vaccinated. The success of military vaccination studies has led to the use of the vaccine in the civilian field, and in this context, it has paved the way for civilian military cooperation.

The role of the armed forces in the fight against the epidemic has entered a downward trend in the post-World War II period. Three main factors played a role in the civilianization of the struggle. The first of these is the emergence of international organizations and structures in the fight against epidemics. The World Health Organization (WHO), which was established in the United Nations in 1948, played a major role in this context. In 1952, the Global Influenza Surveillance Network (GISN) was established within the WHO. This institution has replaced the flu monitoring and research institutions within the armed forces in the countries, especially after its successful role in the rapid isolation of the epidemic in the fight against Asian flu in 1957. Another factor that played a role in the civilianization of the fight against the pandemic after the Second World War is that there was no epidemic disease, such as the black death or Spanish flu mentioned above, which caused great destruction. Measures such as standardization of vaccination have been effective in this regard. In this context, the flu research department of AFEB, which was established in the US army in 1941, was closed in 1971. Finally, the fact that the work in the military field focused on nuclear capabilities during the cold war period also led to a decrease in the role of the armies in the fight against the pandemic.

With the end of the cold war, within the scope of the expansion and deepening movement in the sense of security, new reference objects outside the state and issues such as environment, identity and culture have been started to be included in the security area. Especially with the weakening of nuclear contention, different issues have begun to be taken into the security area. This has brought up the debate on re-securing epidemic diseases. The possibility of a new global epidemic, especially after the H5N1 Avian Influenza outbreak in 1997, sparked a number of steps while igniting discussions on this issue. For example, in 1997, the flu monitoring commission was re-established within the US army. While the SARS epidemic in 2003 and the ongoing avian influenza cases reinforced the argument that the epidemic was a safety threat, many studies have been done on the poor consequences of the safety of the field of health.

The Covid-19 outbreak we have experienced in recent months has also led to the reignition of these debates. Examples have emerged both in terms of the effects of epidemic diseases on armies and military operations and the role that armies will play in fighting this issue. Considering the effects of the pandemic on army and military operations, many countries limited military exercises and reduced the number of soldiers abroad. While Turkey delayed the summoning of troops, demobilization of soldiers under arms were extended. As a critical example, a very critical element, such as the USS Theodore Roosevelt aircraft carrier in the USA, was drawn into the port due to the corona epidemic. On the other hand, considering the role of the armies in the fight against the pandemic, it is seen that the armed forces played an important role in the implementation of curfews in many countries, the evacuation of civilians in different countries and the transportation of medical equipment. In countries such as China, where there are military health systems, the armies are effective in the treatment of the disease, establishment and operation of field hospitals, and logistic control of medical equipment. In Turkey, the military factories started to produce masks and protective clothing. MKE started to produce breathing devices as well as working on drugs under the Ministry of National Defence control.

If the issue of securitizing epidemic diseases is evaluated, it is actually mentioned about re-securing, not securing, as mentioned above. Issues in the social world have been located in three main areas. The private/personal space is the area where there is no public debate and where choices are made individually. The public/political sphere is the area where there is public debate and where the views of the society play a role in making decisions. Finally, the security area appears as a private area with a place over other areas. When a matter is secured and taken into the field of security, it becomes more important than all other issues and all extraordinary measures are legitimized in order to solve this issue/threat. It is seen that this issue, which is already in the field of security, was de-securitized after the Second World War, and thus, it is seen that some health issues were taken into the private/personal area. Today, the discussions of both the expansion of the concept of security and the securitization of the issue again with the latest developments related to the pandemic continue.

Although the Copenhagen School theorists, who are the architects of the theory of securitization, emphasize that desecuritization should be preferred in the long term because of the weakening of the public debate environment, there is no general-valid rule that it is right or wrong to put security into the security area. However, the possible positive and negative aspects of securitizing epidemic diseases can be mentioned. On the positive side, securitization may lead to prioritization of this issue compared to other issues, more resource transfer, and increased efforts for solutions. At the same time, the already organized organization and the use of armies in the fight against epidemic diseases can also be beneficial in solving the problem. On the other hand, there are possible negative consequences due to the characteristics of the security area. The security area has a number of features such as confidentiality, limiting public debate, urgency, and lack of criticism. Therefore, securing epidemic diseases may lead to militarization of the issue, restriction of public debate on the issue, and in this way, to make the solution difficult.

The following resources were used in this study:

A. Hirsch, 1883, Handbook of Geographical and Historical Pathology.

B. Baysal, ve Ç. Lüleci, 2014, Kopenhag Okulu ve Güvenlikleştirme Teorisi.

C. Watterson ve A. Kamradt-Scott, 2016, Fighting Flu: Securitization and the Military Role in Combatting Influenza

H. Syse, 2020, Philosophy and Ethics in the Age of Corona Virus, https://blogs.prio.org/2020/03/7666/

R. Byerly, 2010, The U.S. Military and the Influenza Pandemic of 1918-1919.

V. G. Heiser, 1918, Barrack Life and Respiratory Disease.