My view of Security

In my original essay, I weighed human security over the security of the state. I believed that it is important for the people to be secure in order for the state to be secure.

When examining security, my belief is solidified in some of the things that we have learned this semester in class. When learning about the Ebola outbreak, this proved to me that security was individual and not state. Ebola crossed state boundaries, largely because of the incompetence and inability of the government. The governments in West Africa substantially contributed to the spread and outbreak of Ebola, and did little to stop it in the early stages. This meant that it exploded and spread almost internationally. Those who were at the largest risk were the people. Ebola did not necessarily threaten the government, but rather those who lived in poverty and densely populated areas.

Personal security also deals out emancipation, because it makes all people equal and does not discriminate. This can be seen in the case of human trafficking and sex trafficking. Individuals, largely females, are kidnapped and forced into labor against their will. They are taken from their homes and are shuffled around the world into fields such as sex work, personal servants, and in factories to make products. This is directly related to human security and emphasizes why it is so important. If individuals cannot be protected from being kidnapped how can they be protected at all? Without individuals and humans, there is no state and government. If their government does not protect those inside of their state, how can it be legitimate?

All of this also plays into Ontological security. Ontological security deals with the mental stability of people based on their surroundings. Without order, Ontological security is seriously threatened. Human security plays into ontological security because human security presents order. If people worry about being infected by Ebola or being turned into a sex slave, they have no Ontological security. Ontological security is important to the stability of a state, and if the people are not secured there is no Ontological security which means that the state is in danger. Therefore, human security leads to state security making it more important in my belief

Security Studies

In my security essay I argued that national security and human security were essential to understanding security in the 21^st century. Having read varying cases in class, stretching my conception of security I still hold the same belief but add an additional layer that includes the environments role in security issues. The dictionary definition of security is: “the state of being free from danger or threat.”[1] I think culturally we have built up this conception that enables us to immediately associate national security and the military with security. However, when looking at security in its simplest form it becomes evident that while national security still falls under its umbrella so does a host of other things including human security. The examples in class only further emphasized my view that security is an all-encompassing term.

One thing I had not thought of as being a potential security issue was the environment. Tuvalu, the disappearing island provides a host of complex security issues affecting a wide facet of security issues as a result of uncontrollable environmental factors. This example got me thinking about the environment from a security perspective. Climate change is already having adverse effects on the environment across the globe complicating the lives of millions. Fresh water is running out, there is the potential for overcrowding and natural disasters are increasing in both number and intensity. The changing environment in some respects is creating a space for potential human security problems. Essentially, I believe all security is linked. If we are damaging our environment to the point where it is having adverse effects on individual’s basic ways of life we are then causing human and ontological concerns. Additionally, protection of natural resources as they being to deplete such as water and oil for example are likely to cause both internal and external conflicts potentially causing national security issues. Without basic elements of survival, people will begin to fight to survive, and in the extreme case without a people there is no nation. While this is a long and complicated chain I believe it is essential to understand in order to protect human and national security.

Going forth, I believe governments should prioritize citizens and the protection of the environment as unrealistic as that may be. If we are able to protect our natural resources and limit the negative impact we are having on the environment their will be a positive ripple effect among human lives. I am aware that this will not solve all security problems however; I think it is an interesting way to approach security in some respects. This is not to say that all security issues can be related to the environment rather that some can be linked back to such causes and it is another lens in which to view security. In essence, there is more to security than it may seem including ways to potential prevent certain issues from arising such as what I have suggested above. We can no longer adhere to just the traditional sense of security rather we must adapt to our changing environment including new types of issues into the security umbrella much like the US has molded and built upon the foundation of the Constitution to fit the needs of society today.

---

[1] www.google.com

My review of Security

Earlier this year I argued National Security is the most important form of security because it allows a uniform quick response to a wide array of issues while protecting the ideals of the country. However, as the class studied different situations of security threats, I soon began to realized there are many instances that either do not have a clear solution or cannot be solved by the national government. For these instances, perhaps a blend of protecting a country’s values in the national security aspect while advocating human security of health and safety could be a better approach.

In my original argument, I believed national security is the most efficient method of security. I cited examples like the issues of Somalian pirates threatening passing ships and the threat of lone wolf hackers that set out to expose a country’s secrets. However, after reading of tragic world events, there are instances when a national government fails to be effective. Instances like the Sierra Leone conflict or climate change are probably situations that the strongest national security in the world is still probably not the most effective response because in these examples a national security cannot assume the difficult problems of combatting the trade of blood diamonds or climate change. There are other security threats like the earthquake in Haiti or human trafficking that a national security approach simply cannot clearly answer. In my original paper, I argued that security directed by the national government is the best approach because it will serve the state’s values, government, and people. However, if its people or NGO’s expand to other parts of the world, these actors will also serve the state’s values for better or worse depending how they act. In fact, after studying events such as the United States government’s failed attempt to relieve the Haitian people’s hardships after the earthquake. When the national government put its own interests before the interests of the people it alters my perceptions of the importance of security to the government. With a national security approach, it seems the government may use its military and diplomatic power to better its own influence instead of always improving the quality of life or eradicating global injustices.

In my mind, a better approach to the global issues may be a humanitarian approach that is concerned with the health and betterment of all people. Situations like climate change refugees, Haitians, or victims of human trafficking do not need a military or law enforcement intervention, but just basic needs like medicine, water, and food. In this case, maybe the national government and military should attempt to better work with NGO’s, the affected population, and humanitarian programs to better provide services to people. In addition, welcoming people affected by these situations gives the government a better understanding of the issue. I think when it comes down to issues pertaining to threats against human life and health, governments that act against the issue need to focus on protecting life and helping victims instead of playing the politics game.

Security Spectrums

In my security essay, I argued that, while the United States had yet to adopt a definition of security that goes beyond mere protection of the state, in the 21st century, it will be essential for the international system and, in turn, the United States to adopt a foreign policy designed to secure, “peace, justice, human rights and human development,” as opposed just the protection of the state, not only to include more voices in the discussion of security issues, but to ensure that human beings feel secure in a world no longer characterized by external violent threats alone. (1) 

While I agree with my original viewpoint that the concept of security needs to be broaden to include the security of the individual, I believe now that it would be most productive to conceptualize security as if it were on a spectrum. This may be that one end is traditional, national security with the state at the center of protection, and at the other end is human security, where individuals are at the center of protection. This spectrum may at other times have the hypermasculine, traditional military security on one end with total equity on the other end, with the feminist understanding of security in the middle of the two. (The feminist understanding of security is very much aligned with Ken Booth’s “Security as Emancipation,” and he actually draws on some critical feminist theorists to make this argument.)

No matter how each person designs his/her/their understanding of the security spectrum, all human-created threatening issues (regardless of whether or not everyone agrees that each specific issue should be defined a “security issue”) will exist on this spectrum. Most importantly: these issues can only b solved using BOTH types of security mechanisms that exist on this spectrum to solve each issue. Something that we have have yet to really explore in class is that security threats are never “solved” using only national security techniques or only human security techniques, but rather, the best way to approach such issues is to determine what mechanisms employed in each type of security are best suited to complement this one particular case. Thinking of human and national security as complementary understandings of security, as opposed to constantly at odds with each other is a much more productive way of speaking about security and may even allow scholars and policymakers to cease their unproductive bickering over how security should be “defined” and actually move on to what should be done about it.

Because this is in the abstract, I will provide the example of undocumented immigration into the United States as a the “security issue” and describe various ways it can be thought about using the spectrum system I just laid out. In this case I will assume the legal innocence of all undocumented immigrants, apart from the civil offense of crossing a border without documentation or overstaying a visa. (Note civil offense, not criminal offense.) I do this to narrow the security threats at play for the context of this brief post. National security is at play here because, at base level, some people living long term in the United States will not have documentation which could prevent them from paying some federal taxes. (For the record, most undocumented immigrants do pay federal tax because it “looks good” to the government if they ever find themselves in a deportation situation, or if they have citizen children and wish to apply for citizenship.) Human security is at play here because these individuals have literally no accessible place to live where they can feel safe. Going “home” (if they even describe their country as home) is often a death sentence due to immense poverty or violence. Coming to the United States means potentially constant discrimination and fear of deportation. Both national and human security tactics will need to be used to confront this issue.

Now, if someone one studies postcolonial theory views this scenario, he/she/they may have a different security spectrum that would lead them to ask questions like: why are their countries of origin so poor? Was this partly due to political, social or economic interference from a Western, whiter power? Does this Western, whiter power now have a moral responsibility to do something about this mass poverty and violence? If a feminist theorist were to view this situation, again the spectrum would change. He/she/they would ask questions like: Are the sexes of undocumented immigrants relatively equally represented? Are certain genders more stigmatized upon entering the country? Are immigrants to appear female more easily able to overstay visas or cross the border? Are immigrants who appear male subject to police brutality in higher proportions than either those who appear female or those who appear to have citizenship (white people, or people from areas with low levels of immigration)? It will be essential to realize that not one of these scholars will have the full answer to any one issue. But rather, all policymakers and scholars from various disciplines will need to incorporate their own understandings of security into a productive mechanism to eliminate the security threat.

(1) Quotation from Swedish Prime Minister, Stefan Löfven describing Feminist Foreign Policy, found in Cynthia Enloe, Cynthia H. Enloe, Globalization and Militarism: Feminists Make the Link (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007).

Definition of Security: A Moderate Correction

     The cartoon above is commenting on the increased searches preformed by the NSA at security check points - ultimately arguing that they are getting so out of hand that they are even taking the toys Santa Claus has for children. However, there is a bigger topic here then security pat downs - it is what is security in the 21st century? In many ways, the pat downs are the physical representation of security in the 21st century; national security threats are still the primary concern of security.
      In my first paper, I argued that security was security in the traditional sense, it was the protection of the state from threats foreign or domestic. While I do not think this has changed, there is an addition I would like to make. Human rights are a fundamental principal for each of the nearly 8 billion citizens of Earth. When these are violated, it should be a security concern for every government. Our discussion on human trafficking, combined with the discussions had in the Global Crime class with Professor Twyman-Goshal are what changed my opinion of this. A fair question to ask is how can we worry about defending the country when we cannot defend our own people? I am in turn arguing for human security, but I am arguing for human security in the same way you would argue that a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square. Human rights are the cornerstone of human security, and if we are to advance the definition of security down the road (which is what I argued in my original paper), we must start from the bottom.
      After a semester studying global security, I stand by the argument that the definition of security in the 21st century is one that will change - but for now is locked in on national security. We have seen the devastating effects of earthquakes, human trafficking, terrorism, and piracy, just to name a few, but these cannot best be dealt with until the security of the state is dealt with. When we are able to eliminate the terrorist threat, or create peace in conflict prone regions, then the definition will be able to move beyond that. The definition should not be viewed as a hard and fast definition that is cold and un-changing, but a malleable one, that with the right amount of time, and the right conditions, will change to meet the current security needs of the time.

Was I right about Security?

When I wrote my security essay at the beginning of the semester my thesis was: "Security in the twenty-first century must evolve from the traditional definition of military protection against threat to encompass the issues threatening basic human needs such as water access, food security and a clean environment, that have arisen due to the ever-changing political, economic and social global atmosphere."
I essentially discussed the need for security as term to be expanded from the tradition meaning due to the increase in globalization in recent years. Globalization is the reason for many issues that are affecting people daily such as, poverty, climate change, and rights. Humans physical and physiological needs are no longer being met, and I based these needs on Maslow's pyramid of needs. 
As I reflect on my essay I have to say that I still agree that security as a term must be expanded. However in my essay I discuss security in a global sense, however I believe now that these human needs must be considered in national security. Wæver's article states, "National security is fundamentally dependent on international dynamics" (2). This encompasses what I was trying to get across in my essay and, somewhat, failed. I found a connection with the changing world due to globalization and the need to expand what is a security issue. Globalization has created more threat and this international atmosphere affects nations. Therefore as Wæver put it, national security is dependent on this globalized world. This is why we need encompass these new threats in our addressing of security.