Human Security Should Be Seen as a Higher Priority in International Politics - Essay Example

? History and Political Science Essay Introduction Human security is threatenedby war among other things. International politics is characterized by armed conflicts, which endangers the fundamental aspects required for human survival, such as the basic rights and freedoms. In addition, human security is affected by abject poverty, severe environmental deprivation and the absence of rule of law. Additional factors threatening human security include increased violation of human rights, political oppression, and autocracy. All factors that threaten human security require sustained cross border efforts to address them. The problems or issues of human security are common problems to several countries and nations across the globe. Addressing these issues would be a significant step toward state and national security. International politics should prioritize addressing issues of human security than state or national security because they endanger the basic elements of human survival. International politics should increase awareness of actors such as governments, intergovernmental organizations as well as academics on the interconnectedness of human welfare and dignity in the global political and economic context. Consequently, human security should be a more pertinent issue in international politics in terms of policymaking and implementation at domestic, regional, and international levels. Arguments for Human security demands higher priority in international politics than state or national security because it encapsulates the basic elements of national and state security. State of national security emphasizes the security of particular territory from external aggression and protects the national interest in foreign policy as well as international security. Conversely, when given more priority, human security encompasses fundamental security threats to common people, which may lead to national or state security. Human security deals with threats of disease, poverty, social conflict, environmental dangers, and threats of political repression (Frick & Oberprantacher 2009, p. 132). Human security should be given additional priority as opposed to state or national security because when the issues or threats to human security are addressed, the majority of the national or state security threats shall have been settled. Tackling human security threats would imply that mortality rates are reduced because deaths due to illnesses, hunger and poverty would have been mitigated. Threats to national security because of ethnic and racial tensions would be dealt with. National or state security would be automatically handled appropriately when human dignity and life are preserved and protected first (Frick & Oberprantacher 2009, p. 132). The problem of human security is a universal and interdependent concern because human security threat in a particular nation can as well be a human security threat everywhere across the globe. The problems of human security are focused on individuals and can be prevented and managed to avoid spilling to other neighboring states and countries, raising the national security threats (Newman & Richmond 2001, p. 70). Human security should be prioritized more than state or national security because it emphasizes the empowerment of individuals against the immediate security threats involving various forms of conflicts. In contrast, national or state security focuses on defending against the security threats. Human security helps the international community to shift away from military intervention techniques that have been criticized to hinder development in areas where applied. Through human security, international politics would help address the predominant issues of underdevelopment and human dignity that most third world countries suffer from. Moreover, human security would promote multilateralism and networking among nations that desire to fight against unilateral actions across the globe. This concept would also help the international community to define other security threats such as poverty, environmental deprivation and socio-cultural conflicts (Tadjbakhsh & Chenoy 2007, p. 37). Human security should be prioritized above national security because of its capacity to enhance and boost the relations between security and developments. This is because human security is an essential foundation for human development, and there exists interdependence between the two. Human security can be used by states and nations to achieve national security through human development (Zhijun 2006, p. 79). Human security should be prioritized in international politics because it is established on the concept of subsidiary threats at the point of human welfare as opposed to state security founded on levels of insufficiency and deficiency. Addressing the subsidiary threats is more holistic and comprehensive because of the involvement of individuals from all sections regardless of their status in the society (Zhijun 2006, p. 86). Embracing the concept of human security in international politics would help drive the concept of globalization. It would improve and enhance the relations between the international community and the national government in implementing effectively the public policies. Human security policies, therefore, would be very instrumental in emphasizing the priority of allocating international policy agenda for international actions (Zhijun 2006, p. 87). The practice of prioritizing national or state security over human security is not adequate enough to provide individuals with sufficient national and individual security measures. States or national governments do not warranty the citizens improved and adequate security measures they require. Human security would be the most appropriate option to solve some of the weaknesses of national security prioritization because it addresses the social and political issues that give rise to the security threats across the globe. Embracing human security would help in rectifying the historical problems of political power as well as economic developments that have hindered developments across the world (Goucha & Cilliers 2001, p. 4). Human security also provides non-state actors in international politics with the opportunity to contribute to realizing security of states and individuals across the world. Instituting and establishment of socio-political developments in countries and states by non-state actors would help in strengthening nations across the globe, promoting peace and security (Goucha & Cilliers 2001, p. 7). Arguments against The pro-human security crusaders claim that, “achieving human security – focused on the protection of the lives and livelihoods of people – is a key to achieving global security” (McCormarck 2007, p. 77). They claim that the shift from state-centered to human-centered ensure thorough security for individuals and raises awareness of pressing issues such as poverty and environmental damage, which traditional security measures overlook. In the view, human security is more humanistic and opens up new horizons for addressing pressing global problems (McCormarck 2007). If human security takes precedence over national security, it would translate to prioritizing security of individuals at the expense of national security. Thus, this view holds little regard of national security and ignores the importance of the state in providing human security. It unnecessarily focuses greater attention to sustainable development. Furthermore, powerful states seem to offer little support to the norm of human security (Mahmud, Quaisar, Sabur & Tamanna 2008). The proponents of human security tend to securitize social problems. Contrary to their claims, human security depoliticizes and shuts down rather than opens up new horizons, and deprives individuals of their socio-political context. They shift the evaluative viewpoint of security from the collective standpoint of the state and, thus, evaluate the impacts of issues such as crimes, substance abuse, food security, and gender issues on the individual, rather than as centers of wider socio-political divide. Therefore, they approach social issues from purely security perspective, placing them outside politics. Such transformation of security problems into security issues “depoliticizes” the society (McCormarck 2007, p. 84). The proponents of human security tend to forget that it does not represent a complete paradigm shift from the traditional thinking of state security. Rather, the definition of security is a pre-political conceptualization of an individual (Mahmud et al. 2008). The human security concept severs the state from an individual based on historical backgrounds such state tyranny and repression. This inextricably implies that there is no relationship between the individual and the civil society, in which case the state provides stability. Consequently, social relationships would be more unstable, fluid, and risky without security guarantee by the sovereign state. If a state does not act in the individual capacity to organize the society, social relations would remain unknown forces, completely external to the individual. What results is a vulnerable, disparate individual stripped off political and social context (McCormarck 2007). It is ridiculous to regard poverty as the major threat to national security. Furthermore, human security does not benefit its targeted beneficiaries because it does not alleviate suffering as pro-human security crusaders claim. The proponents attempt to establish a causal relationship between political and socio-economic issues. Furthermore, they try to establish causal relationships between the maintenance of international peace and individual safety (Tadjbakhsh 2005). The concept of human security has many flaws. First, human security concept fails to acknowledge that territorial integrity and political sovereignty are key to ensuring intra-state security in the first place. Inter-state protection is a prerequisite to intra-state security. Thus, claims that human security is more necessary than state security is ambiguous. This cause and effect of human security tends to confuse because the causal propositions are ambiguous. This implies that policy-making is bound to fail, or even backfire in some cases. The concept of human security may create disposition toward solving political and socio-economic problems through the military (Mahmud et al. 2008). The all-inclusive concept of human security fails to distinguish clearly between human rights and human security. It is confusing regarding the prioritization of numerous goals, which are often contradictory concerning human security and interests of national security. In other words, it fails to elaborate on the nature of the correlation between individual integrity and security, and the national security interests of the state (Mahmud et al. 2008). Analytically, the concept is weak because it imbues many superfluous variables of threats, which lack entanglement. This makes it difficult to study the relationships between these variables. The pro-human security zealots lack a concrete measure of human security conditions. They integrate a wide range of concerns under security rubric, making it nearly impossible to establish a yardstick for facilitating measurement (Mahmud et al. 2008). The claim that “peacebuilding is a sustained process of preventing internal threats to human security from causing protracted, violent conflict” (Brown 2004, p. 255), implies that peacebuilding is an endeavor to prevent a deterioration of human security from causing a decline in human security. This premise is quite irrational and ambiguous. It contradicts the notion that human security encompasses a certain inclination toward peacebuilding. In other words, if human security integrates virtually everything, then it is effectively meaningless (Brown 2004). The all-inclusive definitions of human security make it difficult for policy-makers and scholars to apply these definitions into real security issues. These definitions lack specificity, making it difficult for policy-makers to come up with specific solutions to any particular political issue. In other words, human security is: [t]oo broad and vague a concept to be meaningful for policymakers, as it has come to entail such a wide range of different threats on one hand, while prescribing a diverse and sometimes incompatible set of policy solutions to resolve them on the other (Brown 2004, p. 254). Empirical studies indicate that peacebuilding projects have deteriorated in the last five years and have not eradicated the cruxes of conflict, neither did they establish the liberal-democratic state nor created a reliable ally in international counterterrorism efforts. Instead, countries have spiraled back into conflicts. Thus, the processes of statebuilding and peacebuilding are not harmonious (Dulic 2008). To sum up, the all-encompassing concept of human security is effectively “hot air.” It lacks a rational basis for solving the core global problems. Contrary to the claims of proponents, human security depoliticizes and shuts down rather than opens up new horizons, and deprives individuals of their socio-political context. The human security concept severs the state from an individual based on historical backgrounds. The concept has many flaws, making it difficult for policy-makers and scholars to create specific solutions to particular problems. Human security should be prioritized more than state or national security because addressing it encompasses all the elements of national security threats. Human security empowers individuals against immediate security threats, unlike national security, which focuses on defending security threats. Further, it helps define new security threats across the globe. In addition, human security helps in fostering human development across the world through addressing the socio-political issues affecting the world. References Brown, ME 2004, New global dangers: changing dimensions of international security, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Dulic, D 2008, ‘Peace building and human security: Kosovo case’, HUMSEC, pp. 1–15, viewed 25 September 2012, http://www.humsec.eu/cms/fileadmin/user_upload/humsec/Workin_Paper_Series/WP_Dulic.pdf. Frick, ML & Oberprantacher, A 2009, Power and justice in international relations: interdisciplinary approaches to global challenges, Ashgate Farnham, Surrey. Goucha, M & Cilliers, J (eds.) 2001, Peace, human security and conflict prevention in Africa, viewed 25 September 2012, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001249/124996e.pdf. Mahmud, H, Quaisar, MM, Sabur, A & Tamanna, S 2008, ‘Human security or national security: the problems and prospects of the norm of human security’, Journal of Politics and Law, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 67–72. McCormarck, T 2007, ‘4 From state of war to state of nature: human security and sovereignty’, in CJ Bickerton, P Cunliffe & A Gourevitch (eds), Politics without sovereignty: a critique of contemporary international relations, pp. 77–93, University College London (UCL) Press, New York. Newman, E & Richmond, OP (eds.) 2001, The United Nations and human security, Palgrave, New York. Tadjbakhsh, S, 2005, ‘Human security: concepts and implications with an application to post-intervention challenges in Afghanistan’, Les Etudes du CERI, pp. 1–77, September 2005, viewed 25 September 2012, http://www.ceri-sciences-po.org/publica/etude/etude117_118.pdf. Tadjbakhsh, S & Chenoy, AM 2007, Human security: conceps and implication, Taylor & Francis, New York. Zhijun, L 2006, ‘Contention on the value of “human security”’, International Review, vol. 44, pp. 77–90. Read More