How Does Human and Environmental Security Challenge State Sovereignty - Example

HOW DOES HUMAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY CHALLENGE STATE SOVEREIGNITY? In this debate, we are going to look at extend in which this two type of security is challenging state sovereignty for them to be achieved. Human security is going to be debated first followed by environmental security. According to Caroline T, human security is defined as a condition of existence which entails basic material needs, human dignity, including meaningful participation in the life of the community and active and substantive notion of democracy from the local to the global. Its evidenced that human security is an upcoming paradigm for understanding global vulnerabilities whose proponents challenge the traditional notion of state security by arguing that the best referent for security holds that a people-centered view of security is necessary for national, regional and global stability thus the states have to bow down to the pressures from the international community. This concept of human security came from a post-cold war, multi-disciplinary understanding of security involving a number of research fields, including development studies, international relations, strategic studies, and human rights. The United Nation Development Programme’s 1994 Human development report is considered a milestone publication in the field of human security, with its argument that insuring “freedom from want” and “freedom from fear” for all people is the best road to handle the problem of global insecurity. Human security is divided into seven threatening areas which challenge state security in different ways, human security is aimed at assuring to human that his/her global security in the seven threatening areas are catered for that is in economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political security. Thus the human person is not exposed negatively or suffers due to a flop in these seven securities. In the international arena, the seven levels or type of human security do challenge state sovereignty in the following ways: Economic security This involves the assurance of basic income for individuals, usually from productive and numerative work or as a last resort, from a publicly financed safety network. In real sense, only about a quarter of the world’s populations are presently economically secure. While the economic security problem may be more serious in developing countries, concern also have sprout in developed countries as well. Unemployment problems constitute an important factor underlying political tension and ethnic violence. Third world countries to trade their state sovereignty for the exchange of economic favours from the donor countries or international bodies, for example countries in Africa have soften their stand on Gay marriages due to pressure form the West in exchange of economic grants and loans as a stimulus package to the economies of this countries. Also the developed countries are falling in this trap when superpowers are forced to compromise their sovereignty to achieve economic gains like the scenario of United States of America and China. Food security This entails the issue of ensuring that all people at all times have both physical and economic access to basic food. According o the United Nations, the overall availability of food is not a problem; rather the problem is the poor distribution of food and a lack of purchasing power by the inhabitants of the states. Countries are put in tight corners in choosing between feeding her hunger ravaged people and state’s sovereignty, thus for the sake of her people she chooses food, this is evident in third world countries. Like the imposing upon of genetically modified organism on third world countries by the global community, which is against their decisions. Countries like Ethiopia have become a political puppet of United States in exchange of food donations in any form as the agricultural productivity of this country is below the threshold. Health security This aims to guarantee a minimum protection from diseases and unhealthy lifestyles. Thus a country will be forced to loosen her sovereignty so that her people can have standard health facilitations. Countries in third world have been forced into participating in health research that are totally in contrast to her opinion, like the research of Polio vaccine on young kids in Nigeria, which even backslide and even led to death of some kids, all this was in the aim of achieving health security of her people. Another example is the giving developing countries health logistic materials in exchange of a political standing of great importance like when voting is done in the UN headquarters. Environmental security This is aimed at protecting people from the short and long-term ravages of nature, man-made threats in nature, and deterioration of the natural environment like global warming and other natural calamities. States are forced to abide by rules of the international community or donors which are aimed at reducing destruction of the environment like reduction of industrial carbon emission to the states opinions. For example countries have been put under pressure by the international community in reducing carbon emission thus reduce global warming, obvious this will means cutting down of economic development brought by industries. This is contrary to the economic policies of these countries but because of the pilling pressure from the international community they are forced to do so, like the developed countries like China, United States, and Britain. In doing this, they loose the state sovereignty. Personal security This aims to protect people from physical violence, whether from the state or from external states, from violent people and sub-state actors, from domestic abuse or from predatory adults. Countries are forced to offer personal security to their inhabitants forcefully, for example if this states violate personal security which is part of the declaration of human rights in 1944, they get sanctions of economic or military ones. Citizens have taken their on mother countries to international courts or bodies like ICC due to violation of the personal security, thus the countries are forced to abide to ICC rules or UN rules even if its against their local rules or standings. Community security This aims at protecting people from the loss of traditional relationships and values and from sectarian and ethnic violence. Traditional communities, particularly minority ethnic groups are often threatened. Countries have lost their sovereignty by not providing community security. Like the case of Kenya and a local pastrolist tribe of Endorobe that was settled in the African Union courts where the country was ordered to return to the tribe the land which are already been developed for tourism and forced to compensate them. This was against the state wish or stand but it was forced to do saw due to international pressure concerning human rights. Political security This is concerned with whether people like in a society that honours their basic human rights. Countries are forced to abide by the international laws of human rights set by the donors and UN’s 1944 human rights declaration treaty. Thus if countries don’t abide they get sanctions like the scenario of multiparty democracy enactment in Africa and the imposing economic sanctions to Burma, Iran and Zimbabwe. States have lost their sovereignty in decision making on matters of local concern like the issue of Gay rights empowered by Western donors on African countries. This has been demonstrated by Uganda change of stand on the issue after a series of pressure from the donors. Critics of the concept argue that its vagueness undermines its effectiveness (Paris, 2001), that it has become little more than a vehicle for activists wishing to promote certain causes. On the other hand, a deeper look at environmental security which is defined and stipulated that it’s directed at protecting people from the short and long term destruction of nature, man-made threats in nature and destruction of the natural environment by the human inhabitants which in this case is the state. Thus the state may be forced to let go her independent standing on issues of country concern and forced to obey or follow what the donor or international community wants towards protecting the environment. For example a country like Israel was forced to omit weapons made from banned chemicals in wars, which is against their wish of protecting herself from aggression from enemies. Also Burma, was forced to allow foreign troops into the country to help in rescue mission after natural calamities of earthquake but after down playing fro long but international pressure forced them to do so. To expand more on environmental security’s effect on state or national security, since the cold war era, the issue of understanding of state and collective security has encased to include non-military or non-war issues such as environmental issues. As a result, world environmental security issues may interfere with state sovereigns. The way or goings of collective security under the putting into consideration of environmental destruction is of particular importance to strategic areas such as Africa and continent of America. Any environmental destruction that destroys or hampers the operational capacity of a resource that is of global importance becomes an international security issue in which interventions are exercised by the international community. Thus, environment protection of the natural resources of global importance becomes important as a state national sovereignty principle. Like the case of Panama Canal, which is an important canal of global importance, thus any environmental destruction that lowers the operational capacity of the canal thus affecting the global trade must be dealt with, thus leading to compromising of the states principle or rules. Environmental destruction may be a determining factor in a reduction of a natural resource of global importance. For example Canals like Suez and Panama which are two of the most strategic waterways in the world and rainforests which are a key in reducing global warming. Thus understanding the changes of conservation and sustainable development in these countries which host these vital canals is of great importance for the development of these countries and for the world peace and order (Ayoob, 1991) The state of the environment in natural resources of global importance is vital because it has a direct relationship in effect with the natural resource operation or output. Increased destruction of the resources relation to population pressures and agricultural techniques, that is deforestation, can contribute to the dysfunction of the Natural resource. Such environmental degradation of the natural resource would be usually be sovereign matter, however, this degradation becomes a global concern when it is concomitant with international economic flows like transportation which canals like Suez and Panama offer, reduction of pollution which rainforests offer. Thus, the global community will do anything under their power to see that these resources are not destroted even if it means bulling a state’s sovereignty (Ardito and Nicolas, 1997). Thus before this natural resources of global importance ceases to operate and creates world humanitarian or economic loss and chaos, outside intervention from the global community will do everything and be justified as an international security issue in which pre-emptive correction measures could be performed by the global community. Thus, environmental factors become significant and environmental protection of the natural resources become as important as a states national sovereignty principles or rules. Consequently, mismanagement of states natural resources could diminish its economic development and jeopardize sovereignty of its own territory by means of commercial sanctions, blockade, and ultimately foreign intervention (Aizpura et al, 1997). The strategic importance of this natural resources leads to a greater protection of the resources. Like the protection of the two most important canals of the world has always been of greater importance for the states and the world order. This is tracked back to the days of colonization where there was a constant competition for possession of these canals. This is because of the prime strategic location of the canals in serving the waterways transportation of the world, connecting Europe and Asia and the two American continents for the Panama Canal and Suez Canal connecting Asia, Europe and Africa. The states which harbor this natural resources, are dependant upon the resources, that’s their sovereignty, national identity, socio-political character and development are completely dependent upon the resources. Thus the states will be swayed into any position by the global community, thus loosing the sovereignty for environmental security to be achieved. To conclude on environmental security challenge to states sovereignty, Dewitt et al., 1993, stated that the great challenge of peace and security is to recognize that global security cannot be entrusted upon a state alone or a universal body. The art of politics of security will face its challenges in the interstices between the sub-national, national and regional interests. For instance, the first African United Nation’s (UN) secretary general said that the “ United Nation has reemerged as the focus of much discussion concerning the new security architecture, one in which collective security architecture, one in which collective security is tempered by cooperative security and the rights of both individuals and national communities are given sufficient weight that they call into question their traditional inviolability of the nation state”, this postulates that states are going to continue compromising their sovereignty as long as they are members of this body. Also environmentalists are still pushing for expansion of military security to include environmental and economic spheres. Thus international bodies with armies can enter a state in the name of protecting the environment, thus the state loosing her sovereignty in the process, this was clearly demonstrated by the Invasion of Iraq in 2003 due to “weapons of mass destruction” which could destroy the global environmental security. (Mathews, 1989). Thus this will lead to more sovereignty being lost. Thus, overally its evidenced that, national security has become globalised by major fact that states interests and domestic policies have become increasingly connected or related in more interdependent world (Morales, 1989). Thus the interconnectivity of local and regional economies, labor migration, and shared use of natural resources are complex and inseparable. Thus, the debate of a comprehensive international security continues to challenge states sovereignty in the name of achieving or fulfilling global security in the expense of trading away state’s sovereignty as evidence by members of UN or ICC. References 1. Paris Roland “Human security-paradigm shifts or hurt air?In:International security, vol. 20.No.2, 2001. Pages: 1-10 2. Caroline Thomas “Global governance, development and human security the challenge of poverty and inequality” CRISE Vol.2. No. 5, 2003: pages 1-13 3. Mathews and Jessica “Redefining security” Foreign Affairs 68 (2), 1989: pages 162 4. Ayoob Mohmed “ The security problematic of the third world” World politics 43 (2) 1991: pages 257-283 5. Morales and Waltraud “ The war on drugs: a new national security doctrine?” Third world quarterly 11 (3), 1989; pages: 147-169 6. Sorenson and Theodore “ Rethinking National Security “ Foreign Affairs 69 (3), 1990; pages 7 7. Russet, Bruce and Sutterlin, James “ The UN in a New World Order” Foreign Affairs 70 (20, 1990: pages 69-83 8. Homer-Dixon, David Dewitt, John Kirton and Thomas et al “ Building a New Global Order; Emerging Trends in International security. (eds), 1993: pages 141-158 Read More