Global Security Has Evidently Hindered the Enjoyments of Human Rights - Research Paper Example

Introduction The costs of terrorism have been virtually felt in every corner of the globe. Many states, organization and institutions have severely suffered under the state of security. Great men have been lost; uncountable resources have been destructed, and global institutions have collapsed under the threat of terrorism (Mack, pp 12). Terrorism is evidently having very direct and real impact on human rights with major devastating impacts on the enjoyment to life such as tourism and liberty of individuals. Nowak argues that besides these human costs, “terrorism has the potential to undermine civil society, destabilize governments, threaten economic and social development and importantly pose danger to global peace” (126). All these factors have direct and visible impact on the delights of human rights. Needless to say, security by all means is a basic human right, and the protection of the citizens is as well basic obligation of any government. States and a government evidently have an obligation to guarantee human rights of their citizens and other visitors by instituting positive measures to counter terrorism and apprehending the offenders to face justice.(Mack, pp. 14) History about global security The United Nations saw it emergence in 1945 above all; it was born to save future generations from the bitter scourge of war. It would guard human security and ensure that the horrors of the World Wars were never occurred again. Sixty years down the line, we are all familiar with the biggest global security threats we face now, and in intuitively, the decenniums ahead, stretches beyond States waging destructive war. They extend to environmental degradation and infectious disease; poverty; violence and war amongst states; the spread and potential use of nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological weapons; and trans-boundary organized crime; terrorism. The threats range from state as well as non-State actors and State security to human security. The major preoccupation of the UN organizers was firmly held to State security (Nowak, pp 125). When the state members concurred on creating a new system of collective state security, they defined that in the traditional military sense: a system in which every States would join hand and pledge that “aggression against one is aggression against all”(pp. 13), and fully commit themselves in that happening to respond collectively. Arguably, all states bonded by that agreement understood well, but this was long before the idea and the fact of human security gained currency as it started to rip countries apart, the indivisibility of security threats, increased human freedom and sprawling economic development. Right in the introductory part of the Charter of UN, it states clearly that UN was created to reaffirm allegiance towards human fundamental rights” and “to progressively promote social development and quality standards of life as part of the larger freedom” (pp. 34). The inner challenge for the twenty-first century is the approach that should be completely new and more liberal, to bring all these strands, of what collective security really is and outline the commitments, responsibility, institutions and strategies that it brings on board if a collective security system is to be, efficient, effective and equitable Chen & Seidensticker, pp 49). Having outlined that, security is a fundamental issue which stretches far beyond the concern of the common tourist enjoying the grandeur of nature in the neighboring countries. It should be a state priority to provide security and ensure that, everyone within her borders is safe from impending threats. If we are going to have a new security consensus, we should not base it in individual responsibility to provide security for themselves, it must clearly start with the understanding that the effective methods of dealing with this menace continue to be the responsibility of individual states responsibilities and these commitments to be entrenched in the UN Charter. Debatably, in the current century, no state can stand alone against the impending security. Collective institutions, strategies and a sense of collective responsibility are obligatory. The issue of collective security in the current world is related to three basic pillars. In the current time, threats recognize no boundary, are widely connected, and every state should be addressed from both global and regional levels. No matter the magnitude of the state machinery, no state by its individual efforts can ward off the security threats (Nowak pp. 125). The need to have a government is by all means to provide basic needs that are unproductive and could provide a state challenge in the hands of individuals. The government should always be entrusted in the security of its citizens and the rest as it vows to uphold the rule of law and protection for all. In fact, the issue of government collecting tax from citizens and other visitors is to enable it provide the basic needs, security included. Therefore, the individuals should be expected to provide security for themselves unless there is a change in the structure of governments Chen & Seidensticker, pp. 40 ). In this regard, I support my view that security should as always be a concern of the state and citizens and outside should enjoy their fundamental human rights; one of them being able to move and access any place freely without fear or worry. Nevertheless, regardless of the fact that the state should provide security to its citizens, the indivisibility of terrorism and other security challenges would obviously require the input of the individuals. States, governments and other international bodies may high the resources, but security threats could still infiltrate through the porous laws and treaties. The state cannot be individually held responsible for any attack on the individuals’ human right(Mack, pp. 15). The security as discussed earlier has continued to transform itself, changing patterns to new trends and highly undetectable methods. This stands as a point, and it can be denied that individual to have a hand to play in this menace. Notwithstanding, this should only be counted as a bonus; the individuals should only corporate not under the pressure but willingness. The government should be playing their role well, lest the citizens assist; that becomes a bonus and not a requirement. Conclusion According to Dillon, global security has evidently hindered the enjoyments of human rights(119). People are afraid to move to new places in the fear of impending attacks. The liberty is there for people to enjoy, but it has been suppressed by the occurrence of terrorism from a global level. After the world War, a new institution was born, UN, devoted to fighting the security issues by joining hands states of the world, little known that this undesirable phenomenon would change the face. In the current world, one factor stands to save the world from the face of terrorism: collective responsibility. Again, states should meet again and craft ingenious ways to handle the issue. On a small faction though, every right-minded citizen should assist in handling this menace, not as a requirement but a moral obligation. Works Cited Nowak, Manfred. "Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ." CCPR Commentary (2005): 125- 126.Print Chen & Seidensticker. Human Insecurity in a Global World, Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press (2003): 34-57. print Dillon, M. The Security of Governance, in: Global Governmentality: Governing International Spaces, New York: Routledge (2004). 108- 121. Print Mack, A. The Human Security Report Project: Background Paper, Van-couver: Human Security Centre, Liu Institute for Global Issues, University of British Columbia: (2002). 12-15. Print Read More