The Debate over Human Security is about Development - Term Paper Example

The Debate over Human Security is about Development In this day and age, much of the existing structures, be it science, value-formation, technology and even culture has reached a tipping point where there appears to be no way of stopping its evolution. Much of the world order owes its existence to the rapid transformation of prevailing concepts that accordingly triggers the development of much of the modern world. However, not much of this so-called evolution has redounded to the benefit of mankind. The modern world, typified as the post 9/11 era, has been characterized by a largely militarized epoch where national security appears to be impinging on human liberty (Beall, Goodfellow & Putzel, 2007). The state of affairs is often characterized by an increase in violence, spiraling criminality, alarming increase of small arms and most noteworthy, terrorism (Duffield, 2001). Relatively, these challenges have never been in such an alarming state that nation-states are at a loss as to how to address them (Frerks, 2008). However, an assessment of the responses adopted by many nation states reveal that instead of implementing democratic strategies, oppressive and even exploitive measures are being put into place (Uvin, 2002). This has been attributed to the action taken by several governments where they only attempt to control and manage the swelling of the number of the threats to security and not the absolute obliteration of its causes. As such, this practice has been claimed by many as detrimental to human rights and civil liberties and hence, against the principles of development and democracy (Sen, 1999). Human Rights The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) characterizes human rights as that concept which causes the principles of accountability and human development to be immersed into the human evolution (Frerks, 2008). It is said to establish human development with a pre-determined delimitation set to safeguard and forestall (Frerks, 2008). As such, people and institutions are made out as agents with the corresponding responsibility of ascertaining its realization and proliferation (Frerks, 2008). Human rights have often been associated with the principles of democracy (Ikpe, 2007). That is, owing to the largely people-centric notion abudant in democratic states, the conferrment and respect given to the human rights of the citizens have been the ultimate and most notable sign of development (Uvin, 2002). Terrorism and Human Rights International terrorism has been catapulted as a major global concern following the 9/11 attacks on the United States (Duffield, 2001). The terror threat is often characterized as an organized action designed to be covert, severe and to be performed following a very specific and stern plan of action (Duffield, 2001). The magnitude of these operations can be measured only by the amount of injuries, damages and fatalities evident at its aftermath. The fact that terrorism has been deemed as an international problem may be attributed to the notion that its occurrence cannot be measured nor predicted (Duffield, 2001). Terrorism has been said to be the resort of nations besieged by poverty, political unrest, unemployment, illiteracy and high criminality (Pruce, 2010). The concept of human rights on the other hand, is based on the principles of advancement, mobilization, responsive governance, high literacy and informed citizenry (Kent, 2007). As such, to eradicate terrorism one can surmise that there is only a need to address the problems of poverty, governmental and societal instability, unemployment, criminality and the lack of education (Kent, 2007). That is, as soon as these problems are addressed, the threat of terrorism will likewise be eliminated. In such rationalization, it then seems apparent that the underlying principles of human rights are undoubtedly paramount to the trigger points leading to terrorism (Pruce, 2010). That is, had governments took into primal consideration the upliftment of their societal, economic and political welfare, no amount of security threat would beset their state (Pruce, 2010). Stated from another vantage point, had governments seen to the promotion and advancement of human rights, the problem on terrorism would not be present. Displacement of Rights and Liberties Much of the debate regarding the promotion of national security is its consequential, albeit, unintentional displacement of human rights and civil liberties (Beall, Goodfellow & Putzel, 2007). In India, there is an urgent need to determine the limitations of imposing national security policies so as not to impinge on human rights (Sen, 1999). HOwever, a brief examination of Indias past and present state regulations reveal that the current state of affairs concerning the threat of terrorism is a concern that has never been faced by the said country (Sen, 1999). As a result, India is now hard-pressed to implement laws responsive to the need to control the varied security threats (Pruce, 2010). A further examination would then reveal that these so-called security measures are typified as superficial measures aimed at regulating the problem and not actually effecient means of resolving the dilemma (Sen, 1999). Additionally, the measures often undertaken to protect the national security of India are characterized as being draconian and oppressive (Pruce, 2010). To this, the upholding of national security then appears to be the death of human rights (Goold & Lazarus, 2007). In Canada, where the concepts of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity are highly valued as ideals of independence, the concept of security has been been taken to mean as human security (Ikpe, 2007). The concept of human security is deemed as an effort to create a global construct of a society where the individual is placed at its core (Ikpe, 2007). Such conception translates into an international arena specially recognizing the individual and his appurtenant human liberties, as the moving force behind every international action (Goold & Lazarus, 2007). In this regard, the Canadian government undertakes to improve the standard of living of its citizens so as to avoid the rise to arms of its citizenry (Ikpe, 2007). The experience of the Middle East strongly suggests that the lack of viable political framework, failure of govenance, widespread corruption and blatant abuses are to be deemed as the factors that brought about instability in the region (Al Gharaibeh, 2011). Furthermore, the conflict between the Palestinians and the Isrealis has added fuel to already volatile situation in the region (Al Gharaibeh, 2011). Specifically, the Palestinians clamored for recognition as they suffered from being deprived of their nationality, aired their sentiments of lack of identity and pushed for the protection of their safety and liberty (Klein Goldewijk, 2008). On the otherhand, the Israelis likewise, called for the advancement of their civil liberties and human rights by way of denouncing Palestinian suicide bombers (Klein Goldewijk, 2008). The proliferation of the Gulf Wars and the worsening of the Arab-Israeli relationship has also led to the instability in the region (Al Gharaibeh, 2011). As such, the Middle East has been a fertile feeding ground for threats to national and even international, security. Moreover, the Middle East has seen countless recurrence of bad politics and rotten governance that strongly renounced globalization (Al Gharaibeh, 2011). To this, economic disparity has evolved into societal desparation, economic regression and political indifference inevitably leading to conlfict and aggression (Al Gharaibeh, 2011). Over time, such problematic state of affairs gave birth to threats to national security which in actuality, reached gigantic proportions and was propelled as an international concern (Picciotto, 2006). The displacement of human rights and civil liberties then results from the active and contemporaneous existence of an inefficient political mechanism to handle the affairs of the government and provide the needs of the society and the proliferation of weak policies to enforce and exact obedience (Duffield, 2001). Stated succintly, if the government fails, then all else fails. Human Security and Development Human security has been defined as the penultimate liberation of human beings from extensive, prolonged, comprehensive and sometimes intense threats to their lives and freedom (Frerks, 2008). This concept emerges from the right to liberty of the people as can be gleened from the principles of democracy and development (Sen, 1999). As such freedom has been taken to mean as a core concept which the individual places at a premium (Sen, 1999). That is, as a concept, freedom and human security encompasses a wide range of concerns that envelopes the entire well-being of the person. The UNDP states that the most crucial determinants of human security are: (1) existence of employment opportunities; (2) sufficiency of income; (3) access to basic needs; (4) adequate nutrition and health care; (5) peaceful relations among different culture groups; (6) stability and viability of the political mechanism and the absence of internal and external aggression; and the, (8) safety of the individual from personal threats (Sen, 1999). The concept of human security inevitably pertains to human development. That is, with the apparent aim of human security to ascertain that the well-being of the person is addressed, it thus connotes human development (Beall, Goodfellow & Putzel, 2007). As such, the issue of human security is undoubtedly a question on development. Furthermore, the modern conception of human security necessitates the resolution of a broad reange of concerns namely: issues on human rights, social and economic well-being, sufficiency of governing mechanisms and strength of political authority, economic and social empowerment, civic involvement and public participation (Pruce, 2010). These factors or concerns actually translate to determinants of democracy (Pruce, 2010). To such effect that promoting human security is tantamount to the promotion of democratic principles often equated with development. In the current times, there is a need to align the governmental mechanism into one that values human rights and civic participation, as well as meeting the demands of inequality, illiteracy, poverty and societal imbalance (Duffield, 2001). Failure to address one of these concerns have often resulted into catastrophic consequences involving national, and to some extent, international affairs (Uvin, 2002). The inability of the government to cater the needs of its society often leads to the citizens taking up the streets or the taking up of arms of the few, which on both counts, spell out as a threat to security (Sen, 1999). In this regard, it becomes vital to recognize the parallelism of the end-goals of human security and development (Picciotto, 2006). Human security seeks to eradicate threats from all levels while development ascertains that there would be no grounds for people to pose a threat. Conclusion The changes that the world has been subjected to may be characterized as a fast-paced evolution that triggers the developments of much of the structures and systems abound. That is, the quick transformation of many abstractions have led to the development of novel ideas in the realm of science and technology and even world order. The ever increasing rise in the world population has been one product of human evolution that may be classified as the culprit in much of the difficulties being experienced by a lot of nation states (Goold & Lazarus, 2007). The rapid rise in the number of citizens has caused governments around the world to grapple and fumble for ways with which to handle their resources so as to be able to provide all of their subjects with adequate supplies (Goold & Lazarus, 2007). However, it appears that the international arena is set to learn the hard way as the problem of managing resources multiplied into a more complex set of dilemmas. Terrorism has striked and threats to national security have been at the forefront of the issues to be combatted by governments amidst cries for economic stability, empowerment and participation (Picciotto, 2006). In resolving this, most nations have been forced to choose between conferring human security to the detriment of economic advancement, or development at the expense of human rights (Goold & Lazarus, 2007). But as can be taken from the points presented, it is clear that the quest for progress need not be made at the cost of civil liberties and human rights. After all, the goals of human security is no less than the goals of development. References Al Gharaibeh, F. 2011. Human security, terrorism and human rights in the Middle East: Implications for social work practice. European Journal of Social Sciences, 20, 2, 228-239. Ball, N. 2001. Transforming security sectors: The IMF and World Bank approaches. Conflict, Security & Development, 1, 1, 45-66. Beall, J., Goodfellow, T. and Putzel, J. 2007. Policy arena: Introductory article: an the discourse of terrorism, security and development. Journal of International Development, 18, 1, 51–67. Chandler, D. 2007. The security–development nexus and the rise of anti-foreign policy. Journal of International Relations and Development, 10, 362–386. Duffield, M. 2001. Global governance and the new wars. London: Zed Books. Ebo, A. 2007. The role of security sector reform in sustainable development: Donor policy trends and challenges. Conflict, Security & Development, 7, 1, 27-60. Frerks, G. 2008. Human security as a discourse and counter-discourse. Security and Human Rights, 19, 1, 8-14. Frerks, G. and Homan, K. 2008. Human security: a launching pad for debate and policy? Security and Human Rights, 19, 1, 1-7. Goold, B. and Lazarus, L. 2007. Security and human rights. Oregon: Hart Publishing. Gruiters, J. 2008. Human security and development: an ambivalent relationship. Security and Human Rights, 19, 1, 54-63. Henry, M. 2007. Gender, security and development. Conflict, Security & Development, 7, 1, 61-84. Ikpe, E. 2007. Challenging the discourse on fragile states. Conflict, Security & Development, 7, 1, 85-124. Kent, R. 2007. The governance of global security and development: Convergence, divergence and coherence. Conflict, Security & Development, 7, 1, 125-165. Klein Goldewijk, B. 2008. Why human? The interlinkages between security, rights and development. Security and Human Rights, 19, 1, 24-36. Picciotto, R. 2006. Why the world needs millennium security goals. Conflict, Security & Development, 6, 1, 111-120. Pruce, J. 2010. A review of human rights and social movements. Journal of Human Rights, 9, 1, 116-120. Sen, A. 1999. Development as freedom. New York: Knopf. Uvin, P. 2002. The development/peacebuilding nexus: A typology and history of changing paradigms. Journal of Peacebuilding & Development, 1, 1, 1–20. Read More