Security Concerns: Playing Favorites

In my first Security essay, I wrote that social justice security and ontological security were the most important security issues, as they have often unacknowledged impacts on humanity.  I believe this is very true.  However, after a semester of learning about security concerns all over the world and the factors involved, I have come to the conclusion that the most important security issue is: none of them, and therefore, all of them.  Human security, national security, physical/traditional security, individual security, ontological security and emancipation security are all so interwoven it is impossible to say one is more important the others.  

Take, for example, the discussion we had in class about Tuvalu and their environmental crisis: with sea levels rising more and more each year, soon the entire island will be underwater, meaning everyone living there will be forced to evacuate.  When we were discussing which category of security this issue best fit into, we didn’t come up with just one: every category of security was mentioned as being threatened by the island sinking.  

The same thing happened when we discussed piracy in Somalia.  These pirates are operating million dollar businesses by capturing passing ships and taking their inventory and money on board, claiming to give it back to their struggling people.  They are fueled by government connections who allow them to continue pirating so they can skim a profit.  This piracy poses not just a threat to the security of the nation (because of the compromised government), not just a threat to the people of Somalia (both because of physical danger and misplaced trust in the pirates), but a threat to all categories of security.  

I believe we have confused priority with exclusiveness.  When analyzing both of these examples, it is sensical, and even necessary, to point out that one security category should be prioritized over the others.  However, this doesn’t mean we should exclude the other security categories, which discredits their impact on the effected people.  For example, in Tuvalu, it is reasonable to prioritize human security as, if the island is slowly sinking, people will soon be without food, shelter, etc.  However, prioritizing human security should come with acknowledging the impact of the other security categories instead of saying that, because it is a human security issue, it is not a physical, ontological, national, security issue. 

It seems there is an understanding that if one security concern is being addressed the others can’t be, which seems to be detrimental and dangerous.  Take the Ebola outbreak: in the documentary, there was not one mention of therapy services being provided for the village people whose family and friends were dying around them as they were forced to watch due to the quarantine.  This issue was deemed a national security issue or a human security issue, and other, lesser important security issues like ontological security weren’t acknowledged.  Even the mentions of the burial rituals, something the village did for comfort, were not brought up as being viewed as a source of comfort but instead as a danger to the people.  It might have been a danger, but the villagers were trying their best to cope with an unimaginable tragedy.

It will benefit security efforts around the world if all security categories are treated with the same sense of urgency.  We have seen throughout the semester the consequences countries and societies face when these concerns are not taken seriously.  Instead of picking one type of security that is more important than the others, all types of security should be acknowledged with equal significance.

Watch yo self, we need some physical security up in here

Survival as a Means of Security: Self-Preservation as a Priority

            Revisiting security, I have learned much more about security and the implications of giving it a set definition. Originally, I had defined security as being self-preservation at its most basic form; human beings would always act in order to preserve their own life first when placed in situations where it could potentially be put in danger, rather than worry about other factors. After taking this course, I have learned about the levels of security and have analyzed examples of each type. However, rather than changing my opinion of what security is in its most basic form, this course has reaffirmed my initial opinion that security in its purest form should be defined as individual self-preservation with other layers in addition. I believe that security should be, in its purest form, the actions taken or the desire to preserve life through basic survival, which is evident through the actions taken by individuals in cases we have seen in this class.

            Survival is instinct for humans, avoiding conflict which puts our frail mortality at risk is only natural. This instinct is what makes survival the most basic form of security, because to be able to reach any other form of security you must first have the security of life. In the documentary Frontline: Outbreak, the Ebola epidemic began to spread through Africa at an unprecedented rate. However, it was not the disease which took my attention, it was the immediate and hostile reaction the villagers took against the man who posed a threat to their village and their lives. Rather than acting as an immediate support system for the man they deemed to be extremely unwell, they listened to their instincts and created a large ring around him with no one daring to go close. Once properly equipped CDC personnel arrived, the situation was more under control. However, the survival instincts told them to avoid the infected individual for their own personal safety. Similar to arguments made in my first essay, when presented with the emergency of a potential epidemic, people were not considering the safety of their possessions or protection of their viewpoints and beliefs because they were worried for the sake of their survival.

A similar argument can be made analyzing the debate of nuclear weaponry by the average American citizen. When we discussed nuclear policies concerning the United States and North Korea, and how we could deal with them, we never really discussed why people were worried about nuclear weapons. We debated in class on how to prevent North Korea from using its nuclear weapons, and we could not decide on a solution that both followed international law and was effective, so our decisions in regard to nuclear politics will be very important in order to the outcome of relations with North Korea. However, we did not discuss the possible outcomes of nuclear war with North Korea, or any other nation for that matter. Everyone knows nuclear capabilities after Little Boy and Fat Man in Hiroshima and Nagasaki over fifty years ago, and the numerous nuclear tests and new nuclear states that have been birthed since then. However, the debate on why we fear them is an important one as well because their detonation has many implications. When debating the consequences of nuclear war, the primary statistic brought up in arguments is how many people died in their use. The structural integrity of cities or the environmental implications are never the first statistic used in why preventing nuclear war is important; the staggering loss of human life is the predominant statistic. We value human life above structure of any establishment, be it religion, government, or any corporation.

Arguments for physical security as a primary definition of security go against the opinions of many who believe that national security or ontological security hold more importance than the security of one individual. These beliefs are flawed in the fact that they assume an individual to be a part of these systems or beliefs, therefore invalidating any importance they have as an individual by only identifying them as a member of a group. Concerning security, the base group for definition should not be these large-scale groups such as national identities, states, or religions. Though the protection of other forms of security are very important, the most basic definition of security must lie within individual human survival. A religion cannot survive without it’s followers, and there can be no state without its citizens. Considering material from the semester, I have not changed my opinion on the basic definition of security because I consider the protection of human life and ability for basic survival to be the most important and relevant definition for security.

Security, a luke warm second take

                                                  Revisiting Security Essay

When the semester first began I argued that National Security was the most important form of security. I argued that National Security, is true security, as it provides the nation as a whole with countless benefits and protections. When true disasters strike that can truly affect the individual such as, hurricanes, or terrorist attacks the government is the body that truly helps the most in protecting the individual, providing billions of dollars in relief effort. Also, the government provides the individual through “the social contract” described by Thomas Hobbes, with protection as well as true rights and freedoms. However, as the semester has gone on I’ve been introduced to the other forms of security, and I’ve come to find that Human Security is the most important form of security. Human Security is the most important form of security because, if individuals are educated, well feed, healthy, and their basic needs accounted for then, they will be able to progress their society as a whole and improve upon their country.   

  Human security is composed of seven elements, economic security, food security, healthy security, environmental security, personal security, community security, and political security. Essentially these seven elements include everything that a human should have to live a comfortable life, food, water, shelter, protection, and a solid foundation being, a supportive community, and government. If these needs are accounted for, the person can shift their focus for the sole focus of providing for themselves and look to improve upon their country.

   An example of where a lack of human security has caused problems within a country is in Somalia where, piracy has run rampant. Since the early 2000s Somalians have been attacking merchant ships off the coast of Somalia and surrounding African nations to provide for themselves, their families, and their communities. This can be seen as a lack of human security in the branch known as “economic security”, in that because they lack any form of providing for themselves they must shift to criminal activities to earn a constant cash flow. If they had access to legitimate job opportunities they would not have to commit criminal acts. This can even be seen in the United States where those in low economic status neighborhoods must participate in criminal activities because they cannot provide for themselves and their families.

  Furthermore, human security is incredibly important, because one of the most dangerous threats that face humanity is epidemics. A lack of human security in the form of proper medical protection could be seen in how badly Ebola ravaged the African coastline. If the people’s health was a priority then thousands of lives could have been saved. 

  Also, a lack of human security can be seen in the what is affecting Eastern European Nations in the form of sex trafficking. Thousands of women are being abducting in these nations and shipped half way across the world for money. If the protection and human rights of these people were protecting they could be saved from countless horrors.

   Human Security has shown itself to be the most important form of security, because it is the true protection of the individual. Human Security accounts for the rights that should be given to each and every person, and what they need to even survive in the world.

  

Security: The Sequel

Security Revisiting Blog Post

            In my initial security essay, I wrote about ontological security and how it is the most important type of security to preserve and protect. As the semester has progressed and I have extensively learned of all of the other ones, I believe that ontological security is crucial, but human security is actually the most important. To recap, I argued that ontological security is the most important because “Ontological security is the protection of a way a person identifies and lives their life. Its protection is not one that is physical, but rather it is more identity based. This is the most important type of security to preserve because without one’s identity, they are incapable of living their life to the fullest.” I argued for by using political philosopher Thomas Hobbes, saying that humans were constantly in fear of dying a violent death and that in order to prevent cultural staples of human identity—arts, society, and safety—you must then protect the identity beforehand. I am changing my opinion to protecting human security instead because I now see the world from a much more broad and diverse scope. I wrote this paper from arguing many first-world problem points of view. Human security goes far beyond the privileged first world.

For as many people that are privileged, there are probably double or triple the amount of people who are less fortunate. These people face tasks every single day that I would never even think of. For example, I never need to worry about where my food or water comes from. In more impoverished areas such as Africa, this is a part of their daily life. People have to walk miles on end just to get food in the morning, and that is a dangerous feat. If someone is sick or disabled, they may not be able to eat or drink that day. This is terrible, and far more important than protecting the way I live my life. Preserving a privileged society is far inferior now to me than the priority of making sure those living in impoverished areas live without fear of disease or starvation. There are two immediate cases studied in class that come to mind in which human security is disastrously effected: the Ebola epidemic and the issue with Tuvalu’s rising sea levels.

As I talked about in my last blog post, the poorly handled epidemic of Ebola in West Africa was devastating to entire nations in 2013-2014. This was a human security issue, for it affected the health and well-being of large groups of people. Thousands of people died in short periods of time, and it was disgusting to watch helplessly from thousands of miles away. Protecting impoverished nations from disease should be a global issue, not just a West African one.

In Tuvalu, the sea levels are rising at alarming rates. In an island where the highest peak is approximately fifteen feet, the nation could be completely underwater within the next century. This affects the human security of the people of Tuvalu, for they will be displaced from their nation and their culture if forced to emigrate to the neighboring nations of Australia or New Zealand. They face the risk of losing an entire culture, only to be absorbed by the culture of those neighboring them. The human security aspect of this issue comes into play when thinking about those who cannot afford to move their entire families to a foreign place. This displacement could be a crisis to their human security, for if they are unable to move then they will literally have to wait it out until they have no more inland to live in. In the meantime, the rising sea levels due to climate change have caused their few native industries to suffer. Without these industries, it is likely in the coming years that their quality of life will diminish. Therefore, I believe human security is far more important than ontological.     

Security 2.0

            In my security essay, I argued that without human security protected, other securities, such as national security, cannot be ensured. Human security is the foundation to ensuring a nation or sovereign state can be secure. I argued that access to food, water, shelter, and other basic needs is the most important factor to ensure human security can be met. I also stated that without human security in s sovereign state, citizens do not have assurance that their needs will be met. In order to feel assured and satisfied with the way a country is being ran, the citizens need to feel as if they are the number one priority and if they are the number one priority, then their basic needs will be met. Without basic assurance in government, people will either migrate or show lack of support for their government. Without citizens in a sovereign state or support for it, there is no national security needed, as there would be no one to protect to continue the state. A sovereign state does not exist without its citizens. I referenced the counter argument that without strong national security, human security cannot be protected. To counter it, I cite that in most war torn countries, there is a lack of human security.

            After taking this class, I am now arguing that a new form of security be implemented, that of environmental security. The reason why I think this should be a whole separate category is because natural disasters, though can be influenced by human actions such as with climate changed, is unpredictable. Why I think this is the most foundational part to security is because climate, disease, and geographical location are random. Where a country is located can be the reason for lack of human security, which as argued in my first paper is needed to protect national security. Environmental security is the basis for all other securities to be protected.

            The first example that we talked about in class to support why environmental security is the basis for all other securities to be protected can be seen with the 2010 Haitian Earthquake. Haiti happens to be located close to a fault line. Of course there are other major cities, like San Francisco that fall on fault lines that do not face damage from earthquakes like the one seen in Haiti. But, what is special about Haiti is the history behind it. The nation was depleted of their natural resources, therefore could not make a profit to support a flourishing economy. The depletion of resources was not exactly random, but because they had desired resources, of which are random and depend on the area, they were robbed of what they had and enslaved. The geographical location and history of their geographical location of Haiti played a big role in the ability to withstand the earthquake the stroke the nation in 2010. The national lacked human security at the time and still do because unfortunately they were stricken with a resource curse in the mid 1700s that is a main factor for their downfall as a nation.

            A second example for why environmental security is the basic foundation to all other securities can be seen with the case of Ebola. Diseases are random things. Doctors and scientists cannot really predict when a pandemic will occur nor can predict when new diseases threaten the world. The environment of western Africa is the reason why the disease became prevalent. The fruit bats in Guinea carried the disease, unware to scientists and the children who played and ate the bats. The children ate the bats because their region, similar to many other regions in Africa, lack access to food, so they ate the bats because they were hungry. The lack of accessible food does fall under human security, but the reason why I am arguing it first falls under environmental security is because food comes from the environment for most countries, unlike in the U.S and developed countries where much of the food we eat is produced in factories. Nonetheless, a country cannot thrive if they do not have access to resources, of which are reliant on the environment of the location of the country.

            Overall, other forms of security cannot be ensured without environmental security. Access to food, water, and shelter are reliant on the geographical location of an area. Without a country flourishing in natural resources for both basic necessities and commodities, it is extremely difficult to become a developed country where all forms of security are protected. Environmental security should be its own entity, as it is the clear foundation for other securities to be protected.