In order to understand human security, it is essential to first look at
the orthodox approach to security. The orthodox approach or
westphalian concept of security, has its roots in the rise of the modern
nation state in seventeenth century Europe. The first and perhaps the
most significant factor shaping the behaviour of states was the idea
that the international system was fundamentally anarchic with no overall
governing authority to enforce rules, norms, laws, or more widely, some
conception of international justice.
In such a self-help system, no state could be sure that its security
would be guaranteed by any other body no matter how firm an alliance
might appear at any given time. The supposed universal rationality of
state actors meant that they would, by and large, converge around
similar international policies and aspire to similar goals in order to
render themselves as secure as possible in what was a perpetually
insecure system. Most important to this assumption was a military
framework that served to act as a minimum deterrent to external
aggressors who could threaten the sovereignty of the state, embodied in
its territory, boundaries, political institutions, and the general
population’s right to self-determination.
What was therefore important for orthodox security on the basis of these
assumptions was that in the international realm states pursued policies
that were above the demands of any single group in society. The state
society relationship, therefore, was separated from international
relations, and this separation was necessary for security in the
domestic realm. The interest of national security were said to be above
and beyond those of any single group in domestic politics simply because
if a state was not externally secure, there could be little hope of the
goals of domestic politics (the good life for example) ever being
realised. Thus, the state was the neutral arena within which the
complexities of domestic political and social life could be played out.
However, dissatisfaction started growing with the orthodox or
westphalian concept of security, one which reified the state and
sanctioned the use of military power in defence against threats to
territorial autonomy and domestic political order. This tradition was
blind to the polymorphous nature of social power-gender, class,
ethnicity, religion and age-and its development within and across
territorial boundaries. The inter-sections between the various power
bases created complex matrices of human rights abuse within the domestic
jurisdiction of many nation-states. These abuses either remained
invisible or were purposely concealed in the name of national security
and social and/or cultural order. In addition, new non-military security
issues with human rights implications emerged and acquired
trans-national characteristics in conjunction with the intensification
of global economic integration.
The dissatisfaction thus witnessed a fundamental departure from the
traditional or orthodox realists thinking of security, which views the
state as the exclusive primary referent object. Instead, human beings
and their complex social and economic relations have now been given
primacy with or over states, in line with the neoliberalist view of
security.
Therefore, in today’s world ‘when we think about security we need to
think beyond battalions and borders. We need to think about human
security, about winning a different war, the fight against poverty.’
The UNDP notes that ‘For too long, the concept of security has been
shaped by the potential for conflict between states. For too long,
security has been equated with threats to a country’s borders. For too
long, nations have sought arms to protect their security. For most
people today, a feeling of insecurity arises more from worries about
daily life than from the dread of a cataclysmic world event. Job
security, health security, environmental security, security from crime,
these are the emerging concerns of human security all over the world’.
Thus, human security, sometimes defined as 'Freedom from fear' and
'freedom from want' has now become the catch phrase of an approach to
security in the post cold war era. Often referred to as 'people-centred
security' or 'security with a human face', human security emphasizes
the complex relationships and often-ignored linkages between human
dignity, human rights, human poverty and development. Today all security
discussions demand incorporation of the human dimension.
But for some scholars, human security is both about ‘the ability to
protect people as well as to safeguard states’, whilst in some human
security formulations such as that of former Canadian Foreign Minister
Lloyd Axworthy, human needs rather than states needs are paramount.
Axworthy believes this to be so in the aftermath of the cold war as
intrastate conflicts have become more prevalent than interstate
conflicts.
Human security is in essence an effort to construct a society where the
safety of the individual is at the centre of the priorities..,; where
human rights standards and the rule of law are advanced and woven into a
coherent web protecting the individual...’’. The United Nations
Commission on Human Security, defines human security as ‘the protection
of the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms
and human fulfilment, which stresses the importance of opportunities
and choices to all human life”.
It is also important to note that all proponents of ‘human security’
agree that its primary goal is the protection of individuals. But
consensus breaks down over what threats individuals should be protected
from. Proponents of a narrow concept of human security, focus on
violent threats to individuals, while proponents of a wider concept of
human security argue that the threat agenda should be broadened to
include hunger, disease and natural disasters because these kill far
more people than war, genocide and terrorism combined.
In this light, National Security is not just about the security of the
state. It is about the security of the state and also the security of
the individuals within the state. It is basically about the protection
of the individuals within the state whiles upholding the state. It is
about protecting the individuals against violence as well as from
hunger, disease, disaster etc. If lots of people are unemployed, then
they are hungry and therefore it is a national security issue. If
farmers’ crops are being destroyed by Fulani herdsmen and they go
hungry, then it is a national security threat. In brief, National
Security is both about the ability to protect individuals within a state
as well as safeguard the state.
Credit: Justin Bayor
NB: Is the boy (Larry Gbevlo-Lartey) in mind and at heart though he is advanced in age aware of this?
