Introduction
International relations especially interstate relation is marked by a combination of converging and diverging interests and opinions. From time immemorial, the world has witnessed uncountable moments of wars, civil strife and turmoil, with gigantic human and material repercussions. Many statesmen tended to focus their minds and policies on ensuring the security of their territorial dominion. This led to serious investments in the political and military sectors of the state, with limited regard for other issues such as the environment or human rights violations. Many dwelled beneath the belief that ensuring the safety of the border was a condition sine qua non to ensuring the security of the citizens and state’s resources. The paradox in this belief was that, the more they developed armaments to secure the state’s border, the more the risk and the occurrence of war. Events such as World Wars I and II as well as the Cold War are glaring examples that need not be elaborated upon. Since the end of the Cold War, the concept of security has undergone some transformations and fusions with respect to new challenges facing humanity. Security has somewhat become compartmentalised into diverse facets. Scholarly debates and reflections have produced a new dimension to the concept of security. The world has noticed some sort of magnificent shift from the military and political focus to a closer scope which focuses on individual safety. This has led to the “globalisation” of the issue of security as it has now become a common concern, since what occurs in one part of the world may have adverse effects on another. There is therefore the need through this article to re-conceptualise security with respect to the times and to know what today constitute the new enemy. We shall see the evolution of the concept from history in order to better understand the present challenges. The subject matter is specific but the scope is global because the issue on our menu has evolved from the national to regional to becoming a global topic of discussion and threat. The overall aim is to raise up a new global citizenship, well aware of mankind’s present threats and to better contribute to finding a global solution by reflecting on solutions and influencing the policy community to apply best practices to curb the impacts of the new security threats. Before we jump into the subject matter proper, let’s try to define the terms in their right context for better understanding.
Definition
Security entails freedom or safety from any danger or potential danger that can cause damage to an individual, state or any other given target. Such protection is not limited to a state but goes beyond to embrace a global dimension. The United Nations (UN) which is a global intergovernmental organization created in 1945 was put in place inter alia to ensure and maintain international peace and security. With the bipolar nature of the world, there was the need for global coordination of state relations and actions in a standardised world order with the view to ensuring the safety of the human race in the midst of growing technological explosion. The post Cold War season has ushered in new challenges which have let to a smooth transition to a new notion of security called ‘human security’. Since this a new concept, there is no established definition to it yet, but all inks tend to agree that human security is very much concerned with individual safety and protection. Protecting people from both natural and man-made risks is its primordial focus. This concept is largely related to the concept of conflict prevention since it denotes protection from foreseen and unforeseen dangers and addresses the root causes of political, economic, social and environmental instability. The concept according to 3D Security Initiative , has both a narrow dimension which limits it definition to freedom from fear and is focused on violent threats to individuals; while the broad approach looks at it as freedom from need, focusing on addressing root causes of preventable or avoidable deaths due to hunger and disease. [1] When such needs are not met due to either bad governance, poorly framed and adopted policies or ethnic or social exclusion, there are possibilities of violence or insurgency in the long run.
Human security is a vast field which can be divided into seven areas: economic security (freedom from poverty), food security (access to food), health security (access to health care and protection from diseases), environmental security (protection from the danger of environmental pollution), personal security (physical protection against torture, war, criminal attacks, domestic violence), community security (survival of traditional cultures and ethnic groups) and political security (civil and political rights, freedom from political oppression).
A historical view of the evolution of security
Looking through history’s eyes, the idea of security first came to the lamplight in 1789 during the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, under article 2 which mentioned that: “The aim of every political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression”.[2] This was a pure and clear expression of the human need for security. But this security was still under the banner of ‘national or state defense’ since their eyes were tilted toward any potential foreign enemy .It was clear that the state had to play its role in ensuring that safety. Though this declaration focused on state security, it was to inspire further policies that embraced a global scope.
From the Congress of Vienna of 1815 to the Hague conferences, many efforts were made at international level to reduce armament and maintain international security and cooperation. The world witnessed relative moments of peace but these peaceful moments were shattered when two of the bloodiest wars in human history, World War I and II cropped up.
When the dust of the wars settled, certain principles had to put in place to preserve the peace that reigned in the aftermath. Thus in 1945, the United Nations Organisation (UNO) was created with the principle aim being to: maintain international peace and security though collective efforts as expressed in article I of its first chapter.[3] In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights inspired by the French Declaration of 1789, laid further emphasis on the issue of security in article 3 that: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of persons”.[4] Thought the idea of security of persons was mentioned, it was however just on papers, since the central focus of many states remained on state security. As Espiell puts it, “the totally unacceptable concept of ‘national security’ … meant the security of the state against individuals, viz. not a human right but a right of the state”.[5]
Out of the notion of ‘national security’ came that of ‘international security’. International security which I consider to be a cousin to the old idea of balance of power came up fully to set a new order in the world especially after the two World Wars. It is good to recall that the idea of balance of power received its first official slap on the face with the failure of the World Disarmament Conference of 1932.When Hitler’s demand for “immediate equality of armed strength with other nations” was turned down, Germany withdrew from the League of Nations[6] and that set the pace for another great war. The League was a crippled child from birth and this was because of America’s absence, meanwhile the other states in Europe either were too confused on the manner in which the League was to work, or too powerless to act or too concerned with tapping reparations from Hitler’s Germany. Wilson, the genitor of the idea of the League was refused permission to include America in the scheme by the American Congress. With the failure to balance the power and to disarm, the world witnessed another great war in 1939.The security of world was at stake with this idea of balance of power. Hence, its replacement was very necessary. This idea of international security was thus founded on the state and individual desire to be free from any risk of aggression or attack and in the phase of that, to expect support from other nations acting under international agreements and rules. Thus there was a straight and landmark shift from the old idea of balance of power to that of collective security as promoted both by the defunct League of Nations and the present UNO.
The shifting point in the concept of security
The end of the Cold War shaped the face of security. The disintegration of the Soviet Union gave credence to monopoly instead of bipolarity. The world witnessed a new world order being put in place. The great euphoria and hope that animated the minds of many in the folklore of international politics, following this new dawn was however short lived. This was because, though the great threat of another World War was over, things took a new shift with the advent of what Mary Kaldor has termed “new wars”.[7] This shift was marked by an increase not in conflicts between states but within states. Thus, the end of the East-West tension marked a new turning point in world security politics. What therefore is this new security shift is what the following paragraphs will be seeking to answer?
Tendencies or proponents in the new concept of security
Scholarly discussions over this new concept have led to the development of two approaches - the “narrow” and “broad” approaches.
The narrow approach of human security
The “narrow approach” concentrates on internal violence and its impact on individual lives. In recent times, there has been more intrastate violence, claiming more lives than interstate violence. It is true, the world has witnessed manifold of conflicts in the past. In an extrapolation by Wright, the world has witnessed about 200 world major wars between 1480 and 1941. Meanwhile Singer and Smalls estimate 93 world major wars from 1816- 1965. [8] The casualties in terms of human lost are equally breathe cutting. In World Wars I and II alone, in the time frame of less that ten years, over 60 million persons lost their lives. More than 8 million soldiers and 1 million civilians perished in WW I alone.[9] Today, the tides are changing and the world is experiencing a new phenomenon.
During the Cold War period, the super powers fought using satellite or proxy states. This strategy functioned by supplying the needed matching weapons either to cause a crisis or coup or to sustain existing ones. State or ‘national security’ at this point was the first item on most state menu. This war had great repercussions especially in Africa. At the end of the war, gargantuan quantities of light weapons and small arms that were stocked in proxy states began circulating freely in the continent without much control. The huge presence of the famous AK 47 helped in fuelling present day intrastate conflicts. This explains partly the shift in the concept of security from a politico-military viewpoint. To better understand this point I am making here, it will be good to cite a few structural causes of most internal conflicts .Internal conflicts especially in Africa are causes inter alia by:
Ø Increased ethnic, cultural, religious, gender and political differences;
Ø Arms circulation amongst the population groups, leading to banditry and
terrorism;
Ø Coups d’états;
Ø Social injustice, intense desires for democratic succession and power
sharing;[10]
It would be good to delay a little bit on this last point by emphasising that the persistence of this situation within a state without quick remedy may lead to physical violence and to a larger extent an open bloody conflict. Corruption and the uneven distribution of wealth as well as the marginalisation of a fraction of the population often considered as minority only helps to fan the flames of discord and anger. This is most often helped by the easy militarization of the population due to the government’s incapacity to monitor and control its borders to limit weapons proliferation. With the failure of dictatorship and its inability to provide effective democratic policies to meet the needs of the masses, the gun seems to be the only way to ‘possess one’s possession’ and ensure direct power sharing. This has led to the rise of dissident rebel groups, organised under a charismatic leader or warlords who controls a well defined area and claims to fight for the good of the masses. Their presence only helps to cause many more untold sufferings by the civilian population who is usually trapped in the scene and most often, as new statistics demonstrates, pay the highest price for the power thirsty ambitions and struggles between the non-state (rebels) and state actors. The African continent is harbouring the highest number of crises, armed conflicts and humanitarian casualties.[11] Close to 32 wars have occurred in Africa between the period of 1960 and 1998. In these, more than 7 million civilians perished with more than 9 million more transformed into refugees and displaced.[12] In these new wars, the militias use tactics of terror, ethnic cleansing or genocide to achieve their political objectives and obtain wider attention to their gospel.
Internal violence now constitutes 95 percent of armed conflicts as revealed by the Human Security Report of 2005.[13] In the South Kivu, of the DR Congo for example, more than 27,000 cases of sexual violence reported in 2005 and 2006.[14] Still in the DR Congo, the political power plays between the central government of Joseph Kabila and those of rebel leader Laurent Nkunda; and the cultural dislocations disrupts the social equilibrium and the violence that simmers in North Kivu accounted for the death of 200 civilians, 150,000 displaced and more than 2,200 rapes in June 2008 alone (Congo Advocacy Coalition report).[15] In Sierra Leone, more than 4.5 million more were displaced and over 10.000 succumbed to gender-based violence like rape and other forms of ill treatment by the Revolutionary United Front (RUF).[16] These are the new security concerns which the international community has to deal with. What complicates the situation is definitely the non-adherence to and non- respect for articles 51 and 54 of Protocol 1 of the International Humanitarian Law which stipulates and prohibits: “…against direct attack or reprisal attacks on civilians, including those intended to spread terror against the population”.[17] Moreover, these wars receive sustainability from the diaspora and until the outside or third party achieves her interest, the conflict will continue despite wide diplomatic attempts at resolving it. Also, the conflicts are complicated and hard to resolve mostly in “failed states”, where the government democratic institutions and other mechanisms are broken down.
The broad approach of human security
According to the proponents of the “broad concept”, the scope of human security should be enlarged to cover other contemporary challenges facing humanity. This school of taught believe that security today should not be limited to curbing internal violence alone It should involve issues such as poverty, environmental degradation or climate change and disease. I believe that the present events in the world today will cause many to opt for this second view of human security. If we look at what is going on in the world today, one will notice that every human activity is interrelated and the least mistake or neglect in one sector will not only affect the other sector within that particular setting ,but have rippling international repercussions. There is need for states to work together in seeking a way for mankind’s survival, because in today’s security context, there is no more room for the “every-man-for-himself” attitude. Today, issues such as disasters, health degradation and poverty (hunger), kill faster and far more people than wars and genocides.
According to the International Monetary Fund, there has been a stark increase in the price of basic food commodities by more than 40 % in the last 12 months.[18] This had led to an unprecedented global food crisis which affects very much the poorest group of people in the world. The increase demand for food commodities from developing countries due to increased population and consumption and the high usage of crops for bio-fuels, increased cost of transportation inter alia are the causes of this new threat to human security.
If we realise that more than 3 billion people in the world live on less than 2 dollars a day and according the UNICEF, 26,500- 30,000 children worldwide die daily due to poverty, we should be able to understand the issues facing humanity. [19] This affects the health sector as many do have neither the means nor even access to health facilities and services. Diseases such as HIV/AIDS still kill millions of persons across the world. About 40 million are still infected and more than 3 million persons died in 2004 alone. There are close to 350-500 million cases of malaria, with fatalities of more than 1 million. This is more accentuated in developing countries .Africa and Asia suffers the greatest from these threats. Africa suffers at least 90 % of malaria death meanwhile over 80 % of the world’s malaria victims are African children. Access to clean water and sanitation facilities are equally a call for concern as close to 1.1 billion persons living in developing countries lack access to clean water and another 2.6 billion lack access to basic sanitation facilities.[20] Following the 2003 estimates by the United States Central Intelligence Agency, Cameroon harbours more than 560,000 people living with HIV/AIDS with a death toll of 49,000.[21] When we think that the backbone of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) is to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger by at least halve between 1990 and 2015 for both people living with less than one dollar a day and those suffering from hunger, and looking at the present state of events, one might be pessimistic about the success of this goal if nations don’t team up as one. It might be even be harder to achieve the other goals such as reducing child mortality (goal 4), improving maternal health (goal 5) and combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases (goal 6) by 2015.
Another great security threat in recent times is the issue of global warming also called climate change. Climate change caused mainly due to the emission of greenhouse gases has been causing more devastation to humanity than most conflicts that have occurred in human history. Inappropriate and uncontrolled land use - irrigation, deforestation ands agriculture and livestock activities (deforestation to create grazing lands) have transformed the environment from a friend to a foe. This climate change phenomenon has had perceptible impacts so far such as: melting glaciers in many regions across the world, migration of animals and other species to more comfortable areas, rising sea levels which leads to unanticipated natural disasters. Talking about natural disasters immediately provokes “goose pimples” on one’s body. The ravages of floods, tsunamis, hurricanes and earthquakes to humanity are enormous. Millions of people have lost their lives in recently times to these natural hazards than they have lost to wars or genocides. For example, in 360 natural disasters were reported in 2004. Hurricane Ivan that hit Grenada in September 2004 caused the death of 39 people with over 60,000 others affected, out of a total population of 89,500 people. The “Indian Ocean tsunami” that hit Sri Lanka in December 2004 caused the death of over 30,000 people with over 1 million affected. More than 275,000 people died between 1994 and 2004 due to droughts and famines according to the World Disasters Report. More than 5 million more people have lost their lives to droughts in 2001, 2002 and 2005. [22] All of these disasters have had serious demographic impacts as well as setbacks on the development plans of the affected countries towards achieving the MDGs. Grenada lost more than US $900 million due to the damage with close to 4000 person unemployed, 91 % forest areas and 90 % cash crops destroyed, meanwhile Sri Lanka lost more than 400,000 jobs in fishing, hotel and tourism, and between US$1.3 and US$1.5 billion with a rise in the inflation rate from 12 % to 14 %.[23] These accounts for the rising food crisis that has affect the world lately and if strict and sustainable policy measures are not quickly put in place, the attainment of the MDGs will only be another fairy tale as funds will be diverted to heal the wounds caused by the disasters
The way forward
Recommendations to tackle domestic violence-related security threats:
Much needs to be done in order to deal with the threats in present day security. CSOs have a great deal of role to play, considering the fact that they are closer to the population and can better understand their expressed needs as well as the best working policies to be implemented by governments. Their role should however not replace but compliment government actions towards preventing and rebuilding the society. What should be done concretely both by governments and CSOs to tackle domestic violence - based security challenges in both conflict and post-conflict settings?
Ø There is need for joint actions towards seeking political and diplomatic
solutions to a conflict. All parties concerned, governments, rebel groups, CSOs and representatives of the affected population should be involved and the marginalisation of any one group may jeopardize the success of any peace process.
Ø The civil society should be empowered for effective advocacy .Considering their position in the society, they can best advocate for greater respect for human rights, gender equality, women involvement in peace processes, checking accountability and government transparency etc.
Ø Gender disparity should be addressed. Women suffer greatly during and after a conflict. Many are rape survivors, have lost their homes, belongings, family members and are forced to shoulder the responsibility of the household heads with little or no means. The mental distress and require serious psychological and psychosocial attention. These abused and affected women should be given the needed support and empowered for leadership in order to actively take part in the post conflict building plans through capacity building and other training programmes. They can best express the plights of other women and their experience can help give hope to the rest of the women in the community.
Ø Concrete and working economic plans that can provide green jobs to the population in general and to refugees and returnees in particular should be put in place. We all know that poverty and idleness is a breeding ground for violence. As stated in the 2004 Human Development Report that “war retards development, but conversely development retards war”, there is therefore the need for greater developmental plans of actions if we hope to reduce violent internal conflicts. Effective economies will the living standards of the population, literacy, access to clean water and reduce deaths related to non-access to health facilities. Poverty Reduction Strategic Plans (PRSP) should be put in place at local and national levels and since most states have weak economies to shoulder the cost of rebuilding the economic sector all alone, it takes a global response for this to be effective. Big multinational agencies should assist with the matching funds. The funding should be able to connect peace to development.
Ø Local governments also need to be trained on confidence – building strategies and to be able to use early-warning systems meanwhile CSOs monitor these systems.[24]
Recommendations to tackle threats related to climate change:
The role of CSOs at community and national level:
Ø CSOs can better play the part of distributing recovery needs to the affected communities.
Ø Community-based disaster prevention strategies tailored by and for the disaster-prone communities should be reinforced.
Ø CSOs should carry out research to better identify the risk-prone zones and inform the communities concerned of the dangers. This however should be backed by scientific approaches in terms of implementation. There may be a few obstacles to the success of these endeavours, like the lack of financial resources for proper risk-management; the lack of empowerment for proper implementation of these strategies such as resilience and health capacities inter alia, but actions must still be taken.[25]
Ø CSOs are better placed to sensitise and educate the communities on alternative lifestyles such as: burning of bush for increased fertility and water poisoning for greater cash in fishery.
Role of Governments and other stake holders at global level
Ø Scientists and other researchers have always faced the problem of communicating data to policy-makers, CSOs and even to local communities. Governments should ensure that the proper channelling mechanisms are put in place for access to findings on climate change. This will help a great deal to tackle the problems related to the phenomenon.
Ø Governments should place some conditions on business barons such as: imposing on them to send certain amounts of their revenue to support the sustainability of the environment, this by showing the example. Also more regulations should be imposed on forestry companies who cut the trees and don’t invest on replanting. It should be stressed here that deforestation caused over 20% global carbon emission meanwhile; valorising standing forest is cost effective in tackling climate change. According to Dr. Mark Collins, Director of Commonwealth Foundation, findings have shown that climate change constitutes the least of the priority of most UK companies and just 14% had a clear strategy to tackle it. The world highest polluter, USA is still intransigent to implement some of the strategic clauses of the Kyoto agreement, though not at national but state level (California).[26] There is need for some kind of environmental taxes in order to move forward in the fight.
Ø Governments should invest more on eco-technology. For example, wind farming which is cost effective, less polluting on the environment and produces better agricultural results should be encourages. Also, hybrid and electric vehicles – vehicles that can use electricity for a time and fuel for another time as found in the Philippines should be promoted.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this paper tried to show how the concept of security has changed or shifted from its traditional perception, to meet with contemporary challenges; moving from the protection of the ‘state’ to the protection of ‘individuals and communities’ coined under the new notion of ‘human security’. One can say without fear or favour today that war has become more specific and the casualties are more aggravated than in the past. When they occur, they sometimes are shorter and more severe. New wars have risen, occurring specifically within states and having as main victims the civilians. The violation of human rights, gender-based violence, humanitarian concerns and genocides are more costly in terms of human lost than the traditional wars. Moreover, there are also the new challenges affecting humanity today such as poverty, climate change and diseases which kill quicker and greater than wars .These are the recent security threats facing humanity and there is the great need to break apart the dichotomies between developed and developing countries , industrialised and non-industrialised, rich and poor in order to tackle these threats. It is time to understand the interdependence and mutual vulnerability in human security today. These threats constitute “humankind’s common heritage” and no single country no matter its strength and resources can survive the challenge individually. The world must stand together as one man and fight the good fight, erecting policies with global dimensions and implementing them continental, regional, national and local levels.
References
[1] Available on: https://www.3Dsecurity.org. Accessed on 12 June 2009.
[2] Gross, Espiell, “Universal international security and regional security” in Moufida G. (eds.), What Kind of Security? , Paris, UNESCO, 1998, p.55.
[3] United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, New York, United Nations Department of Public Information, December 2006, p.5.
[4] United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, New York, United Nations Department of Public Information, November 2006, p.5.
[5] Gross, Espiell, “Universal international security”, p.56.
[6] Richards, D. & Hunt J.W., An Illustrated History of Modern Britain 1783-1964, London, Longman Group Limited, p.278.
[7] Kaldor, M., Global Civil Society .An Answer to War, United Kingdom, Polity Press, 2003, p.119
[8] Beer, A. Francis, Peace against War. The ecology of international violence, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company, 1981, pp.22-23.
[9] Ibid., P.36.
[10] United Nations, United Nations Concern for Peace and Security in Central Africa. Reference Document, New York, United Nations, 1997, p.97.
[11] Onwuka, O. Nkechi, “Civilian protection in African Peacekeeping: A gender perspective” in Chiyuka Aoi (eds.), Unintended consequences of peacekeeping operations, United Nations University Press, 2007, p.17.
[12] Ibid.
[13] “What is Human Security?”, Available at www.humansecuritycentre.org. Accessed on 15 October 2008.
[14]“What is Human Security?”, Available at www.humansecuritycentre.org .
[15] Raphael, Alison, “Congo violence continues, despite peace treaty”. Available at http://www.hsrgroup.org/ . Accessed on 15 October 2008.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.
[18] “Global Food Crisis: You can help the hungry”. Available at www.projectconcern.org/. Accessed on 30 October 2008.
[19] Anup, Shah, Poverty facts and stats. Available at www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Facts.asp. Accessed on 30 October 2008.
[20] Anup, Shah, Poverty facts and stats.
[21] “Cameroon”. The World Factbook.United States Central Intelligence Agency. Available at www.cia.gov/library/publication/the-world-factbook/geos/cm.html. Accessed on 30 October 2008.
[22] Attzs, Marlene, “When all things are not equal: natural disasters and attainment of the MDGs” in Breaking with business as usual. Perspectives from the civil society in the Commonwealth on the Millennium Development Goals, London, Commonwealth Foundation, 2005, p.53.
[23] Ibid, p.54.
[24] Memunatu, P., “Conflict and the Millennium Development Goals” in Breaking with Business as Usual. Perspectives from the Civil Society in the Commonwealth on the Millennium Development Goals, London, Commonwealth Foundation, 2005, pp. 76 -79.
[25] Attzs, “When all things are not equal”, pp.58 -59.
[26] Collins, M., “ Climate Change in the Commonwealth: Vulnerability or Opportunity ”, paper presented at the Management Forum, British Council Learning and Information Centre Cameroon, 30 July 2008.
NB:This paper was first presented at the 4th Edition of the Cameroon Social Forum (FOSCAM) organised by the Federation of Cameroon Civil society Organisations on 25 November 2008. It was first posted on the Peace and Collaborative Development Network- available at :
No comments:
Post a Comment