The Relationship of Human Security to America’s National Security
The Relationship of Human Security to America’s National Security
Introduction
Despite it unrestrained effectiveness, the idea of ‘human security’, has received widespread criticism since its development in 1994 for being irrelevant policy-wise due to its highly flexible definition (source). Many critics in this regard have stressed the need to provide a narrower definition of the concept by focusing violent threats concerning individuals, with a view to addressing political, economic, health, and food and health issues. Similarly, the concept of ‘national’ or ‘state’ security is also misconstrued as solely the protection of national borders from threats emanating externally. However, considering the dynamic character of current threats to the survival of humans, ‘national security’ should be considered from the primary perspective of protecting citizens as well as the ‘rule of law’ and as such the concept essentially concerns itself with human security. On this backdrop, this research paper will critically analyze the concept of human security with a view to analyzing, discussing and synthesizing elements that define its interface with national security within the context of the United States.
Paper Overview
This research exercise will examine the relationship between human security and national security as it applies to America. Towards this end, it will begin by providing a pragmatic definition of the concept of national. The will be followed by a consideration of the conceptualization of human security from the perspective of different theorist underlining the study of international and security relations before synthesizing the most appropriate construction. The exercise will further analyze the relationship between the national and human perspective before providing a personal definition of the latter. This will be followed by a discussion of how national security and economic security relate. A conclusion will be provided at the end of the submission, which will enumerate the main findings.
What is National Security?
The challenge inherent devising a consistent measure of national security in regards to the United States must be predicated on a solid appreciation of what ‘national security’ as a concept is or not. Toward this end, is the notion that government together with its legislative bodies should safeguard the state as well as its citizenly against any form of crises portending threats to the nation in its entirety is the basic definition of ‘national security’. This is realized through an array of power outcrops, such as diplomacy, political power, military might, and economic power among others (Glennon, 2014).
The concept is mostly used in the United States where it was developed after the end of World War II and initially focused on military power but it now includes a wide assortment of aspects, which affect the economic or non-military security of the country including the values embraced by the society nationally. Consequently, for a country to have adequate national security, it needs to retain energy security, economic security, food security, personal security, environmental security as well as health security (Shepherd, 2013).
The present conception of ‘national security’ does not only relate to conventional threats like other states but also different threats posed by non-state players such as narcotic cartels, violent non-state players , non-governmental organizations and multinational corporations. Other authorities considered in this regard are natural disasters and phenomena capable of causing widespread environmental damage. It thus evident that the concept does not have a solitary collectively accepted definition of the same. The current definitions avail an indication of multiple applications and as such it remains largely vague, having emanated from modest definitions that initially stressed the freedom or protection from political coercion and military threats to later augment in sophistication including other types of non-military threats as applicable to prevailing conditions (Booth, 2007) .
Conceptualizations of Human Security
As a relatively new concept, human security effectively shifts attention from territorial/state security to the protection of the national security, individuals or groups. Nevertheless, different conceptualizations of the concept have previously been developed by scholars and professionals in the field-an aspect that contributes to the confusion regarding the idea. These attempts are tailored towards adequately conceptualizing the concept under two principle modern theories concerned with international relations. One facet of this conceptualization gamut is an approach predicated upon a neo-realist theoretical background, which retains a sustained importance on the preeminence of the state or nation within a widened conceptualization of ‘human security’. This approach is referred in some quarters as the “new security thinking” (Shepherd, 2013).
Shepherd (2013) notes that a critical or else post-modernist approach to the concept is hinged on the international politics’ pluralist theory representing the other facet of the discourse. This is based on a number of assumptions that fundamentally attempt to extricate the sate as the principle reference point for security on one hand, while placing grander emphasize on trans nationalization as well as interdependence of non-state players.
The neo-realist conceptualization of human security has been largely driven by neo or structural realists like Barry Buzman through his seminal works the “ People, State and fear (Buzan, 2008). He asserts the ‘straitjacket’ militaristic attitude towards security that underlined the Cold war discourse was simplistic in its conceptualization and as such resulted in the mal-development of human security a critical national concept (Buzan, 2008). Consequently, Buzman widened the concept to encompass economic, political environmental in addition to social threats as well as threats of a militaristic nature. Although this neo-realist examines the concept from three distinct perspectives in regards to the state, the individual and the global system, he determines that the overriding as well as effective provider of this form of security is the sovereign/state (Buzan, 2008). This analysis avails the most extensive modern examination of the concept of ‘human security’ in regards to a state- amalgamated perspective.
The post-modernist or critical approach to understanding human security as basic societal concept is adequately reflected by Ken Booth who advocates for a widened conceptualization of the same in a way that surpasses military determination of different threats (Booth, 2007). Post-modernist advocates are explicit in their emphasis the state ought to be divorced from the role of the principle referent of the concept of ‘human security’ and instead encompass a broad array of non-sate players such cultural and ethnic assemblages, individuals, regional economic groups, non-governmental organizations and multinational corporations. This theorist therefore roots for an expansion of the concept both vertically as well as horizontally as he perceives human security as eventually more important compared to state security. In other words, the post-modern construction of the concept and indeed security does not in any or else form equate human security to state security (Booth, 2007).
In Booth’s (2007) considered view, implicit governments and states can longer be regarded as the principle referents in this regard as they have become the overriding origin of insecurity as opposed to being “the guardians of peoples’ security’ living under their own sovereignty. This conceptualization questions the ability of the state to effectively and adequately provide its people with sufficient security.
Based on an analysis of these approaches, it is evident that they efforts are trained towards address aspects relating to non-military threats relevant to human security. However, they differ fundamentally in the approach they take in addressing pertinent points to action but they concur that the state dislodged as the main reference point the security of its citizenry.
The concept of ‘human security’ or rather the idea driving the conception that people should indeed be protected against violent threats emerged during the last decade of the twentieth century. The origins of the concept can be traced to different activities carried out by non-governmental organizations like the Red Cross (Shepherd, 2013). Nonetheless, the application of ‘human security’ was initially defined by United Nations Development Programme in 1994 through its “Human Development Report”. This report provides a broad conceptualization of ‘human security’, where it describes it as the state of safety/security from seven distinct categorizations of threats that include: food security, economic security, environmental security, health security, community security, political security and personal security. This conceptualization is further defined by two principle aspects-“freedom from want” and freedom from fear” (UNDP, 1994).
This conceptualization is hinged on the idea that the “concept of security has for too long been interpreted narrowly’, for ‘it has been related more to nation-states than to people,” (UNDP, 1994, p. 22). However, many scholars view this broad as markedly broad and as such, they propose a new conceptualization based fresh framework in regards to emerging threats. Towards this end, the Internat1ional Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) argues that human security should viewed through a the narrow prism of a vision that creates a world where natios/states committed to promoting human rights as well as democratic values are charged with the Responsibility to Protect,” (ICSS, 2001).
Within the American context, the varied conceptualization of human security have resulted in the emergence of paradigm in regards to appreciating national vulnerabilities with its advocates challenging the conventional idea exposed by national security by asserting that the correct referent for securing the population from these threat is the individual as opposed to the state (Glennon, 2014). This paradigm shifts seeks to clear the conceptual ambiguities associated with the concept with a view of increasing its effectiveness in safeguarding the nation.
The Relationship Between Human Security and National Security
The significance of sate might within conventional human security conceptualizations is underlined by every argument in the presence or lack thereof of a relationship between national security and human security. Human security in this regard is perceived as a complimentary aspect of national security when the intention of nation/state security is predicated on the need to protect the state including its people, boundaries , values and institutions from external threats (Commission on Human Security, 2003). A relationship between the two concepts is indeed present and is directed by the understanding that many wars in the contemporary sense are not inter-sate in nature and as such do not require conventional security approaches (Shepherd, 2013).
To adequately understand this relationship, one must appreciate that it surpasses formal recognition of the state’s authority over national territory as fundamental per-condition in regards to citizen protection. The relationship must therefore be viewed from the perspective that sovereignty as a key concept has changed over the the years in a manner that enables trans-national management of security matters through both non-military as well as military humanitarian interventions. This linkage is best exemplified by the ICSS (2001) through the “Responsibility to Protect” concept, which explicitly links the responsibility of the state in terms of security provision with human security. The relationship thus seeks to connect the sovereignty bestowed upon the state with the role of availing adequate protection of its citizenry by underlining the importance idea of responsibility in regards to the ability to protect citizens (Booth, 2007). In this respect, national security as well as human security are mutually reinforcing concepts but caution must be taken not to equate secure nations with secure people based on this association.
The concept of ‘human security’ is relatively new and therefore the relationship with national security is not clearly defined as the former has been applied to as a means of shifting focus away from conventional state orientation in terms of protecting as well as advancing individuals in the national sense (Glennon, 2014). Human security is therefore a challenge to notions driven by national security, and as such, the relationship should not be seen as an approach to replace conventional national security but a mutually exclusive association as one cannot be realized in the absence of the other. The relationship between these security concepts redefines the roles of the state in regards to human security by prioritizing their respective responsibilities as the referents for providing security to its population.
Personal Definition of Human Security
From a personal perspective, human security is a concept that concerns itself with protecting citizens on the one hand, while promoting peaceful co-existence as well as guaranteeing sustainable incessant human development. Based on this understanding, the concept should place greater emphasis on assisting individuals through people-centered approaches in terms of resolving various inequalities that impact on their security be it, economic, physical, health, food, environmental, personal or community security.
The Relationship Between Economic Security and National Security
The department of homeland security underscores the fact that the economic prosperity of the United States and indeed the world depends on an increasing scale on the movement of goods as well as service, capital, people, technology and information across the expanses of its national borders (DHS, 2016). However, notwithstanding the significance of economic considerations in regards to grand strategy, economic objectives per se do not form part of any major security objective nationally argues Losmann, (2001). Nonetheless, explicit economic goals are part of the national security stratagem in America based on a practical, moral as well as efficiency considerations that confirm that there is indeed a relationship between national and economic security.
It is therefore difficult to divorce strategic goods or else economic threats through a pragmatic manner from national security. This is demonstrated by America’s willingness to apply military might to ensure adequate access to required resources or to realize economic prosperity is indicate of an association between the two. The implication here is that both economic as well as national security are inextricably connected and the United States has pursued these objectives concurrently (Losmann, 2001). However, the situation is different in siloed state agencies, these aspects are perceived in isolation but the overriding principle within the American society is that their economy is founded to the greatest extent on its military as well as political power. Boosting growth through this approach aids in relieving the descendant pressure budgetary allocations for foreign affairs and defense thereby increasing resources available for other economic activities and therefore the country’s aptitude to influence global events (Ronis, 2015).
This interface between economic security and national security within the context of the American society is not a new approach. The termination of the Cold war effectively shifted attention in regards to security to its present from military-based threats to other aspects with the potential of affecting the people negatively. Key among this new concerns is the security of the national economy or the ability to protect and/or advance its respective economic interests given the emerging threats to the sustainability of the well being of its interests (Ronis, 2015).
It is noteworthy that the country does not act in isolation but is an integral component of the global economy and as such, its own economy is influenced by happening on the global front. This then means that any threat either military or non-military to its economic status must be addressed through requite national security strategies from a humanitarian perspective. In other words, enhancing its security nationally enhances its economic security as there are indeed situations like the 9/11 attack that might escalate in a manner requiring military response (Ronis, 2015). This underscores the understanding that a strong national security approach predicated on the ability of its military and other agencies charged with the responsibility of securing the homeland require robust economic underpinnings and in this regard, economic apparatus can act as a non-military type of defense despite defense considerations portending profound impacts on the security of the economy.
Conclusion
This research exercise has critically analyzed the concept of human security with a view to analyzing, discussing and synthesizing elements that define its interface with national security within the context of the United States. It has consequently established that considering the dynamic character of existing threats to the survival of the society, ‘national security’ should be considered from the primary perspective of protecting citizens as well as the ‘rule of law’ and as such, the concept essentially concern itself with human security from a food security, economic security, environmental security, health security, community security, political security and personal security. National and human security are therefore inextricably connected despite the existence of conceptual differences presented by anti-statistic biases. This relationship is critical concerning the current threats facing the world as it’s the most appropriate way of redefining the roles of the state in regards to human security by prioritizing their respective responsibilities as the referents for providing security to its population. The two concepts should therefore be applied as mutually complementary approaches and not in isolation. This is prediacted on the implicit understanding that governments as well as states can longer be regarded as the principle referents in this regard as they have become the overriding origin of insecurity as opposed to being “the guardians of peoples’ security’ living under their own sovereignty.
References
Booth, K. (2007). Theory of World Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buzan, B. (2008). People, States & Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era. ECPR Press.
Commission on Human Security. (2003). Human Security Now. New York: CHS.
DHS. (2016). Economic Security. Retrieved from Depratment of Homeland Security: https://www.dhs.gov/economic-security
Glennon, M. J. (2014). National Security and Double Government. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
ICSS. (2001). The Responsibility to Protect. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
Losmann, D. (2001). Economic Security: A National Security Folly. Policy Analysis, 409, 23-34.
Ronis, S. R. (2015). Economic Security Neglected Dimension of National Security? New York, NY: Springer.
Shepherd, L. J. (2013). Critical Approaches to Security: An Introduction to Theories and Methods. New York, NY: Routledge.
UNDP. (1994). Human Development Report 1994: New Dimensions of Human Security. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
