The Concept To The Contemporary Security Agenda Politics Essay

The Concept To The Contemporary Security schedule Politics EssayIs the innovation of piece credentials, which is the most controversial and debated retail store in inter matter organizations since 1994, simply hot air, as seen by its critics? Or does it contribute to the theory of modern-day credentials ag annihilatea where the whole innovation is increasingly interconnected (Paris, 2001). This paper introduces to the planetary theories which tolerate help guess kind certificate better and the extent to which homosexual credential contributes the coeval pledge order of business.There is no single definition of forgivingkind shelter as forgivingkind treasureion goes beyond conventional nonions of credential to emphasis on much(prenominal) step forwards as development and respect for military man rights. description of human tribute remains an open question. The simplest definition of protection is absence of in credential and threats (Shahrbanou, 2 004 cited in McIntosh, Hunter, 2004 139). In context, to catch protective covering is to involve immunity from both fear of psychological, physical or sexual abuse and from ask of nutrient, employment and health. valet security on that pointfore deals with the capacity to identify threats and to invalidate them when possible. It means to help people cope with the insecurities resulting from wars, betrothals human rights, violations or large underdevelopment (Owen, 2004 15).The on-going debate of human security among its advocates is that there should be a wobble of attention from a kingdom centric to a human centric approach to security. That is, business with the security of conjure orders should give way to concern with the security of the people who live inwardly those borders (McDonald, 2002 279). Tradition on the wholey, in press out- centric or realist skyline security means auspices of reign and territorial ace of states from external multitude threats, rather than the treasureion of privates (Newman, 2010 85). By contrast human centric or liberalist view places individuals at their main priority and proposes somewhat essential conditions, for suit adoption of universal human rights to ensure the protection of the people. Thus in 1970s and 1980s, people responding to the Middle East vegetable oil crisis and the growing aw arness of environmental degradation, began to think of security in resistanter, non- military terms. After the end of the Cold war, m either scholars started to see state- centric security as essentially in specialise terms (Hough, 2004).Thus the concept of human security developed which attempted to redefine and expand the meaning of security. However, it does not challenge the relevance of state- centric arguments in so far as these concern the protection of the state from external military violence and withdraw the state as the main provider of security.Some analysts still get by that external milita ry threats are bigger than ever in the post-Cold warfare era as there is no balance of top executive which for age ensured state and individual security (Hough, 2004). However, level if these threats are bigger at the moment, they definitely are not the whole threat to the lives of people all around the human beings. Issues resembling environmental degradation, ailments, and famines are also huge threats affecting people (Shahrbanou, 2005 30).Constructivism is also one of the theories in international transaction which give the sack be adopted as way of meeting human security. It provides a useful framework for understanding the true nature of issues relating to human security such as race, class, violence and sexual activity (Conteh-Morgan, 2005 cited in Tsai, 2009 28). Constructivism can be found to be much beneficial in approaching the concept of human security, in contrast to structural realism. Constructivism believes that language, customs, norms and culture can deviate the behaviours and interests of people living in that country. Un analogous realism, which sees anarchy as the unavoidable outcome of self-help, constructivism sees it as state created which can be changed by state hinderance (Wendt, 1992 cited in Tsai, 2009 24).Onuf stresses on language and the role that plays in constructing human existences, interests and principles. He considers language and rules as the fundamental norm of constructivism, and regards the human being as the first point of research and the hub of human security. In the contemporary homo with the growing knowledge, language has become one of the key elements of construct human security. Onuf also stated that people use language to interpret the rules and therefore it is the most important way of constructing a society (Onuf, 1989). For instance, the on-going fundamental interaction of human society has been eventually generated into international norms (Bedeski, 2007 46). Peter J. Katzenstein also c hallenges the traditional realist theories of security by emphasising the norms and culture of constructivism as his main concern in solving the human security issue in international comparisons theories. He states that the concept of culture defines the state actors in the system and the synergetic associations among actors and society. Katzenstein asserts that culture can be defined by looking at the social customs and fairnesss of that society (Katzenstein 2005 6). For example, Due to the lack of knowledge of interior(a) factors within the Soviet Union, neo-realism and neo-liberalism failed to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. Thus culture can play a major(ip) role in influencing state actors, institutions and even respect for international law and human rights.More recently, analysts, following the united Nations culture Programmes (UNDP) 1994 human race growing Report and their supposition of security as independence from fear and insufficiency (Hough, 2004), have settled on the phrase human security to mark the people-centred aspect of these efforts. In 1994, Human Development Report (HDR) issued by the United Nations Development Programs (UNDP) presented a distinct philosophy about the integration of security issues and globalization. Thus, this reputation defined human security according to septet dimensions such as economical security, environmental security personal, semi semipolitical leaderitical, community, health, and food security .The report also adopted a people-centric security concept instead of the traditional state-centred concept (UNDP, 1994 24-33). Realist would contend that the above list has clear military security implications. The report makes it clear that the real security protects individuals from threats such as disease, hunger, unemployment, political oppression and environmental degradation (Tsai and Tan, 2007 8-9). Due to the broadness of the concept, the human security in cludes both traditional and non-traditional elements of security (Paris, 2001 88).On the contrary, to the critics, the concept and definition provided by UNDP is very broad. Gary King and Christopher Murray criticizes the overly broad and understanding of human security. By broad it means trying to include all the well-beings, which makes no sense. For example, the seven dimensions of human security defined by UNDP indicates a ray of dimensions centred on human-dignity, which are potentially interrelated and overlapped, and fails to provide a coherent verbalism with a single and integrated concept(King Murray, 2002). For Roland Paris human security is secret code more than hot air. In his view those who support the concept of human security are the ones who want to keep the broadness and fuzziness of the concept just for their motive (Paris, 2001). Lincoln Chen has a analogous credit as well. In his view the concept is so wide and broad that it is difficult to make a choice whi ch threat should be interpreted as first priority and which can be neglected (Chen Narasimhan, 2003). derivation from the UNDPs interpretation of the human security concept and putting aside the differences among state-centric and human-centric positions for the moment, the meaning of human security is also contested by different schools of human security. The dispute over grammatical examples of threats that should be included has divided advocates into the infinitesimal and the broad schools. Mack, an advocate of narrow school, argues that threat of violence to people by the state or any other institution or a political actor is the proper focus for the concept of human security. On the other hand, Thakur a proponent of broad theory, asserts that human security is touch on with the protection of people from critical life-threatening dangers, regardless of whether the threat are rooted in anthropogenic activities or internal events, whether they lie within or outside states, and whether they are direct or definition of narrow school can be simplified as granting immunity from fear, similarly broad school can be defined as immunity from fear but also from want which is also the focus of human development in UNDP Report (UNDP, 1993 2). Japan promotes the human security root of immunity from want whereas Norway, Canada and other members of the human security network promotes emancipation from fear (Shinoda, 2007, Dedring, 2008 cited in Tsai, 2009).Thus Kofi Annan has pointed out the three pillars of this wider conception of human security, freedom from want, freedom from fear, and freedom to live in dignity.However, the differences between the two conceptions of human security can be exaggerated, as both perceive the individual as the main object of the security and stresses on safety from violence. some(prenominal) of them even acknowledges the role of globalization and its changing nature of armed conflict that is generating new threats to human security, besides both calls for a rethinking of state sovereignty as an important part of promoting human security. Therefore, both the concepts overlap all(prenominal) other as here to a large extent. Seeking freedom from fear without addressing freedom from want would amount to addressing symptoms without the cause (Baylis, Smith, Owins, 2011 483).With the on-going wars, conflicts and problems, human security also deals with issues like climatic change and environmental degradation as everything is interconnected with one another. Death caused by armed conflicts has declined in relation to other challenges to the safety of individual. Wars and violent conflict often glide bys to environmental degradation, economic disruption or levels of poverty. For example Vietnam War or the Gulf War in which Saddam Hussein burned Kuwaiti oil which in the end led to air pollution and land degradation. Similarly, environmental problems also lead to wars and conflicts. such as scarcity of r esources in over populated countries like India, Pakistan leads to dispute. For example Indo- Pakistan dispute over the Wular Barrage. While no direct touch on can be found between terrorism and poverty, terrorists often proceeding poverty and exclusion in order to tap into popular discontentment -taking advantage of fragile states such as Somalia, or undemocratic governing such as Afghanistan in the 1990s, to plan violence(UNDP 2005 47). Poverty and lack of economic opportunity can also lead to terrorism. For example, Orissa in India is the perfect example of how poverty deprivation can trigger acts of terrorism, signifying how freedom from fear and freedom from want are intricately connected (Baylis, Smith, Owins, 2011 486).In the contemporary world climatic change or natural disasters has also emerged as a human security agenda especially for the western countries. Potential disasters like global warming or tsunami pose a threat to individuals and societies around the world. Most scholars tend to view this challenge as a national security challenge rather than human security. However, climate change and natural disasters can be linked to human securities issues like state failure, food shortage, water crisis, which are genuine human security issues. Communicable disease like the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) which alarmed the whole world in 2003 became the main issue of concern in the human security agenda (Curley, Thomas, 2004 18). Diseases can travel rapidly across borders. It has become a major global issue and no country can protect the human security of individuals and communities within its national borders on its own. Another issue which falls under human security is protection of women against violence, womens human rights, gender inequalities in control over resource or inequalities in power and decision making. Recent conflicts have shown women as victims of rape, sexual slavery and torture. Such violence against women is now recogn ised as a crime against humankind (Rehn, Sirleaf 2002 cited in Baylis, Smith, Owins, 2011 488).The aspect of human security has become irresistible immediately .It deals with so many issues and it is so broad that it includes almost all type of human securities even if it is criticised over and over again. Weather viewed as freedom from fear or freedom from want, the concept of human security has not replaced national security. The Human Development Report estimates the rich countries of the world throw more in the military budget than in contentious issues like HIV/AIDS. However, it reflects a number of developments that have constantly challenged the traditional view of security as the protection of states from military attack. It originally began as a rejection of orthodox notions of economic growth in favour of a broader notion of human development, but now has been reinforced by new security threats such as genocide in the Balkans and Africa (Baylis, Smith, Owins, 2011 491). Human Security has liberal into an important aspect in the contemporary security agenda. Responsibility to protect is an issue that supports human security and its three practical quarrys, the responsibility to prevent, vex and rebuild. It was developed in the 2001 report The Responsibility to Protect which was produced by representation on Intervention and State Sovereignty. The commission argued that the primary responsibility to protect their citizens is in the hands of the state. If a state is unable or unvoluntary to do so or if they deliberately terrify their citizen thus this leads to the international responsibility to protect the citizens of that particular state through humanitarian intervention. Development of this agenda for human security through the Right to Protection agenda is a point of debate and some contention (Gottwald, 2012 9).addition intervention to protect state sovereignty is one of the most important charge of human security. The concept of humanit arian intervention was endorsed by the report of the UN secretaire Generals High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. It was developed to help the state and its citizens from any threats external or internal. Despite the valuable articulation of such responsibility, Humanitarian intervention can always not be justified. An intervention can be manipulated and inevitably shaped by powerful actors. Skilled lawyers or diplomats can convince arguments, both for and against particular interventions, like they did in the case of Darfur (Bellamy 2010).Just by accepting the idea of human security and treating it positively, the state cannot be benefitted. They have to make certain effort to implement the human security concerns in its political practices (McDonald, 2002).Canadian government made the same tend and exploited the state human security aspect. Canadas middle power status in the world system indicates that accepting the security theory of such agrees basically with it s national interests. Based on the cl fathers of Jockel and Sololsky, Canadas acceptance of the idea of human security altered the political nature of intervention. The Canadian government have continued to intervene in the name of human security anytime anyplace (Newman, 2001). As some scholars have already noted, there is risk in confusing the pursuit of human security concerns with the pursuit of traditional security concerns.NATO intervention in Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with as said was for the objective of preventing ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. However Ramesh Thakur argues that, it is still questionable that whether this intervention actually produced more victimize than benefit (Thakur, 2002 cited in Glusac, 2010 90).Noam Chomsky shares a similar view and sharply criticises the war against Yugoslavia. He believes that the bombing stir up only hastened the flow of refugees from Kosovo. The consequences of bombing campaign included the collateral damage in the form of re fugees and long-term damage caused to the economy, which caused a creation of a state which ultimately became dependent on foreign aid. Multiple refuges, broken infrastructure, damage incurred by economy were the direct consequences of the bombing campaign (Chomsky, 1999 81). Keeping this in mind, its difficult to say that the goal of human security was reached by this intervention. If we disclaim the seven dimension of human security that was pointed out in the Human Development Report, we can draw a conclusion that the bombing campaign has affected almost all of them, and surely not favourably.US onslaught of Iraq can be another example of humanitarian intervention. Although US intentions for invasion were always unclear but when the post invasion period intensify into the chaos the US raised the human security agenda as a justification for the war in Iraq, arguing that the US aim was to rescue the people of Iraq from the human insecurities caused by Saddam Hussein. However ev en USA did little to restore law and order through implementing pol justice procedure (Collins, 2007 130). Therefore, if the goal of an intervention is to protect the human security and the avenue to achieve these goals are the same that affect the human security, then the question that should be asked here is whether we have chosen the wrong means.To conclude, Human security can be best understood under liberalists and constructivists theories. naive realism therefore cannot be considered as the dominant theory of security. Human security has a long way to go before being universally accepted by everybody. The connections between wars, famines, disease, poverty and environmental degradation are still not understood by many, thus needs more clarification and explanation. Data from the Human Security Report Project shows there has been a remarkable decline in internal and global political violence since the mid-1990. If the world had to do without such aspect of human security, it w ould have been fairly difficult to deal the with the on-going security problems.