Human Security is More Important Than National Security
Introduction
Security is a core value in world politics. Only the states have been the traditional model of security, taking responsibilities to protect its own citizens and national interests through the use of force or military emphasis. This model is termed as the national security. But hard power alone does not always win the minds of the people. And at the same time, the end of the Cold War and the spread of globalization results in new security challenges and threats. As the nature of conflict and the international situations changed, the new concept of security was needed to consider. Instead of mainly focusing on the traditional military-centric security aspects, the nontraditional aspects of security, particularly human security (or individual security), have emerged. States no longer hold the monopolistic power over the security issues. Individuals themselves have come to shoulder the rights and responsibilities in determining their own interests and security. Hence this essay would mainly assess the fact that human security is more important than national security through providing the definitions of these two security aspects as well as comparisons between them.
National Security versus Human Security
National Security is
This traditional version of security focuses on applying the military to ensure the territorial sovereignty of the states. It is also important to be acquired in order to maintain the survival of the states through the use of diplomacy, power projection, economic and political powers. According to Arnold Wolfers, national security can be defined objectively as an absence of threats to traditional, cultural, social values and so on, or subjectively as an absence of fear that those values will be threatened. There are two essential pillars of national security: freedom from military threat and freedom from political coercion.
Human Security is
Human security was introduced in the 1990s by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) as one of the nontraditional security aspects. There are three core pillars of human security: freedom from fear, freedom from want, and freedom from indignity. Here, freedom from fear means freedom from violence, torture, persecution, acute, sudden threats as well as violation of civil and political rights. Freedom from want also means freedom of poverty, famine, disease, access to water, shelter, environmental degradation, climate changes, chronic threats as well as violation of economic, social, and cultural rights. Meanwhile freedom from indignity means freedom to live in dignity.
Human security has four essential characteristics:
1. Universal: It is relevant to people all over the world, whether they are rich or poor. It also recognizes that many threats such as crime, pollution, climate change, unemployment, poverty as well as human rights violations are in common to all people.
2. Interdependence: All security challenges and threats, including famine, disease, pollution, terrorism, drug trafficking and social integration are isolated events, they are interdependent.
3. Early prevention: It is easier to ensure through early prevention because it costs less both in terms of human lives and financial costs.
4. People-centered: It mainly focuses on how people live in a society and how freely they exercise their rights and choices.
c. Comparison between Human Security and National Security: Which is more important?
First of all, human security concept was evolved partly because even the successful territorial security such as in North Korea and Rwanda cannot and does not ensure the security of citizens within their states' territories.
Second, human security does not seek to supplant the national security, instead it complements it. For example, states are the very first actors that have the fundamental responsibility of providing security to their citizens. But they often fail to fulfil their obligations because they often are part of the threat to people. During the periods of the multitude of violent conflicts and extreme poverty, states cannot secure all of its people's security.
Third, human security is more important because it is universal which means it is going beyond borders. For instance, in the Rwandan genocide, its human security failures spilled over to the neighboring countries and its consequences still effect the Great Lake region of Africa nearly a decade later.
Fourth, human security provides an important dimension to development thinking. Successful human security policies not only develop individuals' economic well-being and intelligence but also expand their real freedoms: freedom from fear, freedom from want and freedom from indignity.
Last but not least, hard power alone cannot and does not always win the confidence of the people. As the nature of conflict shifted to non-traditional pattern and the international situations gradually moved to multipolar world, states no longer hold the monopolistic power over the security issues. Instead they change their security understanding in order to respond to the changing threats by incorporated human security concepts in their foreign policies. For example, Austria, Canada, Chile, Ireland, Jordan, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Switzerland, and Thailand advocates its foreign policy under human security as safety of people both from the violent and the non-violent threats, focusing on small arms, antipersonnel landmines, children in the armed conflicts and international human rights law, while Japan covers all the menaces such as environmental degradation, human rights violations, illicit drugs, transnational crimes, refugees, poverty, anti-personnel landmines and other infectious diseases that threaten human survival and dignity.
Conclusion
To conclude, the concept of nationalism based on territoriality is diluting and blunting. Security is widely going beyond borders. Hence many states have incorporated human security concepts into their foreign policies in order to cover such menaces as environmental degradation, human rights violations, illicit drugs, transnational crimes, refugees, poverty, anti-personnel landmines and other infectious diseases that threaten human survival and dignity. Although national security and human security are interrelated in some aspect that neither people can be secure in the absence of strong and responsible states nor states can be secure if people's security is at stake.
Human security (or individual security) was evolved partly because even successful territorial security cannot and does not ensure the security of citizens within their states and partly because states themselves are often the source of the threat to their own citizens. Besides it is more important than national security because it is universal; it is people-centered; it complements national security; its failures can lead to the worst and its consequences can effect not only that origin country but also throughout the region even after decades; successful human security policies not only develop individuals' economic wellbeing and intelligence but also expand their freedoms. Therefore, this essay can be concluded that human security is more important that national security in the changing international system with the changing security challenges and threats.
References
- Baldwin, David A. 'The Concept of security.' Review of International Studies Volume 23 (1997): 5-26. Web.
- Daase, Christopher. 'National, Societal', and 'Human Security': On the Transformation of Political Language.' Historical Social Research Volume 35. Issue 4 (2010): 22-37. Web.
- King, Gary. and Christopher J. L. Murray. 'Rethinking Human Security.' Political Science Quarterly Volume 116. Issue 4 (2002): 585-610. Web.
- Wolfers, Arnold: 'National Security as an Ambiguous Symbol.' in idem: Discord and Collaboration. Essays on International Politics (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press (1962):147-165. Web.
- 'Human Security or National Security: the Problems and Prospects of the Norm of Human Security,' Journal of Politics and Law Volume 11. Issue 3 (2018). Web.
