Revisiting Security Essay

Andrew Tammaro

Revisiting Security Essay

At the start of this class, I had a very limited view of security and how it impacts the daily lives of people all around the world.  I wrote much of human security and what individuals do everyday to protect themselves.  This included carrying a firearm or pepper spray, locking the doors to your home, and ensuring a safe commute to and from work each day.  In my essay, I almost completely disregarded the need or desire for enhanced security and protection by the state, seeing as attacks that are preventable at such a level are rare, and most are hardly preventable at all.  It seems as if I put much of my effort and focus into an individual’s desire for freedom and how it trumps their desire for security.  I think the driving factor in such a declaration was my misunderstanding of how widely interpreted “security” really is and could be, and how much people rely on it involuntarily.  Further, my understanding and value placed on ontological security was limited and insufficient compared to what it is now.  Following the course, however, my view of necessary security is much wider.

I believe that now, in addition to human security, which I still deem most valuable, ontological security is among the more valuable forms of security.  Throughout the semester, we spoke of how a person’s livelihood may very likely mean just about everything to them, and a threat to that livelihood is extremely frightening to them.  I took this declaration quite lightly at the beginning of the semester, and I discounted it as unnecessary.  However, after delving into its specifics and just how serious it is to many people, I accept it as a main form of security.  This was particularly highlighted by people in Tuvalu whose homes and lives were being destroyed with nowhere to go, and many people in the United States who, if they were told to pack up and leave their current life, would be frankly unable to survive anywhere else.  In the United States in particular, I think of people in places like West Virginia who rely on the coal mining industry to provide for their family.  They have likely never attended college and acquired a set of skills necessary to survive a corporate world in a place like New York.  

In addition to ontological security, I still feel as if human security will always be the most important.  It is commonly said that people need to take care of themselves in order to ensure a happy and fulfilled life, and that is very true.  However, this does not mean just eating fruits and vegetables and maybe going to the gym every now and again.  This means protecting yourself and your family, putting yourself in a position to live your best life according to your living situation, and even allowing yourself to ascend to a higher standard of living.  Personally, I believe that much of the Ebola outbreak in western Africa started from a lack of human security, and transcended into an issue of national security.  This began with the children that we saw in the documentary that were playing with and eating bats that contained the Ebola virus, and into the inability of communities to react appropriately to the spread of the virus.  It was a lack of human security that allowed these children to be put into such a situation where they were exposed to such harmful animals.  Further, it was a lack of human security that the communities lacked the medical professionals and equipment necessary to reasonably withstand such an outbreak.  This outbreak also touches on the ontological security threat that these people faced during the outbreak.  They were forced to sacrifice some of their rituals at the risk of spreading the disease, they felt as if they were being infiltrated by foreigners, and they were extremely vulnerable.

Sacrificing traditions, a feeling of being infiltrated, and being vulnerable are quintessential factors of ontological security.  They played a role in the Ebola outbreak, but they also play a role in America.  In western Africa, those factors tied into human security.  However, here, they tie largely into national security.  It is often that we see people advocate for a strong national security to combat the risk of terrorism and other foreign threats.  However, there are also people that use those factors to advocate for ethno-nationalism in America.  The feeling that they are being invaded and replaced runs rampant, and it poses a threat to their ontological security.  They feel as if the most effective way to combat this is through national security, securing and enforcing the national borders, and enhancing the power of the law.  This has been a hot topic in America recently, with different social and political movements popping up along the way.  Nonetheless, although it may be a flawed ideology, it is a legitimate security threat to many people.  

Overall, I remain to value the importance and necessity of human security above all else.  Though, now, I place a stronger value on one’s ontological security and how it affects and impacts their human and national security.  Those three are, undoubtedly, the most important to ensure a secure life.  This is more than evident in the cases of Tuvalu, western Africa, the United States, and many more nations especially including North Korea.  Now, also, I have a heightened understanding of many angles to the debate on security and I am confident in my beliefs as to what can truly qualify as a security risk.  

Revisiting Security Essay

Ally Tompkins

Global Security Studies

Professor Shirk

Revisiting Security Essay

After taking Global Security Studies, my opinion on security remains the same: human security is essential for all other types of security and therefore of the utmost importance. Security as emancipation cannot be achieved until the needs of all people are met. Similarly, national security is also reliant on human security, as nations without such resources would likely not be able to defend themselves against large threats. In studying issues of climate change and global pandemics, it is evident that the resources and necessities that people depend on are crucial ins perpetuating the state. Without such essentials, there would be nothing to protect. Ultimately, all people have the right to the necessities that they need in order to live and all other forms of security are dependent on that. Therefore, I would leave my original paper the same, as I highlight the importance of human security.

Learning of the effects of climate change and how it affects nations such as Tuvalu, it becomes apparent that human security is necessary in securing a nation. The degradation of the environment is a global threat to human security. However, certain nations, as seen with Tuvalu, are more directly impacted. Tuvaluans face the issue of being unable to produce food and crops because of the “salinization of the soil” and their water is becoming undrinkable (Lecture 18). For, if people are unable to eat and survive, then there is no nation of Tuvalu. The people cannot focus on building a military or self-defense, but rather they are forced to confront the resource crisis they are currently facing. Similarly, the nation is flooding far more than it used to as a result of the change in climate. If there is no people of Tuvalu (or the situation could be applied to other areas deeply impacted by climate change), then there is no nation of Tuvalu. As my original paper stated, ontological security is also dependent on human security. With the sea levels rising, many residents of Tuvalu are being forced to immigrate elsewhere. As they lose the place they have known as home for their entire lives, they lose their sense of identity. In the video of Ian Fry addressing the United Nations at a climate change conference, he makes a plea for help for the island that he loves. Nations with similar situations to Tuvalu “have been a source region for big numbers of emigrants”(Weber). Thus, there is a threat to the ontological security of the climate change victims, as they are forced to relocate due to a lack of resources. The lack of resources that are necessary for human security then create threats to ontological security and identity. My opinion on human security remains, as it is the foundation of all other branches of security, as it is necessary for the existence of stability.

Much like climate change proves the need for human security, so too do instances of disease across the globe. For example, the Frontline documentary on ebola displayed the significance of human security in issues of health. The healthcare provided to ebola patients in western Africa was not sufficient in helping the health crisis. Instead, the disease was able to spread quickly and rampantly throughout the region. People were not able to receive proper healthcare and thus chaos ensued. With people dying and insufficient care, people were not secure in their homes. At one instance in the video, a woman claims that ebola is not real, but instead it is a cover up for cannibalism by the nurses (Frontline). Such claims led to riots in the streets and storming of quarantined areas, as people began to distrust the government and relief efforts. They too, were then confronted with issues of feeling secure in their respectable environments. Residents had to change their cultural practices and traditions to prevent the spreading of the disease any further. Ultimately, the threat to health care is a human security threat and the inability to provide adequate assistance resulted in chaos throughout the affected regions. I agree with my original claim that death is a threat to people all across the world and without proper healthcare, it becomes a more immediate threat. Nations facing healthcare crises must first consider the issues directly affecting their people prior to considering issues that relate to national security or other forms.

Reflecting on two specific security threats that we discussed in class, I maintain my statement that human security is the most important form of security. There can be no other type of security without the presence of human security, as it ensures the existence of the people and state. Health security and environmental security are significant aspects of human security. It is only after human security is ensured that a state can begin to think about national security and the ontological security of its citizens. Therefore, I would not change my original opinion on security. While it is important to consider the defense and continuation of the state or nation, that is dependent upon the continuation of the people that constitute the area. All variations of humans security, whether it be the environment, health, food, or education, compose the necessities for humans to thrive in their environments. Nothing else matters if there is a failing state of deprived people. My original essay discussed how each type of security is contingent on the existence of human security. Tuvalu and ebola are excellent examples as to how human security is paramount for the stability of the nation. 

Ebola: Success or Failure?

Ebola: Success or Failure?

The Frontline documentary that we watched in class gave the impression that Ebola was by-and-large a failure on the part of the international community, and for others by ordinary Africans themselves. However, there is ample reason to believe that the response to Ebola produced several positive outcomes as well.

Ebola was, by many standards, a preventable disease. The epidemic apparently started from a bat coming into contact with a group of Guinean kids playing in the woods. In the documentary, there were the videos of hundreds of people with bare feet and hands walking around, touching infected bodies. This left the native of West Africa in a tough position of security issues: choosing between the ontological security of sacred customs at the risk of dying, or choosing human security in getting treatment, at the risk of spiritual detriment. Though no one is to determine for certain which course of action is better, the disease did nonetheless spread through these practices.

Some of these issues, though, may actually be beneficial to disease prevention. For example, the West African branch of the WHO, which was given authority to contain the virus, had no previous experience in treating Ebola patients, and those who did were medical experts in the West, far removed from the day-to-day suffering of the victims. That said, now that such an outbreak has occurred, the WHO in West Africa now has experience in treating the Ebola virus. This also has the effect of localizing an administration that can responsibly and swiftly treat patients moving forward, should another outbreak ever occur.

More importantly, the failures of the international community to respond effectively ended up masking how successful the containment actually was. Beyond several isolated cases, the virus did not spread to the United States or other parts of the West. The outbreak ended after less than a year. And at the end of it all, only several thousands of people died from Ebola. Though those deaths were tragic, the virus thankfully did not reach the alarming level of a pandemic such as the Influenza outbreak in 1918-1919, which killed tens of millions of people across the globe.

As such, blame for the failure to contain Ebola cannot be 100 percent laid on the organizations or doctors who did not respond quickly enough. In this, the natives unknowingly spread the virus by exposing themselves to it, though they had ontological security issues to consider. Government bureaucracy did play a role in prolonging the epidemic, and Ebola could have perhaps been prevented almost entirely had they sorted their issues out before the outbreak. However, the Western response to Ebola was effective enough to prevent something that could have become far worse.

Revisiting Security Essay

Revisiting Security

Having taken the Global Security Studies course now, I uphold my original views on security. First of all, I argued that national security is the most important form of security. More importantly, though, I argued that the definition of security is fixed, and that security issues are objectively so even when it has not yet been classified as such. This idea plays into my everlasting skepticism with anything labeled a "social construction." Safe to say, I continue to reject the notion of "emancipation security" because one cannot emancipate themselves from threats permanently, as the argument from Ken Booth would suggest. Such is the example of several of our case studies, such as those in Syria or Tuvalu.

What each of these case studies have in common is the West's attempt at emancipating the host nation, and as a result contributing to other security issues, almost like playing a game of whack-a-mole. Syria's case remains similar to the cases in other parts of the Middle East, such as Iraq. Under the pretense of democracy, the United States has supported the rebels in Syria. Ostensibly, it appears as a noble goal that the United States would emancipate the Syrian people from a maniacal dictator. However, closer inspection shows that that was not the case, and in many ways, U.S. intervention contributed to other security problems both in America and Syria. In America, national security is now compromised, as evidenced by the issues surrounding the vetting of migrants and ensuring that they are not terrorists or potential terrorists. Immigration from this region of the world has also contributed to ontological security problems, as Americans question whether or not migrants are actually capable of assimilating into American culture, leading to a reevaluation of what it means to be "American." For the migrants themselves, human security is an issue as they dangerously cross the seas on makeshift rafts that could potentially drown them, among other perilous methods of migration. As for Syrians, they face the human uncertainty of issues such as getting the power lines cut, their homes destroyed or occupied, or their dependency on humanitarian food and medical aid. Ethnic and religious minorities face the ontological uncertainty of a power vacuum potentially leading to Sharia law, which does not currently exist under Bashar al-Assad. Christians, Druze, Ahmaddiyas, Shiites, and Yazidis all have ontological reason to fear the collapse of the Assad regime, that something worse may take his place. That is to say nothing of the obvious state security implications of toppling a regime and leaving a power vacuum, potentially leading to a failed state marked by prolonged conflict, an accusation already made against the country in some quarters. Therefore, what attempt was made by the West at emancipating Syrians did not take the perspective of Syrians into account, nor the complex political history of the Middle East, and as a result the U.S.'s efforts opened up a can of worms pertaining to global security issues, both in Syria, America, and abroad.

Tuvalu is another country that could make an excellent Cinderella story. It is a small archipelago country of about 10,000 people. It covers only 10 square miles of land, one of the smallest of any independent nation. The entire atoll rests at a height of about 2-4m above sea level. Yet it remains in the midst of a political battle fought by powers far greater than itself. Western scholars predict that the atoll could soon disappear due to rising sea levels, and that the great powers must reduce their carbon footprint if they are to save a nation from being wiped out by nature through no fault of its own. Alas, Cinderella is a fairy tale, and so is the above narrative of Tuvalu. That is not to say that all the claims made by the alarmists, for lack of a better term, are false, or that there is no cause for concern. However, the great powers concerned about climate change are bringing their ideological battles over the issue onto an island that never asked to be part of the debate, nor were asked about what side they would take. The base understanding of Tuvalu's environmental problems is that it is a nation that finds its own existence threatened due to a problem that it had negligible contribution towards exacerbating, if it had any at all. The issue is that when looking at Tuvalu's environmental problems, the West neglected the perspective of Tuvaluans, who mostly brushed off Western concerns of the environment (insofar as a miniscule sample size could capture), with some leaving for employment or other non-environmental reasons (human/state), and others willing to die on the island (ontological). The large powers, by imposing these environmental concerns on Tuvaluans, are leaving them in the same predicament that they had originally been in when ignored on the world stage while quietly being affected by it. Therefore, what the great powers envisioned as emancipating Tuvaluans from their uncontrollable situation in fact enslaved them to another one. Meanwhile, Tuvaluans are concerned about more political security issues such as economics, showing that their main security priorities are still stately in character.

Given the circumstances surrounding the First World's dealings with the Tuvalu and Syria cases, emancipation security cannot work because an entity becomes shackled to a security issue no sooner than it frees itself from another, making security a temporary phenomenon limited to a particular set of issues at any given moment in time. It cannot be a viable alternative to the traditional understanding of security as an issue connected to the state, for the state is the channel that other security issues flow through. To turn security issues into a social construction is to turn the state itself into a social construction, meaning that emancipation security theory lends itself to the necessity of destroying the state. This has the result of entirely debasing society back to its animalistic functions. Of course, human security issues still remain even without the state, as many of them are found in nature, such as hunger. These base security concerns will simply compel us to repeat history back from square one. Given that, I maintain my view that the state remains the foundation of security, for if that foundation falls, so will society itself.

Revisiting Security Essay

                At the beginning of this course, I believed that security was a very complex issue with many interdependent factors. I felt that some types of security were more important in the short term or long term and that you couldn’t have, for example, healthy national or physical security without healthy human and ontological security. After this course, I still believe these things, however I recognize and appreciate now that it cannot always be as simple as I felt it should be; dealing with immediate, short-term national/physical threats, then putting the rest of the nation’s energy and resources into creating healthier ontological, human, environmental or emancipatory securities. I now know that sometimes, in order to attain any semblance of these securities, some nations may have to prioritize and deal with large-scale, long-term national or physical securities first; negotiating with foreign powers or with their own people to heal tenuous divides enough to even consider tackling any other type of security.

                Two of the most notable examples of such necessary actions would include the Dayton Accords and the conflict with North Korea. While the Dayton Accords may have created its own problems for Bosnia, it did manage to put an end to the immediate civil unrest that was occurring between the different ethnic groups in the nation.  Since then, Bosnia’s human security has increased drastically -ontological is still up for debate, and other types of security are unclear-, something which potentially would never have happened without the prioritization of national and physical security.  Instead of dealing with the immediate crises/ threats to national and physical security and focusing primarily on healing the aftermath/ other types of security as I had previously believed was the best overall approach to security, they temporarily did the opposite. It was what was necessary for their nation and, despite some current social tensions, it helped to ensure a great deal of security on all fronts.

                Dealing with North Korea currently, foreign nations and organizations like the United Nations have to follow a similar approach. It is a well-known fact that North Korea is engaging in numerous human rights abuses and that most North Korea’s are suffering greatly. However, it is also a well-known fact that North Korea is testing nuclear weapons and consistently threatening to use them against foreign powers, most often the United States. To protect the militarily threatened nations, (and/ or truly aid suffering North Koreans) the threatened nations and the U.N. have to actively attempt to negotiate with North Korea for peace. China also has to actively be negotiated with, due to their vast influence over North Korea, in order to persuade them to convince North Korea to agree to any peaceful actions.

China is, of course, hesitant to persuade North Korea to improve either problem as China fears its own human rights abuses having to be corrected and/or a political collapse in North Korea that would flood China with refugees.  On both fronts, China ultimately fears its own physical and national security being threatened by attempts to secure any foreign nations physical and national security (in regard to North Korean threats), that might destroy these securities for North Korea.  In the end, regardless of the effectiveness of any attempted negotiations, these securities are integral factors for all involved, and attempts to achieve such securities should still continue, in order to ensure any other types of securities remain or, depending on the nation, are instated.

                Overall, I still feel that ontological, human, environmental and emancipatory securities are the foundation of a secure and stable society. Without any of them, a nation faces potential civil unrest, environmental degradation, loss of food, loss of hygienic conditions, loss of economy, and general political collapse. This has been evidenced again and again throughout our cases studies of nations such as Somalia, Sierra Leone, Haiti, and several Middle Eastern nations affected directly by ISIS.  However, now, due to cases studies such as Bosnia and North Korea, I also  better understand and appreciate the need to focus on national and physical security issues - of the nation(s) being defended, the nation(s) being defended from and the nations caught in between- in order to protect and help build this foundation. 

Revisting Security Essay

Revisiting Security Essay

At the beginning of the semester, I believed there was a hierarchal need for security, with national security being at the top. After taking this class, I still find this to be true. I do not deny the importance of human, physical, societal, and ontological security, but I still believe none of those are possible without a stable national government. Without a secure and robust government to protect the health of its citizens, there will be mass hysteria, as seen with the Ebola outbreak in Liberia, and ethnic conflicts, as seen in Bosnia. The government in Liberia and Bosnia were not strong enough to contain the Ebola outbreak and prevent an ethnic conflict, respectively. Due to this, insecurity trickled down into human, physical, ontological and societal security.

The need for a strong government to protect its citizens can be seen in Liberia at the height of the Ebola outbreak. President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf attempted to quarantine the town of West Point, in Monrovia, with disastrous results. At first, they tried to put all the infected and those who were in contact with the sick in one building, with little to no medical help. Then when that building was overrun, the sick were on the streets, which caused the virus faster, and the government was ill-prepared to handle it. I stated in my first essay that within a power to keep everyone in awe, people would turn back to their self-interested ways. This self-interest was seen when people began to take matrasses from the sick, without regard to the health risk that it imposed. The government was unable to control the citizens, allowing them to run wild. Human and physical security was impossible during the Ebola breakout, due to the weakness of the government. The sick were running among the healthy and rumors about the virus were running rampant. Had the government been more prepared, the Ebola virus would not have spread so easily and quickly, and mass hysteria could have been prevented. Successful government intervention was seen in the United States during the H1N1 outbreak in 2009. The government worked closely with the CDC and scientists to create a vaccine. Before a vaccine was created, officials recommended certain steps to reduce the likelihood of contracting the virus and people listened, because they trusted the government. People were washing their hands more and staying away from crowded areas, unlike citizens in Liberia. Due to the trust in the government and a strong governmental reaction, hysteria was avoided, and no public uproar occurred. Had the government been stronger and more secure in Liberia, the Ebola outbreak might have been contained a lot sooner.

The lack of a strong, unified government leading to a conflict can also be seen in Bosnia in the 1990s. After Yugoslavia dissolved, the country of Bosnia was multi-ethnic, with tensions between the Bosnians, Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croat, Croats, and Serbs. The Bosnian government and President Alija Izetbegović were unable to control the tensions, which resulted in a full-scale conflict and ethnic cleansings. I stated in my previous essay that without the security of the state, every society within that state would not be safe and secure. Since Izetbegović was unable to get the ethnic groups to co-exist peacefully, a major conflict occurred. A person’s ontological and physical security was threatened throughout the conflict due to the ethnic cleansings taking place. A person could not feel safe in their own skin due to the possibility of forced migration or even death. I stated in my first essay, “Once a sovereign state is introduced, conflict will begin to dissipate because there will be a strong force to protect everyone’s interests.” The conflict was finally resolved after the ceasefire, then later the Dayton Agreement. One agreement during the Dayton Accords was a rotating presidency in which a Muslim, a Croat, and a Serb will alternate in power. Therefore, each ethnic group in Bosnia will be represented and can feel safer in their identity. The introduction of this strong, unified government prevented further conflict and death in the country. Had this stable government not been introduced, different ethnic groups would have continued to not feel safe in their identity.

After taking this class, I still believe that without national security, other types of security begin to crumble. Human, physical, and ontological security is important, but not possible without national security. Without a strong, secure government, public hysteria will occur in a time of turmoil or conflict, and ethnic tensions will become uncontrollable. I stated in my first essay that the continuation of the state ensures the continuation of different ways of life and protects people from any force that wishes to harm them. Had the government been trusted in Liberia, the Ebola outbreak would have been handled in a much better way. Similarly, had the government in Bosnia been stable and had good relations with its people, the Bosnian War, and ethnic cleansings may have been avoided.