SECURITY MATTER October 19, 2011 at 8:48pm ALTERNATIVE SECURITY ARRANGEMENT, A BETTER OPTION FOR NIGERIA by Kolade Oladele on Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 2:25pm IN ISSUES OF SECURITY QUESTIONS, THE ALTERNATIVE SECURITY STRATEGY IS FUNDAMENTAL I N T R O D U C T I O N The strategic 4As research approach will be used in addressing this very important epistemological issue of security. The anecdotal survey of all the issues will be done, using this to establish the theoretical framework of this paper, various important elements will be defined and explained. The analysis of the existing, conventional/traditional security arrangement will equally be done. In a careful dialectical manner, the concept of the alternative/non conventional security option will be examined. The two arrangements shall be tactically juxtaposed. An objective application of the submissions from the juxtaposition shall be attempted and then the paper will posit necessary actions to be taken based on the established fundamental nature of the Alternative Security Approach as the conclusion of the work. I must however state that the confine of this paper must be defined. Most of the practical issues of relevance shall be limited generally to Africa and Nigeria State in particular. Current Security Issues in our nation shall be used as the “litmus” of investigation and scientific evaluation of the two security approaches. CONCEPTUAL DEIFINITIONS 1. SECURITY: The Institute for Security and Open Methodologies (ISECOM) defines security as “a form of protection where a separation is created between the assets and the threat”. This includes but is not limited to the elimination of either the asset or the threat, Walter Lippmann (1944) views security as the capability of a country to protect its core values, both in terms that a State need not sacrifice core values in avoiding war and can maintain them by winning war. David Baldwin (1997) argues that pursuing security sometimes requires sacrificing other values, including marginal values and prime values. Richard Ullman (1983) has suggested that a decrease in vulnerability is security. Arnold Wolfers (1952) argues that “Security´ is generally a normative term. It is applied by nations “in order to be either expedient – a rational means towards an accepted end – or moral, the best or least evil course of action”. In the same way that people are different in sensing and identifying danger and threats, Wolfers argues that different nations also have different expectation of security. Not only is there a difference between forbearance of threats, but different nations also face different levels of threat because of their unique geographical, economic, ecological, and political environment. Barry Buzan (2000) views the study of security as more than a study of threats but also a study of which threats that can be tolerated and which requires immediate action. He sees the concept of security as not either power or peace, but something in between. At the International level, various States and Regional Organizations view Security differently. The United States is focusing on “renewing American leadership so that (it) can move effectively advance (its) interests” under the International System. America is trying to achieve this by integrating all the elements of its power and means of defense, diplomacy, and development to meet its objectives, including safety, welfare, values, and a righteous international order. China thinks that “International Security should be mutual while not one-sided, multilateral while not unilateral and comparative while not absolute ... Security should be based on mutual trust. A country’s role should be evaluated objectively and one country should not seek confrontation with another country through exaggerating its threats”. Russia’s aim is to protect the national interest of its people, society and nation in broad security terms. It seeks to form a multipolar world “on the basis of multilateral management of international economic, political, science and technological, environmental and informative integration”. The European Union has formed a broad security agenda and multilateral approach with the tri faceted objectives: To tackle threats; To extend the zone of security around Europe; To strengthen the international order. Brazil, Argentina, Chile and some other countries in South America are treating strategic stability as its core concept of security. Australian security concept is to safeguard the homeland, maintain regional and international stability, ensure international economy and trade developments and to spread human right and democracy. Australian security strategy is mainly built on its alliances with United States and Japan. Looking at the Africa’s security agenda, it is basically to promote and maintain international peace, security and prosperity by having closer cooperation and partnership between the United Nations, other international organizations and the African Union. 2. CONVENTIONAL/TRADITIONAL SECURITY The paradigm of the conventional security is based on realist construct of security in which the referent object of security is the State. The prevalence of this ideology reached its peak during the cold War. For almost half a century, major world power entrusted the security of their nation to a balance of power among States. In this sense, international stability relied on the premise that if State Security is maintained, and then the security of citizens will necessarily follow. Traditional security relied on the anarchistic balance of power, a military build-up between the United States and the Soviet Union (the two super powers) and on the absolute sovereignty of the nation State. States were considered as rational entities, natural interests and policy driven by the desire for absolute power. Security was purely seen as protection from outside invasion; executed during proxy conflicts using technical and military capabilities. Conventional/traditional security is in a sense similar to the developed concept of National Security which is traceable to the peace of Westphalia wherein the concept of a Sovereign State was established. It was Thomas Hobbes in his 1651 work “Leviathan” who stated that citizens yield to a powerful sovereign who in turn promises an end to civil and religious war, and to bring forth a lasting peace, and give him the right to conduct policy, including wage war or negotiate for peace for the good of the “commonwealth”, i.e. a mandate for national security. The Clausewitzian view of diplomacy and war being the instruments of furthering national cause, added to the view of national security being sought by nations by exercising self-interest at all times. This view came to be known as “classical realism” in international relation. In traditional sense, Harold Lasswell (1950) defines it as “freedom from foreign dictation”. Professor Charles Maier (1990) defines it through the lens of national power: “National Security...... is best described as a capacity to control those domestic and foreign conditions that the public opinion of a given community believes necessary to enjoy its own self-determination or autonomy, prosperity and well being.” The United States Armed Forces defines national security (of the United States) in the following manner: A collective term, encompassing both national defense, and foreign relations of the United States. Specifically, the condition provided by: a) A military or defense advantage over any foreign nation or group of nations; b) A favorable foreign relation position; or c) A defense posture capable of successfully resisting hostile or destructive action from within or without, overt or covert. In a sense, conventional security is seen as military security or the capability of a nation to defend itself, and/or deter military aggression. Alternatively, it means the use of force or cohesion to establish nation’s policy choices. Traditional or conventional security can be better censored using four navigating tools of Referent, Scope, Actor(s) and Means. REFERENT: Traditional security policies are designed to promote demands ascribed to the State. Other interests are subordinated to those of the State. Conventional Security arrangement is meant to protect a State’s boundaries, people, institutions and values. It is “State – Centered”. SCOPE: It seeks to defend States from external aggression. Walter Lippmann explains that State Security is about a State’s ability to deter or defeat an attack. It makes use of deterrence strategies to maintain the integrity of the State and protect the territory from external threats. ACTOR(S): The sovereign State is the sole actor, to ensure its own survival. Decision making power is centralized in the government, and the execution of strategies rarely involves the public. Conventional Security assumes that a sovereign State is operating in an anarchical international environment, in which there is no world governing body to enforce international rules of conduct. MEANS: Conventional Security relies upon building up national power and military defense. The common forms it takes are armament races, alliances, strategic boundaries etc. 3. HUMAN/NON-CONVENTIONAL/ALTERNATIVE SECURITY This is an emerging paradigm for understanding global vulnerabilities whose proponents challenge the traditional notion of national security by arguing that the proper referent for security should be the individual rather than the State. Human security holds that a people-centered view of security is necessary for national, regional and global stability. As cold war tensions receded, it became clear that the security of citizen was threatened by hardships arising from internal State activities as well as external aggressors. Civil Wars were increasingly common and compounded existing poverty, disease, hunger, violence and human right abuses. Traditional security policies had effectively masked these underlying basic human needs in the face of State Security. Through neglect of its constituents, nation States had failed in their primary objectives. The fact that the conventional view of Security is grossly inadequate is made visible in the many hydra-headed security challenges we are facing now which are really defying the conventional approach’s solutions. Human/alternative security derives from the traditional concept of security from military threat to the safety of people and communities. It is an extension of mere existence (survival) to well-being and dignity of human beings. It varies from “a narrow term of prevention of violence to a broad comprehensive view that proposes development, human rights and traditional security together”. Human/alternative Security offers a critique of and advocates an alternative to the traditional State-based conception of security. Essentially, it argues that the proper referent for security is the individual and that State practices should reflect this rather than primarily focusing on securing borders through unilateral military action. The argument of human/alternative security approach is that the traditional conception of security is no longer relevant or effective in the highly interconnected and interdependent modern world in which global threats such as poverty, environmental degradation, and terrorism supersede the traditional security threat of interstate wars. Human/alternative security concept can equally be censored using the four elements employed on analyzing traditional/conventional security. The elements are Referent, Scope, Actor(s), and Means: REFERENT: Human security is people-centered. It focuses on protecting individuals. The important dimensions are to entail the well-being of individuals and respond to ordinary people’s needs in dealing with sources of threat. SCOPE: In addition to protecting the State from external aggression, human security would expand the scope of protection to include a broader range of threats, including environmental pollution, infectious diseases and economic deprivation. ACTOR(S): The realization of alternative security involves not only government, but a broader participation of different actors, via regional and international organizations, non-governmental organizations and local communities. MEANS: Human/alternative security not only prospects, but also empowers people and societies as a means of security. People contribute by identifying and implementing solutions to insecurity. There is an identified direct correlation between human security concept and human development. In Frances Stewart’s paper “Development and Security, he argues that security and development are deeply interconnected. – Human Security forms an important part of people’s well-being and is therefore an objective of development. An objective of development is “the enlargement of human choices”. Insecurity cuts life short and thwarts the use of human potential, thereby affecting the reaching of this object. – Lack of human security has adverse consequences on economic growth, and therefore development. Some development costs are obvious. For example, in wars, people who join the army or flee can no longer work productively. Also, destroying infrastructure reduces the productive capacity of the economy. – Imbalanced development that involves horizontal inequalities is an important source of conflict. Therefore, vicious cycle of lack of development which leads to conflict, then to lack of development, can readily emerge. Likewise, vicious cycles are possible, with high levels of human security, leading to development, which further promotes human security in return. Basically, both human security and development are people-centered. They place emphasis on the fact that people are the ultimate ends but not means. Both treat human as agents and therefore should be empowered to participate in the course. Secondly, both perspectives are multidimensional. Both address people’s dignity as well as their material and physical concerns. Lastly, both schools of thought consider poverty and inequality as the root cause of individual vulnerability. The concept of human security when compared with that of the traditional, conventional approach is more encompassing because it addresses existential realities bordering on development and human dignity. The holistic nature of human security is what majorly distinguishes it from the conventional approach. The all-encompassing nature of human security is better captured in the United Nations Development Program’s 1994 Human Development Report, where it is argued that the scope of global security should be expanded to include threats in seven areas: Economic Security: Economic security requires an assured basic income for individuals, usually from productive and remunerative work or, as a last resort, from a publicly financed safety net. In this sense, only about a quarter of the world’s people are presently economically secure. While the economic security problem may be more serious in developing countries, concern also arises in developed countries as well. Unemployment problems constitute an important factor underlying political tensions and ethnic violence. Food Security: Food security requires that all people at all times have both physical and economic access to basic food. According to the United Nations, the overall availability of food is not a problem, rather the problem often is the poor distribution of food and a lack of purchasing power. In the past, food security problems have been dealt with at both national and global levels. However, their impacts are limited. According to UN, the key is to tackle the problems relating to access to assets, work and assured income (related to economic security). Health Security: Health Security aims to guarantee a minimum protection from diseases and unhealthy lifestyles. In developing countries, the major causes of death traditionally were infectious and parasitic diseases, whereas in industrialized countries, the major killers were diseases of the circulatory system. Today, lifestyle-related chronic diseases are leading killers worldwide, with 80 per cent of deaths from chronic diseases occurring in low-and middle-income countries. According to the United Nations, in both developing and industrial countries, threats to health security are usually greater for poor people in rural areas, particularly children. This is due to malnutrition and insufficient access to health services, clean water and other basic necessities. Environmental Security: Environmental security aims to protect people from the short-and long term ravages of nature, man-made threats in nature, and deterioration of the natural environment. In developing countries, lack of access to clean water resources is one of the greatest environmental threats. In industrial countries, one of the major threats is air pollution. Global warming, caused by the emission of greenhouse gases, is another environment security issue. Personal Security: Personal security aims to protect people from physical violence, whether from the state or external states, from violent individuals and sub-state actors, from domestic abuse, or from predatory adults. For many people, the greatest source of anxiety is crime, particularly violent crime. Community Security: Community security aims to protect people from the loss of traditional relationships and values and from sectarian and ethnic violence. Traditional communities, particularly minority ethnic groups are often threatened. About half of the world’s states have experienced some inter-ethnic strife. The United Nations declared 1993 the Year of Indigenous People to highlight the continuing vulnerability of the 300 million aboriginal people in 70 countries as they face a widening spiral of violence. Political Security: Political security is concerned with whether people live in a society that honors their basic human rights. According to a survey conducted by Amnesty International, political repression, systematic torture, ill treatment or disappearance was still practiced in 110 countries. Human rights violations are most frequent during periods of political unrest. Along with repressing individuals and groups, governments may try to exercise control over ideas and information. Since then, human security has been receiving more attention from the key global development institutions, such as the World Bank. Tadjbakhsh, among others, traces the evolution of human security in international organizations, concluding that the concept has been manipulated and transformed considerably since 1994 to fit organizational interests. The 1994 UNDP Human Development Report (HDR) further proposes that increasing human security should entail: Investing in human development, not in arms; Engaging policy makers to address the emerging peace dividend; Giving the United Nations a clear mandate to promote and sustain development; Enlarging the concept of development cooperation so that it include all flows, not just aid; Agreeing that 20% national budget and 20% foreign aid be used for human development; and Establishing an economic security council. The report further elaborates on seven components to human security: Components of human security as per HDR 1994 report Type of Security Definition Threats Economic Security An assured basic income Poverty, unemployment, indebtedness, lack of income Food Security Physical and economic Hunger, famines and the lack access to basic food of physical and economic access to basic food Health Security Protection from diseases and Inadequate health care, new unhealthy lifestyles and recurrent diseases including epidemics and pandemics, poor nutrition and unsafe environment, unsafe lifestyles Environmental Healthy physical environment Environmental degradation, Security natural disasters, pollution and resource depletion Personal Security Security from physical From the state (torture), other violence states (war), groups of people (ethnic tension), individuals or gangs (crime), industrial, workplace or traffic accidents Community Safe membership in a group From the group (oppressive Security practices), between groups (ethnic violence), from dominant groups (e.g. indigenous people vulnerability), Type of Security Definition Threats Political Security Living in a society that honors Political or state repression, basic human rights including torture, disappearance, human rights violations, detention and imprisonment. SECURITY, AN INTRINSIC ASPECT OF DEVELOPMENT To equate development only with economic growth is a very inadequate characterization. For example, average per capita income does not really capture real income distribution of a state neither does it define many important aspects of human well being like health, education or security. There are insecurity related with well-being of a people e.g. possibility of economic vicissitudes, health crises, injury or death as a result of criminal or political violence continuous political unrest may lead to breakup of communities and families, forced immigration and the need to re-establish lives in alien environments, or even a suspended existence in refuge camps. Such condition can have negative impacts on people’s lives and consequently, negatively affect achievement of development. The security of human well being is therefore an important indicator of true development. The Nigerian state is plague with many security problems because the policy making are not seeing the intrinsic connection of security and development. Where the all inclusive, holistic development agenda is not truly and effectively pursued, insecurity can never be adequately dealt with. FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES THAT MAKE CONVENTIONAL SECURITY OBSOLETE IN AFRICA, PARTICULARLY NIGERIA COLONIAL LEGACY: The colonial masters of African State are responsible for the many security problems we are gripping with. The colonial Lords founded only pseudo-States in Africa, and these States were stable only as long as colonial powers controlled them. The political elites left behind by the colonial rulers are selfishly fighting among themselves for control of tax revenue and proceed from sale of nature resource reserve and other privileges associated with access to power in these pseudo-states. This endemic political instability of African States is intended by her colonial Lord to facilitate their continual imperialist control of the African resource. Instability will deprive Africa from holistically development, lack of development will sustain the insecurity and eventually, perpetually the resources from Africa can continually be exploited by the West to service her own economic agenda and growth. The problem of slavery was also so extensive that it touched virtually every part of sub-Saharan African. The slave trade brought about enormous social, political and demographic instability to Africa. According to one expert, the population of sub-Saharan Africa in 1850 would have been double what it was in 1700. The population of sub-Saharan Africa in 1850 was roughly 50million. If there had not been the slave trade, it is estimated that this population would have been 100million. The bulk of the strong, working class that would have spear headed African development were taken to Europe to help develop Europe, a situation that has greatly reduced the pace of development in Africa, and a concomitant factor of insecurity in Africa. INTRA-STATE CONFLICTS: African State as they stand today were not created by African but by European Imperial powers at the Berlin Conference and African did not gain control of the foreign created states until recently, in the 1960s. Consequently, there is weak allegiance by citizens to these States. This is a major reason why African States during the past 50 years have been centers of many conflicts, particularly, civil wars, inter-tribal wars, violent communal conflicts and pogroms, wars of secession and even attempts at genocide. Africa, not surprisingly, is host to the largest number of refuges and internally displaced persons in the world. INEQUALITY: The recognized inequalities within a nation and between nations lead to poverty and generally poorer living conditions. For example, economic growth is necessary for development, but not all growth benefits the poor and socially excluded. A socially equal system should achieve fairness in wealth distribution and opportunity among everyone and provide efficient social services such as health, education and infrastructures. Where this is lacking, security can never be guaranteed. At the national level using Nigeria as an example, the wealth distribution is terribly lopsided. Less than 5% of the entire population is controlling more than 80% of the resource. There are also huge numbers of the populace who are politically marginalized. In a setting like this there will surely be unrest and internal conflicts that conventional security arrangement can never contain. The current debate on the removal of oil subsidy which will eventually increase common man hardship will surely worsen the current bad security situation. How will the largest oil producing state of the region not able to refine oil for domestic market and exportation but rather export crude oil and import refined oil? This is an arrangement to enrich the few “cabal” and the remove of the subsidy is a way of further milking the dying oppressed populace to enrich the bloatedly rich few. Such inequality only promotes passionate rebellion that military and police can not contain. The problem of N18, 000.00 minimum wage is a true indices of evaluation wealth distribution in Nigeria. A nation that can not afford N18,000.00 Minimum wage is able to pay a single politician who is not really adding any “serious value” to the national well being, a huge jumbo salary of more than 400 million. Where is the ethical and economical justification for the disparity? How can security be guaranteed in such an arrangement? The 419s, Boko Haram, Niger Delta insurgents, kidnappers are all product of inequalities in the system and conventional security approach can not tackle such issues. SUBMISSIONS FOR ACTIONS Looking at the strategic comparison between the existing security arrangement and the non-traditional, alternative option, and given the logical, inherent problems and inadequacies of the conventional approach, one can clearly see the strategic importance of the fundamentality of the alternative security option. Putting the established comparison within African context and particularly the Nigeria scenarios, the hydra headed security problems we are currently experiencing is a scientific proof of the failure of the conventional approach of gun and military/police cohesion. The security problem of Nigeria is firstly due to underdevelopment perpetuated by the colonial Lords and continued by the neo-colonialist,capitalist,political elites who are bent on continuing the agenda of the colonial masters. There is no doubt that there is a direct relationship between development and security. The principal submission through the investigation of this work is that: - Human security forms an important part of people’s well being and is therefore An objective of development - That lack of human security has adverse consequences on economic growth and Poverty and thereby on development; and - That the lack of development, or imbalanced development that involves sharp horizontal inequalities, is an important cause of conflict. - Inclusive, holistic development must be encouraged to ensure security instead of military (force) solution we are currently banking on - Insecurity will adversely affect elements of development - Development will positively affect security. R E F E R E N C E S Alkire, Sabina (2003): “A Conceptual Framework for Human Security”, Center for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity (CRISE), Working Paper 2, London: University of Oxford. Buzan, B and L. Hanen (2009). The Evolution of International Security Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Buzan B; O. Weaver, et al. (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publisher. Clinton, H. (2010): “Remarks on the Obama Administrations National Security Strategy”. Retrieved October 14, 2011, from http://www.stae.gov/secretary/rm/2010/05/142312.htm. Elman, C. (2008) Realism, Security Studies: An Introduction. New York: Rout ledge. Gartzke, E. (2005): “Economic Freedom and Peace” in Economic Freedom of the World, Annual Report. Pp. 29.44 Hampson, F; (2002): Madness in the Multitude: Human Security and World Disorder. Ontario: Oxford University Press. http://www.humansecurityindex.org Kolodzie, E. (2005) Security and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MacFarlane, S. Neil; Yuenfoong Khong (2006) eds. Human Security and the UN: A Critical History. Indiana: Indiana Press. Macmillian Dictionary (Online Version): http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british-security). Accessed October 14, 2011. Mbachu, O. and Eze, Chukwudi (2009) eds. Democracy and National Security: Issues, Challenges and Prospects. Kaduna: Medusa Academic Publisher. Navari, C. (2008) Liberalism. Security Studies: An Introduction. New York: Rout ledge. Paleri, Prabhakaran (2008). National Security: Imperatives and Challenges. New Delhi: Tata Mc. Graw-Hill. Stewart, Frances (2004): “Development and Security”, Center for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity (CRISE), working paper 3, London: University of Oxford. Sheehan, M (2005). International Security: An Analytical Survey: London: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Tad, bakhsh, S. and A. Chenoy (2007). Human Security: Concepts and Implications. New York: Routledge. Pp. 128-129. Thomas, C; (2001): “Global Governance, Development and Human Security: Exploring the Links”, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 22(2): 159-175. Waltz, K.Z. (1979): Theory of International Politics. New York: Random House. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. http.//www.wikipedia.org.