What is global security
What is global security
What is the difference between ‘international’ and ‘global’ security?
The difference between ‘international’ and ‘global’ security rests on the way these two words are defined. The online version of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines international as “involving two or more countries: occurring between countries,” while it defines global as “involving the entire world”. Even though both of these are delineated by their scope, the former being narrower than the latter, I think that it is more productive to treat them as overlapping in their scope. One cannot speak of international security without invoking its relationship to global security and vice versa.
For global security, we can use various examples relating to nuclear, biological, chemical, and conventional warfare. One can think about this global-international overlap in the way hypothetical inter-state warfare develops. For example, one can start with the international arms trade which is a global threat to security. One country may wish to stockpile weapons to advance its raison d’état — national interests. If seen from the perspective of the security dilemma, this increasingly militarily secured country could lead its neighbours to also stockpile weapons to augment the threat. This dynamic could then lead to an arms race and the increasingly escalating prospect of inter-state warfare, which is an international security threat, a national security threat, and a human security threat.
Furthermore, one must not assume that an inter-state war could be contained within a bordered geographical area. Civilians affected by warfare are going to move out of these troubled states and into other relatively more stable and peaceful ones. These refugees, if extremely numerous, could then become a burden to the host countries’ financial capacity and they may even become a threat to their national security. From a strictly regional threat, the increasing number of refugees could then pose an international humanitarian crisis.
This domino effect, which began as a global security threat (international arms trade), which then turns into an international security threat, and again, into a regional security threat, demonstrates the complexity of delineating which threats concern only the international level and which ones concern only the global level.
This process of security threats moving to different levels of scope applies to pandemics as well. Ebola, for example, was just a national threat when it first began, but it then became an international threat as it was passed on from one person to another over a limited geographical area in West Africa. Over time, if this strain of Ebola continues to spread, there is a very real possibility that this could pose a global threat.
The key thing to keep in mind is the notion of “possibility” coupled with informed assumptions. Thus, it is possible that Iran’s development of nuclear technology could pose a global threat, but this assumes that Iran has the capacity to deliver its nuclear weapons across the world, and this also assumes that Iran’s government is irrational enough to even proceed with the use of the nuclear weapon for the very purpose of killing its “enemies”. The same thing applies to North Korea’s nuclear threat. Indeed, North Korea does have nuclear weapons but it currently only possess a regional threat (to the Asia-Pacific region) because it still has no effective nuclear delivery capability for targets beyond this region. However, what it could do is trade its nuclear technology with other aspiring countries which could, in turn, lead to a global security threat of nuclear war.
The last example would be the quintessential terrorist threat posed by an aspiring extremist Islamist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). ISIS poses an existential threat to the national security and survival of both Iraq and Syria. This alone constitutes a regional security threat since they are within a limited geographic area. However, the number of civilians that they’ve displaced (notwithstanding the devastating effects of the still on-going Syrian Civil War), it is clear that the group poses an international security threat to the peace and stability of the region. The refugees streaming into Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, and some into Europe and other countries, are straining the national budgets of those countries. The Syrian and Iraqi refugees are competing for limited resources. Nevertheless, the thing that makes ISIS a global threat is the real possibility of the violent extremist group becoming entrenched in the region endangering Western interests (e.g., oil interests) in the region as a whole. Global security has to do with the prospect of increased transnational terrorism, particularly in strategically important oil-producing regions which are vulnerable to attacks. If attacked by ISIS, the effects of oil supply disruption to the global market could be immense (whose effects to the economic security of people across the globe one could only imagine).
In a way, global security could be seen as encompassing threats that do not exactly pose a global threat to security if analyzed by themselves. It is only when these threats are mixed in with the increasing economic interconnectedness of the world (and other globalizing factors) do national and international threats to security develop into a global one. The direction of the development of a threat (from global security to human security or vice versa) is also important as they present the course of action that should be taken to root out the cause of the insecurity. The global arms trade (both legal and illegal) is a global security threat that could develop into a national/human security threat. Ebola was a national/human security threat that morphed into an international (and could eventually become a global one) if left untreated. Iran’s development of nuclear technology poses a regional threat that could become a global one (since horizontal proliferation could increase the prospect of nuclear war. Although it could be argued that its proliferation could lead to more peace through nuclear deterrence). Likewise, North Korea’s nuclear technology remains a regional threat until it can develop a better nuclear delivery system. As for the threat of ISIS, it developed from a national security threat (to the Assad regime) to an international security threat (following its rapid territorial expansion), and it quickly became a global one as the group continued its cancerous spread across Syria and Iraq.
National Security versus Global Security
About the author
Segun Osisanya
Security, like peace, identity and other terminologies in that fold of international political theory has attracted many definitions. Unfortunately, many contributors approach these concepts from their own ideologies. Hence, broad areas of description of the term “security” exist. If defining security is that elusive, there is little wonder why operating within its coverage is so fluid. In the name of security, people and governments have taken actions where intended and unintended outcomes have become difficult to handle. Because of its seeming lack of conceptual boundary, security, as a concept, is used to entice and whip up patronage for many political projects both at the state and international levels of politicking. Hence, Paul D. Williams argued that “security is therefore a powerful political tool in claiming attention for priority items in the competition for government attention”. 1
In the context of this article, Samuel Makinda’s definition of security as “the preservation of the norms, rules, institutions and values of society” 2 appears to be useful. He further argues that all the institutions, principles and structures associated with society, including its people are to be protected from “military and non-military threats”. 3 The term “preservation”, as an important component of this definition, presupposes conscious, deliberate and definite steps and actions. Hence, the perception of the leadership of a society determines its actions and guides its efforts, which becomes evident in the width and depth of the security agenda of that society.
In many forums on the topic of security, there has been an attempt to establish a divide between national and global security. Although, in theory, a boundary exists between these two conceptual frameworks, such a boundary is not sufficient to maintain a clear-cut delimitation between them. Rather, they have a symbiotic relationship, although limited to the local security sphere, which states lack the capacity to handle unilaterally. Equivalently, there are issues at the international sphere that will require a domestic security apparatus to deal with.
This article is aimed at articulating reasons for more collaboration, cooperation and synergy between national and global security apparatus and mechanisms.
National security has been described as the ability of a state to cater for the protection and defence of its citizenry. Makinda’s definition of security fits into this confine of national security. Global security, on the other hand, evolved from the necessity that nature and many other activities, particularly globalization, have placed on states. These are demands that no national security apparatus has the capacity to handle on its own and, as such, call for the cooperation of states. The global interconnection and interdependence among states that the world has experienced and continues to experience since the end of the cold war, makes it necessary for states to cooperate more and work together.
One of the major challenges that the field of global security has to contend with is the concept of security complex, 4 a situation in which the security concerns of states are deeply interconnected to the point that one state’s security needs cannot be realistically considered without taking into consideration the security needs of the other states. 5 The fear or threat content of security complex breeds rivalry among states. The remedy for such rivalry lies in cooperation which can only be found in global security initiatives among states.
With the advocacy of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) human security elements have acquired a wider dimension, for they go beyond military protection and engage threats to human dignity. Accordingly, it has become necessary for states to make conscious efforts towards building links with other states and to consciously engage in global security initiatives. OCHA’s expanded definition of security calls for a wide range of security areas:
1. Economic: creation of employment and measures against poverty.
2. Food: measures against hunger and famine.
3. Health: measures against disease, unsafe food, malnutrition and lack of access to basic health care.
4. Environmental: measures against environmental degradation, resource depletion, natural disasters and pollution.
5. Personal: measures against physical violence, crime, terrorism, domestic violence and child labour.
6. Community: measures against inter-ethnic, religious and other identity tensions.
7. Political: measures against political repression and human rights abuses. 6
A critical examination of these OCHA human security measures makes global security an important exercise to analyse. For instance, there are many states where the capacity to deal with issues of unemployment are grossly lacking. The same applies to food provision and other areas.
Health care poses a challenge in varying dimensions at different levels in many states. As a result of globalization, people from different parts of the world crisscross between geographical boundaries. As much as this has claimed to bring economic prosperity, it is also replete with challenges, particularly in regard to the spread of communicable diseases, crime and terrorism.
Aside from spillouts resulting from deliberate human activities, another area of concern is the consequences of internal conflicts, which include refugee problems and which transcend geographical contiguity. Environmental and climate change issues are other areas that call for more cooperation among states, especially when dealing with the aftermath of an earthquake or a tsunami.
Disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction are other areas that make global collaboration and cooperation necessary. The acquisition of nuclear weapons and similar armaments, which started as a national security option, has become today a major threat to national and global security. The seemingly hard-line posture of many state actors towards disarmament requires the development of a moral consciousness that can only be reinforced by cooperation and collaboration at the international level.
It might be true that states are in competition, as argued by Jabeen Musarrat. 7 To a great extent, there seems to be distrust at the global level, even after the end of the cold war. This leads one to think that perhaps the cold war did not actually come to an end but merely changed its nature.
Louis Beres’ observation over 40 years ago that “world leaders continue to act as if security of their respective states is based upon national military power” 8 remains valid even today. His advice that states need to embrace a new spirit of oneness is crucial for all. There is, therefore, an urgent need to re-evaluate Beres’ argument that states “continue to misunderstand that their only safe course is one in which the well-being and security of each is determined from the standpoint of what is best for the system as a whole”. 9 Here lies the attraction in global security—“what is best for all”.
The global community stands to benefit from greater intra-states collaboration and cooperation, for greater interaction will help build trust and confidence. National and regional security breakdowns are a global security problem. Therefore, it is in the interest of all that no national security challenge be allowed to escalate into a global problem.
1 Williams, Paul D. ed. Security Studies: An Introduction, Routledge, UK, 2008.
2 Makinda, Samuel M. Sovereignty and Global Security, Security Dialogue, 1998, Sage Publications, Vol. 29(3) 29: 281-292.
4 McSweeney, Bill. Security, Identity and Interests: A Sociology of International Relations, Cambridge University Press, 1999.
6 Human Security Unit, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Human Security in Theory and Practice (http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HS_Handbook_2009.pdf).
7 Musarrat, Jabeen. Governance Divide, Pakistan Horizon, The Pakistan Institute of International Affairs, Karachi, Vol. 56, No. 4, 2003.
8 Beres, Louis Rene. Terrorism and Global Security: The Nuclear Threat, Westview Press Inc., 1979.
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.
What is Security? Everything.
The concept of security has evolved considerably since the end of the Cold War.
Security is an inherently contested concept, encompassing a wide variety of scenarios, and is commonly used in reference to a range of personal and societal activities and situations.
Security can be distinguished between day-to-day security at the individual level (nutritional, economic, safety), security for favorable conditions (the rule of law and due process, societal development, political freedom), and security against adverse conditions or threats (war and violence, crime, climate change).
The term security is used in three broad segments. The first is the general, everyday use of the term. In this instance, security refers to the desire for safety or protection. Second is the usage of the word for political purposes; relating to political processes, structures, and actions utilized to ensure a given political unit or entity is secure. The term “security” is frequently used as a political tool to assign priority to a given issue or perceived threat within the broader political realm.
Third, and finally, “security” can be employed as an analytical concept to identify, define, conceptualize, explain, or forecast societal developments such as security policy, institutions, and governance structures.
Politically speaking, the usage of the term “security” increased drastically in the second half of the twentieth century. Following the allied victory that ended World War II, the United States government’s military and intelligence institutions underwent a major restructuring.
The Advent of National Security
The National Security Act of 1947 not only created a “National Military Establishment,” which would later become the Department of Defense, and the Central Intelligence Agency; the Act established the National Security Council (NSC) to serve as the primary vehicle for coordinating national security and defense policy across multiple government agencies.
The National Security Advisor oversees the U.S. National Security Council. This structure would become a model for other countries; the governments of Australia, Brazil, France, Germany, India, Japan, South Korea, Russia, Turkey, the Republic of China (Taiwan), and the United Kingdom, to name a few, all maintain NSCs responsible for coordinating policy and advising heads of government or state on national security issues.
The advent of national security as a concept enabled states, and their political leaders, to rhetorically pursue a particular security policy. National security policy is broader than defense policy or military policy, and it is more than merely preparing for armed conflict or responding to security threats. National security policy encompasses all of the above while also aiming to avoid war.
National security includes both internal and external security, foreign policy, economic development, and education. As former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara put it, “security is development.”
National security policy became a critical tool for states to protect and further their interests within the broader international system. International security policy, which the United Nations was responsible for promoting, was often at odds with the national security interests of individual member states. Thus, the UN lost much of its influence as the world become increasingly divided between the U.S.-led West and the Soviet Union-led East.
It was in this context that the understanding of national security as a concept expanded from being based mainly on defense and military issues to focusing on those matters in conjunction with diplomatic, economic, and political issues, both domestically and internationally. Two major geopolitical blocs competed for global influence, but differently than great powers of the past. The UN provided a forum for the two superpowers to engage with one another to avoid another, likely far more destructive, global conflict.
A Shifting International Security Landscape
After the Soviet Union collapsed, the international landscape changed fundamentally. The previously bipolar world order was restructured under as a unipolar order. The United States, being the sole remaining superpower, was ideally positioned as the global hegemon.
A new international security framework was required when the Cold War ended. The previously bipolar international system became replaced by a unipolar global order dominated by the United States. Globally, the odds of a major war between two great powers were increasingly low. From the 1990s through the first decade of the twenty-first century, major conflicts were asymmetrical. The United States and its allies, with or without a mandate from the UN Security Council, employed the use of force multiple times arguing that they were doing so on behalf of the international community.
Some actions, such as the first Gulf War and the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, enjoyed broad support from the international community. The only time (to date) that Article 5 of the NATO charter has been enacted was following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. These operations were authorized by the United Nations Security Council, which has the responsibility of acting on behalf of all UN member states in matters of global security. The threat of significant conflict between two sovereign states substantially dissipated, for a time.
Security is Everything
With a return to great power competition, national security priorities are shifting. States, rather than non-state actors like terrorist groups or insurgencies, are the primary security threat. The idea that security encompasses more than military and defense issues alone has returned, particularly in light of threats posed by rising nationalism and hostile foreign information operations. The security paradigm of the twenty-first century has expanded to nearly every facet of human life.
Rising nationalism is driving ontological and societal insecurity. This trend is fueled, in part, by economic inequality and stagnation, coupled with an influx of migrants and refugees fleeing violent conflicts, humanitarian disasters, and economic hardship. Unless Western societies implement substantial reforms for integrating immigrants and refugees, existing social divisions will widen, damaging the legitimacy of democratic institutions and polluting national identities with xenophobic sentiments.
There is also growing concern over gang violence, radicalization, transnational crime, privacy threats, and human rights violations worldwide. These issues all impact individual or personal security, and the widespread use of social media and other mass-communications technologies only serve to heighten the emphasis individuals and societies place on individual security.
Issues like climate change and pollution are also increasingly regarded through a security lens. These issues jeopardize human security, meaning they pose a threat to both individuals and humanity as a species.
Finally, cyberspace presents a whole host of new security threats. Cyber attacks not only compromise personal data and steal information, they can cause physical destruction, as well. Critical infrastructure like communications, power plants, water treatment centers, and oil refineries are all vulnerable to a debilitating cyber attack. Such an attack could disrupt operations, inflict sabotage, and even destroy the target facility. Cyber operations can be used by state and non-state actors to complement or augment kinetic operations to achieve a political goal. This is exemplified by Russia’s invasion of Eastern Ukraine.
In the twenty-first century, the concept of security is all-encompassing. The geopolitical element of great-power competition is further exacerbated by a transnational cyberspace, rapidly developing and increasingly accessible technologies, alongside a global economic system which has created complex inter-dependencies between states. In this new order, the traditional security debate between those who see it as a military and defense matter, and those who subscribe to the broader perspective that everything is security.
In this context, national security objectives can be only be achieved when hard power is seen as a compliment to soft power initiatives such as reducing societal and economic inequities, providing access to education and healthcare, and promoting intellectual and technological innovation.
International security
Terrorism like that on September 11 is one of the concerns of international security. [ Clarification needed ]
With the end of World War II, a new subject of study focusing on international security emerged. It began as an independent field of study, but was absorbed as a sub-field of international relations. [1] Since it took hold in the 1950s, the study of international security has been at the heart of international relations studies. [2] It covers labels like «security studies», «strategic studies», «peace studies», and others.
While the wide perspective of international security regards everything as a security matter, the traditional approach focuses mainly or exclusively on military concerns. [1]
Contents
Concepts of security in the international arena
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 toward an accepted end—or moral, the best or least evil course of action». [10] In the same way that people are different in sensing and identifying danger and threats, Wolfers argues that different nations also have different expectations of security. Not only is there a difference between forbearance of threats, but different nations also face different levels of threats because of their unique geographical, economic, ecological, and political environment.
Barry Buzan (2000) views the study of international security as more than a study of threats, but also a study of which threats that can be tolerated and which require immediate action. [11] He sees the concept of security as not either power or peace, but something in between. [12]
The concept of an international security actor has extended in all directions since the 1990s, from nations to groups, individuals, international systems, NGOs, and local governments. [13]
The Multi-sum security principle
Traditional security
Introduction
The traditional security paradigm refers to a realist construct of security in which the referent object of security is the state. The prevalence of this theorem reached a peak during the Cold War. For almost half a century, major world powers 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, then the security of citizens will necessarily follow. [16] Traditional security relied on the anarchistic balance of power, a military build-up between the United States and the Soviet Union (the two superpowers), and on the absolute sovereignty of the nation state. [17] States were deemed to be rational entities, national interests and policy driven by the desire for absolute power. [17] Security was seen as protection from invasion; executed during proxy conflicts using technical and military capabilities.
As Cold War tensions receded, it became clear that the security of citizens 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 rights 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 objective. [18]
More recently, the traditional state-centric notion of security has been challenged by more holistic approaches to security. [19] Among the approaches which seeks to acknowledge and address these basic threats to human safety are paradigms that include cooperative, comprehensive and collective measures, aimed to ensure security for the individual and, as a result, for the state.
Theoretical approaches
Realism
Classical realism
Neorealism
Beginning in the 1960s, with increasing criticism of realism, Kenneth Waltz tried to revive the traditional realist theory by translating some core realist ideas into a deductive, top-down theoretical framework that eventually came to be called neorealism. [22] Theory of International Politics [24] brought together and clarified many earlier realist ideas about how the features of the overall system of states affects the way states interact:
«Neorealism answers questions: Why the modern states-system has persisted in the face of attempts by certain states at dominance; why war among great powers recurred over centuries; and why states often find cooperation hard. In addition, the book forwarded one more specific theory: that great-power war would tend to be more frequent in multipolarity (an international system shaped by the power of three or more major states) than bipolarity (an international system shaped by two major states, or superpowers).» [25]
Liberalism
Economic liberalism
Economic liberalism assumes that economic openness and interdependence between countries makes them more peaceful than countries who are isolated. Eric Gartzke has written that economic freedom is 50 times more effective than democracy in creating peace. [27] Globalization has been important to economic liberalism.
Liberal institutionalism
Liberal institutionalism views international institutions as the main factor to avoid conflicts between nations. Liberal institutionalists argue that; although the anarchic system presupposed by realists cannot be made to disappear by institutions; the international environment that is constructed can influence the behavior of states within the system. [28] Varieties of international governmental organizations (IGOs) and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) are seen as contributors to world peace.
Comparison between realism and liberalism
| Theoretical base | Realist (alliance) | Liberal (community of law) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Structure of the international system | Material; static; anarchic; self-help system | Social; dynamic; governance without government | |
| Conceptions of security | Basic principles | Accumulation of power | Integration |
| Strategies | Military deterrence; control of allies | Democratization; conflict resolution; rule of Law | |
| Institutional features | Functional scope | Military realm only | Multiple issue areas |
| Criterion for membership | Strategic relevance | Democratic system of rule | |
| Internal power structure | Reflects distribution of power; most likely hegemonic | Symmetrical; high degree of interdependence | |
| Decision-making | Will of dominant power prevails | Democratically legitimized | |
| Relation of system to its environment | Dissociated; perception of threat | Serves as an attractive model; open for association |
Constructivism
Prominent thinkers
Barry Buzan – Copenhagen School
Alexander Wendt – Constructivism
Edward Hallett Carr – Classical realism
Hans J. Morgenthau – Classical realism
Immanuel Kant – Kantian liberalism
John Mearsheimer – Neorealism
Joseph Nye – Liberal institutionalism
Kathryn Sikkink – Constructivism
Kenneth Waltz – Neorealism
Machiavelli – Classical realism
Nayef Al-Rodhan – Symbiotic Realism
Peter J. Katzenstein – Constructivism
Robert Axelrod – Liberal institutionalism
Robert Gilpin – Neorealism
Robert Jervis – Neorealism
Robert Keohane – Liberal institutionalism
Thomas Hobbes – Classical realism
Thucydides – Classical realism
Human security
Human 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 justification for the human security approach is said to be that the traditional conception of security is no longer appropriate 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 threats of interstate attack and warfare. Further, state-interest-based arguments for human security propose that the international system is too interconnected for the state to maintain an isolationist international policy. Therefore, it argues that a state can best maintain its security and the security of its citizens by ensuring the security of others. It is need to be noted that without the traditional security no human security can be assured.
| Type of security | Referent | Responsibility | Threats |
|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional | The state | Integrity of the state | Interstate war, nuclear proliferation, revolution, civil conflict |
| Human | The individual | Integrity of the individual | Disease, poverty, natural disaster, violence, landmines, human rights abuses |
UNDP human security proposal
The 1994 UNDP Human Development Report (HDR) [32] proposes that increasing human security entails:
The report elaborates on seven components to human security. Tadjbakhsh and Chenoy list them as follows:
In search of global security: What makes us “secure?”
Understanding what makes us “secure” is essential to our considerations regarding how we go about designing a global system that assures security for all humans, other living species and the planet.
Time required
relevant sections of “a global security system: an alternative to war”
- Watch the introductory video above “The Benefits of an Alternative System” (2016: p. 14 / 2017: p. 16 / 2018: p. 30) “The Necessity of an Alternative System – War fails to bring peace” (2016: p. 15 / 2017: p. 17 / 2018: p. 25)
Discussion Goals & Objectives
- Reflect upon the nature of security: what makes us secure, and what makes us insecure? Reflect upon personal values toward identification of principles that should inform a security system Develop awareness of the multiple and interrelated dimensions of human needs that require security for their assurance
Discussion Guides
Two discussion topics/guides are presented below. Each discussion should take approximately 1 hour. You are invited to do both and follow any sequence relevant to your purposes. If you are to choose one discussion we encourage you start with “Discussion 1 (Essential)” as this may inform the basis of future discussions.
Discussion 1 (Essential) : What are the ethical and moral principles that should inform a system of global security?
In preparation for this discussion watch the introductory video; read the sections of AGSS; and skim the additional resources below. You may also want to print out a few copies of the “ethical frameworks” to use in the discussion.
Discussion Questions
Start with a general discussion: ( 20 min)
- What makes us secure? Does a militarized system of security provide security or make you feel secure? Why or why not? How might you define security?
Building upon the general discussion above, break into 3 groups. Assign each group one of the “ethical frameworks.”
Explore the following question and record the results in the “ethical framework chart”: ( 40 min)
- What moral and ethical principles should be followed in considering approaches to global security? What are the principles of a “peace system”? What aspects of the present system of global security violate these principles?
- download “ethical framework for a global security system” chart (pdf)
Hold onto the above chart. There may be an opportunity to apply these principles to future discussions.
POSSIBILITIES FOR ACTION
- Share the outcomes of your discussion with others. Encourage them to join your study/action group. Bring your new insights to local and state authorities. Consider inviting them to pass a resolution to fund human and environmental needs and not the military (See: City of Charlottesville Passes Resolution Asking Congress to Fund Human and Environmental Needs, Not Military Expansion and Five Localities Pass Resolutions Against Trump Budget: Three of Them Done Well)
Additional Resources: Ethical Frameworks for Peace
- The Earth Charter
The Earth Charter is an ethical framework for building a just, sustainable, and peaceful global society in the 21st century. It is a product of a decade-long, worldwide, cross-cultural dialogue on common goals and shared values. The Earth Charter project began as a United Nations initiative but was carried forward and completed by a global civil society initiative. Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948. It establishes a set of fundamental human rights to be universally protected.Hague Agenda for Peace and Justice in the 21st Century
The Hague Appeal for Peace Conference, May 11-15, 1999, was the largest international peace conference in history. It launched the Hague Agenda for Peace and Justice for the 21st Century, a set of 50 recommendations for the abolition of war and the promotion of peace. The Agenda (UN Ref A/54/98) was formed out of an intensive democratic process among the members of the HAP Organizing and Coordinating Committees and hundreds of organizations and individuals. The Agenda represents what civil society organizations and citizens consider some of the most important challenges facing humanity for the 21st century. It highlights four major strands: 1) Root Causes of War & Culture of Peace, 2) International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law and Institutions, 3) Prevention, Resolution, and Transformation of Violent Conflict, and 4) Disarmament and Human Security.
Discussion 2 (Going Deeper) : How might we reprioritize human and planetary needs to assure the security and survival of all?
The “What the World Wants” Project has been exploring how to achieve basic human needs by reprioritizing military spending. This work has been led by Medard Gabel ( Pacem in Terris and BigPictureSmallWorld). They argue that the basic human needs of everyone in the world can be met with existing technology, resources, and financial capacities—and that what we need to solve the major systemic problems confronting humanity is both available and affordable.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Review the “Price of Peace: Abundance for All” produced by Big Picture Small World and explore the following questions: ( 60 min)