GPA 422 Human

Security
Instructor: Maheen Ahmad
Week 3 February 13 2023
maheenahmad@s3h.nust.edu.pk

1
 WEEK LECTURE TOPIC
1
Course Introduction: Welcome to Human Security!
(30 Jan)
2
No class (due to election week)
(6 Feb)
3
Understanding Human Security
(13 Feb)
4
Food Security
(20 Feb)
5
Personal Security
(27 Feb)
6
Health Security
(5 Mar)
7
Environmental Security
(12 Mar)
8
Revision Week
(19 Mar)
9
Mid-term Week
Today’s Agenda
I. Security: its definition, its value, its
assumptions
II. The changing paradigms of security
III. An assessment: How secure are we?

3
Security, as a concept, value
and idea has evolved over the
years
In its most basic
understanding, security is
defined as being untroubled
by danger or fear

4
5
6
What does that fear look like for most people?
For many, fear and danger is not in
the form of isolated events but a
matter of everyday life
Survival – to be secure, free from
this fear and danger – is a challenge
they have to confront everyday
Think of some long-lasting conflicts
around the world

7
Can happen, anywhere, anytime

8
Philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, who
lived through prolonged time periods of
war, violence and conflict therefore
emphasized the value of security

“Without Security, there is no place

for industry… no arts, no letter, no
society, and which is worst of all ,
continual fear, and danger of violent
death; and the life of man, solitary,
poor, nasty , brutish and short”
(Leviathan)

9
Assumptions of Security

SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY

SECURITY
BY MEANS FROM FOR
OF WHAT?
OF WHAT? WHAT? WHAT?

10
Security of what?
In order to understand the concept of
security, it is important to first isolate what
needs to be secured
 Remember, we are social creatures.
 At a personal level, we want to ensure our
own security and then extend that security
to our loved ones, then our friends, and then
our society

11
Security of what? (contd.)
In international politics, this security can be extended to the
state. As Hedley Bull has stated:
‘Security in international politics means no more than safety:
either objective safety, meaning safety which actually exists, or
subjective safety, meaning safety which is felt or experienced.”

12
Security from What?
 As human nature is flawed, perfect security cannot exist in any human society.
This idea of security rests on the premise that human beings, in social settings,
are vulnerable, particularly to harmful acts done by other people. Accordingly,
there can never be complete trust and mutual security between human beings.
Much of that has to do with the presumption that human nature is flawed, and
also has to do with resources.
 In Hobbes’ ‘state of nature’ every human being is a potential threat because the
struggle for survival in a world of limited resources is ‘war of all against all’

13
Aristole
“What is common to many is
taken least care of, for all men
have greater regard for what is
their own than for what they
possess in common with
others.”

14
The Tragedy of Commons by Hardin
(1968)

15
What was Hardin suggesting?
 Why common resources are used more than what is socially desirable
 People act independently according to their own self interest
 Every rational agent tends to maximize their own self gain and exploits
the resource to the fullest potential. This self gain leads to the unfortunate
outcome where everybody is at disadvantage in the long run because the
resource inevitably depletes completely
 The tragedy is the ultimate depletion of the common good

16
Mancur Olson Logic of Collective Action

17
Mancur Olson Logic of Collective Action

18
What was Olson suggesting?
Explains why collective action fails when deciding an efficient production and
consumption of common resources, even if it is beneficial for each individual
that it succeeds.
Phenomena of free riding, they all try to full benefit at zero cost to them
Individuals will not act in the common interest (when trying to achieve their
common interest) and will only behave rationally and in self interest
As all participants free ride, a socially optimal is not achieved

19
Security from What? (contd.)
This mistrust also translates at the international level where states are generally
untrustworthy of each other’s actions, due to the state of anarchy.
Therefore, security in international politics primarily concerns protecting the
state from all sorts of threats emanating due to international political
manoeuvres.

20
Can you think of an example of conflict
of resources?
 Think of wars in the 20th century.
 History books identify causes of World War I: nationalistic antagonism, military
build-up, and assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. Can we consider the
competition for African and Asian resources?
European powers carved up Africa and competed in Asia in a relentless pursuit
of colonies. To feed their growing industries, they exploited the natural
resources and cheap labor of colonies
While Britain and France had built global empires in the 19th century, Germany
was late to colonial conquest and wanted to "catch up" to its European
economic rivals. Fierce competition for colonies and their resources was a big
cause of World War I.

21
Example: struggles of control for oil
Could fighting for control over oil be regarded
as a critical factor in most contemporary
warfare?
While divisions (such as ethnic, religious
differences) may provide the political and
ideological fuel for battles, it is the possibility of
controlling mammoth oil revenue that fuels the
fighting
Geologists ascertained the Earth's largest
supply of easily extractable oil was under the
Middle East
 Think of 1980s’ Iran and Iraq war, Iraq invasion
of Kuwait, and US invasion of Iraq
22
Security by means of What?
It is important to identify the necessary tools to stop security threats.
Therefore, it is necessary to determine what kind of tools need to be
employed.
DETERRENCE
Security can be achieved in two ways: through deterrence or diffidence
The objective is to either deter the adversary from carrying out unwanted
actions or if the attacker themselves feels under confident of achieving their
objectives.
 Some theorists, like Thomas Schelling, prioritize the credibility of DIFFIDENCE
deterrence. Other theorists, like Thomas Hobbes, prioritize diffidence.
Deterrence and diffidence are not unrelated ideas − diffidence is the
desired consequence of deterrence. Providing security is about instilling fear
in the mind of a potential attacker with a view to preventing an attack.

23
Security for what?
Security is a core value of human relations. PEOPLE ARE
The necessity of security arises from the fact SOCIAL CREATURES
that people do want to live together but are
also vulnerable to each other.
For states, the traditional view upheld that PEOPLE SEEK
SECURITY
the prime motive is to ensure the survival of
your people PEOPLE ARE
VULNERABLE
TO ONE
ANOTHER

24
A Recap: Traditional Notion of Security
 We can refer to this as national security
 Proponents of national security (also regarded as realists) assume in the world, states are both
the main sources of security and the main security threats
In essence, this is an anarchical world view, where the world comprises of independent and
armed states which are capable of inflicting harm upon one another. National security policies
are directed at creating and maintaining armed forces for national defence and deterrence. They
also involve measures designed to deal with internal threats to security such as criminals, rebels,
terrorists, etc.
As per this notion of security, states resources were (and still are predominantly) directed
towards maintaining effective police and armed forces, implementing anti-terrorist measures,
ensuring civil and emergency defences, using intelligence to detect and counter external attack
and internal subversion, using diplomacy to strengthen alliances and isolate threats and using
economic power to encourage cooperation and isolate or weaken political rivals.

25
When can this make sense?
The national security paradigm is well equipped to address circumstances where two rival
states are actively opposing one another.
 What about…

26
Can the state be a security threat against its
own people?
Think back to when security of the state was
synonymous with security of the prince. The
state was the personal property of the prince,
and the prince would use violence to defend it.
Example, Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain,
Henry VIII of England, Louis XIV of France
For the security of the people to take
precedence over security of the prince, a new
understanding of political authority was
created.

27
At the heart of this discussion, is the distinction
between security of the state and of the people
Security of the state is considered Security of the people means to
to be the ability of the state to allow for prosperity of the people,
protect itself from external danger give them the freedom to pursue
and harm such as a breach of their own interests, goals,
sovereignty, its territorial integrity ambitions etc. without the fear of
through intervention, blockade, harm by others provided they, in
invasion, destruction, occupation, turn, do not violate the harm
or interference (be it from another principle by causing deliberate
state or non-state actors) The goal injury to others.
of state security is to deter, prevent
or defeat attacks against the state
itself

28
But why is security of people so important?
 In liberal political theory, the state
 belongs to the people
 at times, a creation of the people
A state represents the people’s government, the people’s law, the
people’s army, the people’s police, the people’s courts and ultimately
the people’s prisons and even the people’s gallows.
Therefore, in theory at least, the state cannot pose a threat to its
own citizens whose personal interests are synonymous with state
interests.

29
Security of the people… not to be
confused with democracy!
Findings indicate
that democratic
quality in developing
countries is only
weakly correlated
with human
insecurity, with great
human insecurity
variance across all
levels of democracy.

30
What happens if the state can’t provide
security for its people?
In practice, security of the state does not necessarily translate to
security of the people (as is envisioned by liberal theory)
For instance, consider states which are unable to provide security
for their populations. These are often referred in literature as ‘weak’
or ‘failed’ states
Interestingly, there are also states which intentionally, directly and
purposefully threaten their own people (be it to maintain status quo,
control, or fulfil ideological/economic goals). These are often
referred as ‘totalitarian’ or ‘police states’.

31
Thus emerges the concept of Security+
However, modern security theorists also argue that it is not enough
to merely ensure the survival of your people. Can you not survive on
the bare minimum of resources?
The aim is to make that your people prosper and are able to ensure
a better standard of living – Survival+
Therefore, the aim of security should be to give states the adequate
resources to ensure the growth and prosperity of their societies.

32
Human Security: A new security paradigm
entered the scene…
In contrast to state-centered approach, human security
gave moral primacy to human beings and the community of
humankind over and above the interests of states
The understanding that for many people, security threats
can come in the form of natural disasters, persistent
poverty, epidemics and economic downturns (which can
impose hardships and undercut prospects for peace and
stability just as much as violent conflicts)

33
 “…HUMAN SECURITY IS
A CHILD WHO DID NOT DIE,
A DISEASE THAT DID NOT SPREAD,
A JOB THAT WAS NOT CUT,
ETHNIC TENSION THAT DID NOT
EXPLODE INTO VIOLENCE,
A DISSIDENT WHO WAS NOT
SILENCED.”
MAHBUB UL HAQ

34
Exercise: You be the judge.
Consideringall that you have now learned about human
security (in view of the traditional state-centric notion of
security and the human security paradigm), make an
assessment of the degree of security in the world today.
In your view, are we living in a secure world or an insecure
world?

35
36