Re-visiting My Security Essay

             In my original security essay, I said that security overall is national security, but we cannot achieve national security without human security. Now that the semester is over and we have spoken about a variety of security issues I think that security is a combination of both national and human. National security is equally as important as human security, it all depends on what topic or issue is being discussed.
             In my essay I said how the word security itself is a problem, because it has a narrow and vague definition. However, I see why that is now. A terrorism is just much a security issue, as is human trafficking. Yet, terrorism would fall under national security, while human trafficking would fall under human security. The reason for this is because the way that national security deals with things is very different from how human security does. National security tends to deal with more of quick and short term problems and solutions, while human security is the opposite. Human security deals with long term problems and solutions. However, one cannot argue that one is more important than the other. We need to focus on both forms of security as equally important. Since they both deal with such wide issues, both need to recognize one another.
            Many would argue that national security should be the only form of security, but this should not be the case. Many times human security is overlooked which creates a problem. Our discussion of Ebola is an example of this. Ebola was a situation that was a national security issue, and a human security issue. Many people died because the right protocol wasn't made and action wasn't taken fast enough. Yet, if officials who were in charge of it saw that it was both a national and human security issue than perhaps more would have been done. It was national in the sense that it spread so quickly that it didn't just effect one region. Officials should have made the call and labeled it an international state of emergency. On the other hand, if officials would have taken the human security route, they would have seen that the amount of individuals that were dying wasn't right.  The way this epidemic affected them and the symptoms should have called for a faster response. In the Ebola incident we see how curtail it is to have both national and human security.
             National security, along with human security should both be prioritized. However, depending on the situation at hand, one would most likely be prioritized more than the other. With that being said, I cannot sit here and say that one form of security trumps the other. They are both equally important and need to be labeled as top security issues.

My definition of security

In my security essay I argues that security should be human security. Human security is not seen as the traditional definition of security, as there were fewer threats that to threatened what it entailed. Human security can be defined as having the basic necessities such as food and water and other basic necessities for health. Economically it entails the security allowing a job and a decent wage to survive. Education allows the security that allows anyone and everyone to be educated, informed and have the proper skills needed today. Information means that there is security to have the privacy of your own information. All of this combined can be defined as human security. Human security also has a less immediate threat then those that include violence. Today, I think that security should be both national security and human security. I think this because of the various topics that we have discussed over the course of the semester that would focus on this type of security.  

Of course I think that humans will continue to have the risks present to them that threaten human security however national security is another type of security that needs to be taken when thinking about the definition of security.  National security is seen as the more traditional definition of security. Threats such as war whether it be foreign or civil, terrorism and others. If it somehow involves violence,  a short-term and immediate threat to the nation then it is a threat to national security. 

The various topics that we discussed that threaten national security are ones such as the war on terror, ISIS, Somali-piracy, EU-migration, etc.  The example of EU-migration is a threat to national security because it threatens the common good of the nation as a whole. There aren't enough resources for both the migrants and the citizens of whichever European country. Somali piracy is another because pirates are not willing to give legitimacy to the transitional government. As a result of that the pirates take aid that is meant to be given to Somalis in need, threatening the common good of the Somali people. They are also seen as legitimate themselves causing them to further slow down the process of creating a legitimate government. ISIS, is another example of a threat to national security as the organization has gone throughout Iraq and Syria, claiming sovereignty and using violent means in order to get what it wants. The organization is doing so to non-combatants as well.  There is no means of corporation with any other party involved, only extremist demands. ISIS threatens the common good of the Iraq and Syria because people of those nations are forced to leave or fight. Examples such as these, Eu-migration, Somali piracy and ISIS, are ones that  make me rethink my definition of what security is nationally. Threats that encompass violence as a short-term threat. 

After learning about both national security and human security over the course of the semester, I think that both are needed to take into account for my definition of security. Both of these definitions focus on different types of threats, both kinds we see today, thus why I think it is only appropriate to look at both definitions of security. 

Human Trafficking as a Security Issue

                 If we are going to talk about sex trafficking, we must talk about human trafficking as the overall issue. Human trafficking is extremely difficult to define, let alone trying to find a solution for it. No one leaves a paper trail behind, which makes it hard to document the actual cases and amount of people being taken. In order to understand human trafficking we must understand what the victims go through. We need to understand the definition of a sex slave and what they do, and specifically why they are labeled as that. The overall question then is should human trafficking be considered a security problem? To that I would answer yes.
               Human trafficking presents a lot of security issue. Some of these we discussed during class. One of them is ontological security. The victims are forced out of their homes and raped. These are issues that take away from a persons character and makes them question who they are. There sense of home and comfort is ripped away. Another form of security is human security. They are pushed into forced labor, sex, taken away of their rights, and their health is at risk. Lastly, it is a form of national security. It can add to public health, illegal immigration and lots of border control issues.
              Human trafficking should be a security issue, because it is a human security issue which leads to national security. We cannot jump to national security without protecting its foundation, which is human security. We need to secure the citizens of a nation in all aspects, in order to focus on national issues. However, there are many arguments against why human trafficking shouldn't be looked at as a security issue. One of those issues is that human trafficking is a long term problem. Where when people look at security, they think immediate solutions. However, in order to properly tackle this problem, we must look at immediate solutions that can be taken in order to start combating it. We must start somewhere. Another argument against it, is that is people don't think its serious enough. Yet, how can we not look at the trafficking and forcing people into sex slave as not a serious issue? We are talking about an individuals life taken away from them. If we were all to put ourselves in that individuals shoes, we would then possibly look at it as a security issue. However, we shouldn't wait that long. Human trafficking shouldn't be an issue that falls by the waist line. It needs to be front and center. The only way we will effectively combat it, is if we acknowledge the problem for what is. We must stop turing a blind eye to it.

Revisiting The Meaning of Security

In my original essay about the meaning of security, I contended that "security" only refers to the idea of national security. This would mean that anything regarding human rights, the environment, identities, etc. would not fall under the umbrella of what is a security issue. Today, I wholeheartedly disagree with my prior conclusions. Over the course of the class and the countless readings and discussions that we looked into, there is no way that my feelings about security could stay the same. I believe that security deals with all kinds of security including human and environmental, in addition to the traditional meaning of national security.

Human security is definitely an issue that I now feel strongly about. Before, I would have argued that while it is a huge problem, there is no reason for it to be labeled as an issue of security. However, I now feel differently. Human lives are often at risk much more frequently than nations at whole. Therefore, there should be lots of attention and money being poured into these issues. Furthermore, if we let human security fall by the wayside, it will soon become an issue of national security since the peoples who make up the nation are at risk.

Another issue that poses serious threats is the environment. In reading about Tuvalu and climate change in general, this became incredibly apparent. Climate change needs to be taken more seriously and if that means identifying it as a security threat then so be it. I am usually more conservative in my views of security, but reading the articles and seeing pictures of these nations being horribly affected by climate change opened my eyes to the seriousness of the situation. In one discussion, we even brought up the fact that if there is no environment and as a result, no citizens, there is no nation to have its security be threatened. This is the biggest national security threat possible.

On the other hand, I do not think that I would consider ontological security a traditional security threat. While the others pose a threat to life, ontological threats don't, in my opinion. Therefore, these threats aren't so urgent and don't need as much attention and money as human, environmental, and national security do.

If we don't start classifying human and environmental security as threats to national security, I am afraid that the effects will get out of hand to a detrimental point. The environment needs more attention and money, very soon. The same goes for human rights violations around the world that are failed to be addressed. These things need to be taken just as seriously as terrorist threats or else there will be incredibly devastating consequences.

Reflection on my Security Essay

In my security essay, I created a definition for security governments should use to decide whether or not an issue is a security threat. After a brief intro where I wrote about how many problems could be labeled as a security threat, I wrote “Therefore the government needs a precise definition of the word for all members to follow. I believe that security, for government purposes, should be defined as a threat that risks the lives of citizens under a particular government in the near future.” I defined the near future as what was likely or estimated to occur within a year. Although this part of the definition is a little difficult to calculate, it means that security issues are urgent which many of the students in class have come to agree with. I do still agree with my definition.

In the comments Professor Shirk wrote, “why the near future?” and that is because I believe that for government purposes, security issues need to be soon or immediate threats. As many of us have stated in class, the word security makes us feel like there is a sense of urgency. As Ole Waever discusses, security issues often lead to state centered solutions. Everyone rushing to find a sloppy solution to a long-term problem is not beneficial. We have seen the effect of this in The Big Truck That Went By. Even though there were some immediate threats, Haiti had a lot of long-term problems that caused them to depend on international aid during these types of disasters. The aid sent did not really benefit the country. Billions of dollars were donated to Haiti but the fast solution was not helpful. And there were a lot of long-term problems that were not addressed or were caused by the aid not being properly sent there. Issues that are very much long-term would not benefit by being labeled a security threat. Since fast state-centered solutions often do not help long-term threats, I believe that it should not be considered a security issue by the government unless it is urgent.

I also wrote that it should be a threat to the lives of the citizens of the government that is declaring it a security threat. For example, we read the article by Daniel Deudney about environmental degradation. He believes that environmental degradation should not be considered a national security issue because it is not that type of threat. We do not need the military or department of defense to combat environmental degradation. It is also not a problem that local governments can do much to solve. What they can do to try and solve it would not be extremely urgent or required to be labeled a security threat. For this reason, my definition, which was for governmental purposes, does not include environmental degradation. Unless it is so bad that threatens citizens’ lives right now, it should not be considered a security threat. We do not need the military combating the problems; we need policy makers and scientists working together to find solutions.

            Overall, this is why I agree with my original definition. That does not mean that there aren’t any other issues that could cause people to feel unsecure. However the government needs a concrete definition of what should be labeled as a security threat and this is how I would define it.   

Sex Trafficking

            Sex trafficking is much more prevalent in the United States than many believe and it is extremely prevalent in other areas of the world such as Southeast Asia. Although people disagree about whether or not prostitution should be legal, it is appalling that the people sex trafficked are forced to into that profession. Most don’t receive any pay or have any say in the safety procedures. As shown in Half the Sun, many times they are treated terribly, shamed, and become addicted to drugs. There is no doubt that this is wrong, but how do we even begin to combat this issue?

            Some people believe that legalizing prostitution would lessen the amount of forced prostitution. I have a hard time seeing how the two would correlate. Today, people who would like to be prostitutes could still do so by breaking the law. The women who want to be prostitutes but don’t because it’s against the law could become prostitutes once it is legal, but that is the only change I see occurring. I do not imagine that the people enslaving others and forcing them into prostitution really care about the law. The people who are being forced into the profession do no want it and likely would not chose that life if it were legal. It may make conditions better for them, but either way it is not the life they chose if it is forced prostitution. Legalizing prostitution would have a small impact on forced prostitution, which is the outcome of sex trafficking.

            In some parts of the world, forced prostitutions and sex trafficking can become so prevalent because of the corruption. For example, in Cambodia when there is a van full of people trying to cross the border without documentation, often the border control will let them in if they pay a bribe. The police officers there do nothing to try and stop forced prostitution, instead they use the brothel’s services. They do nothing to help women who try to escape from that life. In countries like this, the government could work towards having less corruption. Paying government workers higher salaries if they do not accept bribes could possibly be an incentive. Although it is hard to manage, it could be a step in the right direction.

            Another issue in some areas of the world is the culture. In some countries, men are not allowed to have sex with their girlfriends until they are married. However it is acceptable for them to pay other women for sex. This creates a huge demand for prostitutes. Many people in those countries say that they sacrifice some women so that the other women can remain pure until marriage. If there is a way to change culture norms so that there was less emphasis on marriage and more on the protection of women’s rights, this may also help reduce the forced prostitution. When there is less demand for prostitutes and each citizen is considered equal, there will be less forced prostitution.

            Although there is no way to completely prevent forced prostitution everywhere in the world, there is a reason why it is so prevalent in Southeast Asia. Legalizing prostitution will do nothing to prevent forced prostitution. The amount corruption is so high and the culture causes a huge demand for prostitutes. It also does not value the lives of all women. Changing the culture and corruption may lead to less forced prostitution and sex trafficking.

Sex Trafficking-Why there are no viable methods to stop it

Human trafficking, specifically sex trafficking, is a very important problem that ought to be addressed in some way. However, it is improbable that any measures taken to put a stop to it will be successful. Among these ideas that the class mentioned were suggestions to close borders or tighten border security, and making prostitution legal so as to be able to better regulate it through institutions. While there are understandable arguments to each one of these ideas, I do not believe that either would have a good outcome. Specifically, I would contend that legalizing prostitution would have more negative effects than positive because it would set a bad example for all individuals in different ways, it would not end forceful prostitution, and it would set a dangerous precedent for future legalization of unacceptable practices. 

The vision that I had in my head during the entire conversation was, if prostitution was legalized and all of a sudden the practice was prevalent, above ground, what would parents say to their kids when they inevitable asked about it. Kids are curious about everything! This would be a horrible thing to explain to little girls that some girls who grew up were selling their bodies and this is now an acceptable occupation. All of these years that feminists have tried to fight or women's rights would vanish. I understand that there is a feminist argument that women should be able to choose to do whatever they so please with their bodies. However, I would contend that in most cases, resorting to prostitution is far from a free-willing choice. Furthermore, what does it say when a government allows men to legally pay women to give their bodies? There is nothing okay with prostitution. There is an unequal balance of power between the prostitute and the person buying the service and that will undoubtedly follow the people into the rest of their daily lives. Prostitutes will feel inferior and men will look down on the women who "choose" to do this, as they do now. Legalizing the practice will certainly not fix this. 

Going off of that previous statement, legalized prostitution will also not end the horrors of sex trafficking. There will still be poor treatment of these people even when the institutions are "checking in on it". Putting this in perspective, right now prostitution is illegal but obviously the practices still occur in copious amounts. So, making the wrongful treatment or conditions of/for prostitutes illegal does not automatically mean that this won't still happen. That is just the nature of life. Theft is also illegal and that happens daily with the perpetrators often getting off, similar to many other crimes. Even tightening institutions won't pose a solution in my opinion. Using another example, Boston has some of the strongest police and criminal institutions compared to the rest of the world and yet Whitey Bulger was able to walk the streets instigating violence and several murders for decades with the FBI knowing. People are corrupt. Institutions can be corrupt. There is no way this will ever not be the case. 

The third factor of legalizing prostitution that's scary is the precedent that it might set. If the government were to make something so morally wrong and publicly controversial a legal occupation, what could come next? There is a tremendous danger in making practices such as these legal. The scariest to me is that after decades of this being legal, prostitution would become a social norm. It wouldn't be looked upon as this awful situation in which either women are forced into it or they lack self-respect. I think this would have tremendous implications in aspects of social life. At the end of the day, any type of human trafficking is a disgustingly horrific thing and our institutions obviously need to do a better job at preventing and stopping it. But, the ways in which they could do this are slim and in my opinion, probably not viable.