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.