Reviewing Security Essay

       In my security essay, I originally argued that security should be expanded from its traditional meaning of protecting state security to include human security, protection from environmental crises, and defense against the outbreak of diseases. These threats impose a sense of immediacy, and therefore should be prioritized. Because of a federal government’s centralized power, they are best equipped to handle these issues. Long-term problems, such as ontological, environmental, and economic securities do not pose as an immediate threat to survival and therefore should not be included in securitization at the state level. I argued that security is most effective when it is centralized in the hands of the state because military securitization was the best way to insure the safety of the nation (as well as human security) at large.

Now, I believe security is more nuanced than this definition. There are inevitable contradictions to providing safety when the state prioritizes state security over human security. An alternate solution is giving more authority to non-state organizations that have less political bias. Modern problems that fall under security, such as environmental crises and human trafficking, are not solvable with the involvement of the military.

The problem with the state having autonomous authority over what is considered security is that it prioritizes state security above all. This can have serious consequences for individuals within the state who need human security. For example, through the lens of the state, the greatest human trafficking threats involve securitizing borders and regulating crime rates from illegal immigrants. This frames trafficked people as corrupt, likely to engage in criminal activity, and likely to spread diseases into the community. This perception exaggerates the small number of trafficked victims that knowingly and willingly commit crimes in the countries they are trafficked into, and redirects blame away from pimps who have forced victims into trafficking. Trafficking involves human, national, ontological, and economic security for the victims, yet current policies of governments distort people's perceptions of who sex trafficking victims are. It is important that there be a centralized authority that is able to swiftly take lead in providing security when a militarized threat arises. However, there are significant detriments to human security when this authority is given to a government that politicizes human security issues.

         It is important that the definition of security emphasizes human rights over the securitization of the state. Traditionally, the safety of the state implied military intervention and a "boots on the ground" approach to security. However, in today's world, militarization for security purposes is not the most efficient way to solve certain security issues. For example, going to war would do little in combatting homegrown terror operations. Modern investigations of terror suspects are more likely to rely on technology, intelligence gathering, and fostering relationships between local and federal government to combat homegrown terrorism. A drone attack would be unacceptable on American soil in combatting terror because it breaches the constitutional right to trial by jury. The new face of terrorism succeeds the old methods of combat that the US attempted to use (unsuccessfully) during the Iraq war against modern terror. In the past, securitization of the state meant securitization of the state's people, but this is now outdated. The military is no longer always the most effective means of securitization.

Alternative organizations, such as the UN, World Bank, and other non-state actors would be much less biased in providing security. They would not prioritize state security over all else because they are not a state. The US took the initiative in sending aid to Haiti. Because priorities were state-centered, aid was not as effective as it could have been. Some of the money was appropriated to lobbying for more aid, where it was caught cycling in economies far from Haiti’s reach. Also, water bottles still litter the streets of Haiti today, where Haitians could have been given water filters. The government went into Haiti assuming what was best for Haitians, whereas an international organization may have been more accommodating to the Haitians’ needs. If an unbiased organization were given the authority to take charge in the crisis, it would have been able to put politics aside and focus on the needs of individuals. Environmental crises or human security issues cannot adequately be solved without a more modern definition of security and the use of external non-state organizations to prevent political bias.