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.