The concept of comprehensive security

The POST, Sun, November,19, 2006.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

Global developments of far reaching consequences made it imperative to broaden the traditional concepts of national security in order to include areas like rapid depletion of resources, increasing population, poverty and environmental issues. For the developing world as well as for those facing aggressive policies of neighboring countries, two other areas need to be incorporated into the new definition of  security. Among them the economic related problems and social inequalities along with the surfacing of ethnicity hydra certainly qualify to be included in the broadened concept of security. Expanded definition is usually referred as the concept of comprehensive security.

Theoretically the comprehensive security implies a satisfactory sense of security in all essential walks of life. To attain comprehensive security one has to initially identify and evaluate the incumbent threats emanating from varied external and internal sources. Among the external threats, traditional threat to physical boundaries, injection of subversive ideas and insurgency movements, deprivation of essential goods upon which a nation is heavily dependent through blockade or sanctions appears to be prominent. Similarly the internal threats may emanate from economic, political, social, ethnic and military sources.

To effectively deal with threats emanating either from external or internal, military and non-military sources, different schools of thoughts have been promoting different approaches. Some advocate a violent means while the others opt for more peaceful pursuits. One major group believes that the most effective means to deal with perceived threats especially the external threats is via well-established institutions like the armed forces. Members of this group tend to regard the national security as implying only national defense, which they tend to equate with the military preparedness of the nation along with a well-equipped and efficient police force.

Many interested scholars and writers of this group dwell rather heavily upon that aspect of security, which is directly concerned with the threats emanating from the changing international environment(such as the end of the Cold War or tragic event of  September 11, 2001) or the dynamics of interstate relationships(such as the recent developments in Indo-Pak and US-India relations). Admittedly this is perhaps one of the most important aspects of national security but this does not means that the other aspects do not deserve any significant place in the national security policies. What about internal problems like revolution, subversion, and violent struggle for power etc?

It has been often observed that a minor internal disturbance snowballed into an acute international conflict situation reflecting the known characteristics of national security problem. At what stage the rulers should undertake effective measures to deal with the situation. Should one wait and watch until the insignificant minor disturbance acquires the threatening magnitude or should one employ the violent corrective means almost immediately. Minor disturbances are often the result of economic or social dissatisfaction.However when these acquire dangerous proportion, the state authorities would be compelled to undertake appropriate corrective measures.

Heavy reliance upon the sole monopolies of sanctified means of violence (armed forces and police) is viewed as detrimental to the greater interest of the society by some. They tend to mistakenly project the institutions of armed forces and police as potential threats to the liberty of man in society. They advocate the obsolescence of military and other violent means and often stress that alternatives must be found to replace this traditional methods of national survival.

Criticizing heavily the sanctimonious means of violence, this group of writers suggests that security must be perceived essentially in non military terms such as the provision of education, employment, social welfare, housing, food, health, sanitation facilities, and the creation of what they call as the conducive environment etc. It seems to be a logical extension of an old idea that security lay in the defeat of the five major evils of society-Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness.

Assuming that one has been able to get rid of all these evils of society and have acquired the much desired cultural refinement and economic prosperity, would it not then be right to assume that the principle concern in such a society would revolve around the preservation of what has been achieved. Experience indicated that economically prosperous and well-established states have also sought security in the traditional methods of building up their military machine. It defends their coveted values, deters aggression, provides effective support for their political and diplomatic bargaining, gives them confidence and serves as a index of their power and prestige.

Both schools seem to be obsessed with only on aspect, though a very important aspect, of national security and, therefore both are guilty of underplaying the other equally important aspects. The exponents of armed forces are over-projecting the utility of military. They are focusing on external threats exclusively ignoring threats which emanate from within. They tend to accord almost negligible respects to those aspects of security, which stem from lack of economic security or well-entrenched social inequalities or environmental degradation etc.  The advocates of military are projecting the usefulness of military aspect only but underplaying the corrective abilities of economic prosperities along with social justice. Similarly the opponents tend to underplay the usefulness of military especially if viewed within the context of external threats and to deal with dangerous internal situations.

A comprehensive approach needs to be employed, which would include both violent, and non-violent means. It must take into considerations the external and internal threats as well as the threats emanating from economic insecurity, social inequalities and environmental deterioration and degradation. While the Human Development Report of 1994 highlight the need to look after the legitimate concerns of ordinary people, the most appropriate approach would be to cater for both individual as well as the state security.

Admittedly inadequate attention has been paid to human security aspects in our overall pursuit of national security whereas the physical  aspects of state security  remained the main focus of national security. Some writers have been engaged in making unnecessary distinction between national security and human security. A true meaning of national security would imply provision of comprehensive security to its citizens whereas the human security concept could be stretched beyond borders. Too much emphasis  on national interest seem to have undermined individual interests within a state. Since we live in a nation state system, human security has also come to be known as comprehensive security of all human beings living within the state boundaries. Human security within a state implies economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personnel security, community security, political security and military security. Indeed the broadened concept of security aims to improve the quality of life for the individuals who form the very basis of a society but does not ignore the traditional aspects of state security.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy research Institute.