A Critique on the Global Security ManifestoThe Global Security Manifesto (GSM) explains varying factors with supplementary examples that threaten to penetrate or weaken the defense systems of the world. Personally, I was pleased to see that the document sufficiently addresses the notion that, “security, by its very nature, is a metaphysical as well as physical challenge.” While there are certain missing variables in the manifesto as a whole that I’ll explicate in the paragraphs to follow, it is clear that a great deal of work, research, and time was invested into drafting this document. First, this manifesto significantly looks at security from the vantage point of globalization. It does not explicitly address the phenomenon of reverse globalization that is by every means a real threat to security. As Herbert Oberhänsli and Oscar Vera Vevey state in their paper on globalization and its concerns and opportunities for people in the developing world, “…there is a real risk of reverse globalization; i.e., the excesses of the West as a reason to stop development in the South. In emerging economies there is a fear that environmental issues are being used by the North as a means to slow down the emergence of new competitors, or as former Mexican President Zedillo formulated it: "A peculiar alliance has recently come into life. Forces from the extreme left, the extreme right, environmentalist groups, trade unions of developed countries and some self-appointed representatives of civil society, are gathering around a common endeavor: to save the people of developing countries from ... development." This was reiterated by Clayton Deutsch, a director at the consulting firm McKinsey & Company. He stated McKinsey believes reverse globalization is one of the top ten problems facing the globe. Oberhänsli and Vevey’s report also states specific examples of this trend that has elevated in visibility since the 1980s. 1.4 speaks about the insecurity inherent in security. It states, “…in tightly networked matrices, auto-immune reactions which exceed the harm produced by the initial attack can result, further eroding the foundations of a democratic civil society.” This is reminiscent of an article from CNN that reports there have been more U.S. deaths in Iraq than there have been from the 9/11 terrorist attacks. 3.2 In the discussion on human security I believe it important to mention the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html 4.2 While failed states do carry disturbing global threats one must examine this issue with an extra level of analysis. A large number of states have failed or are struggling in light of colonialist actions that have placed them in a position of jeopardy. For instance Belgium’s involvement in Rwanda left perverse imprints in the country’s social fabric that directly led to genocide in 1994. It is important to recognize that TIMs may be caused by sovereign states. While it maybe easy to recognize that failed states pose a problem, assuming responsibility or assisting these countries to elevate themselves from desperate conditions is considerably more complicated and difficult. 4.3 Resource conflict can and will be a major obstacle for many states. However, one must distinguish between the problems of consumption, and over-consumption –the latter is one that the U.S. is facing today. In terms of oil, the price of gas significantly increased in the past two years yet SUV production also increased. These and more statistics point to a troubling trend. There’s more resource consumption per capita or per person than ever before. 4.4 deals with terrorism/ crime. It states, “terrorism has now come to dominate international security discourse, as the United States, the global hegemon, reconceptualized its international security strategy, and sought to fully distinguish terrorism from crime by declaring it an act of war (albeit with a loose interpretation of the international conventions concerning conduct in war) If this were truly the case then why is all the focus on one group; al Queada. What about groups like the LTTE? While I would like to elaborate on the points mentioned above I feel it important that I keep my critique concise. In conclusion, I enjoyed reading the GSM and believe it has great didactic potential. Posted by Rukesh Samarasekera on October 4, 2006 05:39 AM | Permalink |
