How much freedom schould we trade for security?

The world appears to be a less secure place today than it was a decade ago. In the post Cold- War security landscape the security threat has shifted from the remote level of interstate wars to a sense of personal vulnerability. More nations than ever before have access to nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, organised crime has become a global player filling in the power vacuum left by the collapse of the Soviet Union, terrorism in all its forms is becoming more and more ruthless…

The classical answer to these different threats to security is embedded in the theory that the responsibility for providing security is a task for the sovereign states or regional alliances of sovereign states. The state has the monopoly of force and the possible use of force has a deterrent effect.

This implies that in times of great insecurity, freedom has to pay a price in order to obtain security.

In the aftermath of September 11th, it is crucial that a thorough reassessment of the existing political and security paradigms takes place for the new security challenges cannot be met with the existing remedies.

2. New insecurities in a globalised world

Before trying to provide some indications as to what the threats to security have in common, it is necessary that I point out in short some of the implications of living in a globalised world.

Globalisation has been going on for centuries. The driving forces are capitalism and technological progress. What has changed over the last few decades is the pace and intensity of the process.

Globalisation holds many advantages for the different nations. It has stimulated unprecedented growth in the economy. The average life expectancy has drastically improved, more people than ever before are following education, the free flow of information on the Web could further enhance people's knowledge, and technology is thriving like never before.

The benefits far outnumber the shortcomings for the moment. However, these shortcomings are instrumental in the new security threats that humanity faces and the answers that have to be provided to them.

The flows of people for example make states vulnerable for possible infiltration by extremist groups. Migratory movements of people sometimes involve human trade, causing much suffering and despair. Countries, groups or individuals (unabomber) that have their own hidden agenda can abuse the flow of information that is available. The flow of capital can lead to vast operations of money laundering, whereby vast chunks of the economy fall into the hands of the organised crime.

These threats are not new but the impact of a potential threat is much larger due to the intrinsic elements of globalisation. A computer virus (the updated version of industrial sabotage) can break down entire computer networks within seconds, thereby possibly compromising the growth of the entire economy. Knowledge about lethal weapon systems that were once restricted to some scientists can be found in scientific publications that can be easily obtained at your local bookstore and the means to produce those weapons are readily available. The most intrinsic element of globalisation is the interconnection between people, systems, information and ultimately the world and it is this very same virtue of globalisation that is also the biggest threat to the globalised world. The consequence is that sometimes even one individual or a group of radicals can break down the entire system. This is irrevocable, the knowledge and the technology is out and can never be put back in the bottle.

The understandable but possibly inadequate response of the United States to the horrific attack on September 11th is a further indication that the very foundations of the paradigm of the sovereign states or alliances of sovereign states as ultimate providers for the security have to be reassessed. The United States declared war before they even knew who they had declared war on. The new enemy is mobile, diverse and international or rather "infra national".

3. Security and freedom, the odd couple

Some authors are wary of strong security measures. They automatically imply a loss of individual freedom. They see the relation between security and freedom as antipodes.
I tend to see the relation as less irreducible. The main mission of public policy is to reconcile both rights.

Thomas Hobbes lived in an age where there was much insecurity, and his insight goes as follows: "Without security there is no place for industry, no arts, no letters, no society; and worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."

Security is the prerequisite for enjoying freedom. Liberty without security is an illusion, but security without liberty leads to slavery. The key to the reconciliation of both human rights may be found within the European law, where the European Court of Human Rights is responsible for upholding the human rights that are mentioned in The European Treaty on Human Rights. They use a flexible criterion that could have a wider usage whenever someone has to take security measures that limit certain freedoms: proportionality. Security can only limit freedom if the purpose of this limitation is to serve freedom. Restrictions are allowed if they are necessary in order to uphold the basic liberties and proportional in view of the gravity of the infringements on these freedoms.

It is my opinion that this concept of proportionality could be the touchstone in achieving reconciliation between the two Human Rights and in assessing the pertinence of a proposed security policy. Many of the proposals to fight insecurity focus on personal technology as both a tool and a target. The concept of proportionality could be used as a touchstone when drafting legislation concerning genetic fingerprinting, encryption, biometrics, technologies to scan and capture private communications, public surveillance, smartcard IDs,…

There is however a far more important interrelationship in this new global world between these two essential Human Rights (security and freedom). I will develop this further in the following chapters.

4.Possible courses of action to tackle these new threats

4.1. The classical approach: unilateral response from sovereign states or regional alliances of sovereign states.

The classical approach is that the response has to come from a sole sovereign state, where the emphasis is on national security or from a society of states where the emphasis is on international security. This approach expresses a pluralistic conception. The system of states or the societies of states are the principal provider of security. The classical approach is not concerned with the internal politics and human rights situation in the sovereign states, provided it does not infringe on the rights of the other states. As long as international treaties are not broken by the sovereign states there is no cause for action.

An effective state is a state that can deal with any internal and external threat to security. This is the legitimisation of the existence of the nation-state, its "raison d'être". The state is involved in a security arrangement. The state provides security for all his citizens. In pursuing this aim states sometimes form a society of states. Countries like Iraq, North Korea, to name but a few are an indication that this approach has its flaws. The security of a particular state is subordinate to the security of the society of states.

This concept is being challenged by the specific nature of globalisation. The enemy is no longer a specific state but infra-national radical organisations, internationally organised crime. The war against terrorism is being waged against a network of individuals. The new security threat involves waging an asymmetric war against an invisible enemy

The sovereign states have to impose barriers on the free flow of capital, in order to fight money laundering, they have to drastically increase border controls to prevent terrorists and chemical or other weapons from entering the country. Detailed legislation is being drafted, but the source of the security threat is infra national and its main weapon is information. This approach will never work, for the terrorists will simply attack the weakest link. The cost of all these measures that are being drafted all around the world are never called into question. Neither does anyone ask where all this hatred comes from, what is the source of all this evil? Why did the terrorists of September 11th choose one of the poorest countries in the world as their home base?

September 11th could prove to be a turning point in history. The classical approach will no longer be sufficient to fight the causes of insecurity. As long as decision-makers continue to make policy assessment based on the classical paradigms of the sovereign state and the society of states, insecurity will continue to be our fate. In the next chapter I will try to indicate some clues that could form the basis of a new political paradigm.

4.2 A global approach: human security.

It is my firm conviction that conflicts cannot be prevented nor security obtained in a place where human rights are trampled upon. In the global world specific violations of human rights in one state are felt in every state. This is a consequence of the interconnection that is the pivotal element of globalisation. Internationalisation of conflicts that previously were only felt locally requires a global security approach. The globalisation process is not only an economic phenomenon, it is also a cultural and political phenomenon. There is a globalisation of political values.

Personal security is not only a domestic problem, it is an international problem. Therefore a new concept is being put forward: human security. In essence, human security means freedom from pervasive threats to people's rights, their safety or even their lives, regardless of where they live. A new human-centred approach has to be developed if security issues are to be addressed in an effective and comprehensive way. National and international security cannot be maintained if human security is not implemented around the globe. The Human security approach implies that there can be no more abusive states, since the existence of an abusive state would not only undermine the rule of law in that state but it would undermine the rule of law around the globe.

A challenging task lays ahead for society as a whole for it raises many questions. What is the minimum human standard? Who will implement this human security? At what point must abusive states be stopped? Maybe the concept of proportionality could play a key role in this new paradigm?

5. Concluding commentary

Although the full consequences of the globalised world are still unravelling there is strong evidence that the current political and security paradigms are no longer valid.

Society has fundamentally and irrevocably changed. Globalisation carries a lot of benefits, among them the international exchange of culture, the spread of knowledge to every corner of the world, and a steady growth of welfare around the world. It also carries problems, one of which is the new security challenge.

We are at a pivotal point in history. I am well aware that it will take years if not decades before this new security paradigm will be adopted by the world community. I would also like to point out that this will not mean the end of the state, it will only mean the end of the concept of absolute sovereignty. This evolution is already underway with more and more countries adhering to the Treaty to create an International Criminal Court.

I would like to end with a quote by the Dalai Lama: "The acceptance of universally binding standards of Human Rights as laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenants of Human Rights is essential in today's shrinking world. Respect for fundamental human rights should not remain an ideal to be achieved but a requisite foundation for every human society."

arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)