Globalization, Human Security and Iraq

Introduction

For many, globalization immediately brings to mind issues related to the movement of capital and business around the world with little apparent regard for “sovereign borders.” But, as we all know, globalization is not just about economics. Other global linkages seem to be increasing exponentially.

The rapid, mass movements of people, the possibilities of 24-hour access to information from almost limitless sources and points of view, help fuel a global marketplace of ideas, values and ideologies. The lines between issues that have been traditionally seen as domestic (and therefore considered to be of proper concern to the citizens of a nation) and international (and therefore the purview of the nation state) are increasingly blurred.

The spread of knowledge and information, along with the proliferation of advanced technologies, including that of weapons, has serious global implications. As people, ideas and images move with lightening speed around the world, the challenges grow for states to try to predict and manage the outcomes of such interactions.

Because of these linkages, what happens in any one sphere can have an impact on the others -- both positive and negative. The implications of political decisions seem more complex than not that long ago. Adapting to these changes is a challenge to us all. Yet in this globalized world, the tendency persists for individuals, institutions and states to try to pick and choose which aspects of globalization are to their liking and ignore the others. Of particular concern are the implications of such decisions for national – and perhaps more importantly -- global security. As the world becomes more interconnected, traditional concepts of national security may not work.

For example, here I would ask us to consider only a tiny handful of the ramifications of the decision to invade Iraq, in the context of the decision to name actions taken against terrorism and terrorist networks a “war.” For some, these policy decisions demonstrate that relying on traditional national security concepts and discounting other possible international reactions to the exercise can be fraught with peril. Perhaps more serious discussions of a more globalized concept of human security need to be explored.

Security in the Globalized World

With the fall of the Soviet Union and the world no longer divided into two competing camps, some envisioned positive benefits from the unfettered advance of market economies, bringing in their wake global democratization. There were hopes that new attempts to define national security would take place, the number of nuclear weapons would be reduced, and measures to counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction enhanced. Standing armies, military budgets, and the global arms trade might be reduced. A “peace dividend” could be applied to resolving some of the intractable problems facing humankind, which would, in turn, make the globe as a whole more secure.

Others took a much more pessimistic view, recognizing that without a deliberate and concerted effort to take a new approach to a changed and changing world, not much would really be different, and any vacuum of power left by the collapse of the Soviet Union would be quickly filled.

During this brief window of high expectations some bold initiatives provided examples of collective solutions to issues of global scope. One was the movement to ban antipersonnel landmines. The landmine campaign has been seen as important not only because it led to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, but also because it provided a successful model of civil society-international institution-government partnership that offered a concrete example of how the global community could work together to resolve common problems. The establishment of the International Criminal Court is another example of such cooperative efforts. Both exemplified the important role civil society can – and in the view of many of us -- must play in international issues.

These efforts also highlighted the thinking of some that global security is advanced not by increasing the number of weapons being developed, produced and traded in an already over-weaponized world, but by addressing “human security” needs as a fundamental linchpin upon which the security of us all ultimately rests. We will all be more secure if even the most basic needs of the majority of the planet are met. By providing that majority with a stake in and hope for their own future, the root causes of conflict can be diminished. In this globalized world, many actors can have an impact on outcomes, so addressing issues of concern must be as broadly multilateral as possible. Multilateralism, dialogue, and conflict resolution enhance human security. The use of force is not scorned, but it is recognized as the absolute last resort, employed only if all other methods to resolve conflict have failed.

The human security agenda, however, is seen by others as wishy-washy efforts by “lesser powers” – read perhaps irrelevant – who do not have the military might or the “spine” to deal with “real” security issues. And the model of civil society-government partnership was met with immediate – and ongoing – pressure for states to think and act in more traditional ways, with a reassertion of the view that determining security rests solely with the state.

Against this backdrop, Al Qaeda began to be increasingly recognized as a serious threat. Employing various asymmetrical tools of terror, it has sought to advance its political goals of a changed Middle East free of Western influence. It remained largely unknown to the general public until its willingness to use terror tactics was most horrifically displayed in the September 11 attacks in New York and Washington. Its stated goal of attaining WMD re-focused attention on the problem of the proliferation of such weapons.

Stunned by the carnage on September 11, people around the world were united in their sorrow and disgust at the acts of terror. Support for the people of the United States was at an all-time high. Many hoped the global unity in the aftermath of the attacks would result in a different type of leadership in response. We hoped that governments would work together not only to bring the perpetrators of the attacks to justice and dismantle the terrorist network, but also that there would be serious attempts to begin to address the root causes of the problems that made recruiting for such networks possible.

Old Responses to New Threats and A Few Examples of the Consequences

But the war on terror was launched. And the decision made to attack the Taliban government in Afghanistan because of its open support for Al-Quaeda. The result was to be not only their removal and the possible capture of Bin Laden and al-Qaeda leadership, dealing a possibly lethal blow to the terror network, but also the establishment of a stable government in Afghanistan. The country would no longer be a failed state, and breeding ground for terrorism, but set firmly on the road to democracy.

But in the eyes of much of the world, Afghanistan has since been placed on the back burner, and with it the hunt for Bin Laden, as attention turned to Iraq. Afghanistan’s future now seems very uncertain.

Much of the international community could accept the direct link between military operations against Afghanistan and the attacks in the US on September 11. It is more than fair to say that is not the case with the subsequent decision to invade Iraq. And what are some of the possible consequences arising from that decision?

As we all know, the justification for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq was said to be the immediate threats posed by its WMD, as well as its links to terrorism, and thus the attacks in the US. Even though much of the world – as expressed both by actions in the United Nations as well as the millions who marched in the streets around the globe in opposition to the impending military action -- was extremely skeptical of the stated reasons for an invasion and called for more time for UN weapons inspections in Iraq, which had begun to show results, albeit grudging, -- the invasion was launched. No WMD have been found. And recently, the US bi-partisan 9/11 Commission confirmed what many had already believed to be true -- that there were no links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

The justifications for preemption have not panned out. A skeptical world may feel vindicated somehow by the lack of evidence for the primary claims advanced to justify the invasion. But the more important concern for us all should be the consequences.

I am no supporter of the concept of pre-emption. Perhaps others might honestly hold it to be a reasonable security option. But if one does hold that point of view, it would seem the arguments put forth to support pre-emption would have to be open to little doubt or controversy. That was not the case in Iraq. What precedent has now been set for others to argue preemption – based on flimsy evidence or none at all? And what happens now when there are real and immediate security threats? How much harder will it be to rally support, if and when support is really needed? How hard has it already been to try find support to cope with post-invasion Iraq?

What impact have these policy decisions had on attempts to deal with terrorism? As many have said – if Iraq was not a magnet for terrorists before, it certainly is one now. And who can predict its future? Is the world really a more secure place as a result of the invasion? Is Iraq itself a more secure country? On my way here yesterday from Turkey, I read a columnist who wrote, “With its policies, America has succeeded in isolating itself, not the terrorists.”

The tremendous support around the world for the people of the United States in response to September 11 has been replaced by unprecedented levels of anti-Americanism. What impact will this have on US security as well as other US policy initiatives? What is its standing now, for much of the world, as a government credibly able to advocate the advancement of democracy and promotion of human rights around the world?

As I just noted, I have come to Montreux from Turkey, where I participated in a four-day international conference on human rights. The conference was opened by the Foreign Minister of the country, and closed by its Prime Minister. It was addressed by representatives of the European Union as well as the US Ambassador to the country.

The response to the US Ambassador was perhaps predictable. When he took the podium, some people stood holding small signs in silent protest. Of the war in Iraq. Of Guantanamo. Of Abu Ghraib. Of the negative impact of the “war on terror” on their work in their own countries to protect human rights. Instead of bringing dignity to Iraqis after years of oppression, the photos of abused and humiliated prisoners have fueled resentment in the region and around the world. Was it unreasonable, then, for people to question the ambassador’s standing to address a conference on human rights at this time? Given the situation, is it unreasonable to wonder how US expressions of concern for human rights anywhere can be taken very seriously? And of course, US military lawyers who have spoken out in defense of the rights of prisoners in Guantanamo have done so in part because of their expressed concern about how US soldiers taken prisoner might be treated in retaliation.

Conclusion

In conclusion I would note, some of us believe that the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq demonstrate that relying on traditional national security concepts while ignoring other aspects of our increasingly interconnected world can be fraught with peril and that a more globalized concept of human security needs to be explored. Terrorism is a threat that must be countered – whether it is terrorism practiced by an individual, a group or a state. The proliferation of WMD is a serious challenge to our collective security. But perhaps new and visionary responses to these threats need to be explored.

In the globalized world, I believe we must change the way we think, the way we talk and the way we approach the problems of the world – including the global threat of terrorism. Understanding the terrorist threat does not mean simply being able to identify the countries from which the terrorists come or where they operate. We must understand the underlying inequalities and competing political forces that result in people being willing to die and take innocents with them to make a political and ideological point. We must be willing to honestly assess what a “war” on terrorism really means. And if the extremely difficult task of dealing with terrorism has really been done any service at all by naming it a “war.”

In a world increasingly dominated by the few, who give the perception of not caring much for the needs of the many, asymmetrical responses will likely seem to be the only way for the desperate and disenfranchised to try to equalize the playing field. There is something wrong in a world that in 1998, for example, spent almost three-quarters of a trillion dollars on weapons and defense while spending $6 billion on education globally. There is something not quite right in a world where 3 billionaires have more income than the 48 poorest countries in the world combined. Until we work together as a global community to address the common threats to human security posed by gross political, social and economic inequalities we will not live in a secure world.

But if we are indeed a global community, I believe that new coalitions must seek new solutions to seemingly intractable problems. We cannot not abdicate our individual and collective responsibilities to participate in developing new strategies and policies to ensure our collective security. Just as we did in the landmine ban movement or in the creation of the International Criminal Court, governments, international institutions and civil society must accept the challenges of working together to seek new ways to address threats to our common security. No one government, no one institution, can possibly provide for the needs of us all.

The call to challenge accepted thinking about how to address violence or the myriad challenges to human security must not be dismissed as a “weak response” to security threats in the globalized world. Change will not happen over night. But that should not be an excuse to not seek change. It is possible to reverse the slide to further ideologically driven division and increased violence.

Almost anything is possible when there is sufficient will. Some would contend that in these difficult and uncertain times, building such will is impossible. I believe we need to challenge ourselves to specialize in the impossible. Often, it only takes a handful of people to be catalysts to real and meaningful change that makes the world a little bit better place for us all. For me. For you. For your children. And for your children’s children.

THANK YOU.