Position Papers
The Anthropocene represents a challenge to other understanding of security
The Anthropocene is a proposed geological period dating from the commencement of man’s significant impact on the earth’s ecosystems and geology. Though the term has not been recognized as a subdivision of geological time, proposals for official approval by the International Union of Geological Science and the International Commission on Stratigraphy have been made. The word Anthropocene is derived from two words: “anthropo” meaning human and “cene” meaning epoch. The Anthropocene is seen as part of the Holocene epoch that commenced over 11000 years ago. It presents a new challenge to social and natural sciences by claiming that humanity is entwined around numberless temporalities, spaces, scales and beings. It is this entwinement that changes our understanding of security. In this paper, I argue that the Anthropocene presents a challenge to other understandings of security.
In understanding how the Anthropocene presents a challenge to other understandings of security, it is important to understand what the Anthropocene condition and security mean. The Anthropocene is a condition in which man’s impact on the environment sparks uncertainty over the future conditions for human beings and other forms of life on earth. With intergenerational and unpredictable outcomes, the Anthropocene is about securing the future with regards to contingency and risk management. Hence insecurity in the Anthropocene is now a global issue. In other words, the complexity and scale off the Anthropocene demands the abandonment of outdates of bounded, rational and atomistic bodies and units. This is the subject of previous security disciplines such as international relations. In the new Anthropocene, security is framed as a shift from specific physical threats and referent objects to the redefinition of the human condition and a new earth system. Therefore, security in the new Anthropocene epoch demands the recognition of man’s entanglement to countless complicated spatiotemporal connections made evident through Earth system sciences, geological investigations and geophysical examinations. Securing safety in the Anthropocene requires more than the avoidance of physical conflict; it calls for the recognition of ripples and shockwaves that the spatiotemporal entanglement causes. Therefore, it demands that humans alter their daily activities to account for uncertainties in the future. If humans accept the new Anthropocene, then the understanding of security must change to account for physical survival in the present by considering future uncertainties. Hence the understanding of security moves beyond focusing on the individual. This is because the entanglement of humans with other creatures makes the entire Earth system the focus.
The Anthropocene dissolves the traditional comprehensions of death and stable order, which are an important aspect of ontological security. Ontological security relates the self to objects of uncertainty and practices of ordering. In ontology, humans secure their self by positioning practices and people within shared social contexts of continuation and repetition. All meaningful security practices gravitate around death since they are all aimed at avoiding death. The Anthropocene challenges this understanding by focusing on the uncertain and indeterminate the earth, humanity and the future. Indeed, the Anthropocene condition compels us to secure the future conditions of life and humanity on earth.
In conclusion, the Anthropocene represents a challenge to other understandings of security. In this human-made geological period, humans are faced with spatiotemporal uncertainty and discontinuity. With the ontological understanding of security, death is the object and knowledge. However, this has been replaced by the Anthropocene’s uncertainty and discontinuity. Humans now need to their present and future self. In response to the challenge, many scholars use the concept of entanglement to explain the new relationship between humans and nature. Entanglement suggests ontological certitude during uncertainty.
Resilience allows donors to avoid responsibility in the Global South. Discuss
Resilience is the ability of individuals, communities and countries to absorb and recover from shocks while positively transforming their ways of living and adapting to new living standards in the wake of uncertainties and long-term changes. Resilience has gathered expansive international attention over the past two years. This is because of the increasing knowledge of how different risks are linked. With such interconnections, people need to work closely together to address the challenges. However, donors have used resilience to avoid responsibility, particularly in the Global South, which is still developing. The Global South consists of poor and less developed countries that are often faced with challenges. In this paper, I argue that donors use resilience to avoid responsibility in these countries.
Currently, everyone claims to be building resilience. However, donors use different meanings of resilience to avoid financial responsibility, among other responsibilities. According to the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, resilience is the ability of a community, society or system exposed to risks to absorb, resist, accommodate and recover from the outcomes of a hazard in an efficient and timely manner. According to the United Kingdom’s Department, resilient countries and societies are those that can maintain or transform living standards in the event of stresses or shocks. However, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) claims that these definitions largely focus on response to shocks rather than preparation for them or preventive measures against them. This is an example of how international donors use resilience to avoid responsibility. Given these ineffective definitions, the UNDP proposes the definition of resilience as a transformative process aimed at reinforcing the capacity to manage and recover from the effects of risks.
Besides having different meanings used to avoid responsibility, resilience has no standard measure. Therefore donors just do as they wish, hence avoiding key responsibilities. This behaviour is particularly common in the fields of climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. In these two fields, there is a need for donors to measure something that has not yet happened. However, the lack of standard measures in resilience enables these organizations to avoid responsibility. In 2012, the Swedish Development Cooperation Agency pointed out the need for resilience measurement indicators to prove that communities had adapted to risks. Though there have been attempts in the recent past to determine performance indicators for resilience, all this effort might be futile given the changing definition of resilience by donors.
Meanwhile, most donors would like to know how their funds are making people more resilient. Statistical measures of resilience, such as access to water and nutrition indicators, could increase the awareness of resilience. However, other factors, such as the capacity to adapt and confidence, cannot be quantified easily. Therefore, donors in related fields are sceptical about giving their money to a resilience project whose outcome cannot be determined. In that way, resilience allows them to avoid responsibility. The United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) has been working to determine whether qualitative and quantitative data can be used to assess resilience in a community in Somalia. It is through such approaches that donors can be convinced to invest their funds in humanitarian assistance programs.
In conclusion, the lack of precise definition and measurement parameters for resilience helps donors avoid responsibility. Moving forward, a clear and concise definition should be adopted worldwide. Besides, measurement parameters for resilience should be determined. In this way, more donors will be willing to invest their funds in community assistance programs.
Liberal peace is a form of New Imperialism. Discuss
Imperialism is an ideology of a country extending its rule over foreign states by gaining economic and political control over them or by military force. Imperialism started as early as 300 BC. Imperialism was particularly evident between the 16th and 19th centuries when Britain colonized the Americas. However, America gained independence, and a new form of imperialism arose. New Imperialism was defined by the colonial expansion of Japan, Russia, the Western European powers and the United States. These countries battled through the acquisition of overseas territories, focusing on building their newly acquired territories using modern technologies. During the New Imperialism, most of Africa and parts of Asia were conquered by Japan and the Western powers. New Imperialism revealed the countries and the desire to acquire new resources and markets. However, many of the colonies gained independence after the Second World War. Later on, imperialism became a contradiction of international law. These powers had to find another way to maintain relevance. In this position paper, I argue that liberal peace is a new form of imperialism used by powerful countries.
Liberal peace is the strategy used by powerful countries to promote economic growth and democracy. Modern states use this strategy to build peace. The liberal peace strategies involve governance, humanitarian aid, democracy, development and security, among other factors. While promoting peace in a country is vital, liberal peace has turned into a battleground. Powerful and developed countries are now using liberal peace as a competition platform. In the 1990s, state-building emerged as a vital aspect of liberal peacebuilding. Over the last thirty years, liberal peacebuilding has been practised extensively in Africa, with the driving force being the promotion of liberal democratization and market-oriented policies. Many states have been on the verge of disintegration due to civil wars, conflicts and external interventions. Liberal peacebuilding experiments have been conducted in countries such as Somalia, Burundi, Sierra Leone, Rwanda and Congo.
In Somalia, for example, several powerful countries have been involved in the battle to bring peace to the war-torn nation. The United States has continuously sent troops to battle the Al-Shabaab terror group. Thus the United States has greatly contributed to peace in the country. In addition to directly engaging with the terror group, the United States has also contributed significant humanitarian aid to war victims. The United Kingdom has also contributed to the quest for peace in Somalia. Though the U.K. is less involved in direct combat with the terrorists, its troops have been training Kenyan troops. Since Kenya borders Somalia, it has been affected by the war in Somalia. The U.K. aims to prevent the intrusion of Al-Shabaab into Kenya. The example of Somalia shows how New-Imperialism is taking a new form – powerful countries are trying to bring peace to war-torn countries and “take charge” of them.
The United States has been largely involved in liberal peace missions. It has sent its troops to war-torn countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Vietnam and South Sudan. After these countries gain peace, they pay some kind of allegiance to the U.S. For example, the relations between Vietnam and the U.S. became stronger after the Vietnam War. Currently, there are more Vietnamese students studying in the United States than in most countries. This is an indication of how the Vietnamese appreciate American education, pointing to some new form of colonialism. Another example is between the U.K. and Sierra Leone. British forces intervened to end the Sierra Leone civil war, and the impact was some kind of perceived dependence of Sierra Leone on the U.K.
In conclusion, liberal peace is a new form of imperialism. Powerful countries send troops to war-torn countries, where they try to showcase their military might and power to competing countries. However, unlike the new imperialism of the colonial period, this new type of imperialism has positive outcomes.