25
edits
Security – global safety or collective danger?: Difference between revisions
Security – global safety or collective danger? (view source)
Revision as of 17:23, 23 January 2010
, 17:23, 23 January 2010→Conclusion
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
Although these systems have been installed to reach more security, the results are not that commendable. On July 22nd 2005, Jean Charles de Menezes, as a part of the globalised world, who came to Britain for his academic education and better future prospect, was shot down as a victim of a so called “counterterrorism operation”, because he acted or looked “suspicious”. Despite of so many CCTV cameras that are installed for the population’s security, there were no evidence to proof this happening. | Although these systems have been installed to reach more security, the results are not that commendable. On July 22nd 2005, Jean Charles de Menezes, as a part of the globalised world, who came to Britain for his academic education and better future prospect, was shot down as a victim of a so called “counterterrorism operation”, because he acted or looked “suspicious”. Despite of so many CCTV cameras that are installed for the population’s security, there were no evidence to proof this happening. | ||
This happening is an example for the resulting problem. The people of the globalised world have to be protected from threat and danger, referring to this Britain’s populations was also willing to give up their privacy for more safety. But this happening shows that in the global public, every single one can be suspected as “danger”. Thus this shows that all these security arrangements and precautions can become a fate for innocents. | This happening is an example for the resulting problem. The people of the globalised world have to be protected from threat and danger, referring to this Britain’s populations was also willing to give up their privacy for more safety. But this happening shows that in the global public, every single one can be suspected as “danger”. Thus this shows that all these security arrangements and precautions can become a fate for innocents. | ||
Thus a typical security measure nowadays to transform the necessity of solutions to a state level is the increase of surveillance. But the surveillance, the observation and exclusion of specific groups and “suspicious” people fuels the increasing gap, the increasing distrust and the leads to the shrinking of personal rights, safety and privacy. | |||
But the case of Menezes shows, that waiving the personal rights and one’s privacy cannot guarantee a national or global safety and security. | |||
How right and useful can it be to give up one’s personal safety for the global safety? How can it be possible to feel safe in the global world, as part of the globalised world, while trembling of maybe looking suspicious? The global world cannot be a safe place to live while every human being trembles of making anything wrong, illegal or suspicious. | |||
A way to a safer world and to security would be to reduce the source and the causes that lead into crime and violence instead of increasing the surveillance and fueling the fear of the population. For instance in case of the rising fear of terrorism and the suspicion of every dark haired Muslim to be a potential terrorist, these potential suspects should be more integrated in the process of globalisation to prevent an exclusion and a rising gap. That is to say that maybe social questions and the intercultural dialog has to be encouraged and advanced. | |||
This conclusion should clarify the difficult situation of globalisation concerning the security of the global population. It is pointed out that the term “globalisation” is not always to be associated with progress for every person or every part of the world in the same way, just as it should be comprehensible that security arrangements, for instance border-crossing agreements or national installed applications, are not that simple to estimate concerning their effect and result concerning the progress of a current situation. | This conclusion should clarify the difficult situation of globalisation concerning the security of the global population. It is pointed out that the term “globalisation” is not always to be associated with progress for every person or every part of the world in the same way, just as it should be comprehensible that security arrangements, for instance border-crossing agreements or national installed applications, are not that simple to estimate concerning their effect and result concerning the progress of a current situation. | ||