Security – global safety or collective danger?: Difference between revisions

Security – global safety or collective danger? (view source)

Revision as of 17:49, 28 December 2009

3,891 bytes added , 17:49, 28 December 2009

no edit summary

Ilknur Yilmaz

25

edits

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 Thus the security policies of domestic politics are getting developed, because they have to be transformed to be adapted to the current situation of the globalized world where domestic borders and policies do not safe not the national population neither the world population. “The shifting demands on international security will also transform the domestic politics of security policy” (Reinicke, Wolfgang H 1997 p. 8) The changes in international interdependences and correlations in this process of globalisation forms new requirements on the global security policy.
 The question is if it will be possible to formulate global valid security policies that will not legitimate ones to interventions (for instance just as Bush’ “new national security strategy” that legitimates preventive wars even against law of nations and the UNO-Charta), and discriminate the others by restricting their ability to act.
+=== Conclusion ===
+The process of globalisation is a widespread topic that includes different fields of life. One if these is the issue of security, the security of the domestic stability and one nation's population, just as the security of the global population, no matter of nationality, standard of living, educational level, religion or ethnicity.
+Despite of the association with positive aspects just as progress and improvement, the elaboration above points out, that there are also risks for the global population that result from the process of globalisation. In contrast to the increasing of border-crossing merging of different cultures and living environments there is an increasing gap between the global population that is participating the process of globalisation and the part of the global population that is kind of excluded from this process.  An “asymmetric structure of global governance that favours the rich and the powerful while placing the poor and the weak at a considerable disadvantage” (Griffin, 2001, p.6) can be made out.
+This situation fuels suspicion and distrust towards “the other” in an “integrated” world, what is a contradiction in terms.
+The conclusion from this is the worldwide increasing need for safety what is nowadays has become equal with surveillance. Thus there results another problem: the conflict between the surveillance and control for safety and security in contrast to the protection of one’s privacy, what was always defended as a fundamental right that has to be protected.
+But in this process where the distrust towards “the other” and the fear of terrorism are increasing, a significant part of the population is willing to abandon privacy for safety.
+A good example would be the situation in Great Britain, where about 4 million CCTV (Closed-circuit television) cameras are installed for deterrence, crime prevention and surveillance.  But the consequence is not the increase of safety and a secure living, but the rising fear, observation and personal control, invasion of privacy, assimilation of the people and their different lifestyles and the increasing mutual suspicion.  Furthermore this observation is used for more exclusion, because specific groups of the population, for instance groups like homeless people, can be located, observed and also displaced from places where they are undesired.
+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 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.