July 1, 2019
By: Alexandra Rojas and Marina Kumskova
At the recent 2019 EU-NATO Defense Forum, development was referred to as “soft power” in achieving security. This effectively summarizes a lot of what is wrong with today’s vision of security.
The world of security evolves very fast, characterized by a constant broadening of our definition of “security” and search for the most effective tools for achieving it.
Development is increasingly conceptualized as a tool for countering terrorism and violent extremism. This conceptualization though, is partly founded upon an assumption that those who commit terrorist acts come from poor and marginalized communities. And it is not without consequences: inevitably, this results in an increase of pressure on these communities through ongoing, irresponsible and illegal interventions that disrupt the lives of people within them.
As the United Nations prepares for the 5th High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) and review of the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16 on peaceful, just and inclusive societies, examining the relationship between security and development– and critically assessing the assumptions underlying these concepts– is crucial to ensure that the focus of development remains squarely on the empowerment of the people and the achievement of equality for all, rather than allow development (and the SDGs) to be co-opted for the realization of complete and militarized security.
The interconnedness of our frameworks for addressing counter-terrorism and violent extremism and that of deveopment is clear. SDG 16 aims to promote “peaceful and inclusive societies FOR sustainable development.” Within the goal’s framework, we find counter-terrorism targets: protecting victims of terrorism; building institutions that can prevent terrorism, including through inclusion; and addressing the use of the internet for terrorist purposes, financing of terrorism, hate speech and terrorism and armed violence.
It is also clear that they can be mutually reinforcing concepts. In many ways, efforts to counter terrorism can support development work and vice-versa.
However, in the security conversations, the debate seems to shifts its variables. Sustainable development somehow becomes a tool for achieving security or as an added benefit superseded by the security concerns, such as terrorism and violent extremism. Neither of these understandings look into the impact of such thinking on the ground, especially among the most marginalized communities.
It’s important to consider the question of who should be the target audience for the work to counter-terrorism and violent extremism. We must not forget that the composition of terrorist groups, such as DAESH, tells a more complicated story. When the system fails, which it inevitably does, it fails different groups differently. Those committing terrorist acts are pushed to commit crimes for different reasons. The dominant and oversimplified narrative does not account for those who join DAESH from privileged groups in the Northern hemisphere, some of whom have families, some of whom are well-educated professionals.
Not that we expect this understanding to appear in security debates any time soon.
Why? Because this way of thinking challenges the systems of power and questions the power of those who benefit from these systems.
Plus, it always seems easier to follow existing structures. Governments declare that security is needed first, before we can achieve development. Regular citizens tend to accept their governments’ declarations of terrorism as an existential threat, “legitimizing” the use of militarized force against anyone who may commit, aid or support acts of terrorism.
The problem is that security profiteers work to ensure that the traditional counter-terrorism agenda subsumes all other agendas, including sustainable development, human rights, and humanitarian work. It is in this way that security profiteers maintain their power, and they frequently do so at the expense of those working to create a better world. For example, healthcare professionals working in humanitarian crises face significant obstacles in providing medical assistance to those in need because vague definitions of terrorism result in interpretations of medical care as “illegitimate support.” What’s more, these professionals often operate under counter-terrorism policies that “justify [their] harassment, arrest and prosecution.” We can never look forward because “potential threats” exist outside the concept of time. “Threats” are always there, allowing security profiteers to make money out of conflicts, fulfill our political agendas, boost our own social status and win power over those we see as “weak.” The more current systems work to tackle “threats,” the more “threats” we find..
It would then seem that SDG 16– which takes as its focus human rights dimensions and corruption as well as a (debatable) focus on illicit arms transfers– has little capacity to make an impact because it places very little pressure on existing institutions and structures to change the way they operate.
We are right to be cynical. When we hear the term “inclusive,” it sets off an alarm. How many times have “inclusive” strategies been used by governments to justify the use of force and to realize their own goals? We have, far too often, seen women’s participation instrumentalized for purposes of “national security” and international acclaim. We’ve seen, far too often, women recruited just to fill another quota and to check another box. We’ve seen, far too often, that once women are taken into the system their capacity for questioning it is neutralized. Indeed, our friend in the U.S. military (name withheld) summarized it best :“… [the] army is good because you do not need to think; all is planned for you from the first to the last day of your contract.”
However, cynicism must not prevent action. We cannot stand idly by as security takes over the development agenda.
So, what can be done to advance development? The world community needs to start thinking about development as a goal in its own right and to reclaim its true purpose: the empowerment of all people. This demands a shift toward security for the individual, including stateless people and migrants, and the development of comprehensive, feminist models for peace rather than security, especially in the way we conceptualize and justify our investments. For example, when we invest in education, we must do so not because we believe it may prevent terrorism but because it is a fundamental right of every individual.
When we move on from the traditional concepts of security that plays on its dominance over every other aspect of life, when sustainable development will receive funding that is intended to change the lives of people, when participation stops being a tool and becomes a goal in and of itself, we will have achieved real progress in sustainable development.
