• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Robin Luckham - Security and Development Synergies or Contradictions

Robin Luckham - Security and Development Synergies or Contradictions



Robin Luckham - Security and Development Synergies or Contradictions

Robin Luckham - Security and Development Synergies or Contradictions
Presentation given at conference on 17/18 November in honour of Sir Richard Jolly



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



1 Embed 1

http://unjobs.org 1



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Robin Luckham - Security and Development Synergies or Contradictions Robin Luckham - Security and Development Synergies or Contradictions Presentation Transcript

    • Security and Development: Synergies or Contradictions? Robin Luckham
    • Outline
      • Rethinking security: a hydra-headed and deeply contested concept
      • What if anything has changed since the end of the Cold War?
      • Security and development: synergies or contradictions?
    • The “indivisibility of security, economic development and human freedom” (UN: A More Secure World 2004)
    • Rethinking security
      • Security is a contested concept with multiple discursive registers. Who talks security? Whose security? From what threats or risks?
      • It carries heavy historical baggage: Hobbesian sovereignty; the Westphalian state system; state-building; nationalism.
      • Power backed by violence: Weber ‘the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force’. Deep issues about control and accountability.
      • Seen as a public good: ‘collective’ or ‘common’ security globally; the state’s ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) nationally. Implied social contract.
      • Security is inherently hegemonic, tending to stabilize inequalities in power and wealth globally, regionally, nationally.
      • State-centered security is called in question by new discourses of ‘human’ or ‘citizen’ security. The latter are the bedrock of state security; yet are in deep tension with it.
    • Many Securities: a Hydra-headed Concept
      • ‘ International security’: the outward gaze of the modern state
      • ‘ National security’: the inner gaze of the modern state
      • ‘ Common’ or ‘collective’ security: a global public good
      • Security as hegemonic project in a world of unequal states (‘US security’, ‘Western security’ etc)
      • Security as risk-management: shift from traditional to new ‘threats’, e.g. climate change, resource scarcity, refugees, pandemics
      • ‘ Citizen security’ connected to state’s ‘sovereign responsibility to protect’
      • ‘ Human security’ as an entitlement of all human beings.
      • ‘ Security and development’: a new donor discourse
      • Security is a process of political and social ordering
      • maintained through authoritative discourses and practices
      • of power
      • Political power and legitimate violence is of the essence
      • States but also global, regional and local political orders
      • Risk management and stabilization of power and profit – not change
      • Hence inequality, including unequal security, is inherent
      • Security is an entitlement of citizens and more widely human
      • beings to protection from violence and other existential risks
      • Rights, legitimacy and consent; state power problem as well as solution
      • State’s ‘responsibility to protect’ shared with international community and citizens
      • Transformation of conditions generating insecurity, including bad governance and structural violence (poverty, insecure livelihoods etc)
      • Whose security? That of the poor, vulnerable, marginalized and oppressed
    • The Arms-length Relationship Between Security and Development During the Cold War
      • Superpower rivalries and security policies were a major determinant of insecurity in the developing world: spreading and prolonging civil or proxy wars; encouraging military spending and arms trade; supporting military regimes and national security states
      • Issues of peace and security were largely ignored by mainstream development institutions as beyond their mandates and too political
      • Yet development tended to be instrumentalized as a tool of security policy: viz Alliance for Progress; counterinsurgency (COIN); ‘security and development’ (Carlucci Commission).
      • Critical approaches concentrated on peace and development , including the relationships between direct and structural violence, negative and positive peace – rather than security.
      • UN and other reform initiatives like the Brandt and Palme Commissions prioritized disarmamen t and development : cuts in military spending and arms trade; transfer of resources to development; not security per se
    • How Security and Development was (re)invented after the Cold War
      • Perceived escalation of civil wars (though the long run trend has been reduced frequency, intensity and impact: HSR 2009/10)
      • Perceived changes in modes of warfare : ‘new’, ‘networked’, ‘asymmetric’ wars + terrorism (though how much has really changed is open to debate)
      • Theory and practice of security broadened : human and citizen security alongside state and international security
      • Forging of a new, more activist, peacemaking and humanitarian consensus using force as well as diplomacy to ‘resolve’ humanitarian crises: ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) etc
      • Liberal peace : political and economic liberalization part of peace-building
      • Emergence of governance as a major development concern – and its extension to post-conflict stabilization and state-building
      • Disarmament downgraded, except in specialized forms like landmines, small arms
      • Muscular geopolitics did not vanish but took new forms: humanitarian military interventions, ‘coalitions of the willing’, war on terror
    • An intensified development-security interface post-Cold War
      • Preventive diplomacy : many more international and regional mediation and peace missions
      • More UN and non-UN peace support operations (threefold increase)
      • Development policies/ programmes address security : DDR, SSR, stabilization
      • Military doctrine/practice incorporates development and humanitarian issues: CIMIC, COIN, PRTs etc
      • Expanded disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) programmes (ninefold)
      • Human rights and post-conflict justice prioritized and linked to the international responsibility to protect
      • Security sector reform (SSR) added to donor arsenal ; and widened to include non-state as well as state security and justice
      • Stabilization has become an explicit donor concern , linked to post-conflict peace-building/state-building
    • Multi-level Governance of (In)Security The Multiple Dimensions of (In)Security Violence/insecurity Economic dislocations Other existential risks Global Muscular geopolitics Proliferation of WMD Globally networked violence; terrorism Ungoverned capitalism Global financial shocks Illicit trade/capital flows Climate change Health pandemics North-South and regional Insecurity ‘blowback’ to North Regional conflict complexes. New centres of profit and power: BRICs etc Poorest countries bear the brunt? Competition over water, land, resources Regional and N-S population displacements National Lame Leviathans lose monopolies of violence Ungoverned spaces Privatised security Adjustment to global shocks harms development Deepening horizontal and vertical inequality ‘ Complex humanitarian emergencies’ Damaged environments, famine, disease, displacement Community and individual Non-state armed groups multiply Community, private and criminal violences Uneven impacts of development Insecure livelihoods; poverty and inequality Vulnerability to famine, disease, displacement Uneven distribution of risks between rich/poor
    • Conflict, Development and Durable Inequality
      • Development as conflict-prevention
      • Globalization conducive to both development and security
      • Conflict is development in reverse
      • Conflict destroys social capital
      • ‘ Greed’ drives violent conflict
      • War economies distort formal economies
      • Security and public order foster development
      • “ Seeing like a state”: national development, national security
      • Social and gender inclusion
      • Developmentization of security
      • A violence called development
      • Globalized insecurity and networked, asymmetric wars
      • Conflict is a source of accumulation
      • Conflict is a site of social innovation
      • ‘ Grievance’: durable inequality
      • War economies may revitalize informal economies
      • Hybrid forms of politics normalize insecurity
      • Peripheries and minorities excluded and securitized; horizontal inequality
      • Identity and gender-based violence
      • Securitization of development
    • Security: Liberal Peace or New Forms of Hegemony?
      • Liberal peace and human security
      • ‘ Indivisibility of security, economic development and human freedom’
      • Security as a global and national public good
      • State-centred security still prevails
      • Security as a universal entitlement
      • Human security the new yardstick for state security
      • States have sovereign responsibility to protect (R2P) their citizens
      • Global, regional, national, local securities interconnect
      • Security as a public good and entitlement of citizens
      • Pacification and privatization
      • Liberal peace conceals deep global inequalities in wealth and power
      • Unequal security, normalizing inequalities in power, status, wealth
      • New forms of risk bypass states
      • Territorial and social segregation
      • Deep tensions between human, citizen and state security
      • R2P and humanitarian intervention open door for war on terror etc
      • Asymmetries in global to local security/development nexus
      • Privatization: appropriation of security as private asset
    • Donors and security: humanitarian or hegemonic?
      • Developmentization of Security
      • Conflict-sensitive humanitarian and development assistance
      • Stabilization and rebuilding ‘fragile’, ‘post-conflict’ states
      • Cooperation among military, donors, humanitarians, NGOs
      • Standardized analytical and policy templates for DDR, SSR, SSAJ etc
      • Emphasis on ‘local ownership’ of policies and programmes
      • Human security and poverty-reduction prioritized
      • Gender incorporated in policies and programmes
      • Security reforms ensure greater accountability
      • Securitization of Development
      • Humanitarianism can impose double punishment on poor
      • Reinforcement of hybrid forms of politics and ongoing conflicts
      • Lack of coherence: conflicting goals, resources, methods
      • Policy templates don’t fit complex, fast changing realities
      • Policy templates function as imposed ‘regimes of truth’
      • Human security can downplay agency of poor and vulnerable
      • Women’s vulnerability in practice, rather than their agency
      • Security reforms reinforce prevailing power relations
    • Some concluding reflections
      • Security’s seamy side cannot be wished away. It has to be factored into empirical analysis and policy practice
      • Whether the ‘security and development’ or the critical ‘securitization’ narrative is more convincing is an empirical question in particular national and historical circumstances; neither narrative should be assumed a priori
      • The two narratives are often two sides of the same coin; for instance humanitarian assistance can both help vulnerable people and prolong violence; or conversely national security policies may both violate human rights and ‘work’ to end conflict and foster growth, as in Sri Lanka.
      • There may be contrasting stories at macro, meso and micro levels: for instance functioning and relatively secure democracies with major pockets of insecurity (as in Kashmir in India; or Brazilian favelas ); or conversely pockets of relative security in otherwise conflict-torn situations like Somaliland/Somalia
      • ‘ The international community’ is not united or neutral, having its own forms of politics, and mediating its interventions via diverse local actors (including even militias or warlords, as in DRC or Afghanistan). Arguably a new ‘indirect rule’?
      • Security is not fool-proof against historical change. Even seemingly solid national security structures are vulnerable to new forms of protest as in the ‘Arab springs’; but they also try to coopt change or divert it through the backdoor, as in Egypt
      • Economic crisis and new centres of power and profit are fast changing the historical conditions which created the security-development-liberal peace nexus