5.2. What is security?

At its most basic, security implies freedom from threats. Human existence and the life of a country are full of threats. Does that mean that every single threat counts as a security threat? Every time a person steps out of his or her house, there is some degree of threat to their existence and way of life.

This chunk explains that security fundamentally means being free from threats, whether on a personal level or at the level of a nation. It poses the question of whether all threats should be considered security threats. For example, on an everyday basis, a person faces various levels of threat to their safety when they go outside. Therefore, determining what constitutes a security threat can be complex.

Think of a home security system. It is designed to protect you from intrusions, fires, or leaks. However, if you start to count every noise or shadow you see as a threat, it can become overwhelming. Similarly, in terms of national security, not every event can be labeled as a serious threat; otherwise, the country would be constantly in a state of alert.

Threats to core values should be regarded as extremely dangerous only if they could damage those values beyond repair if actions to contain the situation are not taken.

This piece reinforces the idea that not all threats weigh equally. It clarifies that security concerns should focus on significant threats that could irreversibly harm the core values of a society, such as freedom, safety, and sovereignty. For instance, if a nation is attacked militarily, it would consider this a major security threat compared to everyday crime.

Imagine a school facing minor issues like students being late versus a serious threat such as a fire. While lateness is a concern, the immediate response needs to be focused on the fire to ensure everyone’s safety. Similarly, nations must prioritize addressing severe threats over minor issues.

Security remains a slippery idea. Societies may not have had the same conception of what security means at different points in history or across different cultures.

This chunk highlights that the concept of security is not static; it changes over time and varies between cultures. Different societies may prioritize different security aspects based on their unique contexts and historical backgrounds. For instance, a country recovering from civil unrest may view internal stability as a primary security concern, whereas a country at peace might focus on external threats.

Consider how different communities approach safety. A neighborhood that has experienced high crime rates might prioritize strong policing, while a rural community might feel secure with community patrols and gatherings. Each community defines security based on its experiences and needs.

Traditional security focuses on military threats from other countries, while non-traditional security includes a wider range of dangers like environmental issues, health epidemics, and economic stability.

This section differentiates between traditional and non-traditional security. Traditional security often focuses on military alignment and external threats, such as aggressive actions from other nations. In contrast, non-traditional security broadens the focus to include challenges like climate change, public health crises, and economic inequalities, which can deeply impact human lives.

For example, while a country’s army may prepare for battles, it must also consider how pollution affects the health of its citizens or how a recession might threaten job security. Just as a healthy body requires regular check-ups and attention to diet, a secure nation must address a wide range of issues.

--