Food Security Is Not The Answer

Food Security alone is not the answer. Today, food security is the new buzz word in the development world and Uganda’s political corridors. On the upside, this signifies a new approach from development agencies and the Uganda government alike, to matters of security. Unfortunately, all the noble efforts to achieve food security in isolation from the other basic components of Human Security (health, economic, individual, community, environmental and political security) are set to fail or in the least, be counterproductive if pursued outside the broader scope of the Human Security paradigm. Presently, food security is being touted as the panacea to the decades of conflict and poverty that have plagued northern Ugandan (see New vision Monday 26th 2009). The government of Uganda and many development agencies are now bent double trying to ensure food security in a region plagued by conflict, poverty and disease hoping that it will end violent conflict in Uganda once and for all, and also reconcile past misunderstandings in one big swoop. However, food security in isolation, cannot guarantee security and without a holistic implementation of Human Security. Still, choosing food security means that government and development agencies have opened their eyes to the broad nature of security issues in the 21st century and Human Security can only be achieved by holistically applying all the different components of the paradigm. However, choosing the theme of food security is monumental primarily because it shows a genuine commitment from Uganda’s leaders to end their people’s woes, and secondly, because it appears to constitute a gradual shift from the traditional military dominant conceptions of security widely held in Uganda. “Security” in Uganda is traditionally defined in terms of “national security,” a concept with roots stemming from the Treaty of Westphalia and Realist ideology, where states are the primary actors, and their survival is the main pre-occupation. At the end of colonialism Uganda inherited this Westphalian-model state which views security purely in terms of protecting national sovereignty and territorial integrity, and treated these principles as it’s most fundamental and legitimate concerns. Consequently, the notion of “security” has had noxious consequences for Uganda. In part, this is a result of the legacy of colonial administrations, which tended to view security in the very narrow sense of “establishment and maintenance of colonial hegemony”, causing extraordinary coercion and violence, directed against subject populations. This notion that the regime, and not its subjects, was the appropriate referent object survived the transition into independent Uganda. Here, it combined with the equally unfortunate legacy of the Westphalian state system that did not accord well with political and economic realities or with the true nature of security threats. Consequently, this encouraged a “military-dominant conception of security” that held the principal challenge to security to be posed by the military forces of other states. This justified the acquisition and maintenance of large military establishments, often without much threat analysis or reference to other pressing needs of the state.

So what is Human Security? The 1994 human development reports definition of Human Security equates security with people rather than territories and with development rather than arms. However, the genealogy of the idea can be traced back to growing dissatisfaction with prevailing notions of development and security in the 1960’s, 1970’s and 1980’s. Economics undoubtedly led the way with its critiques of the dominant models of economic development starting in the 1960’s. In the mid 1970’s the ‘World Order Models Project’ launched an ambitious effort to envision and construct a more stable and just world order, and as a part of this endeavor drew attention to the problem of individual well being and safety.” Broadly however, Human Security is achieved when and where individuals and communities have the options necessary to end, mitigate, or adapt to threats to their human, environmental and social rights; and have the capacity and freedom to exercise these options and actively participate in attaining these options. Human Security applies most at the level of the individual citizen. It amounts to human well being; not only protection from harm and injury but access to other basic requisites that are the due of every person on earth. While material sufficiency lies at the core of Human Security, the concept encompasses non material dimensions to form a qualitative whole…..the quantitative aspect refers to material sufficiency that the pursuit of Human Security must have at its core. The qualitative aspect of Human Security is about the achievement of human dignity, which incorporates personal autonomy, control over one’s life and unhindered participation in the life of the community. By focusing on people, Human Security renders meaningless the consideration of traditional territorial boundaries; even the nation and the state cannot be accorded a higher priority. The Basic Ideals of Human Security How safe and free are we as individuals? That is the central question behind the idea of Human Security. It’s not a new question, but it is one that has stirred up debate between policy makers and thinkers. After the Cold War, governments’ NGOs’, International Organizations, and ordinary citizens are now in position to explore that question as never before and to act to enlarge the envelope of safety and freedom. The major work legitimizing the importance of current Human Security studies, the UNDP’s Human Development Report 1994, set forth “seven main categories” of “threats to Human Security.” These tenets are described briefly below. Economic Security The measure of an individual’s or a group’s economic security is based on a twofold claim that factors in a person’s financial resources and whether the possibility exists to use these resources to satisfy basic needs. In order for economic security to be guaranteed, either “an assured basic income – usually from productive and remunerative work” must exist for individuals or “in the last resort from some publicly financed safety net.” Threats to this form of security derive from such wide-ranging causes as widespread corruption, environmental disasters, a state’s economic policies, or even the faceless danger of globalization. Examples of threats to economic security in the region are numerous. One such instance came in the 1990’s, when many citizens

of a deeply indebted Kenya became economically insecure after their government allowed itself to be fleeced by corrupt government officials of billions of dollars worth of Kenyan tax payers money in what came to be known as the Goldenberg scandal. While Kenya’s overvalued shilling allowed the newly rich (corrupt Government officials and individuals) to hoard profits abroad, members of the working and middle classes suffered. No adequate social safety net existed to aid the unemployed, and workers often received no earnings as their employers slipped into arrears, causing massive economic insecurity. This manifested itself in the institutionalized corruption and social insecurity that characterized Kenyan life in the 1990’s and in many ways led to the discontent that triggered post election violence in 2007. This case conveys how poor government policy, threats stemming from globalization, and economic inequality can endanger a state’s and invariably a regions security. Food and Health Security Food security means more than food availability as it touches on a wide range of aspects. The UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) for instance, articulates food security from a multi-dimensional angle, where food security, is defined as inclusive of adequacy in food supply (both quality and quantity), stable and sustainable food supply and accessibility to available food for all and at all times. This implies that all people regardless of sex, age, class and race/ethnicity are at all times guaranteed physical, economic and psychological access to quality food to meet both physiological and nutrient requirements. Contributing to the FAO definition, the World Bank defines food security as, “access to enough food by all people at all times for ensuring a healthy and active lifestyle.” “The Rural Food Security Research and Policy Group (KIHACHA) based at the University of Dar es Salaam (2002) added a human rights element to the definition of food security. Its supporting argument is based on the fact that food security is a matter of human life.” Food and health security require not only that resources exist, but also that they be made available to those in need. In the case of the Bengal famine of 1943, the availability of food did not translate into food security. Over 2 million people died in one year on the Indian sub-continent from starvation and malnutrition despite increases in food production levels in that area. The British colonial government did nothing to prevent hoarding by producers or the massive inflation that raised food prices out of the range of the poverty stricken population. Environmental Security The degradation of the environment is the security threat that best represents the theme of interconnectedness in Human Security theory. Threats such as natural disasters and pollution do not respect state borders. One such potential threat is climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates global temperatures will increase by as much as 5.8°C from the period of 1990 to 2100. The IPCC predicts such increases in temperature could result in global problems including floods, droughts, “altered food productivity, and the likely disturbance of complex ecological systems like tropical forests.” More easily avoidable threats, such as the “giant Soviet Mayak plutonium plant that dumped radioactive waste in a nearby river … affecting more than

450,000 people with radiation,” also fall into this category. These examples show the massive scale and destructive capabilities of security threats neglected by realist thought due to the lack of military causation. Personal and Community Security “Personal security refers to the protection of individuals from physical violence. Threats include: domestic violence and other criminal activity, torture or detention by one’s own state, and military invasion by a foreign state. Community security is focused on the protection of groups threatened by other, more powerful entities.” Perhaps the most important threat to these two issue areas of Human Security is the crime of genocide. When an ensemble of individuals or a state systematically attempts to exterminate an entire group, borders are not necessarily crossed and sovereignty is not necessarily challenged. This would imply traditional security studies do not view genocide as a security threat. Such a position seems absurd when one considers descriptions of almost a million Rwandans macheted to death and the devastating accounts of the Nazi concentration camps. Political Security The concept of political security is based on democratic government and the protection of human rights. This issue is perhaps the strongest tenet of Human Security theory and separates it most clearly from the traditional model. Human rights violations are often perpetrated by states upon their own citizens with the goal of protecting “national security.” However, such policy can often lead to a loss of legitimacy of the government and the eventual breakdown of the entire state. This is especially the case where the military is used as a tool of repression. A strong military does not necessarily provide security to either states or individuals.

Recommendations for a broader approach to security Putting Human Security at the top of the agenda: A broad initiative must be mobilized to place Human Security concerns at the top of Uganda’s security agenda. Human Security issues need to be mainstreamed into local and international development efforts to broaden the understanding of threats to security and stability, to include issues such as environmental degradation, HIV/AIDS as well as serious human rights violations. This scope must further be broadened to include an array of other Human Security concerns, so that mechanisms can be developed to respond to them when they arise. This requires emphasizing the security of people parallel with military security. It also calls for the inclusion of normative frameworks into national policy and calls for new programmes to address the specific insecurities of different communities and groups. Putting Human Security at the top of the security agenda would change the way that local, national and regional actors pursue their missions by first of all calling for the integration of development concerns with the activities of human rights and humanitarian organizations. It would also call for a renewed emphasis on the millennium development goals by addressing conflict and human rights violations; finally, it would also call for the enhancement of official development assistance to accommodate these new perspectives. It is also recommended that Uganda enter into meaningful partnerships with developed countries that support the Human Security agenda. The governments of Norway, Japan and Canada have explicitly expressed their willingness to promote the Human Security agenda, and indeed support Human Security drives. Indeed, the fact that all three countries are already involved one way or the other in development projects within Uganda makes it easier for national stakeholders to find an entry point into negotiations on Human Security concerns. Promoting and empowering people and communities to promote a culture of Human Security: It is recommended that the government of Uganda promote the protection of Human Security with the same force of its responses to the many threats to state security because Human Security aims to do just that; to build protective infrastructure that shields people’s lives from critical and pervasive threats. That infrastructure includes working institutions at all levels of society for example the police, environmental regulatory bodies, basic health care projects, education systems, diplomatic missions and Early warning systems for crises and conflict. This will lead to the ability of people to be able to act on their own behalf or on the behalf of others, which is central to the realization of Human Security.

Empowered people tend to demand respect for their rights and dignity when they are violated. They also tend to create new opportunities for work and to address their problems locally. Empowered people also mobilize action and resources for the security of others. However, a sensitisation of Uganda’s people on the concept is required before implementation to increase awareness of Human Security. To achieve this, the government also has to be empowered with more institutional structures for mobilizing local and regional resources and technologies to more effectively monitor Human Security in the region Deepening democratic principles and practices: Uganda should garner resources for the construction of viable foundations for democratisation and the respect for the rule of law, as these are central pillars to the realization of Human Security and its propagation in the region. To do this, it is recommended that an advisory body on matters of Human Security, democratisation and human rights be created to monitor the progress of these principles. A democratic political order, buttressed by physical safety and economic growth, would help protect and empower Uganda’s people. Respecting democratic principles is a necessary step towards attaining Human Security and development because it enables people to participate in matters of their governance, and to make their voices heard. Deepening democratic principles and practices at all levels, would mitigate the many threats to National Human Security. However, this requires building strong institutions as well as emphasizing the rule of law and the safety of people. Preventing conflict and promoting Human Security and development in Uganda: Preventing conflict ought to be put high on Uganda’s security agenda. Its concentration on economic cooperation tends to leave out matters of regional security from regional integration discourses. More emphasis should also be placed on education, poverty reduction and equity. To achieve this, the prevention of regional conflict should be reemphasized. Recognizing that protecting people should be the sole responsibility of all communities alike is an important step. However, Uganda faces the challenge of translating this common responsibility into concrete policies and actions. By strengthening the role of civil society organizations, uganda would guarantee strong communities, which in turn would prevent conflict by more effectively articulating group goals, monitoring abuses of power, and proposing effective solutions to grievances. Development advances freedom by enhancing people’s capabilities and choices enabling them to actively participate in all spheres of life. It was also found that the freedoms people enjoy, also depended on social, economic and political arrangements. It is therefore recommended that by promoting the basic economic security of people

and communities through poverty reduction campaigns and raising the standards of living by making people more resilient to political, economic and financial downturns would have a substantial impact on security in Uganda. It is again emphasized here, that to achieve this effectively, the East African Community needs a stronger mandate in matters of regional security and democratization. The experience of countries in the developed world shows that the process of integration for economic purposes can also serve as the basis for the consolidation of peace and security. Effective regional integration has a major role to play in helping the region address these and other security concerns that would normally be left out of the traditional security debate. The formation of the East African Federation would be a milestone for the region and would help increase focus on broader security concerns in the region. By attracting FDI, besides bringing more foreign exchange to the regions coffers, would enable domestic producers to build up their capacities and consequently stimulate regional economic growth, which would in turn guarantee economic security for millions in the region. Conclusion Conclusively, the wide usage of the Human Security model to cover many issue areas may be construed as all encompassing, which can become problematic. While previously neglected threats gain greater attention in this dynamic, the vast scope of the definition creates a blurry line between that which should be a security concern for policy makers and that which should not. Critics of the model justly raise the question as to whether any threat of any kind falls outside of the category of “threats to Human Security.” This is truly an area of concern because universal application could result in a total loss of meaning. However, it is impossible to deny the fact that many of the threats discussed above have the potential to be extremely devastating to a group’s, an individual’s, or even a state’s security. It is also important to note that adherents to the concept of national security generally ignore these dangers. The general principles of Human Security contained in this paper can be used to help solve problems of application.   

Threats to security are not limited to those posed by the military of foreign states. Human Security is not a zero-sum game because all people on this planet are fundamentally interconnected. Human Security focuses on people instead of states.

This explanation of the term can be used as a criterion for forward-thinking states and international organizations to measure the true security of human beings. From this point, governing bodies can begin to prioritize threats and to formulate policy to counter the most dangerous and elusive threats to regional and Human Security. States must undertake this same basic process when assessing threats under the traditional national security model. Both models require a process of analysis, assumption and prioritization. However, highest priority cannot and should not always be given to the possible threats presented by the military capabilities of other states. In the case of Human Security, the state is less of a priority and therefore more likely to be effective in

counteracting threats to individuals and groups. This enhanced role may serve to protect a state’s “national security” from a threat that would probably be neglected under a traditional security paradigm. evidently, the present approach to understand human insecurity and inherently the causes of human insecurity in Uganda is set to be counterproductive as well fed people start to demand more of their other inherent rights to education and a cleaner environment, access to quality healthcare and protection from economic shocks.