The concept of security is complex and varies depending on one's perspective and position in society.

- There are multiple actors involved in providing security, not just the state.

- The changing nature of security challenges requires recognizing the potential of different actors to
address them.

- Security is not a one-size-fits-all concept, and what may be considered secure for one person or group
may be seen as insecure for another.

- Imposing a single perspective on security can lead to conflicts and threaten global security.

- Traditional approaches to security, focused on physical violence between states, may overlook other
forms of violence and threats to security.

- Security institutions, like NATO and the Warsaw Pact, can be seen as threats to security due to their
promotion of confrontation and militarization.

- States that prioritize military spending over social welfare can also be seen as threats to security.

- The mentality of zero-sum, competitive thinking that dominated during the Cold War continues to
impact global security.

- Attempts to enforce security through military force can worsen conflicts and perpetuate violence.

- The security industry, focused on military solutions, can contribute to insecurity.

- Empowering elites to define and address security issues can lead to the disempowerment of the
majority.

- Promoting security for oneself without considering the security needs of others can lead to conflicts
and insecurity.
_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
- Traditional approaches to security and security guarantees have failed, as shown by recent events in
South Eastern Europe.

- Conventional conceptions of security focused on the security of the state and freedom from the threat
or use of force are inadequate for addressing the diverse range of challenges faced in the 21st century.

- New security issues constantly arise, including environmental devastation, limitations on human rights,
and intra-state wars.

- Multiple and diverse understandings of "security" should not be seen as mutually exclusive or
contradictory.

- Security should be based on "and/both" understandings, recognizing that security for oneself should
also allow for the security of others.

- Challenges to security extend beyond purely military factors and must include economic, political,
social, cultural, and ecological factors.
- New thinking and approaches are needed to address security concerns and transcend the limitations of
traditional concepts.

- Without new resources, approaches, and strategies, tragedies like the one in Yugoslavia (Kosovo) will
continue to occur.

- Other "scourges" exist beyond war and threaten security on multiple levels.

__________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

- The concept of security is changing and evolving, and it is important to recognize the different actors
and perspectives that contribute to it.

- Different individuals and groups have varying perceptions of what constitutes security, based on their
position in society and their worldview.

- Imposing one perspective of security neglects and ignores alternative forms of human community that
may have different conceptions of security.

- There are many different securities and developments, and what may be secure for one could be the
opposite for another.

- The threat or use of direct physical violence has been the focus of international relations and security
studies, but other forms of violence and threats to security, such as structural violence and cultures of
violence, have not been adequately addressed.

- Security institutions and states that promote militarization and military expenditures can themselves
be seen as threats to security.

- The dominant mindset of zero-sum, win/lose, competitive thinking remains a threat to security.

- Attempts to enforce conflict resolution or security through military force may worsen conflict dynamics
and fuel larger-scale violence.

- The security industry itself contributes to insecurity by focusing solely on military terms and the
coercion of others.

- The labeling of something as a security issue often leads to extraordinary attention and measures, but
those in positions of power and expertise may actually exacerbate insecurity.

- Empowering elites to define security issues and take necessary steps to address them promotes
disempowerment and is undemocratic.

- Promoting security of self without recognizing the need for security of others can also be a source of
conflict and insecurity.

__________________________________________________________
- The concept of security is changing, and it is important to recognize the different actors involved in
addressing security challenges, not just the state.

- Different people have different perceptions of what constitutes security based on their position in
society and their worldview.

- There are many different forms of security and development, and what may be secure for one person
or society may be the opposite for another.

- Imposing one perspective of security on others can lead to conflict and destabilization.

- Traditional security institutions and policies, such as military alliances and arms races, may actually
promote insecurity.

- The mindset of zero-sum, competitive thinking still dominates international relations, which can
worsen conflict and fuel violence.

- The security industry itself can contribute to insecurity by focusing solely on military solutions.

- Those in positions of power often define and address security issues, neglecting the negative
consequences of their choices.

- Promoting security for oneself without considering the security needs of others can lead to conflict and
insecurity.

___________________________________________

________________________________________________________
- The concept of security is complex and varies depending on one's perspective and position in society.

- There are multiple actors involved in providing security, not just the state.

- The changing nature of security challenges requires recognizing the potential of different actors to
address them.

- Security is not a one-size-fits-all concept, and what may be considered secure for one person or group
may be seen as insecure for another.

- Imposing a single perspective on security can lead to conflicts and threaten global security.

- Traditional approaches to security, focused on physical violence between states, may overlook other
forms of violence and threats to security.

- Security institutions, like NATO and the Warsaw Pact, can be seen as threats to security due to their
promotion of confrontation and militarization.

- States that prioritize military spending over social welfare can also be seen as threats to security.

- The mentality of zero-sum, competitive thinking that dominated during the Cold War continues to
impact global security.

- Attempts to enforce security through military force can worsen conflicts and perpetuate violence.
- The security industry, focused on military solutions, can contribute to insecurity.

- Empowering elites to define and address security issues can lead to the disempowerment of the
majority.

- Promoting security for oneself without considering the security needs of others can lead to conflicts
and insecurity.
___________________________________________
______________________________________________________
Thus also the worker at an armaments factory who faces being

laid off because of reductions in military spending may face a high

degree of personal insecurity while the security of the country as

a whole may rise through reduction of its dependence on military

force, allowing for increasing spending in other areas. A more

extreme example of insecurity for one at the expense of ‘security’

for another can be found in societies in which minority questions

or conflicts with neighbouring countries and peoples are ‘resolved’

through the annihilation and eradication of the ‘other’ – an attempt

to achieve the ultimate ‘security’ by removing even the possibility

of threat from one’s opponent (or perceived opponent).

A similar process can be seen in the ever-expanding world of

the ‘free’ market in its attempts to make countries ‘safe’ for

investment. The increasing alienation and impoverishment of large

portions of the human population, together with the culturocide

by which differences are eliminated as the world is transformed

into one homogeneous commodity exchange, are the reverse side

of this safety.

The logic which founds security on the elimination of threat by

force can often give birth to far weightier dynamics, which may, in

turn, consume the very society they were meant to protect. Just as

a conflict cannot be said to be ‘resolved’ if it is based on the annihilation

of the other, so can ‘security’ based on destruction (either

often be more dangerous than what it seeks to protect against.

However, human beings and societies exist not only in interlinking

relationships with one another, but in their relationship to

the world at large, and the environment which they inhabit and

which surrounds them. For thousands of years, human beings lived

in a precarious balance with the natural world. With the birth of

industrialization (a process multiplied a thousand-fold by the

subsequent rise of ‘technologization’), one aspect of security was

conceived of as security over and above the natural world.

Nature became conceived of as a threat and a resource – a

frontier to be constantly conquered and pushed back, and a source

of materials fuelling the expansion of industrialized society. Our

ability to dominate nature, to extract from it the resources we

needed to survive and to fuel our mode of economic production,

became the centrepoint of ‘man’s’ (humanity’s) relationship to the

natural world in all societies (‘communist’ and ‘capitalist’) which

based themselves on economic processes founded on industrialization

and ever-increasing and expanding rates of production and

consumption.

The linking of indigenous peoples and cultures with states of

‘backwardness’ and ‘savagery’ which needed to be ‘tamed’ and

‘civilized’ through the process of colonization is also extremely

272 SEARCHING FOR PEACE

interesting in this respect. By identifying peoples and cultures with

a state of ‘savage nature’, colonial rulers justified their attempts to

take control of an area through forcing its ‘natives’ and its

environment to obey the civilizing whip of the white man. Thus,

the aim of colonization became not only to conquer territories, but

‘wild’ and ‘untamed’, through a combination of railways

(domination over nature), and courts, prisons and schools

(domination over the minds and bodies of the ruled).

Security of the ‘mother’ country, was guaranteed through the

exploitation (= extreme threat to security) of the colonized. Later,

as colonization became more developed, it was recognized that

internalizing the chains of slavery by educating and inculcating the

‘colonized’ in the ways of thought and living of ‘civilized’, ‘Christian’

Europe and North America, was a more effective way to guarantee

the stability and permanence of colonial rule. Thus, even after

formal independence, many colonized countries found themselves

applying for help to their former colonial masters in order to follow

in the steps of development pioneered by their colonizers.

The entire history of colonization – a history which, in many

ways, continues to this day – can, to a very great extent, be seen

as a process of securing the resources (and later markets) necessary

for the growth of capitalism in the countries of Western Europe

and North America. The fact that this process could not have taken

place without the legacy of colonialism is one of the key factors

holding back the ‘rapid development’ of many formerly colonized

countries.

In many ways, ‘Western’ man’s (as industrialized societies – both

then and now – have most often been dominated by men) relationshipto

the natural world paralleled his relationshipto the

colonies. Nature existed to be colonized, that is, to be transformed

into raw materials and commodities to guarantee constant improvements

in the standards of living of those able to ‘control’ it.

Only in the 1970s and 1980s did concern over the environment
and our relationship to it become a major issue, arising for the first

time in nearly 300 years as a threat to the security of the industrialized

way of life. From this point on, and culminating in the

Brundtland Report, security with regard to the environment

became conceived of as a managed state in which limitations of

natural resources and damage to the environment by industrial

waste be controlled so as not to damage the life-style and mode of

production of industrialized societies (non-industrialized or industrializing

societies would have to remain content with the level of

industrialization they could reach without becoming a threat to

the dominance and way of life of the ‘West’). Security, therefore,

became security for the mode of production of industrialization

BEYOND SECURITY 273

from the threat of natural limitations and enforced destruction of

the environment, a way of thinking rooted in a homocentric

conception of the world – one which took account of the

environment, not for what it was, but for what it was to ‘man’.
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
Thus, as opposed to other societies such as the indigenous peoples in North and South America
and many other parts of the world whose world-view is based on their interrelationship with
nature, where human beings are considered as one part of the whole in relationship with all other
parts, the view adopted by proponents of environmental security was most often that of a world
in which nature still existed to be exploited by man, but in which that exploitation must be
managed in order to ensure that it be sustainable. The contrast between these two views is
startling and worth taking note of, for it bears relevance to our conception of security as a whole,
whether with regard to nature and the environment, or to the social, political, cultural,
economical and other aspects of security. For many of the indigenous peoples of North and
South America, security came through living in harmony with the natural world. It was based on
respect for the world around them, and recognition of the importance and sacredness of all living
and nonliving things.
_________________________________________
- Indigenous peoples in North and South America have a worldview based on their
interrelationship with nature, considering human beings as one part of the whole in relationship
with all other parts.
- Proponents of 'environmental security' view nature as something to be exploited by humans, but
managed in a sustainable way.
- Traditional conceptions of security often focus on protecting against threats from others, such
as other states, peoples, cultures, societies, and nature.
- The concept of security itself is one of the key dynamics and causes that must be transcended
for real security to exist.
- Cooperation and the positive transformation of underlying structures and causes that give rise
to insecurity and threats can be more constructive and fruitful approaches than traditional
security.
- The concept of challenge, as opposed to threat, can stimulate imagination and creativity to find
new approaches and ideas in conflictual or seemingly insurmountable situations.
- Cooperation and peaceful conflict transformation recognize conflict as an opportunity for
positive and constructive change, and aim to meet the needs and interests of all parties involved.
- A broader conception of security would embrace more horizontal, holistic conceptions of
society, replacing domination with cooperation for and with all people and the environment.
_______________________________________________
________________________________________________________
- The nature and role of the state should be open to question, rather than enforcing a state-based
system on all peoples of the world.
- Other approaches and forms of human community should be identified and considered.
- Recognizing citizens' organizations and associations outside of the state as people's
organizations, and viewing states as non-people's organizations.
- Emphasizing the need to approach concepts such as state, security, environment, and
development from various perspectives, rather than limiting ourselves to dominant discourses.
- Going beyond traditional notions of security towards holistic, transformative cooperation and
creativity.
- Presenting new perspectives and approaches to understanding old questions, rather than
discarding the old in favor of the new.
- The concept of cooperation and peace by peaceful means as a response to the failings of
traditional security approaches.
- Moving from security to challenge and seeking new and creative solutions beyond security.