UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM

School of Government & Society (College of Social Sciences)

Student ID No: 1630666

Module title: Critical Approaches to Development
Assignment title: Assignment 2
Module banner code: 07 22024 - CAD Word Count* 3138
Module convenor: Dr Jonathan Fisher Submission Date: 15 Jan 2017
Extension: NO Date approved: NA
Extension approved by: NA New date: NA

*Word Count: should not include coversheet, essay title, data in tables, the bibliography and any appendices.

Important Assignment Related Notices

Step Marking:
Any mark awarded for an assignment will be made of a step of either 2, 5 or 8 over the mark range.
Penalties:
University policy requires that a penalty be deducted from the actual mark achieved for each working
day the assignment is late until 0 is reached. There is a strict deadline of 11:59pm on day of
submission. 5 marks will be deducted for every 11:59pm deadline that is missed (without
prior approval).

Extensions & Plagiarism Information:

For more information about extensions and plagiarism please refer to your Hub course. An
Originality Report (OR) is generated by Turnitin every time a piece of work is submitted. Please
note that all assignments will achieve a OR score due to the use of standard coversheets.

Canvas Assignment Discussions

It is College policy that staff will not be actively engaging in debate over matters of feedback and
grades with individual students via Canvas online Speed Grader system.

Campus students:
Please make an appointment within advertised office hours in the first instance to discuss
any matter of assignment feedback and grading.

Distance Learning Students: If you are concerned about the mark and feedback you have
received, you must email Andrea Potter at a.j.potter@bham.ac.uk , saying why you are
concerned, with detailed comments.

1
Is security a necessary prerequisite for development?

No peace without development and no development without peace and there is no development
without human rights. This is one of the most widely used phrases that we often see and hear from
the world institutions like United Nations in the aspect of security and development. UN Secretary
General, for instance, Kofi Annan and Ban-KiMoon, other key officials and world leaders have
frequently spoken about this catching phrase to put the security into the central issue for discussion
on development. As evidenced over the decades by fundamental issues found in some African
countries on security matter like Rwanda, Congo, and such, military interventions after the 9/11 on
war on terror, current security problems in Syria and such, all of these provoke a continuous
discussion on the connection between security and development. In addition, in the nexus of
security and development, a contesting discourse on idea of security as the prerequisite for
development also has become a fundamental property of academias interests and political
discussions.

Therefore, this paper will argue that the prior condition for security is necessary for development in
two implications the precedence of rights to security for development and security first for the
development of fragile and failed states. The organisation of paper will first set to define and discuss
the terms - security and development. Next, it will begin by discussing the two aforementioned
themes that place security as the precondition to development.

Security and Development

These two terms are contextualising and a multi-perspectives concept. It can lead to the different
outcomes and understandings if both are defined vary. Regarding the definition of security, this
paper is interested in operationalising the word security as human security, a concept developed by
the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The dialogue of human security under a new
paradigm was started since 1994 when UNDP published its human development report within that
year. In chapter two, it defined the word security by taking into the account of two crucial aspects -
freedom from fear and from want. It [human security] means, first, safety from such chronic threats
as hunger, disease and repression. And second, it means protection from sudden and hurtful
disruptions in the patterns of daily life-whether in homes, in jobs or in communities (UNDP, 1994,
p.23). In this sense, the idea of security from these two components means people are entitled to
live freely without fear of threats so as to enjoy the fullest of the human potentials.

The prevalence of importance of this definition lays on two main grounds. First, it is a commonly
accepted definition on the concept of security. United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted
the concept of human security discussed above for the world politic discussions and debates in
2012 in its 66th Session on the agenda of Follow-up to paragraph 143 on human security of the
2005 World Summit Outcome (Gmez & Gasper, 2013). Second, it puts an emphasize on both the
people-security centric and state security as it is argued that state security and human security are
mutually together, and as historically security was only being referring to defence of territorial from
external aggression, protection of national interests and global threats from mass destruction
weapons like nuclear holocaust (Commission on Human Security, 2003).

Turning to the word development, it can be meant improvement, advancement, evolution or

progress, which is in its normative definition. However, in the development studies and global policy
debates, there can be no fixed and final definition of development, only suggestions of what
development should imply in particular contexts (Hettne, 1995, p.5). Hence, this paper will be using
three varieties of definitions on development. Starting from the idea of Sen (1999), development is
about the progressively increasing of individual freedoms. Second, development is about the
building institutions that can generate and manage economic policies and processes or
correspondingly, state reconstruction or nation-building (Ball, 2008, p.1493; Etzioni, 2008). Lastly,
development is equated to the traditional economic development concept that focused on economic
growth. Torado and Smith (2003) accredited to two economic indicators gross national income

2
(GNI) and gross domestic output (GDP) per capita to enhance peoples wellbeing and happiness for
the economic development.

Taken together, the concept of security and development throughout this paper can be understood
as people are granted to the freedom from fear and from want, for greater individual freedoms,
state-building, and economic growth.

Precedence of Rights to Security for Development

In article 3 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it stated that everyone has the right to life,
liberty and security of person (UNGA, 1948, p.37). Thus, it implies every person is entitled to
security but is also including the right to development. There is a recognition that security is an
important component to realise the individual right to the development (UNGA, 1986). However,
whether security a determinant to achieve development is left debatable in both core documents.
Etzioni (2008) in his book called security first contributed to put forward the rights to security to be
in the first order and it is also preceding of the other rights to meet the development. He compared
the concept security first to the principle of the primacy of life that everyone was interested to seek
their security and freedom from the events of deadly violence, maiming and torture. He also
contested that in the pursue of development, every society shall not proceed by undermining the
right to security, and the protection of life because it was the most basic of human rights not to be
threaten by the catastrophic situations that could put life on the line.

Compared with other rights, right to security is ranked at the highest hierarchy in two fashionable
ways, discussed by Etzioni (2008). First, it is derived from his moral ground on this issue that people
are having many rights in term of socioeconomic rights such as right to education, health care and
so on, and legal-political rights such as right to vote, freedom of speech and so on. However, in the
event of the right to security is first violated; all the other rights will be followed. Etzionis viewpoint
on this was by arguing dead people cannot exercise their rights, whereas those who are living
securely at least have the possibility of exercising more rights in the future, or by the alternative
example, it [security] does command first priority in places where people cannot walk the streets,
work, study, or worship without fear of being bombed or kidnapped, tortured or maimed (p.9). Thus,
he used the causation effect to illustrate that a violation of the right of security causes a disruption to
the other rights which ultimately one will not able to achieve the development if this is the case; yet,
it is not the other way around when the other rights is violating the right to security. For instance,
even it generally understands that Chinese government suppressed the freedom of speech to its
people; Chinese development, nonetheless, is progressing at the fast pace and its people still can
enjoy other rights including right to personal security uphold with them. While, in Syrian case, when
the right to security is not secured; citizen of Syria is hardly able to embrace the other rights as well,
in the example of socioeconomic rights, when schools and hospital are demolished, family is
displaced and threat to death is high, right to education and other development rights are hardly
available to the Syrian people. Second, that right to security is at the top of the other rights is
consistent to the criminal codes in putting a heavier punishment or penalties to the committed crime
relating to the case of murder, torture and maiming than the case of discrimination and other petty
crimes.

Asymmetrically, Stewart (2004), in his working paper on security and development, reviewed the
three connections between security and development on both developing and developed world. He
did not explicitly mention about the right to security; but the alternative is lying in one of the
connections he found on the immediate impact of insecurity on well-beings to development. He
made an argumentation that there is a cut-off to humans potential in doing things when an adverse
effect of insecurities occurs. Those insecurities he referred to vicissitude of economic to crises,
danger in health issue, injury or death as a consequence of criminal or political violent acts. More
importantly, there will be serious negative effects on the achievement of development at the time
that those insecurity matters are being prolonged and sustained. This is happening because the
families and communities are broken up and it is forcing them to them to either to live in refugee

3
camps or aliened environment as in the Iraqi circumstance. Additionally, Sen (2001), who saw
development means as freedom or as the enhancement of human capabilities, also argued human
rights are intrinsic to the development.

Hence, the combination of Etzioni, Stewart, and Sens idea altogether makes the precedence of
rights to security to be first considered in order to reach the development. Or in the similar
explanation, it is essential to have the security at the first place as a mean to embrace more
freedom for expanding the capacities and freedoms as the developments end.

Security First for the Development of Fragile and Failed States

a) State-Building

The prominence of fragile and failed states came to play at the peak of developmental agenda when
crises happened at many countries around the globe during the early 1990s. The case of Somalia
with a failure of national state, and the collapse of basic functions happening in countries like
Cambodia, Haiti, Sudan, Liberia, Congo, Chad, Ghana, Uganda, Liberia and Ethiopia arouse
significant attention paid into the concept among security, failed states and development. Thus, the
concept of failed states is illustrated briefly as the independent nation that simply cannot perform the
basic functions to its people (Call, 2008).

Given those nation states are classified as failed state, their experiences reveal a compulsory of
security as the preliminary condition to the development because no security no reconstruction,
security first for basic human needs in BIEN model and the counter of risk over securitization by the
developmental costs of insecurity.

Etzioni (2008) pointed to the duty of state to offer the security when under its territorial jurisdiction
had fallen into the conflicting violence area, or ethic cleaning, or genocide. In contrast, when state
failed to protect, he held the claim that it was a call for police state, which he referred it to the
external intervention by international community, to provide the security to the people first. In the
example of American intervention in Iraq, he criticised on the US over the story of $32 million trash
dump at the outside part of Baghdad over the lack of safeguard on construction workers security.
Plant manager and over 400 other workers were killed from 2005 to 2006 and the progress of
construction was left prolonging for months due to reluctance of US military to protect the workers.
However, his criticism indicated how importance of safeguard of the security over the reconstruction
of this basic public facility could foster Iraq state-building process.

In Radas BIEN model, acronyms for Basic Human Needs, Institutional Needs, Economic
Development and Need of Sustainability, is a recommended approach for international community
to build the failed states (Rada, 2007). More importantly, he drew on the security as the very first
step to reach development of failed states via his model process. Based on his attest, security
became predominant lying on the concept of basic human needs. Thus, he stated in a failed state
the only possibility for development is the presence of a foreign power to disarm the violence and
prevent humanitarian crisis (p.7). It is also asserted by Chitiyo (2011) in his review on new African
security architecture. He saw that when security force could intervene under some situations of
insecurity like military coups or other extreme crises, the developmentalisation of security could
have a direct or indirect contribution to development.

However, there is a challenge to this. Fisher and Anderson (2015) considered securitisation of
development in Africa jeopardising the other key development areas like social development,
human rights and governance reform. Klingebiel (2006) also shared the similar point of view. He
saw securitisation was a risk to development when military interests dominated the other
development interests. His example was on the role of USA in Iraq and Afghanistan which is proof
of the dangers arising when development actors are subordinated to a military approach (ibid,
2006, p.5).

4
Albeit securitisation of development poses a risk, the prevalence of security as a precondition for
development are relatively higher than detriment of other development issues because the costs of
insecurity. Steward (2004) referred the cost of insecurity to the diminishing of economic productive
capacity. In economy, labour faced a shortage on the grounds that people were either be killed, flee,
or joining the force. Infrastructure and other social facilities were either damaged, closed or
destroyed. Therefore, this led to the individuals development derived from both economically and
socially adverse.

In addition to what discussed above, it is also worth to look at the case of Somalia to demonstrate
the relevance of security as a precondition to development. It will analyse on two points of views
failure of safeguard means failure to state-building and the example EU responses toward
development by securitisation. The earlier intervention in Somalia was conducted in several phrases
namely UNSOM I, UNITAF, and UNSOM II respectively with the aims to restore peace and national-
building particularly embedded with UNSOM II. However, the aftermath of deaths on Pakistanis and
American peacekeepers, fragmentation appeared with UN peacekeeping operation, after the US
aborted from Somalias intervention leaving the country in the state of prolonged failed state and
state-building was not achieved. On the other hand, EU intervention by EU a comprehensive
approach including military missions, financial mechanisms and diverse development and
humanitarian aid shed a different light on Somalia when EU acknowledged the importance of
security to embrace the development by fostering into security programmes namely EUNAVFOR
Atalanta 2008, EUTM Somalia 2010, EUCAP Nestor 2012 and the collaboration with African Union
on other security aspects. As a result, positive outcomes existed. A number of pirates was
substantially decreased from 163 cases in 2011 to 8 cases in 2013. The 6,300 police officers were
trained, law officials reached 170 in 2011, more than 40,000 students have been able to back to
school since 2010, the rehabilitation of irrigation and flood control infrastructure were rebuilt and
was believed to benefit more than 50,000 farming and agro-pastoral households in 2010 and etc
(Rodrguez, 2016). Rodrguez (2016) also saw this comprehensive approach by EU created a more
secure and stable environment in the country upon which to base a political process aimed at
bringing development to the Somalis (p.11). Zoellick (2008), who used to be the eleventh president
of the World Bank, also amplified the importance of the security to be securing in get into the
development in fragile or failed states. He brought in the idea of securing security for the support
from his experience as the president. Securing development is about taking security in to transit
from conflict to peace and then ensuring the stability. Thus, he believed development can take hold
over a decade and beyond. Only by securing development can we put down roots deep enough to
break the cycle of fragility and violence (p.69).

b) Economic Development

Economic growth is always at the heart of economists and political thinkers. However, in the case of
failed states, it left to a controversial debate on which best mechanisms can fuel the growth for
those countries. Therefore, the answer is suggested by strengthening security for economic
activities by Ferguson (2013) or underdevelopment if it is insecurity (Howe, 2012).

Ferguson (2013) discussed about the debate in the World Bank whether the Afghanistan was ready
to be supported by its own. The conclusion was drawing that the team at World Bank had a little
hope on that. They did not see a prospect from the government to support the public services for
the development. The rationale was given to a large sum amount of military spending flowing in to
construction and services by external actors to foster economy to grow. The statistic showed more
than $100 billion was poured into military expenditures between 2010 and 2011 and $15.4 billion
was in term of aids and assistances. It is stated that consumption growth is tied closely to the
security economy, which generates demand for goods and services, equipment and operations and
maintenance of the national army, as well as to donor spending; meanwhile, private investment
and export was estimated to deliver 2011/12 growth 0.2% and 0.3% respectively (World Bank,
2012, p.5). Hence, based on World Banks projection for Afghan medium-term economic outlook, it
is concerned that the withdrawal of international military presence will undermine security condition;

5
thus, a pitfall of deteriorating economic growth is foreseen to drop 3-5% and under an unfavourable
scenario of its insecurity and limited governance would further making economic decline worse (Ibid,
2012).

Another example is Cambodia which one cannot deny the contribution of UN peacekeeping
operation for its restoration of peace and economic development. Carnahan, Durch, and Gilmore
(2006) stated that the subsequent transition from a security/humanitarian response to a
development response has paved the way for large development sectors [textiles, and tourism] in
the economy (p.36). Hence, these two examples in Afghanistan and Cambodia demonstrate on the
precondition of security to stipulate their economic development.

Last but not least, Howe (2012) exhibited in his examination on the study of 49 least developed
countries which experienced violence, conflict, vulnerable or instability that a security was a
precondition to development because insecurity brought underdevelopment. This happened due to
the facts that instability changed the public and private investment, and economic development
climate to become more uncertainty, costly and delayed. His idea can be referred to the loss of
foreign direct investments which some countries are largely depending on it to accelerate the
economic growth.

Conclusion

From time to time, it is a quest for all the individuals to investigate for the best path to achieve
development. Controversially, no single definition of security and development has been tailored
into a global acceptance yet. The discourse of security as a necessary prerequisite for development
is also largely subjected to how one takes the approach to conceptualise security and development.
In the analysis of this paper, it is manifesting that security is a necessary precondition to
development because the precedence of rights to security will allow to expand the freedom from
fear and want, and the significant role of security for state-building and economic growth in fragile
and failed states. However, due to scope and time limitation, this paper also recommended for
further research to take into account of the other varying conditions for development. Those can be
in aspect of democracy, good governance, reform, eradication of poverty, and so on.

Reference

Call, C.T. (2008) The fallacy of the Failed State. Third World Quarterly, 29(8), pp.1491-1507.
Carnahan, M., Durch, W. and Gilmore, S. (2006) Economic impact of peacekeeping. Final Report
for the UN DPKO Best Practices Section (PBPS). New York, NY.
Chitiyo, K. (2011) African Security and the Securitisation of Development. Royal United
Servicemens Institute, UK.
Commission on Human Security. (2003) Human security now. United Nations Publications.
Etzioni, A. (2008) Security first: for a muscular, moral foreign policy. Yale University Press.
Ferguson, A. (2013) The Uneasy Relationship Between Economics and Security. Prism: A Journal
of the Center for Complex Operations, 4(2), p.77.
Fisher, J. and Anderson, D.M. (2015) Authoritarianism and the securitization of development in
Africa. International Affairs, 91(1), pp.131-151.
Gmez, O. and Gasper, D. (2013) Human security: A thematic guidance note for regional and
national human development report teams. UNDP Human Development Report Office.
Hettne, B. (2005) Discourses on Development. In Haynes, J. (Ed.) Development Studies.
Palgrave.
Howe, B.M. (2012) Governance in the interests of the most vulnerable. Public Administration and
Development, 32(4-5), pp.345-356.
Klingebiel, S., Duffield, M., Tschirgi, N., Robinson, C., Cilliers, J. and Fitz-Gerald, A.M. (2006) New
Interfaces between security and development: Changing concepts and approaches. New
interfaces between security and development: changing concepts and
approaches/Stephan Klingebiel (ed.), German Development Institute.

6
Rada, P. (2007) Rebuilding of Failed States. Latin America Faculty of Social Sciences.
Rodrguez, J.F. (2016). SECURITY AND DEVELOPMENT: THE INTERVENTION OF THE
EUROPEAN UNION IN SOMALIA. Instituto Espaol de Estudios Estratgicos.
Sen, A. (2001) Development as freedom. Oxford Paperbacks.
Stewart, F. (2004) Development and security. Conflict, Security & Development, 4(3), pp.261-
288.
Todaro, M.P. and Smith, S.C. (2003) Economic development. 11th ed. Harlow: Pearson Addison-
Wesley.
UNDP. (1994) Human Development Report. Oxford University Press.
UNGA. (1948) Universal declaration of human rights. UN General Assembly.
UNGA. (1986) 41/128 Declaration on the Right to Development. UN General Assembly.
World Bank. (2012). Afghanistan Economic Update.
Zoellick, R.B. (2008) Fragile states: securing development. Survival, 50(6), pp.67-84.