To what Extent is Security a Necessary Precondition for Development?
1

Introduction
The understanding of the relationship between security and development that drivesdevelopment policies of donor agencies and countries has varied throughout the past 60 years.During the Cold War, western donors had widely focussed on assisting their third World partners with aid to repel the communist threat. In the post Cold War period, while assistancehad sharply dropped, it was mostly disconnected from security interests. However, with theoccurrence of the 9/11 events, development assistance has rocketed once more as manyimportant players within the donor community have focussed their peace and statebuildingefforts on promoting security in the name of development in 'failed' and 'fragile states' (Beallet al. 2006). This logic presumes that before development can unfold, a secure environmenthas to be established, making security a necessary precondition for development. This is alsodescribed as a 'security first' approach to development. However, the human security (HS)concept contests this logic. While a 'security first' approach focuses mainly on the security ofWestern countries, human security emphasizes the security needs of the people living indeveloping countries, depicting daily threats as a critical source of insecurity. Therefore,human security clearly focuses on the improvement of long-term development, emphasizingthat development and security have to be equally promoted. Therefore, I will argue in thisessay that while security is an important element for development to unfold, putting to muchemphasis on security preoccupations in development efforts might obstruct the creation oflong-term development. Thus, while security is important for development, it is not anecessary precondition for it. I will thus structure my essay the following way. First of all, Iwill discuss how security and development are to be understood according to the 'securityfirst' approach. The current liberal peacebuilding agenda will demonstrate that it is embeddedin a 'security first' approach. In the second part, I will discuss the intertwined relation betweendevelopment and security from a human security perspective. While the achievement and protection of human development is central, security and development have to be promoted
1

Submitted in partial completion of 'Critical Approaches to Development' module, International DevelopmentDepartment, University of Birmingham

2 equally. Finally, I will discuss a human security perspective to peacebuilding whilecontrasting it to a 'security first' approach.
'Security first': making security a precondition for development
Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 security has re-emerged as a central concern to westernsocieties. While this has translated into a variety of policies in the US and Europe (stricter border controls etc.), security preoccupations have equally shifted the development policies ofdonor agencies and governments. 'Security first' denotes an approach that attributes security a primordial role in development assistance: Its underlying idea is that before sustainabledevelopment can unfold, a security situation has to be established (Denney 2011, p.279). AsBeal et al. (2006) argue, this concurs with the linking of development assistance to 'fragilestates', humanitarian assistance and peace building since the 1990s. The 'war on terrorism' canthus be considered as a continuation of these preoccupations. Furthermore, in this reasoning,ensuring the security of 'failed states' is means to ensure the security of western states thusmaking the security of the global North the primary objective of development efforts (Beall etal. 2006, pp.53-55). This has led development assistance to shift priorities and thus to providesufficient funds for countries that pose a direct threat to the western societies, while othercountries that equally need the help are neglected (Beall et al. 2006).Having understood the logic behind the 'security first' approach, it is now important tounderstand how security and development are perceived by this approach and how they bothrelate to each other. A strand of literature that is directly embedded in the 'security first'approach to development is the contemporary state and peace building literature. Accordingto Newman (2011) the current conception of development in peace building is very muchembedded in a liberal institutionalist vision (Newman 2011). This is also described as liberal peacebuilding: it is based on the idea that liberally constituted societies tend to be more peaceful (Newman et al. 2009, p.11). While the main problem with conflict prone societies isseen in the lack of effective institutions, the main focus lies in establishing sustainableinstitutions. Therefore, a modern state is conceptualized around electoral democracy, a liberalmarket economy and human and civil rights (Newman 2011, pp.1742-1473). Thus,development efforts "[are] intended to spread liberal-democratic political structures" (Jackson2011, p.1809). However, such an approach does not account for context specific factors such

3 as the needs of those who are affected by such policies, therefore obstructing the creation ofself-sustained institutions (Newman 2011, pp.1741-1746).
Security
concerns from a liberal peacebuilding perspective thus emerge from 'weak'and 'failed states'. This goes hand in hand with putting the institution of the state at the centreof security preoccupations. In this logic, the state's weak capacity allows non-state actors todefy his authority and pose security threats such as forced migration, trafficking weapons andthe sheltering of terrorists (Newman 2009, pp.429-431). Consequently, enhancing the state'scapacity to provide security becomes a core goal in development management (Brinkerhoff2008, p.988; Willett 2005, p.582). Therefore, unlike during the Cold War, after 9/11 the realthreat does not come from the strength of a state (in the Westphalian sense) but rather from itsweakness (Newman et al. 2009, p.9). In the same vein, "... stability in fragile states is aninternational security imperative" (Newman 2011, p.1739). As Chuck Hagel (2004) puts it:"The challenge to U.S. ... security will not come from rival global powers, but from weakstates" (Hagel 2004, p.65).Liberal peacebuilding efforts embedded in 'security first' approach find repercussion indevelopment policies. The most evident 'security first' approach to development which aims atenhancing the capacity of the state is found in the Security Sector Reform (SSR). While SSRefforts are ingrained in liberal peace (such as the promotion of democratic values (Knight2009)), the promotion of a secure environment becomes the precondition for development(GSDRC 2003, p.4, DFID 2005). As is the case with the SSR spearheaded by the UKDepartment for International Development in Sierra Leone, this reform aims at promoting asecure situation in order for development to unfold (DFID 2007, p.ix). As a consequence, thisapproach places "... [an] overarching emphasis on security to the expense of long termdevelopment (Jackson 2011, p.1804). Similarly, Etzioni (2007) advises the U.S. to refocustheir foreign policy towards 'weak' and 'failed states', calling for a "... security priority overdemocratization challenges..." (Etzioni 2007, p.x). Therefore, before liberal democracy can possibly thrive, basic security has to be established.In this section I was able to demonstrate that the 'security first' approach to development isembedded in liberal peacebuilding efforts seeking to impose a model of the western modernstate in 'weak' and 'failed states'. In this logic, the establishment of security becomes anecessary precondition for development to unfold. However, the human security approachcontests this logic. While it shifts the attention of security preoccupation from the sole

4 capacity of the state to the security of the people, it promotes a vision where security anddevelopment have to be equally promoted. Human Security: promoting security and development equally
While human security had disappeared from the scene during the Cold War, it reappearedwith the Human Development Report of 1994. It described a people centred approach tosecurity and development emancipating the notion of security from the state in order totranspose it to the human being (UNDP 1994). In this sense, "[b]oth development and securitywithin human security take life as a referent object" (Duffield 2005, p.7). Consequently andcontrary to a 'security first' approach, the human being stands at the centre of the security preoccupations, making him not means to an end, but the end of development efforts.In order to understand human security, I will now study the notions of security anddevelopment of this framework. Development in this framework is directly linked to humandevelopment and must be understood as "the process of widening people's choices" (UNDP1997, p.15). Conditions like poverty thus are impeding these choices and prevent from"lead[ing] a long, healthy, creative life ..." (UNDP 1997, p.15; Sen 1999). Thus, the goal ofhuman security is to assure that people can lead a fulfilling life and be protected from dailythreats such as food security, health security, environmental security and economic security(UNDP 1994). In this framework, the protection of human development becomes the maintask of human security. Thus, human security sets security and development on equal foot tothe point where a distinction becomes increasingly hard to draw (Denney 2012).While this is widely acknowledged, different authors emphasize varying dimensionsof human security in respect to development and security. Stewart (2004) defines the goal ofhuman security as the achievement of minimal levels of material needs and the absence ofsevere threats of economic or political kind (Stewart 2004, p.3). Thomas (2001) identifiesquantitative and qualitative dimensions of human security. The qualitative dimensionencompasses the satisfaction of basic material needs, while the qualitative dimension defines"the achievement of human dignity" through "personal autonomy, the control over one's life"and the possibility to participate in the life of the community (Thomas 2001, p.162). CHS(2003) argues that while security issues become more complex and intricate, a moreintegrated approach to security is needed. The goal is to promote protection (frominsecurities) and empowerment (to exercise opportunities) for the people (CHS 2003). While

5 theses authors emphasize different dimensions of human security, they show that the manyforces that influence HS are interrelated and mutually reinforcing (Axworthy 1997).Therefore, in a HS perspective the different dimensions of development and security areintertwined to such a degree, where both have to be promoted equally. Furthermore, whilehuman security issues (food security etc.) depart from a classical (territorial) understanding ofsecurity, assuring the security of the people concomitantly enhances the security of the state.Therefore, the state plays a central role in the process. In order to achieve human security, protecting and empowering infrastructure such as rule of law must be promoted (Ogata andCels 2011). Consequently, there is a need to "develop norms, processes and institutions thatsystematically address insecurities" (CHS 2003, p.1).In relation to peacebuilding, human security does offer interesting perspectives. First of all,human security places the security of the people of developing nations at the heart of its peacebuilding efforts. This differs greatly from the 'security first' perspective, since theamelioration of the situation of the people in developing countries is defined as the end ofdevelopment efforts, and not the good of western societies (Beall et al. 2006). Thus, Newman(2011) argues that such an approach in peacebuilding would allow focusing on welfare,human development and local engagement (Newman 2011, p.1738). This way, the underlyingsources of conflict could be addressed and would provide for a positive peace while promoting long-term objectives (Newman 2011, p.1749-1750). Jackson (2011) argues thathuman security can only be served when there exists a functioning state that provides securityand development that provides benefits for the population (Jackson 2011, p.1809). SSR andstate building efforts thus should aim on one hand to reconstruct the security institutions whilealso reconstruct "social, political and economic structures" (Jackson 2011, p.1812). Such anintegrated approach is pursued by DFID in Sierra Leone. While a 'security first' strategyunderlies the SSR approach, it also includes a human security element in its framework, promoting a "people centred approach to security and justice" (DFID 2007, p.ix). Yet anotherissue that arises in peacebuilding are the timeframes that vary according to a security ordevelopment logic. While the former promotes short-term solutions, the latter aims at thelong(er) term (DFID 2005, p.14). Putting development and security on equal foot like thehuman security approach would enable to build up sustainable institutions and avoid the shortterm thinking of a 'security first' approach.

6
Conclusion
This short essay has discussed to what extent security is a necessary precondition fordevelopment. By comparing two contesting approaches, the author has reached the conclusionthat while security is important for development, overemphasizing security preoccupations indevelopment efforts may impede sustainable development. Thus, wile security is importantfor development, it is not a necessary precondition for it. From a 'security first' perspective,security preoccupations override development goals thus fostering short-term solutions.Moreover, this framework is much embedded in the post-9/11 context, where a strongemphasis is put on enhancing capacities of 'fragile states' and the security of western societies.In contrast, a human security perspective aims at promoting development and securityequally. Making individuals the referent of development and security, it is mostly concernedwith insecurities that people face on a daily basis. While security goals directly impact humandevelopment, security and development cannot be dissociated. Such an approach to peacebuilding emphasizes the local structures of the political settlement and the interactions proper to a given society. This implies that state building efforts are directed towards the people living in developing countries and not the security of western societies. Finally, whilea human security peacebuilding approach sets development and security goals on an equal basis, it enhances the creation of sustainable institutions.
Bibliography
Axworthy, L. (1997) "Canada and Human Security: The Need for Leadership", International Journal,
52(2), 183-196.Beall, J., Goodfellow, T. and Putzel, J. (2006) "Introductory Article: On the Discourse ofTerrorism, Security and Development" in Journal of International Development,
18(1) 51-67.Brinkerhoff, D. W. (2008) "The State and International Development Management: ShiftingTides, Changing Boundaries, and Future Directions", Public Administration Review,
68(6),985-1001.CHS (2003) "Outline of the Report of the Commission on Human Securtiy", available underhttp://www.unocha.org/humansecurity/chs/finalreport/Outlines/outline.pdf.Denney, L. (2011) "Reducing Poverty with Teargas and Batons: The Security-Development Nexus in Sierra Leone", African Affairs,
110(439), 275-294. DFID (2005) "Fighting Poverty to Build a Safer World: A strategy for security anddevelopment", March 2005.DFID (2007) "Security and Justice Sector Reform Programming in Africa", EvaluationWorking Paper 23.Duffield, M. (2005) "Human Security: Linking Development and Security in an Age ofTerror", Paper prepared for the GDI panel 'New Interfaces between Security andDevelopment.Etzioni, A. (2007)
Security First: For a Muscular, Moral Foreign Policy
(London: YaleUniversity Press 2007).GSDRC (2013) "Topic Guide on Security Sector Reform".Hagel, C. (2004) "A Republican Foreign Policy", Foreign Affairs,
83(4), 64-76.Jackson, P. (2011) "Security Sector Reform and State Building" in
Third World Quarterly, 32(10), 1803-1822.Knight, M. (2009) "Security Sector Reform, Democracy, and the Social Contract: FromImplicit to Explicit", Journal of Security Sector Management, 7(1), 1-20. Newman, E. (2011) "A Human Security Peace-Building Agenda" in
Third World Quarterly, 32(10), 1737-1756. Newman, E. (2009) "Failed States and International Order: Constructing a Post-WestphalianWorld",
Contemporary Security Policy,
30(3), 421-443. Newman, E., Paris R. and Richmond O. P. (2009) New Perspectives on Liberal Peacebuilding
(Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2009).

8
ODI (2012) "Security: The missing bottom of the Millennium Development Goals? Prospectsfor inclusion in the post-MDG development framework", Overseas Development Institute.Ogata, S. and Cels, J. (2011) "Human Security - Protecting and Empowering the People",
Global Governance,
9(3), 273-282.Sen, A. (1990) "Poverty as Capability Deprivation" in Amartya Sen (1990) Development as Freedom
(New York: Anchor Books 1990).Stewart, F. (2004) "Development and Security", Centre for Research on Inequality, HumanSecurity and Ethnicity (CRISE), Working paper 3, Article accessible underhttp://www3.qeh.ox.ac.uk/pdf/crisewps/workingpaper3.pdf.UNDP (1994) UNDP (1994) Human Development Report 1994. New Dimensions of HumanSecurity
(New York: Oxford University Press 1994).UNDP (1997) Human Development Report 1997
(New York: Oxford University Press 1997).Willett, S. (2005) "New Barbarians at the Gate: Losing the Liberal Peace in Africa", Reviewof African Political Economy,
32(106), 569-594.