A nyone not immediately caught up in the whirlwind of today’s Beltway foreign policy punditry would be driven to hair-tearing at the back-and-forth between defenders of the Bush Administration and the multitude of critics arrayed against it. That’s because while President George W. Bush’s approach has obviously failed, too many of its critics refuse to focus on why. Their alternatives revolve around competence, with perhaps a bit of multilateral fence-mending thrown in. But they also assume as valid the fundamental tenet guiding the Administration’s approach, as defined by George Kennan during the Cold War, that securing the national interest lies in protecting "the continued ability of this country to pursue its internal life without serious interference." While that approach might have been relevant to the era of Cold War containment, it is untenable today. In a globalized world, it is no longer enough to center our foreign policy on a narrowly-defined concept of "national security" that assumes the continued dominance of the nation-state. What is needed is a fundamental change in the terms of the debate to include a realistic assessment of a world that is both interdependent and increasingly fragmented. What is missing is consideration of human security–and why, if we are to promote effectively our sustainable security, it must be incorporated into a modern American foreign policy.

"Human security" is a concept more familiar to those in the economic development field than the foreign policy world. Some define it in narrow terms, referring simply to the challenges posed by war and mass atrocities. But, increasingly, it is being more broadly defined as a concept that goes beyond a singular focus on the survival of states–as "national security" does–to include the survival and dignity of human beings regardless of national origins. The UN’s Commission on Human Security defines it as protection of "the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and fulfillment," while the Human Security Network–an alliance of like-minded countries ranging from Canada and the Netherlands to Jordan and Mali–describes its vision as "a humane world where people can live in security and dignity, free from poverty and despair."

There is a tendency among national security experts to discount the human security paradigm as idealistic and soft, while advocates of human security criticize those favoring national security for placing too much emphasis on narrow nationalism and military power. To be sure, the nation-state-based concept of national security can provide the foundation for strategies to deal with state-based threats, such as those posed by Iran or North Korea. But it is less relevant to the host of contemporary threats, ranging from climate change and pandemic flu to money-laundering and the international drug trade, threats that transcend state borders and affect people across the globe without reference to citizenship or state affiliation. Only by pursuing both national and human security can the United States hope to achieve a level of security that is sustainable and durable in the long term. This means adopting a strategy that takes into account short- term threats and long-term challenges; that focuses on both state-based concerns and global trends; and that reflects the simple fact that we can no longer pursue our internal life without interference from abroad.

Short-term vs. Long-term Security

With Iraq, Iran, and North Korea all posing greater risks to our security today than when President George W. Bush first lumped them together as the "axis of evil" five years ago, it is tempting to put off the less tangible and seemingly distant trends that are shaping the modern world and our future in it. And to be fair, American leadership must focus its attention on the near-term, state-based threats to our security; to do otherwise would be negligent. Successive presidents had to ensure that we prevailed in the long-running rivalry with the Soviet Union, and Bush rightly chose to prioritize the defense of America against terrorism in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

Yet, the need to confront immediate threats to America’s security must be balanced with efforts to manage our long-term security challenges; in other words, we must do two things at once. The short-term perspective considers how to deal with immediate threats and discrete incidents simply defined; a long-term view defines how a country wants an increasingly complex world to look in a generation and then outlines strategic approaches to make it so. Both approaches are necessary in a sustainable foreign policy package.

Bush, of course, would argue that his foreign policy will produce real security because it not only focuses on the near-term goal of success in Iraq, but also on the need to defeat "global terror." But even if he were to align his policies with his rhetoric, his vision would not lead to long-term, sustainable security because his fundamental assumption–that the events of September 11 changed everything–is wrong. Central as the war on terror is to our current security, it ignores the long-term human security challenges that existed before September 11 and still flourish today, from a global energy crisis and climate change to weak states and poverty. Responding to these challenges is complicated by the fact that we are facing a world in flux and, significantly, a shift in the arc of global power and influence that makes the simple assertion of America’s prerogatives difficult, if not impossible.

First, today’s centers of power and influence are growing in number and diversity. With growing economic and military power, China and India have established themselves as new and potent powers. The pursuit of nuclear weapons has rendered Iran, North Korea, India, and Pakistan decisive players on the world stage. Latin America is fast realigning as a left-leaning bloc eager to counter the United States. And as the recent collapse of the Doha Round of world-trade talks has made clear, even the world’s poorest countries, by uniting among themselves and with emerging-market nations, have newfound influence.

Second, ours is a time of stunning political upheaval. Since 1974, the number of democracies worldwide has increased by a factor of three–a positive gain to be sure, but one that has yet to be locked in. The vast majority of these countries–Nigeria, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, and even a large part of Eastern Europe–remain exceedingly fragile as they grapple simultaneously with profound political transition, the legacies of war and repression, and the strains of poverty. In the increasingly volatile Middle East, Africa, and Asia, the failure of rulers to deliver, economically or politically, has hastened the rise of a new political construct shaped by Islam. And where political Islam has grown more hostile, two other trends have emerged: the rise of a contrary, transnational political identity combined with a potent and dangerous extremism.

Third, we live in an era characterized by the economic marginalization of a near-majority of the world. Almost half of the world’s six billion people live on less than two dollars per day, and more than a billion survive on half that amount. More than 50 countries are poorer today than they were in 1990. Low-income countries account for only three cents of every dollar generated through exports in the international trading system, and less than 1 percent of the total global flow of foreign direct investment is going to the world’s least-developed countries. At the same time, the world’s ten wealthiest nations, which constitute only 14 percent of the world’s population, are 75 times richer than the ten poorest, and account for 75 percent of global GDP. With the expansion of the Internet and satellite television, these disparities become more visible–including to those on the bottom–and can easily fuel discontent.

Finally, sweeping demographic changes are poised to alter further the contours of the global socio-economic landscape. While the developed world soon will incur the economic burdens imposed by an aging population, the developing world is grappling with an expanding youth bulge. By 2025, 60 percent of the world’s population will live in cities, with many of them–like Cairo, Lagos, Nairobi, and Mumbai–ill-equipped to provide the jobs, housing, and services that this expanded population will require. These vast demographic convulsions are exerting increased pressure on already overstretched natural resources. Fossil-fuel-based energy supplies are already proving insufficient to meet our own demands, let alone the new demands posed by rapidly emerging markets like China and India. To top it all off, unchecked climate change threatens to trigger violent global weather patterns, exacerbate water stress, provoke mass migrations, and induce famine that could kill thousands of people and displace 150 million more by 2050.

These challenges are unique not only in scope but also in nature, as they are all transnational threats. They affect all of the world’s people, not just a handful of states. They cannot be defeated by military power. Managing them requires more than a strategy focused on defending and protecting the United States. It also requires a focus on human security to guide the United States as it attempts to manage globalization to its advantage and modernize the international system to serve our collective interests.

Toward a Sustainable Security Strategy

By complementing the traditional concept of national security with human security, America can craft a strategy that is more sustainable for the simple reason that it would afford the possibility of dealing simultaneously with short-term, nation-state-based threats and the global challenges that transcend state borders. But getting there requires three core elements: an organizing principle that can unite a majority of the world’s people; the elevation and strategic utilization of the full range of our foreign policy tools; and a revitalized international system that reflects not just the challenges that existed when it was created in the wake of World War II, but also the realities of today.