Journal of Human Security | 2015 | Volume 11 | Issue 1 | Pages 1–4

DOI: 10.12924/johs2015.11010001

ISSN: 1835-3800

Editorial

Editorial for Journal of Human Security Volume 11

Sabina W. Lautensach

1, 2, 3

Editor-in-Chief

of the Journal of Human Security, Librello, Basel, Switzerland

Human Security Institute, Canada

University of Northern British Columbia, Terrace, BC, V8G 4A2, Canada; E-Mail: [email protected]

Submitted: 2 February 2015 | Published: 24 February 2015

Dear Reader,

This editorial marks the beginning of the journal's

eleventh year since its inception as the

Australasian

Journal of Human Security

. As a sample from an ex-

tremely tumultuous era in human history, this time

span has consistently provided an abundance of human

security issues for me to comment on. Yet, for the first

time since that fateful day in September of 2001, I feel

that the world has arrived at another historical turning

point. I am referring to the attack on the Paris office of

the satirical journal

Charlie Hebdo

on January 7 and

the events immediately following it.

As with the attack on the World Trade Center, the

immediate retrospective reaction of "well of course, it

was inevitable" bounces around the internet commen-

taries. Truly, European immigration policies and migra-

tion trends have long moved along a collision course

with the widespread xenophobia and cultural intol-

erance that seem firmly entrenched even in 'progres-

sive' European countries, fuelling the growth of var-

ious protest movements on the political far right. Even

to the casual tourist, the masses of African street

dealers in public squares and railway stations seemed

to increase with every year. In 2010 German chan-

cellor Angela Merkel pronounced the failure of Ger-

man multiculturalism as a public ideal [1].

Besides the unabated mass influx of migrants and

domestic xenophobia, several additional factors con-

tributed to this sense of inevitability. To summarise

them very briefly:

• The office of the United Nations High Commis-

sioner on Refugees (UNHCR) has since its inception

insisted on a definition of refugees that excludes

people displaced for environmental reasons. This

has resulted in consistent underestimates of the

problems arising from population displacement in

West Africa and other regions most afflicted with

environmental deterioration. Those migrants con-

tribute the bulk of the influx into Europe through

Italy, Spain and France, and most of them are Mus-

lims. Recognised or not, the numbers of environ-

mental refugees are bound to increase further.

• Around the world, governments are increasingly

falling short of recognising and addressing the most

pressing challenges to the human security of their

citizens [2]. This includes ignoring anthropogenic

climate change and overpopulation, collusion with

and support of sinister corporate agenda, failing to

demilitarise politics, and supporting a global eco-

nomic system that, in the inimitable words of eco-

logical economist Bill Rees, "wrecks its planetary

home, exacerbates inequity, undermines social cohe-

sion, generates greater net costs than benefits and

ultimately threatens to lead to systemic collapse" [3].

• While the expansion of social media and global

communications has led to unprecedented amounts

of freely expressed opinion, not all of those voices

extolled the virtues of tolerance and human rights.

Ideologies of hate, violence and discrimination have

gained exposure and adherents as result of the

above developments. Backlash reactions, as in the

under a Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

• case of the 2014 film

The Interview

, involved

multinational corporations and national governments

and threats to cybersecurity.

• Despite all our 21st century interconnectedness,

religious fundamentalism has also gained followers.

This is by no means confined to Islam; radical Chris-

tians committed their share of torture, persecution

and mass killings for many centuries, and the suc-

cession of radical Zionist regimes in Israel is made

possible only by fundamentalist support. On the ide-

ologically opposite side, radical secular modernists

preach the utter commodification of nature and un-

ending economic growth with equal disregard for

human security and with similarly disastrous con-

sequences.

• In spite of the equitable historical culpability of

organised religions worldwide, Islam now has a

severe image problem. The problem arises out of

mistaken or self-serving interpretations of its scrip-

tures by influential clerics, corruption in the ranks of

some of its national leaders [4], stark contrasts be-

tween widely advertised Western and Muslim gender

stereotypes and penal codes, and the stream of

media accounts reporting publicly condoned violence

against women and girls in some Muslim countries,

regions or communities. I refer to this as an image

problem because I feel unqualified to assess the

extent of actual wrongdoing versus its represen-

tation in the media. Nevertheless, image is im-

portant—not least because it can elicit further wrong-

doing on all sides.

The latter point requires some elaboration. Islam is

by no means the only religion that features a some-

what spotty history of responsible leadership. There is

something particularly unholy about using spiritual

teachings to transform a congregation of kind-natured

and generally well-intentioned people into a raging

mob. This has been accomplished many times in his-

tory by a particular kind of religious leader in various

creeds, the kind that in Noah Gordon's words [5] is

"capable of praying and hating at the same time".

Violence in the name of a religion is surely among that

religion's most abominable sins, and yet it happens

with astounding historical regularity. With every new

incident, I lose a little more of what respect I have left

for organised religions and their hierarchies of power.

Much religiously inspired violence arises from the

perception of one's deeply held values and beliefs

having been offended. In an age where mobility and

displacement has caused an unprecedented extent of

contact between people of diverse cultures, the

chances of inadvertently offending one's neighbour

are greatly increased. In fact, the occurrence of such

offences is a statistical certainty. We have suggested

elsewhere that the only effective measure to prevent

violent reactions is for individuals and groups to

"prepare to be offended", primarily through educa-

tional means [6].

So why do I feel that the recent attacks and their

ramifications mark a historical turning point? One

reason is the unprecedented amount of public debate

about causes, contributing factors, mitigative policies

and the framing of responses to such attacks. Most

commentaries imply that recurrences are certain. For

the sake of their human security, the countries of

Schengen Europe need to facilitate and stimulate such

a debate in order to come to grips with the problems

arising from immigration. I shall come back to that

issue later. Another reason is the rallying of public

support, equally unprecedented, for the right to free

self-expression—a fundamental human right enshrined

in the Universal Declaration [7]. An essential founda-

tion for guaranteeing the freedom of the press, this

right lies at the heart of the perceived offences in the

Charlie Hebdo instance. Many feel very strongly that

the right to express free satirical commentary on any-

thing and anybody is a hallmark of a democratic so-

ciety. It is not by accident that among the first people to

be arrested by newly formed autocratic regimes, 1933

Germany or post-WWII Warsaw Pact countries, for ex-

ample, have always been writers of political satire.

To uphold the right to free self-expression in

principle is as important as to delimit it appropriately.

The re-invigorated debate should focus on where

those limits should be placed and how they could be

democratically determined and enforced. Holocaust

deniers and neo-fascist hate propagandists have

found out where European societies place the limits to

public deception and tolerating intolerance, respec-

tively. Those particular interpretations of free expres-

sion obviously crossed the line.

Of course, a widespread consensus on limits does

not guarantee that the consensus is morally defen-

sible. Many European societies show strong traditions

of anti-Semitism and prejudice against other ethno-

cultural minorities such as the Roma. Oral traditions

include the memories of Turkish invaders, domestic

crusaders against Islam, and numerous wars against

one's neighbours. Yet surprisingly seldom has it hap-

pened that someone actually took serious offence over

a public statement such as a satirical cartoon. The

arrival of Europe's Muslim populations changed that.

One might wonder why religion and humour seem

so at odds. The more ardent and fundamental a

person's religious beliefs, the less he or she seems to

tolerate humorous innuendos about it. The only reli-

gious leader I see laughing a lot in public is His Holi-

ness the Dalai Lama. What is wrong with the rest of

them? This historical turning point might well be taken

as an opportunity to examine one's own feelings and

reactions and to make a serious effort to prepare to

see one's religious values offended. The more difficult

that seems to a person, the more urgently he or she

probably needs to try.

Of course, the anticipatory effort to prepare to be

offended also comes with some obvious limitations. It

is unlikely to work in situations where confrontation

between two well-defined cultural groups has per-

sisted in the form of protracted violent conflict for

generations. A striking example is the Israel-Palestine

conflict with its complex historical background; in this

case preparing for offence seems pointless as both

sides already live in a state of persistent and multi-

faceted injury, aggravated by a cultural legitimation of

revenge. Confrontations marked by longstanding his-

torical grievances, habitual abuse of entrenched power

differentials, widely advocated contrary ideologies and

racism, and the poisonous influence of fundamentalist

religion on both sides might well be immune to any

individual effort to prepare for offence. Against such a

background the individual experience of offence pales

to insignificance, to a matter-of-fact confirmation of the

perceived status quo. In a way the opposing parties are

already prepared to be offended, and it offers little

help. While Europe is fortunate not to be encumbered

by such tragic circumstances, it will require serious ef-

forts not to let the situation deteriorate to that extent.

As in 1947 Palestine, the opportunities are still there.

Another obvious limit manifests in situations where

the offence is too overwhelming, as in the case of

over 2,000 annual cases of female genital mutilation

in the UK [8] and in other Western societies. The fact

that the practice violates local law seems less offen-

sive to the host culture than does the gross violation

of universally recognised human rights, committed on

cultural grounds that appear immaterial to the host

but all-important to the newcomer. This kind of moral

transgression is clearly in a different category than a

kosher restaurant serving pork, on account of the

human suffering and injustice involved and the

violation of moral norms that are globally subscribed to.

Asking the host culture to 'just get used to it' would

merely aggravate the offence and damage the status of

universal human rights. A mutually acceptable compro-

mise seems impossible in such situations.

This latter example shows how the situation of

displaced ethnocultural minorities changes the moral

ground on which the anticipatory effort to prepare for

offence takes place. Displaced people, whether they

arrived in their host country voluntarily or by force of

circumstance, are insecure guests. What I mean by

that is that they lack human security and particularly

cultural safety, relative to their hosts; they deserve to

be treated as one treats a guest in one's home (ex-

pected or not); and they are obliged to behave as

polite guests. Now where did we all go wrong in

relation to those norms?

What went wrong is, firstly, that neither side had

much of an idea of the other's vulnerable spots and

value priorities (and still hasn't, I reckon). Both sides

have very different cultural senses of humour, honour,

rights and obligations—not to speak of the language

barrier. But most importantly,

the house is now full

For about half a century, European countries have

operated under conditions of particularly strong eco-

logical overshoot, meaning that the impacts and de-

mands they made on their environmental support

structures (ecosystems) vastly exceeded the capacity

of those structures to sustainably support them. In

other words, Europe's carrying capacity has long since

been exceeded. The only reason this has worked so far

is because Europeans could afford to trade, steal or

otherwise appropriate resources and capacities from

other parts of the world. European colonial empires

were not just the passing fancies of monarchs! Even

with monarchs having receded into the background,

the neo-colonial means of perpetuating regional eco-

logical overshoot have survived and flourished—until

recently.

The most significant aspect of this historical turning

point is that we are approaching the end of the Age of

Waste. Resources are dwindling, populations and their

consumption are still growing, pollution and its resul-

tant effects on climate and health are changing the

planet and the rules that dictate a species' survival.

Many species are falling off the boat, never to be seen

again. Ecosystems are collapsing into simpler states,

less hospitable to humans and non-humans alike.

Every 'developed' national economy will have to ad-

just to the new contingencies, either by force or by

design; people will have to lead less luxurious, less

wasteful lives. Such a transition is possible, especially

in European societies that already have a low fertility

and at least a vague collective memory of historic

shortages and economic constraints. But the last thing

they need for that effort is more people at this time.

In the short term, Europeans and their guests will

do well to prepare to be offended by each other.

Where those offences are grave, compromises will

need to be negotiated. Furthermore, as an essential

requirement for lasting human security, Europeans will

need to embark on serious efforts towards their Great

Transition [9] towards a sustainable future of accept-

able quality. That will require economic degrowth,

knuckling down to some hard work, and creating ef-

ficient, resilient communities that depend only mini-

mally on external resources. Japan is leading this

process by example. But in the less developed, poorer

countries the collapse of agro-ecosystems will keep

generating refugees by the millions, and they will

keep trying to reach for the rich countries, primarily

Europe and the US, as their only perceived chance of

survival. In the longer term, and under the new

conditions of a changed planet, if Europe is to have a

reliable chance at attaining a sustainable future with

acceptable human security for all its citizens it cannot

accept additional millions of new citizens within its

borders. Once the Transition is achieved, this policy

should be reviewed.

I don't imply that siding with the neo-fascist fringe

on their uncompromising 'Fortress Europe' fantasy

would carry much promise of achieving that goal.

Rather more promising alternatives require a differ-

ential approach directed at reducing the 'pull factors'.

Immigrant quota should be limited to the demo-

graphic replacement level [10], directing newcomers

after appropriate training towards small and midsize

communities without contributing to their ghetto-

ization. About a third of all immigrants, amounting to

about 575,000 individuals in 2012, could be accom-

modated by such an internal settlement regime. The

remaining two thirds would need to be re-directed

towards alternative settlement solutions, preferably in

their home countries [10]. This reduction of the 'push

factors' is where Europe requires the support of the UN

and the international community. Without that support,

the increasing dangers of uncontrolled immigration

would render all sustainable goals elusive, jeopardising

Europe's human security for generations to come.

Best wishes,

Sabina W. Lautensach

References

[1] Connolly K. Angela Merkel declares death of

German multiculturalism. London, UK: The Guardian;

17 October 2010.

[2] Lautensach A, Lautensach S. Education for

Sustainability: How Can Educators Address the Failure

of Government? The 4th World Sustainability Forum,

1‒30 November 2014. Available from: http://sciforum.

net/conference/wsf-4/paper/2450.

[3] Rees WR. Avoiding Collapse: An Agenda for

Sustainable Degrowth and Relocalizing the Economy.

Vancouver, Canada: Canadian Centre for Policy Alter-

natives; 2014. p. 15.

[4] Weisman A. Countdown: Our last, best hope

for a future on earth? New York, NY, USA: Back Bay

Books; 2013.

[5] Gordon N. The Physician. New York, NY, USA:

Simon & Schuster; 1986.

[6] Lautensach A, Lautensach S. Prepare to be

Offended Everywhere: Cultural Safety In Public Places.

Second International Conference on Human Security:

Twenty Years of Human Security. Human Security Re-

search Center—Faculty of Security Studies, University

of Belgrade, 7‒8 November 2014. Proceedings forth-

coming.

[7] United Nations. The universal declaration of

human rights. New York, NY, USA: United Nations;

1948. Available from: http://www.un.org/en/docu

ments/udhr/index.shtml.

[8] McVeigh T. British girls undergo horror of gen-

ital mutilation despite tough laws. London, UK: The

Guardian; 25 July 2010. Available from: http://www.

theguardian.com/society/2010/jul/25/female-circum

cision-children-british-law.

[9] Raskin P, Banuri T, Gallopín G, Gutman P,

Hammond A, Kates R, Swart R. Great Transition: The

Promise and Lure of the Times Ahead. Stockholm En-

vironment Institute Polestar Report no. 10. Boston,

MA, USA: SEI; 2002. Available from: http://www.sei-

international.org/publications?pid=1547. The point

that no lasting human security can be achieved without

environmental sustainability has been convincingly

presented many times; I am taking it for granted here.

[10] At a total (2014) fertility rate of 1.60 children

per woman, Europe's population would shrink in the

absence of immigration. Of an estimated 1.7 million

immigrants in 2012, 575,000 (or almost 34%) could

be absorbed without resulting in a population

increase. Sources: Eurostat http://ec.europa.eu/

eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Migration_and_

migrant_population_statistics, CIA Factbook https://

www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

geos/ee.html.