Student Network for Human Security (SNHS) Blog

From the BBC coverage on Swine Flu

Hi everybody!

You may be wondering about our silence. Well, besides our conference in August, we are going also to present a paper here, and thus we are working hard for it.

Therefore, just some quick comments about the swine flu incident.

First, to note how it was treated as a security issue in its own right, see for example the respective editorial column of the economist:

IT IS said that no battle-plan survives contact with the enemy. This was certainly true of the plan drawn up over the past few years to combat an influenza pandemic. The generals of global health assumed that the enemy would be avian flu, probably passed from hens to humans, and that it would strike first in southern China or South-East Asia. In fact, the flu started in an unknown pig, and the attack came in Mexico, not Asia. (Keep reading here

And the pandemic menace has been a security issue with ALL its components: emergency measures, restriction of human rights, use of public force... The article of Selgelid and Enemark "INFECTIOUS DISEASES, SECURITY AND ETHICS: THE CASE OF HIV/AIDS" (sorry, no free link here) can give you a good idea of the components I refer to. I consider that these arguments should be meditated more before loosely ascribing a threat to human security. This, the principal argument of my (under construction) presentation in August.

Let's for example, imagine about the patients: were they humans or the disease? Mexican in all the world were stigmatized all around the world, denied their right to free movement, and as in China, repatriated (see here the photo from the Telegraph - most probably is not related to the incident, but helps you have an idea about the situation)

In Japan, where initial efforts of isolation did not work, the subsequent strategy of containment has also presented the problem of stigmatization. You can have a look at this article of the Japan Times , where the journalists follow the responsibility of media in exacerbating fear.

This elements for your consideration while we prepare for August conference.

See you there!

At last a priority (via FPB)

The Wall Street Journal reports about a change of priorities in Afghanistan:

U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal said that American and other North Atlantic Treaty Organization troops must make a "cultural shift" away from being a force designed for high intensity combat and instead make protecting Afghan civilians their first priority.

This could be a surprise for those not familiar with the priorities of life in an armed conflict - though the General later says that civilians have always been the priority - but it is very illustrative of a possible positive change going underneath.

According to Kaldor, commenting on traditional security theory, troops in battle first protect civilians from their own country, then troops themselves, and just after them civilians from the enemy side and enemies. Although the reality in the ground is much more complex, this differential valuation of life taught in military schools partly explains the so-called collateral damage and other atrocities of war. Thus, the intention is very welcome, yet we may be decades from some real effects.