Security is defined as the quest for autonomy from risk and the capacity of nations and communities to preserve their autonomous identities and practical uprightness in the face of transformational forces that are perceived as hostile. Where else, development involves activities constituting situation positive transformation. Proponents of the security-development paradigm claim that security and development are intertwined in several ways that reinforce one another. Security and development were formerly considered as two separate fields with unique ideas and goals prior to the introduction of the nexus paradigm into the research arena (Kurantin et al; 2020). This change in perspective has been influenced by two causes. With this shift comes Chandler’s belief that policies in post-conflict countries, failed states, and countries with weak governments will be more cohesive and well-managed if security and development strategies are combined (Kurantin et al, 2020). Another argument is that development and security are mutually reinforcing, and that development is necessary to ensure long-term security (Nyadera and Bincof, 2019). Because of this, the security-development nexus focuses on how civil and military actors in international operations may best work together to address issues like post-conflict, failed states, and weak states in order to establish and preserve a sense of societal security and development. This paper seeks to give in-depth insights into why and how security and development are always mutually reinforcing.
As a result of the end of the Cold War, and particularly in the last decade, the concept of the security and development connection has received increased attention, with references to it appearing in government and international organization policy literature, academic journals, and scientific articles (Cederman et al., 2017). To put it in a more organizational context, former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said at the General Assembly that “humanity will not enjoy development unless it has security; nor will humanity enjoy security unless it has developed; and humanity will not enjoy either unless it has respect for human rights” (Johansson, 2015, p. 1). It is this type of writing that can be found in the European Union’s security strategy 2009, which states: “As both the European Security Strategy (ESS) and the 2005 Consensus on Development have acknowledged, sustainable development cannot occur without peace and security, and there will be no sustainable peace without development and poverty eradication.” (İşleyen, 2018).
According to (Furness and Gänzle, 2017) securing the future and fostering development are intertwined in a mutually reinforcing connection. When one of these variables is not satisfied, the mutuality is diminished, and as a consequence, neither security nor development can be achieved. Integrating security and development from a national viewpoint has the advantage of highlighting the need for collaboration between the military and civil authorities, such as the development community, to achieve success (Mukhammadsidiqov, and Turaev, 2020). Nonetheless, it is not assumed that the same understanding of what security and development are, or should be, in their respective domains would exist between two actors from two distinct professions.
According to (Okafor and Piesse, 2018) fragile nations have emerged as a significant focus of international research and activity, as well as a key target for international intervention. More than half of the world’s population resides in thirty-five or fifty “fragile” nations, most of which are in Africa. Successful initiatives in unstable nations need collaboration and careful planning, as assistance organizations and governments receiving help are well aware. The state is the most important arbiter of the link between security and growth in any situation (Jessop, 2017). In comparison to other parts of the world, the United States has a small number of troops stationed in Africa.
Training, equipping, and supporting African soldiers have been the primary focus of the operations (Burchard and Burgess, 2018). In a human security approach, the focus would be on ensuring the safety of an individual within the boundaries of his or her community. Criticisms have been leveled against Africa Command’s strategy for being overly state-centric and for failing to appreciate the complexity of the African security environment. On the other hand, human security is a more divisive issue than state security. Even the word “human” raises fundamental questions regarding whether or not it can ever be entirely “secure.” The figure below shows the relationship between underdevelopment and fragile nations, years before, and future projections.
Figure 1.0 (Jasmin et al, 2021, p. 1)
Ending structural violence in all its manifestations implies creating a society in which people’s life chances and potential to live a full, productive, and happy existence are not constrained by the institutions of the society in which they live. Security and peace can only be achieved via the development and transformation of the institutions that affect a person’s life prospects (Howe, 2019). As an integrative concept, human security is seen as one that can only operate properly when solidarity is fostered among its constituent parts. Getting rid of fear and hunger should be the main priority for organizations and individuals at all levels as the first step toward this goal. If a state has a larger or lesser role in both development and security, it raises questions about the legitimacy of that state in the view of citizens (Nazarov, A., 2021).
Insights of World Bank’s World Development Report of 2011
The World Bank issued the 2011 World Development Report, which was titled “Conflict, Security, and Development.” insecurity was referred to as the “primary development problem of our age” in its foreword (Horner, 2020). As per (Valensisi, 2020) countries that have been subjected to a significant amount of violence are seeing a growing discrepancy in poverty levels. Its main goals are to increase public safety, access to justice, and job possibilities for the general public. To break the vicious cycle of violence, the business sector may play an important part. Concerning governance difficulties, the World Bank studies the reasons and best strategies to deal with violence as part of its World Development Report (WDR). In this study, there are three distinct governance characteristics: the exclusion of persons and groups from a negotiation situation due to power disparities.
Development and Security Are Inseparable entangled?
There is no commonly accepted notion of the relationship between security and progress. Accounts of this relationship, or the “security-development nexus,” as it is often called, must, according to (Barrett, 2018) be exposed to rigorous critical assessment regularly. Duffield’s study on Barret’s article focuses on what he refers to as evolving global governance systems, or political complexes, that have been constructed to deal with a range of threats to the ‘North’s’ security that originate in the underdeveloped and insecure ‘South.’ The most pressing security worry is the North’s security, both as a bloc and as individual states. The importance of the area in determining security and development at the state and sub-state levels has been grossly undervalued as a consequence of the focus on global complexes. In conflict-ridden areas, weak nations are generally unable or unwilling to maintain control over their borders. Government and state control failings have a major influence on the war. This discussion has focused on how to implement security and development in nations that are confronting challenges in both areas, according to Nilsson and Taylor (2017). Developing and enforcing security rules must not be designed in isolation from reality on the ground. In this way, development is put to use by a single person or organization to achieve its own goals.
More and more people are looking at resource depletion from a development and security standpoint. ‘Energy security,’ for example, is included in the White House’s National Security Strategy of 2006 (Stokes and Breetz, 2018). There has been a lot of discussion about how global warming poses a danger to world peace and security because of the growing struggle for dwindling resources. Because of this categorization, global health challenges like HIV/AIDS transmission are now deemed security risks (the Elbe, 2020). The premise that security can’t come without development is starting to fall apart at the international level.
As (Matthews, 2019) puts it, underdevelopment in one country or region has the potential to affect the ability of residents and governments in other nations or areas to live in peace in the future, although this is far from a certain conclusion. Development in developing nations is strongly influenced by political, security, and governance factors as well as legitimate and illicit economic activity. Insecurity in Rwanda might have a severe impact on the Great Lakes region’s prospects for progress and security (Mucuuthi, 2020). There are some similarities and some differences in the results reached when attempting to describe the linkages between security and development. What is being protected, who is being protected, and how can security be done most effectively to enable development are all concerns that need to be answered. In terms of development, who stands to benefit, and how can this affect the security of other regions and groups?
How the Security and Development Linkage Initiated
When it comes to many developing countries, the link between security and development is sometimes seen as a representation of the country’s weakened sense of sovereignty. This is partly owing to the weakened sovereignty of emerging countries, especially after they gained independence from colonial rule, but it is also due to other factors. Throughout many developing nations, the experience of colonialism has served as an important historical reference point in the development of the modern state (Reid, 2020). The implications of decolonization on the development of African statehood have been extensively researched by a large number of scholars. Throughout the post-independence era, African countries were seen as foreign protectorates in certain respects, despite their independence. As a result of the concept of quasi-states, it became clear how important it is to adhere to non-interference norms in the internal affairs of other countries. Governments in Africa, in general, concentrated their efforts on suppressing internal threats to their power, which they often accomplished with considerable cruelty (Killingray, 2017). In reality, though, this was not the situation. Clients from superpowers were tolerant of the situation, though not delighted.
Globalization, History, and continuity
There is one thing the African elites have in common: they all want to stay alive, and they use a variety of methods to achieve this aim, some legal and some unlawful (such as organized crime). Nation-state elites gain enormously from the globalized economy by combining their political power with wealth-accumulation methods that are often illegal but may nevertheless net them substantial sums of money. Crime in poor countries may have far-reaching political and economic ramifications across the world, as is readily apparent (Kar and Spanjers, 2017). Global political and economic effects of the drug trade are an excellent example of how unlawful action may have tremendous international consequences (Kar and Spaniers, 2017). Governments in underdeveloped countries have tough decisions to maintain their political positions. In periods of poor or no economic development, the state’s role might shift substantially, giving actual choices to the general people.
One of the most essential aspects of dominant narratives is how various states of being, including those of “empty,” “failed,” and “weak,” are depicted. It is the New Deal’s ultimate goal to find solutions to provide stability and prosperity to these situations. (Levine, 2017). Both the importance of the state in these processes and the concurrent state-building and peacebuilding efforts are highlighted in this study. To define a collection of nations struggling to meet both development and national security goals while still maintaining their sovereignty, the phrase “fragile state” has been used; nevertheless, it is not politically neutral.
New Deal and Fragile Nations
Fragility is a phrase used to describe nations that don’t satisfy the fundamental requirements of being recognized as sovereign entities. Development players need to better understand how assistance works and how it can be improved in fragile nations, which accounts for around a third of all aid spending. When it comes to nations that have been labeled “fragile states,” this is one of the more glaring instances of how the title has been repurposed. For example, the New Deal is an example of how to help recipient governments are becoming more outspoken in identifying their priority areas for aid (Levine, 2017). People’s access to justice, revenue management, and social service delivery are all areas that need to be addressed to guarantee that the rights of minorities and disadvantaged groups are adequately safeguarded (Adams et al., 2017). Ideational elements focus on people’s allegiance or connection to the government. Support for human rights, minority protection, and civic education are all provided by development actors. It’s important to understand how they are related in theory and reality, and what the ultimate goal is envisioned by those who are giving development aid.
The Liberal States and the objectives of Development
Since the 1990s, mainstream policy discourse has been dominated by attempts to define and find ways of (re)producing liberal states. At its most basic we can consider the liberal state to be an attempt to enshrine, through particular political, economic, and social frameworks, the values associated with liberalism (Jackson, 2015). Many aspects of its character require integration within a system of similar states to flourish. The focus on creating liberal states and the systems of global governance in which they can operate effectively has led to the promotion of democracy and the primacy of market economics in developing and post-conflict states. There is a growing chorus of concern at the perceived ‘one size fits all approach of Western states to international development, particularly in poor and fragile states.
This need not, however, be seen as a loss of power; rather, sovereignty is compromised, shared, and vested in global governance organizations. In countries where competition for political power and access to the resources of development have found expression through violence, can a democratic process that encourages competition for those same resources, through control of the state, occur peacefully? According to (Bishop, 2016), the virtues of the twin processes which underpin this model of the liberal state, marketization, and democratization, are highly contested in academic theory and subject to resistance on the ground from actors in developing states. A program of liberal state-building through these two processes may well lead to violence and conflict rather than to improvements in security. A post-Westphalian international liberal peace requires non-liberal states to be liberalized for that peace to become sustainable (Weber, 2017).
To problematize security as an outcome as well as a prerequisite of progress. The Rome Statute established the International Criminal Court as an independent enforcement instrument for human rights (ICC) (Appel, 2018). During the Cold War, superpowers provided military assistance to governing elites in critical nations. When superpower donors abandoned these organizations in the 1990s, civil war erupted. The loss of superpower assistance left armed organizations in many developing countries. The complexity of the security sector has hampered the development of liberal nations in developing countries. These included state-armed troops, special republican or presidential guards, rebel forces, foreign combatants, and ethnic and regionally defined militias. Reforming the security sector with foreign support is becoming more widespread.
Development and Security after Millennium Development Goals
Discussions about prospective successors have been taking place in the UN (United Nations) system, academia, and policy circles since 2010, as the deadline loomed. Peacebuilding and State-building goals, developed during the New Deal, give further pressure to evaluate how security and prosperity might coexist (Weiss and Daws, 2018). Specified objectives for reducing armed violence should be included in the MDG replacement framework. Consider more threats and sorts of violence by allowing this option. The 2006 Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development, as well as explicit objectives and goals on armed violence in the 2016 Sustainable Development Goals, already reflects this trend.
Millennials Development Goals Infographic
Figure 2.0 Thomas (2015
It is becoming more common for nations in Southern Africa to claim the ‘fragile’ or ‘failed’ moniker for themselves and use it to question the methods donors use in such circumstances. Rethinking development in this manner aligns with initiatives to shift the focus away from “us vs them” to a more collaborative approach. Using the case study of Uganda, Fisher (2014) shows how the government of Yoweri Museveni has used these phrases to maximize support for his administration while at the same time minimizing foreign criticism of domestic policy.
In conclusion, post-conflict, failed states, and weak states are addressed by the security-development nexus. This paper aims to explain why and how security and progress constantly reinforce one other. Africa Command’s security strategy has been criticized as being too state-centric. From a national perspective, integrating security and development requires military-civilian cooperation. The focus would be on ensuring an individual’s safety within their community. In its World Development Report, the World Bank examines the causes and solutions to violence (WDR). This bill seeks to improve public safety, justice, and job opportunities. The business sector may be able to help break the cycle of violence. Insecurity in Rwanda may jeopardize the region’s progress and security. Developing and enforcing security rules cannot be done in a vacuum. Internationally, the idea that security requires development is crumbling. The impact of decolonization on African state formation has been extensively studied. The globalized economy benefits nation-state elites by combining political power and wealth accumulation. Crime in poor countries may have global political and economic repercussions. Players in development must better understand how aid works and can be improved. Around a third of all help goes to fragile nations. Ideational components emphasize people’s loyalty to the state. Development actors support human rights, minority protection, and civic education. For a post-Westphalian international liberal peace to endure, non-liberal nations must be liberalized. The security sector’s complexity has hampered liberal nations’ development. The Rome Statute established the International Criminal Court as a human rights enforcer (ICC). This way of thinking about development aligns with efforts to move away from a “us vs. them” mentality. ‘Developmentalising’ security instead of securitizing it is risky. An issue’s politicization may lead to urgent action, political prioritizing, and financial mobilization. Concerns about Western domestic security objectives have many in development.
Kurantin, N. and Osei-Hwedie, B.Z., 2020. China and the West: Contestations in African Development and Security. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF SOCIAL AND STRATEGIC STUDIES, 1, pp.122-150. https://www.ejsss.net.in/article_html.php?did=8881&issueno=0
Nyadera, I.N. and Bincof, M.O., 2019. Human security, terrorism, and counterterrorism: Boko Haram and the Taliban. International Journal on World Peace, 36(1), pp.4-15. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2347798920921965
Cederman, L.E. and Vogt, M., 2017. Dynamics and logics of civil war. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 61(9), pp.1992-2016. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0022002717721385
Johansson, V., 2015. The security and development nexus: A policy analysis. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:784285/FULLTEXT01.pdf
İşleyen, B., 2018. Building capacities, exerting power: The European Union police mission in the Palestinian Authority. Mediterranean politics, 23(3), pp.321-339. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629395.2017.1319750
Furness, M. and Gänzle, S., 2017. The Security–Development Nexus in European Union Foreign Relations after Lisbon: Policy Coherence at Last? Development Policy Review, 35(4), pp.475-492. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629395.2017.1319750
Mukhammadsidiqov, M. and Turaev, A., 2020. Influence of us neoconservatism on formation of national security paradigm. The Light of Islam, 2020(3), pp.113-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629395.2017.1319750
Okafor, G. and Piesse, J., 2018. Empirical investigation into the determinants of terrorism: Evidence from fragile states. Defence and Peace Economics, 29(6), pp.697-711. https://doi.org/10.1080/10242694.2017.1289746
Jessop, B., 2017. The Future of the State in an Era of Globalization. Challenges of Globalization, pp.13-26. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315081618-2/future-state-era-globalization-bob-jessop
Burchard, S. and Burgess, S., 2018. US training of African forces and military assistance, 1997–2017: Security versus human rights in principal–agent relations. African Security, 11(4), pp.339-369. https://doi.org/10.1080/19392206.2018.1560969
Jasmin Baier et al., (2021). Poverty and fragility: Where will the poor live in 2030?. Retrieved 27 March 2022, from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2021/04/19/poverty-and-fragility-where-will-the-poor-live-in-2030/
Howe, P., 2019. The triple nexus: A potential approach to supporting the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals? World Development, 124, p.104629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104629
Nazarov, A., 2021. Challenges to Uzbekistan’s secure and stable political development in the context of globalization. Journal on International Social Science, 1(1), pp.26-31. https://joiss.net/index.php/joiss/article/view/22
Horner, R., 2020. Towards a new paradigm of global development? Beyond the limits of international development. Progress in Human Geography, 44(3), pp.415-436. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0309132519836158
Valensisi, G., 2020. COVID-19 and global poverty: Are LDCs being left behind? The European journal of development research, 32(5), pp.1535-1557. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41287-020-00314-8
Barrett, R., 2018. The Development-Security Nexus: An Exploitative Past and Present. E-International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info/2018/07/24/the-development-security-nexus-an-exploitative-past-and-present/
Barret, R. (2018). The Development-Security Nexus: An Exploitative Past and Present. Retrieved 27 March 2022, from https://www.e-ir.info/2018/07/24/the-development-security-nexus-an-exploitative-past-and-present/
Nilsson, M. and Taylor, L.K., 2017. Applying the security-development nexus on the ground: land restitution in Colombia. Conflict, Security & Development, 17(1), pp.73-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/14678802.2016.1231844
Elbe, S., 2020. Strategic implications of HIV/AIDS. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315000756
Stokes, L.C. and Breetz, H.L., 2018. Politics in the US energy transition: Case studies of solar, wind, biofuels and electric vehicles policy. Energy Policy, 113, pp.76-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.10.057
Matthews, R., 2019. The creation of regional dependency. University of Toronto Press. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781487577605
Mucuuthi, R.N., 2020. Regionalism and Natural Resources Management: Conflict Resolution, Security Management and Development in Africa’s Great Lakes Area (Doctoral dissertation, Howard University). https://www.proquest.com/openview/f1aa30e8ce203dcd7aaabdda85e5c0d5/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
Reid, R.J., 2020. A history of modern Africa: 1800 to the present. John Wiley & Sons. https://books.google.co.ke/books?hl=en&lr=&id=69y0DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA13&dq=Colonialism+as+historical+reference+for+development+of+modern+african+states&ots=u5Y-i1M1E3&sig=-ZPgOSaR29NTAqNHPLhZF1aiVHw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Colonialism%20as%20historical%20reference%20for%20development%20of%20modern%20african%20states&f=false
Killingray, D., 2017. Guardians of empire (pp. 1-24). Manchester University Press. https://www.manchesterhive.com/configurable/content/9781526121462$002f9781526121462.00007.xml?t:ac=9781526121462%24002f9781526121462.00007.xml
Levine, R.F., 2017. Class struggle and the New Deal: Industrial labor, industrial capital, and the state. Class: The Anthology, pp.413-436. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119395485.ch28
Kar, D. and Spanjers, J., 2017. Transnational crime and the developing world. Global Financial Integrity. Washington, pp.53-59. https://respect.international/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Transnational-Crime-and-the-Developing-World-Global-Financial-Integrity-2017.pdf
Adams, R., Dominelli, L. and Payne, M. eds., 2017. Social work: Themes, issues and critical debates. Red Globe Press. https://books.google.co.ke/books?hl=en&lr=&id=SplMDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR10&dq=New+deal+dealing+with+justice,+revenue+management,+and+social+service+delivery+&ots=e_lZey-Pq4&sig=of-Lry1Dx5U2WPebaBGjiUAH_9Q&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Jackson, P., 2015. Introduction: security and development. In Handbook of international security and development. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781955536
Weber, H., 2017. Politics of ‘leaving no one behind’: contesting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals agenda. Globalizations, 14(3), pp.399-414. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2016.1275404
Bishop, M.L., 2016. Democracy and development: a relationship of harmony or tension? In The palgrave handbook of international development (pp. 77-98). Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/978-1-137-42724-3_5
Appel, B.J., 2018. In the Shadow of the International Criminal Court: Does the ICC Deter Human Rights Violations? Journal of conflict resolution, 62(1), pp.3-28. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0022002716639101
Thomas, V. (2015). What Comes After the MDGs?. Retrieved 27 March 2022, from https://blogs.adb.org/blog/what-comes-after-mdgs
Weiss, T.G. and Daws, S. eds., 2018. The Oxford Handbook on the United Nations. Oxford University Press. https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=Ubvy59oAAAAJ&citation_for_view=Ubvy59oAAAAJ:lgwcVrK6X84C
Fisher, J., 2014. When it pays to be a ‘fragile state’: Uganda’s use and abuse of a dubious concept. Third World Quarterly, 35(2), pp.316-332. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2014.878493