Virtuous imperialism or a shared global objective? - Environmental and Human Security in the Arctic - page 65

Human security was supposed to be transformative, but Canada's view of
human security was so limited that there was nothing transformative about
it, no commitment to addressing inequalities (ibid.). Hataley and Nossal
noticed Canada's hesitance to really engage when human security seemed to
be threatened. Keeble and Smith (2001:136) summed up the problem with
the question: 'How can a country promote human security while participat-
ing in activities that perpetuate so many sources of insecurity?'
Dominant security discourses perpetuate the
'us-them' polarization
Dominant human security definitions, and more such practices (as illustrated
by the Canadian example), have contributed to, I would argue, an 'us-them'
polarization. It is assumed that freedom from fear and want is not relevant
for a particular experience - more specifically for those living in a stable
state. For example, regarding fear and want in the average Canadian or North
American's life it is assumed that the state is well placed to address these
fears. As noted above, human security was about people in 'far-flung places'.
Human security was fronted as part of a foreign policy regime for northern
states like Canada and Norway, not as a lens to assess insecurities within com-
munities at home. Thus the approach assumed that all human insecurity must
lie outside of their borders, largely in the global South, without recognizing
the complex relationships between different security practices and actors at
home and abroad. A broader definition of human security calls for greater
recognition of context, non-state actors (particularly individuals and com-
munities) and security practices, which in turn will say more about security/
insecurity origins and solutions, and would not exclude or isolate the North
or South. Human security issues like the sex trade, the proliferation of disease,
the arms trade, poverty and famine occur within the global North, as well as
between the North and South. Insofar as the Canadian approach acknowl-
edged an increased insecurity amongst its own civilians, it looked only in one
direction, where threats did not occur internally but usually emanated from
the outside or the 'other': 'Whether it is a terrorist bomb exploding and kill-
ing or injuring Canadians travelling or working abroad, or a sexual predator
half way around the world talking to a child who is using the Internet in
Charlottetown' (McRae and Hubert 2001:11).
Beyond identifying and perhaps 'solving' human security crises abroad as
a foreign policy platform, human security also seemed to become a way of
identifying the 'other' as a source of insecurity for Canadians, both as indi-
viduals and communities but also state security. Human security was thus
still about state security. Insecurity was perceived to originate from the out-
side to Canada, not the other way around: 'The tentacles of terrorism or crime
can stretch from the Middle East or the Balkans to the backyards of Toronto'
(ibid.). Human security was not a problem inside Canada because insecurity