Whose Security?

“Whose Security? (2002)” Women’s Lives: Multicultural Perspective, New York: McGraw Hill, 2007, 599-602.

This article addressed several issues such as power, gender, and community. Each of these will be explored and analyzed to further understand the reading, and the implications it makes.

Power. 9/11 left many with insecurity, distrust, unbelief, and looking to someone who could fix the problem that had arisen. George Bush, and other government officials took advantage of the situation, and used it to drum up “U.S. foreign policy, which is military and corporate driven.” By doing this, those who already had power, were given even more power. They then used this to impose additional government spending on the war, and to supposedly help those who needed. They believed that everyone was worried about what had happened, and by doing this, they tried to push their foreign policy beliefs on other countries. U.S. government officials believed that they were in the right, and that by doing what they did, they were helping those who were suffering. This was expressed by the quote that, “Bush agenda domestically and internationally, including more unrestrained exercise of U.S. power and disregard for multilateralism. In addition, many thought that this even was a defining moment for all, but the author believed that, “the assumption that it is the defining moment for everyone, to be self-indulgent and shortsighted.” However, the war did increase spending and communication between other governments, supported by the statement that, “other governments have also used the occasion to increase military spending and to erode support for human rights. In that sense, it has become a defining moment because of how it has been used.” I believe that this issue is much more than just that. The fact that issues such as personal rights, the main reason why the war is going on now, has been pushed aside to strengthen military resources and power. If the main reason the war was started was for human rights, then why has it been put on the backburner, and not further addressed? It appears that this main concern was used as a stepping stone to push U.S. ways and government on other countries, and to overall increase the power of the U.S. and its government.
Gender. Another one of the main concerns of the war was women’s rights and their ability to be protected from males in their society. However, this concern has quickly been overpowered by national security and the formation of a government structure within the country. It was actually stated that, “while human security is a promising concept, it is far from being embraced as a replacement for the national security paradigm to which governments remain attached and have made vast commitments.” In addition to this, “the events of 9/11 should have generated attempts to address the very real threats to women’s human rights posed by fundamentalism, terrorism, and armed conflict in many guises.” This is astonishing because these were the main reasons that we invaded Iraq and neighboring countries. We were to provide women with hope, security, and a chance for a decent life. However, it seems that male domination in U.S. foreign policy has overstepped this and silenced the issue all together. Instead, they have focused on creating a democracy, which will more than likely be male driven. How is this suppose to help women if the very people who were abusing them now have even more power?

This article raised many issues about the effects of 9/11 at a personal, national, and nationwide levels. It should be reconsidered how the plan of action for the future will be carried out. Goals, motives, and the completion of the war on terrorism should be reevaluated, and subjected to further discussion before the original mission is lost and all hope is gone.