Did the global response to 9/11 make us safer? | Benedetta Berti

Summary

The speaker reflects on the past two decades since 9/11, questioning the effectiveness of current security policies that often compromise human rights. They advocate for a reevaluation of international security, emphasizing the intrinsic link between security and human rights. The narrative should shift from a zero-sum game to one that prioritizes civilian protection and long-term stability. The speaker calls for a civilian-centered approach to security, focusing on sustainable development and the dignity of all people, regardless of their location or nationality.

Takeaways

• 🕰️ Almost 20 years after 9/11, it's time to reevaluate our security policies and their effectiveness.
• 🔍 We must question whether our current assumptions and policies have truly increased security and societal resilience.
• 🌐 The concept of international security should prioritize the protection of civilians both domestically and internationally.
• 🙅‍♂️ The prevailing narrative that security must be a zero-sum game, pitting it against human rights and freedoms, is flawed.
• 🤝 Security and human rights are not opposing values; they are fundamentally interconnected.
• 🏡 The most basic human right is to live free from violence, which is also the state's fundamental responsibility.
• 🌟 Sustainable security is built on a foundation of human rights, promoting and respecting them.
• ⚔️ Relying solely on military might to achieve security is insufficient; protecting victims and building stability are crucial.
• 🌍 A global security agenda centered on civilian protection is essential for long-term stability.
• 🏗️ Post-conflict efforts like rebuilding homes and restoring order are as important as military victories for long-term security.
• 👀 The long-term generational impact of conflict, such as children growing up in war, poses a significant threat to global stability.
• 🔄 Our security policies have been short-term focused, often overlooking the long-term consequences of our actions.
• 🛡️ Civilian-centered, sustainable security is necessary to break the cycle of conflict and promote long-term peace.

Q & A

What is the main purpose of the speaker’s message?

The main purpose is to advocate for a shift in how we approach international security, emphasizing the importance of protecting civilians and recognizing the intrinsic link between security and human rights.

How does the speaker define 'international security'?

The speaker defines 'international security' as the actions we take to prepare our countries to respond to external threats and protect our citizens, with a focus on protecting civilians both at home and abroad.

What is the speaker's criticism of the current security narrative developed over the past 20 years?

The speaker criticizes the current narrative for framing security in zero-sum terms, where security is seen as opposed to human rights. This, they argue, is flawed and counterproductive.

What does the speaker propose as an alternative to the military-centric approach to security?

The speaker proposes focusing on protecting civilians and building stability rather than relying solely on military force to defeat enemies. They advocate for a civilian-centered security agenda.

Why does the speaker believe the 'War on Terror' should be replaced?

The speaker believes the 'War on Terror' should be replaced because it has been too focused on defeating enemies militarily, which has not resulted in sustainable security. Instead, the focus should be on protecting civilians and fostering long-term stability.

How does the speaker link security and human rights?

The speaker argues that security and human rights are not opposites but are intrinsically related. They believe that sustainable security is built on the foundation of respecting and promoting human rights.

What long-term dangers does the speaker highlight in relation to the impact of conflict on children?

The speaker highlights that millions of children growing up in war-torn regions like Syria without education are a long-term generational threat to stability, as this lack of education and exposure to violence can lead to further radicalization.

What does the speaker identify as the flaws in short-term security policies?

The speaker points out that short-term security policies, such as relying on drones, may address immediate threats but fail to consider the long-term impact, which can perpetuate cycles of violence and radicalization.

Why does the speaker believe that focusing on civilian protection abroad also enhances security at home?

The speaker believes that focusing on civilian protection abroad leads to long-term global stability, which in turn enhances security at home by preventing the conditions that breed violence and radicalization.

What is the overall message the speaker conveys about the future of global security?

The speaker's overall message is that global security needs to shift towards a long-term, civilian-centered approach that integrates human rights, rather than focusing solely on military solutions or short-term policies.

Outlines

00:00

🔍 Rethinking Security Post-9/11

The speaker reflects on the past two decades since the 9/11 attacks and questions the effectiveness of the security policies and assumptions adopted in response. They emphasize the need for a radical shift in our approach to security, particularly international security, which should prioritize the protection of civilians both domestically and internationally. The speaker argues against the prevailing narrative that security must be a zero-sum game, compromising on values and rights for safety. Instead, they assert that security and human rights are intrinsically linked, with the state's fundamental duty being to ensure the right to life and freedom from violence for its citizens. The speaker also challenges the reliance on military might as the primary means of achieving security, advocating for a broader approach that includes protecting victims and building stability.

05:01

🌐 The Imperative of Civilian-Centered Security

The speaker continues to elaborate on the concept of civilian-centered security, stressing the importance of long-term strategies that consider the future implications of current security decisions. They critique the short-term focus of post-9/11 security policies, which have sometimes led to less security in the long run. The speaker uses the example of drone strikes, highlighting the potential for civilian casualties and the subsequent perpetuation of conflict and radicalization. They call for a security agenda that is sustainable and grounded in human rights, arguing that focusing on the protection of civilians, both at home and abroad, is crucial for true security. The speaker concludes by urging the audience to learn from the past and to prioritize the long-term well-being of civilians and the respect for human rights in all security endeavors.

Keywords

💡Sustainable Security

Sustainable security refers to a long-term approach to security that focuses on building stability by protecting civilians and promoting human rights. It contrasts with short-term, military-focused methods and emphasizes the need for policies that prevent future threats by addressing root causes, such as violence and instability. The speaker highlights the need to shift from military dominance to civilian protection to create lasting peace.

💡Human Rights

Human rights are fundamental freedoms and protections that all individuals should have, including the right to live without fear of violence. The speaker argues that security policies must be built on the foundation of human rights, suggesting that true security is impossible without respect for these rights. The video challenges the notion that security and human rights are opposed, instead presenting them as mutually reinforcing.

💡Civilian-Centered Security

This concept emphasizes the protection of civilians as the core goal of security efforts. Rather than focusing solely on defeating enemies, the speaker advocates for protecting ordinary people, both domestically and in conflict zones, as a way to ensure global stability. Examples from the script include efforts to rebuild homes and restore order in places like Syria and Iraq as essential to long-term security.

💡War on Terror

The War on Terror refers to the military campaign launched after 9/11 to combat terrorist organizations, primarily through military intervention. The speaker argues that this approach has led to flawed policies that have not necessarily made the world more secure in the long term. They call for moving beyond this mindset toward a more sustainable, civilian-focused security agenda.

💡Military Intervention

Military intervention is the use of armed forces to achieve security objectives. The speaker critiques the heavy reliance on military solutions in addressing international security threats, suggesting that they are insufficient for creating sustainable peace. The focus, they argue, should shift to protecting civilians and ensuring stability beyond battlefield victories.

💡Radicalization

Radicalization refers to the process by which individuals or groups come to adopt extreme views, often leading to violent behavior. The speaker discusses how military tactics, like drone strikes that kill civilians, can fuel cycles of radicalization, ultimately making the world less secure. They argue for addressing the underlying causes of radicalization, such as trauma and lack of education, to build lasting security.

💡Zero-Sum Security

Zero-sum security is the belief that security can only be achieved at the expense of other values, such as human rights or freedoms. The speaker challenges this mindset, arguing that security and human rights are not in opposition but are interconnected. The video critiques policies that have prioritized military dominance over the protection of human dignity.

💡Long-Term Impact

The long-term impact refers to the enduring consequences of security policies. The speaker emphasizes the need to consider how current actions, such as military interventions or drone strikes, affect future security. They argue that short-term solutions, like defeating ISIS militarily, must be accompanied by long-term efforts to rebuild societies and prevent radicalization to ensure global stability.

💡Indoctrination

Indoctrination is the process of instilling certain beliefs, often extreme or harmful, in individuals, particularly young people. The speaker points out that a major security threat posed by groups like ISIS is their ability to indoctrinate children by keeping them out of school and exposing them to violence. They argue that addressing this issue is critical to long-term security.

💡Dignity

Dignity refers to the right of individuals to be treated with respect and to live free from fear and violence. The speaker asserts that protecting civilians and ensuring their dignity, both in conflict zones and at home, is crucial for building lasting security. They argue that security efforts should focus on allowing people to live dignified lives rather than solely on military victories.

Highlights

Nearly 20 years after 9/11, it is time to reconsider the effectiveness of security policies and assess whether they have truly made society more secure.

The speaker advocates for a radical reframing of how we think and act about international security, emphasizing the need for long-term solutions.

Sustainable security, according to the speaker, is built on the foundation of human rights, not through compromises between security and freedom.

The opposition between security and human rights is false. True security comes from respecting and promoting human rights.

States have a fundamental responsibility to guarantee citizens' rights to live free from violence, which is central to the idea of sustainable security.

Communities affected by conflict also need basic security to achieve freedom and development, much like more stable societies.

The speaker challenges the assumption that military power alone can secure long-term safety, urging a shift toward protecting civilians.

The War on Terror should be replaced by a civilian-centered security agenda that focuses on protecting individuals globally, regardless of their nationality.

Defeating enemies is not enough. Sustainable security requires rebuilding communities, restoring political order, and ensuring access to education.

The speaker highlights the dangerous long-term effects of war on children, emphasizing that this poses a greater threat to stability than immediate military concerns.

Relying on drones and military tactics may address short-term threats, but civilian casualties can perpetuate conflict and radicalization.

Current security policies have often focused on immediate results, neglecting the long-term consequences of such actions.

The speaker calls for a greater emphasis on the long-term impact of security policies, especially concerning civilian safety and human rights.

Sustainable security should be based on human rights and protecting civilians, rather than solely on military action.

The failure to adopt a civilian-centered approach to security risks leaving the world in a more unstable and dangerous condition.

Transcripts

Almost 20 years have passed since 9/11.

It is time to take stock of where we stand

and stop and think.

It is time to ask ourselves,

have the assumptions and policies

we developed in the wake of those tragic events

truly made us more secure?

Have they made our societies, both in Europe and in the United States,

more resilient?

I've worked all my life in the field of security and defense,

and I am convinced that now, more than ever,

we need to radically reframe the way we think and act about security,

and especially about international security.

By international security, I actually mean what we do,

how we prepare our countries

to better respond and prevent external threats,

and how we protect our citizens.

The key to both

is to focus on protecting civilians,

both in our own countries

and in those where we are present in the name of security.

Now, this idea goes against the fixed narrative

that we developed over the past 20 years

over what security is and how to get it,

but that narrative is flawed, and worse, it is counterproductive.

Over the past 20 years,

both in the United States and in Europe,

we've come to accept that we must talk about security in zero sum terms,

as if the only way to gain more security is by compromising on values and rights:

security versus human rights,

safety versus freedom and development.

This is a false opposition.

It just doesn't work like that.

We need to recognize

that security and human rights are not opposite values,

they are intrinsically related.

After all, the most basic human right

is the right to live and to be free from violence,

and a state's most basic responsibility

is to guarantee that right for its citizens.

Conversely, if we think about communities all over the world

affected by war and conflict,

it is insecurity and violence

that stops them from achieving their full freedom and development.

Now, they need basic security just as much as we do

and they need it so they can live a normal life

and so that they can enjoy their human rights.

This is why we need to shift.

We need to acknowledge that sustainable security

builds on a foundation of human rights,

builds on promoting and respecting human rights.

Also, over the past two decades,

we have accepted that the best way to guarantee our own security

is by defeating our enemies,

and to do that, we need to rely almost exclusively on the military.

Again, this clashes with my work, with my research,

with what I see in the field.

What I see is that building sustainable security

has a lot less to do with crushing enemies,

has a lot less to do with winning on the battlefield,

and has a lot more to do with protecting victims

and building stability.

And to do that, well, the military alone

is simply insufficient.

This is why I believe we need to shelve the never-ending War on Terror,

and we need to replace it with a security agenda

that is driven by the principle of protecting civilians,

no matter where they are from, what passport they hold,

or where they live:

Vancouver, New York,

Kabul, Mosul, Aleppo or Douma.

Sustainable security tells us that we're more likely

to have long-term security at home for ourselves

if we focus our engagements abroad on protecting civilians

and on ensuring their lives are lived in dignity and free from violence.

For example, we all know that defeating ISIS

is a security achievement.

Absolutely.

But rebuilding destroyed homes,

restoring order,

ensuring a representative political system,

these are just as, if not more important,

and not just for the security of civilians in Iraq and in Syria,

but for our own security and for global stability.

More fundamentally,

ISIS's danger should not just be counted in the number of weapons it holds

but also in the number of children it has kept out of school

or indoctrinated.

This is from a security perspective.

From a security perspective,

the long-term generational impact of having millions of children in Syria

growing up knowing only war and out of school,

this is a far more dangerous threat to stability

than all of ISIS's weapons combined,

and we should spend just as much time and just as much energy to counter this

as what we spend when countering ISIS militarily.

Over the past two decades, our security policy has been short-term.

It has focused on the here and now.

It has systematically downplayed the link between what we do today

in the name of security

and the long-term impact of those choices.

In the years after 9/11,

some of the choices,

some of the policies we've implemented

have probably made us less, not more secure in the long term.

Sustainable, civilian-centered security

needs to look at what happens in the long term.

Again, for example,

relying on drones to target enemies in faraway countries may be a tool.

It may be a tool to make sure or to lessen the threat

of an imminent attack on the United States.

But what about the long-term impact?

If civilians are killed,

if communities are targeted,

this will feed a vicious circle

of war, conflict, trauma and radicalization,

and that vicious circle is at the center of so many of the security challenges

we face today.

This will not make us safer in the long term.

We need civilian security,

we need sustainable civilian-centered security,

and we need it now.

We need to encourage thinking and research around this concept,

and to implement it.

We live in a dangerous world.

We have many threats to peace and conflict.

Much like in the days after 9/11,

we simply cannot afford not to think about international security.

But we have to learn the lessons of the past 20 years.

To get it right, to get security right,

we need to focus on the long term.

We need to focus on protecting civilians.

And we need to respect and acknowledge the fact

that sustainable security builds on a foundation of human rights.

Otherwise, in the name of security,

we risk leaving the world

a far more dangerous and unstable place

than what we already found it in.

Thank you.

(Applause)