The origins of war-induced insecurity
In 1940, the national sense of insecurity soared. The German army had achieved quick successes in mainland Europe, British troops had left France in the Dunkirk evacuation of May 1940, and Hitler’s intention to invade Britain was clear. Huge Luftwaffe bombing raids caused widespread destruction and killed many people in the cities, whilst Hitler’s army assembled across the Channel.
This invasion threat diminished after the RAF’s success in the Battle of Britain in the autumn of 1940, and even further after Hitler invaded Russia in June 1941. However, a strong sense of insecurity persisted, albeit at a lower level, as many families had lost loved ones. Service personnel were at high risk in the ongoing fighting, and civilians at home suffered hardships and shortages.
Finally, victory over Germany and Japan was declared in 1945, and that extreme level of insecurity subsided.
Actual war with an external power is one of the worst kinds of insecurity. Ukraine, Gaza, and many other countries are experiencing that today.
The lingering threat of war
The threat of conflict is another kind of insecurity. During the Cold War, the world was subject to the battle for great power supremacy. This period began after the Second World War, when Russia sought to challenge American power and establish a Soviet empire in Europe. It ended, symbolically at least, with the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989.
For more than four decades, the world suffered from the insecurity of ongoing nuclear brinkmanship, when any exchange of missiles could have annihilated millions. That catastrophe was somehow avoided, and the world benefited from the increased security thereafter.
NATO was formed in 1949, providing its members the promise of security by deterring aggression and providing a strong military safeguard. Yet its effectiveness was always limited by the requirement for unanimity among its members. After 1989, NATO’s strength gradually declined as East-West tensions diminished and countries reduced their defence spending.
Today, war and the threat of war have returned, with major conflicts, a weakened NATO, and powerful hostile states – China, and particularly Russia – constantly pushing for more power and destruction of democracy and Western values everywhere. Once again, global insecurity reminds us that peace must be actively protected.
The insecurity of deprivation
The Beveridge vision
There are many other causes of personal and national insecurity besides war. In the early war years, the UK government recognised that many people had long suffered from various forms of insecurity and social disadvantages.
Sir William Beveridge was commissioned to produce a report, Social Services and Allied Services, to address the most pressing concerns of the time – the Five Giants: want (poverty), squalor (housing), ignorance (education), idleness (employment), and disease (health).
The Beveridge Report was widely welcomed, and legislation followed, setting the stage for all the welfare and health services, and security-enhancing provisions that we know and still value today.
Progress in the United States
Similarly, in the United States, as explained by Thom Hartmann:
“The period from 1933 to 1981 saw an explosion of government activity designed to benefit average working class Americans. Democrats pushed into law – in every case over the loud objections of Republicans – the programs that quite literally created the first widespread American middle class in the 1950s.
“They included Social Security, the right to unionize, the minimum wage, unemployment insurance, the 40-hour week, workplace and product safety protections, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance, free quality public education, protections for the environment, banking and insurance industry regulation, public health programs that almost doubled the average American lifespan, high progressive taxation on great wealth, and numerous others.”
This era established economic and social security that reduced suffering for millions.
The neoliberal turn
Beginning with UK Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, such progress stalled. Following the influence of neoliberalism, market-based solutions became the priority, especially through the privatisation of state-owned assets and industries.
Under successive Conservative governments, emphasis shifted towards reducing the size and role of the state, lowering taxes needed to fund welfare and other security-enhancing programmes, and encouraging citizens to take responsibility for their own security – even in cases where the nature of the threats was too great. This remains the battle between the political right and left in the UK today.
In the United States, a similar pattern developed. Hartmann again explains:
“In the 44 years since Reagan’s inauguration, there hasn’t been a single major program passed through Congress that doesn’t benefit giant corporations or the morbidly rich (or both) more than average people. Even Obamacare was a Heritage Foundation plan from the 1980s to enrich the private, for-profit insurance industry at government expense.”
International collaboration and its limits
Internationally, the formation of the United Nations in 1945 provided hope that conflicts could be resolved peacefully and that human rights, poverty, and environmental safeguards would be improved by international collaboration. The experience of the last 80 years demonstrates that, although some hugely positive things have been achieved, the UN’s biggest challenges in preventing and resolving conflict have proved difficult and often unsuccessful.
The European Union (EU) is another post-war institution that has been largely successful, especially as a trading bloc. Smaller countries needed to cooperate in order to face the expansive economy of the United States and, more recently, China. This collaboration has undoubtedly benefitted the security of its members, although its effectiveness is currently restricted by the need for unanimity among members and by the rise of anti-EU populist parties and governments.
Nuclear threats increase insecurity
Nuclear power and the risk of accidents
The nuclear threat from other countries has increased. Instead of the original four countries (USA, Russia, UK, and France), around 40 countries now possess, or can readily acquire, nuclear weapons. Many of these nations are authoritarian or dictatorial in nature, run by one dominant party, organisation, or family. Others are politically unstable, and management of their nuclear arsenals is not always reliable.
In addition to nuclear weapons, there are many more nuclear power stations around the world. With them, the likelihood of accidents, disputes over ownership, or unsafe management has increased.
The explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant,100 km north of Kyiv, in 1986 remains a reminder of the catastrophic risks. The Zaporizhzhia plant – the largest in Europe, owned by Ukraine but currently occupied by Russia – has been subjected to dangerous shelling during the current war. This poses an extremely high risk of nuclear disaster.
Russia’s renewed threat
The overall risk of nuclear events, through conflict or accident, has risen substantially. Russian expansionism under President Putin continues to threaten Europe, and the risk of escalation in the Ukraine war remains very real and barely contained. Beyond this, Russia’s use of disinformation, influence operations, and repeated nuclear threats have further destabilised international security.
Far-right parties threaten democracy and create insecurity
In the United States, a populist, right-wing government under President Donald Trump has introduced policies that many critics argue undermine aspects of public welfare and social security. These reduce social protections and weaken the sense of economic and personal security among many citizens.
This populist, far-right agenda is also in the ascendancy throughout Europe. The European far-right parties are supported, encouraged, and helped by both Russia and America, though for different reasons. The former seeks to destabilise and ultimately destroy democratic societies, particularly within the European Union. The latter, by contrast, aims to export its MAGA philosophy and secure dominance for American industries over their European competitors.
To gain and retain power, it seems these parties will stop at nothing. In practice, this means undermining democracy at all levels and diminishing security in all ways. This is a profound threat against the best interests of all democratic nations and all the people who live in them.
Other emerging security threats
Climate change
Despite intense global efforts to reduce this risk, the climate continues to worsen for human habitation. While progress is being made through increasing green energy sources, it is not happening fast enough to offset the ongoing rise in fossil fuel use by dominating countries and corporations.
A future of mass death and starvation is likely, creating great insecurity for most people, especially younger generations.
Nature and biodiversity loss
Biodiversity loss is happening at an accelerating rate as a result of population pressures on land use, climate change making some species extinct, and weak planning regulations everywhere. When natural systems are desecrated or destroyed for short-term interests, life support systems such as air, water, and the interaction of plants and animals can no longer sustain human life. This, too, is a profound source of insecurity for all societies.
The digital economy
The digital economy is now integrated into every life, business, and government activity. With the advent of artificial intelligence, this integration will only increase. This total life dependence on cyber security is extremely risky: any disruption, and there have been many recently, has the potential to cause havoc to essential services. Bad actors exploit this for profit or political advantage, increasing the insecurity of individuals and nations.
Global insecurity rising
Security threats are increasing around the world, on a scale beyond the ability of individuals, families, local communities, and even nations to resist. Yet the international means to counter these huge threats have been weakened by vested interests, powerful nations, and the dictators who have achieved power within them. These actors see it as being in their interests to prevent collaboration and to impede the solutions needed to protect the welfare of the human population. This situation is dire and will lead to continuing and worsening insecurity for all.
Comments? We want to hear them. Please write to editor@westenglandbylines.co.uk
