In this video, I discuss the problems of defining security, and the way that different
organisations and interest groups try to define it in ways that suit their objectives. I go
on to propose a straightforward and relatively limited definition of security, and then
to look at the three levels at which it is provided, from security in against harm or loss
in everyday life, through the control of territory, up to protection of national borders
and interests.
In this video, I look at what happens when security is absent, distinguishing between
security as a condition, and security as a set of organizations. I note that for almost all
of human history, there were no security structures as they exist today, but that
security, nonetheless, was still provided, as it is today in places where the state is
absent or ineffective. I go on to talk about the destructive effects of liberalism on
traditional security provision, and the consequences of the failure of replacement
structures imported from the West.
In this video, I look at the problems of defining conflict, and then trying to explain why
it happens. I look at a range of explanations, none of which is really satisfactory, and
conclude that there is no «
conflict,
» but only conflicts. I look at the difference
between conflicts that
may
have a
solution, and zero-sum conflicts that do not, and
why the difference is important. I suggest that, in practice, some conflicts may be
unavoidable, and that ultimately we should try to learn, not from the causes of conflict
but the causes of peace.
