Is security too political?
The above challenges point to a higher level consideration of whether security is too political to be a feasible goal for the post-MDG framework? The MDGs represent a relatively uncontroversial agenda of hard-not-to-like goals (Millennium Project 2005: 2). They were the outcome of ‘an incremental process of generating a political consensus through world summits and international conferences in the 1990s’ (Vandemoortele 2008: 221). As Ashwani Saith puts it, the MDGs:
envelope you in a cloud of soft words and good intentions and moral comfort; they are gentle, there is nothing conflictual about them; they are kind, they offer only good things to the deprived … no wonder it is the juggernaut of all bandwagons (2007: 1167).
The development of the MDGs themselves highlights the political nature of the process. A proposed goal on reproductive and sexual health, for instance, was initially part of the proposed list of MDGs but ultimately did not make the final cut, given political and cultural sensitivities around it (Vandemoortele 2008: 221). Jacqueline Leckie notes ‘this was considered necessary if nations with different religious, cultural or moral views on reproductive security and development were to accept the MDGs (Leckie 2009: 8).
Similarly, it is unclear whether governments are likely to endorse a global framework that sets a clear policy agenda for security issues, traditionally considered a highly sovereign matter not to be interfered with at the international level. Indeed, insecurity can be a highly utile political tool and governments who rely upon this as a tactic of social control are likely to resist any global goal that would require them to change their behaviour. At a bureaucratic level, inclusion of security may bring into the debate a broader set of national stakeholders from foreign and defence ministries (this is particularly so in the case of the United States, for instance). Given the breadth of ministries likely to be involved, as well as the variety of tasks to be undertaken to improve security (many of which are not ODA eligible), it is also important to consider how much influence the aid community has (particularly in isolation) in pushing the security agenda (Geneva Declaration 2008: 23).