The fall of the Berlin Wall, on November 9, 1989, was one of history’s truly epochal moments. During what became a revolutionary wave sweeping across the former Eastern Bloc countries, the announcement by the then-East German Government that its citizens could visit West Germany set in train a series of events that led, ultimately, to the demise of the Soviet Union itself.
Twenty years on, what is most striking to me are the massive, enduring ramifications of the events of November 1989. Only several decades ago, the Cold War meant that the borders of the Eastern Bloc were largely inviolate; extremist religious groups and ethnic tensions were suppressed, there was no internet (at least as we know it today) and travel between East and West was difficult. The two great Glaciers of the Cold War produced a frozen hinterland characterised by immobility.
Today’s world is a vastly different place. When one of the great Glaciers - the former Soviet Union – melted it helped unleash a potential torrent of security problems. We now live in an era characterised by huge mobility and instability, in which issues such as mass migration, international crime and international terrorism have a much higher prominence.
The end of the Cold War, together with subsequent conflicts across Africa, the Balkans and the Middle East, for instance, has led to many millions of people migrating the globe in hope or fear. In the West, this has given rise to pressure on jobs, healthcare, education, housing and cultural identity, causing local populations to feel threatened.
While international migration has generally been culturally enriching and beneficial, it has nonetheless also increased the range of threats to our societies. For instance, the 48 radical Islamicists implicated in terror plots in the United States between 1993 and 2001, including the 9/11 hijackers, all used legitimate immigration devices (e.g. “green cards”, student/tourism/business visas, and amnesty and asylum) to get into the country.
Getting to grips with this specific threat is a major challenge and the reason why, as UK Home Secretary, I placed so much emphasis on the need to overhaul our immigration system. Key elements of the changes I championed include a new points-based system — which represents the biggest reform of UK immigration procedures for more than half a century; electronic border controls (all UK entry visas, for instance, are now based on finger prints); and the National Identity Scheme which features compulsory fingerprint biometric identity cards for foreign nationals.
It is globalisation that lies at the heart of our transformational post-Cold War World. This inexorable process has extended the opportunities of world-wide interchange. Driven by technological advances in transport, communications, and electronic networks, globalisation has delivered massive opportunities in terms of mobility, movement and exchange of people, ideas, values, resources, commodities and finance.
But this same globalisation process and associated technology has also brought major new threats, or intensified existing ones, rendering everyone increasingly inter-dependent and vulnerable. The threat we face is seamless, running across the boundaries of defence, foreign affairs, domestic and social life. For instance, it has left nations and peoples ever more vulnerable to phenomena ranging from international crime and terrorism through to cyber-attack, health pandemics, energy-politics, resource shortage and financial crises.
The net result is that there are far more sources of insecurity than during the Cold War. The uncertainty this generates means that crises (defined as crucial turning points in events rather than as catastrophes) are more recurrent. Moreover, this bias towards instability is exacerbated by the fact that the nature of the potential crises we face is constantly evolving. In the context of international migration, for instance, terrorists and other international criminals are constantly trying to find new ways to evade our security safeguards.
Given the complexity of the threats we face, it is essential as a nation that we continually upgrade our capacity to deal with them by identifying, exposing and remedying our deficiencies. If we are to be able to keep up, and potentially be one step ahead of our adversaries, we will increasingly need to pool our ingenuity to innovate and deliver solutions.
This is a relatively uncontroversial ambition, shared by many. But I believe it requires nothing less than new thinking, new urgency and a new approach to studying tomorrow’s security problems today.
That’s partly why we are establishing the Institute for Security and Resilience Studies at University College, London. The new Centre will address projects of vital importance to national and international security arising from globalisation in the post-Cold War World. The goal is to assess and embed resilience as well as analysing threats; and to extend this analysis into action in outlining policy options to shape our preparation, response and recovery to crises.
This insistence on “embedding” resilience throughout organisational structures and culture is essential given the nature of contemporary society. Where there is, for instance, now a global availability of information through the internet, satellite and mobile communications, resilience to threats must be embedded in a decentralised way (rather than top-down). To the degree that resilience can ever be said to have depended on an elite management at the top of organisations, this is no longer the case — hence the need to bring together practitioners from the public, private and third sectors with academics in order to combine theory and practice in targeted projects.
The goal must be nothing less that ensuring that government, business and society can not only cope with, but flourish, in the increasingly uncertain times in which we live. The fall of that wall symbolised the emergence of a world offering both unparalleled opportunities and unprecedented insecurities. The challenge of maximising the first and countering the latter is a legacy demanding an ingenuity and endurance from the next and subsequent generations to match that of their predecessors.


If the power countries of the world are serious about democracy being a part of globalization the obvious first move would be to abolish the wrongly named 'security-council' and empower the general assembly.
To restore a little faith would be a great start, but it will not happen until the power countries themselves are truly democratic.
Trackback

26 comments so far
Previous | 2 | 1 | Next
Well, after this weekend, what could have been a Lukewarm War, we now have a Warm War, because my bomb is bigger than yours. Security should be a homeland initiative, because there is too much infighting amongst agencies. The Security Council doesn’t seem to have achieved much lately, I am not sure what another Institute would achieve. Terrorism is easy to anticipate:- expect the most obscure and unexpected, the Day of the Floating Papers taught us that much.
The world is a cake.
The West have the big slice. The East have a smaller slice.
The rest of the nations are smart enough to realise they want a slice of the cake, but not smart enough to realise they *are* the cake.
And the terrorists? They are the chocolate sprinkles. At worst they will get between the teeth and annoy. At best, they provide the excuse to take bigger mouthfuls.
The other side of the coin:-
The CIS and Russia were very weak after the fall of the erstwhile USSR.The USA,UK and Israel have been always aggressive,but more so after the so called,Cold War.The trio has also become the most feared terrorist(which includes bio- and nuke-) with false flags and what not.
Between politicians and corporate giants.
I don’t know where you came up with ’small investors’, that wasn’t part of the conversation.
You’ve made your point that you’re anti-chavez despite his enormous popularity.
It’s important to recognize the difference between reporting and a demonizing which is routine practice when dealing with enemies of ‘the state’ and easily distinguishable when information is available that contradicts the standard line which is not being published.
What place has an aristocrat ever had in defense of freedom of speech and transparency?
Have you ever heard the rich standing up corporate control of the state??
Dear author,
Very interesting and very expanded writings from you.
In my life, I have not dreamed or imagined even iota level, The Berlin Wall will be dismantled and will be opened to Germans.
But that man made history was buried.
Generally viewing on this great real occasions, freedom lovers, open minded thinkers, world leaders, and champions for freedom and for free trades are rejoicing and talking of this new freedom running by East Germans to West Germans for their intellectual chatting only.
Now, all are Germans, Some economic and social changes, prosperities on many fields are in.
Because of ex and new cold war between super nations with some self own interests, dominations towards weaker nations, weaker minds had created some cries, economic and social disparities had happened.
What the world bodies had done to some monopoly political systems rulers till to this hour.
Strong man with self ,controlled publicities will hold the keys of power and influences to others are common in any history.
Now, the time has come to bury their differences and work, build for greater green pastures to entire human kind.
We are all citizens of this world.
Unity in Diversity should be the slogan for every body!s day today living and for continuous growth in all vital fields for restoring real democracy,real economic and social assistance to needy nations, to needy persons are hours of today.
No new schools or no new philosophy are needed to this juncture.
We have very solid experiences of the past and present economic, agriculture, education, productivity, banking, bookish and practical knowledges are enormous.
Now a days, younger generations wants good education, good income, freedom from the unknown and freedom from the known and good standard of living by carrot and stick policies are acceptable.
Who creates,allows Fascism,racial misgivings, wrong branding, war crimes, war creation phobias etc.,etc.,
If we correct,our past and present mistakes, then , we will be in heaven,and experience peace ,co-existence,love,togetherness and all good qualities,good thoughts ,tolerance are be enjoyable with pleasant memories and pleasure thoughts from this world.
Need not to imagine what Heaven! will be.
Brian - What can’t you see the difference between? The small investor and the corporate giants?
If you own a plot of land or a small business, have an IRA or even a house. You are a small investor.
If that makes one an aristocrat you are sounding very like a sans Coulotte.
Somehow I suspect Robespierre is trotting along right behind you.
Are you hoping for a total leveling of the masses ala Mao?
To answer an earlier comment - I think men like Chavez, Mugabe, and the dear leader know how to sing a populist song but really want power and can’t separate their own sense of personal self importance from the damage they cause. Mugabe is an old man who is afraid to step down because he probably fears he will be killed when he is back in the “masses” again. Or if he does, he fears the loss of power and prestige will kill him because he has grown to love the position and can no longer live without it. Dear leader is a dynast and autocrat who only knows how to sing the socialist tune. The voters of Venezuela were suspicious of Chavez attempt to lengthen his terms. And the man doesn’t have the slightest appreciation of the art of diplomacy. How much they may despise each other those men and women in the UN have to be able to talk to one anther without throwing the furniture around.
I’m quite sure our own corporate heads are no less susceptible to the thrill of big money and big influence - but I lost several better attempts at writing this reply.
There is a legitimate need for police forces in the world. The trouble with Mr. Reid’s article is - it is so damned obscure. What is he proposing that isn’t there already?
Is his concern external threats - internal threats - or perhaps both?
If there is no middle money - that leaves only the mega wealthy and the destitute or those enslaved to their mortgages and personal debt.
But I whole hearted agree with you that infotainment is somehow neither entertainment nor information. But that is what most people suck up. But if it comes to a choice between a person who thinks the National Enquirer is good reading or a person who can read whole libraries with comprehension and balance, I (who am not wealthy enough to join even the bigger middle shots), will listen to the aristocrat, as long as he knows his place and is not determined to enslave me.
Fascist states don’t just grow from the top down. They grow because the great majority or people are selfish, domineering and want simple and easy answers to everything. Strong men are always popular because they look like they can “get things done” and know how to kill off their smarter critics. And , oh my, how it seems the ladies love them.