Rethinking human security in a new era of threats
What if the greatest threats to national security weren’t missiles or cyberattacks, but loneliness, misinformation and eroding trust?
Human security, encompassing the safety and dignity of individuals, has long been relegated to the margins of national security policy, yet it increasingly shapes a nation’s strategic resilience. To navigate the challenges of the 21st century, governments must reimagine human security as an essential foundation for social cohesion, economic productivity and strategic advantage, and as critical to both national safety and national security.
The concept of human security isn’t new. It was first popularised by the 1994 United Nations Human Development Report, marking a deliberate shift from viewing security focused only on state sovereignty to one centred on the safety, agency and wellbeing of individuals. Human security was framed initially around seven pillars: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political security. In policy circles, the concept has often been dismissed as too soft or broad to be actionable. Today, that thinking is outdated.
The past five years have demonstrated with brutal clarity how deeply individual-level insecurities can affect national and international stability. The Covid-19 pandemic exposed the fragility of health systems, supply chains and trust in government. Misinformation campaigns, from pandemic conspiracies to election disinformation, have undermined social cohesion and democratic integrity. Labour shortages—driven by ageing populations, burnout and uneven education outcomes—are becoming national security concerns as much as economic ones. And across liberal democracies, trust in institutions is eroding in ways that hostile actors are all too willing to exploit.
Australia is not immune. We’ve witnessed how online disinformation can fracture communities. We are grappling with regional youth disengagement, housing insecurity and Indigenous disadvantage, all of which corrode resilience and leave communities vulnerable to exploitation. Meanwhile, our workforce productivity is under pressure, particularly in critical sectors such as health, energy, logistics and defence industry. Human capital isn’t just a driver of GDP; it’s a determinant of sovereign capability.
At the intersection of these challenges lies human security. It’s the connective tissue that binds national security (the protection of sovereignty and strategic interests) and national safety (the protection of communities from harm and disaster). A society that is economically resilient, socially cohesive and civically engaged is far less susceptible to malign influence, instability and coercion. Put another way: securing the nation starts with securing its people.
So, how should governments and communities reframe their approaches?
First, human security must be understood as a strategic domain with definable risks, measurable indicators and policy levers. That means moving beyond siloed responses to social issues and toward integrated national strategies that link human capital development, civic resilience, digital literacy and public trust. Governments should treat investments in education, housing, mental health and community engagement not simply as social spending but as long-term capability building.
Second, tackling disinformation should be embedded in national security planning. More than takedown orders and fact-checking, this will require us to build inoculation strategies through education; empower trusted messengers in vulnerable communities; and ensure that counter-disinformation efforts are inclusive, credible and sustained. Australia’s multicultural fabric is a strength, but only if communities feel heard, included and protected from manipulation.
Third, we need new metrics and indicators to assess human security. Traditional national security metrics, force posture, threat assessments and intelligence budgets are necessary but insufficient. Governments should also monitor key indicators such as community trust in institutions, access to reliable information, digital inclusion, workforce participation and civic engagement. These are leading indicators of resilience or fragility, and they should inform policy and preparedness planning at all levels of government.
Fourth, collaboration between the public, private and community sectors is essential. Employers, unions, not-for-profit organisations, schools and faith-based groups all play critical roles in sustaining social cohesion and human capital. Governments must leverage these partnerships more systematically, offering incentives and shared frameworks for participation in civic resilience-building. This is particularly important in regional Australia, where service delivery gaps are widening and the role of local leaders is often underestimated.
Finally, Australia should prioritise human security in its international engagement. As we deepen partnerships across the Indo-Pacific, offering cooperation on health systems, disaster preparedness, digital trust and youth engagement can build influence and alignment far more effectively than transactional aid. Our credibility as a security partner depends not only on defence assets but on the values and stability we project.
None of this is to suggest that traditional national security threats are less important. They are, however, increasingly entangled with human security risks. A well-funded military cannot defend a fractured society. Sovereign capability is meaningless without a population that is skilled, healthy and united. Deterrence is weakened when adversaries can exploit divisions and undermine social resilience from within.
In an era defined by complex risks and blurred boundaries, the security of the individual and the security of the state are no longer separate ideas. If we fail to secure our people—socially, economically and digitally—we’ll struggle to defend anything else.
No comments:
Post a Comment