LETTER FROM EDITOR IN CHIEF In this year’s edition of Inquiry & Insight the aim was to open the call for papers to fellow graduate students living outside of Canada. Being only the third volume, the purpose of broadening the submittal scope of the journal was to increase the quality of articles and to provide a larger sample to choose from for publication. The editorial board of the journal, comprised of nine graduate students at University of Waterloo’s Masters in Political Science Program as well as three members of the Balsillie’s School of International Affairs’ Global Governance program, worked adamantly to insure the impartiality and the quality of this year’s edition. Each editor reviewed at least two submissions and evaluated the paper based on style, grammar, originality, and argument. The categories chosen for this edition reflected the areas covered in past issues of Inquiry & Insight with the addition of a new category Environmental Politics. This was done to ensure due attention is given to this rising filed. We found that the overwhelming submissions on Canadian Politics in previous editions propelled us to open the call for papers to international submitters. This measure allowed us to consider different perspectives and approaches in an already diverse and multifaceted discipline. We received a positive response from various prestigious institutions around the world. The final selection of articles by the editorial board reflected this quality of the papers submitted as well as their relevance to current international and Canadian political landscape. I would like to thank the executive board, the internal and external editorial board for their efforts and participation in this year’s edition. A special thanks goes to Melissa Ceringoy and Laura Holland for forming our external review board and evaluating the papers submitted from the Political Science program in a timely manner. Finally, I’d like to congratulate the authors chosen for publication for their submissions and brining a diverse multi- disciplinary approach to this year’s edition. Sincerely, Milad Javdan Editor-in-Chief 1 I&I Vol. 3 No. 1 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: _____ Milad Javdan Editor-in-Chief Andrew Blencowe Assistant Editor Marcos Gomez Internal Administrator Alisha Preston Public Relations Ibi Brown Editorial Secretary Jennifer Thiel Treasurer Tara Mansouri-Moayed and Keith MacManamen Cover Design EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD: ________________ Andrew Blencowe Sean Low International Relations Environmental Politics Peace and Conflict International Relations Andy Chater Mallory Motley International Relations Peace and Conflict Peace and Conflict Political Theory Anika Ganness James Nicol International Development Canadian Politics Peace and Conflict International Relations Marcos Gomez Megan Williams International Development Canadian Politics Political Economy Public Policy EXTERNAL EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD: BALSILLIE SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS ______ Melissa Ceringoy Laura Holland International Development International Development International Relations Peace and Conflict TABLE OF CONTENTS WHY DOES AFRICAN SECURITY SEEM SO COMPROMISED? 4 Serge Ntamack WORLDS OF OUR MAKING 22 Lauren A. Moslow UNPACKING FOOD SECURITY: 38 IS THERE SHELF SPACE FOR FOOD SECURITY STUDIES? Conrad Koczorowski CANADA’S FOREIGN POLICY: 62 DEPENDENCE OR IN-DEPENDENCE? Uri Marantz A FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE 85 ENGLISH-ONLY AND HISPANOPHOBIA IN MODERN AMERICA Graeme Douglas GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE 105 OF THE MINING INDUSTRY: GROWING PRESSURES AND INDUSTRY-BASED PRIVATE ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE John Roden AN APPROACH TO LINKING REFORMS IN SECURITY 125 AND JUSTICE SECTORS IN POST-WAR ENVIRONMENTS Danny Singh 3 I&I Vol. 3 No. 1 WHY DOES AFRICA SECURITY SEEM SO COMPROMISED? 1 Serge Ntamack STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF OSLO BJØRKNES COLLEGE ABSTRACT There is a perception embedded in the dominant narrative in the field of Security Studies that Africa Security is compromised. While trying to question the tenets of that perception, this article argues that it is not Africa security which is compromised but the end of Africa insecurity. The debate about Africa security is in fact a debate about insecurity; that debate to an extent is in line with the logic of insecurity in the continent. Despite the dialectical relation between security and insecurity, there is an important distinction between the logic of security and the logic of insecurity. In this regard this paper focuses on the logic of insecurity by highlighting how the external and internal agents reproduce insecurity and elude the debate about a genuine security project in Africa. 1 Serge Ntamack is currently registered at Stellenbosch University/ PRIO/Bjørknes College for a Master degree in International Studies: International Political Economy and Conflict Dynamics in Africa. He obtained a Bachelor degree in Law and Political Science at Yaoundé II University. NTAMACK WHY IS AFRICAN SECURITY SO COMPROMISED? INTRODUCTION The term security changes through time. McSweeney notes that etymologically the noun ‘security’ has evolved from a positive, comforting term to a negative one2. From being a psychological condition of the care- free into which we are easily lulled- ‘mortals chiefest enemy’ as the witches describe it in Macbeth – it is a material condition which we worry about, tighten, fear. ‘Secure’ once meant ‘careless’ (se +cura), or ‘freedom from concern’ – almost the reverse of the current usage implying ‘careful’. Thus, warning of domestic discontent and its threat to the state, Sir Francis Bacon wrote ‘Neither let any discontent and its threat to the state, be secure concerning discontentments.’ Although this ‘careless’ sense of the term dropped out of usage at the end of the eighteenth century, the ‘Saturday Review’ could still capture it in the middle of the nineteenth: ‘Every government knew exactly when there was reason for alarm, and when there was excuse for security’. This old sense of the word derives from the same root, and overlaps in meaning, with the English ‘sure’, French ‘SÛR’. Larousse Modern Dictionary notes the French usage does not confuse ‘SÉCURITÉ’ the feeling of having nothing to fear, and ‘SÛRETÉ’, the state of having nothing to fear’. The connotation of ‘careless’ is thus related to the sense of ‘certitude’ carried by the term ‘sure’. The Oxford English Dictionary expresses it as ‘having or affording ground for confidence; safe; (objectively) certain’. Etymologically, therefore, the freedom of security is related to the possession of knowledge, confidence in the predictability of things, in knowing the objective order. In effect the orthodox approach to security reaches back to the Treaty of Westphalia which laid the basis for the modern European State based on the principles of territorial integrity and state sovereignty. This approach rests on the three central assumptions, namely, the referent object of security is the Westphalian type of state, that security threats to this state come from other states (i.e. are external) and that the only valid security threats are military threats3. The prime concern of this approach is the relationship between the individual and the state. However the end of Cold War led to the reduction in armed conflicts between states in the international system. At the same time, the 1990s saw an increase in civil wars, as well as international efforts to reach peace agreements. Alongside 2 Bill McSweeney,Security, Identity and Interests: A sociology of International Relations. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 14-15. 3 Karim Bakhit, “Security is What People Make of it: The Africa Great Lakes and the Security Debate,” Globalics 22 (2002): 3. 5 I&I Vol. 3 No. 1 INQUIRY & INSIGHT Fall 2010 peace building, there has also evolved the concept of human security, which has two-fold origin. On the one hand, it stems from the studies promoted since the 1990s by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). On the other, from critical perspectives on the orthodox concept of security based on the role of the state and its armed forces for deterrence and protection of sovereignty and national interests (FRIDE and Iecah, 2008). According to the Atlas of Human Security ( 2005, 2) , the broad concept of human security, first outlined in the 1994 Human Development Report from UNDP rests on two pillars: freedom from want and freedom from fear. On the other hand the narrow concept focuses on freedom from violence, both criminal and political. In his attempt to explain the insecurity in the African Great Lakes, Bakhit (2002, 21-22) stresses the limitations of the state centric orientation of both Third World Critique of security focusing on military and political threat and the ‘Broadening Critique’ emphasizing economic threat. According to him, even a happy marriage of the two concepts cannot explain insecurity in this region. Providing a starting point with the aim to capture insecurity in this region, he argues that security is what people make of it. Thus he points out the discursive nature of the term ‘security’ and develops another concept, the so called ‘securitization’. According to him securization is a process guided by a certain security logic or grammar. It involves a securitizing actor that makes a securitizing move, which if successful i.e. accepted by the audience; securitizes an issue into a threat to a certain referent object. A securitizing move is a speech act i.e. self referential in the sense that it does not need