Understanding global security - Peter Hough

ACCIDENTAL THREATS TO SECURITY
recognized by Interpol as an international fugitive and is even an absconder from
justice within the USA where he has failed to appear in court on civil charges for
compensation from the disaster. The fact that he has been regularly tracked down by
the press (including the British newspaper the Mirror) and pressure groups (particularly
Greenpeace) at large homes in Florida and New York marks him out as an unusual
sort of fugitive. The US and Indian governments do not appear to have tried particularly
hard to bring him to justice. Union Carbide and the Indian government reached an
out-of-court settlement over the disaster in 1989 in which $470million, well below the
original claim, was to be paid to victims and their families. The Indian government,
mindful of the importance of economic links with the USA, tried to reduce the charges
against Anderson to the non-extraditable offence of negligence but this was rejected
by the Indian Courts and hence he remains ‘on the run’ from justice.
Risky businesses – the idea of risk society
The inherent risks of modern living prompted sociologists in the 1990s to construct
a new framework for thinking both about societies and accidents, encapsulated in the
term ‘risk society’. This idea posits that modern (or post-modern) society has gone
beyond thinking of accidents as avoidable and accepts them as an inevitability. Hence
insecurity becomes a part of life. Most of the conveniences and benefits of modern
living come with some associated side-effects. The huge toll of fatalities on the road
is largely tolerated by societies because of the gains to be had from personal mobility.
The most rigorous health and safety legislation could not make working in a modern
petrochemical plant or offshore oil-platform entirely safe. The workers know this but
accept the risk in exchange for monetary reward in excess of what they might expect
to receive in a safer occupation.
The gamble of taking on some degree of risk in order to achieve greater reward
than attainable by safe behaviour is, of course, simple to understand in terms of
individual behaviour and is as old as history. What characterizes today’s ‘risk society’
as different from previous generations, however, is the social dimension of risktaking.
Individuals can choose to play it safe by avoiding hazardous forms of transport
or employment but may have to accept the possibility of a radiation leak from their
local nuclear power plant. Such individuals would probably gain a pay-off from
cheaper electricity but would be largely involuntary participants in the deal and more
vulnerable as well as wealthy, whether they like it or not.
From the perspective of society at large, avoiding all risk can be costly and
even increase insecurity. Leiss and Chociolko make this case in appealing for greater
appreciation that the benefits to be had from developing new pharmaceuticals or
pesticides outweigh the costs, even when this is calculated in human lives: ‘We ask
individuals and groups to abandon all unreasonably risk-averse stances and to
recognize that our well-being as a society depends upon continuous risk-taking
activity’ (Leiss and Chociolko 1994: 16).
The perception of the social dimension of risk, then, is crucial in determining
the political demands societies make of their authorities, beyond even the ‘real’ risk.
206