Security?

At first, I struggled with this question, for I may have taken a different perspective if the definition of security stated in the question had been different. You say security and I think safety. I think living without fear; living away from violence and out of harms way. You say security and I definitely do not think “territorial integrity.” If the question were asking whether or not I feel that my interpretation of security is a foremost concern of the leader of a state, I would propose that, yes, it may be, at least more of a concern than “territorial integrity.” However, before I continue, I would like to make it clear that I do think territorial integrity is a vital part of a successful and powerful nation, but I do not think it is above human security in it’s importance. It is true that it is necessary for a nation to have secure borders so as to avoid being seized, but first the nation must deal with the problems rooted in the nation itself, such as hunger, healthcare, safety, strength of the government, and support from it’s people. If a nation’s leader were to focus solely on the land, they will distance themselves from what matters most - those whom the leader is trying to lead. Of course, citizens want to have a sense of citizenship and do not want to have to worry about being intruded by other nations, but that comes second to the more pressing issues that may be affecting their health and wellbeing. A leader must build from the ground up, securing the support of his or her followers and creating for them a better quality of life. For if the leader of a state does this, the citizens will be happy with where they live and the nation will not seem as vulnerable to outside territories and furthermore, will not feel the desire secede. The land will never turn on you, however the people you are leading very well may if they are not happy with your leadership.