The collection of essays and responses in this monograph started off with Solomon's reference to the `tectonic shifts in the global security landscape' which have been taking place since the late 1980s. These shifts have not occurred only in security theory. The way in which they have also impacted on security perceptions and practice in the `real' world is particularly obvious in Southern Africa where the concept `regional security' has changed dramatically since the end of the Cold War and the demise of apartheid.

Two features of the changed thinking and application of security are particularly salient with regard to the Southern African region and to security thinking in general. The first is the interconnectedness between security thinking and practice and the concomitant influence, very often directly, that such thinking has on security application. The second (and the first confirmation of this) is the extent of continuity and change within security practice, again also witnessed within Southern Africa. These two features are furthermore interlinked. The contributions in this collection bear strong evidence of these features, whether implicitly or explicitly, and in this conclusion the elements of the interconnectedness between theory and practice and its implications, and on continuity and change will be focused upon. In doing this, some areas and issues in need of further research will be pointed out.

The interconnectedness between security theory and practice is part of the continuity inherent in security studies. Although Van Aardt and Muller point to the interaction between academics and practitioners in South Africa regarding security, and particularly new security thinking and its application, this is of course not really `new', as illustrated in Solomon's overview. The content of security changes over time, depending on era and context. As far back as the 1930s, American national security thinking revolved very much around economic security, changing to an overriding concern with military security during the Cold War era. Towards the late 1960s, the idea of security as being something `more' than military security was put forward by Robert McNamara, the then president of the World Bank. During the 1970s and 1980s, the conceptualisation of security slowly broadened, both in the developed and developing worlds. In Europe, the Helsinki process and the idea of comprehensive security slowly gained ground. In Africa, the Front-Line States (FLS) increasingly came to include economic and social security as part of their security agenda which initially consisted of opposing apartheid and South African military destabilisation. The FLS founded the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference (SADCC, now the Southern African Development Community SADC) in 1980 the first example, it would seem, of a link between security and development. The essential meaning of security freedom from threat has not changed. Contemporary conceptualisation of security as being multidimensional and aimed at people as the main referent of security (human security) are therefore also not necessarily pointing to `the end of security', to borrow from Fukuyama, but may change over time as era and context change.

The way in which the current conceptualisation of security finds application in practice is also continuously being interrogated and challenged. Hudson's feminist reading of security in Africa attests to this. One cannot really do justice to Hudson's rich contribution in this brief chapter, but a number of points raised by her contribution need to be emphasised, however briefly. They indicate a range of issues and problems concerning security thinking and practice that need to be explored further.

A reading of Hudson points to the threefold `nature' of security when one attempts to study and apply it in a comprehensive way, making it inclusive of all people as referents of security. The genuine broadening of the security concept needs and benefits from a feminist reading exactly because it broadens the lens through which we view security. The contributions of feminists such as Carol Giligan and the difference feminists1 who espouse the idea of responsibility and care gave practical understanding to the way in which security needs to be defined and applied in order to benefit people. The work of liberal feminists on gender equality opens up a Pandora's box on the role of women in the military. Women are increasingly accepted into the military even though the debate about their exact role is not settled. Does equality mean women should become `like' men? Is this what is wanted and needed? How does such a view fit in with the idea of responsibility and care? These questions complement the points raised by Van Aardt regarding security structures and the agents of security. Merely including women into these structures as agents is suitable to the liberal feminist approach of equality, but will not necessarily make a difference to the way in which security is perceived and applied. The examples of Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir those `manly' and war mongering prime ministers, spring to mind. The changing nature of peacekeeping and the move towards peacebuilding may serve as a practical way of changing traditional military philosophy and dogma. Feminist thinking should form part of this debate and of the changes in military thinking and practice to adapt to new demands on the military for making and keeping the peace

Hudson also refers to the fact that security needs to include women, and that security is inextricably linked to the security of women in Africa, if only because so much of production, whether wage-related or subsistence activities, depend on them. Broad security, for instance economic and social security, and economic and social policies, needs to reflect a concern with women and their status, position and need. Again, feminist contributions in this field, such as those of Caroline Moser2 give practical guidelines and frameworks for planning and implementing policies that will benefit women and contributors to human security. But as Van Aardt points out, the agents of security need rethinking. Security is not only (also) for women, but women should also participate as agents of security, represented and involved in decision-making positions and other initiatives aimed at building and maintaining security. Hudson mentions the low participation of women in, for instance, the peacekeeping training projects conducted by the African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes (ACCORD). We need to reactivate the debate on the idea of whether quota systems for female participation is necessary to promote women as active participants in planning and working towards a secure and prosperous future Southern Africa. And what about SADC? How are we to include women as subjects and not objects of security?

The third aspect of security that flows from Hudson's work is the fact that just referring to the need for, or working on the principle of an holistic approach to security is not sufficient. Hudson uses the term `fractious holism' which captures the idea that human security in itself is not monolithic, but that what constitutes human security may vary according to, once again, era, context and even gender. This calls for the need, in policy terms, to look anew at the application of sovereignty, a point raised by Van Aardt. Security is multidimensional: applying it may also mean that the ability to deal with it demands `unbundled' sovereignty. The principle of subsidiarity as practised by the European Union may offer some useful insights for Southern Africa.

A last point is that of the nexus between security and development. This link, or the need for such a link to be established in theory and practice, has been emphasised by all the contributors to this volume. Muller in particular raised the interesting and important link between development, aid, security and the idea of `entitlement systems' in order to promote equality, notions which bring one back to Hudson's fractious holism. According to Muller, security is in essence about equality. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that security touches, in a fundamental way, on equity rather than equality. Needs are related to expectations and concrete conditions and experiences. Not everyone needs or wants the same level of security, but security needs to be distributed equitably. Development is about choices. To be more exact it is about widening choices, and security provides the environment in which those choices are safely exercised. The levels of security and development available, exercised and maintainable are very much dependant on place and time, or era and context. No wonder Boutros-Ghali emphasised the need for development to become part of peacebuilding in other words, to be incorporated into security thinking in areas rife with conflict. We need more research in this area as well. How do we incorporate development into peacekeeping and peacebuilding, in general, and in specific circumstances? How do we build and maintain and promote the link between security and development within the region? What can the region contribute to the rest of the continent in this regard, and how?

The exciting thing about security, and about the ideas and concerns raised in this volume, is the fact that it opens up a new world of discovery in our attempts to use our scholarship as a means to improve the human condition.