Is human safety universal?

Is human safety universal? Realists, and later neo-realists, have seen safety as merely incomplete as well as provisional, for the reason that "war is expected." They consider the world anarchical. Since they consider the state as the ultimate power, therefore, safety is destined to be "national safety." It presupposes a set of mechanisms to defend a state so that it can continue as a political unit. They include defence against attacks and pressure from outside as well as against any event that could gravely intimidate a country's ruling government from inside. As such attacks can take place anytime, they call for force. When there is neither war nor other armed disagreement, a state is hypothetically "safe" or "at peace." Southeast Asia calls it "comprehensive security." Many non-state actors, including the non-government organisations (NGOs), propagate this idea. Inclusive security goes further, and presupposes customary military pressure, internal aggression and racial conflicts.
The September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Centre in New York, led scholars to reconsider their theories of global relations, particularly relating to aggression conducted by non-state actors towards not only states but towards the common citizen. In 1994, the UN adopted its Human Development Report. Since then, the idea of human security has been attracting the academic world as well as governments. The slogan "freedom from fear and freedom from wants" also became popular at that time. Comprehensive security focuses on the well-being of the human race--not just the safety of the citizens of a particular state.