Human security

Human security is an emerging paradigm for understanding global vulnerabilities whose proponents challenge the traditional notion of national security by arguing that the proper referent for security should be the individual rather than the state. Human security holds that a people-centered view of security is necessary for national, regional and global stability.

The concept emerged from a post-Cold War, multi-disciplinary understanding of security involving a number of research fields, including development studies, international relations, strategic studies, and human rights. The United Nations Development Programme's 1994 Human Development Report^[1] is considered a milestone publication in the field of human security, with its argument that insuring "freedom from want" and "freedom from fear" for all persons is the best path to tackle the problem of global insecurity. Frequently referred to in a wide variety of global policy discussions ^[2] and scholarly journals ^[3], human security is often taught in universities as part of international relations, globalization, or human rights studies.^[4].

Critics of the concept argue that its vagueness undermines its effectiveness;^[5] that it has become little more than a vehicle for activists wishing to promote certain causes; and that it does not help the research community understand what security means or help decision makers to formulate good policies.^[6].

[edit] Concept

[edit] UNDP's 1994 definition

Dr. Mahbub ul Haq first drew global attention to the concept of human security in the United Nations Development Programme's 1994 Human Development Report and sought to influence the UN's 1995 World Summit on Social Development in Copenhagen. The UNDP's 1994 Human Development Report's definition of human security argues that the scope of global security should be expanded to include threats in seven areas:

Coloured world map indicating Human Development Index (as of 2003). Countries coloured green exhibit high human development, those coloured yellow/orange exhibit medium human development, and those coloured red exhibit low human development.

• Economic security — Economic security requires an assured basic income for individuals, usually from productive and remunerative work or, as a last resort, from a publicly financed safety net. In this sense, only about a quarter of the world’s people are presently economically secure. While the economic security problem may be more serious in developing countries, concern also arises in developed countries as well. Unemployment problems constitute an important factor underlying political tensions and ethnic violence.

• Food security — Food security requires that all people at all times have both physical and economic access to basic food. According to the United Nations, the overall availability of food is not a problem, rather the problem often is the poor distribution of food and a lack of purchasing power. In the past, food security problems have been dealt with at both national and global levels. However, their impacts are limited. According to UN, the key is to tackle the problems relating to access to assets, work and assured income (related to economic security).

• Health security — Health Security aims to guarantee a minimum protection from diseases and unhealthy lifestyles. In developing countries, the major causes of death are infectious and parasitic diseases, which kill 17 million people annually. In industrialized countries, the major killers are diseases of the circulatory system, killing 5.5 million every year. According to the United Nations, in both developing and industrial countries, threats to health security are usually greater for poor people in rural areas, particularly children. This is mainly due to malnutrition and insufficient supply of medicine, clean water or other necessity for healthcare.

• Environmental security — Environmental security aims to protect people from the short- and long-term ravages of nature, man-made threats in nature, and deterioration of the natural environment. In developing countries, lack of access to clean water resources is one of the greatest environmental threats. In industrial countries, one of the major threats is air pollution. Global warming, caused by the emission of greenhouse gases, is another environmental security issue.

• Personal security — Personal security aims to protect people from physical violence, whether from the state or external states, from violent individuals and sub-state actors, from domestic abuse, or from predatory adults. For many people, the greatest source of anxiety is crime, particularly violent crime.

• Community security — Community security aims to protect people from the loss of traditional relationships and values and from sectarian and ethnic violence. Traditional communities, particularly minority ethnic groups are often threatened. About half of the world’s states have experienced some inter-ethnic strife. The United Nations declared 1993 the Year of Indigenous People to highlight the continuing vulnerability of the 300 million aboriginal people in 70 countries as they face a widening spiral of violence.

• Political security — Political security is concerned with whether people live in a society that honors their basic human rights. According to a survey conducted by Amnesty International, political repression, systematic torture, ill treatment or disappearance was still practised in 110 countries. Human rights violations are most frequent during periods of political unrest. Along with repressing individuals and groups, governments may try to exercise control over ideas and information.

Since then, human security has been receiving more attention from the key global development institutions, such as the World Bank. Tadjbakhsh, among others, traces the evolution of human security in international organizations, concluding that the concept has been manipulated and transformed considerably since 1994 to fit organizational interests.^[7][6]

[edit] Freedom from Fear vs Freedom from Want and beyond

In an ideal world, each of the UNDP's seven categories of threats would receive adequate global attention and resources. Yet attempts to implement this human security agenda have led to the emergence of two major schools of thought on how to best practice human security — "Freedom from Fear" and "Freedom from Want". While the UNDP 1994 report originally argued that human security requires attention to both freedom from fear and freedom from want, divisions have gradually emerged over the proper scope of that protection (e.g. over what threats individuals should be protected from) and over the appropriate mechanisms for responding to these threats.

• Freedom from Fear — This school seeks to limit the practice of Human Security to protecting individuals from violent conflicts while recognizing that these violent threats are strongly associated with poverty, lack of state capacity and other forms of inequities. ^[8] This approach argues that limiting the focus to violence is a realistic and manageable approach towards Human Security. Emergency assistance, conflict prevention and resolution, peace-building are the main concerns of this approach. Canada, for example, was a critical player in the efforts to ban landmines and has incorporated the "Freedom from Fear" agenda as a primary component in its own foreign policy. However, whether such “narrow” approach can truly serve its purpose in guaranteeing more fruitful results remains to be an issue. For instance, the conflicts in Darfur are often used in questioning the effectiveness of the "Responsibility to Protect”, a key component of the Freedom from Fear agenda.

• Freedom from Want — The school advocates a holistic approach in achieving human security and argues that the threat agenda should be broadened to include hunger, disease and natural disasters because they are inseparable concepts in addressing the root of human insecurity^[9] and they kill far more people than war, genocide and terrorism combined.^[10] Different from "Freedom from Fear", it expands the focus beyond violence with emphasis on development and security goals.

Despite their differences, these two approaches to human security can be considered complementary rather than contradictory.^[11] For instance, the Government of Japan considered Freedom from Fear and Freedom from Want to be equal in developing Japan’s foreign policy. Moreover, the UNDP 1994 called for the world’s attention to both agendas.

Although "freedom from fear" and "freedom from want" are the most commonly referred to categories of human security practice, an increasing number of alternative ideas continue to emerge on how to best practice human security. Among them:

• G. King and C. Murray^[12]. King and Murray try to narrow down the human security definition to one's "expectation of years of life without experiencing the state of generalized poverty". In their definition, the "generalized poverty" means "falling below critical thresholds in any domain of well-being"; and it is in the same article, they give brief review and categories of "Domains of Well-being". This set of defition is similar with "freedom from want" but more concretely focused on some value system.
• Caroline Thomas^[13]. She regards human security as describing "a condition of existence" which entails basic material needs, human dignity, including meaningful participation in the life of the community, and an active and substantive notion of democracy from the local to the global.
• Roland Paris^[14]. He argues that many ways to define "human security" are related with certain set of value and lose the neutral position. So he suggests to take human security as a category of research. As such, he gives a 2*2 matrix to illustrate the security studies field.

• Sabina Alkire^[15].Different with those approaches seek to narrow down and specify the objective of human security, Sabina Alkire pushes the idea a step further as "to safeguard the vital core of all human lives from critical pervasive threats, without impeding long-term human fulfilment". In a concept as such, she suggests the "vital core" cover a minimal or basic or fundamental set of functions related to survival, livelihood and dignity; and all institutions should at least and necessarily protect the core from any intervention.

[edit] Relationship with traditional security

See also: Political realism

Human security emerged as a challenge to ideas of traditional security, but human and traditional or national security are not mutually exclusive concepts. Without human security, traditional state security cannot be attained and vice-versa. ^[16]

Europe after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648

Traditional security is about a state's ability to defend itself against external threats. Traditional security (often referred to as national security or state security) describes the philosophy of international security predominance since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and the rise of the nation-states. While international relations theory includes many variants of traditional security, from realism to idealism, the fundamental trait that these schools share is their focus on the primacy of the nation-state.

The following table contrasts four differences between the two perspectives:

[edit] Relationship with development

See also: International development and Development economics

Human security also challenged and drew from the practice of international development.

Traditionally, embracing liberal market economics was considered to be the universal path for economic growth, and thus development for all humanity.^[19] Yet, continuing conflict and human rights abuses following the end of the Cold War and the fact that two-thirds of the global population seemed to have gained little from the economic gains of globalization^[20], led to fundamental questions about the way development was practiced. Accordingly, human development has emerged in 1990s to challenge the dominant paradigm of liberal economy in the development community. Human development proponents argue that economic growth is insufficient to expand people’s choice or capabilities, areas such as health, education, technology, the environment, and employment should not be neglected.

Human security could be said to further enlarge the scope for examining the causes and consequences of underdevelopment, by seeking to bridge the divide between development and security. Too often, militaries didn’t address or factor in the underlying causes of violence and insecurity while development workers often underplayed the vulnerability of development models to violent conflict . Human security springs from a growing consensus these two fields need to be more fully integrated in order to enhance security for all.

The paper Development and Security by Frances Stewart argues that security and development are deeply interconnected.^[21]

• Human security forms an important part of people’s well-being, and is therefore an objective of development.
  An objective of development is “the enlargement of human choices”. Insecurity cuts life short and thwarts the use of human potential, thereby affecting the reaching of this objective.
• Lack of human security has adverse consequences on economic growth, and therefore development.
  Some development costs are obvious. For example, in wars, people who join the army or flee can no longer work productively. Also, destroying infrastructure reduces the productive capacity of the economy.
• Imbalanced development that involves horizontal inequalities is an important source of conflict.
  Therefore, vicious cycles of lack of development which leads to conflict, then to lack of development, can readily emerge. Likewise, virtuous cycles are possible, with high levels of security leading to development, which further promotes security in return.

Further, it could also be said that the practice of human development and human security share three fundamental elements^[22]:

• First, human security and human development are both people-centered. They challenge the orthodox approach to security and development i.e. state security and liberal economic growth respectively. Both emphasize people are be the ultimate ends but not means. Both treat human as agents and should be empowered to participate in the course.
  
• Second, both perspectives are multidimensional. Both address people’s dignity as well as their material and physical concerns.
  
• Third, both schools of thought consider poverty and inequality as the root causes of individual vulnerability.

Despite these similarities, the relationship with development is one of the most contested areas of human security . "Freedom from fear" advocates, such as Andrew Mack,argue that human security should focus on the achievable goals of decreasing individual vulnerability to violent conflict, rather than broadly defined goals of economic and social development. Others, such as Tadjbakhsh and Chenoy, argue that human development and human security are inextricably linked since progress in one enhances the chances of progress in another while failure in one increases risk of failure of another^[23].

The following table is adopted from Tadjbakhsh^[24] to help clarify the relationship between these two concepts.

[edit] Relationship with human rights

See also: Human rights

Human security is indebted to the human rights tradition (the ideas of natural law and natural rights). The development of the human security model can be seen to have drawn upon ideas and concepts fundamental to the human rights tradition. Both approaches use the individual as the main referent and both argue that a wide range of issues (i.e. civil rights, cultural identity, access to education and healthcare) are fundamental to human dignity. A major difference between the two models is in their approach to addressing threats to human dignity and survival. Whilst the human rights framework takes a legalistic approach, the human security framework, by utilizing a diverse range of actors, adopts flexible and issue-specific approaches, which can operate at local, national or international levels. And some others argue that human rights believes that human-beings are born equal and maintains luck egalitarianism, while human security believes that there is a threshold to give every human being the equal condition to fulfill their basic needs.

The nature of the relationship between human security and human rights is contested among human security advocates. Some human security advocates argue that the goal of human security should be to build upon and strengthen the existing global human rights legal framework ^[25]. However, other advocates view the human rights legal framework as part of the global insecurity problem and believe that a human security approach should propel us to move above and beyond this legalistic approach to get at the underlying sources of inequality and violence which are the root causes of insecurity in today's world^[26].

[edit] Gender and human security

The human security model focuses on the serious neglect of gender concerns under the traditional security paradigm. Traditional security’s focus on external military threats to the state has meant that the majority of threats women face have been overlooked. By focusing on the individual, the human security model aims to address the security concerns of both women and men equally. Women are often the worst victims of violence and conflict: they form the majority of civilian deaths; the majority of refugees; and, are often the victims of cruel and degrading practices, such as rape^[27]. Women's security is also threatened by unequal access to resources, services and opportunities^[27]. Human security seeks to empower women, through education, participation and access, as gender equality is seen as a necessary precondition for peace, security and a prosperous society^[27].

[edit] Prevent, react, and rebuild

See also: Responsibility to protect

Human security seeks to address underlying causes and long-term implications of conflicts instead of simply reacting to problems, as the traditional security approach is often accused of doing. "The basic point of preventive efforts is, of course, to reduce, and hopefully eliminate, the need for intervention altogether,"^[28] while an investment in rehabilitation or rebuilding seeks to insure that former conflicts do not breed future violence. The concepts of prevention and rebuilding are clearly embraced as the “responsibility to prevent” and well elaborated in "The Responsibility to protect report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty."

Prevention
Human security's emphasis on root cause preventive action can be traced to the UN Charter, Article 55, which recognizes that solutions to international economic, social, health and related problems; international, cultural and educational cooperation; and universal respect for human rights are all essential for "the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations."^[29] Human security also supports efforts at direct prevention, which refers to “political/diplomatic, economic, legal and military” instruments used in order to avoid the direct employment of coercive measures against the state concerned. International legal sanctions including the establishment of specialist tribunals to deal with war crimes committed in specific conflicts, say, in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone conflicts plus the International Criminal Court are the tactics that aim to deter potential perpetrators of crimes against humanity and war crimes.^[30]

Rebuilding
Apart from pre-conflicts prevention, Human security seeks to expand the scope to rebuilding or rehabilitation of post-intervention as to consolidate peace and prevent a recurrence of armed confrontation. A commitment to build durable peace, and promote good governance and sustainable development is required as often the inadequacy of post-intervention reconstruction has left countries struggling with underlying problems which led to conflicts originally. Security, justice and reconciliation and development are the three crucial areas. Disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of local security forces, rebuilding of judicial systems and encouragement of economic growth are necessary to restore law and order and to ensure development of a country.^[31]

[edit] Practice

[edit] Humanitarian intervention

Main article: Humanitarian intervention

The application of human security is highly relevant within the area of humanitarian intervention, as it focuses on addressing the deep rooted and multi-factorial problems inherent in humanitarian crises, and offers more long term resolutions. In general, the term humanitarian intervention generally applies to when a state uses force against another state in order to alleviate suffering in the latter state (See, humanitarian intervention).

Under the traditional security paradigm humanitarian intervention is contentious. As discussed above, the traditional security paradigm places emphasis on the notion of states. Hence, the principles of state sovereignty and non-intervention that are paramount in the traditional security paradigm make it difficult to justify the intevention of other states in internal disputes. Through the development of clear principles based on the human security concept, there has been a step forward in the development of clear rules of when humanitarian intervention can occur and the obligations of states that intervene in the internal disputes of a state.

These principles on humanitarian intervention are the product of a debate pushed by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan. He posed a challenge to the international community to find a new approach to humanitarian intervention that responded to its inherent problems.^[32] In 2001, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) produced the "The Responsibility to protect", a comprehensive report detailing how the “right of humanitarian intervention” could be exercised. It was considered a triumph for the human security approach as it emphasized and gathered much needed attention to some of its main principles:

• The protection of individual welfare is more important than the state. If the security of individuals is threatened internally by the state or externally by other states, state authority can be overridden.

• Addressing the root causes of humanitarian crises (e.g. economic, political or social instability) is a more effective way to solve problems and protect the long-term security of individuals.

• Prevention is the best solution. A collective understanding of the deeper social issues along with a desire to work together is necessary to prevent humanitarian crises, thereby preventing a widespread absence of human security within a population (which may mean investing more in development projects).

The report illustrates the usefulness of the human security approach, particularly its ability to examine the cause of conflicts that explain and justify humanitarian intervention. In addition, it could also act as a paradigm for identifying, prioritizing and resolving large transnational problems, one of the fundamental factors that act as a stimulus for humanitarian intervention in the first place. However, human security still faces difficulties concerning the scope of its applicability, as large problems requiring humanitarian intervention usually are built up from an array of socio-political, cultural and economic problems that may be beyond the limitations of humanitarian projects.^[33] On the other hand, successful examples of the use of human security principles within interventions can be found.

The success of humanitarian intervention in international affairs is varied. As discussed above, humanitarian intervention is a contentious issue. Examples of humanitarian intervention illustrate, that in some cases intervention can lead to disastrous results, as in Srebrenica and Somalia. In other cases, a lack of clarity as to the rules of when intervention can occur has resulted in tragic inaction, as was witnessed during the Rwandan genocide.) One example is of a successful humanitarian intervention and also of humanitarian principles being applied is East Timor which, prior to its independence, was plagued with massive human rights abuses by pro-Indonesian militias and an insurgency war led by indigenous East Timorese against Indonesian forces. A peacekeeping mission was deployed to safeguard the move to independence and the UN established the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET). This not only dealt with traditional security priorities, but also helped in nation building projects, coordinated humanitarian aid and civil rehabilitation, illustrating not only a successful humanitarian intervention but also a effective application of human security principles.

[edit] Global disarmament

Global disarmament is an important priority for Human Security advocates closely linked with the Freedom from Fear agenda. The United Nations strongly believes that peace and security can be achieved only through global disarmament.^[34] In the 62nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly, it was decided to increase efforts in the area of policy development and coordination and advocacy of disarmament and non-proliferation issues with Member States and civil society, as well as promotion and support of multilateral efforts on disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and on conventional disarmament. [7][8].This strongly supports the underlying principles of the human security approach

There have been previous efforts made towards disarmament. For example, The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) of 1996 aimed at nuclear disarmament. Moreover, limits on small arms and light weapons were sought in the 2001 United Nations Conference on the Illicit Traffic in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects. [9] More recently, Cluster Bombs are being called into question by the United Nations and the international community. An example of the success of the global disarmament movement can be seen in the case of Anti-personnel mines.

[edit] Anti-personnel landmines

     State Parties to the Ottawa Treaty

In contrast to the traditional security discourse which sees security as focused on protecting state interests, human security proponents believe that Anti-personnel mines could not be viable weapons of war due to the massive collateral damage they cause, their indiscriminate nature and persistence after conflict. In particular, they argue that Anti-personnel mines differ from most weapons, which have to be aimed and fired since they have the potential to kill and maim long after the warring parties have ceased fighting. The United Nations has reckoned that landmines are at least ten times more likely to kill or injure a civilian after a conflict than a combatant during hostilities.[10]The effects are also long-lasting. The ICBL estimates that anti-personnel mines were the cause of 5,751 casualties in 2006. [11]Whereas traditionally, states would justify these negative impacts of mines due to the advantage they give on the battlefield, under the human security lens, this is untenable as the wide-ranging post-conflict impact on the day-to-day experience of individuals outweighs the military advantage.

The Ottawa Convention, which led to the banning of anti-personnel landmines, is seen as a victory for the Human Security agenda. The Ottawa Convention has proved to be a huge step forward in the ‘Freedom from Fear’ approach. In Ottawa, the negotiations were moved outside traditional disarmament forums, thus avoiding the entrenched logic of traditional arms control measures.^[35] According to Don Hubert,an advocate of Human Security from the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs, the main reason for its success was a multilateral focus. While INGO’s like the UN and the ICRC remain the key players along with middle power states like Norway and Canada, its actual power and push comes from the involvement of a host of civil society actors (NGOs) and the general public.^[36]Human Security proponents believe that this treaty has set new standards in humanitarian advocacy and has acted as a landmark in international lawmaking for a more secure world.

Critics of the treaty, however, caution against complacency on its success. Many states, they point out, have neither signed nor ratified this convention. They include China, Russia and the United States who are major contributors to the global weapons trade.^[37] Second, even though there were a diverse group of civil society actors, the real influence on the treaty came from the ones in the ‘global north’. Third, cynics may argue that the success of this campaign stems from the fact that these weapons were outdated and of limited military value and this treaty just helped to accelerate a process that would have happened anyway.^[38]

[edit] Terrorism

Main article: Terrorism

The global threat of terrorism is an important test case for the Human Security concept. Proponents argue that a Human Security approach would resolve many of the deficiencies in the traditional security paradigm's approach to terrorism.^[39] The traditional security paradigm suggests that terrorism can be dealt with using traditional instruments of statecraft, such as military force orinternational sanctions. However, this ignores that in many cases terrorism is the conducted by sub-state groups and may lack the support of either, and sometimes both, the state or the local population from which they operate. This creates unnecessary human casualties and may cause disproportionate social, economic and cultural harm, fueling the feeling of unrest that may elevate conflicts. In some cases, when states adopt traditional security approaches to terrorism this can lead to the suspension of civil liberties for those suspected of being related to groups undertaking terrorist activities, including detention without trial, body searches and night raids. ^[40]

Overall, human security proponents assert that these traditional measures seem to exacerbate the problem. There are different approaches advocated by them to solve the problem and some of them are:

• Grass-roots portfolio diversification -- Human security schools of thought believe that all different parties must be included in a policy for it to be sustainable. For example, the case of the Anti-personnel mine, a wide range of actors were involved, including state leaders, NGOs, and local campaignes. Participation of a diverse group of actors also foster neutrality. For example, an intermediary. In the case of Iraq, the US military and Iraqi governments could work with credible local and international NGOs to provide services and promote dialogue between warring factions. Training and employment of local women in policing duties and community security has also been shown to be effective in breaking cycles of violence.

• Preventing abuses of human rights by counter-terrorist measures -- Human security also emphasizes the protection of human rights and respect for the rule of law.^[41] In many countries, some counter-terrorist measures violate human rights. Abuses include detention without judicial review; subjecting to torture during the transfer, return and extradition of persons between or within countries. They restrains citizens’ rights or freedoms, and breaches the principle of non-discrimination.^[42] Such violations arguably serve to exacerbate the threat of terrorism. Documents calling for global cooperation against terrorism are also open to abuse ^[43], for example, Resolution 1624.^[44] Human security argues that a failure to respect human rights in one state may undermine international effort to cooperate to combat terrorism ^[42], thus more effort should be invested in the effective inclusion of human rights protection. Documents calling for The potential for justifying inappropriate counter terrorist activities by human security principles should also be recognized and monitored.

• Addressing physical, psychological and political dimensions --Elworthy and Rifkind argue that Intervention is needed at the point before anger generate retaliation and form a vicious cycle. ^{[39] [45]} In the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, both parties suffers from physical and psychological insecurity and these have generated nihilistic violence. ^[39] Concessions can be made including rebuilding of social infrastructure, economic investment, the provision of trauma conselling, inclusion of religious figures and active programs for reconciliation.We need to listen, actively promote symmetry in dialogue, and be ready to accommodate alternative discourses on the experience of modernity.^[46] Sustainable victory in such conflict situations means “to win a battle for the society, for its mindsets and psychologies, to address sources of grievance and anxiety, and to shore up institutions of governance.”^[47]

[edit] Infectious disease

Main article: Infectious disease

Infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, SARS, and H5N1 are in direct link with human security’s Freedom From Want as it addresses threats to individuals and security beyond the traditional notion of violence and stands as one of the most serious threats to development and security around the world.

With the accelerating speed of globalization, the outbreak of an infectious disease in one country can be spread to others quickly. Given the transnational nature of infectious disease, the traditional unilateral, state-centered policy approaches to these threats by infectious diseases is ineffective over the long run. Infectious disease as a human security concern is further brought to light with the outbreaks of extensively drug resistant diseases such as tuberculosis (XTR-TB).

The indiscriminate kill rate of various forms of infectious diseases have tremendous impact on development in countries as they indirectly lead to civil strife, impoverishment, and political instability with the loss of family, political leadership, and organizations. This creates an environment where educated and business elite may flee the country in search of advanced and safer countries in which to live. This brain drain effect can lead to further economic and social problems, thereby exacerbating human security issues. ^[48][12]

Moreover, national security concerns are sometimes cited as a rationale for overriding individual's safety and health concerns. For example in China, prevention of international intervention of internal affairs and securing its tourism and economy might be the reasons of Chinese silence in the SARS epidemic in 2003. Its late disclosure of SARS data is one of the main reasons of the outbreak of SARS in other places.^[49] Even in the cases of H5N1, China has been suspected of concealing cases of bird-flu in several provinces for many months in 2005.^[50]

Therefore, adopting a people-centered Human Security model with its emphasis on prevention, individual empowerment, and treatment strategies delivered by an array of global actors is possibly a pioneering approach to deal with the increasing diversity of contagious diseases.^[51]

Human security supports broadening the responsibility for ensuring health security. It is shifting down from the national level to individuals, communities and civil organizations; and upward to international institutions and networks. The UNAIDS[13], a Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, “is an innovative joint venture of the United Nations family, bringing together the efforts and resources of ten UN system organizations in the AIDS response to help the world prevent new HIV infections, care for people living with HIV, and mitigate the impact of the epidemic.“ Other organizations also include Aids Alliance [14] and the Red Cross [15] amongst many others.

Furthermore, "It is in the security interests of the entire world to ensure that anti-HIV drugs are used properly, minimizing the potential emergence of highly drug resistant forms of the virus", therefore see Recommendations in Laurie Garrett, HIV and National Security: Where are the Links? - Council on Foreign Relations: 2005; 57. [16]^[52]

Hence, modernizing international health rules and regulations, fostering partnerships between public and private sectors as well as enhancing communication and cooperation among states become more important.^[51] Take HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa as an example, the relatively low education level of people and insufficient penetration of knowledge about HIV/AIDS hinder people from realizing the serious impacts of HIV/AIDS. Through various programs however, UNESCO has made prevention education their priority.[17]

Furthermore, low levels of technology, the ineffective management of resources, and the implementation of corresponding policies by leaders further cause the spread of the disease to remain uncontrollable. Human Security proponents argue that by focusing on health burdens faced by local communities and individuals our policy responses will be able to address the roots of the problem.^[51]

Sonagachi Project

In Calcutta, India, the Sonagachi Project, cited by UNAIDS as a "best-practice" model of working with women and men in prostitution, has reached more than 30,000 persons working in the commercial sex sector at risk of HIV/AIDS, mainly through peer-based outreach services.^[53] This project demonstrates the collective power of different organizations and the government. In line with human security principles, the approach of this project is based on the needs of the individuals, which are then catered specifically. Sonagachi's peer educators help to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS among women and men in prostitution through strategies intended to earn their trust, to reduce their social isolation, to increase their social participation, and to confront stigma and discrimination.^[53]

[edit] Environmental degradation

See also: Environmental security

[edit] Global warming

Main article: Global Warming

Environmental degradation and extreme climate change can threaten human security by exposing individuals to natural disasters and reducing essential resources that are necessary for a viable standard of living. While there is some general consensus surrounding the importance of combating climate change, human security views global warming as a threat it can be a key contributor to the forces that lead to conflict intra and inter state. For example, as the earth’s climate changes more rapidly, an increase in violent conflict is likely^[54] due to resource scarcity and an exacerbated North-South disparity.

The human security concept provides a broad based agenda to tackle the geo-political consequences of global warming. From one side, there is the obvious necessity to minimize climate change. However, there is also the essential task of identifying what groups are impacted by reduced resources or by environmentally driven disasters such as drought, famine and disease. Identifying these groups allows policy-makers to plan for the future, and in the particular circumstances were such environmentally driven factors may lead to conflict, to avoid the de-stabilizing consequences of climate change. For example, a lack of resources, such as food or water, may cause wide-spread refugee movement within a region and create conflict as an increased population puts a strain on available resources. ^[55]. Water and energy scarcity are another example of environmental change has lead to military and political turmoil worldwide.^[56] Altered resource availability causing food shortages results in political disputes, ethnic tensions and civil unrests, which in turn is the basis for regional conflicts that eventually goes global. ^[57] Furthermore, vulnerability to climate changes can be exacerbated by other non-climate factors such as HIV/AIDS, poverty, unequal access to resources and economic globalization ^[58], making Human Security all the more susceptible.

A more recent example of how global warming impacts human security is the Darfur conflict. Climate changes have brought the Sahara steadily into the south and droughts are more frequent in this piece of dry land, wiping out food produce. As a result there is less arable land with many people fighting for it. ^[59] Indeed, a report by CNA corporation describes climate change as a “threat multiplier” in volatile parts of the world. ^[60] Climate change is a growing threat to world peace and has led to rival territorial claims in the Arctic that could turn into a cold war, policies to fight climate change can, and will, become an important part of peace policies which are very important.

Nowadays, many still view global warming in terms of the national security framework. These national threats, however, can be easily transposed into a human security context. Peter Gleick, President of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, considers the three biggest threats to national security to be: 1. Food shortages caused by reductions in agricultural production capacities 2. Shortages of safe drinking water due to flooding and droughts 3. Shortages of natural resources due to disruption caused by ice and storms.^[61] These threats are, in fact, inextricably linked with the impacts of Global warming on human security as a whole.

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report ^[62] points out various environmentally effective policies which different actors in different sectors can take to reduce the impact of global warming. One identified priority has been to improve international co-operation and the increased use of multilateral treatise to improve responses to global warming, as well as further involvement of existing multilateral institutions such as the UN, WTO, WorldBank and other UN Agencies. Furthermore, grassroots approaches and civil activities are suggested key drivers in improving the response to global warming.

[edit] Resource scarcity

One area in which the human security concept has been able to articulate a response were the traditional security paradigm has failed is related to natural resources. Natural resources, to the broadest term, include all which can be extracted from the natural environment for utilization. For example, coal and petroleum, soil, water and other minerals can be classified as resources.

A security issue stems from the depletion of natural resources. Resource depletion occurs because of the significant resources required to supply modern industry, which has also resulted in the reduction in the quality of some other essential resources, such as water, farmable land and air. For example, the availability of freshwater^[63] and fertile soil^[64] for agriculture is decreasing in the world. Since freshwater and fertile soil are essential for food production, the degradation of quality and the increase of scarcity of the two determinants lead to hunger and drought in various regions in the world. Another example is energy. It is commonly perceived that coal and petroleum will be exhausted in decades. While this view is challenged because of the abundance of fossil fuel, the scarcity created by increased demand and the increased difficulty in extraction from current sources has lead to price.increases^[65] This possibly brings tension in the energy market and world energy supply.

It is this scarcity that breads hostility amongst states and sub-state groups. Markets for resources have registered increased prices across the board, and any reduction in supply will only exacerbate the inflationary effects of demand. These circumstances lead to increased wealth for those who hold resources while a decreasing standard of living for those that lack resources, as the price of basic essentials moves out of reach. This breads hostility between states and civilians^[66] and thus the depletion hampers quality of life of civilians and even causes causality.

In response to the depletion, the concept of human security is brought into consideration. Various actors in the international arena participated in securing civilians by allowing access to natural resources and striving for lowering the rate of depletion. In 2002, the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation(JPOI) was adopted at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, which clearly lay out the framework of how the depletion of natural resources can be tackled as well as the goals for achievement. The plan includes protection and management of freshwater, minerals, forest and woodland, ocean, soil and so on^[67]. Besides setting guidelines for action, JPOI has also pointed out the institutional framework for promoting sustainable development in the globe, in regions and on nations level. The role of UN, major groups, states and international institutions are defined clearly in the Plan. Thus, one can expect that these actors take stakes in the issue. JPOI evidenced that the world is taking action in handling the depletion issue.

Not only we can see the world with different stakeholders is planning to change the status quo, some parts of the world as well as some actors have already taken a leap in fighting against the degradation. For example in West Asia, where water and fertile soil are always scarce, the region changed from the traditional way of agriculture to a more knowledge-based production of higher value-added commodities. The regional preparatory meeting makes effort in sustainable management of natural resources, including, inter alia, integrated water resources management and implementation of programmes to combat desertification^[68]. Another example can be drawn from World Vision, an international non-governmental organization that focuses on humanitarian issues. In 2007, World Vision made 117 wells in West Africa and thus 117000 people were enabled access to freshwater^[69]. These are only two examples from many initiatives taken by different actors in the globe to help in slowing down natural resources degradation and upholding right of access to natural resources.

[edit] Criticisms

[edit] Vagueness of the concept

What constitutes a security threat?

Some critics argue that there is large degree of subjectivity in defining what constitute a security threat,^[70] absence of threshold on to what level of insecurity constitutes a security threat leave the concept of human security vague. While UNDP has defined seven types of security issues concerned under Human Security paradigm, there is a lack of further explanation in what circumstances are these issues to be securitized and solved with global cooperation. For instance, to which level the loss of "community security" under UNDP will be considered as a security threat to that nation and the globe.

Absence of consensus on definition

It remains unclear whether the concept of human security can serve as a practical guide. Although the general idea is that human security would shift the focus from a state-centered to a people-centered approach to security , the fact is that like "sustainable development", human security lacks a precise definition. At present, there are at least four different versions (the UNDP version, the Japanese version, the Canadian version and the EU version). The main discrepancy among the definitions is whether to adopt a narrow or wide concept of human security. The narrow definition, also known as the "Freedom from Fear" approach, limits the scope of human security to violent conflicts while the broad definition, usually referred to as the "Freedom from Want" approach includes socio-economic issues such as poverty and diseases into the human security agenda.

On the one hand, opponents of the "Freedom from Fear" approach argue that it fails to address the root causes of security threats hence it is inneficient in enhancing human security. These causes are mainly unbearable living conditions like extreme and prolonged poverty, or the lack of basic resources such as water and food. In other words, this approach treats the "symptoms"--violent acts but does not cure the "disease"---human security threats. On the other hand, opponents of the "Freedom from Want" approach argue that the broad definition encompasses too many issues related to human rights and development.These issues are usually inter-connected and involve complicated causal relationships and furthermore it requires even more extensive and close cooperation between different sectors, making the human security concept even harder to be operationalized.

Since there is no consensus on which schools of thought should be the main focus of the human security paradigm, some critics suggest combining the two schools of thoughts, some even suggest not considering the causes of insecurity through any of the two approaches, but instead looking at the severity of the threats to define what issues are included in the human security agenda. Such discrepancies can hinder international cooperation.

The lack of a clear definition is not the only factor that obstructs international cooperation, human security advocates have failed to this day to assign specific roles to different actors in the international arena. In the traditional security approach, the government is responsible for protecting its citizens, whereas in the human security approach the responsiibility does not yet lie on solid hands, leaving room for disputes and more threats.

How to prioritize security threats?

Some critics also argue that human security has a very broad scope, there are lots of issues involved and obviously prioritization is needed. Yet there is not a clearly established hierarchy or framework guiding how to choose between competing goals, decide which threat deserves most attention and concentrate their resources on specific solutions to immediate problems.^[71]The potential risk of lacking principles for prioritizing is that some political actors may manipulate the prioritizing process to reach their political objective.^[72] Nations with larger power may, through different channels such as media and partnership with corporations and political alliances, intentionally shift the international communities’ attention to one or two specific threats in some nations, yet at the back wants to achieve some political objectives for its own interest.

How to measure human security?

Unlike the Human Development Index, an aggregate Human Security Index has not been identified yet. There are a number of challenges pertaining to measuring human security: which definition to use? How to establish the threshold or defined limit of human security, especially when its concrete meaning is circumstantial for every human individual and community? How to reconcile between quantitative indicators, which can measure development outcomes, with subjectives ones, needed to gauge perceptions of people in their every day lives? Measuring human security, especially through any kind of index is not only problematic in terms of data choice, availability and weight of components, but especially because local political, socio-economic and cultural contexts have to be taken into account in addition to the perceptions of individuals at “risk”.^[73];

[edit] Questions on the practice

Further and deeper questions about this approach revolve around how this concept has been and could be practiced; whether or not the "human security" approach is the best tool for addressing global threats and how practical or feasible these measures are. The allocation of available resources alone may preclude addressing all of the varied threats to human security as outlined in the Human Development Report and Millennium Development Goals.^[74]

There are also many questions regarding the best method in providing human security to everyone. Between the two schools of thought, there has therefore been a raging debate as to which would be a more appropriate route to take in trying to provide with a more holistic yet realistic concept of "security". While on one hand it would seem that the freedom from fear school is a much more attainable goal, albeit in a much more limited scope. The Freedom from Want approach is considered to be too ambitious to some and many are unsure of how to determine the exact “want” issues. It is also doubtful whether the world would have enough time or the resources available to deal with the issue, whether it be the resources in real terms or logictical terms. The nature of the wants aspects – intrastate conflicts, humanitarian interventions, economic security, environmental security and so on, means that its work in alleviating inter-state conflicts is still far from perfect. Also, it is difficult to measure how successful security benefits really are and how to further improve them in the future.

Tadjbakhsh introduced seven challenging questions on the concept of human security on September 13, 2005 at the “Human Security: 60 minutes to Convince” discussion held at UNESCO:

1) Can there be an agreement on definitions? Without a consensus on the definition of human security, it will be difficult to implement and decide on a common human security program. Today, there is an agreement that human security should be taken from a people-centered more than a state-centered approach, but as mentioned above, the definition or scope of human security is still vague.

2) Is the rise of “National Security” disrupting the process of expanding human security? Since the September 11 attacks, the attention on security has become more on national security rather than human security. According to a study by Christian Aid, “the year 2004 saw $1 billion in aid was diverted to the war on terrorism at the expense of poverty and MDGs.” As the focus has shifted from a bottom-up approach to a top-down approach, this has also meant that the investments made are strategically long-term plans rather than short term, and this has been reflected in the amount of spending. Military expenditures as of 2004 were apparently “twenty times larger than aid outlays,” as stated by the SIRPI Yearbook 2004. The question now is, is it too late to revive the focus of state and national security to human security?

3) Who is responsible for implementation? Much discussion today has been in regards to the approach of human security, but with little emphasis on who is in charge of implementing it. Many states have “adopted it as a foreign policy tool” but it has mostly been disregarded “as a domestic policy on development and human rights.” Also, people seem to be absent in the process of human security; “people are not passive recipient of security,” or victims of its absence, but active subjects who should contribute directly to identifying and implementing solutions to security problems.” There also lies the lack of mandate for IGO's to act in times of need. The genocide in Rwanda and to a certain degree the acts which are currently occurring in Darfur seem to point to this direction. The lack of the strong political will to act in times of dire need has been cited by former UN-Secretary General Kofi Annan as a major speedbump to eliminating immediate security threats.

4) What are the priorities and trade-offs? “Which of the many threats that exist deserves the most attention?” There is no prioritization or “hierarchy” today on which issues are more important than others. This can cause difficulties in establishing goals and directing resources on specific solutions to immediate problems. Specifically under the current context of the world, where there are so many growing problems, including increasing food prices, scarce fresh water sources and the ever-prevalent threat of regional instability in "hotzones" around the world; it seems necessary to have some sort of an agenda as to what threat must be contained first.

5) Can a “true inter-sectoral agenda” be implemented? Are we ready or able to create “inter, or better yet, intra-sectoral interventions?” There needs to be more focus on “relationships,” how an intervention can positively or negatively affect other areas and how these effects can improve the human security intervention approach. However, as idealistic as this sounds, the question is how we will implement this when there is a "lack of interdisciplinary approaches among donors and governments”? Once again this also raises the issue of the scope of security. Under current status quo it is primarily states and IGO's that are the primary actors in any security crisis, whereas it is the individuals of the states that are actually at harm. While NGO's and other humanitarian organizations do raise efforts to focus on individuals, there is still a massive gap between the two.

6) How can we better understand conflicts? It is important to understand conflicts in order to resolve and prevent them, and it is easiest to understand conflict during times of conflict, “both to address conflict prevention and for rebuilding and reconstruction in post conflict-stages.” Today, we question how well do we really understand conflict? How can we improve our understanding of it?

7) How can we best implement human security and not do harm? In the past, when human intervention was taken in countries such as the former Yugoslavia, Somalia and Rwanda, some have argued that more harm was done than benefit. Interventions must be better “targeted, implemented, monitored, and coordinated” to decrease “dependency, power and patronage of certain groups.” Something must be done to ensure that future interventions do not cause harm, but the question now is how.^[75]

[edit] State sovereignty

The potential conflict between state sovereignty and human security can be best highlighted by the concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P). It was introduced as a procedural system when to initiate military intervention of other states or the United Nations in the "Responsibility to Protect" Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. The report introduced a new perspective that sovereignty not only points to power but also the responsibility to protect its citizens. If a state is unable or fails to protect its citizens, other states have the responsibility to intervene and state sovereignty has to succumb to this responsibility ]]^[76].

Tool of developed countries

The Group of 77(G77) had expressed its skepticism for fear it would lead to violations of state sovereignty^[75]. Critics of the concept, including China, India, France and the US acting out of fear that such an approach would provide new excuses for unwarranted interventions ^[75]. For example, many countries especially those less developed ones accuse those from the First World deliberately intervening with their internal affairs and undermine their sovereignty ^[77]. One typical example is China. The Chinese Government accused of countries including the US of intervening with China's internal affairs after criticisms of those countries that China fails to protect her citizens against arbitrary detention.

Many critics view the human security in distrust and view it as the tool of powerful states to foster dependency. Although it might be welcome that funds or aids in face of natural disasters, this kind of aids may nevertheless be used by rich and powerful countries to extend their national interests. Marxists term this as a modern form of imperialism. Marxists contend that rich countries by providing "humanitarian aids" foster dependency of poor countries so that they can maintain an exploitative relationship and can derive benefit from those poorer countries ^[78]. States provide humanitarian aid to the poor countries in the name of "human security" and in return, the developed countries can guarantee undisputed cheap labour. Another example is the aids offered by the World Bank led by the US to Latin -America countries in their 1980s financial crisis ^[79]. The World Bank is often criticized as favouring the rich countries as they has set the precondition for aid delivery to any country: the countries have to put their state-owned enterprises on sale which only multi-national companies from the rich countries can afford to buy.

Also, human security might even be used as an excuse to wage a war against poorer countries. It is argued that only powerful states, especially those from the West, can determine whose human rights justify departure from the principle of non-intervention - a resemblance of imperialism. For example, the US in the name of "just war" attacked Iraq. It was now discovered that there was no mass destructive weapons and many accused the US of being after Iraqi oil only ^[80].

Dissatisfaction towards the interventionist attitude of the rich countries has grown to a summit among rogue states like Iran and North Korea. This might lead to outbreak of conflicts or even violence. Tension has grown on the issue of disarmament. Terrorists organization led by Bin Laden often accused those countries of deliberately asserting their power and failing to abide by the principle of non-intervention.

Political infeasibility

Finally, the concept might be ineffective due to two reasons. First, it lacks political will. As states still are major players in global affairs, the unwillingness of states to give in their state sovereignty will make implementation of human security really difficult. A typical example is the failure of R2P. Without support from states, no issue can get to the top of the world's agenda. Since those who have the power to decide are the one whose interests will be potentially jeopardized by the human security paradigm, it is unlikely that this approach can be implemented.

Second, after the 9.11 incident, "national security" has regained its currency in the political world, due to the fear of terrorist attacks. Most political leaders would think that national security is the only way against terrorists. This can be seen from the fact that the world's total military expenditure has soared 18 percent in 2002 and 2003, with high-income countries accounting for 75% of this increase ^[75]. Many countries for fear of their security revive heavily their military protection against external threats. It has been argued that the rise of terrorism hinders the development of human security, since the main strategies to combat terrorism are diametrically different in national security approach and human security approach. Traditional national security advocates the use of traditional military forces to fight against terrorists; Human security advocates, on the other hand, suggest the use of a "psycho-political"^[47] strategy to win the hearts of those groups of people which now are supporting terrorists. Yet, this strategy has not been widely accepted by the public and implemented by western political leaders. Therefore, there remain doubts whether human security will flourish in face of terrorism.

[edit] See also

• Human rights
• National security
• Humanitarian intervention
• Water Crisis
• Global Spread of H5N1
• Human Trafficking
• Government
• International Relations
• Security Sector Reform
• Sexual Slavery
• Human Security Report Project
• Human Security Report 2005
• Human Security Brief 2007
• Global Governance Watch

[edit] References