|
The
Case for Human Security
Mary Kaldor
Centre for the Study of Global Governance
Just as
we have long separated development aid from emergency aid, so
we tend to plan development and security from conflicting angles.
The concept of human security aims to reconcile approaches and
tools in order to offer development and security to individuals
rather than to nations. Defence plea.
 hile
there is already a recognition by many politicians that poverty
is relevant to security, a holistic approach is still lacking,
and there tends to be competition between 'hard' and 'soft' approaches.
Human security is about protecting the safety and livelihoods
of individuals. Hence it is more robust and comprehensive than
the term 'peace' and, yet, quite different from the more military
approach taken by the United States and by traditional nation-states.
Adoption of the language would both help to mobilize public support
and, at the same time, offer the basis for a set of principles
that could guide and streamline policy.
These
principles apply both to 'freedom from fear', i.e. the goal of
public safety, and 'freedom from want', i.e. the goal of human
development. The principles do not only apply to hot conflict
situations. A distinction is often drawn between the 'prevention'
of crises and post-conflict reconstruction. But it is often difficult
to distinguish between different phases of conflict precisely
because there are no clear beginnings or endings and because the
conditions that cause conflict - fear and hatred, a criminalized
economy that profits from violent methods of controlling assets,
weak illegitimate States, or the existence of warlords and paramilitary
groups - are often exacerbated during and after periods of violence.
The situation in Palestine, for instance, was supposed to be 'post-conflict'
after the Oslo accords. The conflicts of the South Caucasus used
to be called 'frozen', but 'festering' might have been a better
characterization. The principles for a human security policy should
therefore apply to a continuum of phases of varying degrees of
violence that always involves elements of both prevention and
reconstruction.
The
Primacy of Human Rights
The primacy of human rights is what distinguishes the human security
approach from traditional State-based approaches. Although the
principle seems obvious, there are deeply held and entrenched
institutional and cultural obstacles that have to be overcome
if it is to be realized in practice. Human rights include economic
and social rights as well as political and civil rights. This
means that human rights such as the right to life, the right to
housing, or the right to freedom of opinion are to be respected
and protected even in the midst of conflict. This has profound
implications both for security policy and for development. In
security terms, the central preoccupation of both practitioners
and analysts of foreign policy in recent years has been with the
conditions under which human rights concerns should take precedence
over sovereignty. This debate often neglects the issue of the
means to be adopted in so-called human rights operations. This
is especially important where military means are likely to be
deployed. It is often assumed that the use of military force is
justifiable if there is legal authority to intervene (ius ad bellum),
and the goals are worthwhile. However, the methods adopted must
also be appropriate and, indeed, may affect the ability to achieve
the goal specified. In other words, the 'how' is as important
as the 'why'. Unless it is absolutely necessary and it has a legal
basis, personnel deployed on human security missions must avoid
killing, injury, and material destruction.
The
primacy of human rights also implies that those who commit gross
human rights violations are treated as individual criminals rather
than collective enemies. In development terms, the primacy of
human rights means the primacy of human development as opposed
to the growth of national economies. This has profound implications
for development policies as well as for more specific issues such
as conditionality. Ways have to be found to help the individual
even where a country has poor governance or fails to meet various
forms of conditionality. Different voices within a country should
be consulted on the use of conditionality, and means have to be
found that assist communities and bypass local authorities.
The
end goal of a human security strategy has to be the establishment
of legitimate political authority capable of upholding human security.
Again this applies both to physical security, where the rule of
law and a well-functioning system of justice are essential, and
to material security, where increasing legitimate employment or
providing infrastructure and public services require state policies.
Legitimate political authority does not necessarily need to mean
a State, it could consist of local government or regional or international
political arrangements. Since State failure is often the primary
cause of conflict, the reasons for State failure have to be taken
into account in reconstructing legitimate political authority.
Diplomacy, sanctions, the provision of aid, and civil society
links are all among the array of instruments available to States
and international institutions aimed at influencing political
processes in other countries - opening up authoritarian regimes,
strengthening legitimate forms of political authority, and promoting
inclusive political solutions to conflict - as is the capacity
to deploy civilian personnel. It is in cases of impending human
catastrophe, a threatened genocide for example, that military
forces may need to be used. In such cases, they can only succeed
on the basis of local consent and support. The most that can be
achieved through the use of military forces is to stabilize the
situation so that a space can be created for a political or judicial
process. Again, this is a difficult cognitive shift for the military
since they tend to see their roles in terms of defeating an enemy.
Multilateralism
A human security approach has to be global. Hence it can only
be implemented through multilateral action. Multilateralism means
more than simply 'acting with a group of States'. In that narrow
sense, nearly all international initiatives might be considered
multilateral. Multilateralism is closely related to legitimacy
and is what distinguishes a human security approach from neo-colonialism.
First,
multilateralism means a commitment to work with international
institutions, and through the procedures of international institutions.
This means, first and foremost, working within the United Nations
framework, but it also entails working with or sharing out tasks
among other regional organizations such as the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe and the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization in Europe, the African Union, the Southern African
Development Community and the Economic Community of West African
States in Africa or the Organization of American States in the
western hemisphere.
Secondly,
multilateralism entails a commitment to creating common rules
and norms, solving problems through rules and cooperation, and
enforcing the rules. Nowadays, legitimate political authority
has to be situated within a multilateral framework. Indeed State
failure is partly to be explained in terms of the failure of traditionally
unilateralist States to adapt to multilateral ways of working.
Thirdly,
multilateralism has to include coordination, rather than duplication
or rivalry. An effective human security approach requires coordination
between intelligence, foreign policy, trade policy, development
policy and security policy initiatives, of the Member States,
of the Commission and the Council, and of other multilateral actors,
including the United Nations, the World Bank, the IMF and regional
institutions. Preventive and pro-active policies cannot be effective
if they are isolated and even contradictory.
The
Bottom-Up Approach
Notions of 'partnership', 'local ownership' and 'participation'
are already key concepts in development policy. These concepts
should also apply to security policies. Decisions about the kind
of security and development policies to be adopted, whether or
not to intervene with military forces or through various forms
of conditionality, and how, must take account of the most basic
needs identified by the people who are affected by violence and
insecurity. This is not just a moral issue; it is also a matter
of effectiveness. People who live in zones of insecurity are the
best source of intelligence. Thus communication, consultation,
and dialogue are essential tools for both development and security.
Particularly
important in this respect is the role of women's groups. The importance
of gender equality for development, especially the education of
girls, has long been recognized. The same may be true when managing
conflict. Women play a critical role in contemporary conflicts,
both dealing with the everyday consequences of the conflict and
overcoming divisions in society. Involvement and partnership with
women's groups could be a key component of a human security approach.
Regional
Focus
New wars have no clear boundaries. They tend to spread through
refugees and displaced persons, through minorities who live in
different States, through criminal and extremist networks. Indeed
most situations of severe insecurity are located in regional clusters.
The tendency to focus attention on areas that are defined in terms
of statehood has often meant that relatively simple ways of preventing
the spread of violence are neglected. Time and again, foreign
policy analysts have been taken by surprise when, after considerable
attention had been given to one conflict, another conflict would
seemingly spring up out of the blue in a neighbouring State.
By
the same token, a regional focus is important in restoring and/or
fostering economic and trade cooperation. The breakdown of transport
and trade links, associated with war, is often a primary reason
for falls in production and employment that contribute to poverty
and insecurity.
Among
the development community, there are rightly concerns about the
securitization of development. In the past, in theory at least,
security issues were seen as the realm of foreign affairs - high
politics - while development was viewed as the domestic realm,
having to do with the low politics of economy and society. In
so far as security did invade the realm of development and, of
course, during the Cold War period, security concerns profoundly
affected development policy, it was viewed as a sort of neo-colonialism.
Today,
however, it is impossible to separate security and development.
The distinctions between foreign and domestic policy, or between
high and low politics are breaking down. If we stick to an old-fashioned
view of security, this could indeed have a deleterious effect
on development. This is because a narrow Statist view of security
would do nothing to overcome the insecurity experienced by individuals
and communities in large parts of the world, especially the developing
world.
Extracted
from The Case for Human Security, paperpresented at the
workshop Les pays en développement dans le contexte
international: conflits locaux et conflits internationaux,
Iddri, Paris, decembre 2004. www.iddri.org
|
74 - Social Sciences