New Hs Agendas

8/9/2019 New Hs Agendas

1/25

AppliedResearchCentre inHumanS ecurity

Human Security Agendas:A Working Paper

Alan HunterNicky BlackMathis Goujon

February 2008


2/25

About the authors

Nicky Black is a Research Fellow at Coventry Universitys Applied Research Centre

in Human Security (ARCHS). She is also a doctoral candidate in Strategic and

Human Resource Management at the University of Waikato, New Zealand.

Mathis Goujon studies business at the French Grand Ecole CERAM and in Prague;

he worked as intern at ARCHS in summer 2007.

Alan Hunter has worked for human rights and refugee organisations, and as a

sinologist. He is currently Associate Director of ARCHS and of the Centre for Peace

and Reconciliation Studies at Coventry University.

Note: two of the authors of this working paper, Nicky Black and Alan Hunter, work atARCHS; but views expressed in the paper are their individual opinions, and do notreflect any official position of ARCHS as a Centre.

Applied Research Centre in Human SecurityFutures InstituteFaculty of Business, Environment and Society Coventry University CV1 2TL UK Tel: +44 (0)24 7679 5757

http://www.coventry.ac.uk/archs


3/25

Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 Section One: Human Security Contexts..................................................................... 2 Section Two: Human Security Institutions................................................................... 6 Section Three: Critiques of the Human Security paradigm....................................... 13 Section Four: Growth points..................................................................................... 14 Section Five: Human Security, Business, New Global Governance......................... 17

List of Abbreviations

ARCHS: Applied Research Centre in Human SecurityCERI: Centre detudes et de recherches internationalesCHS: Commission on Human SecurityCRISE: The Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and EthnicityIDP: Internally displaced personMNC: Multi-national corporation

NGO: Non-Governmental OrganisationUN: United NationsUNDP: United Nations Development ProgrammeUNIDIR: United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research


4/25

1Hunter, Black, Goujon: Human Security Agendas

IntroductionThis paper maps and further develops the concept of Human Security as set out, for

example, in Human Security Now (UNCHS 2003). The first section of this paper

tracks the development of Human Security discourse, and also examines thebroadening of the security concept in recent years. The second section reports on

institutions with a specific interest in Human Security, for example within the UN

system and in universities. The third section acknowledges some critiques of the

Human Security paradigm.

Various synopses and analyses of current thinking on Human Security have already

been published, including an accessible account from the United Nations

Development Programme (UNDP) (Jolly and Ray 2006). A report for the UN Centrefor Regional Development Perspectives from the early years of the millennium

provides another good overview of Human Security (Mani 2002). The last two

sections of this paper report on new directions that may, we believe, enrich the

Human Security agenda at the time of writing in 2008. Some Human Security

discourse is still rooted in the traditional language of the aid-agency/UN

development/ economic growth models that emerged from the 1950s onwards, often

hostile to the corporate and business sector, and sometimes negligent of

sustainability and climate change issues. Another limited, and in our opinionoutmoded approach, is an exaggerated focus on Western interventions, especially

military ones, as a solution to problems in poor or conflict-prone areas. We argue for

a more inclusive agenda, which we have started to promote at The Applied Research

Centre in Human Security (ARCHS) at Coventry University. ARCHS is a new

research and teaching Centre which aims to develop innovative approaches to

Human Security, peace, and sustainable enterprise.

We argue that proponents of a Human Security approach should welcome efforts to

remove the barriers between enterprise, corporates, aid- and development-

agencies, government agencies, citizen groups and the UN; and work towards multi-

stakeholder approaches to vulnerable populations. We also argue that such an

approach is vital in responding to the imperative of action on climate change. We

conclude with an agenda for positive engagement between the aid/development

community and more business-oriented interest groups. We are already finding a

positive response from enterprises about Human Security issues and possible

contributions to it from the business sector. There are several reasons why


5/25


businesses may want to engage with the needs of vulnerable populations:

companies need secure trading environments; they may also have corporate

citizenship drivers which induce them to respond positively to customer, shareholder

and employee concerns; many consumers are interested in fair-trade, peace and

social justice as well as green issues.

Section One: Human Security ContextsHuman Security as currently understood encompasses at least the following:

a set of ideas and ideals concerning improvements to development andprotection for communities living in complex poverty

a trans-disciplinary analysis of multiple factors in vulnerabilities and

interventions

a paradigm for UN and other development agencies

an agenda within which to situate interventions, including those legitimated byResponsibility to Protect arguments

a named discipline in academic institutions

a terminology adopted by several nations, e.g. Canada, to describe anorientation for international work in the past decade

an opportunity for creative inputs to development/protection agendas.

Some key features of Human Security are that it should be people-centred and

gender-sensitive; multi-dimensional; inter-connected; universal; and contextualised.

It offers an analysis of the vulnerabilities of a specific population; and also

recommendations for responses to these vulnerabilities, e.g. by intervention and

development. Human Security Now (UNCHS 2003) lists issues requiring concerted

action which are relevant to most vulnerable communities:

Protection from violent conflictProtection from arms proliferation

Supporting refugees and IDPs

Providing relief in post-conflict situations

Encouraging fair-trade and other pro-poor economic activities

Providing minimum livelihoods (i.e. lifting out of extreme poverty)

Universal basic health care

Universal basic education

The report overall notes that poverty-related health threats are probably the mostmassive single threat to vulnerable populations.


6/25


For some decades after the Second World War, security was mostly conceptualized

as the security of nation-states in the context of possible military conflicts, for

example between NATO and the Soviet bloc. Global events and trends, particularly

since the late 1980s, have to a great extent transformed the security agenda. One

impetus was the changing nature of violent conflict, with more evident militarized

intra-state, ethnic and religious conflicts. In the past two decades it became

increasingly apparent that communities are also threatened by environmental

destruction induced both by climate change and direct human impacts - forced

migration, epidemics including HIV/AIDS, and other issues.

In the 1990s, institutions and researchers began to propose alternatives to the

conventional security agenda. In 1994, for example, the UNDP extended policy

debate using the then new concept of Human Security. The report set out a broad

definition of Human Security, including seven core values: economic security, food

security, health security, environmental security, personal security (freedom from fear

of violence, crime and drugs), community security (freedom to participate in family life

and cultural activities) and political security (freedom to exercise ones basic human

rights) (United Nations Development Programme 1990-). As Johan Galtung has

pointed out, security in this sense represented a continuity from the basic human

needs paradigm that was influential in developmental agendas from the 1970s

(Galtung 2004). A wide range of new security thinking has been published in the

Berlin-based Hexagon Series on Human, Environmental Security and Peace,

including a 2007 volume with papers on human security (Brauch 2007).

Looking back further, one can trace the origins of Human Security concerns to

religious and early socialist ideals of community or commonwealth; and to Roman

and Prussian, among other, state ideals of national security, law and order. Many ofthe humanitarian concerns were encapsulated in the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights, 1948, Article 25:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and

well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and

medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the

event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack

of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.


7/25


8/25


livelihoods and access to food, water, and medical care. Some theorists, however,

object that the very broad definitions of Human Security make the term amorphous,

almost meaningless, or at least impossible to realise.

Mller distinguishes the narrow state-focused concept of national security that is

used in realist security studies from three extended or widened security concepts.

He labels societal security as incremental; Human Security as radical; and

environmental security as ultra-radical. Moving beyond the classical realist security

paradigm, Mller analyses these concepts with regard to the different referent

objectsstate, nation, societal groups, individuals, humankind, and ecosystemthe

values at risk, and the sources of threat (Moller 2003). This classification has inspired

subsequent additions and modifications. For example Oswald raises the particular

needs of protection for women and for marginalized indigenous peoples (Oswald

2006). Groups of researchers have proposed another strand of Human Security as

freedom from hazard impacts (Brauch 2005). A tabulation of some of these

concepts looks as follows:

Denomination Referencesobject (securityof whom?

Value at risk(security ofwhat?)

Sources of threat(security from whomand for what?)

Global security World order,internationalcommunity

Global stabilityand co-operation

Militarized regimes

Power-bloc confrontation

National Security(political, military)

The State Sovereignty,territorialintegrity

Other states, terrorism,sub-state actors

Societal Security Nations, societalgroups

National unity,identity

Culture-clash, host-migrant tensions,economic collapse

Human Security Individuals,communities

Survival, qualityof life

Armed attacks (para-militaries/ stateagencies). Extremecomplex poverty

EnvironmentalSecurity

Ecosystem,humankind

Sustainability Nature, humankind

Security ofmarginalizedgroups

Genderrelations,indigenous,minoritieschildren, elders

Equity, identity,solidarity, socialrepresentations

Patriarchy, totalitarianinstitutions (government,religions, elites, culture,intolerance)


9/25


Section Two: Human Security InstitutionsA number of institutions include Human Security in their titles, while other agencies

deal with issues closely related to Human Security without making explicit use of the

term. The major institutions can be conveniently considered in three broad

categories.

A: The United Nations and affiliates

In March 1999, the Government of Japan and the UN Secretariat launched the UN

Trust Fund for Human Security. Much of its funding was directed towards

developmental concerns in thematic areas such as health, education, agriculture and

small scale infrastructure development. At the UN Millenium Summit in 2000,

Secretary-General Kofi Annan called upon the world community to advance the twingoals of freedom from want and freedom from fear. As a contribution to this effort,

an independent Commission on Human Security (CHS) was established, led by

Amartya Sen and Sadako Ogata. In May 2003, after two years of deliberation, the

Commission submitted its final report, entitled Human Security Now, to the

Secretary-General. This report, available on the internet, is perhaps the best

readable summary of UN aspirations (UNCHS 2003).

Based on the recommendations of the CHS, the Advisory Board on Human Security

was created to among others promote Human Security and advise the Secretary-

General on the management of the Trust Fund. The Human Security Unit was

established in September 2004 in the United Nations Office for the Coordination of

Humanitarian Affairs, its overall objective being to integrate Human Security in all UN

activities.

Other UN-affiliated agencies, and International Non-Governmental Organisations

(NGOs), are either explicitly or implicitly deeply involved with issues close to Human

Security concerns: for example the Center for Research on the Epidemiology ofDisasters, Belgium; the UN University, notably the campus for Environmental and

Human Security, Bonn and programmes in Peace and Governance, Tokyo; and the

UN Food and Agriculture Organization. Ramesh Thakur writes authoritatively on the

evolution of the agenda within the UN (Thakur 2006).


10/25


B: National/inter-governmental organizations

Several governments, most notably the Canadian and Japanese, have been pro-

active in the Human Security Agenda. A detailed review of Japanese official

commitments is available in English on the website of the Japanese Ministry of

Foreign Affairs: http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/human_secu/index.html (accessed

November 2007).

The Canadian government has a similar website at

http://www.humansecurity.gc.ca/psh-en.asp (accessed November 2007). Among

many other materials, it offers the following statement of priorities:

As Canadians, we are committed to building a world where people can live infreedom from fear of threats such as terrorism, drug trafficking and the illicit

trade of small arms. This new generation of threats shows no respect for

national borders and inevitably becomes the source of our own insecurity.

Human Security is a people-centered approach to foreign policy which

recognizes that lasting stability cannot be achieved until people are protected

from violent threats to their rights, safety or lives.

The Canadian Government has also funded various initiatives such as the CanadianConsortium on Human Security , the Uppsala University Human security Project in

Sweden, and a training programme for the civil police in Kosovo.

By 2006, fourteen national governments had joined in an official Human Security

Network which held a series of joint ministerial meetings and laid down an agenda

for co-operative ventures. A report of an intergovernmental meeting held in May

2005 was published on the internet at

http://www.humansecurity.gc.ca/canada_hsn_ministerial_2005-en.asp (accessed

October 2007). This network may be vulnerable to shifts in politics: for example there

were signs in the summer of 2006 that the Canadian government would downgrade

its commitment to the Human Security agenda, as it had already downgraded its

commitment to climate change issues, to reflect a closer alignment with the Bush

administration. Other governmental initiatives include Swiss support, by the

intermediary of the federal department of foreign affairs, to fund the Human Security

Centre. The Swiss government also supported humanitarian policy and conflict

research located in Harvard business school; and the Swiss Ministry of Defence

founded the Geneva Centre for Security Policy. The UN Trust Fund for Human


11/25


Security, mentioned above, was an initiative of the Japanese Government. Swedish

and UK governments have also helped Human Security projects, as have other

donors to UN projects.

Of course, many other governments have agencies, like the UKs Department forInternational Development, which may respond to some or all of the issues covered

here as Human Security, although not in the same bundle or using the same

terminology. The formulation of the Millennium Development Goals has also been

influential, despite its avoidance of reference to armed conflict. Discussions with

similar agendas but slightly different approaches, all of which include conflict-

reduction among goals, include Our Common Interest produced for the UK

government (Commission for Africa 2005).

C: Academic Institutions and Research Centres

Many academic institutions undertake research and teaching in security issues,

peace studies, disaster management, epidemiology, environmental sciences and

other concerns of the Human Security agenda. One prospective benefit of academic

research into the Human Security agenda could be to promote understanding of

linkages and synergies between different kinds of vulnerabilities and threats; and

possible responses to them. To give an obvious example, many populations in the

Horn of Africa are vulnerable to local militias, they suffer from a failed state and lack

of health services, poor nutrition, and at the same time an environmental collapse

and possible further impact from climate change. Their terrain is also contested

between radical Islamists and pro-US forces. None of these issues can be resolved

in isolation. (Hampson and Hay 2002) is a brief introduction to research in Human

Security, now a few years out of date.

A smaller number of institutions explicitly use the term Human Security in their titles,

for example the Human Security Centre at Simon Fraser University (formerly at the

University of British Columbia), the Center for Peace and Human Security at

Sciences Po (Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques, Paris), the Institute for

Human Security at Tufts University, and a research unit at Tulane University.

Current research can be conveniently accessed via a Canadian research and

information database regrouping thousands of electronic and bibliographic resources

on Human Security catalogued according to key Human Security issues. TheGateway is accessible on-line at http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/ (accessed


12/25


November 2007), where it catalogues a wide range of resource types including

articles, reports, experts, bibliographies, events, courses, audio-visual materials, and

organizations. For each resource, the Gateway provides a link to the resource itself,

as well as summary information such as author, title and publishing organization. The

Gateway is bilingual, with French and English resources. Across the Atlantic, the UK

Economic and Social Research Council has funded a series of seminars to be run in

2008/09 to strengthen UK academic understanding of Human Security.

A number of research centres, usually affiliated to academic institutions, focus on

Human Security. Most of them concentrate their efforts on a key theme or area, or

cluster of key themes. The UN Universities (Bonn and Tokyo) conduct advanced

research in Human Security issues, specifically with reference to environmental

challenges and global peace. The United Nations Institute for Disarmament

Research (UNIDIR), located in Geneva, is an autonomous institute within the United

Nations which conducts research on disarmament and security with the aim of

assisting the international community in their disarmament thinking, decisions and

efforts. UNIDIR activities on Human Security and disarmament include cross-cutting

research on small arms collection, weapons as a public health issue, and security-

building measuressuch as peace-building, humanitarian action and the impact of

landmines. Through its research projects, publications, small meetings and expert

networks, UNIDIR promotes creative thinking and dialogue on the disarmament and

security. The Institute actively seeks to involve civil society groups and NGOs in

disarmament and security debates.

Canada

The mission of the Human Security Centre, based in Vancouver, is to make Human

Security-related research more accessible to the policy and research communities,

the media, educators and the interested public. The Centre's flagship publication, theannual Human Security Report , is complemented by The Human Security Gateway

the online database of Human Security resources referenced above (developed in

collaboration with the Canadian Consortium on Human Security), and two online

bulletins, Human Security News and Human Security Research . The Human Security

Centre undertakes its own independent research, and hosts workshops that bring the

research and policy communities together to discuss a range of Human Security-

related issues. Previously based at the University of British Columbia, it moved in

June 2007 to the Simon Fraser University, also in Vancouver. Several other


13/25


Canadian universities, for example Victoria, Waterloo and Royal Roads, include

elements of Human Security in their teaching and research programmes.

France

The Centre dtudes et de recherches internationales (CERI) programme for peace

and Human Security is hosted in Sciences Po in Paris. The overall aim of this

program is to promote Human Security by different means: conferences, scholarly

publications, academic research and policy tools. Several courses taught in the

Sciences Po Paris Program also contribute to the Human Security agenda, CERI is

also the home of the Human Security Journal , which is a multi -disc iplinary

academic journal run by graduate students of Sciences Po, and which

promotes cutting edge research and analysis on human security by

researchers and students around the world

http://www.peacecenter.sciences-po.fr/index.htm (accessed January 2008).

Japan

Japanese conceptualisation and implementation of Human Security is complex and

sophisticated, encompassing government, academic, and NGO agendas. Human

Security is one pillar of the Japanese foreign policy establishments programme for

the foreseeable future. For example the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is charged with

developing and explaining the concept to other governments to build an international

consensus around the idea of empowering vulnerable populations. This approach is

also strongly emphasized by the Japanese government within the UN system, not

least by its support for the UN Trust Fund for Human Security. In the aid and

development world, the Japanese International Co-operation Agency is a major

player; and it is headed by Ms Sadako Ogata, who has been one of the main driving

forces behind the human security agenda in the past decade. Thus human security

concepts and practice are becoming embedded through well-funded institutionsworking in developing countries. Other official or semi-official bodies carry similar

remits.

There is also a growing research expertise which by no means ignores the threats

posed by organised violence. For example, Japan has a rich heritage of African

studies, with many specialists working on vulnerability issues partly from a Human

Security perspective. Specific Human Security academic research is now conducted

at a number of major universities including the University of Tokyo (which also offersan MA programme in Human Security), Ritsumeikan in Kyoto, and others.


14/25


Japanese scholars are also interested in the links between human security and

corporate citizenship; and with peace and reconciliation studies. the UN University

Peace and Governance Programme is located in Tokyo; the Tokyo University of

Foreign Studies has an active peace and conflict studies faculty; and Waseda

University is interested in human security and corporate citizenship. The Japan

Centre for International Exchange and a Human Security Research Institute at Keio

University are geographically specialized, primarily dealing with Human Security

issues in Asia. With the exception of work at the UN University in Tokyo and Peace

Studies at the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, the above activity is almost

entirely Japanese-language.

UK

A promising development for Human Security research in the UK is a series of nine

seminars on Human Security to be held in 2008-09, supported by the Economic and

Social Research Council. The aim of this series is to increase mutual knowledge

about research currently undertaken in the UK on human security, broaden the public

debate about human security, increase awareness of the concept among a range of

constituencies and generate a critical agenda around the concept. Participating

universities include the London School of Economics, Bradford, Ulster, Sussex and

Coventry. These universities all have research and teaching programmes in

international relations, peace and conflict studies, development studies and related

areas.

The Applied Research Centre in Human Security (ARCHS) in Coventry is mainly

oriented towards research and teaching on the complex links between sustainable

enterprise, corporate citizenship and Human Security. In 2007, ARCHS organised an

innovative sequence of Roundtables and a major conference at the Eden Project inCornwall. Its first MA programme in Human Security started in early 2008. Coventry

University also has an established Centre for Peace and Reconciliation Studies,

which works closely with ARCHS and contributes to its non-violence ethos.

The Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity, Oxford (UK)

(CRISE) aims to investigate relationships between ethnicity, inequality and conflict,

with the aim of identifying economic, political, social and cultural policies which

promote stable and inclusive multiethnic societies. CRISE published 45 working


15/25


papers during the last four years and has made several policy briefings. Although

CRISE does not have a teaching programme, it is an important research centre.

USA

The Africa Centre for Health and Human Security, founded in 2004 in George

Washington University, Washington DC, brings together different parties to address

the challenges that threaten Africa. The goals of the Centre are: to provide a forum

for policy discussions that includes the executive branch, Congress, academics,

journalists, diplomatic corps, funding agencies, non-governmental organizations,

think tanks, private sector, and concerned individuals; to conduct research,

workshops, and training initiatives in Africa; to educate policy analysts, health care

providers, scientists, and other specialists for Africa. The Centre has few publications

to date, but it does train African students in the main concepts of Human Security.

The Global Environmental Change and Human Security programme, based in Irvine,

California, situates environmental changes within the larger socioeconomic and

political contexts that cause them, and which shape the capacity of communities to

cope with and respond to change. Its research focuses on the way diverse social

processes such as globalization, poverty, disease, and conflict, combine with global

environmental change to affect Human Security. Established in 1999, the programme

brings together scientists and academics from all over the world. The programme has

published many original papers and organised conferences, specializing in climate

change issues.

The Global Equity Initiative, at Harvard University, has attracted high-profile

individuals, including Amartya Sen, who work here as scholars, policy-makers,

activists, and negotiators with the goal of increasing awareness of Human Security

around the globe. It is a key agency in the field of health issues related to HumanSecurity, and has published widely on this subject. Also at Harvard University, The

Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research is a research and policy

programme that provides technical assistance and information support for

international organizations engaged in conflict prevention and management. The

Program was established in August 2000 as a collaborative effort of the Harvard

School of Public Health, the Executive Office of the UN Secretary-General, and the

Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. It has produced policy briefs,

occasional papers series, book chapters and journal articles.


16/25


Finally, the Institute for Human Security at The Fletcher School for Law and

Diplomacy, Tufts University focuses on human rights and conflict resolution; while

The Complex Emergency Response and Transition Initiative mostly works on post-

conflict scenarios.

Section Three: Critiques of the Human Security paradigmThe Human Security agenda has attracted criticism from a variety of perspectives.

Some argue that the concept is too amorphous, diffuse and idealistic to be useful. If

one asserts an aspiration to provide peace, prosperity, healthcare, education,

environmental goods and so on to populations of impoverished countries, it could

easily remain an empty dream with no outcomes or pragmatic policy implications. A

parallel criticism was frequently heard decades back when peace researchers startedto insist that peace was only meaningful in a bundle, as peace with justice or with

fulfilment of human potential rather than peace as absence of violent conflict. Critics

argued that absence of violence might possibly be achieved in specific situations, but

fulfilment of human potential is just hot air aspiration, a distraction from less

grandiose but more achievable objectives. Human Security may also be subject to a

critique as component of an elitist, dominating discourse (as are terms such as

development, sustainability, equity, fair-trade, aid) that is occasionally deconstructed

by post-modernist critics.

Some institutions in the USA use the term Human Security, one of them being the

Carter Center ( http://www.cartercenter.org/ ) which has hosted colloquiums on the

subject. However in summer 2006, the Bush administration apparently decided to

oppose the concept; this was, allegedly, a main reason why the Canadian

government downgraded its commitments in the area. We do not yet know how

much truth there is behind such reports, but one may speculate as to reasons: first, it

might distract public attention from the over-riding concept of the war on terror or

struggle between good and evil that is being presented as the major international

priority. Second, it might be part of an overall strategy to reform the United Nations

into a less developmental trajectory. Third, Human Security priorities might conflict

with causes like the free flow of capital, privatization of utilities and the arms trade

which are upheld by the US. On the other hand, one might have thought the US

would find it useful to appeal to a responsibility to protect for some of its

interventions, so perhaps aspects of the agenda may still be acceptable. Two UK

academics (Duffield and Waddell 2004) have recently published an analysis on the


17/25


securitization of the Human Security and parallel agendas: see

http://www.bond.org.uk/pubs/gsd/duffield.pdf (accessed December 2008).

Another point, raised for the first time as far as we are aware by Galtung, is while

Human Security may represent a genuine epistemological paradigm shift in the

Kuhnian sense, from earlier security thinking, it may also be a tactical ploy by a

younger generation of aspiring academics and bureaucrats to advance their own

careers, easing out the exhausted managers of exhausted paradigms (Galtung

2004). Following this train of thought, one reason for official support for the new

position, for example in Canada, is perhaps that it again makes government agencies

and the military indispensable: this time apparently in the interests of the

development/protection agenda rather than the Cold War, providing new justification

for interventions. Many Asian governments object to the concept for this reason.

One researcher has clarified that East Asian governments will have their own terms

of reference for humanitarian protection (Lee 2004). Saul provides a well-

documented account of Asian responses to developmental and interventionist

initiatives, for example reporting the reaction of the Singaporean government in 2005:

what are asserted to be rights are essentially contested concepts, and Asians could

legitimately resist the self-righteous and zealous penchant of some states to present

their views as universal norms (Saul 2006).

Section Four: Growth pointsWhat scope if there for further growth and conceptual innovation in this area? It may

be that any further expansion of scope would make the project still more open to the

charge of being over-extended, another route to utopia. Still, innovative people do

formulate creative solutions over time, and we continue this overview with a few

recent developments: a focus on security in urban areas; extension to populations

within developed economies, and to aboriginal peoples; and the role of business.

The Myth of Development by former Peruvian diplomat Oswaldo de Rivero (Rivero

2001) became influential in Latin America and subsequently internationally because it

seemed to provide a more realisticor pessimistic depending on your point of view

evaluation of the whole development project. De Rivero explained in an interview

that large areas of the developing world are not making economic or social progress;

on the contrary they are regressing into ungovernable chaotic entities:


18/25


Basically the government loses control over large segments of its territory and

population. In such economically non-viable countries, poor income

distribution, spiralling population growth and technological backwardness lead

to social exclusion, which in turn stirs up ethnic, ideological and religious

animosity. Large areas of the country fall under the control of warlords, drug

traffickers, ideologically motivated guerrillas or a mixture of all three. So

chaos grows, civil society virtually disappears and the population becomes

dependent on the Red Cross or Doctors without Borders. The country is in a

state of permanent destabilization. This is what I call an ungovernable

chaotic entity (UCE). UCEs are in a constant state of internal violence, where

fighting alternates with truces, as, regrettably, we have seen in Angola, Sierra

Leone, Afghanistan, Somalia, Liberia, Cambodia, Rwanda, Burundi, Bosnia,

Chechnya, Haiti, Albania and Colombia (Urbina and Kuntz 1999).

De Rivero is pessimistic about change, but it may be that his honesty is a first step

towards new models of intervention. The international community may recognise

that the populations of many vast cities and their hinterlands are doomed to, perhaps,

decades of poverty, violence, and environmental degradation: neither free-market

capitalism nor state interventions nor donor policies will make significant differences.

Would there then be an argument for reverting to the basic needs concept and

providing the entire population of metropolitan areas with a secure, if minimalist

provision of, say, drinking water, food supplies, and protection against armed thugs

before considering more grandiose aspirations?

The Canadian Consortium on Human Security followed up on some of the issues

concerning safety in sometimes violent and fragmenting cities. The Consortium ran a

large-scale research programme on Human Security in Urban Areas, on which it

also co-hosted a conference in summer 2006. The conference report, downloadablefrom the Consortium website , (accessed January 2008) notes that broadly speaking,

participants were able to agree on certain key issues:

Most cities are inherently resilient and have important roles to play in national

security.

While some slums are characterized by violence and insecurity, most slums

are generally peaceful most of the time. In exploring poor Human Security

outcomes in slums, we should be mindful of understanding how

empowermentscapes can be peaceful, dynamic, and adaptive.


19/25


People should be viewed as agents capable of positive change rather than

passive victims. Similarly, children and youth who participate in violent

activities should be seen as actors making rational choices.

Local-level empowerment at the community level is key to building conflict-

resilient cities.

There is a need for a better understanding of the origins of conflicts, including

historical factors, migration pressures, ethnic segregation, and poverty.

However, themes upon which participants did not find common ground included:

The analytical and policy value in the theory of social capital. Since social

capital can be either good or bad, does it add value to our understanding of

Human Security?

Comparing children in armed urban gangs to child soldiers. Is it beneficial or

counterproductive to use such a term for organized armed youth gang

members?

The value in applying the Human Security paradigm to urban areas.

Determining thresholds for Human Security should Human Security be

defined narrowly to refer to physical threats to peoples lives, or more broadly

to include issues such as marginalization, inequality, poverty, and human

rights violations?

Whether or not cities in developed nations, should be incorporated into

discussions on human insecurity in cities rather than limiting these

discussions to their developing country counterparts.

This last point touches another area which may perhaps come under scrutiny: is the

concept of Human Security relevant to city, or indeed any, life in developed

countries? Arguably it is, since citizens in any state may feel vulnerable to serious

crime, marginalization, terrorism or other problems. In August 2006, for example,Italians were shocked to discover the extent of marginalization and mutual antipathy

between immigrants and local residents in the affluent city of Padua renowned for its

ancient university and medieval frescoes by Giotto. Yesterday, however, it acquired a

less attractive claim to fame: a steel wall, 84m long and 3m high, blocking off a run-

down housing estate with a high immigrant population and a reputation for drugs,

violence and prostitution (Owen 2006). Other EU states, among the most affluent

countries in the world, had recently seen serious problems: violent riots in France,

bombings in London.


20/25


Another issue in many countries, including developed ones, is the status of aboriginal

peoples, for example in Australia, Canada and the USA, among richer countries; and

in Latin America, China and India among developing ones. Many communities in

these countries were almost wiped out by policies close to planned genocides in

some cases, and by neglect, displacement and disease in others. They often ended

up demoralised, fragmented, and with high levels of alcoholism and criminalization.

A particularly vicious sustained onslaught was that on native villagers in Guatemala

between 1954 and 1995, conducted by militias and military with US assistance.

Nevertheless, there have been some major improvements in the past decade, some

of them pro-actively negotiated by governments in, for example, New Zealand, and

some concessions after years of pressure. Links to Aboriginal Resources

http://www.bloorstreet.com/300block/aborl.htm (accessed December 2007) is an

excellent website to keep up with news on this topic.

Section Five: Human Security, Business, New GlobalGovernanceThe role of business has barely been raised in most discussions on Human Security.

Moreover when it does arise, it tends to be in rather traditional debates: free-

marketers against socialists; proponents and opponents of globalization etc. Much

of the development agenda stems, for the most part, from a more interventionist,

statist approach to national economies rather than a business perspective; and most

of those who discuss Human Security tend to be based in governments, UN

agencies, universities or other public bodies, rather than in corporates. Their

economic thinking is often slanted towards public provision, price controls and

equitable distribution rather than entrepreneurial flair and competitiveness. Yet this is

definitely a weakness in the debate, which should seek contributions from the

corporate sector also. The revival of business and entrepreneurship are one of the

major indicators of a return to normality after a period of upheaval, and a high level

of employment is a key to social stability.

The last decade has seen a growing interest in the role of enterprise in conflict-

management, resolution and peace-building. The relationship between enterprise

and conflict has drawn the attention of NGOs such as Global Witness and

International Alert; policy institutes such as the International Institute for Sustainable

Development and the International Peace Academy; and Inter-governmental bodies

such as the World Bank and the United Nations. For some years, business leaders


21/25


have also been driven, or felt motivated, to engage with this issue, for example

through the Business Council for Peace, and the International Business Leaders

Forum.

Engagement with conflict issues is becoming an increasingly critical area of

management for most large companies, either as part of the risk profile in their direct

operations or in the Corporate Citizenship arena. With over 60,000 Multi-national

corporations (MNCs) operating in more than 70 conflict regions, MNCs can have a

direct and wide-ranging influence on the nature and dynamics of conflict. This impact

is only just beginning to be understood (Bais and Huijser 2005).

Business sectors such as armaments and resource extraction often operate in

conflict zones where their impacts are easily identifiable; the growing socially

responsible investment movement is also drawing attention to the role of financial

institutions in supporting these companies. Through these advocacy efforts, and an

associated reframing of political and operational risks in business, responsibility for

the role of companies in conflict regions is being expanded beyond the immediate

zone of business operation, or theatres of war. The great majority of MNC staff and

their share-holders undoubtedly share a massive sense of outrage at the extreme

poverty, vulnerability and suffering of populations in conflict zones, or in countries

where the government retains power by brutal oppression. Many senior managers

would like to do all they can to reduce conflict and extreme exploitation in such

regions; and even if they are not so motivated, shareholder meetings, and corporate

responsibility advocates, increasingly demand action.

Typical dilemmas faced by MNCs are:

Is it ethically acceptable to do business with failing states or conflict regions?

Is it acceptable to do business with companies in the arms trade?Is it possible to run an extractive industry with clean hands?

Can one maintain profitability and yet engage in corporate social

responsibility in poor countries?

There are no easy answers, though some suggestions have been put forward

recently, for example by the Collaborative Development Associations Corporate

Engagement Programme. Among ideas they consider are:


22/25


Conflict sensitivity: for all staff, at least all senior staff, to be aware of

implications of their operations on conflict zones: especially where core

business might be initiating or prolonging an armed conflict.

Trying to mainstream support for peace and stability into core business

especially in the developing world.

Building partnerships with NGOs which mitigate conflict impacts

Investment in environmental protection and protection of rights of indigenous

peoples during industrialisation initiatives

Engage local populations with income-generating projects

Invest in education and health projects to support implementation of

Millennium Development Goals.

Join and support industry and multi-sector initiatives to raise and address the

role of business in conflict and peacebuilding.

A number of companies are entering into novel partnerships with NGOs to ameliorate

their negative impacts on the population in a conflict. These partnerships can be

difficult in themselves, since the relationship between businesses and NGOs may

face issues around trust, conflicting interests and organisational and cultural

differences. Yet NGOs are increasingly playing roles other than provocateur or

adversary. Organisations such as Amnesty International and Save the Children are

working closely with some companies to try to deepen understanding of these issues

and to support the organisational changes necessary in companies and the

frameworkslegal, political, social, economicwithin which they operate.

Over the last decade the corporate social responsibility movement has played a

central role in meeting challenges to the contemporary division of business and

society. Whilst the movement combines a number of different priorities bothenvironmental and social it is of particular relevance in areas of conflict and weak

governance. Through their roles in shaping the economic conditions under which

conflict and oppression occur at the individual, state and regional level, their direct

and indirect provision of material or other support to warring parties, their production

and supply of the tools and weapons of war, and their potential political influence, the

private sector is involved in conflict formation and resilience. Through a deeper

understanding of these activities and their dynamics, business can be engaged as a

partner in conflict-transformation and peace-building.


23/25


Emerging ideas concerning new global governance and tri-sector partnerships are

closely linked with the above discussion; again they are almost completely missing

from most of the discussions of human security in the past decade (Wilkinson and

Hughes 2002). The influential Global Governance Project co-ordinated in

Amsterdam defines its agenda as:

characterised by the increasing participation of actors other than states,ranging from private actors such as multinational corporations and (networksof) scientists and environmentalists to intergovernmental organisations('multiactor governance').

marked by new mechanisms of organisation such as public-private andprivate-private partnerships, alongside the traditional system of legal treatiesnegotiated by states.

characterised by different layers and clusters of rule-making and rule-implementation, both vertically between supranational, international, nationaland subnational layers of authority ('multilevel governance') and horizontallybetween different parallel rule-making systems.

I.e. it is a move away from the simplistic notion that decisions are made and

implemented primarily by national governments or the UN. Our evermore networked

societies inevitably produce new forms of power-sharing and decision-making, which

again must reach to new levels of co-operation to deal with Human Security issues

like climate change.

Conclusion: Sustainable Human Security

The term sustainable has been fashionable in recent decades. The sustainability

imperative is now perhaps more critical than ever before: both scientific and public

opinion recognises that the impacts of climate change, resource depletion and

environmental degradation may soon radically transform our way of life. The Human

Security agenda will surely have to engage with these issues with increasingurgency. There are many signs that businesses are engaging with them also. This is

partly in response to consumer pressure for ethical trading and lower carbon

emissions, partly to cope with regulation and higher fuel costs, and for a variety of

other reasons. The term sustainable enterprise is becoming more widely used to

denote the strategies involved in these developments and changes in the wider

economy. There are fundamental linkages between the sustainable well-being of

economic activity, the environment, and human populations in both the developed

and developing worlds. We need to engage with a dynamic for sustainable HumanSecurity.


24/25


List of References

Bais, K. and M. Huijser (2005). The Profit of Peace: Corporate Responsibility inConflict Regions. Sheffield, Greenleaf Publishing.

Brauch, H. G. (2005). Environment and Human Security: Towards Freedom fromHazard Impacts. Intersections. Bonn, United Nations University Institute forEnvironment and Human Security.

Brauch, H. G. (2007). Globalization and Environmental Challenges:Reconceptualizing Security in the 21 st Century. Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 2008.

Commission for Africa (2005). Our common interest : report of the Commission forAfrica. London, Commission for Africa.

Duffield, M. and N. Waddell. (2004). "Human Security and Global Danger [online]."from http://www.bond.org.uk/pubs/gsd/duffield.pdf .

Galtung, J. (2004, 16 August 2006). "Human Needs, Humanitarian Intervention,Human Security and the War in Iraq." fromhttp://www.transnational.org/forum/meet/2004/Galtung_HumanNeeds.html .

Galtung, J. (2004). "Human Needs, Humanitarian Intervention, Human Security andthe War in Iraq [online]." fromhttp://www.transnational.org/forum/meet/2004/Galtung_HumanNeeds.html .

Hampson, F. O. and J. B. Hay (2002). Human Security: A Review of the Scholarly

Literature. Vancouver, Canadian Consoritum on Human Security.International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (2001). TheResponsibility to Protect. Ottawa, International Development Research Centre : 77.

Jolly, R. and B. Ray (2006). The Human Security Framework, UNDP.

Kaldor, M. (2007). Human Security: Reflections on Globalization and Intervention.Cambridge, Polity.

Lee, S.-w. (2004). Promoting Human Security: Ethical, Normative and EducationalFrameworks in East Asia. Seoul, UNESCO.

Mani, D. (2002). Human Security: Concepts and Definitions. Tokyo, UN Centre forRegional Development.

Moller, B. (2003). National, Societal and Human Security Discussion. Security andEnvironment in the Mediterranean. H. G. a. o. Brauch. Berlin, Springer.

Oswald, U. (2006). Latin American Perspectives on Peace Research. Peace Studiesin the Chinese Century. A. Hunter. Aldershot, Ashgate : 51-68.

Owen, R. (2006). Ring of steel locks in immigrants. The Times Online. London.

Rivero, O. d. (2001). The Myth of Development: The Non-Viable Economies of the21st Century. New York, Zed Books.


25/25

Saul, B. (2006). "The Dangers of the United Nations New Security Agenda:Human Security in the Asia-Pacific Region." Asian Journal of Comparative Law1(1).

Thakur, R. C. (2006). The United Nations, peace and security. New York, CambridgeUniversity Press.

UNCHS (2003). Human Security Now - Protecting and Empowering People. NewYork, United Nations Commission on Human Security.

United Nations Development Programme (1990-). Human development report. NewYork, Oxford University Press for the U.N.D.P.

Urbina, A. O. d. and L. I. Kuntz. (1999). "Interview with Oswaldo de Rivero:debunking the myths of development." The Unesco Courier, fromhttp://www.unesco.org/courier/1999_08/uk/dires/txt1.htm#e1 .

Wilkinson, R. and S. Hughes (2002). Global Governance: Critical Perspectives.London, Routledge.

New Hs Agendas

Documents

Transcript of New Hs Agendas