What is Human Security?

By Keith Swartzendruber

November 2002

            The field of international relations has been adrift ever since the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war removed the context within which realism had thrived.  We have searched over the intervening ten or so years for a new enemy to base theory on.  All that has been discovered thus far is a myriad of messy and troubling escapades in far flung corners of the globe.  Without a guiding theoretical framework, scholars and policymakers alike have been left groping for meaning.

            Defining security in the 21^st century means expanding both the breadth and depth of security studies.  No longer are state-centric theories relevant to a world increasingly influenced by non-state actors such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), multinational corporations (MNCs), and global terrorist organizations.  To encompass all that threatens us, we must add development, sociology, and anthropology to the traditional areas of military and political theory.  This enables us to develop a new theoretical framework, human security, that brings more clarity to new threats such as terrorism as well as traditional interstate conflict as well.

 

Defining Human Security

            Much has been and will be written in an attempt to define the elusive concept of human security.  As such, it is helpful to examine what others have said in order to both critique as well as commend the wide variety of conceptualizations that exist within both the academic and policy realms.  Such an examination is no easy task.  Unlike more traditional theories of international relations, human security remains scattered through a number of diverse disciplines, none of which have been thought of as sources for security studies.  Perhaps with a regularization of the concept will come the creation of a definite field of human security studies.  Or perhaps because of its cross cutting character it will always remain an interdisciplinary field.

            One view of human security is forwarded by Canadian political scientist Peter Stoett.  He argues for the need for specificity in speaking of human security, lest it pass away like so many other fad theories of the past.  Stoett organizes his theory of human security on its negative manifestations or absence.  The lens Stoett uses for his analysis is threat and the minimalist/maximalist dialectic.  He sees primarily four threats with respect to human security; genocide, ecocide, displacement, and globalization.[1]  Definition of each of these then in turn depends on whether one takes a minimalist or a maximalist approach.  Stoett argues that human security should lean more towards a maximalist definition of threat while remaining wary of the negative consequences of defining a concept too broadly.  Human security then exists through preventing and responding to the four threats.

            Stoett’s approach can be viewed as a scientific approach, using observed phenomenon (war, poverty, refugees, pollution) and their effects to define a larger concept.  Despite this, his conceptualization falls short.  The reliance on observed phenomenon means that intangible ideas like human rights and freedom are missed.  In addition, using such popular terms as genocide and ecocide limits their efficacy in describing broader concepts due to their understood definitions and political connotations.  Using such loaded terms is unhelpful in this instance in trying to define a broad concept like human security.  Stoett therefore at best gives us an incomplete answer to our question.

            Caroline Thomas gives us another piece to the human security puzzle with her examination of the overwhelming problems of poverty and inequality in the face of globalization.  More broadly, Thomas defines human security as a state in which basic human needs are met and human dignity is realized.[2]  Her analysis focuses on the material aspects and takes an international development perspective in its critique of the neo-liberal notion that poverty can be alleviated through the full realization of free trade and open markets.[3]  The problem, as Thomas puts it, is that the wealth created by trade liberalization is not equally distributed.  Therefore the gap between rich and poor widens.  Globalization is a threat to human security because it ignores the importance of ensuring that the individual receives its benefits, not just the aggregate market.

This broader view of human security is a step in the right direction, but not complete.  It focuses mainly on the development aspects of human security and ignores the essential traditional military aspects of security.  In its application, Thomas’ definition offers an important critique of globalization.  It is particularly important in that it reframes the issue of globalization from an economic and development issue into a security issue.  International gatherings such as the World Trade Organization and the World Summit on Sustainable Development take on more importance in trying to ensure that today’s poor and neglected do not continue to be neglected and become tomorrow’s security risk.  But inattention to the military and political dimensions of security make this again just a partial although important answer to our question.

One of the countries at the forefront of putting the concept of human security into practice is Canada.  Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy has become an advocate for a new focus on human security in many venues, especially the UN.  In 1996, Axworthy described human security to the General Assembly as “security against economic privation, an acceptable quality of life, and a guarantee of fundamental human rights.”[4]  This includes fulfilling basic human needs, sustainable development, the rule of law, and fundamental freedoms.  In addition, the main way human security is guaranteed is through peacebuilding activities immediately following the conclusion of an agreement to end a war.[5]

This broad definition both catches the aforementioned concerns as well as puts itself at odds with Thomas’ description of globalization as a threat to human security.  But the underlying concept of poverty alleviation and economic development stills lies at the heart of both conceptualizations.  Axworthy’s definition suggests the need for an intensified effort through the UN to not only be involved at the macro level in separating warring parties but at the micro level as well, ensuring that civilians have access to basic necessities for survival.

William Bain however criticizes the broad definition and practice of human security.  He warns of what he calls the “tyranny of benevolence.”  Bain’s critique rests on an understanding of human nature based on each human’s agency to control his or her own life.  If this is seen as the fundamental nature of human’s, the interventionist leanings of human security restrict agency by forcing states to abide by one overarching set of norms.  Instead of a broad definition of human security, Bain would rather limit it to personal security - that is life itself including food, medicine, and safety.  In other areas, people most be allowed to succeed or fail of their own accord.  Given this, contrary to popular sentiment, Bain argues that inaction is sometimes a morally justifiable alternative to action.[6]

This critique is helpful in that it forces us to prioritize human security threats and concerns.  Surely not every threat to human security will require military action or some other intrusion.  In addition, it perhaps establishes the principle of invitation, that is that outside parties must be appealed to rather than those parties acting independently and without consent or consultation of the very people they are seeking to help.  But at the same time, any cry for help should be promptly answered.  In addition, this should not keep us from attempting to undertake preventative actions.

Bain’s critique is however dangerous as well.  It offers an easy excuse for inaction and avoiding costly but necessary efforts.  Non-interventionism is an excuse often for a lack of political will.  Additionally, this neglects the extent to which those who are on the outside are actually causing a particular situation of insecurity.  This is especially true with respect to Thomas’ critique of globalization.  In this perspective, we must intervene against our own mistakes and bad policy to alleviate the suffering caused by a first-world governed financial, trading, and economic system.  While interventionism is a slippery slope to determinism for others, non-intervention is an equally slippery slope greased by our own unrepentiveness and lack of political will.

Nicholas Thomas and William Tow attempt to increase the utility of the concept of human security by limiting its scope as well.  Their goal is to give the concept more analytical and policy value.  Thomas and Tow argue that the nature of threat does need to be extended beyond military descriptors but that a crisis “becomes a truly human security problem . . . when the ramifications of not overcoming it cross a state’s borders and assume a truly international significance. . .”[7]  In addition, the referent or level of analysis is not as important to human security as some scholars have argued.[8]  This indicates that the focus is not so much on who is threatened but rather how to respond to those threats, often through international institutions.

In response to Thomas and Tow, Alex Bellamy and Matt McDonald criticize their attempt to squeeze human security into a more realist, state-centric security framework.  Bellamy and McDonald argue that states often cause many of the problems identified by human security.  Making the state a central referent ignores situations like Bosnia and Rwanda where the state murders its citizens.  In addition, national security policies often are detrimental to human security, be it trade liberalization, bilateral arms sales, or not participating in international treaties.[9]  While there are some truly international problems, Bosnia, Haiti, Rwanda, and ethnic hatred and civil warfare are every bit as much threats to human security.

Bellamy and McDonald are correct in chastising Thomas and Tow.  Limiting human security threats to only those that cross borders ignores the very essence of human security.  Genocide, as long as it doesn’t cross borders, would not qualify as a threat for Thomas and Tow.  Human security is anti-structualist by its nature.  It is not possible to co-opt a truly authentic human security policy into existing political structures without changing the structures themselves.  Thomas and Tow’s effort, while admirable from the viewpoint of making human security tangible for policy makers, is without merit in terms of substance.

In looking at security, Ramesh Thakur suggests it is helpful to examine three questions; what are the referents, what are the instruments, and what are the costs.  Since the end of the cold war, our answers to these questions have shifted from national security and military defense of the state to human security and defense of the individual.  This new conceptualization can best be described in terms of freedom.  Negatively, Thakur speaks of freedom from want, hunger, attack and other threats.  Positively, Thakur refers to the freedom to realize full potential.[10]

Thakur’s questions are useful in attempting to get our hands on a practical theory of human security.  They make tangible the abstract notions and ideas that currently make up the debate.  But what is more useful is his use of negative and positive freedom as a framework within which human security can be defined.  Despite being broad, freedom can serve as a starting point to try and develop a well grounded and focused paradigm of human security.

The breadth of the discussion above is but a sample of the wide ranging ideas on human security.  So what can we glean from this myriad of definitions?  At its most basic level, human security can be described as freedom.  One of the preeminent descriptions of the concept of freedom is Franklin Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms speech to Congress in 1941.  These four freedoms are freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.[11]  In general, based on these four, freedom encompasses two broad areas, physical security and social security.  These two areas are the primary determinants of human security.  Physical security includes material sufficiency (as described by Thomas, including freedom from want) and life itself (war, murder, genocide, environmental degradation, freedom from fear).  Threats to physical security are the most easy to be seen by others and are measurable. 

The second category of security, social security, is more difficult to describe or observe.  There can be different shades of social security as well.  In general, social security could be described by the idea of human rights.  These would include but are not limited to freedom of expression, free press, a democratic political process, non-discrimination, and so on.  The most seminal documents describing social security could include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the constitutions of not only the U.S. but other countries as well throughout the world, since there are multiple conceptions of democracy and human rights.

 

Human Security and Terrorism

To more fully understand what threatens human security and how we might restore it, it is helpful to look at a particular security issue.  Without question the one issue that is preeminent in discussion of security is how to respond to terrorism.  Indeed combating terrorism has become the number one priority in U.S. foreign policy and, arguably, as a result has moved to the top of the world agenda as well.  The threat of terrorism is exactly the kind of threat that, for a number of reasons, does not fit neatly into the realist paradigmatic framework and demonstrates the utility of a theory of human security.

First, terrorist groups are non-state actors.  Traditional rules on the conduct of war do not apply in military action against terrorist groups because they were created to manage conflict between states.  In addition, terrorist groups are not easily identified.  They do not put on uniforms and fight in identifiable armies.  They more closely resemble criminals.  States could however sponsor terrorists to wage war on their behalf.  In this case, terrorists become more like mercenaries.  They are still not actors of the state however because they are not under the direct control of the state.

Second, what is terrorism?  The lack of a precise definition makes it difficult to try and develop an appropriate response and plan of prevention.  One possibility would be to try terrorists at the International Criminal Court.  But in creating the statute for the court and delineating what crimes it would address, states were unable to decide what constituted terrorism and so left it out entirely.  New and undefined threats require new ways of thinking that create new frameworks rather than trying to force everything into other inappropriate paradigms.

These ontological difficulties with the conceptualization of terrorism make it particularly important that we take new approaches to dealing with the problem.  Terrorism is particularly insidious because of its target.  While some attacks like the USS Cole and U.S. Marine barracks bombings are against military targets, most terror attacks are directed toward civilians.  Consideration of the human element then is essential in any approach to combating and preventing terrorism.  Military action and traditional forceful responses have been used to reduce the immediate threat posed by terrorism.  But how should the long term strategy look and how should we view the causes of terror?  Human security and human rights “offers an antidote to terrorism.”[12]

Globalization, as outlined by Thomas earlier, can be viewed as both a threat to human security and therefore as one factor that contributes to terrorism.  Globalization is believed by many to be increasing the gap between rich and poor.  Poverty can breed disillusionment or even hatred toward those in power.  In addition, the growth of communication and information technology has enabled groups from many different countries to form around particular issues.  Groups can then form around feelings of hatred directed at the powerful because of a common situation of poverty shared by  many people in many countries.  Terrorist groups are one kind of group that can form this way.[13]  They have common cause against the U.S. because of its hegemony within the global political and economic order, which they attribute to poverty and a host of other concerns.

One possible response to this factor is to try and alleviate the negative affects of globalization through investing in humanitarian programs.  Tens of billions of dollars have already been spent in executing the war on terror.  If this investment in military force was matched with an equal commitment to development, the U.S. could provide water, sanitation, education, basic and reproductive health care, nutrition, and education.[14] Any long term strategy should therefore include development as an essential element.

Another important element in developing a long term response is the promotion of human rights.  The U.S. has had a spotty record on this account.  Throughout the cold war, the U.S. propped up dictators who pledged their support in the global struggle against communism, sometimes with deadly consequences.  This is still the case currently.  Saudi Arabia is a strong ally despite its dismal record on human rights, especially with regard to women’s rights.  The U.S. has continued to support Israel in the face of the apartheid system designed to control Palestinians because of the threat of terror.  Pakistan, in trade for cooperation in the war against terror, is allowed to remain a military dictatorship despite the immense influence of the U.S.  Without a more forceful effort in protecting and promoting human rights, people will continue to view the U.S. as an oppressive imperial power.

U.S. military aid to allies of short term convenience often backfires as well and must be stopped.  In the most tense regions of the world – South Asia, Afghanistan, and Iraq – U.S. weapons are escalating the conflict and being used on civilians, a direct threat to human security.  Some are even being turned on U.S. forces.  The proliferation of both small arms as well as major weapons systems such as fighters and attack helicopters provides an additional source of instability and incentive to go to war.  In addition, aid to oppressive regimes is translated as support for the regime, which often means supporting the commission of war crimes.  This increases resentment of the U.S. and adds fuel to the fire of terrorism.  Instead of being the world’s arms dealer, the U.S. should strive to become more focused on positive investments in developing countries that remove the causes of war and eliminate the need for massive armaments as well as limit the resentment that feeds terrorism.

 

A 21^st Century Challenge

The uncertain landscape of security studies and international relations provides a kairos moment.  It is both a moment of fear as well as opportunity.  Moments like this in history are few and far between.  When new challenges face us and challenge our presuppositions and paradigms we have used to define our world in the past, it is critical that we take that opportunity for growth.  That opportunity exists now as we try to develop a new paradigm of human security that appropriately interprets our world and enables us to respond to it.

The consequences of such a framework for security are potentially far reaching.  What is most important in this sense is the extent to which human security forces us to reexamine our own policies and even our own individual behaviors and how they contribute to insecurity.  Simple things like driving to work become a chronic threat to human security by creating pollution and using up unrenewable resources.  Our focus is at the same time then reflective as well as global.  Because of the growing interconnectedness of the world, we can no longer live as local or even national citizens, focused only on the community immediately surrounding us.  Truly, we become global citizens.

Works Cited

 

Axworthy, Lloyd.  “Canada and Human Security:  The Need for Leadership.”  International Journal.  Vol. 52, No. 2, 1997.

 

Bain, William.  “The Tyranny of Benevolence:  National Security, Human Security, and the Practice of Statecraft.”  Global Society.  Vol. 15, No. 3, 2001.

 

Bell, Dick and Michael Renner.  “A New Marshall Plan?  Advancing Human Security and Controlling Terrorism.”  Worldwatch Institute, 2001.

 

Bellamy, Alex and Matt McDonald.  “’The Utility of Human Security’:  Which Humans? What Security? A Reply to Thomas and Tow.”  Security Dialogue.  Vol. 33, No. 3, 2002.

 

Ogata, Sadako.  “From State Security to Human Security.”  Ogden Lecture at Brown University, 26 May 2002.

 

Robinson, Mary.  Introductory Statement to UN Commission on Human Rights.  20 March 2002.

 

Roosevelt, Franklin.  “Annual Message to Congress.”  January 6 1941.  From Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum Website.  www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/4free.html.

 

Stoett, Peter.  Human and Global Security:  An Explanation of Terms.  University of Toronto:  Toronto, 1999.

 

Thakur, Ramesh.  “From National to Human Security.”  In Stuart Harris and Andrew Mack, eds., Asia-Pacific Security:  The Economics-Politics Nexus.  Allen and Unwin:  St. Leonards, Australia, 1997.

 

Thomas, Caroline.  Global Governance, Development, and Human Security:  The Challenge of Poverty and Inequality.  Pluto:  Sterling, VA, 2000.

 

Thomas, Nicholas and William Tow.  “The Utility of Human Security:  Sovereignty and Humanitarian Intervention.”  Security Dialogue.  Vol.  33, No. 2, 2002.