|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Occasional Papers Occasional
Paper No. 1 Background In 1992, the prestigious UK-based International Institute for Strategic
Studies (IISS) took a significant turn in its identified area of
scholarly interest. Prior to that time, its focus had been “the
influence of modern and nuclear weapons of warfare upon the problems
of strategy, defence disarmament and international relations”.
That focus now changed to “any major security issues including
without limitation those of a political, strategic, economic, social
or ecological nature”.11 This was a significant indicator of
changing scholarly concern. Clearly, the definition of “security”
was in flux. For traditionalists, however, the widening of the definition posed
a danger, and generated a vigorous response. If anything that challenged
the quality of life and wellbeing of a society (or its individual
members) constituted a “security” threat, how could national
leaders effectively differentiate the vital and the trivial? More
to the point what “threats” really warranted the allocation
of society’s most focused attention and most precious resources?12 Whatever the merits of the traditional view, by the end of the
millennium, the “wideners” of the definition seemed to
be in ascendancy. A very prominent current perspective, promoted
by Buzan et al, argued for a multi-sectoral approach — finding
“security” agendas appropriate to the environmental, economic,
social and political as well as military sectors and including cross-linkages
between them.13 Buzan insisted that “security should be an
empowering word — setting political priorities and justifying
the use of force, the intensification of executive powers, the claim
to rights of secrecy and other extreme measures”. Buzan broadened
the focus beyond the level of the nation-state, but also argued
that this approach not be reducible to the level of the individual
as the ultimate referent object,14 an insistence that has provoked
criticism.15 Since 1993, the debate has featured increasing use of the term
“human security”, stimulated in great degree by that year’s
UNDP Human Development Report which coined the phrase and described
it as one of the “five pillars of world order”.16 The
subsequent year’s Report developed the concept in greater detail,
indicating two main components: [protection from] chronic threats
such as hunger, disease and repression; and protection against sudden
or violent disturbances in the way of life. The document argued
that “security” pertains to “people rather than territories
and development rather than arms”. It identified seven sub-areas
of “human security” — economic, political, food,
health, environmental, personal and community.17 The UNDP formula
of “human security” springs from a conclusion that “security
between states remains a necessary condition for the security of
people” but that “national security [in itself] is insufficient
to guarantee people’s security”.18 This approach is imbedded
in a conviction that the state must provide various protections
to citizens, but individuals also require protection from the arbitrary
power of the state through the rule of law and emphasis on civil
rights. As one author put it, the “core element of human security
is human rights”.19 Similar redefinitions of “security” have appeared elsewhere
in recent years. The (Swedish-based) Nordic Africa Institute has
been prominent in promoting the Common Security Forum, an international
network of academics and practitioners concerned with “security
broadly defined” — a “security” that includes
“environmental, military, economic and political dimensions”.
The “common security” conceptualisation focuses on individuals
and local communities.20 South African scholars like Hussein Solomon,
seeking a phrase to capture much the same reality, have offered
the term “caring security”.21 Canadians have been very active in promoting the emerging new security
perspectives, preferring the UNDP term.22 A recent Canadian government
document, endorsing the notion of “human security” defines
it as “safety for people from both violent and non-violent
threats . . . characterised by freedom from pervasive threats to
people’s rights, their safety, or even their lives”.23
Individuals, of course, are very much the point of reference in
this formulation. The Canadian document does, however, separate
the notions of “human security” and “national security”,
calling them “complementary”.24 This is echoed by Thakur,
who argues for a “pluralistic coexistence” of differing
concepts of security, including “national security”, “collective
security” and “environmental security” along with
“human security”.25 The growing international emphasis on the concept of human security
has resulted in a variety of symposia and initiatives, ranging from
a Harvard University collaborative programme26 to a major international
conference in Tokyo in July 2000 hosted by the Japanese Ministry
of Foreign Affairs.27 Perhaps more interestingly, some scholars
are seeing the concept as part of a new framework of international
relations characterised as a “post-Westphalian version of world
society — global society”.28 In this framework, non-governmental
organisations and other non-state actors assume vital roles in defining
and assuring “security”.29 Some of the most recent US scholarly thinking does not necessarily
differentiate “national” and “human” security.
One of the US government’s most perceptive analysts of strategic
issues argues for a very broad definition, characterizing security
as “the protection and preservation of all that the society
considers to be important and valuable . . . [including] the safety
of individuals and groups from physical harm . . . conditions of
life that are healthful and satisfying . . . preservation of the
economic and environmental heritage . . . [and] protection of individuals
and groups from arbitrary and coercive forms of political rule”.30
This is a considerable departure from a narrow definition of “security”
that portrays it solely through the lens of the use and control
of military force by state authorities. It sounds very much like
the notion of “human security” popularised by the UNDP. Perhaps not surprisingly, the Clinton Administration clearly linked
US security interests to the promotion abroad of values in keeping
with the notion of “human security”. The last National
Security Strategy of the Clinton presidency unambiguously declared
that a “core objective of [the US] national security strategy
[was] to promote democracy, human rights and respect for law”.31
The document also committed the United States to a national security
concern for worldwide environmental threats and health risks.32
Candidate Bush at least implicitly criticised the normative bent
of the Clinton foreign policy, but (as this is written in mid 2001)
seemed unlikely to order a profound revision of US “Africa”
policy in the early years of his administration. At least some key
Administration foreign policy officials (such as Secretary of State
Colin Powell) seemed to be comfortable with a policy that emphasises
US core values.33 From this discussion, it should be evident that academics and policymakers
in the West have in the past decade been groping for novel definitions
of “security”. Though still controversial, a strong tendency
has been to define individuals (rather than states) as the referent
object of security concern, and to define many diverse “threats”
that must be attenuated to achieve general “security”.
However, who or what has the prerogative to provide this security
is an issue that has yet to see a fully mature debate. Much of the
literature assumes that the nation-state still is the principal
source and manager of “security”, whatever its ultimate
referent object. The debate has important and inevitable ramifications for allocation of resources. Nation-states typically devote substantial resources to protecting their sovereignty and territorial integrity from external aggression. While there still is no commonly accepted single definition of “national security”,34 these efforts fall into the traditional domain of “security” interests, and states generally have been willing to accord them the highest priority. Placing other kinds of “threats” under the rubric of “security” presumably should focus national attention and resources on the novel threats.35 For groups with particular agendas, there is considerable incentive to see their agendas included under “security” concerns.
|