Does human security constitute a fundamental rethinking of security?

Introduction (200)

The end of the Cold War brought a new approach within security studies – the concept of
‘human security’. In essence, this advocates focusing on people rather than the State, and
maintains that securing their wellbeing is essential to achieving broader security goals. As a
theory, human security is not without its critics; many argue that it is too broad and vague, it
does not withstand academic rigour and it is an unnecessary distraction in an already crowded
field – with a lot of its issues already being dealt with outside of this concept.

Others see human security as a positive and significant step-change in how security studies
are approached and maintain that bringing the ‘human’ aspect into the field has helped
establish a more rounded view of the overall definition of security and the policy objectives
required to promote it. This essay will attempt to identify where the balance lies, if the
concept of human security is as radical as its proponents claim, or just another idea that falls
short when properly scrutinised.

The Theory (300)

THOSE FOR:

The first time the concept of human security made a serious impact on public consciousness
was in 1994 when the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) mentioned it in
their annual report which dedicated a whole chapter to what had been until then a relatively
unknown concept. In it they said that for too long the concept of security had focused
narrowly on inter-state issues and power play between super states or to put it more bluntly,
“…global security from the threat of a nuclear holocaust” (UNDP, 1994:22).

Three years previously, the Cold War had ended and the world was still recovering from the
instability that came with that period. The basic message of the UNDP report was that they
wanted to move away from being preoccupied with the actions of powerful states, to being
more interested in people and how to advance their causes.

This was summed up by Kaul (1995:313), an advocate of the concept from its very origins,
who argued that it “…is not so much territorial security – the security of the state – but
human security, the security of the people in their everyday lives”. Kaul, who was the first
director of the UNDP’s Human Development Report Office, argued that when asked what
made them feel insecure, “very few people will answer that they fear an attack by a
neighbouring state … meanwhile more than a billion people around the world live with the
insecurity of poverty”.

THOSE AGAINST:
The UNDP categorised seven key areas that they see as “threats” to human security. These
are: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political security
(1994:24-25). This covers just about everything you could think of and much that might have
been covered within more traditional definitions of security. This, the critics argue, is one of
the fundamental problems with the concept; it is so vague it can be used as a justification for
any kind of action, whether that be good or bad (Newman,2010:85). For example, a dictator
could justify actions in the name of human security, or a country could invade another citing
the broad range of justifications that the framework provides.

This also runs into another issue – being so wide-ranging inevitably means overlap with other
approaches that are trying to achieve the same objectives. For example, many of the issues
identified as threats to human security can also be found in the development and
humanitarian field. This begs the question of whether the concept of human security really
adds anything, or does it just confuse matters as some have suggested (Busumtwi-Sam,
2008:18). This is a challenge that human security encounters repeatedly and emphasises the
need to narrow the definition in order to make it a more focused proposition.

The fact that the definition is so wide also means there is a reluctance amongst many to use
the concept when addressing the issues that it is meant to relate to. As Lakhdar Brahimi,
former chair of the UN Panel on Peacekeeping said: “…I don’t use the term human security
because I don’t know exactly what I mean, and I worry that someone will come up and
contradict me” (Hefferman,2014). The fact that the very people who should be using the
framework are reluctant to do so because they do not really know what it means illustrates the
issues the concept faces.

One of the arguments levelled against human security is that as it was not developed within
an academic framework, it had no real scrutiny prior to becoming an established concept.
This has allowed it to set its own boundaries and remain ambiguous (source), and in doing so
it has tended to fall apart when scrutinised. There have been various attempts over the years
to rectify this and significantly narrow the definition (Paris:2001,90); however they have not
been able to change the narrative to any great extent.

While it is clear that although many of the ideals that human security attempts to advance are
highly desirable and undoubtedly well-intentioned it is less obvious how exactly it achieves
them and how it enhances more established concepts that have been the bedrock of studies
relating to humans and their security since long before 1994.

Analysis (600)

HSU

The Human Security Unit (HSU) was set up in 2004 by the United Nations to integrate the
concept into the work being done throughout the organisation. Its aim, according to the HSU,
is to translate “…the human security approach into concrete outcomes” (HSU Website). Two
of the priority areas are climate change and Agenda 2030 (Sustainable Development Goals).

Climate change is certainly a phenomenon which transcends state borders and upon which
the security of vast numbers of individuals depends. It also intersects with other definitions of
security as the UN Trust Fund for Human Security points out: “Climate change is also
a “threat multiplier.” The loss of land and livelihoods, against a backdrop
of persistent poverty, displacement and other insecurities, can trigger
competition for scarce natural resources and fuel social tensions. The
complex and interrelated causes and consequences of climate change
require comprehensive, integrated strategies that identify entry points for
collaborative action to mitigate its impacts on people and communities”.
(https://www.un.org/humansecurity/climate-change/)

However, the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set by the United Nations
(originally in 1992 as Agenda 21) now make up the Agenda 2030. These focus on everything
from ending poverty and reducing inequalities through to climate action and strengthening
institutions (UN SDG Website). At the core of the SDGs is the need to improve the prospects
of people across the globe. These “goals” existed before human security came on to the
agenda as a distinct concept so the distinction between the “traditional” security definition
and one based on “human security” may be less than its advocates have claimed.

Another Approach?

From such examples, it is easy to understand why the promotion of human security as a
distinct and competing concept attracts a certain degree of scepticism. As the previous
academic literature has pointed out its vagueness as an idea could allow it to become the basis
of any intervention where human suffering arises from one or more of the seven “threats” – in
other words, a huge proportion of the world’s population.

It was inevitable in the aftermath of the Cold War that there would be a reassessment of
where threats to “security” came from with far less emphasis on the prospect of super-state
conflict, possibly arising out of lesser inter-state flash-points. The adoption of a human
security agenda was consistent with that dramatic change in geopolitical circumstances.

However, the question of whether it represented a different approach as opposed to an

evolution of elements that already existed is more doubtful. Countless academic studies had
looked at the impact of poverty, poor institutions, lack of education and many other factors
which cause long-lasting resentment that can cause people to go down a violent path –
whether through civil war, terrorist activities or other destabilising actions both at a national
and transnational level (Collier, etc). All of that was already contained within the
understanding of global security and the means of maintaining it.

The existence of a ”balance of power” between two very powerful Cold War blocs had, to a
considerable extent, disguised the extent of tensions within these alliances. The break-up of
the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact gave rise to a whole new range of regional conflicts.
At the same time, the Middle East became less stable as internal challenges arose to long-
standing dictatorships. Terrorism which transcends state boundaries has become a far more
significant phenomenon.

All of this contributed to a reassessment of how global security was to be defined and
maintained. However, it did not necessarily mean that the importance of stable states to
underpin that security became any less. Nor did it mean that military force would not be
required to secure that outcome. Thus, while the emphasis within the term “global security”
changed markedly in the two decades that followed the end of the Cold War, that did not
create the space for the “human security” agenda that its advocates might have hoped for.

Arab Spring

In attempting to achieve what the human security paradigm sets out, is there also risk of the
opposite effect? If, when put under pressure, the State is not able to maintain its own security
can this lead to worse outcomes in terms of human security? This argument was put forward
by Andersen-Rodgers and Crawford, who argued that in order to “…achieve human security,
it is necessary to maintain state and global security” (2018:54).

The Arab Spring for example, was a bottom-up revolution which was motivated by human
security concerns. In trying to achieve these ideals, however, forces were unleashed that
threatened the internal stability of states, in some cases (e.g. Syria) leading to regional wars
which not only created large-scale military conflict but arguably much worse human security
issues for very large numbers of people than before the revolutions.

According to Nuruzzaman (2013) the wave of people-led uprisings during that period aimed
to “…achieve freedom from fear, freedom from want, and the right to live in dignity” – the
cornerstones of the human security framework. However, the destabilisation that has come
with them has led, in some of the countries involved, to a worse security situation on a
number of levels, including human security.

There is a balance to be achieved. If the first objective of global security is to prevent conflict
and maintain stability in the world, then the resilience of states is as critical as ever. The
experience of countries like Libya and Syria suggests that the enhancement of human security
for people within any state is unlikely to be achieved if it is seen as a challenge to the state
itself.

Conclusion (200)

As a concept and framework, human security has struggled to be taken as seriously as might
have been expected by its original proponents in 1994. This is ultimately down to the
vagueness of the concept – by attempting to prioritise everything, it prioritises nothing.

To some extent, the concept was a product of its times. In the post-Cold War period there was
an understandable optimism that the world had changed irrevocably. This was reflected in the
title of a paper written by Inge Paul in 1995: “Peace Needs No Weapons – From Millitary
Security to Human Security”. That choice was never as clear-cut as suggested.

As the nature of threats to global security evolved, so too did responses. The emphasis on
human security offered a different point of view on how objectives should be approached and
that has its own considerable value. Many of the greatest challenges, such as climate change,
transcend state borders.

As this essay has alluded to, however, human security objectives are unlikely to be advanced
unless integrated into the broader security agenda which recognise the continuing role of
stable states and avoidance of conflicts, either internal or external. Human security is part of
that wider global security agenda rather than a fundamentally different, or separate, approach.