Human security

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Human security refers to the security of individuals, as opposed to national security, which refers to the security of states. The concept grew out of a post-Cold War multi-disciplinary approach involving a number of research fields, including development studies, international relations, strategic studies, and human rights. While traditionalists focus on the defense of the nation-state, the individual is the unit of analysis in the study of human security. It is now often taught in universities as part of international relations, globalization, or human rights studies.

The United Nations Development Programme's 1994 Human Development Report^[1] is considered a milestone publication in the field of human security. The report states that human security rests on two pillars, freedom from want and freedom from fear, while threats to human security are divided into seven categories: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community, and political security.

Critics of the concept argue that the term is essentially meaningless;^[2] that it has become little more than a vehicle for activists wishing to promote certain causes; and that it does not help the research community understand what security means or help decision makers to formulate good policies.

[edit] Concept of human security

The end of the Cold War is often seen as the moment where human security gained real recognition because of the belief that, with the relaxation of ideological hostilities between the US and USSR in the early 1990s, real progress could be made to address the root causes of global insecurity. Increasing levels of global interdependence further solidified the growing consensus that today's security threats go beyond our traditional understanding of defense threats, (e.g. attack from another state) to include poverty, economic inequality, diseases, human rights abuses, environmental pollution, and natural disasters. Those who argue for the adoption of a human security agenda believe that if our security apparatuses focused more on protecting individual citizens and groups from threats that may endanger their basic survival, rather than simply on perceived threats to the nation state, the world would be a more secure place.

Using the UNDP's 1994 Human Development Report's definition of human security, the scope of global security should be expanded to include threats in seven areas:

Coloured world map indicating Human Development Index (as of 2003). Countries coloured green exhibit high human development, those coloured yellow/orange exhibit medium human development, and those coloured red exhibit low human development.

• Economic security — Economic security requires an assured basic income for individuals, usually from productive and remunerative work or, as a last resort, from a publicly financed safety net. In this sense, only about a quarter of the world’s people are presently economically secure. While the economic security problem may be more serious in developing countries, concern also arises in developed countries such as the United States. In the past two decades, the number of jobs in industrial countries increased at only half the rate of GDP growth and failed to keep pace with the growth in labour force. In both the United States and the European countries, nearly 15% of the population live below the poverty line. In developing countries, for youth in Africa in 1980s for example, the open unemployment rate is above 20%. The unemployment problem constitutes an important factor underlying political tensions and ethnic violence.

• Food security — Food security requires that all people at all times have both physical and economic access to basic food. According to the United Nations, the overall availability of food is not a problem, rather the problem often is the poor distribution of food and a lack of purchasing power. In the past, food security problems have been dealt with at both national and global levels. However, their impacts are limited. According to UN, the key is to tackle the problems relating to access to assets, work and assured income (related to economic security).

• Health security — Health Security aims to guarantee a minimum protection from diseases and unhealthy lifestyles. In developing countries, the major causes of death are infections and parasitic diseases, which kill 17 million people annually. Most of these deaths are linked to poor nutrition and unsafe environment, particularly polluted water. In industrial countries, the major killers are diseases of the circulatory system, causing 5.5 million of deaths in a year. According to the UN, in both developing and industrial countries, the threats to health security are usually greater for poor people in rural areas and particularly children. The situation for women is particularly difficult. One of the most serious hazards they face is childbirth: more than three million women die each year from causes related to childbirth.

• Environmental security — Environmental security aims to protect people from the short- and long-term ravages of nature, man-made threats in nature, and deterioration of the natural environment. In developing countries, one of the greatest environmental threats is that to water. Water scarcity is increasingly becoming a factor in ethnic strife and political tension. Water pollution also leads to the lack of safe sanitation in developing countries. In industrial countries, one of the major threats is air pollution. Pollutants emitted by vehicles, factories and power plants are harmful to health. In Los Angeles, for example, 3,400 tons of pollutants are produced each year. Global warming, caused by the emission of greenhouse gases, is another environmental security issue.

• Personal security — Personal security aims to protect people from physical violence, whether from the state or external states, from violent individuals and sub-state actors, from domestic abuse, and from predatory adults. For many people, the greatest source of anxiety is crime, particularly violent crime. Industrial and traffic accidents are also great risks. In industrial countries, traffic accidents are the leading cause of death for people aged 15-30. Violence in the workplace has also increased. In 1992, more than two million U.S. workers were physically attacked at their workplace. Children are also the victims of violence.

• Community security — Community security aims to protect people from the loss of traditional relationships and values and from sectarian and ethnic violence. Traditional communities, particularly ethnic groups, come under much more direct attack from each other. About half of the world’s states have experienced some inter-ethnic strife. The United Nations declared 1993 the Year of Indigenous People to highlight the continuing vulnerability of the 300 million aboriginal people in 70 countries as they face a widening spiral of violence.

• Political security — Political security is concerned with whether people live in a society that honors their basic human rights. According to a survey by Amnesty International, political repression, systematic torture, ill treatment or disappearance was still practised in 110 countries. Human rights violations are most frequent during periods of political unrest. Along with repressing individuals and groups, governments may try to exercise control over ideas and information.

In an ideal world, each of the UNDP's seven categories of threats would receive adequate global attention and resources. Yet attempts to operationalize this human security agenda have led to the emergence of two major schools of thought on how to best implement the Human Security concept — "Freedom from Fear" and "Freedom from Want". While both the freedom from fear and freedom from want schools agree that the individual should be the primary referent of security, divisions emerge over the proper scope of that protection (e.g. over what threats individuals should be protected from) and over the appropriate mechanisms for responding to these threats.

• Freedom from Fear — This school seeks to limit the practice of Human Security to protecting individuals from violent conflicts. This approach argues that limiting the focus to violence is a realistic and manageable approach towards Human Security. This approach is also called "Humanitarian" or "Safety of Peoples" approach. Emergency assistance, conflict prevention and resolution, peace-building are the main concerns of this approach. Canada, for example, was a critical player in the efforts to ban landmines and has incorporated the "Freedom from Fear" agenda as a primary component in its own foreign policy.

• Freedom from Want — According to UNDP 1994, "Freedom from Want" school focuses on the basic idea that violence, poverty, inequality,diseases, and environmental degradation are inseparable concepts in addressing the root of human insecurity. Different from "Freedom from Fear", it expands the focus beyond violence with emphasis on development and security goals. Japan, for example, has adopted the broader "Freedom from Want" perspective in its own foreign policy and in 1999 established a UN trust fund for the promotion of Human Security.

[edit] Relationship with traditional security

Human security and traditional or national security are not mutually exclusive concepts. Without human security, traditional state security cannot be attained and vice-versa.^[3]

Europe after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648

Traditional security is about a state's ability to defend itself against external threats. Traditional security (often referred to as national security or state security) describes the philosophy of international security predominance since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and the rise of the nation-states. While international relations theory includes many variants of traditional security, from realism to idealism, the fundamental trait that these schools share is their focus on the primacy of the nation-state. Examples of the traditional security approach can be seen by France in 1919 and the Allies in 1945 believing that national security or global security can only be gained by protection against German attack via continued military superiority over Germany, rather than measures to improve people's welfare. National security was treated as an ultimate goal instead of an intermediate one promoting human security for their people.

The following table contrasts four differences between the two perspectives:

The relationship between human security and traditional security is complementary because there are numerous domestic factors influencing the security level of a state, such as national character, tradition, preferences and prejudices, rather than merely external aggression.

The emergence of 'security dilemma' also help explain this interdependent relationship. Such dilemma arise from the confusion between 'power of resistance' and 'power of aggression'. If the target level of accumulation of power is too high, the effort of one state to arm itself even for defensive purposes is interpreted by the others as threats to their securities, provoking countermeasures which in turn wipe out the gains of the first and leading to a vicious cycle of mutual distrust.^[6] Therefore security cannot be guaranteed. However with human security dealing with other aspects of security, it is a more comprehensive approach supplementing the first.

[edit] Relationship with development studies

When human security first drew global attention in the United Nations Development Programme's Human Development Report 1994, it not only challenged traditional notions of security, but it also addressed the problems of traditional conceptions of development.

In development studies, development signifies progress in human well-being. It used to be equated with economic growth in the late 20th century as traditional conceptions of development were influenced by the rise of neoliberalism. It was considered to be the universal path for economic growth, and thus development, for all humanity.^[7]

However, following its practical application as a global development policy, inequalities between and within states deepened. Two-thirds of the global population seemed to have gained little from the economic growth which occurred as a result of globalization.^[8] This tragic outcome may be due to the fundamental economic and social structures that allow a privileged global elite to control a disproportionate share of wealth and power.^[9] It directly resulted in poverty, inequality and the abuse of human rights, which are all factors affecting human security, in the developing world.

Dr. Mahbub ul Haq first drew global attention to the concept of human security in the United Nations Development Programme's Human Development Report. In 1994, the Human Development Report explicitly focused on human security and sought to influence the UN's 1995 World Summit on Social Development in Copenhagen. Since then, development and human security have been receiving more attention from the key global governance institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Poverty and inequality are increasingly considered to be national, regional and global security threats.

The paper Development and Security by Frances Stewart provides a comprehensive examination of the link between security and development. It argues that human security and development studies establish a strong three-way connection^[10] -

• Human security forms an important part of people’s well-being and is therefore an objective of development.
  An objective of development is defined as the enlargement of human choices. Insecurity cuts life short and thwarts the use of human potential, thereby affecting the achievement of this objective.
• Lack of human security has adverse consequences on economic growth and poverty and therefore on development.
  Some development costs are obvious. For example, in the case of wars, people who join the armed forces or flee can no longer work productively, and in addition destroyed infrastructure reduces the productive capacity of the economy.
• Imbalanced development that involves horizontal inequalities is an important source of conflict.
  Therefore, vicious cycles of lack of development leading to conflict leading to lack of development can readily emerged. Likewise, virtuous cycles are possible, with high levels of security leading to development and development further promoting security.

[edit] Practice of human security

While some of the debates about the feasibility of implementing the human security agenda stems from the ambiguity of the concept itself, further and perhaps deeper questions about this approach revolve around how this concept has been and could be operationalized. The fundamental question for both critics and proponents alike is can the adaptation of a "human security" approach better equip humanity to effectively grapple with shared global threats. Furthermore, how practical or feasible are these measures? The allocation of available resources alone may preclude addressing all of the varied threats to human security as outlined in the Human Development Report and Millennium Development Goals.^[11]

[edit] Humanitarian intervention

The application of human security is highly relevant within the area of humanitarian intervention, as it focuses on addressing the deep rooted and multi-factorial problems inherent in humanitiarian crises, and offers more long term resolutions. To further explain, humanitarian crises, from war and mass murder, to natural disasters and famine, often occur in the absence of economic and socio-political systems, that provide infrastructure for adequate access to the basic needs and rights that make people feel secure in their environments. These crises may also be trans-national problems in cause or consequence. Together, these characteristics demonstrate the relevance and utility of human security within this field, as many of the intrinsic problems within crises are also central issues for human security. Humanitarian intervention could also be viewed as a component of human security, in place to preserve or protect the basic needs and rights of individuals.

However, the implementation of humanitarian intervention has been debated because of its various problems and failed projects such as the interventions in Srebrenica and Somalia, as well as the consequences of non-intervention, as witnessed in the Rwandan genocide. This debate pushed United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan to pose a challenge to the international community to find a new approach to humanitarian intervention that responded to its inherent problems.^[12]

In 2001, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) produced the "The Responsibility to protect", a comprehensive report detailing how the “right of humanitarian intervention” could be exercised. It was considered a triumph for the human security approach as it emphasised and gathered much needed attention to some of its main principles:

• The protection of individual welfare is more important than the state, where state authority can be overridden, if the security of individual is threatened internally by the state, or externally by other states.

• Addressing the root causes of humanitarian crises (e.g. economic, political or social instability) is a more effective way to solve problems and protect the long-term security of individuals.

• Prevention is the best solution. More work and action is needed to prevent humanitarian crises, thereby preventing a widespread absence of human security within a population (which may mean investing more in development projects).

Human security has been suggested to be particularly useful in examining the causes of conflicts that explain and justify humanitarian interventions. Additionally, it could also be a paradigm for identifying, prioritizing and resolving large transnational problems. However, human security still faces difficulties concerning the scope of its applicability, as large problems requiring humanitarian intervention usually are built up from an array of socio-political, cultural and economic problems that may be beyond the limitations of humanitarian projects.^[13] On the other hand, successful examples of the use of human security principles within interventions can be found. One example is the independence of East Timor in 1999.

East Timor

The establishment of East Timorese independence from Indonesia in 2002 can be partially credited to a successful international humanitarian effort and can be seen to vindicate the human security ideal. Prior to independence, East Timor was plagued by massive human rights abuses by pro-Indonesian militias and an insurgency war led by indigenous East Timorese against Indonesian forces. After the resignation of President Suharto and an East Timorese vote for independence, the UN and international community were forced to respond to growing post-referendum violence. These peacekeeping missions eventually safeguarded and moved the country into full independence.^[14]

The UN also created the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) peace-keeping force that were present not simply to address the military and traditional security priorities, but also that helped to manage nation-building projects, coordinated humanitarian, rehabilitation and development assistance and organised civil services for the country.^[14] Additionally, education and training programs were instituted by UNTAET to strengthen civil society and create an economically viable domestic environment.^[15] Thus security was moved beyond just military concerns to encompass health, education and development - all crucial to the security of the individual, but usually ignored by state-centric security analysis.

Even if human security principles are, in some cases, limited in their applicability, the previous example provides encouragement for their continued use. Many various actors can be involved and contribute to projects focused on one area of human security (e.g. economic security) and still have consequential effects on other areas (health or food security). Therefore it demonstrates the possible potential of humanitarian intervention projects to maintain or increase the human security of people in places that suffer the greatest from its absence.

[edit] Arms control

     State Parties to the Ottawa Treaty

Arms control is also an important priority for Human Security advocates, closely linking with the Freedom from Fear agenda. An oft-claimed example of this is the Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel landmines. The Convention has been described as an illustration of how human security can work in the real world, as a coalition of like-minded powers, along with civil society worked together to eliminate anti-personnel land mines.^[16] The process leading up to the formation of the Convention was quite a departure from that of traditional security instruments with massive involvement from non-government groups and civil society - it could almost be seen as NGO's bringing governments to the negotiating table. Viewing mines through the human security lens helped to focus the debate on the impact on individuals, as opposed to the survival of the state; and is possibly a key reason for the Convention's success.

Various states have and continue to benefit from the cheap nature of mines, ignoring the massive individual human costs. Only through the human security paradigm could campaigns realise their objective of banning mines by focusing the debate on the personal impact mines have. In contrast to traditional security discourses, which see security as focused on protecting state interests, human security argued that mines could not be viable weapons of war due to the massive collateral damage they cause, their indiscriminate nature and persistence after conflict. Whereas traditionally, states would justify these negative impacts of mines due to the advantage they give on the battlefield, under the human security lens, this is untenable as the wide-ranging post-conflict impact on the day-to-day experience of individuals outweighs the military advantage.

The campaign leading to the signing of the convention used personal stories and military testimonies to promote the harmful effects of anti-personnel land mines, moving beyond statistics. Whereas weapons control was often considered impregnable by non-government groups, the Ottawa Convention was something of a watershed for human security, as it demonstrated the efficiacy of civil society pressure even in this reified area of international relations. Groups operated at all levels of civil society, with wide-ranging campaigns which demonstrated commitments from both a grass roots and top-down approach.

One of the most useful things that human security brought to the Ottawa negotiations was a fresh perspective on security problems, including the negotiation process itself. In Ottawa, the negotiations were moved outside traditional disarmement forums, thus avoiding the entrenched logic of traditional arms control measures.^[17]

Critics of human security note the absence of the United States as a signatory to the treaty as a critical blow to its effectiveness. Without the world's largest military committed to the Ottawa Convention it is hard to see how directly effective it will be. This is especially true with the advent of new smart mines, which their producers assert are safer post-conflict due to automatic de-activiation and other measures, but in reality may just lead to increased mine production and deployment. However, the widespread international and civil society support the Convention received has helped move the debate to the individual impact of weapons of war. That the 'smart mines' are subject of debate, and the US has had to do something in regard to their mine policy demonstrates that the Convention has had extensives effect on the global conscience. Though the US has not supported the Ottawa Convention, its position is becoming increasingly untenable as the international climate moves towards banning landmines.

[edit] Terrorism

Main article: Terrorism

The global threat of terrorism is an important test case for the Human Security agenda (despite the fact that international terrorism has killed fewer than 1000 people a year, on average, over the past 30 years^[18]) for the following reasons:^[18]

• The war against terrorism has provided justification for major wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
• US-led counter-terror campaign has been linked to the high levels of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world, which has increased the number of potential terrorist recruits.
• Terrorists may acquire and use weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Unlike states, threats of nuclear retaliation cannot dissuade terrorists.
• Terrorist attacks may pose great hazards to poor countries (even though they are not directly targeted) by causing major downturns in the global economy. For example, according to the World Bank, the September 11 attacks on the US in 2001 brought millions of people in the developing world into poverty, killing tens of thousands of under-five-year-olds. This shows a far greater toll than the total number of deaths directly caused by the attack.^[18]

Proponents argue that adopting a Human Security lens would help alleviate many of the deficiencies in a traditional, state-centered approach to this problem.^[19] Traditional state measures to protect constituents typically take the form of international sanctions or military force, which are often inadvertently directed against a specific country in the absence of a specific target. In addition to causing human casualties and unnecessary suffering resulting widespread economic dislocation, it also fuels the feelings of unrest that are easily elevated to regional and national conflicts. State-centered measures to shore up security in states which are the target of terrorist activities, such as the introduction of identification cards, detention without trial or judicial review, body searches, night raids and persecution of females, also threaten to erode the very civil liberties it seeks to protect.^[20] Overall, human security proponents assert that these traditional measures seem to exacerbate the problem over time and only beget further retaliation and retribution. They advocate that governments should instead focus on designing people-centered interventions to address enduring, underlying problems. Causal factors need to be delineated to determine inequalities and ascribe measures to achieve equal access to resources and sustainability for all peoples. These interventions can take many forms.

Human security acknowledges, in line with Just War theory, that legitimate authority should be established through diplomatic means and collaborative efforts and not bombing campaigns. As Mary Kaldor, Professor of Global Governance at the London School of Economics emphasises, to improve legitimacy it is necessary to engage from the bottom up. Any intervention must be context specific, acknowledge local culture and historiography. Interventions will require the passing of time to demonstrate successes, however inclusionary practices will be influential in achieving enduring human security. Concessions can be made including rebuilding of social infrastructure, economic investment, the provision of trauma counselling, involvement of negotiators, inclusion of religious figures and active programs for reconciliation. Participation of a diverse group of actors including policy-makers, private enterprises, public service providers and social entrepreneurs will foster neutrality and through collaboration; accountability and ownership. If there is to be meaningful dialogue we need to accept the role of listening, actively promoting symmetry in dialogue, and being ready to accommodate alternative discourses on the experience of modernity.^[21]

Human security also emphasizes that the protection of human rights and respect for the rule of law are fundamental elements of genuine security.^[22] In many countries, there exist some counter-terrorist measures that violate human rights. Abuses include prolonged, incommunicado detention without judicial review; risk of subjecting to torture during the transfer, return and extradition of persons between or within countries; and the adoption of security measures that restrain the rights or freedoms of citizens and breach the principle of non-discrimination.^[23] Such violations arguably serve to exacerbate rather than help combat the threat of terrorism. Human security argues that international human rights obligations do not stop at borders and a failure to respect human rights in one state may undermine international effort to cooperate to combat terrorism.^[23] While traditional international efforts to combat terrorism have focused on the need to enhance cooperation between states, human security argues for more effort be invested in the effective inclusion of human rights protection as a crucial element in that cooperation.

Human security further emphasizes that any intervention needs to address physical, psychological and political dimensions of security simultaneously. The psychological aspect to human security highlights the fact that too often the violence of a traditional military response simply begets further violence. ‘To use military means against an assortment of criminals and insurgents is simply to provoke and consolidate support for those groups.’^[24] Instead, sustainable victory in such conflict situations means “to win a battle for the society, for its mindsets and psychologies, to address sources of grievance and anxiety, and to shore up institutions of governance.”^[25]

Human security argues that a people-centred perspective should be attentive to the sustained trauma, humiliation and estrangement, which are a fundamental cause of the emergence of global terror. Such a human oriented psychological approach also provides a theoretical basis for understanding the link between violence and the rise of religious fundamentalism. It is a complex and multifaceted area of human security due to the dual nature of the threat. Terrorists seek justice and a voice for persecuted peoples whilst simultaneously providing a threat to others. By voicing their discontent and taking action, terrorists awaken the persecuted community, inspire the faithful, and encourage spiritual or religious sentiment. Religious affiliation can provide certainty, familiarity and a sense of belonging amidst instability and insecurity. Moreover, fundamentalist religious communities often provide a level of communal welfare often not available to the larger society which further cements assimilation. However, terrorist activities threaten the lives of innocent citizenry and lead to retaliation from nation states. In seeking their own human security they directly threaten the security of others. Thus "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".[7]

Given the clear conflict of interest between those terrorised, and those historically deprived whom terrorists seek to provide a voice, it is unclear whether a human security approach should replace the traditional security mentality. Military retaliation in line with traditional security stems from a fiduciary responsibility to protect citizens, and electorates demand clear evidence that action is being undertaken to fulfil this responsibility. However, if trauma, national humiliation, and socio-economic frustration are at the root of this problem, then a military response simply justifies and reinforces the need to turn to terrorist strategies to fight back. Unfortunately, the heightened threat of biological terrorism or the use of WMDs precludes abandoning such pre-emptive military approaches to ensuring security. The human security construct is valuable in shedding new light on the conceptualisation and requirement in policymaking to carefully assess various interests and agendas as these may appear divergent yet be closely interrelated.^[26]

[edit] Infectious disease

Human Security has long argued that the "scope" of global security should be expanded to include the threat of infectious disease. The primary goal of human security is the protection of individuals, and infectious diseases (such as HIV/AIDS, SARS, and H5N1) are among the most serious threats facing individuals around the world. Given the transnational nature of infectious disease, unilateral, state-centered policy approaches to the threat will prove ineffective over the long run. Therefore, adopting a people-centered Human Security model with its emphasis on prevention, individual empowerment, and treatment strategies delivered by an array of global actors is possibly a pioneering approach to deal with the increasing diversity of contagious diseases.^[27]

Human security supports broadening the responsibility for ensuring health security. It is shifting down from the national level to individuals, communities and civil organizations; and upward to international institutions and networks. Hence, modernizing international health rules and regulations, fostering partnerships between public and private sectors as well as enhancing communication and cooperation among states are becoming more important.^[27] Take HIV/AIDSin sub-Saharan Africa as an example, the relatively low education level of people and insufficient penetration of knowledge about HIV/AIDS prevent people from realising the serious impacts of HIV/AIDS. Low levels of technology, the ineffective management of resources and implementation of corresponding policies by leaders further hinder the control of the spread of the disease. Human Security proponents argue that by focusing on health burdens faced by local communities and individuals our policy responses will be able to address the roots of the problem.^[27]

Comparison between Traditional & Human Security Approaches

Traditional security approach mainly makes use of different health policies, which include management of hospitals,legislation on regulation and provision of different drugs, mechanism dealing with spreading of pandemics (for e.g. quarantination), launching of different vaccination policies within the place itself, education and propaganda etc. These are mainly focus on the provision of medical services. Though human needs on health aspects are addressed, the ultimate objective is to ensure that the state does not suffer from outbreak of diseases, which will affect its stability and economic prosperity.

Besides, traditional security approach in health aspects mainly involves the implementation of policies by the government and corresponding medical services providers. General public are merely acceptors, and they rarely involve in the realization of these policies. Moreover, it is more national-based and rarely engages in cooperation with other places. Only until recently, there have been more attempts to initiate communication for reporting cases during possible outbreak of diseases.

In addition, traditional approach of security is more of a rationale for maintaining the current power status of the state, this may sometimes outweigh individual's safety and health concerns. Apart from bewaring of military dangers, the state may also accentuate the protection of reputation as well as ensures the state's economic development. For example in China, prevention of international intervention of internal affairs and securing its tourism and economy might be the reasons of Chinese silence in the SARS epidemic in 2003. Late disclosure of SARS data eventually led to outbreak of SARS in other places.^[28] Even in the cases of H5N1, China has been suspected of concealing cases of bird-flu in several provinces for many months in 2005.^[29]

Sonagachi Project

In Calcutta, India, the Sonagachi Project, cited by UNAIDS as a "best-practice" model of working with women and men in prostitution, has reached more than 30,000 persons working in the commercial sex sector at risk of HIV/AIDS, mainly through peer-based outreach services.^[30]

This project demonstrates the collective power of different organizations and the government. It was initiated by the All India Institute of Hygiene and Public Health (AIIH&PH) in 1992 as the STD/HIV Intervention Programme (SHIP), in consultation with the National AIDS Control Organization (NACO) of India, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of West Bengal, and WHO. Later donors included NORAD, DfID, and HORIZONS/USAID. It also includes two non-governmental organization as partners, the Health and Eco-Defence Society and the Human Development and Research Institute.^[30]

In line with human security principles, the approach of this project is based on the needs of the individuals, which are then catered specifically. Sonagachi's peer educators help to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS among women and men in prostitution through strategies intended to earn their trust, reduce their social isolation, increase their social participation, and confront stigma and discrimination.^[30]

[edit] Global warming

Main article: Global Warming

Environmental security is another area of security concern advocated by the Human Security theory. It is argued by Human Security proponents that the link between environment and security has been present throughout the history of mankind. Water and energy, for example, are essential resources which have led to military and political turmoil worldwide.^[31] Devastation caused by wind, water, earthquakes, volcanoes and the like has shaped the course of human history and dictated where we settled, the type of lifestyle we lead (subsistence farming, nomadic, etc), our customs and even our folklore.

Scientists and government policymakers have been discussing the implications of climate change for global security since 1988.^[32] An enhanced greenhouse effect caused by the increased production of greenhouse gases from the use of fossil fuels, chloroflourocarbons (CFCs) and increased landfills emitting methane gas, is a major contributor to recent climate change which is changing the earth’s age-old balance.^[33] If current rates at which these emissions are increasing continue, average global temperatures are expected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees celsius by 2100. The forecast increase in temperatures will impact cloud cover, precipitation, wind patterns, ocean currents and seasons to transform farmland into desert, cause a substantial rise in sea level from the melting of the polar ice caps, pollute freshwater supplies, increase the harshness of winters, increase the spreadability of “vector-borne” diseases such as malaria, reduce food production and ultimately lead to a decline in the earth’s “human carrying capacity”.^[34]

Although climate change from global warming will have an impact on everyone, individuals in certain geographical areas are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than others. For example, residents of the islands of Tuvalu, Kiribati and certain areas of Bangladesh face the imminent danger of losing their homes to the sea, giving them no choice but to flee. As sea levels rise and wind patterns become more intense in certain regions, the increased occurrence of such events are to be expected.^[35] As the real security threat for individuals in these areas is great, they require much higher levels of contingency planning.

Pioneers for including environmental concerns into security agendas, Richard Falk and Lester Brown, as well as Homer-Dixon (1991),^[36] Kaplan (1994) and Myers (1987) have separately argued that as the earth’s climate changes more rapidly, an increase in violent conflict is likely.^[37] due to resource scarcity and an exacerbated North-South disparity. Sources of possible conflict include wide-spread refugee movement, a fall in global food production and reduction in water supply.

Despite the move to include global warming as a human security issue, most of the published works linking security and global warming focus on national security threats. These national threats, however, can be easily transposed into a human security context. According to Peter Gleick, President of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, considers the three biggest threats to national security are: 1. Food shortages caused by reductions in agricultural production capacities 2. Shortages of safe drinking water due to flooding and droughts 3. Shortages of natural resources due to disruption caused by ice and storms^[38]

As these threats affect humans on an individual level, human security proponents argue that discussions and agreements pertaining to global warming should be broadened to include non-state actors, as this is often thwarted by the tragedy of the commons and clashing of national interests. Effective action to combat the issues of global warming and climate change requires changing individuals apathy into action, to supplement and encourage existing channels for climate change response.

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• Commission on Human Security
• Canada's Human Security Website
• Human Security Gateway
• Human Security Network
• Human Security Report
• UN OCHA - Human Security