Background
Narratives of human security have been extensively espoused and adapted within both scholarly and policy communities in attempts aimed at not only coming up with solutions and alternatives to deal with myriad hotspots of conflict, but also encouraging harmonious co-existence of people and communities for global peace and posterity.
But when viewed under the lens of reducing violent conflict in contemporary times, many commentators and policy analysts are quick to jump to the conclusion that the concept of human security has lost any true critical potential of managing or even preventing violent conflict, with a sizeable number suggesting that it has become a new orthodoxy that is used by global agencies such as the United Nations (UN) to shield from the real issues on the ground (Martin & Owen, 2010). Stakeholders in this school of thought feel that human security is secondary and less important in dealing with the issue of violent conflict
However, many advocates of human security hold the view that the foremost critical element of the concept is hinged on the possibility for all citizens to peacefully coexist and ensure security persists within their borders. Consequently, as argued by advocates, the approach is justifiable in contemporary times as it grants states, communities, and individuals the capacity to prevent and resolve conflicts through peaceful and nonviolent ways and, after the conflict has been successfully dealt with, the capacity to effectively progress reconciliation efforts (Liotta & Owen, 2006). In this context, therefore, it is felt that human security should represent the foundation of international efforts to reduce violent conflict.
Both standpoints, in my view, are valid to the extent that they are progressed by world leaders and international policy makers with varied and conflicting interests on how to deal with the problem of violent conflict. A broad assortment of factors contribute to making people feel insecure, and so are the multifaceted and deeply convoluted factors that fan violent conflict at the global level. Consequently, it is important to undertake a concise analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each perspective before adopting a conclusion on the way forward.
Analysis
Human Security is Secondary & Less Important Relative to Violent Conflict
Main Strengths
- The guarantee of basic human needs suggested in the human security concept is a precursor of human development but should not be generalized as the panacea for solving violent conflicts that require military intervention;
- Human security attempts to shift major security decisions away from the government and toward individuals and communities. Such type of thinking is not functional in dealing with violent conflict;
- The threat to national security occasioned by violent conflict cannot be equated to other issues affecting the security of individuals and communities, such as environmental pollution and exposure to infectious diseases;
- It has proved difficult for stakeholders and policy makers in the human security paradigm to formulate strategies that will have the will and capacity to sustain security and stability of communities/states engaged in violent conflict by successfully integrating their political, social, environmental, economic, military, and cultural systems and processes to allow these communities/states to prosper over time, and;
- The concept fails to put in place mechanisms and methodologies to protect and safeguard the integrity of the state from possible threats, including interstate conflict, nuclear proliferation and revolution
Main Weaknesses
- Military interventions and other conventional ways of dealing with violent conflict have failed to resolve the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan;
- “The security of individuals cannot be protected by the military capabilities of states because these capabilities do not provide defenses against transnational dangers accelerated by globalization” (Kim, 2010, p. 86).
Human Security has the Capacity to Reduce Violent Conflict
Main Strengths
- Most violent conflicts around the world are ignited and exacerbated by variables that have been addressed in the human security concept. Economic, food, personal and political insecurities are known to lead to violent conflict, but have been addressed adequately under the banner of human security, implying that the concept does not reduce human security to physical security alone;
- The concept of human security resonates well “…with concerns about how globalization rendered traditional notions of sovereignty and security less relevant, creating the need for more innovative ways to think about and achieve security” (Kim, 2010, p. 84).
- “The goal of human security is not expansion of all capabilities in an open-ended fashion, but rather the provision of vital capabilities to all persons equally” (Gasper, 2005, p. 226), and;
- The concept of human security has the capacity to protect the integrity and ethical standing of people and, consequently, such people will have a moral obligation not to engage in violent conflict.
Main Weaknesses
- It is generally felt that human security has failed to establish itself as a principle of public policy due to difficulties in implementation, ambiguity of the original concept, and poor institutionalization of the concept as a policy paradigm;
- Lack of required political support because key member states of the UN have already shifted their advocacy from human security to the responsibility to protect;
- The concept has failed to explain how the integration of human development, one of its key rallying points, will change the way violent conflicts will be handled not only at the global level but also at the country/community level.
Conclusion
From the ongoing, various suppositions can be drawn to inform our reasoning and justification that the concept of human security directly captures the principal causes of most violent conflicts in the world and therefore should be used as the foundation of international efforts to combat and reduce violent conflict.
First, it is important to note that the concept of human conflict is not only seen in the context of protecting the vital core of human lives in ways that promote human freedoms and fulfillment (Liotta & Owen, 2006), but as a strategy that can be applied successfully to reframe the pursuit of security by locating individual human beings at the pinnacle of security concerns (Kim, 2010). In a more broad yet subtle sense, the concept seeks to drive a departure from perceiving the state as the referent of security issues and concerns, and towards a sustained emphasis on protecting individuals and communities from inadequacies that propel armed conflict (Martin & Owen, 2010).
This predisposition implies that security must be more than an end state if states are to succeed in dealing with myriad violent conflicts and progress peaceful coexistence; rather, the necessary ingredients must be incorporated in any attempt to reduce violent conflict. The human security concept emboldens the provision of the necessary ingredients to put an end to violent conflict that is fueled by the lack of these critical elements (Ewen, 2007; Dekker & Jan-Faber, 2002).
To advance this argument further, it is worth remembering that major violent conflicts the world over are often triggered by societies/states fighting over scarce resources – material, economic or political (Ewen, 2007). The recent conflict in Kosovo was triggered by violent ethnic groupings as they fought for political control, religious autonomy, and personal greed (Dulic, 2007). This and very many other aspects are very well taken care of under the auspices of the human security concept, implying that communities and states will not have a reason to engage in violent conflict in the first place if they adopt and internalize the various elements that serve as cornerstones of the concept.
According to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), “…there are seven specific elements that comprise human security:
- economic security,
- food security,
- health security,
- environmental security,
- personal security,
- community security, and
- political security” (Kim, 2010, p. 86).
Successful adoption and implementation of policies that will ensure that all the seven aspects are internalized and shared by individuals at the community level (Ewen, 2007), and that these aspects are sorely used in the pursuit of human freedoms and fulfillment (Matlary, 2008; Kalder et al., 2007), will definitely put to an end the incessant urge by communities to engage in violent conflict.
From this analysis it can be established that human security, as its most basic level, embraces far more than establishing doctrines and frameworks for strengthening the capacity of the international community to resolve conflict while building the capacity of individual nations and communities to manage conflict without violence (Gasper, 2005). Indeed, the concept of human security can also be used to develop new and innovative ways to deal with contemporary issues that are at the essence of violent conflict.
We only need to look at the disintegration of Iraq and Afghanistan to understand that traditional military intervention is not the panacea for dealing with violent conflict (Martin & Owen, 2010). Indeed, one scholar argues that “…the security of individuals cannot be protected by the military capabilities of states because these capabilities do not provide defenses against transnational dangers accelerated by globalization (Kim, 2010, p. 85).
Additionally, it is also known that traditional methods of dealing with armed conflict, including military intervention and other realist approaches, not only serve to expose individuals to more security threats, but also enhance anarchy among states and the self-help system (Dekker & Jan-Faber, 2002).
Currently, Americans are at centre of sustained terrorist attacks because the U.S. Administration used the military intervention to deal with the issue of global terrorism. In my view, the issue would have been solved much more amicably if the U.S. had adopted nonmilitary and nonmaterial discourses, including respecting human rights, respecting the rule of law, and attempting to address some patent issues raised by world leaders regarding terrorism. All these elements are enshrined in human security
Overall, the concept of human security provides a viable means through which the international community can reduce violent conflict. Stakeholders and policy developers, however, need to address the overly broad and often obscured concept of security to provide it with a more precise scope to effectively deal with violent conflict (Kim, 2010)
Reference List
Dekker, M., & Jan-Faber, M. (2008). Human security from below in a Hobbessian environment. Security & Human Rights, 19(1), 37-44.
Dulic, D. (2007). Peace building and human security: Kosovo case. Web.
Ewen, P. (2007). Deepening the human security debate: Beyond the politics of conceptual clarification. Politics, 27(3), 182-189.
Gasper, D. (2005). Situating ‘human security’ as concept of discourse. Journal of Human Development, 6(2), 221-245.
Liotta, P.H., & Owen, T. (2006). Why human security. The Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations, 37(7), 37-54.
Kalder, M., Martin, M., & Selchow, S. (2007). Human security: A new strategic narrative for Europe. International Affairs, 83(2), 273-288.
Kim, S.W. (2010). Human security with an Asian face? Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 17(1), 83-103.
Martin, M., & Owen, T. (2010). The second generation of human security: Lessons from the UN and EU experience. International Affairs, 86(1), 211-224.
Matlary, J.H. (2008). Much ado about little: The EU and human security. International Affairs, 84(1), 131-143.