Human Security in the Post-Cold War Era - Coursework Example

Human Security in Post-Cold War Era Name: Institution: Course: Lecturer: Date: Post Cold-War Security Security which is a concept that broadly refers to protection of individual’s life from dangerous forces, has been perceived traditionally and in international relations as relating to threats as well as avoidance of conflict amongst national states. Therefore, a typical approach to the security field entails threat, use and overall control regarding military force. This places security issue squarely at the middle of non-modern concerns of realist theory. The end of Cold War in the year 1989 to 1991 has resulted to a paradigm shift of international relations as well as security research. Security research has been over emphasized. The normal contest arising between the superpowers do not define the direction concerning international affairs. From the year 1980s, a lot of attention was shifted to issues that were perceived as marginalised within high-level diplomacy. Such issues are environmental degradation, natural resources economic security as well as energy. Doing away with cold war tension necessitated the sensitive issues to be elevated into the international political agenda (Shahrbanou). The deepening of security research has been highly considered during post cold-war times. The reference in this case had been shifting of emphasis from state security towards greater emphasis for individual security. This recognised the fact that national state does not necessarily defend the individual security since in some case it operates as principle threat to human security. This fact has increased attention in human security with claims emanating that the overall assumptions regarding the study and research of security needs to be deepened (Kerr 2007). Concepts and General approaches in International Security The general security concept has taken new forms after the cold war. The time has witnessed formation of fresh security agendas, new security manifestations as well as new rules regarding security policy. Basically, three realms towards the term security exist. First, the term security is made in reference to a state of being safe, secure and protected. Secondly, there is widespread use of the term security in the political perspective which refers to political actions, processes and structures which instigate safety of political unit. In the political arena, security term has been used as a major political tool. Thirdly, the term security is used as analytical concept mostly to identify, describe, explain and predict phenomena within general social realm such as the security policy security structures and security policy interaction (Bertel & Kristensen). There has been a tremendous change in use of the word security in the political circles. The United States which is a vital unit within international system initiated the use of the term. The country started using the National Security Council in 1947, which later become a vital model for other countries. Moreover, there was introduction of another concept referred to as security policy. Security policy parameters were beyond defensive policy, military policy or any other policy that could advocate war. It is a policy that avoided war. The policy encompassed internal security, domestic security, and economic-development policy as well as overall policy to influence international system in creating peaceful environment such as provision of aid to developing countries (Axworthy & Lloyd 2001). After the cold war, political notion regarding security was extended; that is, from referring to defence and military matters to dealing with important political, economic, as well as societal matters at the domestic and international levels. In the pre-cold war times, the United Nation was perceived as an alliance for continuation of wartime. Afterwards, the body has been used as a tool through which repetition of war could be avoided (Kerr 2007). The end of cold war oversaw replacement of confrontation to partnership; bipolarity to uni-polarity. It was the start of new security agenda. On the global scale, security on individuals was stressed. However, some major wars were being pursued but in asymmetrical manner. This occurred between the United States (in support by her associates) and some major international peace breakers such as Iraq. The time witnessed some major wars such as Gulf and Afghanistan anti-terror war being carried out under the umbrella of the international society (the United Nations). However, with the emphasis of new-security-issue areas, the societal security was prioritised. This was necessitated by emergence of fresh political units which were based on nationalism. Secondly, individual security arose due to renewed emphasis regarding human rights as well as international crime. Thirdly, international bodies stress on the need for security for human body from worldwide epidemics, global pollution and food security. Fourthly, emphasis shifted to new technology security as a result of threats to IT systems particularly for technologically advanced countries (Bertel & Kristensen). Human Security in the Global Arena Human security concept has been embraced by a number of states both at the regional level as well as the international level. Three broad stages set the field towards human security over state security. First, the Global Human Development Report launched by UNDP in the year 1994 aimed to seize the opportunity put across by end of Cold War. This was however criticised by the G77 since they feared it would overturn state sovereignty (Kaldor, Martin & Selchow, 2007). Secondly, between the year 2001 to 2003, human security concept was revived through ‘responsibility to protect’ debate spearheaded by Canadian International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Moreover, Japanese Commission on Human Security jumpstarted ‘responsibility for development’. The two governments provided leadership and funding of human security on global agenda. Thirdly, between 2004 and 2005, with the rising needs to make readjustments to the 21st century’s realities, and especially to look at ways of mounting intensive and collective responses to fresh threat became clear, human security which is perceived as a link to security development was included in the UN reform agendas in regional organizations (example is European Union). Human security has grown from being a concern of major international agencies to being adopted as foreign-policy option by western nations. Moreover, the issue has been accepted in today’s world as major framework for reforming international institutions. It has also found its way to international mainstream politics. In regard to global terrorism, lack of agreement in defining the concept has acted as the main obstacle to significant international countermeasures. Terminology consensus will be a key to warrant complete human security program. However, a little chance exists to which globally satisfying description will be realized. It has also been feared that the UN will slowly implement human security resolutions. The critics of the human security concept such as China, France and the United States are feared they would block the resolutions. They (critics) fear that the approach would result to new excuses for unnecessary interventions which would demeanour state sovereignty (Bertel & Kristensen). With the operations of the UN, human security concept got formulated in the year 1992 under ‘agenda for peace’ which was proposed by Boutros Boutros Ghali. The agenda stress crucial role played by the United Nations as ‘integrated approach towards human security’. This was regarded as a new requisite towards peacemaking, peacekeeping as well as post-conflict management. However, Koffi Annan the UN Secretary General was the first to adopt human security agenda acting as a personal mission for UN mandate. Mr Annan proposed this in the year 1999 under the Millennium Declaration. He defined peace as much more to absence of war. Rather he called for human security to include economic development, social justice, democratization and disarmament, protection of the environment and respect for human-rights as well as rule of law. The overall adoption of the human security agenda emanated from the failures of UN peacekeeping efforts as well as the desire to compensate to these failures through involvement of the UN in a global forum in which NGOs could dialogue and exert pressure on governments to implement feasible development agenda (Shahrbanou). In the year 2004, two documents were forwarded which attempted to make clarification of human security threats as well as what the UN and international community should respond about them. One of them was a report from UN High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change which was titled ‘More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility’. The other was the proposed reform agenda titled ‘Towards All Freedom. The first report got established in the year 2003 by Koffi Annan to scrutinise more about security concerns during the era. This happened in the post-Iraq world and so there was a need to make clarification of new issues such as terrorism, pre-emptive intervention’s doctrine and humanitarian intervention. Secondly, there was a need to make clear definition of roles of the UN which were challenged by globalization as well as activities of some superpowers that operated to serve their own interests (Conteh-Morgan & Earl 2005). The second report (A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility) succeeded to advance basis of human security. The report set a wide structure for collective programs aimed to address fresh and aggravated security threats. The panel structured today’s threats to six clusters; that is, economic and social such as poverty as well as infectious diseases; interstate conflicts; internal violence such as civil war; state collapse as well as genocide; nuclear, chemical as well as biological weapon; terrorism and multinational organized crime. Apart from making clear recognition of the threats, the panel stipulated distinct connection between them. For instance, poverty, infectious disease as well as war got recognized as feeding to one another within a deadly cycle. Poverty was linked to civil war outbreaks which bring disruption and destabilization of societies and the economies. Diseases in the category of malaria and AIDS resulted to mass of deaths and thus hiking poverty levels (Kaldor, Martin & Selchow 2007). As discussed above, global level regarding international politics particularly the activities of the United Nations, provide an important insight how human security has been highly emphasised. In fact, it is within the United Nations body where the human security concept can be traced. The concept has operated as a departure point in which the United Nation required subsequent to the lapse of bipolar system. It assisted in cementing the most inherent human-oriented practises of the United Nations. Ultimately, human security discourse stemmed from UNDP report which resulted to formation of fresh bodies like United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security and Human Security Unit which were tasked with institutionalising human security policies. The former general of the United Nations Mr. Annan managed to apply the impetus of human security discussions. He eventually adopted the view as the major guiding principle towards prospective UN engagement (Bertel & Kristensen). It is not worth to discuss human security agenda without touching on the issues regarding international peace-keeping and crisis management. The influx of conflicts in early 1990s stressed about the need played by the United Nations. This led to the establishment of Humanitarian Affairs that emphasized the significance of humanitarian affairs domain. Practically, all the ideas and issues regarding human security were embraced in order to fit the needs of UN peacekeeping unit (Conteh-Morgan & Earl 2005). With the failure to achieve its objectives in Rwanda, Somalia and Srebrenica, the United Nation human security appeals got momentum. The overall failure plus the arising issues made the UN to make a review and configuration of its peacekeeping missions. For instance, the United Nation changed essence surrounding impartiality principle. It also altered her vision regarding peace operations through the infamous Brahimi report. Apart from recommendations regarding technical details, a vital step was taken towards applying security doctrine to peacekeeping missions in practice. The report indicated that in any instance where violence is perpetrated on civilians, it will be deemed that peace-keepers are authorised to quell it (Kerr 2007). With such developments, the vision of human security is deemed to have played an important role as far as bringing positive influence to UN peace-keeping efforts is concerned. There is therefore consideration of human centric appeals to have taken precedence over cool-calculations logic. However, this does not undermine realist sense of foreign policy regarding a state which has the intention of its community. Moreover, it does not dismiss the role of state structure. Rather, it is necessary to point out that human security paradigm pave way to such thinking where policies are formulated and implemented. While focusing on human security paradigm, it becomes inevitable to look at the existing inherent limitations. It has been asserted that while providing peacekeeping services, the operation does not give enough attention to security issues such as alienation, deprivation as well as exclusion, therefore abandoning valuable aspects of individual daily experience. This threatens the entire success regarding peace building process (Axworthy & Lloyd 2001). The milestone behind European Union security policy debate led to the publication of implementation report on European Security Strategy. It played a role in shaping up conceptual features related to human security. The more interesting part is how communication on human security has been taken up in strengthening normative positions of numerous factors within the European Union. A declaration was made by the EU Commissioner who asserted that the main idea was to position individuals at the centre of EU’s policies. Thus, this acted as a plea to all the member states to boost their commitment to security policies. This rhetoric also gained since it boosted activities related to peacekeeping especially in African states, such as anti-pirate operations along the Somalia coastline as well as monitoring the Balkans. The European Union also used human security concept as a driver for efficient multilateralism which is a widely approved policy of EU. Essentially, human security policy is broadly used by the European Union to guide its ambiguous and vague operational policies to be incorporated into clear strategic narrative with an aim of getting supranational foreign policy. Therefore, human security acts as a landmark for EUs foreign policy as well as security development policy (Kaldor, Martin & Selchow 2007). In this case, human security concept has been established as a hard ground regarding directions of EU’s policies. It is important to point out that that the entrenched humanitarian agenda has gained grounds based on human security vision. Thus, there is a big connection between human policy and civilian power nature which is emphasised by the European Union. However, it is important to mention that conceptual drawbacks regarding human security are still urgent. The conceptual blurriness aggravates the complexity of existing diversified EU kit which aggravates discrepancy between assurances and actions. This means that there is a need for policy makers to perform a thorough revision regarding conceptualisation of human security approach. One of the proposed ways to do this could be clear description of human security (Kerr 2007). The whole idea of human-security has achieved prominence within the circles of security studies. It acted as a foundation of the many changes that happened to international politics subsequent to the lapse of Cold War. Although strict focus on human security as well as freedoms is an essential direction, the concept remains contentious and lacking both operational clarity as well as validity. This is the reason why it is important to make an analysis of human security concept thorough a broad discourse of the international politics. The analysis shows the overall inherent problem-solving nature regarding human security which contrasts to framing the concept as critical approach (Axworthy & Lloyd 2001). The cases revolving UN peacekeeping as well as EU security policy discusses human security as facilitator and conductor towards realization of positive changes as well as consensus seeking. However, the analysis shows that shortcomings of the policies still exists and are rooted within the conceptual weakness of human security approach. Some critics such as Paris acclaim that human security is a label. Paris asserts that human security is just a rational approach within the diplomatic community. However, it is of paramount importance to emphasise that ‘label’ as well as ‘rational approach are of fundamental importance especially in practitioner’s world. The main significance of paradigm depends with its overall capacity to accentuate as well as promote developmental intellectual agenda through petitioning of normative dimension of the policy in question. Conclusion Human security concept should be viewed with prolonged scepticism. The concept represents a new and broad lens thorough which general security can be viewed. This can be regarded as post- Cold War lens which focuses on the location which is needed most. The reference is the individual and not the state. In this case, state acts as the guarantor. Sovereignty is perceived as a responsibility of the state. The ability of the state is utilised in providing protection to its populations against the rising list of salient ills. However, the discussion has also shown that criticism is still rampant in regard to human security concept. It shows that challenges exists where its adoption has not fully changed the behaviour of the states and or alleviate the constant pressures which act as a threat of everyday lives of most vulnerable individuals (Kaldor, Martin & Selchow 2007). Human security has been viewed as fuzzy. This means that it is inconclusive as well as amorphous representing potential hardship which befalls individuals. According to many, human security is part of a powerful attribute. Others claim that human security is vague and that it is inclined on meaninglessness. However, it is a hard task to criticise a concept that is designed with a view of encouraging creation of wide coalitions whose goal is to boost the lives of the impoverished and defenceless (Kerr 2007). Human security concept has not gained popularity in some regions such as the United States. This is especially in regard to social environment after the September 11th attack. With the expansion of the military affairs, the concept tended to have unclear notion as well as irrelevance. This notion has also impacted Japan. Subsequent to September 11th attack; the country has been left out in emphasising about human security. Acting as an ally of the United States, Japan has been committed in balancing her military actions with that of the United States. The country seems to be worried about external threats particularly from North Korea (Axworthy & Lloyd 2001). However, the constant change of focus regarding diplomatic discourses doest fully mean that human security is less important. The main issue of carrying out this analysis is because the world requires comprehensive security approaches. These needs remain unchanged. The major concepts regarding human security as well as peace-building should never been devalued because of short-sighted preoccupation of changing international events. The contents of the concepts might not be exciting to many, but the concepts should not fall victims to fashionable phrases to those with intent of advancing their narrow interests (Conteh-Morgan & Earl 2005). References Bertel. H & Kristensen. International Security. Accessed on 5th April 2017, http://www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/c14/E1-35-04-02.pdf Kerr, P. (2007) ‘Human Security’, in Collins, A. (ed.) Contemporary security studies. First edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 91–108. Kaldor, M., Martin, M. and Selchow, S. (2007) ‘Human security: a new strategic narrative for Europe’, International Affairs, 83(2), pp. 273–288. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2346.2007.00618.x. http://www.e-ir.info/2016/02/29/the-significance-of-the-human-security-paradigm-in-international-politics/ Shahrbanou .T. Human Security: Concepts and Implications. Accessed on 5th April 2017, http://www.sciencespo.fr/ceri/sites/sciencespo.fr.ceri/files/etude117_118.pdf Axworthy and Lloyd (2001) ‘Human Security and Global Governance: Putting People First’, Global Governance,7(1), pp. 19-23. Conteh-Morgan, M and Earl (2005) ‘Peacebuilding and Human Security: A Constructivist Perspective’, International Journal of Peace Studies,10(1), pp. 69-86. Read More