Human security and the “tug-o-war of agendas”

There were 57 major armed conflicts in various parts of the world between 1990 and 2001, according to the 2003 edition of the Human Development Report (HDR 2003), an annual publication of the United Nations Development Programme. An estimated 3.6 million people died in these conflicts. Most were civilians and the overwhelming majority were in Africa. Millions were wounded. Millions more had to flee their homes. The need for action to prevent such conflicts and the suffering they cause has rarely been as strong as it now is. This need has been highlighted at various fora and has led to a number of initiatives, not least the establishment of conflict prevention strategies and mechanisms by regional and global bodies such as the United Nations, the European Union and the African Union, as well as civil society groups. At the same time, a global focus on security as a result of the US-led ‘War on Terror’ has given rise to a new set of questions as to the nature of so-called ‘humanitarian intervention’, including the question of when, if ever, it is appropriate for states to take coercive – and in particular military – action against another state for the purpose of protecting people there. This focus may have helped to raise a sense of urgency in tackling conflicts but, according to some development actors, it has also highlighted the complex relationship between development and security. Of particular concern to development agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) is the extent to which the resurgence of a unilateralist, military approach to intervention and the ‘War on Terror’ has led to a prioritisation of the security agenda, shifting the emphasis from the fight against poverty to the fight against terrorism. World Bank President James Wolfensohn remarked at a conference in Shanghai, China, in May that increasingly less attention was being given to the problems that come with poverty. “Without dealing with that question of poverty, there can’t be any peace, and $900 billion being spent on military expenditure, $300 billion being spent on agricultural subsidies and $50-$60 billion being spent on overseas development assistance is one of the absurdities that we have to change,” he told the Scaling Up Poverty Reduction Conference. [Wolfensohn’s address can be read at www.worldbank.org ] The human security concept Since the end of the 1990s, conflict prevention - and especially long-term conflict avoidance- has become the hallmark of the UN, Harvard University academic Adam Smith wrote in the September 2003 issue of Security Dialogue, a quarterly journal co-published by the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo, Norway. In a report to the UN Security Council and UN General Assembly in June 2001, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated that “conflict prevention lies at the heart of the mandate of the UN in the maintenance of international peace and security,” The report, titled ‘The Prevention of Armed Conflict’ suggested that “an effective preventive strategy requires a comprehensive approach that encompasses both short-term and long-term political, diplomatic, humanitarian, human rights, developmental, institutional and other measures taken by the international community, in cooperation with national and regional actors.” [The Secretary-General’s report can be read at www.reliefweb.int] Smith notes that many researchers have also been saying that preventing conflict “requires a degree of focus on both development and security.” In attempting to define and understand this relationship, there has been a greater focus in the security, peace building and development arenas on the concept human security. “The concept of human security, including concern for human rights, but broader than that in its scope, has become an increasingly important element in international law and international relations, increasingly providing a conceptual framework for international action,” the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty noted in a 2001 report titled ‘The Responsibility to Protect’. [This report is available at www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca] The Commission is an independent body set up to support the United Nations by promoting a comprehensive global debate on the relationship between intervention and state sovereignty. It defines human security as: “the security of people, their physical safety, their economic and social well-being, respect for their dignity and worth as human beings, and the protection of their human rights and fundamental freedom.”

Destruction caused by armed conflict in Somalia

This alternative approach, which recasts security in individual terms and legitimises dramatic military intervention only in the case of a clear, verifiable and measured violation of human security, appears to have attracted a broad constituency among academic, diplomatic and foreign policy experts, according to Matthew Scott, senior policy adviser for World Vision. Many see this type of approach as offering a framework that combines the twin demands of development and global security. “If you look at it historically, with the end of the Cold War, it became clear there was a need to develop a new security paradigm,” Dan Smith, director of International Alert, told IRIN. “It was a long awaited opportunity. The paradigm that came through, and really started to be at the forefront of debate and influencing policy, was the human security paradigm.” There are a few core elements to it, Smith explained: “One is that the security of states is important only in so far as it promotes the security of the individual. State sovereignty is not a wall behind which you can gas your citizens. Secondly, human security, because it brings the human into the frame, leads to a much more integrated, holistic view of security, and therefore a deeper view of what the challenges in that landscape are. “The challenges aren’t simply that there is an army on the other side, or there’s a rebellion going on. The challenges lie in poverty, in repression, in regional instability, in the unjust world trade system, and so on,” Smith said. Tug of war between agendas Since 2001, he added, there has been “a tug of war” between the human security agenda, and the one emerging from US President George Bush’s ‘War on Terror.’ “These two agendas are dichotomous,” Smith said. “The human security agenda doesn’t ignore the short- term but puts a lot of emphasis on the long-term. The war of terrorism puts every emphasis on the short-term and forgets about the long-term entirely.” Smith and others have noted that this “tug of war” is also reflected in the European Union Security Strategy (ESS), contained in a report titled ‘A Secure Europe in a Better World: the European Union Security Strategy’, adopted in December 2003 by the European Council. The report puts forward what the EU considers “a comprehensive strategy” to deal with the key security challenges facing Europe – namely, terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional conflict, state failure and organised crime. [The report is available at www.ueitalia2003.it ] In adapting to reflect changes in the strategic environment, the EU hopes “to ensure Europe shares in the responsibility for global security and in building a better world,” according to the report. The ESS places emphasis on policy coherence, whereby the full spectrum of EU instruments and activities (military, civilian, diplomatic, trade and development) are used in the pursuit of conflict prevention. It also emphasises the importance of multilateralism, the EU’s commitment to international humanitarian law and the UN Charter. “To be proactive in preventing future violent conflicts, then good governance, poverty eradication, and the fight against what I’ve often called ‘the dark side of globalisation’ – environmental degradation, AIDS, terrorism and international crime – must be placed at the centre of our thinking on both security and development,” Chris Patten, the EU’s external relations commissioner, said in a speech to the Overseas Development Institute in November 2003. [Patten’s address is available at http://europa.eu.int/] Saferworld and International Alert, two NGOs active in the field of conflict prevention, have welcomed this approach, jointly describing it “as an important counterbalance to the ‘War on Terror.’” However, they also highlighted a number of concerns. “The ESS recognises key threats and challenges such as the nexus between conflict, insecurity and poverty; the importance of regional dimensions of conflict; the centrality of good governance; the factors that fuel violent conflict and the need to tackle tools of violence,” Alice Hutchinson, Saferworld Media and Parliamentary Officer, told IRIN. However, “these are not fully reflected in the policy recommendations,” she said. Instead, the policy implications favour prioritising military responses and enhancing military capabilities – including the establishment of a defence agency - over civilian and soft instruments. The ESS also mentions competition for natural resources and energy, and the role of resource revenues, as areas with the potential to fuel conflict and weaken governance. However, it fails to mention them at all in the policy implications, Hutchinson added. International Alert and Saferworld have published a joint paper on the implementation of the European Security Strategy, ‘Strengthening Global Security by Addressing the Root Causes of Conflict: Priorities for the Irish and Dutch presidencies.’ [To view the report go to www.international-alert.org ] It highlights four areas where, they say, particular attention should be paid:

The need to link crisis management with conflict prevention

The need to address more fully the root causes of violent conflict

The need to tackle weapons transfers and organised crime; and

The need to engage civil society more fully in the prevention of conflict.

Promoting the human security framework During the Irish government’s 6-month presidency of the European Union (EU), which ended in June 2004, the Irish NGO association, Dóchas, also worked to re-direct what it perceived as a threat to the development agenda within the EU. “For the last few years, starting with the abolition of the Development Council [2002], there have been - bit by bit - changes within the EU so that, without stating it, development aid has simply becoming an instrument of foreign policy,” Hans Zomer, director of Dóchas, told IRIN. “Development aid is becoming secondary to, and subsumed by foreign policy concerns.” During the Irish EU presidency, Dóchas lobbied to redirect the debate by promoting the human security framework, according to Zomer: “We began by looking at the trends within the European Union, and the concerns of our association of 34 NGOs. In particular, the trend towards the ‘securitisation’ of aid was noted, and that’s what we have set out to address.” The aim, in raising awareness and understanding of the Human Security framework, was to “developmentalise foreign policy and security concerns, not the other way round,” he said. He felt their actions had achieved some concrete successes, including the spread of the human security perspective among NGOs and EU governments. “It has touched a chord within NGO and government communities, especially among the new member states,” he told IRIN. The Irish NGO network was also encouraged that its Dutch NGO counterpart, NGO-EU Netwerk, said it would continue lobbying on the human security issue during the Netherlands’s EU presidency, which began in July. [The network’s website is www.europaindewereld.nl] Global security and international reform The United Nations has also been seeking answers to this intricate link between development and security in its search for a better approach to global peace and security, through two high-level panels. As early as 1999, in the 54th session of the General Assembly, Secretary-General Kofi Annan made clear his intention to “address the prospects for human security and intervention in the next century.” In September 2003, he announced the formation of a High-Level Panel to Study Global Security and Reform of the International System. This 16-member group, headed by Thai Prime Minister Ananad Panyarachum, was tasked with “examining the major threats and challenges the world faces in the broad field of peace and security.” Its mandate, according to Canadian academic John Foster responds to two inter-related sets of issues: the consequences of 9/11, including counter-terrorism, the doctrine of pre-emptive intervention, the concept of humanitarian intervention and human security; and the place of the UN in an era with the emergence of one super power, its ‘enforcement’ action without the sanction of the Security Council and the spread of globalisation. Importantly, he notes, its terms of reference take a broad interpretation of the field of peace and security, “that is, it should extend its analysis and recommendations to other issues and institutions, including economy and social.” The panel will meet every two months, until it presents its report on 1 December 2004. [For the Panel’s terms of reference, go to: www.un.org ] Another relevant body is the Secretary-General’s Panel of Eminent Persons on Civil Society and UN Relations, created in February 2003. Led by former Brazilian President Fernando Enrique Cardoso, it is not specifically related to conflict prevention, but touches on another key initiative: the strengthening of multilateralism. “It is no longer between governments, but a global coalition that must try to act together to bring about change,” Sweden’s Birgitta Dahl, one of the panel’s members, told a civil society conference on conflict prevention in Ireland in March. “We should learn to work together in coalitions of the willing for change.” She noted the need to strengthen and support multilateralism as part of this holistic approach to conflict prevention and peace, and to address “democratic deficits,” by supporting institutions, such as parliaments and other members of civil society, that can ensure governments uphold their international commitments. The challenge for civil society The challenge of mobilising Dahl’s “coalition of the willing” for conflict prevention and peace, and strengthening civil society’s relationship with the UN and regional organisations, has been taken up within the NGO and civil society community - at least that is the hope of an NGO initiative called the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict, organised by the Dutch-based European Centre of Conflict Prevention (ECCP).

Undoing the harm caused by armed conflict: deminers at work in Afghanistan

Established in 2001 in direct response to Kofi Annan’s call for civil society to engage more fully in conflict prevention, the partnership aims to establish a global network of conflict prevention professionals and organisations to campaign and raise the profile of conflict prevention and human security. At the same time, it seeks to define the role of civil society in this endeavour, in order to legitimise and maximise their contribution in this field, which has lacked some coherence to date. “Unlike in some other areas, such as human rights, the issues of peace and security are still, to a very large extent, an exclusive domain of government and inter-governmental institutions,” said Danilo Turk, the UN’s Assistant-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, in his address at the first conference organised by ECCP in March. That, according to many of the participants and organisers of this conference, needs to change. From the Dublin conference, attended by over 250 people from the Western European region, and hosted by the Irish government, a set of common principles and recommendations was developed on conflict prevention, called the ‘Dublin Action Agenda’ [www.xs4all.nl ] This ‘Agenda’ highlights four critical areas for action, including:

1. The need to develop a network and coalition of civil society organisations in the area of conflict prevention, and to organise a public awareness campaign on the impact of conflicts.
2. The need to work with governments on many levels, including strengthening national mechanisms to promote international peace and prevent conflict.
3. The need for serious dialogue at EU level to discuss structure reforms that will enable a more effective approach to the management of civilian crisis and longer-term peacebuilding.
4. The need to ensure that the UN’s capacity for conflict prevention, and interaction with civil society is strengthened at all levels – from secretariat to country teams.

ECCP expects to organise a further 14 other regional conferences over the year, with dialogue already ongoing among NGO networks in Southern, East and West Africa, the Balkans, the Caucasus, Western CIS, Central Asia, South Asia, North East Asia, the Pacific, Latin America and the Caribean, and Canada. It expects to consolidate the various action agendas into an international report to be delivered at the UN conference on civil society in 2005. The Dublin Agenda is useful in so far as it acknowledges the role NGOs can play in conflict prevention, according to Alice Hutchinson of Saferworld. It also provided “an important platform for civil society organisations – both peacebuilding and more traditional development agencies – to come together to reflect on their own approaches, and seek ways to reflect and learn lessons,” Dan Smith of International Alert added. The will to move forward These steps would appear to reflect a renewed commitment toward conflict prevention, the multilateral system and better coordination among civil society organisations, but the question is, will that be enough to shift the policy agenda? Justin Kilcullen, director of the Irish development and campaigning NGO Trócaire, suggested that many of the solutions were already in place - in the values captured in the UN Charter and institutions, international human rights instruments, and other mechanisms, but that the record to date did not suggest there was the political will to act. “The Cold War was meant to provide a peace dividend, but it hasn’t happened,” Kilcullen told the conflict prevention conference in Dublin. “Instead, there was active disengagement, as there was no longer any strategic interest in poor countries, so the West walked away.” “World leaders promised a coalition against poverty, but instead development is being sidelined in EU foreign policy. ” Hans Zomer told IRIN. “Without addressing the causes of poverty and injustice we will never be secure, and while the basic values of the EU are fantastic, there remains a huge gap between rhetoric and intentions.” On a more positive note, the fact that human security was so firmly part of the EU agenda for the Irish presidency of the EU suggests that there is a degree of political will to change, according to Saferworld. Winning the “tug of war” in favour of a culture of prevention and peace, as opposed to a reaction to crises, may still have a long way to go, but Kofi Annan’s conclusion in his 2001 report on conflict prevention may be just as relevant today: “The time has come to translate the rhetoric of conflict prevention into concrete action.”