DR. AMITAV ACHARYA
UNESCO CHAIR IN TRANSNATIONAL CHALLENGES
AND GOVERNANCE
Human Security and Development Cooperation
A Presentation to the Conference on “Enhancing
Development Effectiveness through New
Partnerships”
National Research Institute of Higher
Economics (HSE)
Moscow, April 20, 2011
This Presentation is part of a Research Project of
TRANSCEND
TRANSCEND is “A Global Partnership in Research and Action on
Transnational Challenges, Multilateralism, and Governance”. Website:
www.transcend-global.org
Outline
• What is human security: definition and
contestations
• Findings from recent research
• Implications for development cooperation
This presentation is based on the author’s address to the UN General
Assembly “Informal Thematic Debate on Human Security”, held at the
General Assesmbly in New York on 14 April 2011. All views in this
presentation are the author’s own and does not represent the views of
UNESCO or the UN.
UN General Assembly Debate
14 April 2011
General Assembly
GA/11072
14 April 2011
IN WORLD OF UNPREDICTABLE THREATS, EXPANDED CONCEPT OF
SECURITY NEEDED TO ENCOMPASS
BROAD RANGE OF CONDITIONS ENDANGERING SURVIVAL, DIGNITY,
GENERAL ASSEMBLY TOLD
Deputy Secretary-General: UN Already Bringing Vision of ‘Human
Security’ to Life;
Panels Address: Approach to Defining Human Security; Application and
Added Value
Extracts:
From natural disasters and entrenched poverty to outbreaks of conflict
and the spread of disease, the dramatic events of recent weeks had
underscored the vulnerability of developed and developing countries
alike, she said. Since the 2005 World Summit, where leaders agreed that
human security concerned both “freedom from fear” and “freedom from
want”, States had offered valuable insights and, notably, last year, the
Assembly had adopted a resolution recognizing the need to continue
discussions and agree on a definition.
• Today’s thematic debate followed those held in May 2008, May 2010, and
July 2010, and aimed to contribute to discussions on a notion of human
security, as outlined in resolution 64/291 (2010), which called for
continued consideration of the topic. With that in mind, the first of two
interactive panels — on “A possible approach for defining human security”
— heard a lively debate on the idea that human security represented a
point of convergence for the United Nations’ most important goals of
peace, security and human development.
• The panel featured presentations by: Olusegun Obasanjo, former
President of Nigeria and Founder of the Centre for Human Security; Frene
Ginwala, former Speaker of the National Assembly of South Africa, and
Member of the Commission on Human Security; Jennifer Leaning,
Professor of the Practice of Health and Human Rights at Harvard School of
Public Health; and Amitav Acharya, Professor of International Relations
and Chair of the ASEAN Studies Center at American University. Margareta
Wahlström, Assistant Secretary-General for Disaster Risk Reduction,
moderated the discussion. (Full Text of Report at http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/ga11072.doc.htm)
•
Definition of Human Security
1994 UNDP Human Development Report
Six Elements:
• Economic security
• Food security
• Health security
• Environmental security
• Personal security
• Community security
• Political security
Three Elements of Human Security
• Freedom From Fear
• Freedom from Want
• Freedom to Live in Dignity
Rationale for the Study
• Debates over how to define human security, featuring
elements like “freedom from fear”, “freedom from want”,
and “freedom to live life with dignity”, have been ongoing
for quite some time
• But it has been limited to the academic and policymaking/practitioner community. Common people, the true
referent objects of human security, have not taken part in
the debate.
• It is time for us to bring people into the debate over the
definition of human security. This was the key purpose of a
Study: Human Security: From Concept to Practice (New
York: World Scientific, 2011), edited by Amitav Acharya,
Subrat K. Singhdeo and M. Rajaretnam.
Key Findings of the Study
• Poor people fear most.
• States and state policies are also a source on
human insecurity.
• Political and socio-economic factors behind
conflict are closely linked.
• People want dialogue.
1: Poor people fear most
• In Northeast India, we found that 76.1 per cent of
the people who have an annual income of 1000
rupees or less felt they were “compelled to live in
anxiety?”, compared to 60.4 per cent of the
people who had an income level of 10,000 rupees
or more. The clear implication is that poverty
and human insecurity are inextricably linked.
•
2: States and state policies are also a
source on human insecurity
• One cause of fear is operations by the military or
security forces. For example, when asked whether they
feared the militants or the military (security forces)
more, 38.5 per cent of respondents in the North East
India cases said they were equally afraid of both, a
higher percentage than those who said they were more
afraid of the militants and those who said they feared
the security forces more. Another factor that came out
clearly is bad governance, including government
corruption. These findings go to the heart of a very
important question about human security, which is
security for the people, rather than security for states.
•
3: Political and socio-economic factors
behind conflict are closely linked
• Conflict is caused by a variety of sources. The
three most important sources of popular
dissatisfaction contributing to conflict (hence
sources of threats to human security) that
came out in both North East India and Orissa
are: corruption in government,
unemployment, and poverty and lack of basic
amenities.
4: People want dialogue
•
• More than two-thirds of the people – including people who
sympathize with the insurgents- interviewed said they prefer
dialogue to extreme solutions such as outright suppression or
outright secession. They prefer governments to talk to insurgents,
rather than strengthen military operations, or grant independence
to them. Moreover, we people want the dialogue to be inclusive,
involving the representatives of the larger civil society. This finding
is significant for the UN’s efforts to find effective solutions to the
problem of internal conflicts leading to state break-ups. The key
demand of groups fighting governments may not be to break away,
but to have their human security respected and fulfilled.
Responding to internal conflicts with this understanding mind will
go a long way in addressing the challenge of state failure today.
•
Acharya, “Human Security”, in The Globalization of World Politics (Oxford 2010)
Conflict and Underdevelopment: The Vicious Interaction
Armed conflicts and
violence
Underdevelopment
Indirect impact:
Economic disruption,
disease, ecological
damage
Heightened
vulnerability to civil
war, terrorism, and
ecological stress
Protection and Development: The Virtuous Interaction
Reduced economic disruption,
disease outbreak, ecological
damage
Protecting people in
conflict zones
Improved prospects for
human development
Increased possibility of conflict
resolution
Conflict and Underdevelopment: The
Vicious Interaction
Armed conflicts and
violence
Underdevelopment
Heightened vulnerability
to civil war, terrorism,
and ecological stress
Indirect impact:
Economic disruption,
disease, ecological
damage
Protection and Development: The
Virtuous Interaction
Reduced economic
disruption, disease
outbreak,
ecological damage
Protecting
people in
conflict zones
Improved
prospects for
human
development
Increased possibility of
conflict resolution
Human Security Policy Tools
• Human Security Governance Index and
Ranking:
• Human Security Mapping in Conflict Zones:
• Human Security Impact Assessment (HSIA):
Human Security Governance Index and
Ranking
• Human Development Reports (UNDP): countries and
states/provinces within countries,
• Our innovation-extend it to regions and districts
(within states/provinces) to allow for more microstudies and of the local context in which human
security assessments and policies must be carried out.
• We include governance, not just threats, in our
measurement, since bad governance is a fundamental
cause of human insecurity and good governance is key
to ensuring the realization of human security.
Human Security Mapping in Conflict
Zones
• People who live in the constant shadow of
conflict may have more specific and acute
perceptions of human security challenges and
needs than people who live in relative peace
and order. Hence, a methodology for relating
to people in conflict zones and analyzing their
concerns and attitudes is vital. Our project
presents such a template.
•
Human Security Impact Assessment
(HSIA)
•
• Environmental impact assessments exist, but not adequate. Extend it and
cover the entire gamut of human security concerns.
• Some projects intended for promoting development, such as large
infrastructure projects undertaken by donor agencies, multilateral
institutions like the World Bank, national/provincial governments, and
corporations, no matter how well-intentioned, may end up aggravating
insecurity and conflict in the area.
• HSIA enables governments, foreign donors, multilateral institutions and
corporations, to better anticipate the impact of their projects not just on
development and environment, but also on security as a whole, from a
broader perspective.
• And by necessity, such assessments have to be localized and microanalytic. Our project has provided the template and methodology for such
a HSIA, which can be easily adapted to all parts of the world.
•
Conclusion
• Human security is an integral part of any
development effort
• Development agencies and donors should be
more aware of the human security implications of
their programs
• They should make full use of the tools of human
security policy such as the Human Security
Governance Index, Human Security Mapping and
Human Security Impact Assessment to make their
programs more effective and less disruptive.