What Happened To Human Security? A discussion document about Dóchas, Ireland, the EU and the Human Security concept Draft One - April 2007 This short paper provides an overview of the reasons behind Dóchas emphasis on Human Security as a concept of relevance to discussions on policy and practice in development cooperation. It details the history of Dóchas use of the concept, and outlines some of the ways in which Dóchas and its member organisations have followed up on their high profile 2004 EU Presidency programme that was built around the concept of Human Security. 1. The Security and Development debate In 2003, Dóchas advocated that the Irish government place its thinking about EU foreign policies within the Human Security concept: this would enable Ireland to lead a re-think of European policy-making, which was rapidly being securitised. In the years following the 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington DC, Western policy-making was undergoing a decisive shift: governments across the global were adjusting policies, as they highlighted the twin threats of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Governments now focused on homeland security, and argued that aid money should be used for and made conditional on a country s efforts to combat terrorism and proliferation. Dóchas felt a major initiative was needed to avoid aid policies becoming hijacked by narrow security concerns, and promoted the Human Security concept as a way to ensure a more balanced approach to security and development issues. Four years on, there are still very good reasons for considering the links between Security and Development: Darfur, DRC, Iraq and Afghanistan present huge challenges for traditional development thought. Since the end of the Cold War, the number of inter-state wars has diminished, and that most armed conflicts now take place in developing countries, in low intensity conflicts, involving relatively small and lightly armed forces, not regular armies. 1 As a result, civilians are more and more the targets, not bystanders, in conflict situations, and human rights violations and rape have become common forms of warfare. Governments and donors increasingly emphasise the link between low income levels, economic stagnation, political marginalisation, repression and conflict. 2 1 The SIPRI Yearbook 2005 states that the 17 major conflicts in 2004 were all intra-state. The 2005 Human Security report by the Canada-based Human Security Centre showed that the number of armed conflicts and military coups had diminished globally, and that patterns of political violence had changed. It also demonstrated that most armed conflicts now take place in the poorest countries in the world. 2 See for instance the World Bank s Breaking the Conflict Trap (2003)
The often cited No development without security; no security without development captures the interconnectivity, and the intractability of many of the challenges associated with this new reality. Across the OECD, governments have been looking for ways to address these challenges. Based on experiences in Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan, many Western governments are emphasising the need to restore law and order as a prerequisite for Development: In this perspective, aid donors should support efforts to 'stabilise' a country through support to security forces, police and judiciary, and rich countries should use their civil protection and military assets, as well as their aid budgets, to promote a humanitarian agenda. 3 Since the early 1990s, authors have argued that a narrow interpretation of Development on the one hand, and Security on the other, will mean that neither will be achieved. The UN in particular has been an advocate for more holistic approaches to Development and Security. Reports such as the Agenda for Peace (1992), the Human Development Report (1994), Human Security Now (2003) and In Larger Freedom (2005) formulated an approach that could offer greater protection to communities and promote human rights and democracy in fragile states: a Human Security perspective. 2. What is the Human Security concept? Human Security is concerned with the safety of people from both violent and non-violent threats. It focuses attention on the need to protect people, their rights and their freedoms, and on the need for them to be able to influence decisions that affect those rights. In 2003, Dóchas summarised the Human Security concept as follows: 4 Human Security means: Freedom from Fear Freedom from Want Freedom to Act on One s Own Behalf The human security concept stems from dissatisfaction with prevailing concepts of development and security, which over-emphasised economics and national borders respectively. The Human Security concept can be traced back to the 1945 UN Charter, which mentioned freedom from want and freedom from fear as aims the international community should aspire to. The UN should protect its members from different types of threats, including such threats as hunger and disease. 3 For a discussion on the Humanitarian Principles, see http://www.dochas.ie/documents/h_principles.pdf. 4 See Dóchas background document on Human Security (http://www.dochas.ie/documents/hs_briefing05.pdf), and the report on our May 2004 conference (http://www.dochas.ie/archives03_eup04_c.htm)
In later decades, the concept gained wider popularity, particularly after the 1994 Human Development report highlight the impact of developmental processes on the individual, not just the state. As a term, Human Security became more widespread after the publication of the findings of the UN Commission on Human Security in 2003 and the Human Security Report in 2005. 3. Why does Dóchas use a Human Security framework? Dóchas chose to use the Human Security concept, as it bridges the gap between security-thinking and development discourse: Human Security highlights the importance of coherent and holistic approaches to development. The Development agenda has been changing rapidly in recent times. Whereas donors in the early decades emphasised economic development and the provision of services to meet basic needs, more recent thinking on development highlights the need for people to participate in decisions that affect their lives. Rather than focusing on needs, Development practitioners now concentrate on meeting and promoting people s rights. With the end of the Cold War, Western security thinking was briefly allowed to develop from the neo-realistic politics of mutually assured destruction to a broader concept of security. However, the September 11 th attacks broad this period to an abrupt end, reemphasising the role of deterrence and national security. Commission on Human Security (2002): The primary question of every human security activity should not be: What can we do? It should be: How does this activity build on the efforts and capabilities of those directly affected? With its base in Human Rights, Development and Security thinking, the Human Security concept provides a framework for holistic thinking. Development is essentially about processes to improve the lives of all people: it is looking for positive ways to allow people to thrive. Security is about protection from threats: it is fundamentally focused on negatives: finding ways to eliminate threats, and thus allow people to survive. Human Rights are about ensuring basic rights, both in positive and negative terms: Protection from infringement, and promotion of people s enjoyment of rights. Human Security captures all three of these elements:
Figure 1: Human Security: the link between Development, Security & Human Rights Human Security is a people-centred, rights-based approach to Development, and to Security. The Human Security framework builds on Human Rights in that it highlights the fact that Development is a process involving economic, social, cultural and political elements, aimed at improving the well-being of an entire society. 5 In Dóchas definition, Human Security makes explicit use of the language of rights and highlights the importance of participation, accountability and empowerment. 4. What has Dóchas achieved by using the Human Security framework? First and foremost, Dóchas EU Presidency Project managed to reshape some of the debate on the EU s foreign and security policy. By asking the Irish government to prioritise human rights, trade, HIV/AIDS and aid quantity, Dóchas presented a targeted set of policy recommendations under the heading of Human Security. Moreover, though, the Dóchas programme provided NGOs and governments across the expanding European Union with a framework for discussions. The EU s security strategy, published at the end of 2003, uses the language of Human Security, and in subsequent policy statements, the EU has spelled out how it intends to promote human security worldwide. 6 Furthermore, in all six NGO campaigns during the EU Presidencies following on from the Irish Presidency in 2004, NGOs have prioritised Human Security as a key concern for EU policy-making. 5 See Dóchas briefing paper on Rights-Based Approaches to Development: http://www.dochas.ie/rba/index.htm 6 Importantly, the EU s concept omits the third dimension (freedom to act on one s own behalf), and thus has a much narrower interpretation of Human Security.
Some of the successes of the Dóchas EU Presidency Project: NGOs and governments across the EU adopted the concept of Human Security in their policy discussions; Dóchas had meetings with Troika Ministers, Commissioners, the Taoiseach, several MEPs and the Chairs of national parliaments; The Inter-Governmental Conference, preparing the draft EU Constitution, adopted Policy Coherence for Development as a key concern; Irish President and Taoiseach refer to the importance of human security in high level speeches in the European Parliament and at EU summits; EU High Representative Javier Solana uses the Human Security concept in his strategy paper; Irish government sponsors important initiatives on AIDS and on policy coherence; EU decides aid to be based on needs-based criteria Many governments across the world now refer to the Human Security concept in their foreign policy statements. Dóchas cannot claim to have been the caused, but it is clear that the Human Security concept has had a significant impact on the international political agenda. The Ottawa Convention banning landmines, the creation of an International Criminal Court and the drive to reform the United Nations all testify of a broader approach to Security. Governments have by and large accepted that an increasingly globalised and interdependent world requires effective security policies based on the security of people as well as states. The Canadian and Japanese governments have been long-standing advocates of Human Security. Canada has built its foreign policy around the concept, as an overarching theme linking its work on protection, conflict prevention and accountability. Japan created the Human Security Trust Fund run by UNOCHA s Human Security Unit, which aims to integrate human security in all UN activities". Fourteen countries (including Ireland 7 ) are members of the Human Security Network, a group of like-minded countries from all regions of the world that maintains dialogue on questions pertaining to human security. The Swiss government s foreign policy focuses on issues such as poverty eradication and a ban on landmines, in part because of its focus on Human Security. A 2004 report advising the EU on its future foreign and security policies was entitled A Human Security Doctrine for Europe. The report formulates seven principles for decision-making on European intervention in political emergencies. 7 Ireland is set to chair this network in 2008/09.
5. Aid Under Pressure: The continued relevance of the Human Security concept Although there has been a widespread acceptance of the values informing the thinking about Human Security, policy-makers across the OECD often promote policies that are problematic from Dóchas perspective. 1. The pollution of aid budgets. Official expenditure by governments on overseas aid is measured according to criteria agreed within the OECD s Development Assistance Committee (DAC). The DAC criteria determine what is aid, and what is not. Since 2004, a number of OECD members has consistently sought to change these criteria, with a view to making certain activities eligible for aid expenditure. Some of the activities they want included relate to human rights training of police and military personnel and the costs of peace-keeping operations. In April 2007, OECD members decided to defer decision-making on this thorny issue for another year. Even if, for the time being, the DAC criteria remain unchanged, it is clear that pressure on aid budgets is set to continue. In the context of the policy coherence debate and the emergence of new donors such as China and private philanthropists such as the Gates Foundation, aid donors will be pressed to dedicate some of the growing aid budgets to support activities with a less direct poverty focus. 8 Aid money is in some cases being channelled to Law and Order Trusts Funds (Afghanistan) and Peace Facilities (Sudan): Moneys destined to assist the poor are now likely being spent on peace-making operations or operations that only tangibly can be described as Development-related. 2. Humanitarian Action Blurring the lines? Another remarkable trend in recent years is the proliferation of humanitarian actors. Although the concept of humanitarian assistance is clearly defined as being neutral, impartial and independent 9, the term humanitarian is increasingly being used to describe relief operations that are far removed from its original concept. Governments, military, civil defence forces and private companies have joined the traditional humanitarian actors, NGOs and Red Cross/Red Crescent organisations in increasingly blurred international relief efforts. In Afghanistan and Iraq, soldiers engage in the distribution of relief items, in a bid to win the hearts and minds for their military operations, and civil crisis management teams are being sent to disaster areas around the globe. In places like Indonesia, military forces readily used the aid access to make inroads in their fight against local rebels, and in many places aid workers have become part of the conflict. Furthermore, in the interest of aid effectiveness, the United Nations agencies are being asked to play several conflicting 8 See for instance the EU Aid report (www.dochas.ie/documents/eu_aid_may2005.pdf) on how EU member states are using the existing DAC criteria to stretch their aid budgets. 9 See the notes on a Dóchas seminar on the Humanitarian Principles: The Relevance of Identity: Humanitarian Principles and their expressions in a changing World : www.dochas.ie/documents/h_principles.pdf.
roles: heading up a peace process, coordinating relief work and overseeing peacekeeping operations. The net result of the blurring of lines between aid workers, soldiers, politicians and business people is that humanitarian action is no longer respected as impartial. When humanitarian, political and military operations become indistinguishable, it puts the lives of aid workers and civilians alike at risk. 3. EU foreign policy: Aid conditionality? The trends of blurring lines are also becoming visible at EU level. For instance, only after dogged resistance by the European Parliament did the EU agree, in the context of its long-term planning 10, to create separate instruments for its aid policy and its economic policies. Another example is the draft EU Constitution which explicitly stated that EU humanitarian aid should contribute to the fight against terrorism, and it echoed the Madrid Declaration that stated that European aid policy should help promote EU interests abroad. In their negotiations leading up to the Cotonou Agreement, the EU member states showed that they were not afraid to make their aid to the ACP countries conditional on the latter cooperating with the EU on issues such as migration, the fight against terrorism and the anti-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. And in 2007, EU member states are building up to review the mandate of the EU s humanitarian aid wing, ECHO, to ensure it supports European foreign policy aims. 11 These examples show that EU practice can sometimes be in flagrant contradiction with the European Consensus on Development, agreed in December 2005, and which set out to reflect the EU's willingness to make a decisive contribution to the eradication of poverty in the world. In short: Despite statements to the contrary, European governments have taken a large number of initiatives that would see aid money being used to further a political agenda. The Human Security concept is being used to justify this linkage, which coincidentally seems to go largely in one direction: aid money is paying for security and political activities. There is very little sign of the development-security nexus leading to funds from military sources going to support development work aimed at eliminating some of the non-violent threats to human security. Just as in 2003, when Dóchas first embraced the Human Security concept, concerted action is required in 2007 to ensure aid efforts are not being undermined by narrow interpretations of the EU s security interest. --o0o-- 10 This is known as the Financial Perspectives 2007-2013. 11 See the Dóchas statement on this issue: www.dochas.ie/documents/eu_humanitarian_aid_march07.pdf