1.2.3. Human Security as a modern security concept
UNDP in 1994 within the broad concept of Human Development launched Human Security Concept supported by the ‘United Nations Commission of Human Security’ which describes that Security should be transformed and centered on people—not states, with two key important elements ‘’to protect and to empower the potential of each individual’’, which means security is not only about state but most importantly is about people.
The international community urgently informs the needs of a new security paradigm because according to the UNDP report the security debates had shifted dramatically since the inception security paradigm advocated in the 17th century. According to that traditional idea, the state (legitimate government) would monopolize the rights and means to protect its citizens. State power and state security would be established and expanded to sustain order and peace. Nevertheless, in the 21st century, both the challenges of security and its protectors have become more complex. The state remains the fundamental purveyor of security. Yet, it often fails to fulfil its security obligations—and at times has even become a source of threats to its own people. That is why Commission of Human Security points out that attention must now shift from the security of the state to the security of the people-- to human security. (CHS,2013)[i]
International relations on the military sector have also been undergoing dramatic changes. The post-cold war and 9/11 have caused international experts to rethink and revise their concept of security. International terrorism, transnational terrorism, increasing intrastate war, the hybrid security threats also have encouraged the states to evolve and prepare for the dramatic hybrid concept of non-conventional threats.
The paradigm of Human Security as pointed out by ASEAN secretariat, gives path to a more modern security concept; this is supported by Ong Keng Yong, Secretary-General of ASEAN who stated “Human security, the best deterrent to terrorism’’[1]. M. C. Abad Jr, Director of the ASEAN Regional Forum Unit at the ASEAN Secretariat stated ‘’The pursuit of human security means that regional institutions must be change agents. They must have the political will to challenge the status quo. They must be given sufficient resources and the necessary mandate to alter situations. To pursue human security means to enhance the capability of regional organizations to advance universal values effectively and with greater autonomy from its dominant members and local interest groups.‘’[2]
Moreover, Kofi Annan ever stated in his speech ‘’Today, we know that security means far more than the absence of conflict. We also have a greater appreciation for non-military sources of conflict. We know that lasting peace requires a broader vision encompassing areas such as education and health, democracy and human rights, protection against environmental degradation, and the proliferation of deadly weapons. We know that we cannot build peace without alleviating poverty, and that we cannot build freedom on foundations of injustice. These pillars of what we now understand as the people-centered concepts of human Security are interrelated and mutually reinforcing (UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in Rae & Hubert: 2001)’’[iii]
According to the above statements, this research tentatively outlines that, in a simplest sense, if a nation comprises of its people, in order to promote the national strategic interests and positive ambition and role to maintain world peace, the state needs to generate security of future leaders and managers from every individual at local, regional, and international levels for human developments at all levels. With the increasing security challenges and opportunities faced by ASEAN states and societies, they should develop breakthrough into a form of comprehensive frameworks for cooperation that encompass [multilevel of development] to face the multi-security problems in this fast globalization era. Each country and culture interprets risks and security differently, and also attributes varying degrees significance to them according to their own context. Indonesia with its increasing roles in ASEAN and as the host of ASEAN headquarter located in Jakarta, should develop and adapt its own security context which integrate and balance every element.
One of a prominent global Security thinkers, Dr Nayef Al-Rodhan [3], in his book made a valuable contribution and different perspective to the global security community when he introduced the concept of multi-sum security. In this model, security is seen as a cooperative effort between nations, that is, an effort that is needed given the nature of the globalised world we live in where nations cannot afford isolation. Dr Al-Rodhan developed his argument, and the five dimensions that form part of the new concept, in his book “The Five Dimensions of Global Security”. In his work, he said that in a globalized world, security can no longer be thought of as a (zero-sum game).
This principle aims not only to promote cooperative interaction between states, but also peaceful coexistence between cultural groups and civilizations. It combines a proposed new classification of global security that comprises five dimensions of security - human, environmental, national, transnational, and transcultural security - and the idea that [justice] is a prerequisite for security. Specifically, the multi-sum security principle stipulates "In a globalized world, security can no longer be thought of a zero sum games involving states alone. Global security, instead, has five dimensions that include Human, Environmental, National, Transnational, Trans-cultural security, and, therefore, global security and the security of any state or culture cannot be achieved without good governance at all levels that guarantees security through justice for all individuals, states, and cultures" (Al rodhan, 2007) [iv]. Based on this writing, consequently we can think that nowadays state and non-state actors, which are governments and non-governments (civil societies and commercial actors) encompassing all level of society should go hand in hand to act as problem solvers.
Prof. Barry Buzan, a prominent thinker of international security, interprets almost a similar idea of the interrelation between state and non-state to cope against global security problems. Buzan’s approach is an interesting one as he looks at security from all angles, from micro to macro, also addresses the social aspects of security and how people or societies construct or “securitize” threats (Stone, 2013) [v]
Buzan in his book “People, States, and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era” points out ‘’The ‘national’ security problem turns out to be a systemic security problem in which individuals, states and the system all play a part, and in which economic, societal and environmental factors are as important as political and military ones. From this integrative perspective, the levels and sectors appear more useful as viewing platforms from which one can observe the problem from different angles, than as self-contained areas for policy or analysis.’’ (Buzan ,2008)[vi]
Both Barry Buzan and Al Rodhan have shown the interrelated-ness between the need of state to work together with the civil society at all levels. The terminology of civil society is complex, however, in this study the author chooses to use Carmody’s theory of Civil Society as it is most appropriate and nearly close to Indonesian terminology of civil society (organisasi kemasyarakatan).
Carmody describes that Civil Society can refer to groups, networks, and relationships that are not organized or managed by the state and are generally understood as “the population of groups formed for collective purposes primarily outside of the State and the market place”. In addition, the area of organized social life is voluntary, self-generating, mostly self-supporting, autonomous from the state, and bound by a legal order or set of shared rules and values. Thus it can be described as a human activity concerned with the state activities and attempts to constitute themselves in an ensemble of arrangements so that they can express themselves and advance their interests.[vii] Based on the above definitions, commonly civil society refers to almost all non-states groups outside the government, for instance, social enterprise, foundations, non profit organizations, NGOs, labor groups, environmental and cultural groups, etc which aim to influence the policy and decision-making.
In this context, since Social Enterprise roles and actions will be discussed, there are blurring definitions between social enterprise whether it is positioned as a civil society or a commercial entity. This condition will not be discussed here, however, tentative understanding can be attained through above descriptions. Sustainable peace and security for states can only be achieved if the states focus on the multi-dimensionality of today’s security environment since security problems have evolved and multi-faceted, and there is a high demand to form mutually fruitful security cooperation between multi-levels and multi dimensions actors. During the process of finding relationships between Social Enterprise and Security dimensions, the author found difficulty in getting secondary data concerning the relationship between Social Enterprise and evolving defense & security dimensions.
Acharya also points out that ASEAN countries need evolution and gradual shifts of transformation from national security to comprehensive security, and then to cooperative security and up to the implementation of human security paradigm. ASEAN states through their foreign ministers agree that there needs to be a balance between the individual human rights and society as a whole (Acharya, 2009)[viii]. However, they realize that the problems of slow integration of human rights also do happen and are exacerbated by the cultural misperceptions of the military leaders concerning human security as the byproduct of the west trying to influence the eastern way of thinking of individualism and democracy.
Even though there is ongoing discourse on Human Security and Security concept in ASEAN countries probably due to the leaders’ miss-perceptions and miss-understanding, the author upholds the original human security concept pointed out by Mahbuh Ul haq, namely to upright people’s dignity, freedom from fear and freedom from want through two key important elements which are to protect and to empower the individual’s self potential. Ban Ki Moon also reinforced this conception by saying that the added value of the human security approach is increasingly recognized by governments, both at the national and local levels, as well as by regional organizations, civil society groups and the United Nations system. Therefore, the government (state) of every nation should cooperate well with every level of society including cooperation with NGOs and private sectors for human development benefit.
[1]Mobilizing multilateral resources in the war against terrorism: the role of ASEAN inside and outside of South-East Asia, speech at Inaugural Asia-Pacific Homeland Security Summit, Honolulu (United States of America), 20 November 2003; quote repeated at Third Asia-Pacific Homeland Security Summit and Exposition, Eight Steps in Securing Our Homelands, Honolulu, 21 September 2005.
[2] The challenge of balancing state security with human security, paper presented at 9th Harvard Project for Asian and International Affairs Conference, Beijing (People’s Republic of China), 27–30 August 2000, p. 6.
[3] Dr Nayef is a philosopher, a geostrategist and neuroscientist at Harvard University and Geneva center of security policy
1. [i] Commission on Human Security. 2003. ‘’Human Security Now. ‘’New York
2. [ii] Ministry of foreign affairs, Japan. 2015, retrieved from http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/oda/white/2011/html/honbun/b2/imgs/p032.gif at 5/6/2015
3. [iii] In Foreword to R. McRae and D. Hubert (eds), 2001, Human Security and the New Diplomacy: Protecting People, Promoting Peace, Montreal, McGill-Queens University Press, p. XIX
4. [iv] Al Rodhan. 2007. The Five Dimensions of Global Security: Proposal for a Multi-security Principle. Berlin: LIT Verlag,
5. [v]Stone, Marrianne.’’ Security according to Buzan: A comprehensive security analysis’’. France. Science-Po p2 http://www.geest.msh-paris.fr/IMG/pdf/Security_for_Buzan.mp3.pdf retrieved 4/9/2015 at 4.05p.m
6. [vi] Buzan, Barry. People, States and Fear: An Agenda For International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era. 1stedition 1981, 2nd Edition . Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf , 1991 and 2008 with a new preface from the author. P 368
7. [vii] Carmody, Pàdraig. 2007. Neoliberalism, Civil Society and Security in Africa.Pp.14-15.
8. [viii] Acharya. Amitav 2004.The Nexus Between Human Security and Traditional Security in Asia n within HumanSecurity in East Asia. Korean: Korean National Commission for UNESCO,. Pp 453
UNDP in 1994 within the broad concept of Human Development launched Human Security Concept supported by the ‘United Nations Commission of Human Security’ which describes that Security should be transformed and centered on people—not states, with two key important elements ‘’to protect and to empower the potential of each individual’’, which means security is not only about state but most importantly is about people.
The international community urgently informs the needs of a new security paradigm because according to the UNDP report the security debates had shifted dramatically since the inception security paradigm advocated in the 17th century. According to that traditional idea, the state (legitimate government) would monopolize the rights and means to protect its citizens. State power and state security would be established and expanded to sustain order and peace. Nevertheless, in the 21st century, both the challenges of security and its protectors have become more complex. The state remains the fundamental purveyor of security. Yet, it often fails to fulfil its security obligations—and at times has even become a source of threats to its own people. That is why Commission of Human Security points out that attention must now shift from the security of the state to the security of the people-- to human security. (CHS,2013)[i]
International relations on the military sector have also been undergoing dramatic changes. The post-cold war and 9/11 have caused international experts to rethink and revise their concept of security. International terrorism, transnational terrorism, increasing intrastate war, the hybrid security threats also have encouraged the states to evolve and prepare for the dramatic hybrid concept of non-conventional threats.
The paradigm of Human Security as pointed out by ASEAN secretariat, gives path to a more modern security concept; this is supported by Ong Keng Yong, Secretary-General of ASEAN who stated “Human security, the best deterrent to terrorism’’[1]. M. C. Abad Jr, Director of the ASEAN Regional Forum Unit at the ASEAN Secretariat stated ‘’The pursuit of human security means that regional institutions must be change agents. They must have the political will to challenge the status quo. They must be given sufficient resources and the necessary mandate to alter situations. To pursue human security means to enhance the capability of regional organizations to advance universal values effectively and with greater autonomy from its dominant members and local interest groups.‘’[2]
Moreover, Kofi Annan ever stated in his speech ‘’Today, we know that security means far more than the absence of conflict. We also have a greater appreciation for non-military sources of conflict. We know that lasting peace requires a broader vision encompassing areas such as education and health, democracy and human rights, protection against environmental degradation, and the proliferation of deadly weapons. We know that we cannot build peace without alleviating poverty, and that we cannot build freedom on foundations of injustice. These pillars of what we now understand as the people-centered concepts of human Security are interrelated and mutually reinforcing (UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in Rae & Hubert: 2001)’’[iii]
According to the above statements, this research tentatively outlines that, in a simplest sense, if a nation comprises of its people, in order to promote the national strategic interests and positive ambition and role to maintain world peace, the state needs to generate security of future leaders and managers from every individual at local, regional, and international levels for human developments at all levels. With the increasing security challenges and opportunities faced by ASEAN states and societies, they should develop breakthrough into a form of comprehensive frameworks for cooperation that encompass [multilevel of development] to face the multi-security problems in this fast globalization era. Each country and culture interprets risks and security differently, and also attributes varying degrees significance to them according to their own context. Indonesia with its increasing roles in ASEAN and as the host of ASEAN headquarter located in Jakarta, should develop and adapt its own security context which integrate and balance every element.
One of a prominent global Security thinkers, Dr Nayef Al-Rodhan [3], in his book made a valuable contribution and different perspective to the global security community when he introduced the concept of multi-sum security. In this model, security is seen as a cooperative effort between nations, that is, an effort that is needed given the nature of the globalised world we live in where nations cannot afford isolation. Dr Al-Rodhan developed his argument, and the five dimensions that form part of the new concept, in his book “The Five Dimensions of Global Security”. In his work, he said that in a globalized world, security can no longer be thought of as a (zero-sum game).
This principle aims not only to promote cooperative interaction between states, but also peaceful coexistence between cultural groups and civilizations. It combines a proposed new classification of global security that comprises five dimensions of security - human, environmental, national, transnational, and transcultural security - and the idea that [justice] is a prerequisite for security. Specifically, the multi-sum security principle stipulates "In a globalized world, security can no longer be thought of a zero sum games involving states alone. Global security, instead, has five dimensions that include Human, Environmental, National, Transnational, Trans-cultural security, and, therefore, global security and the security of any state or culture cannot be achieved without good governance at all levels that guarantees security through justice for all individuals, states, and cultures" (Al rodhan, 2007) [iv]. Based on this writing, consequently we can think that nowadays state and non-state actors, which are governments and non-governments (civil societies and commercial actors) encompassing all level of society should go hand in hand to act as problem solvers.
Prof. Barry Buzan, a prominent thinker of international security, interprets almost a similar idea of the interrelation between state and non-state to cope against global security problems. Buzan’s approach is an interesting one as he looks at security from all angles, from micro to macro, also addresses the social aspects of security and how people or societies construct or “securitize” threats (Stone, 2013) [v]
Buzan in his book “People, States, and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era” points out ‘’The ‘national’ security problem turns out to be a systemic security problem in which individuals, states and the system all play a part, and in which economic, societal and environmental factors are as important as political and military ones. From this integrative perspective, the levels and sectors appear more useful as viewing platforms from which one can observe the problem from different angles, than as self-contained areas for policy or analysis.’’ (Buzan ,2008)[vi]
Both Barry Buzan and Al Rodhan have shown the interrelated-ness between the need of state to work together with the civil society at all levels. The terminology of civil society is complex, however, in this study the author chooses to use Carmody’s theory of Civil Society as it is most appropriate and nearly close to Indonesian terminology of civil society (organisasi kemasyarakatan).
Carmody describes that Civil Society can refer to groups, networks, and relationships that are not organized or managed by the state and are generally understood as “the population of groups formed for collective purposes primarily outside of the State and the market place”. In addition, the area of organized social life is voluntary, self-generating, mostly self-supporting, autonomous from the state, and bound by a legal order or set of shared rules and values. Thus it can be described as a human activity concerned with the state activities and attempts to constitute themselves in an ensemble of arrangements so that they can express themselves and advance their interests.[vii] Based on the above definitions, commonly civil society refers to almost all non-states groups outside the government, for instance, social enterprise, foundations, non profit organizations, NGOs, labor groups, environmental and cultural groups, etc which aim to influence the policy and decision-making.
In this context, since Social Enterprise roles and actions will be discussed, there are blurring definitions between social enterprise whether it is positioned as a civil society or a commercial entity. This condition will not be discussed here, however, tentative understanding can be attained through above descriptions. Sustainable peace and security for states can only be achieved if the states focus on the multi-dimensionality of today’s security environment since security problems have evolved and multi-faceted, and there is a high demand to form mutually fruitful security cooperation between multi-levels and multi dimensions actors. During the process of finding relationships between Social Enterprise and Security dimensions, the author found difficulty in getting secondary data concerning the relationship between Social Enterprise and evolving defense & security dimensions.
Acharya also points out that ASEAN countries need evolution and gradual shifts of transformation from national security to comprehensive security, and then to cooperative security and up to the implementation of human security paradigm. ASEAN states through their foreign ministers agree that there needs to be a balance between the individual human rights and society as a whole (Acharya, 2009)[viii]. However, they realize that the problems of slow integration of human rights also do happen and are exacerbated by the cultural misperceptions of the military leaders concerning human security as the byproduct of the west trying to influence the eastern way of thinking of individualism and democracy.
Even though there is ongoing discourse on Human Security and Security concept in ASEAN countries probably due to the leaders’ miss-perceptions and miss-understanding, the author upholds the original human security concept pointed out by Mahbuh Ul haq, namely to upright people’s dignity, freedom from fear and freedom from want through two key important elements which are to protect and to empower the individual’s self potential. Ban Ki Moon also reinforced this conception by saying that the added value of the human security approach is increasingly recognized by governments, both at the national and local levels, as well as by regional organizations, civil society groups and the United Nations system. Therefore, the government (state) of every nation should cooperate well with every level of society including cooperation with NGOs and private sectors for human development benefit.
[1]Mobilizing multilateral resources in the war against terrorism: the role of ASEAN inside and outside of South-East Asia, speech at Inaugural Asia-Pacific Homeland Security Summit, Honolulu (United States of America), 20 November 2003; quote repeated at Third Asia-Pacific Homeland Security Summit and Exposition, Eight Steps in Securing Our Homelands, Honolulu, 21 September 2005.
[2] The challenge of balancing state security with human security, paper presented at 9th Harvard Project for Asian and International Affairs Conference, Beijing (People’s Republic of China), 27–30 August 2000, p. 6.
[3] Dr Nayef is a philosopher, a geostrategist and neuroscientist at Harvard University and Geneva center of security policy
1. [i] Commission on Human Security. 2003. ‘’Human Security Now. ‘’New York
2. [ii] Ministry of foreign affairs, Japan. 2015, retrieved from http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/oda/white/2011/html/honbun/b2/imgs/p032.gif at 5/6/2015
3. [iii] In Foreword to R. McRae and D. Hubert (eds), 2001, Human Security and the New Diplomacy: Protecting People, Promoting Peace, Montreal, McGill-Queens University Press, p. XIX
4. [iv] Al Rodhan. 2007. The Five Dimensions of Global Security: Proposal for a Multi-security Principle. Berlin: LIT Verlag,
5. [v]Stone, Marrianne.’’ Security according to Buzan: A comprehensive security analysis’’. France. Science-Po p2 http://www.geest.msh-paris.fr/IMG/pdf/Security_for_Buzan.mp3.pdf retrieved 4/9/2015 at 4.05p.m
6. [vi] Buzan, Barry. People, States and Fear: An Agenda For International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era. 1stedition 1981, 2nd Edition . Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf , 1991 and 2008 with a new preface from the author. P 368
7. [vii] Carmody, Pàdraig. 2007. Neoliberalism, Civil Society and Security in Africa.Pp.14-15.
8. [viii] Acharya. Amitav 2004.The Nexus Between Human Security and Traditional Security in Asia n within HumanSecurity in East Asia. Korean: Korean National Commission for UNESCO,. Pp 453