Human Security Concepts, Approaches and Debates in Southeast Asia

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

The end of the bipolar world in 1989 triggered an indepth re-evaluation of the concepts of peace and security (Brauch 2008, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c). The realist school defined peace as the absence of war and security as the absence of threats. Alternatively, the neoliberal institutionalism, focuses on the important role played by international institutions and economic interdependence that can promote cooperation and security (Waever 2008). Nevertheless, security for the developing states differs somewhat from the Western concept. Most owe their ‘insecurity’ first to their struggle for independence and later for economic independence (Thomas 1987: 10). As observed by Alagappa (1986: 2), a deteriorating economy can easily lead to domestic conflicts and this can threaten either the state as a whole or the regime in power, or both. Economy and regime security or the survival of the ruling regime are therefore crucial elements in promoting national security for the developing states (Collins 2003: 5; Ayoob 1995, Ayoob/Samudavanija 1986). Additionally their concern for security is focused primarily on the stability of their politics, a well developed economy and a harmonious society (Hernandez 1990, 100 – 101). The region is also concerned about China’s growing economic power and Japan may pose a military threat again but closer economic ties and steps towards establishing the East Asian Community may support the neoliberal institutionalism with regard to the prospect of peace and security in the region (Lee/Tham/Yu 2006).1 The ‘human security’ concept has attracted much debate among scholars since the Human Development Report 1994 defined it as ‘freedom from fear’ and ‘freedom from want’, and included seven elements, namely: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political (UNDP 1994). The UN’s concept of human security suggests a concern with quality of life, including economic growth and access to resources, rather than a focus on weapons and defence against outside forces. Human security thus means putting the people first, before the state. Canada has been a leading promoter of human security. The Canadian government defined human security as having an acceptable quality of life and a good guarantee of fundamental human rights (Axworthy 1997; Dedring 2008). Thus, humanitarian intervention due to violent conflicts can be legitimized to protect human rights and the quality of life, in addition to mere survival (ICISS 2001). Canada co-established the Human Security Network (HSN), an informal group of like-minded countries who pursue a ‘people-centred’ approach to security (see chap. 75 by Fuentes/Brauch).2 Japan, a friend of the HSN, defined human security within the context of globalization: