Human Security: Relevance and Implications

Abstract

Since end of Cold War, phrase human increasingly has surfaced in scholarly literature, in conversations of policy professionals and policy advocates, and occasionally in popular media. The phrase itself suggests a departure from esoteric jargon of Cold War, preoccupied with state-centric issues of thermonuclear holocaust, strategic alliances, compellance and deterrence. But despite its increasing usage, new concept rarely is defined for lay reader and seems to carry a slippery range of alternative definitions. For some, association of human with United Nations Development Program (UNDP) either commends its value or undermines its validity, regardless of content. For others, phrase connotes an exciting--or troubling--consensus on themes by a putative global intelligentsia. Policymakers in several countries have gone so far as to embrace concept as a foundation for their national foreign policy, while US policymakers are at best ambivalent or, more commonly, skeptical. Can concept still so undefined and contested really have much utility? Or more to point, should US military professionals pay attention to it? This article argues in affirmative, acknowledging that it is a paradigm gaining in prominence and may be an important part of conceptual environment in which US military professionals will act in future. The use of concept also might have sufficient utility for US policymakers to warrant a closer examination. The purpose of this article is to note origin, meaning, and contemporary usage of human concept, and to suggest why US military professionals should not ignore it. The article also will explore several implications of increasing global interest in concept and will offer some cautions and concerns. Background In 1992, prestigious UK-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, a bastion of establishment thinking, announced a striking change in its area of concern. Like similar institutions, it traditionally had been preoccupied with pursuit of Its time-honored formula, reinforced by concerns of Cold War, had focused on influence of modern and nuclear weapons of warfare upon problems of strategy, defence, disarmament, and international relations. However, interest now shifted dramatically to any major issues, including without limitation those of a political, strategic, economic, social, or ecological nature. (1) The times, they were a-changin', and conceptions of security clearly were in flux. In fact, end of Cold War unleashed a debate that had been growing for years, provoked by scholars and practitioners increasingly dissatisfied with traditional conceptions of security. (2) Earlier mainstream approaches had tended to limit study of subject to the threat, use, and control of military force in context of state-centered international competition? But by late 1970s, some scholars had begun to contest notion that state should be appropriate referent object and were arguing that conventional approaches failed to capture reality of a proliferating cast of actors and agendas on world scene which posed a variety of threats to citizens as well as regimes. (4) These views gained a considerable following through 1980s, (5) and by early 1990s, new thinking had begun to take hold among policymakers in several countries. An early milestone in success of new approaches occurred in 1993, when United Nations Development Program (UNDP) published its annual Human Development Report which promulgated formula human (6) a phrase given even sharper definition in following year's report. (7) Though it remained controversial and subject to varying definition, human paradigm subsequently became something of a benchmark for an emerging new model of security, so it is appropriate to briefly review how this concept was framed in 1994 UNDP publication. …