Midterm

CONTENTS Editorial Georg Frerks & Human security: a launching pad for debate and Kees Homan policy? 1 Articles Georg Frerks Human security as a discourse and counter- discourse 8 Peter Hough Global steps towards human security 15

Berma Klein Why human? The interlinkages between security, Goldewijk rights and development 24 Martijn Dekker & Human security from below in a Hobbesian Mient Jan Faber environment 37 Joost van Puijenbroek Human security from below, a case study from the Ituri district, Democratic Republic of Congo 45 Jan Gruiters Human security and development: an ambivalent

relationship 54 Gerd Oberleitner The OSCE and human security 64 Kees Homan The military and human security 73 Victor-Yves Ghebali The 2007 Madrid Ministerial Council Meeting:

A mixed bag of non-decisions and a discrete set 82 of measures

Summaries 100 Contributors 104

Human security: a launching pad for debate and policy? Georg Frerks and Kees Homan (guest editors)1 Introduction The Helsinki Monitor has changed its name in Security and Human Rights and the editorial board has decided to devote the first issue under the new name to the theme of ‘human security’. The name of Helsinki Monitor refers to The Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the Helsinki Accords, the Helsinki Declaration or the Helsinki Process. The conference was held in Helsinki in 1975 and attended by the United States, Canada, the Soviet Union and nearly all European countries. The Final Act was signed by 35 countries and not only confirmed the post-World War II borders in Europe, but also provided for the first time a formal basis for the human rights agenda in the political discourse with the Soviet Union, leading to what became highly effective Helsinki Watch or Monitoring Committees both in the Soviet Union itself and internationally. The Helsinki Process was later transformed into a permanent organisation, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

The particular geo-political context of those days has obviously changed enormously due to the demise of the Soviet Union and the associated disappearance of the bi-polar superpower system. So has the nature of the security problématique that we are witnessing today, with its increasing emphasis on intrastate conflicts. Though these momentous transitions created a series of conflicts in the Balkans and Eastern Europe some of which are still in existence today, most attention is now paid to conflicts in the developing world. These require a rather different explanatory framework than the ones that were prevalent during the Cold War epoch. Concurrently, the OSCE has evolved into a wide- ranging organisation having 56 members at present (although officially they are stilled called ‘participating States’). It deals with politico-military matters, economic and environmental issues and the ‘human dimension’, including human rights and democratisation. The new title of the journal Security and Human Rights continues to reflect the core elements of the Helsinki Accords, but is no longer exclusively linked to that historical process and epoch and therefore invites a broader treatment of issues geographically and thematically, something that was already apparent in the Helsinki Monitor as well.

1 Georg Frerks is Professor of Conflict Prevention and Conflict Management at Utrecht

University, Utrecht and Professor of Disaster Studies at Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Major General (ret.) Kees Homan is a senior research fellow at the ‘Clingendael’ Institute in The Hague, The Netherlands and editor of Security and Human Rights.

Georg Frerks and Kees Homan

Security and Human Rights 2008 no. 1

2

The choice of the theme ‘human security’ for the first special issue seems to be a very opportune one in this connection, as it enables a broad discussion on what constitutes security, what new developments do emerge in the security discourse, and what this implies for policy practice? Obviously, such fundamental questions merit a much deeper debate than the one we can reasonably offer in a special journal issue of limited scope and length. As guest editors of this special issue we do not pretend even to have more than scratched the surface of the ongoing human security debates and policies of the last fifteen years. In preparing for this special issue we decided to invite contributions highlighting a selected number of aspects.

In the first place we deemed it fit to introduce the notion of human security by briefly explaining how it came into existence and evolved over the years. Three articles in this volume deal with this aspect. The human security concept and discourse In the first article of this special issue Georg Frerks deals with human security as a ‘discourse and counter-discourse’. He first discusses the broader shifts from interstate to intrastate wars and remarks that current conflicts are increasingly caused by the own society and polity rather than by an international confrontation between states. He argues that the notion of human security introduced in the Human Development Report 1994 has come to reflect the various changes this implies. He traces the development of the human security concept and discourse by highlighting a number of landmark documents and commissions that further helped disseminate the idea in the international arena. He submits that the human security debate comprises in fact an ‘alternative security discourse’ or ‘counter- discourse’ compared to earlier views that were more state-centred or had a military-strategic focus. Frerks states that the human security discourse has brought a number of definite benefits. It underlined the comprehensive nature of current conflict, linked several security components mutually, and forged a new balance between state and people-centred security. It has also connected security to development issues and placed human rights at centre stage. Finally, it involved a wider group of actors at different societal levels. Frerks mentions as a disadvantage the existence of multiple definitions and the risk to consider nearly everything as a security risk, something he links conceptually to the ‘securitisation’ debate of the Copenhagen School. In order to avoid the counterproductive consequences of such a tendency, he recommends that human security keeps to the middle-ground between the state-centred security discourse and the danger of ‘over-securitisation’.

In the second article Peter Hough discusses the role of the state and of supra- national structures and processes in promoting human security. Departing from a broad analysis of different political theories and historical approaches attempting to overcome state weakness in the realm of conflict, he argues that at present neither the state nor a partially globalised world order can be expected to guarantee human security fully. He discusses a number of particular recent trends in global governance that may offer hope for further improvement. Whereas

Human security: a launching pad for debate and policy?

Security and Human Rights 2008 no. 1

3

earlier ideas of political integration and federalism were too drastic for most sovereign states, more pragmatic, ‘utilitarianist’ approaches towards global governance have been emerging. He mentions several examples, including the European Union’s (EU) notion of ‘subsidiarity’. Hough also notes that morality, ethics and social co-responsibility play an important role in the political world and that ‘universal values’ may well provide a way of maximising human security. Governments will certainly have to adjust to the force of global spill-over, but will hardly ever choose on their own what is best for their citizens, especially when that harms their own state interests. States, moreover, tend to prioritise only their own citizens, excluding all others. Hence, Hough concludes that despite some positive tendencies at the global level, direct interest-driven action by those affected remains needed to overcome the ‘national interest’ barrier inherent in state action.

In the third article, Berma Klein Goldewijk observes that the adjective ‘human’ connects current security, rights and development discourses and she questions what ‘human’ really implies here. She argues that the human dimension identifies, modifies and frames the three notions of rights, development and security both individually and jointly. She explores three specific dimensions. The first one refers to the inter-linkage between rights, development and security. She notes in the human security debate the presence of a universalism akin to most human rights discourses, but simultaneously warns against a potential risk of essentialism that would deny the pluralistic nature of human life. Like Frerks, she observes the vagueness of the human security discourse and also points at the diversity of the issues at stake that is seriously compounding prioritisation in practice. The second dimension relates to the normative reasoning in the international public sphere, an aspect Hough was also alluding to. Klein Goldewijk discusses here the prevailing trends in humanitarianism, humanitarian law and humanitarian intervention, while outlining some of their inherent contradictions. She mentions the relevance of both the standards of justice and humanity. Human security as a normative concept could help unify global policies and agency mandates across different state and non-state actors. Her third dimension concerns the gap between policy and operation, between rhetoric and implementation. She argues that the rubric of ‘human’ still connotes largely to that of national citizen, relegating non-citizens to a position of ‘non-humans’. Klein Goldewijk concludes that the human dimension has brought a stronger sense of correlation, coherence and shared purpose in response to the combined and complex issues of violent conflict and persistent poverty. Security-from-below A second set of articles focuses on everyday realities of human security and the notion of security-from-below. The first one by Martijn Dekker and Mient Jan Faber positions human security in a Hobbesian environment of state collapse, where people and communities have to fend for themselves. In this connection, the authors distinguish three levels of human security: self-protection, horizontal

Georg Frerks and Kees Homan

Security and Human Rights 2008 no. 1

4

protection and vertical protection. The first level refers to the population’s own religious, ethnic or other identity networks providing self-organised, localised security zones. The second relies on lifelines connected to outside civil society and other non-state actors, while the latter relates to security from above, such as that provided by the UN or external interventionists. The authors note, however, that external interventions or related attempts at pacification are frequently difficult, if not sometimes nearly impossible. Many intervening actors in conflict situations have inadvertently become part of the problem and then a winning hearts and minds strategy will not suffice anymore, as interaction is a two-way street. Nevertheless, Dekker and Faber give examples where external and local parties have been able to connect and collaborate in providing localised forms of self- protection and thus create a semblance of order.

In a second article on security-from-below Joost van Puijenbroek presents a case study from the Ituri district in the Democratic Republic of Congo. He describes the background of the conflict as well as the peace process and the intervention of the Mission d’Observation des Nations Unies au Congo (MONUC). Yet, in most parts of the district the public administration remains fragile, if not completely absent, and the state fails to deliver whatever social service necessary to its population. In fact, the ‘reformed’ Congolese army and the national police are the main source of instability at the moment, with large-scale harassment of the population, illegal arrests, torture and looting of properties taking place. Van Puijenbroek describes how a network of NGOs in Ituri started local peace initiatives (ILPs and nyumba kumi) that carried out a variety of tasks in the field of protection and local conflict resolution. This NGO network further organised security meetings and set up security committees at the different administrative levels of the district. These activities have contributed to increased security at the local level and filled the gap left by an extremely fragile or absent state. The establishment of a relationship between security agencies and the population has rendered the behavior of the security actors less extreme, volatile and brutal. Yet there have also been considerable bottlenecks due to limited capacities, ethnic mistrust and lack of resources. Links with the government, the MONUC as well as militias have been lacking or proven difficult. Without a connection to the state level, community security programs only have a limited impact. However, when such connections are in place, a community security system cannot only play a pivotal role locally, but also contribute to discussions about security sector reform and monitor behavioral changes of the army and police. Security and development Thirdly, we felt that security and peace should be linked more explicitly to development concerns. This reflects the insight that a lack of development — economic, social, political and institutional — may lay at the basis of insecurity and that properly designed development interventions may help address this. There are, on the other hand, also several publications arguing that Western, ill- designed development policies and the biased, ill-distribution of its benefits have

Human security: a launching pad for debate and policy?

Security and Human Rights 2008 no. 1

5

enhanced local conflict. Jan Gruiters discusses this ‘ambivalent relationship’ between the two

notions. He argues that there is no broadly accepted, context-specific theory on how security and development are related and, therefore, we witness ‘meandering’ strategies in policy practice. Taking human dignity and human rights as the normative foundation, Gruiters places a ‘person-centred’ approach to security and development opposite the state-centred views on security and linear theories of state-led modernisation that dominated the second half of the twentieth century. He mentions different reports and initiatives promoting this person-centred approach and underlines the emerging independent role of civil society and community-based organisations in matters pertaining to freedom, development and peace. After 9/11, however, he discerns a counter-tendency of state-centred homeland security where development aid is dispensed in service of security concerns. The question of whose security and whose development is at stake is the litmus test for morally pure and politically effective policy with non-ambivalent objectives and strategies based on either state security or human security interests. Western ideological assumptions and experiences often seem to determine the perception of causal links between security and development, but these are much more complex in reality, as Gruiters demonstrates in his article.

Practical experiences as well as research data show that the connection between them requires a context-specific, and not a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. The present political ambivalence around security and development, which invokes the interests of homeland or national security at one moment and human security the next, is not only morally questionable, it also leads inevitably to indeterminate strategies that lack clear-cut priorities and the means suitable for achieving them. Gruiters concludes that security and development must find their normative foundation in human dignity. That implies that people and the communities of which they are a part, and not the state, should be the fundamental premise when considering security and development. Institutional security settings Fourthly, we liked to address how human security is implemented in broader institutional security settings. To this end we invited two articles focusing on the role of human security in the OSCE and, more broadly, within the military.

The first article in this section is by Gerd Oberleitner. He analyses the consequences of the emergence of human security for the OSCE. He asks whether the organisation should engage more seriously with the concept than it has done so far. After describing the history of the concept, he argues that very term ‘human security’ was seldom used within the organisation, and hardly could be seen as a guiding principle for the OSCE’s work. Even though the OSCE’s view on security is comprehensive, Oberleitner argues that it has gradually become fragmented rather than integrated, and surely does not command the same appeal as the human security discourse. On the other hand, the OSCE’s security is cooperative and combines bottom-up, empowering activities with top-down initiatives and hence

Georg Frerks and Kees Homan

Security and Human Rights 2008 no. 1

6

corresponds to important aspects of human security. Similarly, the subjects the OSCE is dealing with in its practical work, and its institutional structure as a multilateral, trans-regional network including civil society actors, do reflect the human security agenda. Reviewing the evidence, Oberleitner asserts that a more explicit orientation on human security may well have a value added for the OSCE. It would allow the OSCE to re-examine the validity of having three separate security dimensions that are likely to be balanced against each other. Thinking along the lines of human security may further bring the OSCE back into the innovative approach it once applied to fostering security, though it certainly will not be able resolve the organisation’s present crisis. Oberleitner concludes that in order to advance the OSCE’s original purpose to not only provide stability in the region but also effectively make people more secure in their everyday lives, human security may well be a more effective vision than OSCE’s present thinking in three boxes. The last article in the volume is written by Kees Homan and deals with human security and the military. He surveys the potential roles for the military in the field of human security in the context of the emerging, but contested concept of the ’responsibility to protect’. Based on Holt, Homan outlines six distinct forms of protection the military is able to provide. He argues that the military, including the Northern Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), so far lack a systematic framework for the protection of civilian populations, though the NATO manual on peace support operations includes a section on the protection of humanitarian operations and of human rights, and on safe areas. Homan elaborates on the yet un-official Human Security Doctrine that the EU is working on. The doctrine comprises seven principles for operations in situations of severe insecurity, a human security response force of 15,000 personnel, and a legal framework. Homan discusses a number of obstacles that compound an effective military human security response. One relates to the various problematic aspects of civil- military cooperation. Though military actors have worked with other agencies in the field, they so far have not developed a joint understanding of what civilian protection means or requires. Homan concludes that human security considerations should be made a part of all military activity, but most urgently at the operational level, through training, a change of military culture, accountability and stringent enforcement. As protection operations are different from both the traditional operational concepts for waging war and UN peacekeeping operations, steps should be taken to develop a universal human security doctrine. Conclusion The articles brought together in this special issue highlight a number of important insights. Without exception, they underline the importance and usefulness of human security both at the conceptual-discursive level and in the domain of operational implementation in the field. The human security discourse provided a fundamental change in the prevailing thinking about security, if not a full alternative or counter-discourse to

Human security: a launching pad for debate and policy?

Security and Human Rights 2008 no. 1

7

the hitherto hegemonic state-centred and military-driven view. Nearly all authors paid attention the epistemological, theoretical or normative antecedents of human security or embed it into larger trends and developments, notably in the field of political integration, human rights, humanitarian intervention and human development. It also was placed in the perspective of current countertendencies, including the War on Terror, homeland security and over-securitisation. This invited a further reflection about what basically constitutes the humanum and whose security and whose development we need to prioritise as policy-makers and practitioners?

Nearly all authors recognised limitations and weaknesses of the human security notion and approach, but many of these were characteristically perceived as strong points when looked at from a different angle. Examples include paradoxes like being broad or vague; being inclusive or unwieldy; being appealing or rhetoric, etc. Based on a shared awareness of the inadequacies of state-centred security approaches, the authors felt that ‘pragmatic’, ‘middle-ground’ and ‘utiliarianist’ approaches to human security provided the best chance of realising its potential. It was shown that security-from-below is already an every-day reality and has much to offer to populations in fragile or collapsed states. It has been adopted by a variety of civil society and other non-state actors providing protection to populations at risk. It was also argued that the international policy and intervention domain has much to gain from a more explicit focus on human security. This applied to bilateral and multilateral donors, the OSCE, NATO and military alike.

With Berma Klein Goldewijk we like to argue in conclusion that the human security concept identifies, modifies and frames the three notions of rights, development and security both individually and jointly. Despite its shortcomings, the human security approach is needed as a counter-discourse, as a complement and as a normative standard for those attempting to achieve peace for people and communities affected by conflict.