Expanding the concept of human security

In addition to the UN Human Development Report of 1994 that refers to human security in Africa, the AU‟s Common African Defence and Security Policy is also premised on the viewpoint that the causes of intra-state conflict necessitate an emphasis on human security, based not only on political values, but also on social and economic imperatives (Neethling, 2004:78). This implies embracing the broader concept of respect for human rights, the right to participate fully in the process of governance, the right to equal development, as well as the right to have

access to resources and the basic necessities to life. In addition, the concept also includes the right to protection against poverty, the right to conducive education and health conditions, the right to protection against marginalisation on the basis of gender, protection against natural disasters, as well as ecological and environmental degradation (AU, 2004:1).

Some middle powers, such as Canada, base their approach on a strong human rights and an extended arms control nexus. In this regard, Canada, as an advocate of „soft power‟ has often been recognised as leading the non-militaristic and progressive human security approach (Lewis, 2006:12). On the other hand, the Asian (Japanese) approach seems to be more related to a conceptualisation that stresses the connection between security and economic and social development (Werthes and Boshold 2004:2-3). Former Japanese Minister Keizo Obuchi expresses this approach in the following statement:

Human security is a concept that takes a comprehensive view of all threats to human survival, life and dignity and stresses the need to respond to such threats. The economic crises confronting the Asian countries today has been a direct blow to the socially vulnerable – the poor, women and children, and the elderly – threatening their survival and dignity (as quoted by Werthes and Boshold 2004:3).

The important point is that human security discourses have multiple origins and they manifest in many political and ideological ambivalences. “As a field of policy-making and research, human security agendas have been very vulnerable to state and multilateral policymaking that sets limits on which freedoms are important to human security” (Lewis, 2006:12).

One of the primary challenges in terms of effective capacity-building is to link conflict prevention to the promotion of human security on the basis of common priorities already identified and on the widely shared concern for meeting the needs of the most vulnerable populations. This concern is dependent on the following (Goucha and Cilliers, 2001:vi):

major dimensions of human security must be taken into account in regional, sub-regional and national policies as part of the shift from the resolution of conflicts to the building of democratic and stable societies that are respectful of human rights;

all the priorities that require long-term action must be adequately identified and addressed;

the building of the most significant capacities that are required for the promotion of human security, in particular those pertaining to education and training; and

the formulation of strategies that can best contribute to the mobilisation of the most vulnerable populations which must ultimately emerge as stakeholders in the democratic process by means of participation and dialogue.

Naidoo (2001:7) concludes that an adequate conceptualisation of human security for African states would establish a link between human security and human development. According to Mandaza (1995:29–31), economic development will have to be at the top of the institutional agenda, since “development and security are two sides of the same coin”. In order to address the challenges pertaining to security and development effectively, it is essential to build the institutional capacity to manage non-traditional security threats. Clover (2005:104) argues that this calls for a critical review of current security structures, institutions and processes where these are seen to threaten or undermine people‟s security, as well as for the development and construction of a more holistic concept of human security.

The fact that the AU has initiated steps to integrate human security doctrines into AU binding agreements and other documents is significant. It is significant because legalisation is one of the most important aspects of the institutionalisation of ideas and also because legislation provides a basis for the incorporation of human security doctrines into national laws and policies. The legalisation of human security doctrines has also strengthened the hands and the work of human rights advocates operating in the African region. It has provided the human rights advocates and their organisations with regional-wide legal instruments and resources they could use to influence African governments to pursue human security-oriented policies (Tieku, 2007:35).

Hendricks (2006:3) argues that part of the difficulty in implementing human security perspective can be attributed to the fact that

it requires operationalisation (measures for knowing when it is deemed to exist and mechanisms for its achievement);

it necessitated an interrogation of power relationships (where power is located and how it is exercised);

it forces us to reconstruct the ways in which governments, inter-governmental organisations, civil society organisations, and researchers function (forming partnerships rather than functioning in silos);

it requires that citizens change their perception of their own responsibilities; and in addition

implements a human security perspective that necessitates flexibility to deal with, and accommodate, changing and often competing needs.

Recognition that security threats cover a far broader spectrum – among them resource scarcity, diseases, global warming or religious fundamentalism – has increasingly gained credibility. Clover (2005:104) argues that the traditional security institutions have begun to respond to the validity of this shift in security thinking – a paradigm shift that requires answers to central questions such as: whose security? security from what? and security how? The current understanding of the relationship between development and security in this regard has increasingly gained support for the development of the conception of DPMs as a construct to address the challenges associated with the security-development nexus effectively.