Human Security: Freedom from Want, Fear, and Indignity - Summaries Readings Week 1 PDF

**1^st^ reading:** **Human Security = freedom from want, fear and indignity.** The text's main points: Security must be centered on people, not states. This is because today's world needs a different security paradigm. The majority of conflicts nowadays are not interstate, but intrastate. Many s...

**1^st^ reading:** **Human Security = freedom from want, fear and indignity.** The text's main points: Security must be centered on people, not states. This is because today's world needs a different security paradigm. The majority of conflicts nowadays are not interstate, but intrastate. Many states fail nowadays to fulfill their security obligations. This is why a shift must be made from a state centric approach to a human centric approach to security However, human security should not replace state security, but it complements it, enhancing human rights and strengthening human development. It does so in 4 respects: - The concern is the individual. - All threats to people are recognized and prioritized. - There are multiple actors (not just the state). - HS is achieved not only through protecting people, but also through empowering them. The Commission on Human Security's definition of human security: "to protect the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human fulfilment". Any concept of human security must be dynamic, fitting the needs of each individual. There is no itemized list of what makes up human security. Human security broadens the focus from the security of borders to the lives of people and communities inside and across those borders. Human security fits well with human development and human rights: - Human development "is about people, about expanding their choices to lead lives they value". Human security complements human development by deliberately focusing on "downside risks - Respecting human rights is at the core of protecting human security. Human rights and human security are mutually reinforcing. **Protection and empowerment:** Human security integrates freedoms from want and fear with the freedom to act independently. To ensure this, it emphasizes protection strategies and empowerment strategies. Threats to human security may be sudden (ex. conflict) or pervasive (ex. discrimination) and can stem from deliberate or unintended causes. Effective human security requires identifying and addressing these threats in a way that empowers individuals and prioritizes their core needs. **Interdependence and shared sovereignty:** Societies have a growing interdependence. Actions or inactions in one part of the world increasingly affect others, from environmental issues to conflict resolution. Unrestricted national sovereignty is no longer sustainable. Multilateral institutions that allow states to collaborate and resolve disputes fairly are needed. Institutions like the World Trade Organization demonstrate the benefits of regulated interdependence. **2^nd^ reading:** Just before the COVID pandemic hit, 6 out of 5 people reported feeling insecure. As many development indicators were moving up, people's sense of security was coming down. In 2012 the UN General Assembly reflected a consensus that human security would be considered, "The right of people to live in freedom and dignity, free from poverty and despair. All individuals, in particular vulnerable people, are entitled to freedom from fear and freedom from want, with an equal opportunity to enjoy all their rights and fully develop their human potential." 1. **Dignity**: Dignity is the universal belief in equal worth for all, as emphasized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Sustainable Development Goals. It involves autonomy, agency, and freedom from stigma and shame, even in efforts to alleviate poverty. Addressing dignity requires culturally sensitive and empowering interventions that avoid stigmatization. 2. **Fear**: Fear arises from beliefs about future threats, often linked to low certainty and control. It is shaped by individual perceptions and external conditions, with potential impacts on dignity. Fear strongly influences behavior and highlights the interconnectedness of human security aspirations. 3. **Want**: Want reflects both basic needs and cultural standards, shaping perceptions of poverty. It is influenced by social norms and collective problem-solving. Poverty, as a culturally constructed concept, ties closely to dignity, with beliefs shaped by inequalities and vulnerabilities in today's Anthropocene context. **Trust**: Trust is a belief about the reliability of others, often measured as generalized or impersonal trust---confidence in people broadly, without specific reasons or interests. It reflects default interactions with strangers and aligns with real-world behaviors. Trust has been important both in interpersonal relations and in institution building. Institutional evolution is closely linked to trust. Reasons to feel insecure: The Anthropocene era has introduced a new generation of global, systemic threats to human security, stemming from development practices that prioritized wellbeing but neglected agency. These threats include digital risks, violent conflict, social inequalities, and inadequate healthcare systems. This evolving context challenges the sufficiency of traditional development achievements in addressing human security concerns. - The concept of human security is evident because it emphasizes that its three defining aspirations: freedom from want, fear, and indignity are interconnected and cannot be addressed in isolation. Achieving these requires a holistic and systemic approach. For example, because of isolated approaches to human security, in an effort to improve human development, one of the factors that negatively influences human security has also been increasing: As countries have raised their Human Development Index scores, the strain on the planet has generally increased, according to a new index that measures planetary pressures. Key threats to HS: 1. **Digital Technology Threats**: While digital advancements have improved various aspects of human development, such as access to health and education, they also pose risks. These include the concentration of power among tech companies, the spread of misinformation, and the deepening of inequalities. 2. **Violent Conflict**: Despite global increases in income, conflict continues to affect over a quarter of the world's population. The number of forcibly displaced people has increased, with 82.4 million displaced by 2020. Furthermore, violence against environmental activists has risen, and even high-HDI countries are seeing a rise in nonstate conflict fatalities. 3. **Inequalities Across Groups**: Inequalities based on group identity represent serious assaults on human dignity. Gender inequalities, like those exposed by the \#MeToo movement, persist even in affluent or high-profile sectors, indicating deep-seated insecurities and systemic discrimination. The fact that marginalized groups continue to face systemic assaults on their dignity contributes to broader human insecurity. 4. **Healthcare Systems**: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the vulnerabilities in global healthcare systems, exacerbating inequalities in vaccine access and exposing the limits of national and international responses. Unfortunately, the pandemic affected all dimensions of human development. This shows that improvements in human wellbeing, such as those measured by the Human Development Index (HDI), do not guarantee security. **Agency:** Agency plays a crucial role in protection and empowerment strategies, as it involves meaningful participation in decision-making processes. When people are actively engaged, the perceived tension between protection and empowerment often disappears, as agency ensures protection occurs within a participatory framework. International conventions, like the ILO\'s Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, support the active involvement of affected groups in policy design. Moreover, agency adds legitimacy to strategies and initiatives, making them more effective. However, achievements in agency do not always align with wellbeing improvements, as people may act based on values that don't enhance their personal wellbeing. Therefore, evaluating development solely by wellbeing metrics can overlook the importance of agency. States alone cannot ensure human security in an interconnected world; global cooperation is essential. While national governments play a key role in advancing human security, multilateral approaches are needed to address global challenges. The COVID 19 pandemic is the perfect example of that. Strengthening the social contract within states is important, but it is insufficient without a broader global effort. UN Secretary-General António Guterres advocates for a \"new global deal\" to address interconnected global challenges. This calls for ethical engagement with global issues, as emphasized by Amartya Sen. In light of the Anthropocene context, the concept of solidarity (working together to address shared challenges) complements protection and empowerment strategies to enhance human security. Solidarity is about collective action for the common good, based on shared humanity. Possible updates for human security: - On the agents: Move beyond traditional agents for change. Ex. Indigenous groups should be acknowledged as agents of human security through their local actions in the sustainable management of forests. - On the targets: Move beyond human security for developing countries. - On the threats: Move beyond siloed security approaches. Human security is an intrinsic complement to human development in the Anthropocene context. **A brief account of the origins, achievements and challenges of the human security concept** The 1994 Human Development Report highlighted four key characteristics of human security: universalism, interdependence, prevention and people-centredness. Seven dimensions were identified as part of a people-centred concept of security: - Economic security - Food security - Health security - Environmental security - Personal security - Community security - Political security May 2003: Human Security Now offered a new definition of human security centred around ensuring the integrity of a "vital core" in human lives, often interpreted as set of basic capabilities: "to protect the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human fulfilment". Criticism of the human security approach can be grouped into five categories. - Conceptual - Analytical - Political - Moral - Operational **3^rd^ reading:** While Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan focus on securing their 2,387-kilometre river border from trafficking, extremism, and terrorism as part of their national security priorities, the border communities living along the Amu Darya and Panj rivers face broader human security challenges. These challenges include access to sustainable livelihoods, quality healthcare, education, and sufficient water for irrigation. To address these daily struggles, a new approach to border security is needed. The security of the 2,387-kilometre border between Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Afghanistan is crucial for preventing illegal activities like trafficking and extremism. While national security measures focus on border control, these strategies often overlook the everyday human security concerns of border communities, such as access to livelihoods, healthcare, education, and water. A study of border communities along the Amu Darya and Panj rivers reveals that these areas are economically impoverished, environmentally unstable, and isolated, which exacerbates local insecurity and limits opportunities for cross-border cooperation. Strict border controls also harm local economies and foster conditions conducive to extremism and trafficking. The study suggests that a more effective border security approach would involve addressing the human security needs of these communities, promoting cross-border cooperation, and empowering local populations to contribute to stability. By investing in local development and improving cross-border ties, states can enhance both security and prosperity in border regions. **Elements of a potential human security boarder regime** A potential human security border regime would focus on enhancing the well-being of border communities through localized development and cross-border cooperation. Local Empowerment and Development: - Involve border communities in decision-making about local and cross-border development. - Create economic opportunities through public works, small enterprises, and agricultural support to encourage legal activities. - Build essential infrastructure like schools and clinics, and address environmental risks, such as unstable river movements affecting farming. - Provide healthcare and livelihood support to reduce drug consumption and its related security risks. Cross-Border Cooperation: - Foster better relations and trust between neighboring communities through people-to-people exchanges and cross-border councils. - Invest in joint projects to share natural resources like water, land, and energy to alleviate environmental and economic insecurities. - Develop and support border markets to improve economic conditions and exchange of ideas and goods. - Promote joint religious education initiatives to prevent radicalization. - Shift international aid from physical security measures to projects that improve living conditions and foster cooperation between border communities. This should include support for cross-border initiatives on both sides of the Tajik-Afghan border. **4^th^ reading:** Human Devlopment Report (1994) = was the text that made the term Human Security used (by governments, academia, NGOs, UN). The 1994 report does not give a single definition of human security. **A Canadian** concept paper defined human security as \'freedom from pervasive threats to people\'s rights, their safety, or even their lives'. And the key strategies for strengthening human security were identified as \'strengthening legal norms and building the capacity to enforce them'. **The Japanese** adoption of the term leaned closer to the UNDP concept; centered on the United Nations Human Security Trust Fund -- a Japanese source of project funding for UN agencies for humanitarian purposes. Japan funded the Commission on Human Security (2001). In 2003, the report "Human Security Now" was published. **Human development as a paradigm shifting concept:** Shifting development: Instead of discussing distribution or building policies on a notion of automatically increasing resources (which is proven in many development context as unviable), it concentrates on "the basics for securing humanity". Shifting security: The purpose was to get away from the state security paradigm. The state -- and state sovereignty -- must serve and support the people from which it draws its legitimacy. Shifting away from humanitarian interventions: HS interventions happen carefully under the statement: Not a right to intervene, but a responsibility to protect. A shift towards the subjects of security: This implies a focus on subjective security (what makes people feel secure). **Human security as a bridging concept:** Bridging security and development: One of the most unexplored potential of the HS paradigm: bringing together fear and want dimensions into one framework. Presently, neither policymakers, nor researchers are prepared to create solutions that tackle both simultaneously. Bridging realism and ethics: HS functions as a boundary object. A boundary object \'should be malleable enough to be used by diverse parties, while robust enough to keep sufficient shared meaning across this range of users\' and \'must be more than a general idea like equity or freedom; it should span between ideals, life situations and actions. Along with human development, human security had the function of bringing ethical concerns into the economistic frameworks of traditional development bulwarks like the World Bank or USAID. **Human Security as an appropriated concept** Appropriation for development: Security issues by their very nature are well poised to fight, and win, battles of attention and resources in international organizations such as the UN and national bureaucracies. To also gain attention, other aspects that constitute a person's development had to be "securized". This is why domains such as economics are now looked at through a security lens, as it is part of a person's overall security. Appropriation for security: The 1994 human development report nods at freedom from fear before going on to emphasize the necessity for human development policies. The Canadian approach does it the exact way around. The Canadians criticized the UNDP's approach for being broad and unwieldy, and for largely ignoring human insecurity resulting from violent conflict. Canada has even come to drop the development element entirely. Johan Galtung: The report legitimizes the word \'security\' by giving it the connotation \'human\'. Wha then happens is beyond the pages of the report. We would expect the state system with its monopoly on the violent means of security to use this legitimation, justifying intervention inside other states in the name of \'human security\'.... Since the security discourse tends to see the solution to violence in terms of counter-violence, \'security\' is essentially a euphemism for \'combat'. **Towards holistic policies:** The Commission\'s report emphasizes a balance between development and security, advocating a dual focus on protection and empowerment. However, it prioritizes promoting the concept of human security over offering actionable policy changes, allowing governments to claim they already address it without altering their practices. While its recommendations cover a wide range of issues---violence, arms control, health, education, and trade---they still largely treat security and development as separate policy areas. **Shifting and bridging practices: Job description for HS:** 1\. Military Policies: The shift from traditional warfare to peacekeeping has evolved into concepts like \"robust peacekeeping\" and \"peace enforcement\" to address contemporary human insecurities. The Study Group on Europe\'s Security Capabilities emphasizes the principle of minimum force, suggesting that lethal action should only occur when absolutely necessary, akin to police practices. Soldiers must adapt their decisions based on the situation while being legally accountable for their actions. 2\. Humanitarian Policies: Humanitarian assistance often operates under a state-centric logic, focusing on top-down, risk-averse aid that can create dependency and sustain conflicts. A shift towards a human security framework would encourage participatory approaches even in crises and integrate long-term development with immediate humanitarian efforts. The EU\'s Rapid Reaction Mechanism exemplifies best practices by responding to urgent needs while supporting long-term development goals. 3\. Intelligence Policies: Traditional intelligence practices prioritize secrecy and information hoarding. A human security-oriented intelligence policy advocates for broad information-sharing to enhance security, emphasizing engagement with local communities. Proposed measures include monitoring missions, emergency information offices, and citizen advice bureaus. 4\. Rule of Law and Human Security: While acknowledging international law\'s importance, the Canadian approach lacks practical application, often being criticized as imperialistic. A genuine commitment to the rule of law should focus on restoring local trust in legal systems, emphasizing law enforcement to protect individuals from violence and exploitation. 5\. Challenges in Implementation: Establishing a law-enforcement approach is complex, requiring collaboration with local populations to repair legal systems rather than imposing foreign state-building models. 6\. Human Security Worker Concept: Human security roles should be reimagined to move beyond traditional job titles associated with secrecy, aggression, or aloofness. A new type of \"human security worker\" would combine military, police, and development skills, enabling them to address both immediate protection needs and long-term development goals. This role would prioritize local empowerment and involve ongoing training that includes cultural and political context. 7\. Operational Ethos: Human security workers should focus on empowering local communities, with the aim of eventually becoming redundant as locals take charge of their security and development. Their presence should be less intrusive, avoiding the pitfalls of expensive international personnel that can create resentment. 8\. Global Interdependence: Insecurity is a global concern, necessitating a shift in policy practices to genuinely reflect the interconnectedness of human security issues. The proposals aim to move beyond rhetoric to actionable policies that embody the principles of human security. **5^th^ reading:** The Belgrade Conference on Human Security conference represents a vision that prioritizes people over state-centric security frameworks and fosters debate on how the state should protect and empower its citizens. The Commission on Human Security advanced this idea through its 2003 report, Human Security Now, which emphasized dual freedoms: from want (access to basic needs and services) and from fear (threats such as conflict and human rights abuses). The concept applied particularly well to Central Asia\'s challenges of democratic and economic transitions. The 2022 UNDP Human Development Report revisited the 1994 concept, updating it for the Anthropocene. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the limitations of conventional security approaches. National security strategies failed to protect people effectively from a global health crisis that impacted health, economy, and well-being across borders. This highlighted the need for a broader, more inclusive approach to security that addresses both immediate threats and long-term vulnerabilities. Human Security differs from traditional security and development frameworks. It is not just about survival; it is about ensuring a life of dignity, well-being, and sustainability. Unlike Human Rights, which are legally binding and rooted in international agreements, Human Security focuses on conditions enabling rights to be fulfilled by addressing threats and building resilience. Human Security is marginalized in academia and policy. - In France, where international relations often leans toward sociology and institutional studies, Human Security is seen as an activist or policy-oriented concept, disconnected from traditional academic inquiry. Human Security overlaps with areas like development, human rights, and traditional security studies but is often compartmentalized into separate disciplines without sufficient integration. This siloed approach limits the ability to understand how threats in one area (ex. economic insecurity) can trigger crises in others (ex. political instability). The Human Rights community has been reluctant to fully embrace Human Security. This is because it viewed it as potentially duplicative or even as a strategic use of rights rhetoric to justify state intervention. Key issues with the evolution of HS: - Geopolitical and Cultural Divides: Critics argue that Human Security has been used to justify policies that prioritize the interests of the global North at the expense of the South, reinforcing existing power imbalances and ignoring the real causes of global conflicts. - Lack of Universal Consensus: The broad, inclusive vision of Human Security, which aims to address the full range of threats (fear, want, indignity), has struggled for acceptance as a universal concept. - Association with the Responsibility to Protect (R2P): While responsibility to protect was intended to prevent extreme forms of state violence, it has been perceived as a \"green light\" for Western-led interventions that are selective and politically motivated. - Instrumentalization for Foreign Policy: Human Security has been appropriated as a tool of foreign policy by countries like Canada, Japan, Norway, and Switzerland. These nations have used it to project their own values and influence abroad, framing it as part of their aid and intervention strategies. ### To reclaim the original vision of Human Security, international institutions and policymakers must: - Promote consistency in how the concept is applied, ensuring that it addresses threats universally and equitably. - Challenge double standards by applying Human Security principles equally across all societies, not just in areas perceived as vulnerable. - Integrate domestic and foreign policy by developing policies that prioritize the security of individuals within all nations. - Strengthen global cooperation and resist the use of Human Security as a vehicle for geopolitical maneuvering. The UNDP\'s 2022 revision of the Human Security Report represents an effort to update and expand upon the seminal work of the 1994 Human Development Report. Themes of the 2022 revision: 1. The Anthropocene Context 2. Agency and Solidarity 3. Updating Threats and Freedoms 4. Global vs. Local Perspective 5. Human Security as an Agency Tool **6^th^ reading:** Checklist of elements of human security analysis (questions): 1\. Whose security? Who are the agents considered? 2\. Security of what? Within the broad framework of "survival, livelihood and dignity", which values will receive attention, at a particular time and place in a particular study? 3. Security in respect to which threats? 4\. Security and threats as perceived by whom? 5\. To be responded to by whom? 6\. Using what means? For example, through (and/or by upgrading) the existing authorized institutions or by innovation? 7\. To what extent? What minimum thresholds and target levels should prevail? To complement the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), human security analysis recommends integrating these principles into policy-making: - Incorporating diverse perspectives: Policies should include the voices of vulnerable and marginalized groups. This kind of inclusive analysis can inform targeted interventions and reduce policy misalignment. - Identifying Hotspots: Region-specific studies that map risks and identify \'hotspots\' where multiple threats converge can prioritize policy attention effectively. - Using flexible focusing: Comprehensive, broad studies should be conducted to understand the overall landscape of threats and interconnections. Based on these findings, in-depth, targeted studies can focus on high-priority issues and help understand their implications in detail. - Systematic comparisons between alternative policy routs: Different policy responses should be compared to assess their impacts on people and determine which measures best meet their needs. Human security resilience and the SDGs Empowering Policy Agents and Tools: - States are responsible for upholding human security and should integrate it into national strategies, aligning with the social contract where citizens contribute to societal functioning and the state ensures public goods and services. - Local authorities and community-based organizations play crucial roles in implementing and monitoring policies at grassroots levels. - International organizations and NGOs can provide resources, facilitate cross-border cooperation, and help amplify marginalized voices. - Policy tools may include participatory governance, human security indexes, prevention-focused initiatives, educational and empowerment programs. Empowerment and Agency: Policies should focus on building the resilience and capacity of individuals and communities to engage actively in securing their well-being. Securitability and Resilience: Emphasizing the human ability to withstand challenges is central, aligning with sustainable development and long-term security strategies. Human Rights-Based Approaches: These approaches align with human security by promoting equality, participation, and accountability in policy development and implementation. Latvia Latvia\'s journey with human security began with the 2003 Human Development Report (NHDR). This report emphasized that resilience goes beyond addressing threats; it involves strengthening the capacity of individuals and society to prevent, cope with, and recover from challenges. It also outlined five core securitability factors for fostering resilience: - Economic security (stable income), - Personal characteristics (e.g., self-efficacy), - Interpersonal relationships (social support), - Cooperation skills, - Trust in institutions (government, NGOs). Latvia 2030, the Sustainable Development Strategy finalized in 2010, served as a foundational framework for aligning national policy with sustainable development goals. This strategy was developed through a participatory process. Although Latvia's NDP2020 predated the SDGs, the 2030 Agenda's adoption in 2015 further reinforced the importance of resilience and sustainable development. SDG limitations: - They treat all goals as equally important, making prioritization difficult. - The framework lacks agility to address new and unforeseen risks. - The SDGs do not directly engage with people's perceptions. The COVID 19 crisis brought a renewed interest in fostering human resilience. Strengths: - Comprehensive framework - Adaptability - Perception-based policies Limitations: - Defensive connotations - Complexity in measurement - Attribution issues Human resilience as a sustainable strategy: The pandemic proved that resilience-building is not just about responding to immediate threats but also preparing for long-term challenges. Latvia's approach emphasized mutual support and government responsiveness. This is a sustainable model for dealing with crises. Moreover, by fostering a sense of social trust and community cooperation before the pandemic, Latvia was better positioned to adapt and recover when the crisis struck. Learning from COVID 19: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for integrating human security analysis with the SDGs to better address vulnerabilities, crisis preparedness, and psychological well-being. The pandemic\'s impacts were not just health-related but also economic and social, disproportionately affecting poorer and marginalized groups. While some countries, like Taiwan and Latvia, effectively responded, others, including the UK and US, faced severe issues due to poor preparation and delayed action. Furthermore, the crisis also increased economic disparities, with informal workers and care providers, especially women, suffering more. Latvia's proactive measures, such as income support and public communication, demonstrated a model of resilience that built societal trust. Conclusion: The COVID-19 crisis underscored the need for integrating human security into the SDGs framework to make people and societies more resilient. Human security analysis helps identify vulnerabilities, prepare for disruptions, and encourage cooperative, cross-sector approaches to address interconnected risks. This perspective emphasizes understanding people\'s real needs, fears, and capabilities, ensuring policies are responsive and inclusive. The SDGs\' ambitious goals require a complementary human security approach to recognize threats that could undermine progress. Recommendations for the UN include embedding human security analysis into SDG strategies and integrating it with disaster risk reduction and human development. Governments should shift from viewing security primarily through military lenses to prioritizing human-centric threats and coordinate personalized responses for those facing multiple vulnerabilities. Research efforts should focus on developing human security indicators and synthesizing findings to enhance policy.