Human security and the separation of security and development

Abstract

This article advances a counter-intuitive argument about what are argued to be the links between security and development in human security. The argument is counter-intuitive because the merging of development and security is explicitly part of the human security discourse. However, this paper will argue that human security can better be understood not through its own discourse, but placed in the context of the changing relationship between the developing world and the developed world after the end of the Cold War. Rather than the merging of security and development it will suggest that human security is representative of a period in international relations in which there is a separation of security and development. The broader international context is one in which the developing world is less of a security concern to the developed than was the case during the Cold War.

Notes

 1. McCormack, Power and Agency, 114–115.

 2. UN, United Nations Human Development Report, 22.

 3. Paris, Human Security.

 4. Duffield, Development, Security.

 5. Eg, Rasmussen, The Risk Society.

 6. For overviews see McCormack, Power and Agency; Paris, Human Security; Glasius, Human Security.

 7. Thakur, A Political Worldview, 347–348.

 8. Development is a highly contested concept. For the purposes of the first section of this article which discusses the linking of security and development within the human security literature, the concept of development found within that literature is taken. Within the concept of human security, the concept of development implies a situation in which individuals are free to achieve their potential, e.g. UN, United Nations Human Development Report, Chapter 1. Threats therefore to the individual are associated with situations in which there is a lack of, for example, economic opportunities or health problems, see e.g., UN, Human Security in Theory and Practice. Such problems might be assumed to be associated with a lack of material development within a given state. However, as is made clear in the major human security documents such as the United Nations Human Development Report, the model of development associated with human security is that of sustainable development which is not necessarily associated with material development in a state. See for example Pupavac, Human Security for a discussion of the difference between material development and sustainable development. The problems associated with sustainable development within the human security literature are also highlighted by Duffield, Development, Security and Unending War.

 9. King and Murray, Rethinking Human Security, 585.

10. UN, United Nations Human Development Report.

11. UN, United Nations Human Development Report, 22.

12. For example, UN, United Nations Human Development Report, 22–24; UN, Human Security for All, 1; CHS, Human Security Now, 2; UN, Human Security in Theory and Practice, 7.

13. UN, United Nations Human Development Report, 22; also see page 23 for an elaboration of the way in which development and security should be linked.

14. UN, Human Security for All, 1; CHS, Human Security Now, 2; UN, An Agenda for Peace; UN, In Larger Freedom, para. 16; ICISS, The Responsibility to Protect, 14–15;

15. The UN Human Security Unit has adopted a ‘broad’ definition of human security. Within the human security discourse there are argued to be two approaches to human security, ‘broad’ and ‘narrow’. Canada, for example, has adopted the latter approach. For more explanation see McCormack, Power and Agency or Paris, Human Security. However, within both approaches the connection between security and development is held to be key.

16. UN, Human Security in Theory and Practice, 7–8.

17. Bellamy and McDonald, The Utility of Human Security, 373.

18. MacFarlane, A Useful Concept That Risks Losing its Political Salience, 368; Annan, “Two Concepts of Sovereignty”, 81; UN, In Larger Freedom; Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All, 9.

19. Suhrke, Human Security and The Interests of States, 271–272; Macfarlane, A Useful Concept That Risks Losing its Political Salience, 368; see McCormack, Power and Agency.

20. Paris, Human Security.

21. Owen, Measuring Human Security; Owen, Human Security.

22. King and Murray, Rethinking Human Security.

23. Thomas and Tow, The Utility of Human Security.

24. Hoogensen and Stuvoy, Gender, Resistance and Human Security.

25. Roberts, Human Insecurity.

26. Duffield, Development, Security and Unending War: Grayson, Human Security as Power/Knowledge; Elbe et al., Sovereign Power and the Biopolitics of Human Security.

27. Duffield, Development, Security and Unending War, 16.

28. Grayson, Human Security as Power/Knowledge, 384–385.

29. Duffield, Development, Security and Unending War.

30. Duffield, Development, Security and Unending WarIbid; Grayson, Human Security as Power/Knowledge, 395.

31. ICISS, Responsibility to Protect, 5.

32. Neocleous, Critique of Security; Pupavac, Human Security.

33. Van der Pijl, The Making of an Atlantic Ruling Class, 138.

34. Griffin, Foreign Aid, 645.

35. Sellars, The Rise and Rise of Human Rights, 1.

36. UN, Charter.

37. Maier, In Search of Stability, 124, 121; Van der Pijl, The Making of an Atlantic Ruling Class, 138, 141–142.

38. Neocleous, Critique of Security, 171.

39. See for example President Truman's inaugural address in 1949.

40. For a discussion see Christian Aid.

41. Pupavac, Human Security, 164.

42. Griffin, Foreign Aid, 647.

43. Hayter, Aid as Imperialism, 9.

44. Neocleous, Critique of Security, 175.

45. Pupavac, Human Security, 167.

46. Figures for Europe may be found in Olsen, Western Europe's Relations with Africa, 300; and for America in Tarnoff and Nowels, Foreign Aid.

47. Riddell, ‘The End of Foreign Aid?’, 313.

48. Riddell, ‘The End of Foreign Aid?’, 313

49. Kaldor, New and Old Wars.

50. Cramer, Civil War, 77–78.

51. Woodward, Balkan Tragedy, 104.

52. UN, An Agenda for Peace; ICISS, The Responsibility to Protect.

53. Tarnoff and Nowels, Foreign Aid.

54. UN, An Agenda for Peace, 44.

55. For example see Blair's famous Chicago speech, Doctrine of the International Community.

56. ICISS, The Responsibility to Protect.

57. Teson, The Liberal Case; Slaughter, A Duty to Prevent; Chomsky, Rogue States; Zolo, Invoking Humanity.

58. Christian Aid, The Politics of Poverty.

59. For example in reaction to the Kosovo intervention see McCormack, ‘The Responsibility to Protect’ and domestic accusations of hypocrisy see for example, Pilger, ‘Blood on Our Hands’.

60. Hehir, ‘The Responsibility to Protect’.

61. For example, Dillon and Reid, The Liberal Way of War.

62. Cox, ‘The Empire's Back in Town’.

63. Tarnoff and Nowels, Foreign Aid.

64. For example, Blair, ‘Speech by the Prime Minister’.

65. BBC, ‘US Neglected Post-War Planning for Iraq’.

66. Dombey, ‘Mission Over’.

67. Haas, ‘In Afghanistan’.

68. Woodward, ‘McChrystal: More Forces or “Mission Failure”’.

69. Tiedemann, ‘Holbrooke on Success’.

70. MacAskill, ‘White House Shifts Afghanistan Strategy’.

71. See endnote 15 for literature that explains the differences between the two schools of human security.

72. MOFA, ‘The Trust Fund for Human Security’. For the full list of projects coordinated by the UN TFHS see http://ochaonline.un.org/TrustFund/UNTFHSaround theworld/tabid/2231/Default.aspx.

73. For details see http://www.international.gc.ca/glynberry/index.aspx.

74. McRae, ‘Human Security’.

75. UN, Human Security for All.

76. Black, ‘Mapping the Interplay of Human Security’, 56.

77. My thanks to Dr Vanessa Pupavac for this point.