The Limits of the human security agenda: the case of Canada's response to the Timor crisis

Abstract

Enthusiasts of human security argue that what is needed in the post‐Cold‐War period is a foreign policy agenda that is more ‘people‐centred’ than the state‐centred focus of security policy during the Cold War period. Among the most enthusiastic proponents of the human security paradigm in the 1990s was the Canadian government, which, in partnership with a number of other like‐minded governments, sought to press the human security agenda, taking a number of human security initiatives. However, since the late 1990s, we have seen a paradox: the concept has attracted increased attention from scholars while its salience among policy‐makers appears to be declining. Using the case of the Canadian government's policy towards the crisis in Timor in September 1999, we explore the difficulty that policy‐makers have had in moving human security from the rhetorical realm to the level of concrete policy that makes a difference to the safety of people whose security is threatened. We conclude that there was a significant gap between Canada's human security rhetoric and Ottawa's actual policy in Timor. While the Canadian government did eventually contribute troops to the International Force, East Timor (INTERFET), we show that Canada's response was slow, cautious, and minimalist. There was neither the willingness nor the capacity to be at the forefront of the efforts to send a robust force to East Timor. This case demonstrates some important limits of the human security agenda, and why this agenda remained so firmly in the realm of the rhetorical in the 1990s.

Notes

Richard H. Ullman, ‘Redefining Security’, International Security, 8 (1983), pp. 129–153; Jessica Tuchman Mathews, ‘Redefining Security’, Foreign Affairs, 68 (1989), pp. 162–177; Barry Buzan, People, States, and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post‐Cold War Era, 2nd edn (Boulder: Westview, 1991); Joseph J. Romm, Defining National Security: The Nonmilitary Aspects (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1993).

* T. S. Hataley and Kim Richard Nossal, Department of Political Studies, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6, Canada. Fax: +1‐613‐533‐6848. Email: ⟨[email protected]⟩; ⟨nossalk@post. queensu.ca⟩. We would like to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (research grant 410‐2002‐0789) for assistance that made this research possible, and the two anonymous referees engaged by the journal for their helpful comments and criticisms.

For example, J. Ann Tickner, ‘Re‐visioning Security’, in Ken Booth and Steve Smith (eds), International Relations Theory Today (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995).

Kim Richard Nossal, ‘Seeing Things? The Adornment of “Security” in Australia and Canada’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 49 (May 1995), pp. 33–47.

On human security generally, see Peter Stoett, Human and Global Security: An Exploration of Terms (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999); Ramesh Thakur, ‘The UN and Human Security’, Canadian Foreign Policy, 7 (1999), pp. 51–59. On the Canadian foreign policy context, see Heather Owens and Barbara Arneil, ‘The Human Security Paradigm Shift: A New Lens on Canadian Foreign Policy?’, Canadian Foreign Policy, 7 (1999), pp. 1–12; George MacLean, ‘Instituting and Projecting Human Security: A Canadian Perspective’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 54,3 (2000), pp. 269–276; Robin Jeffrey Hay, ‘Present at the Creation? Human Security and Canadian Foreign Policy in the Twenty‐First Century’, in Fen Osler Hampson, Michael Hart, and Martin Rudner, Canada among Nations 1999: A Big League Player? (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 215–232; the contributions in Rob McRae and Don Hubert (eds), Human Security and the New Diplomacy (Montreal and Kingston: McGill‐Queen's University Press, 2001); and the contributions to Rosalind Irwin (ed.), Ethics and Security in Canadian Foreign Policy (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2001). For a trenchant critique of the human security, see Roland Paris, ‘Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?’ International Security, 26,2 (2001), pp. 87–102.

Paris, ‘Human Security’, p. 91.

Lloyd Axworthy, ‘Make sense, not war’, Globe and Mail (17 September 2001), p. A17, ⟨http://www. wagingpeace.org/articles/01.09/010917axworthy.htm⟩.

For example, although the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) maintains a human security website (⟨http://www.humansecurity.gc.ca/psh‐en.asp⟩), Axworthy's signal contribution to the human security debate—his 1999 ‘concept paper’, discussed below—disappeared from the DFAIT website after Axworthy's retirement from politics before the 2000 Canadian general election.

Donald K. Emmerson, ‘Moralpolitik: The Timor Test’, National Interest, 58 (Winter 1999/2000), pp. 63–68.

Hay, ‘Present at the Creation’, p. 230.

Paris, ‘Human Security’, p. 92.

Owens and Arneil, ‘Human Security Paradigm Shift’, p. 2.

See Jennifer Ross, ‘Is Canada’s Human Security Policy Really the “Axworthy Doctrine”?' Canadian Foreign Policy, 8,2 (2001), pp. 75–93, who argues that the roots of the human security agenda can be traced to the policies pursued by the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney in response to the civil wars in Central America in the mid‐1980s.

For example, Lloyd Axworthy, ‘Canada and Human Security: The Need for Leadership’, International Journal, 52,2 (1997), pp. 183–196.

Fen Osler Hampson and Dean F. Oliver, ‘Pulpit Diplomacy: A Critical Assessment of the Axworthy Doctrine’, International Journal, 53,3 (1998), pp. 379–406.

On the landmines issue, see Maxwell A. Cameron, Robert J. Lawson, and Brian W. Tomlin (eds), To Walk without Fear: The Global Movement to Ban Landmines (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1998). Also Mark Gwodzdecky and Jill Sinclair, ‘Landmines and Human Security’, in McRae and Hubert (eds), Human Security, pp. 28–40; Andrew Latham, ‘Theorizing the Landmine Campaign: Ethics, Global Cultural Scripts, and the Laws of War’, in Irwin (ed.), Ethics and Security, pp. 160–78; David A. Lenarcic, Knight‐Errant: Canada and the Crusade to Ban Anti‐personnel Land Mines (Toronto: Irwin, 1998).

Michael Small, ‘The Human Security Network’, in McRae and Hubert (eds), Human Security and the New Diplomacy, pp. 231–235.

The Human Security Network includes Austria, Canada, Chile, Greece, Ireland, Jordan, Mali, The Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Switzerland, Thailand—and South Africa as an observer. See ⟨http://www. humansecuritynetwork.org/menu‐e.php⟩.

Paris, ‘Human Security’, p. 88.

Hay, ‘Present at the Creation’, p. 228.

Canada, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Human Security: Safety for People in a Changing World (Ottawa, 1999), p. 8. This document can no longer be found on the DFAIT website; it was, however, posted to a number of other sites where it can still be accessed: see, for example, ⟨http://www. summit‐americas.org/Canada/HumanSecurity‐english.htm⟩.

Kim Richard Nossal and Stéphane Roussel, ‘Canada and the Kosovo War: The Happy Follower’, in Pierre Martin and Mark R. Brawley, Alliance Politics, Kosovo, and NATO's War (New York: Palgrave, 2000), pp. 181–199.

Axworthy, ‘Kosovo and the Human Security Agenda’, Canada, Department of Foreign Affairs, Statements and Speeches 99/28, 7 April 1999, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University. For the full text, see ⟨http://198.103.104.118/minpub/Publication.asp?FileSpec=/Min_Pub_ Docs/100194.htm⟩.

On Howard's initiative, see Alexander Downer, ‘East Timor: Looking Back on 1999’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 54,1 (2000), p. 6; Garry Woodard, ‘Australia’s Foreign Policy after Timor', International Journal, 55,1 (1999–2000), pp. 2–3; also Nicholas Wheeler and Tim Dunne, ‘East Timor and the New Humanitarian Interventionism’, International Affairs, 77,4 (2001), p. 812.

William Maley, ‘Australia and the East Timor Crisis: Some Critical Comments’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 54,2 (2000), pp. 151–161.

Wheeler and Dunne, ‘East Timor and the New Humanitarian Interventionism’, p. 815.

In March 1999, an additional brigade of the ADF was moved to Darwin and put on 30‐day readiness. By June, the ADF was engaged in exercises simulating an amphibious landing in East Timor, and special forces were landed in East Timor to scout possible landing sites. Eventually, over 4500 troops were assembled in Darwin in readiness for a possible deployment to East Timor. Cotton, ‘Against the Grain’, pp. 131–132.

Ian Martin, Self‐Determination in East Timor: The United Nations, the Ballot, and International Intervention (Boulder: Lynne Reinner, 2001); Wheeler and Dunne, ‘East Timor and the New Humanitarian Interventionism’, pp. 805–827; James Cotton, ‘Against the Grain: The East Timor Intervention’, Survival, 43,1 (2001); United Nations, ‘The United Nations and East Timor—A Chronology’, ⟨http://www.un.org/peace/etimor/ Untaetchrono.html⟩; International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, The Responsibility to Protect: The Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (Ottawa: International Development Research Council, 2001), supplementary volume: Research, Bibliography, Background, pp. 114–117.

‘Militia Mayhem Kills Five Following East Timor Vote’, National Post (2 September 1999); ‘Canada Wants World to Lean on Indonesia’, Toronto Star, 2 September 1999. Axworthy was not alone in this view: on 3 September, Peter Burleigh, the deputy ambassador to the United Nations of the United States, termed an international security force for East Timor ‘not a practical suggestion’. Quoted in Joseph Nevins, ‘The Making of “Ground Zero” in East Timor in 1999: An Analysis of International Complicity in Indonesia's Crimes’, Asian Survey, 42,4 (2002), p. 639.

‘Robust Presence Needed in East Timor: Axworthy’, National Post (7 September 1999).

CTV‐TV, ‘Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister Is Dismissing Calls for Economic Sanctions against East Timor' (6 September 1999).

‘Coalition Ready to Send Troops into East Timor’, National Post (8 September 1999), p. A1.

CBC‐TV, ‘East Timor Crisis’ (8 September 1999) and ‘Canada’s Contribution to the East Timor Crisis' (7 September 1999).

‘APEC Divided over Peacekeepers’, Toronto Star (9 September 1999), p. A1.

CBC‐TV, ‘Lloyd Axworthy’, The National Magazine (9 September 1999).

CTV‐TV, ‘Canada Criticized for Inaction over East Timor Bloodletting’, Canada AM (8 September 1999).

CTV‐TV, ‘The Unfolding Crisis in East Timor Had Hijacked the Agenda at the APEC Summit in Auckland, New Zealand’, National News (11 September 1999).

CBC‐TV, ‘Sending in the Troops’, Sunday Report (12 September 1999). Habibie made his decision in the early hours of 13 September; across the international date line it was still the 12th in North America.

CBC‐TV, ‘Canada’s Commitment', Sunday Report (12 September 1999).

CTV‐TV, ‘The Continuing Violence in East Timor’, National News (13 September 1999); ‘Canadian Military Can’t Meet PM's Promise, Eggleton Says', National Post (15 September 1999).

Canadian Council for International Cooperation (CCIC), News Release, 13 September 1999, ⟨http://www. ccic.ca/ archives/news/1999/nr_130999_east_timor.htm⟩. The CCIC's Asia Pacific Working Group included the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace, USC Canada, Canadian University Service Overseas, South Asia Partnership, Canadian Human Rights Foundation, Alternatives Inc., Indonesia Canada Alliance, Philippine Development Assistance Program, Inter Pares, Canada Asia Working Group, and International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development.

‘CLC Wants Boycott on Indonesia’, National Post (15 September 1999), p. A4.

For details, see Jessica Blitt, ‘OP Toucan and Beyond: Contradictions in Canadian Policy in East Timor’, Datalink, 87 (2000); and Canada, Department of National Defence, Annual Report of the Chief of the Defence Staff, 1999–2000 (Ottawa, 2001).

See, for example, the critique of Svend J. Robinson New Democratic Party (NDP) member of Parliament from Burnaby‐Douglas in British Columbia: Canada, Parliament, Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence (17 September 1999); also see Joe Woodward, ‘Business Comes First: While East Timor burns, Canada Maintains Its Unbroken Record of Ignoring It’, Alberta Report, 26 (20 September 1999).

East Timor Alert Network BC, ‘The Tragedy of East Timor’, ⟨http://www.redeagle.com/etanbc/ intro.html⟩.

CBC‐TV, ‘Chrétien Applauds Suharto’s Decision' (21 May 1998).

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Minutes (17 September 1999); on the pepper‐spraying of protesting students, see W. Wesley Pue (ed.), Pepper in Our Eyes: The APEC Affair (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2000).

Cited in Blitt, ‘OP Toucan and Beyond’, p. 3.

See, for example, Axworthy's dismissive response when Brian Stewart of CBC suggested to him that ‘many people will doubt Canada’s willingness to be really forceful on this because of our trade relations with Indonesia, which we've worked very hard on, over the years, to build up. I mean are you prepared to even consider sanctions, an embargo here?' Axworthy immediately retorted, ‘I don’t think that's got anything to do with it.' CBC‐TV, National Magazine (9 September 1999).

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Minutes (17 September 1999).

Geoffrey Robinson, ‘If You Leave Us, We Will Die’, Dissent (Winter 2002), p. 89.

Robinson, ‘If You Leave Us, We Will Die’, p. 97.

A common belief in the early interwar period was that if international public opinion raised a hue and cry, governments would rethink their aggressive policies. Because the ‘hue and cry’ strategy so manifestly did not work against Japan, Italy, and Germany, the idea fell into disrepute. Bell, ‘East Timor, Canberra and Washington’, pp. 172–173.

‘East Timor Troops Need More Power: Axworthy’, National Post (14 September 1999), p. A1.

‘Chrétien Confirms Troops, Hardware for East Timor’, National Post (18 September 1999), p. A10.

For an account of the early days of the INTERFET deployment, see John Blaxland, Information‐Era Manoeuvre: The Australian‐Led Mission to East Timor (Canberra: Australian Army Land Warfare Studies Centre, 2002), ⟨http://www/defence.gov.au/army/lwsc/⟩.

On the Canadian debate over the use of force in the first Gulf War, see Kim Richard Nossal, ‘Quantum Leaping: The Gulf Debate in Australia and Canada’, in Michael McKinley (ed.), The Gulf War: Critical Perspectives (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1994), pp. 48–71.

Globe and Mail (12 January 1994; 10 February 1994).

This point is made, inter alia, in Hampson and Oliver, ‘Pulpit Diplomacy’; Hay, ‘Present at the Creation’; Kim Richard Nossal, ‘Pinchpenny Diplomacy: The Decline of “Good International Citizenship” in Canadian Foreign Policy’, International Journal, 54 (Winter 1998–1999), pp. 88–105; Louis F. Nastro and Kim Richard Nossal, ‘The Commitment‐Capability Gap: Implications for Canadian Foreign Policy in the Post‐Cold War Era’, Canadian Defence Quarterly, 27 (Autumn 1997), pp. 19–22.

‘Canadian Military Can’t Meet PM's Promise, Eggleton Says', National Post (15 September 1999), p. A1.

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Minutes (17 September 1999).

Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Statements and Speeches, 99/48, ‘Civilians in War: 100 Years after The Hague Peace Conference’, New York, 24 September 1999.