The international community has so far failed to adequately address the problem of climate change. Although there is still a case for mitigation efforts, it is clear that climate change is already under way. If states ever find it beneficial to join a concerted global effort on emissions cuts, it is likely to be for economic rather than humanitarian reasons. By committing themselves to climate change mitigation, states may earn income from existing and potential emission markets, gain advantages in the emerging fields of green technology and energy, and maybe more importantly, enhance their chances of long-term economic growth and stability. Therefore, a human security approach is not likely to be influential, effective or even needed in the area of global climate change mitigation.
Instead, human security advocates could help by concentrating on the people affected by climate change and on decreasing its negative impacts. This can be done through two broad strategies: disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. While the former diminishes the impacts of natural disasters and decreases the occurrence of human-induced ones, the latter concentrates on helping societies adjust to new circumstances brought about by climate change. Together, they may enable people to live with the changes they are facing.
One example of a successful local implementation of these strategies is found in Nepal’s Jugedi stream watershed, an area suffering from climate change-related disasters in the form of prolonged droughts and floods. Since 2004, the INGO Practical Action has implemented a project in cooperation with local NGOs and poor rural communities aiming at climate change adaptation and resilience through livelihood diversification, environmental protection, and disaster prevention. The measures have included climate change and disaster awareness campaigns, emergency preparation and early warning systems for floods, as well as the introduction of new crops and landslide-resistant agricultural methods such as hedgerow technology. Also, simple systems to measure precipitations and other climate variables have been installed at schools, helping produce accurate place-specific predictions for future adaptation strategies.
This is a more realistic and practical approach than campaigning for international mitigation, since risk reduction and adaptation initiatives can concentrate on this type of narrow-scoped, local programs. Risk reduction and adaptation strategies should, as in Nepal, be closely linked to local development. They should address local needs, and empower people to improve their own lives rather than make communities dependent on aid. The main role of governments and IGOs should be to provide support for community and NGO initiatives and to develop policies that enable and facilitate local action. With the active involvement of local communities, application of local skills and knowledge, and implementation of locally controlled projects with limited scope , solutions under this approach are more likely to be both cost-efficient, well-targeted, and sustainable.
The projects in Nepal have been well received on both governmental and local levels, and the methods developed are being incorporated in regional and national strategies. On the whole, these projects have left communities more educated, less vulnerable, and better equiped to cope with the effects of climate change.
Would it be better to concentrate on adaptation rahter than on mitigation, as climate change is already a threat to human security? Or should we focus on emissions cuts in order to prevent an even larger impact in the future?
Anna
Who Puts the Terror in Terrorism?
March 26, 2009
The new age of security in our generation will recount the efforts by our world to fight a threat defined as terrorism. What is terrorism? Terrorism is an act of violence and destruction intended to create a psychology of fear and terror against its target. These acts are commonly used for ideological reasons and used against non-combatants. They are an international unlawful means of violence and not condoned by just war principles.
Following the September 11th attacks, the government of the United States responded with the launch of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). Since then, our perceptions from the west of terrorists have been Islamic fundamentalists or ethnic separatists targeting western countries that have deemed them as ideological or religious enemies. CNN and other western media have flashed images of Arabs holding AK-47s with buildings exploding in the background, insinuating that our greatest enemies are of specific backgrounds and beliefs. However, what has been less publicized is the involvement of certain governments sponsoring these acts of terrorism, as well as state terrorism.
Richard Falk in his book, Revolutionaries & Functionalities, approaches the definition of terrorism with simplicity – “violence directed against innocent victims is terrorism, whether carried out against the state or by the state.“
By this definition, the United States themselves have been engaged in acts that could be deemed state terrorism. Some of these might include:
1. the bombing of Libya in 1986.
2. Aiding the Contras against the Nicaraguan government in the 1980s.
3. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (although many have argued that this was necessary to end the war).
In fact, state-sponsored terrorism is arguably more dangerous than terrorism by organizations alone as they have easier access to lethal weapons. With resources provided by governments, they become well equipped with intelligence and material resources to continue carrying out their actions. When one looks at the role of the US in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, we doubt that the US can effectively combat terrorism when their own agents may be linked to many of the terrorist acts committed in these regions.
Is the global war on terrorism truly global or is it targeted at a specific kind of terrorists? Is terrorism a threat to human security around the world or is it a projection of US security concerns? If one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, how do we tell them apart?
In our view, the ability to filter out friend from foe in this fight for security has become increasingly difficult.
Weldon & Michelle
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, on-going since 1947 if not before, is perceived by the Arab world, to be one of the most defining conflicts of our time. Hamas, from a Palestinian perspective, is a democratically elected party responsible for governing this region, but has not been officially recognized by Israel or the US among other states. The Israeli government addresses Hamas as a form of ‘terrorist’ threat to the security of Israel. Labeling Hamas as a terrorist group rather than as a democratically elected form of government is at the core of the Israeli-Hamas conflict.
Human Security does not exist for either the Israelis or the Palestinians since both parties are constantly living in fear. The issue of security boils down to state security versus civilian security — both of which are necessary but have not yet been feasible. This is because neither side is willing to give up what they believe is rightly theirs and this ‘belief’ is being nurtured with time and an unwillingness to compromise.
Being a stateless nation for more than forty years has taken a toll on Palestinian psychology — leaving them feeling like they have nothing left to lose. Palestinians are not recognized as resisting military occupation and are subject to being treated like ‘terrorists’ on what they believe is their own land. Moreover, the international legal legitimacy accorded to Israel as a state, provides Israelis with a “non-terrorist” military advantage. A prime example would be UN negotiations with the Israeli government on the use of prohibited weapons – the justification being that international law does not apply to Palestine since it is not an identified state. Terms like ‘terrorist’ and ‘martyr’ signify the ever growing political-culture gap among ‘us’ and ‘them’ that infuses this conflict.
For Palestinians, their lack of human security in Gaza is attributable to Israeli actions. Palestinians have been dealing with an Israeli military occupation in every sense of the word — Israeli checkpoints are a prime example of the kind of control is exercised over Palestinian civilians on a daily basis. The Israeli government’s control over water, food, electricity and medical aid during the conflict, as well as the closing down of borders aroused suspicion and caused on outcry from Arab media –mainly because the Palestinians had no way out of what was a death ground for them.
So far, peace has not been a reasonable option for either side. But peace talks are always in the works- not necessarily for the acquisition of peace but more as a political strategy whereby it is easier just to blame each other for the prolonging of the conflict until one day, someone gives up.
In the end, a Human Security diagnosis of this conflict describes an unwillingness from both parties to either recognize or respect one another’s presence in the region. The unfair use of the “terrorist” label serves to exacerbate this mutual hatred and will ultimately prolong the conflict.
Ghadir Mahdy & Luis Esteban Arellano Salinas
Asian Water Wars
March 23, 2009
Many believe that water disputes will be able to generate peaceful coexistences and actually catalyze peace talks as shown by historic examples; fifty agreements between countries relating to rivers, dams, water basins and more. Also, there are at least 263 water boundaries between countries total, but there seems to have been little conflict along many of the borders in the past.
We feel the future outlook is a lot dimmer. We suggest that at the moment, as it has been in the past, water is a priority for country leaders who rate the immediate problems of border disputes, ideological/identity/religious conflicts and energy resources higher than anything else. However, given that environmental protection and climate change policies are slowly rising, the new focus is on energy conservation, climate/ecosystem preservation, and resource allocation.
China is (or will soon be) suffering a water crisis, partly due to the fact that it has made little investment in water and water treatment infrastructure, while experiencing exponential growth. China is rapidly expanding and becoming a world power and its demands on many resources are growing, but water is a finite resource with no alternative. Even if bigger, first world countries manage to solve their problems in time, there is no guarantee that any of the smaller countries will react in time to avoid conflict.
With less water available countries like China have already diverted their water sources to its cities and industrial sectors, relying on buying in grain from abroad using their foreign reserves. This leaves poorer countries with very limited options. As the economist hints, most of the existing treaties or informal arrangements on water are asymmetrical in power, countries without foreign reserves might have to resort to armed conflict in order to challenge the terms dictated by the bigger bullies and afford foreign food sources . Eventually the challenge is for policy makers right now to make the changes that will prevent future conflicts that might not even affect riparian countries but have global impact.
The impact is made all the more dangerous by global warming; China’s glaciers are melting, their pollution is increasing, and aquifers are drying up. The north is experiencing droughts quite regularly, which are increasingly leading to bad desertification and severe sandstorms. This, in addition to its excessive pollution, is leading to food security problems, and has an abysmal impact on environmental health.
China is in such shape due to its shocking economic growth, and its sometimes wasteful use of resources (water included). This soon to be economic powerhouse could lose water completely or parts of it within 30 years. This is incredibly dangerous for the rest of the world in terms of water usage, resource allocation, and especially economy, we can’t deal with another economic downturn soon after the current one.
This may also promote inter-state conflict, China has already built several dams upstream of other countries in Southeast Asia, apparently they are considering building more on the Mekong, which would directly affect the countries of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Thailand. They are also making developments in Tibet that could negatively affect water that flows into India. A third party may need to step in as in the case of India and Pakistan and help push a new treaty between India and China, and perhaps other Asian countries as well. Asia has the some of the fastest growing economies, military expenditures, populations, and resource competition with the least amount of fresh water in the world (except Antarctica). Water treaties might be the only thing that could prevent military conflicts. They may help the recent military exercise between China and India remain simply an exercise.
Water conflicts are more likely to take place on an individual or community level as a “conflict”, rather than on a state-level as a “crisis”. The last time two states went to war over water was 4,500 years ago (“Dehydrating Conflict”)! However, in China alone, there were over 120,000 recorded conflicts over water quantity from 1990 to 2002. Therefore, there is a need to look at intra-state water conflict management systems.
A look at a few cases in China would illustrate the problems and potential solutions. The Three Gorges Dam is a project subsuming energy development, economic stimulus, geographical reallocation of water and ecological threat. Yet, it has flooded archaeological and cultural sites and displaced some 1.24 million people. Over one billion tons of wastewater is release, annually into the river, causing dramatic ecological changes. The question lingers of whether the human and environmental costs are too great compared to the economic growth achieved.
There is also competition between cities: Beijing, in need to provide sufficient drinking water to its residents, got into conflict with the neighbouring municipality of Tianjin because of a reservoir project that draws water from the upper reaches of the Juhe River which runs through both cities. Both cities refused to compromise, so what can be done in this situation?
When water conflicts are not well-managed, drastic consequences can appear. In Zhejiang province, villagers got so fed up with the polluting discharges reaching them along rivers from the textile factories in Jiangsu province that they created their own dam in the 50-meter-wide river.
From a Human Security point of view, much improvements could be made in China’s water conflict management strategies.
First, there is a stress on meeting the water needs of each individual, and not just the state. This would prevent disproportionate sacrificing of people’s interests and the environment for the sake of economic growth, as it arguably was done in the Three Gorges Project.
Second, a higher priority would be given to water as an urgent security need. This stems from the ‘freedom from want’ school that access to water is a fundamental basic tenet to human security. This is evident as water is also inextricably linked to poverty. Treating water needs as a priority would imply that the government needs to establish a comprehensive framework for water conflict management, and not just deal with it on an ad-hoc basis.
Thirdly, human security acknowledges the capacity for cooperation and collaboration. This means that all stakeholders should be included in water conflict resolution processes, and not just having the government decide. Moreover, when processes are at a stalemate, as in the example of conflict between Beijing and Tianjin, a competent third-party could be called in to mediate. The World Bank in the case of the Indus Water Treaty was a successful example of third-party mediation.
Given that most water conflicts are intra-state, there is a need to develop a plausible framework to address these conflicts. How can we refine our security framework strategically to resolve the huge numbers and different types of water conflicts, especially those that occur within the state?
By Carmen, Ng Ka Man & Angie, Chan Nga Ki
Indus Water Treaty Can Not Yet Be Called a Success
March 17, 2009
The Indus Water Treaty is a water-sharing treaty between India and Pakistan, by which it was agreed that the use of water from the Indus River and its tributaries would be divided between the two countries. It is widely agreed by the World Bank and various experts that this Treaty is a success. Firstly, it has proved the effectiveness of involving a third party in negotiation. Secondly, it has shown that cooperation and coordination are possible in resolving transnational river conflicts. However, we argue that the Treaty has yet to provide sustainable solutions for peace maintenance at state level, and more importantly, meaningful protection to the citizens of both countries.
At state level, the Treaty is not entirely effective and remains difficult to implement due to the unwillingness of states to put aside their interests towards the rivers. According to the Security Research Review on the Indus Water Treaty (Subrahmanyam Sridhar, 2005), India has greater bargaining power over Pakistan as it is located in the upper stream of the River, making the treaty difficult to implement. Although India defends that the Treaty clearly states the minimum volume of water that must be transferred from India to Pakistan, in practice dividing the rivers is far more complicated than what is suggested in the Treaty. For instance, Pakistan recently accused India of building a dam which might reduce the flow of water to Pakistan to almost less than half of its original share. By simply regulating the volume of water transferred and the terms of use of the rivers, the Treaty has yet to provide solutions to this complicated issue.
At the same time, from a human security perspective, we doubt whether the Treaty is effective in protecting the citizens of the two countries. In fact, while the Indus River remains a valuable resource for both states, the Treaty has limited the use of the river to the locals. The case of Kashimir is especially revealing. According to the IPS News Agency, economic development in Kashimir was hindered because only 40% of the cultivatable land can be irrigated. Moreover, there is still 25% of Kashmiris living without electricity and 55% living without safe drinking. Quoted from S. Chakarapani, a freelance journalist in India, “around 65% of primary schools in India still lack basic drinking water facilities.” While the World Bank insists that the Treaty is beneficial, it seems that it only brings benefits to the big players, and has no use in solving distribution conflicts at domestic level.
The Treaty cannot be said to be success unless it can effectively improve the living conditions of locals, who afterall should be the focus in a Human Security context. We suggest international inspection and close monitoring to ensure the river resources are used in their full potential. More work has to be done in ensuring the Treaty is implemented within a Human Security framework.
The treaty is just an initial stage in fostering cooperation between India and Pakistan, and more than just rivers should be laid on the discussion table. But more importantly, cooperation between these states and their own citizens has to be enhanced, and subsequent treaties should pay more attention to this basic principle of Human Security.
– By Eric Kong and Fiona Wu
For centuries humanity has been looking for a source of unity. Ironically, we finally found it – not in the common values but in the common viruses. It is us against them – people versus diseases.
However, one of the most difficult questions still remains: How do we effectively address these diseses? Despite so-far rather altruistic and humanitarian approaches, HIV has been rapidly spreading in large parts of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe in recent years.
With the establishment of a clear link between the political stability, economic prosperity and health level, the voices for a new, second way have been growing. A way that is at the same time more effective and more dangerous: the international securitization of AIDS/HIV.
This is not just a new term that will be ascribed to the struggle with some of the most infectious diseases. It is a concept that implies a different approach. If one disease is seen as a threat to national security, then more money from the budget will be allocated for its treatment.
International funding will not only be bigger and faster, but also those states that have so far failed to respond to the disease will be pressured to do so by their neighbors. Furthermore patent binding agreements such as TRIPS, that previously prevented poorer nations from producing their own, cheaper, generic antiretroviral therapies (ARVs), could be neglected under security threatening circumstances.
But those steps are not without complete danger. Securitizing diseases may deprive those that are infected of their civil liberties. It would be no longer a personal problem but also a national one. Thus, privacy would not be an option anymore.
In 2003, the UK Government was even considering the implementation of compulsory HIV screening for immigrants in order to limit the health tourism. In Colombia, the Revolutionary Armed Forces imposed compulsory HIV/AIDS tests in one of the villages under their control and made the people to wear the card with the test result on their lapel. In both cases, policymakers could argue that they have acted for the common good sacrificing the needs of the minority.
There have to be clearly defined boundaries for such a security concept, because its traditional meaning would imply that the majority and crucial state institutions (such as military) enjoy a higher priority than the individual. A statement that could have horrible consequences.
There are so many questions to be addressed – for example in what conditions HIV/AIDS transmission can be criminalized or should HIV positive people inform their dentists or sexual partners of their status. If the issue is considered “a national threat”, then disclosure can become even obligatory.
All in all, it is hard to give a definite “yes” or “ no” to the question of whether HIV should be seen as a security issue or not, as there are clear benefits but also potential dangers of classifying the disease as such. We argue that it should be seen as a security issue in addition to being a health-, development-, economic-, social-, political- and gender issue.
And finally, not those who carry the virus, but the virus itself should be seen as the enemy.
by Martin Kessler and Ilina Georgieva
HIV/AIDS: Whose Agenda?
March 10, 2009
With the comprehensive media coverage exploring the issue of HIV/AIDS, and the endeavor of HIV lobbies and activists in promoting the disease, many nations, be they highly-afflicted ones or the seemingly less-afflicted ones, have fully understood the contention of “A threat to one is a threat to all…” and recognized their responsibility in combating against this overwhelming battle. As a result, international HIV/AIDS assistance, in form of funding via bilateral, regional or multilateral mechanisms, has surged. Undoubtedly, massive funding dedicated to HIV and countries plagued by HIV/AIDS is a good attempt in mitigating the deadly impact of the epidemic. The question is, are we funding the right health care problem and in a right amount?
As a matter of fact, though HIV causes 3.7% of mortality, it receives 25% of international healthcare aid and a big portion of domestic expenditure. Among the annual aid of 9 billion, questions have arisen over whether has the relief been used effectively and allocated sensibly. What about other diseases such as infant deaths or heart disease in developing world which cause more deaths than HIV/AIDS? Are we diverting resources from interventions against other diseases? Who should have a say in our agenda to ensure sensible and effective use of resources?
Apart from the above, we should step forward to think about what receiving countries want actually. We incorporate the issue of HIV/AIDS in our agenda and prioritize resources based on our perspective. Yet, are our plans precisely catering for the needs of the recipients? Could money alone address the problem? Mozambique’s health minister once stated that, “The reality in many countries is that funds are not needed specifically for AIDS, tuberculosis, or malaria. Funds are firstly and mostly needed to strengthen national health systems so that a range of diseases and health conditions can be managed effectively”. Developing countries have also expressed their concerns that they need skills and human resources which further empower their national governments and improve the general health services. This in turn enables them to handle crisis more effectively and have their own discretion on setting actual disease priorities. After all, they, countries plagued by HIV/AIDS, may not be as dependent as perceived and we, human security advocates, may not be as helpful as imagined either.
By Selena,Wong Sai Yin & Tiffany, Cheung Hiu Wai
Reference
England Roger (2007). Head to head, Are we spending too much on HIV? Available online at: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/334/7589/344?ijKey=3db765e6f768256fe1bc48fc644a7bb6051ad8b1&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha, accessed March 9, 2009.
England Roger (2008). The writing is on the wall for UNAIDS. Available online at: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/336/7652/1072, accessed March 9, 2009.
Laurie Garrett, “HIV and National Security: Where are the Links?” Council on Foreign Relations: 2005.
UNAIDS (2008). 2008 Report on the global AIDS epidemic. The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS.
World Bank Operations Evaluation Department. Committing to results: improving the effectiveness of HIV/AIDS assistance. www.worldbank.org/oed/aids/?intcmp=5221495, accessed March 9, 2009.
New Security Threats Need New Ways of Thinking
March 9, 2009
In a post Cold War world, security threats such as HIV/AIDS are still poorly addressed because of our common failure to understand the scope of the threat. Unlike other epidemics or diseases, in absence of treatment, the progression of HIV into AIDS is estimated at 10 years. During those years, a carrier can unwittingly infect people but will not develop symptoms of AIDS until the illness has progressed significantly. This makes it a long goodbye during which the problem is masked, the contagion increased and our awareness distorted. In what is called the Wavelength Problem, it is clear that because of the delayed onset of the disease, our understanding of the issue at hand is similarly delayed. This makes the infections of today, the security threats of tomorrow.
HIV is the 4th ranking cause of death and destabilizes regimes around the world by reducing the work force, generating discontent and undermining the effectiveness of HIV-infected armed forces. These are just a small number of examples of how HIV can affect national security. We cannot even predict the effect that the consequences HIV will have on nations in years to come as more people die of the disease resulting in more orphans, more infections and more even more deaths. Unlike traditional threats, the effects of HIV/AIDS infections and indeed, even the impact of global warming are slow processes, which are as silent as they are deadly.
If a frog is thrown into boiling water it will jump off immediately; however, if a frog in cold water is put to boil slowly, the frog will die. Our inability to perceive the slow heating of the water makes HIV/AIDS a much greater problem as by the time we finally want to jump out of the water we may be too late. New security threats need new perceptions and new ways of thinking. Moreover, in a world that is more connected than ever through migration and tourism, no country is safe from contagion. Therefore, the question arises- is our approach towards security too ‘conservative’ or ‘classical’? Can new slow moving threats be tackled with old solutions?
Denesha Brar & Paul-François Polidori
The avian flu has become endemic in poultry in most part of East Asia since 2003 after the first human case appeared in Hong Kong in 1997. Until now, effective vaccination for prevention is still not available. If mutation of this virus enabled human to human transmission, the impact could be catastrophic.
The fear of a possible global pandemic has lead the Hong Kong government to “securitize” the threat of bird flu. In responding to outbreaks of bird flu, the Hong Kong government has formulated various policies to reduce risk of human infection. When another H5N1 case was found in a Yuen Long farm in December 2008, immediate actions were taken, including temporary suspension of chicken import for 21 days and also culling 90 thousand chickens in the infected area and in the Cheung Sha Wan Wholesale Poultry market.
The positive consequence of the securitization policy is obvious. There has been no major spread of the avian flu virus in Hong Kong since the government’s adoption of the above policies. Besides, the people’s awareness of preserving personal hygiene has been greatly enhanced due to educative effects from government’s measures.
Yet, securitizaton does involve trade-offs. As close contact with poultry is thought to be the main reason for human infection, centralized slaughtering replacing live poultry retailing in wet markets is believed to be the most effective way in preventing the threats of bird flu. However, the plan of centralized slaughtering has been delayed for quite a long time because the government needs to balance the interests of the poultry traders and that of public health. A poultry license buyout would mean losses of jobs among those poultry traders. In order to compensate these traders, a buyout scheme was estimated to cost HKD 1.23 billion. Yet, even with this compensation package, retailers were reluctant to hand in the license as they thought the amount was not enough. If, as estimated, only 75% of retailers were willing to return their licenses, how effective would the scheme be?
Another problem we find in securitizing infectious disease is the potential misallocation of health resources. For example, cancer alone contributes to 33.0% of all deaths in Hong Kong, but it seems more attention and significant resources have put into fighting against this relatively new avian flu. Is this a correct allocation of resources?
Moreover, it remains ambiguous as to whether securitization is an effective method to avoid a H5N1 outbreak in Hong Kong. In case of an outbreak in the Mainland (where most of Hong Kong’s live chickens come from), the current protective measure (e.g. temporary suspension of chicken import) can efficiently help to protect Hong Kong from serious infection. But if human mutation was found in avian flu (human-human infection), Hong Kong would still experience enormous economic loss, even if it effectively minimized infections within Hong Kong, given Hong Kong’s close link with China.
We believe that the current health securitization policies have been the most feasible policies to protect human health for Hong Kong people. Nevertheless, Hong Kong cannot stand alone with the globalization of infectious diseases. To better protect human health in the region, cooperation in securitization policies have to be extended across the region. Unfortunately, problems arise with resources again and also with the political will to cooperate. How can health issues compete for resources with other traditional security issues?
Reference:
Maclean, S.J. (2008). “Microbes, Mad Cows and Militaries: Exploring the Links Between Health and Security”. Security Dialogue 39(5), pp.475-494.
- Pinky and Katrina
