Human Security agenda should be at the forefront of Policy Making for Nation States

The end of cold war witnessed major shifts both in understanding and in re-defining the concept of security. Previously, security had been viewed by states in action and in principle; only in context of the traditional sense of military protection against external aggression. Many nation states after cold war were confronted with numerous non-military threats that potentially undermined or had the possibility to disrupt and destabilize their national security agenda. For instance, the term cyber security gained a lot of prominence in the United States political cycle, think-tanks and academic institutions after the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

The thoughts and imagination, that the next possible war could not be fought in physical battles with gunships and weaponry but rather asymmetrical – deploying use of nuclear as well as non-nuclear means dominated post-cold war period. Threats such as diseases, hunger, poverty, ignorance, violent conflicts and natural disasters alike undermined nation state’s security particularly those states in the global south and contributed substantially to new dimensions regarding the interpretive concept of security.

While security has often been considered a ‘contested’ concept, ‘ambiguous’ in character and ‘insufficiently explained, it should certainly have a ‘value’ attached to it in order to make sense of it. In fact, using the term security with specific reference of for instance, what needs to be protected including how it is protected and by who and with what means and when it is protected perhaps, is a better way to explain the term in more precise manner. The widening and deepening of the security agenda as a framework of analysis helped to transform the state centric mentality of viewing security as protection of the state or the regime and its people from external attacks but rather to everyday challenges that bedeviled the common man – their human security.

Threats to human life are no respecter of persons, groups and territorial determinants. The need to solve such human security threats became the vital pre-occupation of many states who reasoned that addressing the humanitarian concerns and needs of its citizens was an essential character of state morality, enabling the state to pursue its national interests while maintaining peace and stability domestically thus, guaranteeing peace and sustainable human development.

The 1994 UNDP report defined human security as “safety from chronic threats such as hunger, diseases and repression as well as protection from sudden and harmful disruptions in the patterns of daily life”. Speaking about Human security, then UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan explicitly expounded on its meaning with clarity and simplicity when he argued that “Human security, in its broadest sense, embraces far more than the absence of violent conflict. It encompasses human rights, good governance, access to education and health care and ensuring that each individual has opportunities and choices to fulfill his or her potential. Every step in this direction is also a steep towards reducing poverty, achieving economic growth and preventing conflict. Freedom from want, freedom from fear, and the freedom of future generations to inherit a healthy natural environment — these are the interrelated building blocks of human – and therefore national – security.”

While nation states such as Canada, Japan, Australia and Thailand among others in the post-cold war period began to adopt human security as a policy option, many others at the same time, did not in particular apply long term and sustained approach in addressing this vice. Even though these countries prioritized the human security needs of its people, most of the policy approaches did not contribute significantly to long term effort in addressing the everyday challenges to human life and interactions as far as citizen’s health and livelihood is concerned.

The outbreak of the global pandemic – the Corona virus has already led to loss of thousand of lives globally. Covid 19 has wreaked havoc and has not respected boundaries of nation states neither personalities. It has led to loss of jobs, lowering investment opportunities, affecting businesses locally and globally. Unfortunately, most of the state’s reaction to the deadly virus can be interpreted as reactionary in character as opposed to efforts that contributes to sustained disaster management, strategies and policy direction.

Pauline Kerr, et al (2003) in her work ‘the utility of human security agenda for policy makers’ asks under what circumstances do states accept a human security agenda and how do they incorporate this approach into their policy agenda? While these questions are best answered by policy makers, it is clear that in most cases, there is no coherent approach that seeks to address human security agenda from a wholistic policy point of view for many nation states. Out of the proposed conditions necessary for policy makers to take into account while addressing the human security needs of its people, the most significant one according to Pauline Kerr, et al (2003) is the condition where there is a strong perception among key policy makers that a particular issue (threat) presents both normative challenge and threat to their national security.

In 2003, there was widespread explosion of the Acute Respiratory Syndrome or SARS on the global stage as the pandemic escalated to serious negative proportions. The disease baffled the minds of many people particularly due to the little information known about it. Its reported that Within the space of six months [February- July 2003), 8,437 people worldwide became inflicted with SARS; of these, 813 died of complications related to hypoxia (insufficient oxygen in the blood) and, ultimately, severe pneumonia (Pauline Kerr, et al 2003). While extensive quarantines in countries such as Canada and cities such as Toronto, Taiwan, Hongkong, Singapore controlled further spread of the disease, it was later discovered that a new variant termed the ‘corona virus’ responsible for strains of common flu had no vaccines.

Today, the Corona virus continue to wreak havoc, claiming lives, causing anxiety and disrupting economies. African countries unfortunately may not have seriously examined the implications of ignoring the human security agenda as a policy option for addressing the various human security threats that its people grapple with. Consequently, a lot of deaths attributed to violent conflicts, hunger, earthquakes, floods diseases such as Ebola and HIV/AIDS have resulted into catastrophic outcomes.

Therefore, its high time nation states prioritize systematically but also deliberately how to address the human security concerns of its people. Deliberate programs, policies, investments and policy directions by government and policy makers alike contributes towards the success of making policy work for people from the human centric perspective.  Instead of appropriating funds to improve health care conditions, infrastructures, education and human development, substantial amount of resources for instance, in Africa is lost due to corruption, embezzlement, illicit wealth and trade, politicking and the meaningless efforts to secure regime security. The case of public collapse of health systems, education, transportation and infrastructures in many African countries are instructive.

Its therefore, important that a major shift and focus is directed to significantly addressing the human security concerns of the populace. Nations should avoid responding to human security threats as a form of crisis prevention but rather institute measures that are long term in character and approach and that in principle, for example; improves quality health of its people, provide better remuneration of its health workers, contributes to better medical facilities and care and creates great insurance policy schemes that are pro-citizens. Such deliberate policy actions should further contribute to improvement in quality of education, infrastructures and livelihoods of people.

Leaders should address systematically the consequences associated with environmental degradation – mitigating adverse effects of climate change such as drought, floods, and carbon emission. After all, a secure population contributes to foundation for nation building through enhancing economies, investments, creating and promoting social justices and equality as well as minimizing violent conflicts arising from lack of basic necessities or other forms of grievances. Lack of basic necessities of life, the fear of the unknown, coupled with feelings of marginalization and or exclusion instills pathological fear amongst people – a further opportunity when acted upon by political demagogues to cause violent conflicts that would even much more- undermine national security the state and its people.

To conclude, the then UN Deputy Secretary General Louise Frechette summarized human security as all those things that men and women anywhere in the world cherish most: enough food for the family; adequate shelter; good health; schooling for the children; protection from violence whether inflicted by man or by nature; and a State which does not oppress its citizens but rules with their consent.” It’s exactly these descriptions of what human security entail that should compel countries to prioritize and adopt Human security centered design as a form of policy making approach for their countries.

Moses Owiny

@mosesowiny