It is evident that to meet the challenges posed by the threats to human security more effectively requires cross-national border co-operation. Different threats need different measures to respond to, but one nation alone cannot handle human insecurities efficiently in a globalised world. Both Asia and Europe share many commonalities in our experiences in fighting threats to human security, such as human
23 UNAIDS, Report on the Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic 2002 (Geneva: Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, 2002).
24 Ogata and Cels, “Human Security,” pp. 278-279.
and drug trafficking, ethnic conflicts, public health problems, environmental degradation, and violation of human rights. The lessons of countering human insecurities can be learnt by the other. But more importantly, both the Asians and the Europeans can co-operate formally and informally by establishing mechanisms and forming norms and rules on which our human security can mutually be strengthened.
To fortify the protection and empowerment of people, some normative and institutional infrastructures are essentially required. In addition to democratic principles and practices, it is imperative to build strong institutions, the rule of law, and inclusive and effective citizenship policies. As national sources are limited, decision-making concerning security priorities should be as transparent as possible.
Citizens should be given the right to monitor state security spending. It is urgent that military spending that in many countries far outweighs resources should be re-located on environmental protection, forging aid, public health, and others related to human security.25 Internationally, a common reporting and monitoring framework that is designed to prevent illegal transfer of weapons and to enable civil society to comprehend the changing needs for military security should be established.26
In addition to regional and inter-regional co-operation of handling non-traditional threats, global governance is essential for safeguarding and enhancing human security not only because threats to people within a nation can easily spread to people in others in the process of globalization, but also because one threat can have spill-over effects that lead to other threats to human well-beings. Prevention from and handling with threats to human security cannot function properly without surveillance, control, and response on a global scale, for cross-border insecurities of people are
25 McDonald, “Human Security and the Construction of Security,” p. 292.
26 Ogata and Cels, “Human Security,” pp. 276-277.
interdependent.27
A group of nations have pioneered to integrate the concept of human security into their foreign and security policy and they have formed a Human Security Network (HSN) to work together in focusing on safety for people from menaces that threaten survival and human dignity.28 According to the membership of this network, it is obvious that human security appeals mainly to middle powers and neither the most powerful nor the weakest states are concerned about the concept. Member states of the network tend to have small military budgets and adopt a more ‘neutral’ stance at the UN than others do. However, the problem comes from the lack of support of powerful nations and participation of weak nations. Powers like the US and other permanent members of the UN Security Council have remained preoccupied with
‘hard’ security issues and their interests in powerful military/industrial complex.
Without their support, human security will be confined as just a moral concept that cannot prevail over the continuing pre-dominance of military issues in security affairs.
Weak and failed nations suffer from threats to human developments and the absence of their participation poses considerable threat to global security as a whole.29
An important criticism placed upon human security is its universalism that is seen as sharing and reflecting the Western values. It is argued here that although the ideas and actually the ideals shaping the concept of human security may come from the West, its principle of setting the individual as the reference object of security can be observed universally.30 As a part of security as a whole, human security should be a
27 Chen and Narasimhan, “Human Security and Global Health,” pp. 189-190.
28 The network, initiated by Canada and Norway, also includes Austria, Chile, Greece, Ireland, Jordan, Mali, The Netherlands, Slovenia, Switzerland, and Thailand, with South Africa as an observer.
29 Kristen Timothy, “Human Security Discourse at the United Nations,” Peace Review, Vol. 16, No. 1 (March 2004), pp. 21-22.
30 Regarding the criticism against human security in its universalism, see McDonald, “Human Security and the Construction of Security,” pp. 282-283; and Keith Krause and Michael Williams, “From Strategy to Security: Foundations of Critical Security Studies,” in Krause and Williams (eds.), Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press 1997), pp. 46-47.
major concern for all and menaces to people can be problems everywhere. Just like conventional sense of national security, or to put it more precisely, military-dominant security, human security is no difference from state-centric security given that human insecurity poses threats to countries and regions universally. In addition, in each of our regions there are some nations that have strongly advocated the importance of human security and prioritised the concept in their foreign or security policies.
Cultural difference is not a limit to the common ground they all share. Human security should be seen by Asia and Europe alike as a universal value that both sides should advocate strongly and work together closely.