行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫 成果報告
SARS 與國家安全：全球化時代的新安全研究議程(子計畫八)
計畫類別： 整合型計畫 計畫編號： NSC92-2420-H-004-008-KC 執行期間： 92 年 12 月 01 日至 94 年 02 月 28 日 執行單位： 國立政治大學國際關係研究中心 計畫主持人： 甘逸驊 計畫參與人員： 陳希傑 報告類型： 完整報告 處理方式： 本計畫可公開查詢中 華 民 國 94 年 5 月 31 日
行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫
■ 成 果 報 告
□期中進度報告
後 SARS 台灣重建計畫-SARS 事件的社會與經濟衝擊研究-
SARS 與國家安全：全球化時代的新安全研究議程（子計畫八
）
計畫類別：□ 個別型計畫 ■ 整合型計畫
計畫編號：NSC 92－2420－H－004－008－KC
執行期間：92 年 12 月 01 日至 94 年 2 月 28 日
計畫主持人：甘逸驊
計畫參與人員：陳希傑
成果報告類型(依經費核定清單規定繳交)：□精簡報告 ■完整報告
本成果報告包括以下應繳交之附件：
■赴國外出差或研習心得報告二份
□赴大陸地區出差或研習心得報告一份
□出席國際學術會議心得報告及發表之論文各一份
□國際合作研究計畫國外研究報告書一份
處理方式：除產學合作研究計畫、提升產業技術及人才培育研究計畫、
列管計畫及下列情形者外，得立即公開查詢
□涉及專利或其他智慧財產權，□一年□二年後可公開查詢
執行單位：國立政治大學國際關係研究中心
中 華 民 國 94 年 5 月 31 日
中文摘要
全球性的嚴重急性呼吸道症候群的（SARS）爆發，吸引了學者們和決策 制訂者等的注意去加強檢視新時代中「安全」的概念，已從過去傳統的軍事支配 思維轉變為以人為考量的概念。傳染性疾病的的議題，如對人類威脅的其他來源 等，也使得這世界得以認知到威脅人類安全的多重形式，並改變了人們傳統上對 於安全的思維。雙極強權國際體系的結束並未如預期地為世界帶來和平與繁榮， 相對地，新形式的衝突和威脅接踵而至，造成了比冷戰時期更大規模和大量的人 類損失與經濟和社會的混亂。每一年，數以萬計的生命損失，不是由於國際性的 戰爭，而是由於傳染性的疾病、環境災害、飢荒以及公民戰爭等原因，而這些因 素都不是傳統安全思維的主要考量。國家安全將焦點擺在保衛國家疆域免於外界 的威脅，但在新時代中，卻不再能保證人們迫切需求的極大化安全需要。致命的 傳染性疾病擴散，如 SARS、難民問題、政治壓迫、長期的物質短缺，以及一些 其他的問題等也都成為了人類安全的主要考量。
再者，全球化的過程增加了人類、資訊以及貿易等社會行為的連接性，並 加速了跨越邊境的流動；而這也都可能成為威脅的來源。人類互動的變化過程帶 來了繁榮，但對於富有者和貧窮者一樣都可能是脆弱且易受傷害的。曾經被限制 僅發生於較貧窮地區的傳染性疾病，現在也可能在世界各地出現，當然也包括富 有的國家。沒有任何一個地方得以從整個國際系統中發生的對人類安全的威脅免 疫。同樣地，在國家層級發生的事件，也可以對整個區域和全球性層級，輕易地 就產生了「擴散效果」。因此，傳統的觀念建立於國土內部所應負的軍事責任， 這種對安全的思維也已經過時了。 這份研究試圖把全球化趨勢中新安全領域的這些傳染性疾病概念化。接下
來的分析將介紹在地球村中的傳染性疾病：三種一致性的趨勢。第一，傳染性疾 病造成的威脅，例如 SARS，顯示出所有國家對於傳染性疾病或流行性疾病爆發 的易受傷害性。第二，疾病的湧現使跨國界的地理區域呈現不穩定的狀態，也削 弱了國家治理所需的基礎建設能力。第三，反覆思考「安全」的決定因素，可以 擴大我們對於究竟是什麼將構成對安全威脅的認知，並在各種不同的分裂形式中 製造空間來適應傳染性疾病和其他疾病。這份研究將依序檢視這三種一致性的趨 勢，並藉由檢視人類安全脈絡中新安全議題的湧現，推斷出本份研究的結論。
Abstract
The outbreak of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) across the globe in 2003-2003 highlighted the needs to review the concept of security in the new
era for scholars and decision-makers alike that the attention has to be shifted from military-dominated conventional thinking to people-centred security concept. Issues
of communicable diseases, like other sources of threats to the human beings, have pushed the world to acknowledge the emerging threats in multiple forms to people
and to change conventional thinking on security. Multiple forms of conflict and threat have surfaced, triggering great scale and numbers of human losses and economic and
social disruption, no less than what military means could cause. Each year, millions of lives are lost, not by international wars, but by communicable diseases, environmental
disasters, famine and civil wars, all of which are not major concerns of conventional security thinking. National security, focusing on protecting national borders from
external threat, no longer guarantees the maximum security needs of people urgently required in the new era. The spread of fatal infectious diseases, like SARS, refugee
problems, political oppression, chronic conditions of deprivation, and others have become the main concerns of human security.
Moreover, the process of globalisation has dramatically increased the interconnectedness of social behaviour and accelerated cross-border flows of people,
information, trade, as well as sources of threats. The changing process of human interaction has brought prosperity as well as vulnerability to the poor and the rich
alike. Once considered as confined to only poverty-linked areas, infectious diseases, for instance, have now been able to appear in everywhere in the world, including the
security in another. Also, events at the domestic level can easily have ‘spill-over
effects’ in regional or global level. As a result, the traditional thinking on security that is fundamentally concerned with military matters within the realm of domestic
responsibility is obsolete.
This research attempted to conceptualise the communicable diseases in the
context of new security studies in the emerging trend of globalisation. It was analysed by introducing three concurrent trends regarding communicable diseases in a
globalised world. First, threats caused by infectious diseases, such as SARS, demonstrate the vulnerability of all nations to outbreaks and epidemics of
communicable diseases. Second, the capacity of an emerging disease to destabilise a large geographical region across national boundaries could undermine the very
infrastructures needed for governance. Third, a reconsideration of the determinants of security broadens the perception of what constitutes a security threat, making space to
accommodate infectious diseases and others in their most disruptive forms. This research was examined according to these three trends in order and concluded by
looking into the emergence of the new security agenda in the context of human security.
目錄
第一部份 中文報告
---1第二部份 英文報告
---13第三部份 參考文獻
---28附錄一 相關發表資料
---30附錄二 英文摘要
---42全球化、人類安全與 SARS
甘逸驊
國立政治大學國際關係研究中心副研究員
前言
嚴重急性呼吸道症候群的（SARS）爆發，對這些受感染的地區產生了深遠 的影響，並在兩年前得以吸引學者們和決策制訂者等的注意，加強檢視新時代中 「安全」的概念，已從過去傳統的軍事支配思維轉變為以人為考量的概念。後冷 戰時期所發生的一些重大事件，也使得這世界得以認知到威脅人類安全的多重形 式，並改變了人們傳統上對於安全的思維。雙極強權國際體系的結束並未如預期 地為世界帶來和平與繁榮，1相對地，新形式的衝突和威脅接踵而至，造成了比 冷戰時期更大規模和大量的人類損失與經濟和社會的混亂。每一年，數以萬計的 生命損失，不是由於國際性的戰爭，而是由於傳染性的疾病、環境災害、飢荒以 及公民戰爭等原因，而這些因素都不是傳統安全思維的主要考量。再者，過去 15 年內左右所發生的戰爭，大約有 95﹪的比例都不是發生在國與國之間，而是 存在於其內部。2顯而易見的，單單是國家安全的軍事防禦本身，已經無法充分 確保人們免於新形態的威脅，也無法確保每個個體的安全。國家安全將焦點擺在 保衛國家疆域免於外界的威脅，但在新時代中，卻不再能保證人們迫切需求的極 大化安全需要。致命的傳染性疾病擴散，如去年爆發的SARS、難民問題、政治 1William Bain, “The Tyranny of Benevolence: National Security, Human Security, and the Practice of Statecraft,” Global Society, Vol. 15, No. 3 (July 2001), p. 277.
2
Taylor Owen, “Human Security – Conflict, Critique and Consensus: Colloquium Remarks and a Proposal for a Threshold-Based Definition,” Security Dialogue, Vol. 35, No. 3 (September 2004), pp. 374-375.
壓迫、長期的物質短缺，以及一些其他的問題等也都成為了人類安全的主要考 量。3 再者，全球化的過程增加了人類、資訊以及貿易等社會行為的連接性，並加 速了跨越邊境的流動；而這也都可能成為威脅的來源。人類互動的變化過程帶來 了繁榮，但對於富有者和貧窮者一樣都可能是脆弱且易受傷害的。4曾經被限制 僅發生於較貧窮地區的傳染性疾病，現在也可能在世界各地出現，當然也包括富 有的國家。發生於最弱勢地區的問題可能會比其他地區的問題更為複雜。沒有任 何一個地方得以從整個國際系統中發生的對人類安全的威脅免疫。同樣地，在國 家層級發生的事件，也可以對整個區域和全球性層級，輕易地就產生了「擴散效 果」。因此，傳統的觀念建立於國土內部所應負的軍事責任，這種對安全的思維 也已經過時了。5 這份研究試圖把全球化趨勢中新安全領域的這些傳染性疾病概念化。接下 來的分析將介紹在地球村中的傳染性疾病：三種一致性的趨勢。第一，傳染性疾 病造成的威脅顯示出所有國家對於傳染性疾病或流行性疾病爆發的易受傷害 性。SARS 就是一個例子，在各個國家和地區中，不論對心理或身體、富有者或 貧窮者、甚至是對強者或弱者，同樣都造成了重大的傷害。 第二，疾病的湧現使跨國界的地理區域呈現不穩定的狀態，這也削弱了國家 治理所需的基礎建設能力。例如 AIDS 的影響，便對任何一片大陸陸地上的公眾 衛生均產生了影響，特別是在那些勞動力已經退化和削弱的地區。 3
Sadako Ogata and Johan Cels, “Human Security: Protecting and Empowering the People,” Global
Governance, Vol. 9, No. 3(July-September 2003), p. 275.
4
Lincoln Chen and Vasant Narasimhan, “Human Security and Global Health,” Journal of Human
Development, Vol. 4, No. 2 (July 2003), p. 182 and 186.
5
George MacLean, “Instituting and Projecting Human Security: A Canadian Perspective,” Australian
第三，反覆思考「安全」的決定因素，可以擴大我們對於究竟是什麼將構成 對安全威脅的認知，並在各種不同的分裂形式中製造空間來適應傳染性疾病和其 他疾病。安全的傳統概念已不能適當地評估全球化新時代中對人類安全所湧現的 威脅。後冷戰時期中，大部分造成大量死亡的災難並非起因於國際衝突。相反地， 非軍事威脅的湧現，則是對人類福祇的主要威脅之一。傳統上對制止戰爭的措施 已無法和新安全威脅的挑戰相對抗。2004 年時於南亞所發生的海嘯大災難，也 顯示出自然力量所帶來的災害將不亞於軍事力量所帶來的威脅。6 這份研究依序檢視這三種一致性的趨勢。在說明了這三種趨勢之後，藉由檢 視人類安全脈絡中新安全議題的湧現，而推斷出本份研究的結論。
全球化的面向：疾病對所有社會的威脅
在討論第一種趨勢時，焦點將擺在全球化和新威脅這兩者之間的相關性上。 過去十年左右以來，最普遍被使用的標語之一即為「全球化」。而全球化的最重 要特徵為人類社會行為的新型態互動模式。人類活動的規模、速度與延展性都已 徹底地改變。世界也因此變得高度地活動性，使得人類互動緊密地連結在一起。 當傳統安全議題通常把焦點置於在國家疆域內之軍事威脅的來源時，地球村 的新威脅存在著跨國的的本質，使得國家界限不再是新威脅的限制。如此非軍事 面向的威脅則包含了跨國犯罪、人口犯毒品販賣、環境退化、傳染性疾病或其他 疾病等。 6David L. Heymann, “The Evolving Infectious Disease Threat: Implications for National and Global Security,” Journal of Human Development, Vol. 4, No. 2 (July 2003), p. 192.
因為的人類行為和即時資訊的快速傳播等特性的緊密互相連接，新威脅可以 造成跨越地球的廣泛心理影響。最重要的警訊不僅是對人類生命和福祉的具體威 脅，也使得人們認知到對於可能產生的影響，將輕易地散播出不理性的恐慌。例 如在SARS危機期間，儘管疾病只對不到 30 個國家產生影響，但對大眾心理上的 衝擊，則是擴散到世界各地。人們實際上刻意避免不是那麼必要的社會互動；而 且因為現在的世界是十分緊密連接的，因此特別是跨越國界性的活動更是被刻意 減少。7 同時間，單單一個國家可能無法阻止抵擋住新威脅。為了向新威脅作戰，需 要所有國家和非國家行動者的並肩作戰。當認知到國家可能仍是對抗新威脅的支 配力量時，非國家行動者應該被給與一個適當的角色扮演，使其更具彈性、洞察 性以及有效率。就如同新安全威脅，特別是傳染性疾病具有跨國界的特徵，對抗 它們的措施更應由國家和非國家行動者一起共同來努力。 藉由傳染性疾病所造成的威脅是最重要的例子之一，由於密切地跨越邊界的 互動，它形成了特別混亂的情勢。如果我們仔細研究這個問題，即傳染媒介在確 切的多少時間內，將會傳播到地球上的任何兩地，答案將是驚人的 36 小時以內。 在一個相互依賴性增加以及相互連接的世界中，傳染性疾病得以藉由人類、貨 物、客艙、行李甚至是遷徙的鳥類來傳播到非常遙遠的距離。面對這些傳染病的 威脅，國家的界限原本扮演著抵擋敵人威脅的前鋒，但現在似乎已經變得沒有意 義了。對國家主權的堅持和國際社群間的缺乏合作，也使得傳染媒介有機會利用 來傳播。因此，事實上沒有任何一個單一社群得以從傳染性疾病的威脅中免疫。 7
Jong-Wha Lee and Warwick J. McKibbin, “Globalization and Disease: The Case of SARS,” Asian
疾病威脅的能力
我們知道，在地球上，特別是對人類的威脅可以是很巨大的，但核心問題是 為什麼有關傳染性疾病的這些威脅會被人類視為是難以對付的，但其他的威脅卻 不一定是。有一些可能因素將增強人們在疾病爆發時的恐慌。 第一，傳染性疾病可能會因為人們感受的不確定感，而造成社群內恐慌的散 播。未知的病原體當然也是當疾病爆發時不確定感的來源之一。某些疾病可能會 導致很高的致死率，但因為人們對預防和治療有更多的瞭解，因此並不必定會特 別令人害怕。 第二，地球村中的疾病傳播速度也將會擴散恐慌，但更重要的是，有時候資 訊傳達的速度會誇大實際的情況，使得人們過於緊張。自由流通的資訊可以輕易 地散播謠言，並加深人們對不確定感的緊張。 第三，地理界線並不能防止傳染性疾病的跨越。疾病的任意擴散也使人們感 覺十分地無助。許多富有的國家可能有能力抵禦外敵侵略，但它們卻不見得會比 和其情況相對的貧窮國家，而遭受較少的非軍事安全威脅。 第四，有些疾病具高死亡率，更是導致人們更大的恐慌。疾病所產生的影響， 如果使它擴散開來，並造成大規模的死亡之下，可能會比其他的威脅都還要大。 傳染性疾病的可能損失有多少？疾病爆發和流行病的破壞性潛能可能是十 分昂貴的。從國家的層面來看，病患和醫護人員的高死亡率對醫療救護系統造成 了龐大的損失。社會福利系統，在社會承受忍耐傳染性疾病的爆發時，也可能承擔沈重的負擔，導致暫時的或永久的失業、家庭中主要經濟來源支柱者的死亡、 以及增加社會醫療的支出。同時，受到感染的國家和地區將經歷嚴重的貿易和旅 遊業的流失。勞動力情況較差的地區，特別是那些應具備高度生產力的地區，會 因為一些疾病的影響，更加弱化其經濟表現。如果一個傳播的疾病持續了很長的 時間，經濟情況將會更糟，阻礙國外廠商對其地區投資的意願。再者，當這些地 區需要稀少的資源來重建社會時，藉由這些社群中不同單位所需的高額保險費 用，也將使得人們的負擔更為沈重。總的來說，致命的傳染性疾病所造成的威脅 將是特別地難以克服的，而社會所付出的成本也是十分龐大的；因此，有時候要 重建社會必需要花上很長的一段時間。
安全的概念轉變
後冷戰全球的安全環境具有由非國家行動者所為之非實體的或跨越邊界的 威脅等多樣性的特徵。8為了迎接新時代的挑戰，安全的狹義概念，即使領土免 於外部威脅的這種想法，是應該被修正了。傳統安全研究的問題關鍵即在於其並 非研究「安全」本身，而是研究軍事的力量。9傳統對安全的關注是完全把焦點 置於國家對威脅領土完整的防禦以及確保其生存的追求。因此，保衛國家安全的 最強大手段便是軍事的力量。然而，在地球村中，對國家或人類的威脅是多元面 向的。事實上，這世界持續地目睹人類生命和社會福祉大規模的損失，而國家卻 可能無法抵抗這些威脅；這提醒了我們，安全的核心概念應該由國家中心傾向轉 變為以「人」為中心來思考。10人類安全提供了世界一個機會去回溯這些有關安 8See Victor D. Cha, “Globalization and the Study of International Security,” Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 37, No. 3 (May 2000), pp. 391-403; and Sam J. Tangredi, “Effects of Globalization on Military Operations,” The European Legacy, Vol. 8, No. 3 (June 2003), pp. 299-315.
9
David Baldwin, “The Concept of Security,” Review of International Studies, Vol. 23, No. 1 (January 1997), p. 9.
10
See Lloyd Axworthy, “Human Security and Global Governance: Putting People First,” Global
Governance, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Winter 2001), pp. 19-23. Axworthy was formerly Canadian Foreign
全的規範性概念，也就是保衛每一個個體的重要。 人類安全的概念建立在人類的福祉之上，而非國家的實體安全。11更重要的 是，不僅是國家境內的人民是人類安全的主要考量對象，國家境外的人民也是應 被關注焦點。12要在廣泛架構的安全議題中確定人類安全的範圍，界定一些準則 可能是有用的。第一，關於其指稱目標(reference object)，人類安全表明保衛人類 普遍的權利，即為安全提供的最終目標。第二，就價值而論，人類安全的核心價 值，為試圖去遵守和保衛一系列的行為規範。第三，關於威脅的來源，人類安全 可被認知為阻止廣泛範圍的危險，例如環境退化、勞工的剝削等其他問題。第四， 就手段方面，保衛人類安全需要一個更全面處理威脅的方法，而非以軍事為方向 的安全可以提供的。第五，國家和非國家行動者的角色，應被視為追求安全的仲 介；而且其兩者之間的互動，在談到人類安全的治理時，又因為全球治理是一個 強化人類安全的新思維，因此更是非常重要的。第六，在國家和個體之間的關係 方面，國家的權利被國際法規所規範，例如武力的使用，只有在符合人民的利益， 以及經由人民同意與民主代表性的原則下，才算合法。13 聯合國開發總署（UNDP）的在 1994 年完成的官方資料「人類發展報告」
（Human Development Report），奠定了對人類安全更深遠的討論和發展。接下來
的工作即以人類安全的兩面向之不同定義為中心。第一，在積極面上，安全應被
視為「以各種方法保護所有人類的生命為核心，以提高人類的自由和人類成就；」 也就是授權個體和社群去發展他們自我選擇與自由意志的能力；第二，從消極面
11
Laura Reed and Majid Tehranian, “Evolving Security Regimes,” in Tehranian (ed.), Worlds Apart:
Human Security and Global Governance (London: I.B. Tauris, 1999), p. 24.
12
Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, “New Threats to Human Security in the Era of Globalization,” Journal of
Human Development, Vol. 4, No. 2 (July 2003), p. 171.
13
Julie Gilson and Phillida Purvis, “Japan’s Pursuit of Human Security: Humanitarian Agenda or Political Pragmatism?” Japan Forum, Vol. 15, No. 2 (September 2003), pp. 194-195. Also, Matt McDonald, “Human Security and the Construction of Security,” Global Society, Vol. 16, No. 3 (July 2002), p. 279; and Bain, “The Tyranny of Benevolence,” p. 282.
來看，人們應該受到保護，免於包括由自然和社會兩者所造成的嚴重和普遍的威 脅，並從國家或地方層級的權力壓迫結構下得以解放。14 在湧現的對人類之威脅來源中，公眾衛生是對人類安全最具有威脅和顯著的 威脅。根據世界衛生組織（WTO）的報導，每年約有一千七百七十萬的民眾死 於傳染性疾病，超過那些死於傳統形式如軍事衝突的人數。同樣地，因感染傳染 性疾病而死亡的人數，總計造成全球死亡率的 26﹪。在這些傳染性疾病中， HIV/AIDS即為對人類福祉最大的一個疾病威脅。據估計四千二百萬的人們患有 這個疾病，而大部分的病患都居住在未開發國家中。平均來看，每年大約被感染 的五百萬個民眾中，約有三百萬人會死亡。15此外，每一年的紀錄中，會有三億 個感染瘧疾的例子，結核病的傳染也上達六千萬人。作為造成成人死亡的主要傳 染性疾病之一的結核病，每年大約會造成二百萬人的死亡。因此，將公眾衛生視 為一個跨邊界的議題並將健康政策串連為一全球性的系統，將會需要一個疾病監 督的系統。2003 年時，全球性SARS散播就顯示出發展一個全球性機制來強化各 單位合作去控制傳染性疾病擴散的需要。16 然而，也就是說，若由傳染性疾病導致的不幸是無可避免的，一些從貧窮、 無知、貪污等導致的威脅更是需要特別去補救。就公眾衛生抵抗疾病的觀點來 看，安全機制是不可或缺的。這種機制包含了以下的措施，第一，隔離是一種很 難以下定的決策，但又是在疾病爆發時的必要措施。在地球村中，特別是民主的 社會，對人民自由移動的限制需要很嚴格的證明來支持，而公眾衛生的危機當然 14
See Commission on Human Security, Human Security Now: Protecting and Empowering People (New York: Commission on Human Security, 2003); also, Ogata and Cels, “Human Security,” p. 274; and Caroline Thomas, “Introduction,” in C. Thomas and Peter Wilkin (eds.) Globalization, Human
Security, and the African Experience (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1999), p. 3.
15
UNAIDS, Report on the Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic 2002 (Geneva: Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, 2002).
16
是促使當權者決定隔離的原因之一。第二，旅遊建議對於當地居民和遊客等當然 也是很重要的，它提供了有關公眾衛生問題的即時正確訊息。但可能的是，任何 旅遊建議將會對受到感染的地區產生經濟影響，如勸阻外國遊客之旅遊意願；但 這也可能忽略了實際的情況，即在社會上，當人們對公眾衛生失去信心時，可能 會造成甚至是更長期的損失。第三，遷徙和邊界的控制可能會抑制疾病傳播的範 圍和速度，然而它們卻會牽連到國家之間的政治和外交上的關係。最後，公開訊 息的計畫對「教育」民眾新資訊，即有關任何湧現的新威脅，以及共同對抗的操 作性措施等，則是必須的。 公眾衛生已逐漸被廣泛地認知為人類安全的其中一個面向，但誰的安全應該 最優先被考量，國家還是個體安全？這仍是個備受爭議的議題。SARS 爆發的開 端，中國藉國家安全為理由，隱瞞了有關 SARS 的實情。但回顧當時情形，如果 中國可以用更開放的態度提早行動，SARS 可能就不會變得如此具破壞性。相反 地，由世人所目睹的是中國延遲了四個半月才讓 WHO 對民眾提出警戒，也因此 錯失了侷限疾病的良好時機。 HIV/AIDS的影響是另一個例子，它顯示出傳染性疾病的破壞性有多強大。 自從AIDS被發現後，約有二千五百萬人因此而死亡。每一年，將出現約三百萬 個新案例。2000 年時，聯合國安全理事會特別將焦點擺在全球事務的政治和安 全面向，並宣告AIDS為一項對國家安全的威脅，這是五十年來安全理事會第一 次發表有關公眾衛生的議題。隨後，G7/G8 在琉球（Okinawa）和熱諾亞（Denoa） 舉辦的高峰會也對HIV/AIDS的危機表達了他們的關心。17然而，許多國家仍是勉 強地將公眾衛生視為安全的一環，因為它們認為傳染性疾病應被視為社會或經濟 議題來看待。 17
Dennis Altman, “AIDS and Security,” International Relations, Vol. 17, No. 4 (December2003), pp. 417-427.
儘管 SARS 爆發的規模和死亡人數明顯不如 AIDS，但它在爆發時對人類帶 來的威脅嚴重性，卻不亞於 AIDS 所產生的。第一，SARS 是高度傳染性的，特 別是當人們不瞭解它是如何散播及人們是如何受到感染的時候。第二，SARS 的 平均死亡率高達 10﹪。第三，自從在中國發生的第一個案例之後，至少有 28 個 國家在六個月內都被 SARS 傳染。全球約有 8,500 個可能案例，而在這些案例之 中，據報導更有 820 人因此死亡。（請見下列圖表）
SARS 統計表
地區
案例個數
死亡個數
死亡率
加拿大 251 43 17 中國 5,327 349 7 香港 1,755 299 17 台灣 346 37 11 菲律賓 14 2 14 新加坡 238 33 14 美國 27 0 0 越南 63 5 8 其他國家 75 6 8 總計 8,096 774 9.6 其他國家包括：澳洲、澳門、法國、德國、印度、印尼、義大利、科威特、馬來西亞、蒙古人民 共和國、紐西蘭、愛爾蘭、韓國、羅馬尼亞、俄羅斯、南非、西班牙、瑞典、瑞 士、泰國、英國。 資料來源：http://www.who.int/csr/sars/en 值得注意的是，國家是如何「安全化(securitise)」SARS議題的。在SARS期 間，例如台灣，便採用了以下幾個步驟，來作為對抗SARS的安全措施。SARS剛於中國出現時，台灣便發佈旅遊警告藉以約束兩岸的正常接觸。當台灣出現了 第一個病例，但中國排拒台灣加入WHO時，兩岸則產生了大量的敵意。同時間， 台灣也將中國政府描述為一缺乏危機管理的政權。從一部份來看，台灣政府將疾 病視為欲對抗的敵人。台灣試圖防止SARS跨越邊界爆發前的努力，就像是進行 一場捍衛領土的戰爭。政府藉由限制不僅是受感染地區人民的入境，也包括了可 能感染SARS可疑病患的出境，來達成滴水不漏的邊界控制。為了提昇對抗SARS 的效率和效能，台灣動員了所有的方法和資源，包括繞過一般正常法律和決策制 訂的冗長過程。而約在SARS爆發期間的同時，每日的記者招待會，就像是美國 和英國在伊拉克戰爭時所召開的會議方式一般正式。在國際期間，台灣也持續地 藉由對SARS議題的熱心參與，希望能加入WHO的行列。台灣政府的這些措施， 都可視為一場對抗敵人的戰爭。18 當然，台灣在確認傳染性疾病是種對安全的威脅這一個觀點上，並非孤軍奮 戰的。1995 年時，一個由美國政府資助的研究就聲明了傳染性疾病建構了對國 家安全的威脅。隔一年後，美國國防部藉由其軍用研究室的網絡，建立了一個全 球湧現傳染性疾病的監督和回應系統。2000 年時，美國中央情報局（CIA）也認 知到由細菌作為媒介所產生的威脅將會危及美國的安全。同年，聯合國安全理事 會斷定細菌「危害物」將會威脅國際和平與安全。這證明了傳染性疾病成了人類 安全領域中的一環，也改變了原本安全的概念。
結論
18As a matter of fact, many countries took measures against SARS like fighting a war or bioterrorism. See Melissa Curley and Nicholas Thomas, “Human Security and Public Health in Southeast Asia: The SARS Outbreak,” Australian Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 58, No. 1 (March 2004), pp. 17-32. Also Joseph W. Foxell, Jr., “The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome,” American Foreign Policy
這份研究試圖強調設定一個聚焦於人類面向的新安全議題的重要性。在新安 全議題的研究中，我們必須重新去思考五個 WH 的基本安全概念。第一，誰的 安全應該被修先考量？在這個新世界的秩序中，唯有個人的安全被捍衛，國家才 得以安全。第二，非安全的來源為何？對個人安全的威脅可能是多樣性的。第三， 非安全是如何擴散的？它們可以輕易地跨越邊境傳輸。第四，誰應該對捍衛安全 負起責任？除了國家以外，非國家行動者也扮演著重要的角色。第五，非安全何 時會擴散？以及它們是何時被人們視為威脅的？由於現代化的交流，即時的非安 全相關訊息傳輸，都使得這些威脅看來迫在眉梢。 我們現在正面臨著一個新的世界，到處充滿了新型態的「非安全」，包括全 球化的危機、人口販賣、金融市場的不穩定、環境退化、傳染性疾病和其他疾病 的出現等，都對整體的人類安全產生了極大的威脅。為了防禦人類安全，我們需 要建立一個新的全球性架構。基本的要素包含如下：第一，形式的主權概念應使 其適應於符合現代化的需求。第二，除了國家之外，非國家行動者也應包含在安 全的決策制訂和政策執行過程中。第三，詳細檢查任何威脅的來源這種跨越全世 界的相同作法，應該於即時的基礎上來進行處理。第四，「國際性」組織和政體 應開放非國家行動者的會員加入。19第五，現代化的國家治理方式應奠基於民主 的原則上，不論屬於任何國家的所有人類，都應被視為平等以及受到照顧。沒有 任何一個人應被棄之於不顧。堅持這個信念，我們必須共同的努力，將世界建構 為一個更好且更民主的居住地 19
Globalisation, Human Security and SARS
Francis Yi-hua Kan
Institute of International Relations
National Chengchi University
Introduction
The profound impacts of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak across this region and beyond two years ago highlighted the needs to review the
concept of security in the new era for scholars and decision-makers alike that the attention has to be shifted from military-dominated conventional thinking to
people-centred security concept. Events in the post-Cold War era have pushed the world to acknowledge the emerging threats in multiple forms to people and to change
conventional thinking on security. The new era has not fulfilled the hope that the end of the bipolar stalemate between the two superpowers would make the world a more
peaceful and prosperous place to live.1 Actually, new forms of conflict and threat followed, causing greater scale and numbers of human losses and economic and social
disruption than the Cold War had. Each year, millions of lives are lost, not by international wars, but by communicable diseases, environmental disasters, famine
and civil wars, all of which are not major concerns of conventional security thinking. Moreover, approximately 95% of all warfare in the past one and half decades or so
was not between states, but within them.2 It has become evident that military defence
1
William Bain, “The Tyranny of Benevolence: National Security, Human Security, and the Practice of Statecraft,” Global Society, Vol. 15, No. 3 (July 2001), p. 277.
2
Taylor Owen, “Human Security – Conflict, Critique and Consensus: Colloquium Remarks and a Proposal for a Threshold-Based Definition,” Security Dialogue, Vol. 35, No. 3 (September 2004), pp.
of national security alone cannot sufficiently secure people from new threats and
ensure the safety of individuals. National security, focusing on protecting national borders from external threat, no longer guarantees the maximum security needs of
people urgently required in the new era. The spread of fatal infectious diseases, like SARS last year, refugee problems, political oppression, chronic conditions of
deprivation, and others have become the main concerns of human security.3
Moreover, the process of globalisation has dramatically increased the
interconnectedness of social behaviour and accelerated cross-border flows of people, information, trade, as well as sources of threats. The changing process of human
interaction has brought prosperity as well as vulnerability to the poor and the rich alike. Once considered as confined to only poverty-linked areas, infectious diseases,
for instance, have now been able to appear in everywhere in the world, including the rich.4 Problems even in the weakest of regions can have ramifications for the more powerful ones. Nowhere in the entire international system is immune to the threats to human security in another. Also, events at the domestic level can easily have
‘spill-over effects’ in regional or global level. As a result, the traditional thinking on security that is fundamentally concerned with military matters within the realm of
domestic responsibility is obsolete.5
This research attempted to conceptualise the communicable diseases in the
context of new security studies in the emerging trend of globalisation. It was analysed by introducing three concurrent trends regarding communicable diseases in a
globalised world. First, threats caused by infectious diseases demonstrate the
374-375.
3
Sadako Ogata and Johan Cels, “Human Security: Protecting and Empowering the People,” Global
Governance, Vol. 9, No. 3(July-September 2003), p. 275.
4
Lincoln Chen and Vasant Narasimhan, “Human Security and Global Health,” Journal of Human
Development, Vol. 4, No. 2 (July 2003), p. 182 and 186.
5
George MacLean, “Instituting and Projecting Human Security: A Canadian Perspective,” Australian
vulnerability of all nations to outbreaks and epidemics of communicable diseases.
SARS is just one of the examples that could cause great degree of damages psychologically and physically in regions and nations, whether rich or poor, powerful
or weak.
Second, the capacity of an emerging disease to destabilise a large geographical
region across national boundaries could undermine the very infrastructures needed for governance. The impact of AIDS, for instance, has indiscriminately affected the
public health in each continent, and particularly in those areas where manpower is already in decline and weakened.
Third, a reconsideration of the determinants of security broadens the perception of what constitutes a security threat, making space to accommodate infectious
diseases and others in their most disruptive forms. The conventional concept of security can no longer be adequate to evaluate the emerging threats to human beings
in an era of globalisation. Most of catastrophes that account for the majority of fatalities in the post-Cold War time are not related to international conflicts. Instead,
non-military threats have emerged as the main sources of menaces to human welfare. The traditional measures to counter military security threat cannot meet the challenges
of new security threats. The 2004 tsunami disaster in Southeast Asia demonstrates that damages caused by natural forces are not less threatening than military means.6
This research was examined according to these three trends in order. After demonstration of these three trends, it was concluded by looking into the emergence
of the new security agenda in the context of human security.
6
David L. Heymann, “The Evolving Infectious Disease Threat: Implications for National and Global Security,” Journal of Human Development, Vol. 4, No. 2 (July 2003), p. 192.
Dimension of Globalisation: Threat of Diseases to All
Societies
In discussing the first trend, focus will be placed on the correlation between globalisation and new threats. One of the most popular catchwords that have been
widely used in the past decade or so is globalisation. The most significant characteristics of globalisation are that new ways of interactions of human social
behaviour have emerged. The scale, speed and reach of human movements have been revolutionalised. The world is therefore becoming highly mobile so that human
interactions have been closely interconnected.
While conventional security studies usually focused on the sources of military
threats that could be contained within national borders, new threats in this globalised world have transnational nature in the sense that national borders are no longer the
limits for the new threats. Such non-military dimensions of threats include global crime, human and drug trafficking, environmental degradation, communicable
diseases and others.
Because of the close interconnectedness of human behaviour and rapid
transmission of real-time information, new threats could cause wide-spread psychological effects across the globe. What is extremely alarming is not only the
concrete damages to human lives and welfare but also the perception of people towards the possible impacts that would spread irrational panic easily and rapidly.
During the SARS crisis, for instance, the psychological shock was spread around the world in spite of the fact that the disease affected only less than 30 countries. People
the world now was closely linked.7
At the same time, one state alone may not be able to deter new threats. To fight these new threats needs coordinative efforts among states and non-state actors in a
multilateral manner. While recognising that states may still be the dominant power to counter new threats, non-state actors should be given proper roles to play, for they are
more flexible, penetrable and efficient. As the new security threats, particularly communicable diseases, can be characterised as cross-national, measures to fight
against them should also be coordinated by states and non-state actors alike.
The threat caused by communicable diseases is one of the most significant
instances that have been extraordinarily disturbing as a result of closer cross-border interconnectedness. If we look into the question as to how long exactly infectious
agents can be transported between any two points in the world, the answer is strikingly within 36 hours. In an increasingly interdependent and interconnected
world, the communicable diseases can be conveyed over long distances, by humans, cargoes, cabins, luggage, or even migratory birds. Facing such threat as a result of the
communicable diseases, national boundaries, which have been seen as front-lines in preventing any alien threats from entering its territories, have become meaningless.
The insistence of national sovereignty and the lack of co-operations among the members in the international community give infectious agents opportunities to
exploit. As a result, it seems that virtually no single community can be immune from threat of contagious diseases.
7
Jong-Wha Lee and Warwick J. McKibbin, “Globalization and Disease: The Case of SARS,” Asian
Capacity of Disease Threat
We know that threats to human beings in this globalised world can be enormous, but the core question is why some threats, particularly of communicable diseases, are
perceived by people as being formidable while some are not. There are some factors that can reinforce people’s panic at the time of the outbreak of diseases.
First, communicable diseases could cause wide-spread panic in the communities concerned as people feel a great degree of uncertainties. Unknown pathogen is surely
one of the uncertainties when the outbreak occurs. Some diseases that can cause higher fatalities may not necessarily be more frightening as people have better
knowledge of prevention and treatment.
Second, the rapid speed of diseases spread in the globalised world could spread
panic too, but what is more important is the speed of information transmission that sometimes exaggerates the real situation could make people feel more vigilant than
they should be. Free flows of information can easily spread rumours that further intensify the uncertainties.
Third, geographical boundaries cannot prevent the communicable diseases from crossing. The indiscriminate spread of diseases regardless borders makes people feel
helpless. More wealthy nations may be more capable of preventing hostile powers from invading them, but they do not necessarily suffer less than their poorer
counterparts when encountering non-military security threats.
Fourth, some diseases with higher rates of mortality than others can also cause
greater panic. The impact of a disease will be greater than others, if it can be spread out and cause fatalities at a large scale.
potential of outbreaks and epidemics can be expensive. The high mortality of patients
and health workers can cause great costs to the health care system in the nation concerned. The social welfare system can also bear heavy burden when the society is
enduring the outbreak of a communicable disease that leads to temporary or permanent unemployment, fatalities of people who are responsible for family
maintenance, and the increase of social care costs. Meanwhile, affected countries and regions can also experience heavy additional burdens in the form of lost trade and
tourism. The poor condition of work forces, particularly among those who are expected to be most productive, as a result of some diseases, can further weaken the
economic performance. If a wide-spread disease lasts over a rather long period of time, the economic situations can be even worsened as foreign investment will be deterred
from coming into the communities concerned. Moreover, high insurance costs throughout various sectors in the communities put even heavier burden on people
when they need these scarce resources to rebuild their societies. Overall, threat caused by fatal infectious diseases can be extraordinarily formidable and the costs to the
societies concerned can be so high that sometimes it needs a long period time to rebuild the societies.
Changing Concept of Security
The post-Cold War global security environment can be characterised by an increase of
diversification of non-physical and cross-border threats posed by non-state actors.8 To meet the challenges in the new era, the narrowly interpreted concept of security that is
8
See Victor D. Cha, “Globalization and the Study of International Security,” Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 37, No. 3 (May 2000), pp. 391-403; and Sam J. Tangredi, “Effects of Globalization on Military Operations,” The European Legacy, Vol. 8, No. 3 (June 2003), pp. 299-315.
concerned with security of territory from external threats should be modified. The
problem of conventional security studies is that the key to related studies has been military force, not security per se.9 The conventional security concern exclusively focuses on the national pursuit of defence against any threat to its territorial integrity and of assurance of its very survival. Therefore, the most powerful means in
safeguarding national security is military. However, the threats to a nation or to human beings in the globalised world are multi-dimensional. The facts that the world
has continued to witness losses of human lives and well-beings at a large scale and that the state alone can sometimes be helpless in deterring these threats remind us that
the core concept of security should be switched from state-centric orientation back to people-centred concerns. The security of people should be placed ahead of other
security concerns.10 Human security offers the world an opportunity to look back to the normative ideas about security that is supposed to seek to safeguard individuals.
The concept of human security is based on the concerns about the well-being of people instead of the physical security of states.11 More importantly, not only are people within the national boundaries the major concern of human security, people outside the national borders also become the focus of attention.12 To locate human security in a broad framework of security studies, some criteria may be useful. First, concerning the reference object, human security points to the protection of universal
rights for people as the ultimate goal for which security is to provide. Second, in terms of values, human security attempts to observe and guard a set of particular
9
David Baldwin, “The Concept of Security,” Review of International Studies, Vol. 23, No. 1 (January 1997), p. 9.
10
See Lloyd Axworthy, “Human Security and Global Governance: Putting People First,” Global
Governance, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Winter 2001), pp. 19-23. Axworthy was formerly Canadian Foreign
Minister and a strong advocate of human security.
11
Laura Reed and Majid Tehranian, “Evolving Security Regimes,” in Tehranian (ed.), Worlds Apart:
Human Security and Global Governance (London: I.B. Tauris, 1999), p. 24.
12
Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, “New Threats to Human Security in the Era of Globalization,” Journal of
norms of behaviour as its core values. Third, regarding sources of threat, human
security can be understood as concerns about the prevention from a wide range of hazards, such as environmental degradation, exploitation of labour and many others.
Fourth, as to means, to protect human security needs a more comprehensive way of dealing with threat than military-oriented security can offer. Fifth, roles of state and
non-state actors, which have been seen as agents for the attainment of security, and interactions between them are important in the discussion of governance of human
security, among which global governance is a new way of thinking to strengthen human security. Sixth, in terms of the relationship between the state and the individual,
the rights of states stipulated in international laws, such as use of force, are justified solely by the benefit the state confers to the individual and by people’s continuing
consent and democratic representation.13
The official UNDP Human Development Report in 1994 laid the foundation for
further discussions and evolution of human security. Following works have ever since revolved around two sides of definition of human security: First, in the active side,
security should be aimed at ‘protecting the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human fulfilment,’ as well as empowering individuals
and communities to develop the capabilities for making informed choices and acting on their own behalves; Second, in the passive side, people should be protected from
severe and pervasive threats, both natural and societal causes, and from emancipation from national or local oppressive power structures.14
Among the emerging sources of threats to human beings, public health is one of
13
Julie Gilson and Phillida Purvis, “Japan’s Pursuit of Human Security: Humanitarian Agenda or Political Pragmatism?” Japan Forum, Vol. 15, No. 2 (September 2003), pp. 194-195. Also, Matt McDonald, “Human Security and the Construction of Security,” Global Society, Vol. 16, No. 3 (July 2002), p. 279; and Bain, “The Tyranny of Benevolence,” p. 282.
14
See Commission on Human Security, Human Security Now: Protecting and Empowering People (New York: Commission on Human Security, 2003); also, Ogata and Cels, “Human Security,” p. 274; and Caroline Thomas, “Introduction,” in C. Thomas and Peter Wilkin (eds.) Globalization, Human
the most menacing and noticeable threats to human security. According to the World
Health Organisation (WHO), there are 17.7 million people approximately who die from infectious diseases every year, outnumbering those death in the conventional
forms, such as military conflicts. Also, the deaths caused by infectious diseases account for 26% of total global mortality. Among the communicable diseases,
HIV/AIDS is one of the most threatening diseases to human well-being. It is estimated that 42 million people live with the disease, most of who are in
under-developed nations. On average around 5 million people are infected and 3 million die every year.15 In addition, malaria causes 300 million cases and tuberculosis infects 60 million people every year. As one of the leading infectious diseases that cause adult mortality, tuberculosis brings two million deaths each year.
Therefore, it is necessary to make public health a cross-border issue and to network health policy into a global system that requires primary health and disease
surveillance systems. The spread of SARS in 2003 globally also demonstrates the necessity of developing a global mechanism to strengthen co-operation in uniting
efforts to curb the spread of infectious diseases.16
However, it has to say that some, if not most, of the fatalities resulting from
communicable diseases are not unavoidable, as these threats may come from poverty, ignorance and corruption, all of which need special attention to remedy. Security
mechanism in terms of public health is essential to fight against diseases. Such mechanism includes the following measures. First, quarantine is a hard decision to
make but a necessary measure in the event of disease outbreak. In a more globalised world, and particularly in a democracy, restrictions on free movement require hard
evidence to support such actions and public health crisis is surely one of the situations
15
UNAIDS, Report on the Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic 2002 (Geneva: Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, 2002).
16
that urgently induce the authorities to impose quarantine. Second, travel advisories are
needed for home citizens and foreigners alike to provide real-time and accurate information concerning public health problems. It is possible that any announcement
of travel advisory can have economic impacts on the affected areas as it can dissuade foreign visitors to come, but ignorance of real situations can cause even long-term
damage when people lose confidence in public health in the societies concerned. Third, immigration and border controls can check the scale and speed of disease
spread, though they can possibly have political and diplomatic implications for the relationship of the countries affected with others. Finally, public information
programmes are required to ‘educate’ people with new knowledge of any emerging new threat and with operable measures to fight collectively.
Public health has gradually become widely perceived as one of the dimensions of human security, but it is still debatable whose security comes first, national security or
security of individuals. At the beginning of the SARS outbreak, China concealed the truth of SARS in name of national security. But in retrospect, if China could have
been able to act earlier and more actively with more openness, SARS may not have been so devastating as it turned out to be. Instead, what the world had witnessed was
that China took 4.5 months to alert the WHO. The golden opportunities to confine the disease therefore faded away.
The impact of HIV/AIDS is another example that demonstrates how damaging a communicable disease can be. Since AIDS became known, there have been 25 million
people who die of it. Each year, another 3 million new cases are reported. In 2000, the United Nation Security Council, which had exclusively focused on political and
security dimensions of world affairs before, announced that AIDS was a national and international security threat, the first time to declare a public health problem in its
nations, held in Okinawa and Genoa, also expressed concerns over HIV/AIDS crisis.17 However, many nations are still reluctant to see public health to become security concerns and they tend to treat the communicable diseases as merely social/economic
issues.
Although the scale of outbreak and the number of fatalities caused by SARS are
significantly less severe than AIDS, it was perceived at the time of outbreak as a threat to human beings, no less serious than AIDS. First, SARS was highly contagious,
particularly when people had little knowledge about how it was spread and how people got infected. Second, the average fatal rate of SARS was as high as 10%. Third,
there were at least 28 countries affected by SARS within a period of 6-month time since the first outbreak in China. There were 8,500 probable cases around the globe
and among them 820 fatal cases were reported (see the following diagram).
SARS Statistics
Areas No. of Cases No. of Deaths Fatality Ratio
Canada 251 43 17 China 5,327 349 7 Hong Kong 1,755 299 17 Taiwan 346 37 11 Philippines 14 2 14 Singapore 238 33 14 US 27 0 0 Vietnam 63 5 8 Others* 75 6 8 17
Dennis Altman, “AIDS and Security,” International Relations, Vol. 17, No. 4 (December2003), pp. 417-427.
Total 8,096 774 9.6
* Others: Australia, Macao, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mongolia, New Zealand, Ireland, Korea, Romania, Russia, S. Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, UK
Source: http://www.who.int/csr/sars/en
It is here worth noting how countries ‘securitised’ SARS issue. During the SARS
period, Taiwan, for example, conducted the following steps that could be seen as security measures vis-à-vis SARS. As SARS was first found in China, Taiwan issued
travel advisories whereby restricting normal contacts between the two sides. When Taiwan had the first case while China refused Taiwan to have access to WHO, the
hostility between the two was further intensified. At the same time, Taiwan painted the Chinese government as a regime that lacked the capabilities in crisis management.
For its part, the Taiwanese government saw the disease as an enemy that had to be defeated. The way Taiwan tried to prevent SARS from crossing borders before the
outbreak looked like fighting a war out of its territories. The government tightened border controls by limiting not only foreign citizens of affected countries, but also its
own people who were suspected as possible reservoir. In order to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of fighting against SARS, Taiwan mobilised all necessary
means and resources, and bypassed normal law-making and decision-making processes. The daily press conference on SARS resembled the way the Americans and
the British held war briefings during the Iraq war, which occurred almost at the same time of SARS. Internationally, Taiwan constantly appealed for its aspiration to be
by the Taiwanese government resembled a war against an enemy.18
Taiwan surely was not alone in identifying the communicable diseases as security threats. In 1995, a US Government-supported study declared that infectious
diseases constitute a threat to its national security. In the following year, US Department of Defence established a Global Emerging Infectious Surveillance and
Response System based on a network of its military laboratories. In 2000, US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) acknowledged that threat posed by microbial agents can
compromise US security. And in the same year, UN Security Council concluded that microbial ‘foes’ threaten international peace and security. It is evident that concerns
about communicable diseases have contributed to the human security realm that in turn has reformed the concept of security.
Conclusion
This research attempted to emphasise the importance of setting a new security agenda
focusing on human dimension. In the new security studies, we have to re-consider the basic concept of security. First, whose security should prevail? In this new world order,
only individual security is guarded and then the state can be secure. Second, where are insecurities from? Threats to individual security may be in multiple forms. Third, how
are insecurities spread? They can easily be transmitted across the borders. Fourth, who are responsible for safeguarding security? In addition to the state, non-state actors also
play important roles in emerging security mechanism. Fifth, when are insecurities
18
As a matter of fact, many countries took measures against SARS like fighting a war or bioterrorism. See Melissa Curley and Nicholas Thomas, “Human Security and Public Health in Southeast Asia: The SARS Outbreak,” Australian Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 58, No. 1 (March 2004), pp. 17-32. Also Joseph W. Foxell, Jr., “The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome,” American Foreign Policy
spread? And when are they perceived by people as threat? Thanks to modern
communication, real-time transmission of insecurities-related information makes these threats look imminent.
We are now facing a new world where new insecurities, including global crime, human trafficking, instability in financial markets, environmental degradation,
communicable diseases and many others, pose great threat to human security and national security as a whole. In order to defend the human security, we need to build
a new global framework. The basic elements include: First, the concept of sovereignty in traditional form should be adapted to meet the modern needs. Second, in addition to
the state, non-state actors should be involved in security decision-making and policy-implementing processes. Third, coordinative methods across the global in
scrutinising any source of threat should be conducted on a real-time basis.19 Fourth, ‘international’ organisations and regimes should open their memberships to non-state
actors. Fifth, the way the modern world is governed should be based on democratic principle. All human beings, where belonging to any state, should be seen as equal
and should therefore be taken care of. No one should be left without being given proper care. It is based on this belief that we all have to work closely to build the
world a better and more democratic place to live.
19
參考文獻
專書
Thomas, Caroline (1999), “Introduction,” in C. Thomas and Peter Wilkin (eds.)
Globalization, Human Security and the African Experience, Boulder, CO: Lynne
Rienner Publishers, p.3.
Commission on Human Security(2003), Human Security Now: Protecting and
Empowering People , New York: Commission on Human Security.
UNAIDS(2002), Report on the Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic 2002, Geneva: Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS.
期刊
Altman, Dennis(December2003), “AIDS and Security,” International Relations, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 417-427.
Axworthy, Lloyd(Winter 2001), “Human Security and Global Governance: Putting People First,” Global Governance, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 19-23.
Bain, William(July 2001), “The Tyranny of Benevolence: National Security, Human Security, and the Practice of Statecraft,” Global Society, Vol. 15, No. 3, p. 277.
Baldwin, David(January 1997), “The Concept of Security,” Review of International
Studies, Vol. 23, No. 1, p. 9.
Cha, Victor D. (May 2000), “Globalization and the Study of International Security,”
Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 391-403.
Bain, William(2001), “The Tyranny of Benevolence: National Security, Human Security and the Practice of Statecraft,” Global Society, Vol.15, No.1, p. 282.
Chen, Lincoln and Vasant Narasimhan(July 2003), “Human Security and Global Health,” Journal of Human Development, Vol. 4, No. 2, p. 182 and 186.
Curley, Melissa and Nicholas Thomas(March 2004),“Human Security and Public Health in Southeast Asia: The SARS Outbreak,” Australian Journal of
International Affairs, Vol. 58, No. 1, pp.17-32.
Foxell, Joseph W. Jr.(August 2003), “The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome,”
Fukuda-Parr, Sakiko(July 2003), “New Threats to Human Security in the Era of Globalization,” Journal of Human Development, Vol. 4, No. 2, p. 171.
Gilson, Julie and Phillida Purvis(September 2003), “Japan’s Pursuit of Human Security: Humanitarian Agenda or Political Pragmatism?” Japan Forum, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 194-195.
Heymann, David L. (July 2003), “The Evolving Infectious Disease Threat: Implications for National and Global Security,” Journal of Human Development, Vol. 4, No. 2, p. 192.
Lee, Jong-Wha and Warwick J. McKibbin(August2004), “Globalization and Disease: The Case of SARS,” Asian Economic Papers, Vol. 3, No. 1, p. 117.
MacLean, George(November 2000), “Instituting and Projecting Human Security: A Canadian Perspective,” Australian Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 54, No. 3, p. 271.
McDonald, Matt(July 2002), “Human Security and the Construction of Security,”
Global Society, Vol. 16, No. 3, p. 279.
No. 3, p. 222.
Ogata, Sadako and Johan Cels(July-September 2003), “Human Security: Protecting and Empowering the People,” Global Governance, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 274-275and 278-279.
Owen, Taylor(September 2004), “Human Security – Conflict, Critique and Consensus: Colloquium Remarks and a Proposal for a Threshold-Based Definition,” Security
Dialogue, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 374-375.
Prescott, Elizabeth M.(Autumn 2003), “SARS: A Warning,” Survival, Vol. 45,
Reed, Laura and Majid Tehranian(1999), “Evolving Security Regimes,” in Tehranian (ed.), Worlds Apart: Human Security and Global Governance .London: I.B. Tauris, p. 24.
Tangredi, Sam J. (June 2003), “Effects of Globalization on Military Operations,” The
New Security Agenda: Human Security in
Europe and Asia
Francis Yi-hua Kan
Associate Research Fellow
Institute of International Relations
National Chengchi University
For the 21
stTaiwan-European Conference
16-17 Nov. 2004, Taipei
Introduction
The highlight of the new dimensions of security issues after the end of the Cold War for scholars and decision-makers alike is that the attention has been shifted from
military-dominated conventional thinking to people-centred security concept. Events in the post-Cold War era have pushed the world to acknowledge various threats to
people and to change conventional thinking on security. The new era has not fulfilled the hope that the end of the bipolar stalemate between the two superpowers would
make the world a more peaceful and prosperous place to live.1 Actually, new forms of conflict and threat followed, causing greater scale and numbers of human losses and
economic and social disruption than the Cold War had. Each year, millions of lives are lost, not by international wars, but by communicable diseases, environmental disasters,
famine and civil wars, all of which are not major concerns of conventional security thinking. Moreover, approximately 95% of all warfare in the past one and half
1
William Bain, “The Tyranny of Benevolence: National Security, Human Security, and the Practice of Statecraft,” Global Society, Vol. 15, No. 3 (July 2001), p. 277.
decades or so is not between states, but within them.2 It has become evident that military defence of national security alone cannot sufficiently secure people from new threats and ensure the safety of individuals. National security, focusing on protecting
national borders from external threat, no longer guarantees the maximum security needs of people urgently required in the new era. The spread of fatal infectious
diseases, like SARS last year, refugee problems, political oppression, chronic conditions of deprivation, and others have become the main concerns of human
security.3
Moreover, the process of globalization has dramatically increased the
interconnectedness of social behaviour and accelerated cross-border flows of people, information, trade, as well as sources of threats. The changing process of human
interaction has brought prosperity as well as vulnerability to the poor and the rich alike.4 Problems even in the weakest of regions can have ramifications for the more powerful ones. Nowhere in the entire international system is immune to the threats to human security in another. Also, events at the domestic level can easily have
‘spill-over effects’ in regional or global level. As a result, the traditional thinking on security that is fundamentally concerned with military matters within the realm of
domestic responsibility is obsolete.5
The global recognition of the importance of human security further rendered the
concept a predominant position in security studies. The United Nations Development Programme published its 1994 Human Development Report, articulating human
2
Taylor Owen, “Human Security – Conflict, Critique and Consensus: Colloquium Remarks and a Proposal for a Threshold-Based Definition,” Security Dialogue, Vol. 35, No. 3 (September 2004), pp. 374-375.
3
Sadako Ogata and Johan Cels, “Human Security: Protecting and Empowering the People,” Global
Governance, Vol. 9, No. 3(July-September 2003), p. 275.
4
Lincoln Chen and Vasant Narasimhan, “Human Security and Global Health,” Journal of Human
Development, Vol. 4, No. 2 (July 2003), p. 182.
5
George MacLean, “Instituting and Projecting Human Security: A Canadian Perspective,” Australian
security as ‘safety from chronic threats such as hunger, disease and repression,’ along
with ‘protection from sudden and hurtful disruption in the patterns of daily life.’6 This report has opened a new page of our understanding and practice of security, redefining
the concept of security by institutionalising concerns and threats at the individual level in the practice of security.7 Since then, studies of human security have grown rapidly in academic circle and the concept has been widely discussed and adopted at practical level.
This article will start by discussing what human security actually means in this new era and how human security can be located in a broad framework of security
studies. It will then identify some sources of threat to people as among the most pressing issues that Asia, Europe, and the rest of the world are now facing. Finally,
this article attempts to put forward some suggestions for regional and global co-operation in enhancing our strength to fight the threats encountering human
security.
Human Security
The post-Cold War global security environment can be characterised by an increase of
diversification of non-physical and cross-border threats posed by non-state actors.8 To meet the challenges in the new era, the narrowly interpreted concept of security that is
concerned with security of territory from external threats should be modified. The problem of conventional security studies is that the key to related studies has been
6
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Human Development Report: Annual Report (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), p. 23.
7
Matt McDonald, “Human Security and the Construction of Security,” Global Society, Vol. 16, No. 3 (July 2002), p. 278.
8
See Victor D. Cha, “Globalization and the Study of International Security,” Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 37, No. 3 (May 2000), pp. 391-403; and Sam J. Tangredi, “Effects of Globalization on Military Operations,” The European Legacy, Vol. 8, No. 3 (June 2003), pp. 299-315.
