Fifth Intellectual Dialogue on Building Asia's Tomorrow

Implementing the Human Security Concept: Exploring Approaches to Evaluating Human Security Projects

Summary of Discussions

Introduction

This workshop, organized under the joint sponsorship of the Japan Center for International Exchange (JCIE), the Institute for Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), Singapore, and the Japan Foundation, was an important step in realizing the Human Security Commission members' goal for a global alliance on human security that will bring the concept into action. The parliamentarians; government officials; representatives from research institutes, NGOs, and aid agencies; academics: and individuals who participated in the workshop all have the capacity to shape such action. The participants were challenged to come up with ideas and to propose actions.

One issue to be explored during the workshop was evaluation of human security projects. The Japanese government is in the process of approving a 15 billion yen Human Security Grassroots Fund to support human security projects. The fund's programmatic approaches need to reflect lessons from past experiences and identify important elements for evaluating past projects.

Session I: Human Security—from Concept to Action

Session I opened with an address by Surin Pitsuwan, a member of the Human Security Commission and a member of the Thai parliament. The first part of his talk focused on the constraints faced by government officials in their attempt to implement a human security agenda. He then moved on to areas in which the commission needs input and feedback from a broader group of academics, NGOs, and government officials.

The idea of human security has generated a lot of anxiety, particularly among those who hold on to the concepts of traditional security focused on the state. Because of the velocity of changes brought about by globalization, there are gaps, circumstances in which the concept of state security cannot take care of people in a timely manner. The inertia of bureaucracy, political differences, lack of resources, and sometimes the state itself are all parts of the problem in creating insecurity. In order to come up with an idea of human security, states' built-in inertia and hesitancy must be taken into account.

At the public meeting on February 25, 2003, the commission members talked about the need for a global alliance that will place human security on the global security agenda. One responsibility of the alliance will be to anticipate human security problems that will follow governments' actions, addressing more than just the security and interests of the state. It will need to prevent conflict and advance human rights, as the core of the human security agenda, and human development at same time. Societies will need to be transformed and introduced to new ideas and elements of human security.

Amartya Sen, one of the commission's co-chairs, took up the development part of the commission. The best guarantor of human security is the quality of life for the people themselves. Lack of education, public health, and employment all lead to human insecurity. Under Dr. Sen's guidance, the commission came up with recommendations in preparation for fuller participation of all human beings. In addition, marginalized communities and individuals who have been outside of the decision-making process need to be empowered. They have to be able to make choices in their lives and decisions about their own security.

For major development and government investment projects, human security impact assessment should be incorporated as a part of an agenda of investment analysis, in order to review the impact of these projects upon people.

The commission made the case that the human security framework needs to be promoted to all of the stakeholders around the world, developing a kind of culture of human security that is accepted as a natural part of the dialogue. The commission identified the following areas that need to be discussed and addressed in order to make implementation of a human security agenda possible in the real world:

1. To create an alliance that controls domestic and international problems of small arms and crime
2. To create normative regimes to supervise people who are on the move, including refugees, internally displaced people (IDPs), and trafficked people
3. To establish a kind of transition fund toto take care of people before state or international agencies are able to step in and take action in situations immediately after conflicts and wars, such as Aceh and East Timor
4. To reduce market barriers while ensuring that people have better prospects for livelihood through fair markets
5. To create an alliance that will lead to universal primary health care and prevent unnecessary sickness and death
6. To find a balance between incentive for research in order to come up with new drugs and the rights of the people who should be taken care of because their lives are threatened
7. To realize basic education for all so that all people, including women and children in conflict, are empowered to take care of themselves and learn how to deal with the challenges they face every day
8. To develop methods of teaching (including adult education) that respect diversity and mutual understanding among groups and communities

The next speaker of Session I was Lincoln Chen, a Human Security Commission member and director of the Center for Global Equity at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. Dr. Chen compared the process of building a culture of human security to the Bruntland Commission's coining of the concept of sustainable development. It is hoped that the commission members and all of the people who attended the public symposium and participated in the workshop will help to make "human security" as commonly accepted of a term as "sustainable development." He recommended three characteristics of projects emerging from the Bruntland Commission that he hopes to see in upcoming human security projects: a value-based, people-centered approach; constituency mobilizing and energizing; and promotion of dialogue among different groups, including those who are concerned with state security, humanitarian action, and development.

The commission has offered a fresh invigoration of the people-centered approach to development. It identifies both gaps—such as crime and illness—and opportunities—such as knowledge, skills, and political will. Human security allows for both bottom-up and top-down approaches.

The next step, moving the concept of human security from theory to action, requires careful design, management, and evaluation of grassroots human security projects. We need to think both about what success would look like and on whose criteria we are defining success (e.g., government, philanthropy, the general public). Financing is important, but we also need strong investments from the people who will implement the projects. An important next step will be to design human security management tools to assist implementation and measurement, all of which should be designed to be participatory. While acknowledging that human security is a broad, ambitious, and sometimes vague concept, Dr. Chen voiced his support for Japanese Foreign Minister Kawaguchi's comments that it is only through the activities that will follow the commission's work that feedback can be given to the commission.

Next, Keizo Takemi, a member of Japan's House of Councillors, offered Japan's response to the commission's draft report, by presenting the attached paper.

Next, Kaoru Ishikawa, director-general of the Multilateral Cooperation Department of Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, spoke about the grassroots human security fund to be created in Japanese fiscal year 2003. The motivation behind the fund's creation was an attempt to give a name, a face, and dignity to every individual around the world. It is the ministry's intention that the fund be used for joint actions among specialized agencies, NGOs, and other donor countries. One major goal of the fund is to disseminate the concept of human security. The media is important in this aspect, and the commission co-chairs were already speaking with the press at the Foreign Correspondents' Club on the day of the workshop. The Japanese government also plans to try to use official international forums to talk about the concept of human security. In reaching out to the public, it might be useful to provide concrete examples. Mr. Ishikawa reminded the workshop participants that there have been many good conferences since 1945 that never resulted in any action. He warned that that should not happen in the case of the Human Security Commission because of the commitment that needs to be made to people around the world who suffer. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs will create a task force involving various departments to coordinate activities under the grassroots human security fund and the Human Security Trust Fund.

One participant asked the commission members who were present at the workshop if the commission had prioritized any areas of human security. Dr. Surin replied that the top priority was providing safety and security to people in situations of conflict and emergency. During emergencies, refugees are faced with threats to their physical safety and survival, and the commission has recommended a transitional fund to provide for their immediate needs during emergency situations. Too often, there is not enough preparation and anticipation of emergencies so that resources for dealing with related human security threats are not in place in a timely manner. The commission recommended that such situation-specific funds be supported by states, the UN, and Brettton Woods Institutions.

Dr. Chen responded that although investment needs for human security would cover diverse sectors and a large amount would be required, people will prioritize things themselves.. The human security community needs to be prepared to respond to diverse and changing priorities. Mr. Yamamoto concurred, stating that there is the need for more dialogue that will examine needs in Asia from a more practical viewpoint.

A participant, speaking from his own experience with an NGO that goes into the field to suggest improvements in the way organizations are meeting the needs of human security, stated that there is a gap between the field level and the policy-making level. He suggested that there should be a shift of emphasis toward beneficiaries or toward the field level.

Another participant suggested that priority should be placed on people who are on the move. People usually move because of conflict. They move from or within countries with the lowest human development indicators. In those countries, the state security apparatuses are strong, but human security is weak. In countries where state security is paramount, to what extent can a grassroots human security fund empower local communities to confront or engage the state security apparatus? To what extent does the state protect the integrity of grassroots movements? Dr. Chen responded that it is precisely that tension that makes awareness raising important. Although states are hesitant, we may come up with a kind of guiding principle for addressing the needs of people on move through the process of raising awareness of the necessity for a human security approach.. Efforts will have to be made at all levels and all actors will have to come together.

Dr. Surin commented that it is important to address healing in post-conflict communities. The insecurity that results from major conflicts is not resolved on its own. Human security cannot be assured without healing efforts. In Aceh, for example, there needs to be healing within and among communities before the region moves onto reconstruction and development.