(Article based on a paper submitted at a conference on human security held at the UN headquarters in Tokyo in December 2004)

Establishing human security in the second half of the 20th century was related to cleansing the world of the legacy of the second world war, which culminated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Peace, however, brought challenges as a result of the competition between the two superpowers, the escalating arms race and the regional proxy wars that broke out. They both also entered into real wars – the Americans in Vietnam and the Soviets in Afghanistan. With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet bloc, violence has not, however, disappeared. It has become a prominent feature of the age of globalisation. And rather than being limited to the traditional flashpoints, Palestine, Kashmir and the like, violence has spread across the globe – to New York and Washington in the US, Madrid in Europe, Bali in Asia and Casablanca in Africa. International terrorism is on the rise and its perpetrators are announcing with pride their destructive accomplishments. In an attempt to restore order, the US, as the world’s sole superpower, has launched wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The rationale for launching these wars may have been clear, but their ends are obscure. For the US, the Soviet empire of evil has been replaced by several evils: terrorism, rogue states and weapons of mass destruction.

The current declining status of human security is a result of a number of factors:

- The legacy of previous deals turned sour: yesterday’s allies against the Soviets in Afghanistan – the Americans and the radical Islamists – have become today’s enemies, currently engaged in war

- US determination to suppress any threat to its international hegemony as the sole world power

- The increasing use of suicide missions as a weapon by Islamists has led to the new and extensive US war against terrorism

 

It can be argued that there is today a “global civil war” going on as a result of competition between the heirs to the old Cold War system. There is as well a protest movement against the economic aspects of globalisation launched by workers against American big business. The voice of the protest – the anti-globalisation movement – is loud, but is tolerated by US business leaders as while it may be an inconvenience it is not ultimately destructive. The mujahideen, on the other hand, are not tolerated as they destroy buildings and kill people (including themselves), threatening US state security. Until now, there has been no attempt at coalition between the anti-globalisation movement and the mujahideen, even if they may share feelings of glee at the misfortune of the US when one or other of them scores a “victory” against their joint enemy.

The US, however, is not the only threat to human security – whatever the opponents of globalisation and the mujahideen may think – just as it is not capable of confronting this threat alone, excluding both friends and foes. This has already had negative consequences. Factors other than the US include:

- The spread of conventional weapons sold by the larger and medium-sized powers (with the exception so far of Japan)

- The renewed spread of non-conventional weapons and the establishment of a black market in which countries such as North Korea, Pakistan and Israel deal

- The current wave of terrorism, which includes use of weapons of both a conventional and non-conventional nature, as well as a third weapon, that of religion – especially Islam

- Dictatorship – on the national level from national oppressors and on the international level from the superpowers – has created a sense of hopelessness and, in some, the willingness to sacrifice their life for what they perceive to be the greater good

- Perhaps the most important factor is the continued absence of justice for peoples and groups in regions such as Palestine, Kashmir, Kurdistan, Chechnya and Darfur

The situation could become more complicated with the addition of other possible factors:

- The lack of improvement, or change for the worse, in the flashpoints previously mentioned

- The use of nuclear weapons by the US or its allies at any warfront

- The successful use by terrorists of non-conventional weapons (nuclear, chemical or biological) against any western target. Should such an act involve Islamic suicide bombers, the crisis could lead to the expulsion of all Muslim communities from the West in a repetition of the events that ended Islamic rule in Andalusia

In short, we could be confronted by a deadly moment as the result of an explosion (11 September) or wide-scale destruction (Tora Bora) and we may seriously confront the spectre of wide-scale forced migration and genocide.

The concept of human security is primarily related to the desire to exist and the right to live as part of the human family. Therefore, the absence or lack of security means that life is threatened and that there is a danger of death. If we discuss the least harmful state – the continuation of life in terrible circumstances – we have to deal with other dimensions of human welfare such as health, psyche and spirit. This is, of course, a very wide field – involving a myriad of interrelated factors – that lies outside the scope of this article.

Between reality and possibility

Human security is severely threatened in the post-9/11 world. Distinguishing the realistic from the romantic perspective on the future of human security will lead us, unfortunately, to predict the deterioration of the situation rather than its improvement. Here we need to examine some of the latest developments:

- Can we consider Japan’s amendment to its constitution as a factor that will enhance international human security? Or could it also be considered a threat to regional security in East Asia?

- Will the economic and military advancement of China improve human security on the regional and global levels, or does it carry the seeds of something very different?

- Will the assumption that the Middle East is the main source of international troubles continue to be accurate? What about North Korea, for example?

Whereas these security issues are generally considered to be within the realm of geopolitics and strategy, the wider vision of human security is related to a variety of other challenges and dimensions, from the political and belief-based violence that feeds terrorism to organised crime, the drugs trade, and the deterioration of the natural and social environment. As for popular concerns, the situation is not limited only to the two main issues of bread and freedom, but also to the issue of personal security. This is clearly the case whether we are speaking of a woman raped in Bosnia, a man burnt in the New York explosions, a child killed in Palestine/Israel, a Nepalese worker slaughtered in Iraq, each and every Iraqi and Afghan, or any human being whose personal security is compromised in any part of the world.

Is it possible to find a new embodiment for the Geneva conventions that will guarantee a minimum level of personal security for individuals – regardless of their affiliations – before we discuss international security? Is such an undertaking worth the effort?

Flattery and good public relations will not lead the concerned parties out of their current confrontations. There must be other means to reach security, even if it is only partial or relative to the prevailing status of violence and insecurity in the world. Here we can propose a number of ideas:

1- We have to recognise that the US – economically, technologically and militarily, if not culturally too – is now the world’s leading power and therefore the target of hatred or at best mixed feelings. We should therefore attempt to make American behaviour more rational. We must seek to influence rather than destroy the US. We should look for suitable tools for this, bearing in mind that total hostility towards the US is counterproductive.

At the same time, hostility is an unethical weapon when it is directed towards a population that includes so many individuals of good conscience. We must draw a clear line between hatred and animosity towards the US on the one hand, and clear and concise criticism of US policy, on the other those who criticise the US should not be happy to be in the same camp as blind US haters.

2- This requires the creation of cohesive movements and coalitions that are not based on opportunistic deals with the “enemy of the enemy.” This rules out alliances with the perpetrators of “heroic” suicide missions. More Bin Laden-style kamikaze missions will only lead to more Hiroshimas and Nagasakis.

3- We should also caution against the other side of the coin, blanket hostility towards Islam and all Muslims. The current wave of such animosity will only inspire more Bin Laden-style suicide attacks, perpetuating a cycle of explosions, destruction and genocide. In this regard, others in the world – especially in China, Japan, India, Brazil and Europe – have a vested interest and an ethical duty to prevent the growth of blind hatred between the fundamentalists on both sides.

4- A war has already started and fighting is taking place between groups from the West and the Islamic world. No amount of diplomatic spin can hide this. Neutral parties, however, should remain neutral and should not be drawn into the fray without conviction – though they have the duty to monitor the war and to ensure that civilians are not harmed.

5- Many have contributed to the current state of human insecurity just as many are suffering as a result. It is time for both parties to stop criticising each other, and instead to acknowledge their own share of the blame and to start a process of self-criticism.

Movement in this direction has already started in the West, including in the US. However, this is not the case in the Islamic world, where many still do not comprehend the destructive consequences of 9/11 even though they have witnessed the disastrous results. Intellectuals must take responsibility for self-criticism at this emotionally charged moment in history.

6- Alongside self-criticism is criticism from friends. Muslim intellectuals need to listen to their colleagues from around the world. Regardless of all the images of injustice that Muslims have been exposed to, they are not the only ones oppressed in the world. Moreover, their response should not be to make the Islamic world a problem for itself and the rest of humanity. It seems that the Islamic world is not keen to create coalitions with those searching for justice. Many from the Islamic world prefer to work unilaterally – exactly as the Americans do. They have already done so in the most dismal fashion, creating more not less injustice.

Those outside the circle of fighting must seek to avoid the spread of conflict to their territory. They could also play the role of arbitrator between the direct parties to the conflict, whether through bilateral deals or multiparty frameworks such as the UN. However, we will not have a chance to talk about real human security for all humankind before the current war is over. Until then, the achievement of such security remains an imaginary and self-deceptive proposition.

Go to topAAAAAAAAAA