To some extent, human security is inherently related and integrated in the human development dimension since human development seek to enlarge people’s freedom and opportunities that would improve their wellbeing. This is evidence in the uncoordinated programmes, approaches, policies and projects both at local and international level with the intention of improving the human welfare.
Albeit, the UN failed in its effort in peacekeeping mission, adoption of human security agenda was to compensate these failures in more global forum where NGOs could engage in dialogue with government so that more feasible and comprehensive development agenda would be implemented (Tadjbakhsh and Chenoy 2007, 25). In a bid bring global peace, a move towards freedom for all and shared responsibility through preemptive interventions and humanitarian intervention in insecure areas as a form of collective security responsibility to address new and exacerbated threats in fulfilment of human security through intergovernmental cooperation, and partnership with the national government, and civil society organizations.
Therefore, the establishment of human security is “an idea of our time worth exploring, cajoling, comparing and using as a policy tool; today human security is one of the practical political agenda of the number of states, international organization and UN”, therefore, human security is worth examine within the context of IR in 21st century(ibid 2007: 10).
Assumption can be made that, human security dictates over the states mandates and one can get the impression that human security replaces the traditional security concept; but Axworthy pointed out that the concept of human security does not lashes out the traditional security concept but instead play a complementary role, although the challenge lies in finding out the meeting points between the global rights and national interest (Tadjbakhsh and Chenoy 2007: 42).
With human security as a fundamental challenge to discipline and practice of international relations, it focused at the supremacy of human values over the institutions, democracy, and state’s structures. The bases of human security is the sovereignty of an individual while on the other hand the sovereignty of the state is the traditional security concern. In this case, both concept coexist in such a way that the right of the state and the right of an individual influences each other and coexist in the security environment. Human security does not contradict with the traditional security because it recognizes and incorporated the traditional threats, only that an oppression and stress of one exposes the conceptual differences of the other. The concept seems differs but they are human oriented in their outcome analysis. It seek to analysis and addresses problems or new threats especially from faled states(Chandler2008: 432), thus, human security complement the traditional and international security by focusing on human being rather than other threats like infrastructural development and institutions.
Today, human security framework has become policy agenda at national, regional and international arena. In developing states, it has become one of the foreign policy to access grants and aid from development partners, humanitarian agency mandates in a conflict areas and a lobby policies by community based organizations.
Much as the human security framework has been adopted by nation-states and NGOs as UN mandates in the contemporary foreign policy agenda, it still faces a lot of challenges ranging from concept to policy formulation and management amongst the benefactors and beneficiaries.
Although, human security is set out of unclear framework of operations that became dominant in foreign relation policy circle rather than challenging the existing policy framework.(Chandler 2008: 428), human security concept is often described as vague with no analytical or practical validity and it include everything (ibid 2007: 10) because of interconnectedness and interdependency as a threaten aspect in an individual life, tend to threaten all other stable aspects of life in an individual.
With due regards to what Tadjbakhsh and Chenoy 2007 quoted Graham and Poku (2000: 17) noted that rather than viewing security as “individual qua citizens” but rather human security view security as being concerned with “individuals qua persons” ; here the individual will have reach a status of whole and become an ultimate actor taken into account (Graham and Poku, 2000: 17)-indeed, iIndividual security is the ultimate goal, to which all instruments and peripheral actors are subordinated” (Tadjbakhsh and Chenoy 2007: 13). This assertion of “individual qua persons” puts an a person to a position of supremacy level over all state structure in which his/her rights/desire needs to be provided appropriately by the establish institutions within the states- it is rather potential transformation of human security paradigm.
In the aspect of radical rupture where human security is held to be stance in its moral challenges to realism in its normative ethical regulating right and wrong conducts in the international systems (Tadjbakhsh and Chenoy 2007: 20), is debatable, but human security framework deals with facts, explain threats the way they are but not dealing with values and establishing how things ought to be done. It aims at the end results in which politics should drive to redirect its focus on people and how best human being can ascertain security. It tries to redirect the fact that human being should be accorded with moral priority as oppose during cold war that fails to implement the UN concept of global peace at it inauguration in 1945. As discussed by Chandler 2008: Human security : the dog that didn’t bark, that other than the South viewing human security as “ the North excuse for intervention or a conditionality for receiving aid, instead as a triumph of the South to put development concerns into global security discussion to protect the individual”(Chandler 2008: 428; Tadjbakhsh and Chenoy 2007: 35). On critical analysis of situation in the global south, human being are more threaten than the global North, ranging from power distance in which political repression is almost accepted as normal, social disintegration, economic inequality, environmental threat, food insecurity, health epidemics and so on, thus, it is a way in which government would value and protect it citizen.
In regards to the normative framework of world politics advocating for by Tadjbakhsh and Chenoy (2007), the three main shift that human security focused on are firstly, shift from the state to individual security – the human security should take precedence over national security, thus, the human security attack the moral obligation of national security by denying the states its right to function effectively. In other words, the human security is place to a supervisory position over the states roles and responsibility to check and balance the states structures. Secondly, linking individual with global stability- in a globalize societies, a threat that manifested in one communities would transverse to other eventually the all world will be affected, for instance, the Ebola epidermis in Northern Uganda in 2000, West African countries in 2013, and thirdly shift from national to universal values- it is clear that, migration is inevitable, therefore, irrespective of the location in the world, people everywhere, every time experiences threats in their daily life; for these reason, immigrants and indigenous people should be accorded with the same values as human being irrespective of their color, race, religion and socio-economic status. Human security is held to pose in its moral challenge of realism in its normative ethical focus not merely to seek empowerment and mutual recognition of individual persons involved but rather should meditate to seek resolution of immediate problems.
The assertion that individual qua persons as the ultimate actor to which institutionalization are subordinated is futile (Chandler 2008: 428) because people differently encounter, perceive, experiences, outcome and adjust to insecurity differently.
Within the security studies, human security attempt to evaluate the past experiences to assess the current situation and probably predict what the future might be.
Human security concepts seems less likely to challenge existing hierarchies of power than to institutionalize them.
Much as the human security has a straightforward claims, and active engagements by institutions and scholars, its concepts, framework or policy agenda has no consensual definition (ibid 2007: 9), universally, it attempt to address the individual state of insecurity to ensure life worth living. In trying to incorporate human security into theories such that development of measurements to make empirical analysis is made easy by academician and policy analysts (ibid 2007: 9).
Human security has varied definitions as each proponents of the concept has his or her own definition, vindicating the critics’ view that the content of human security is in the eye of beholder. (ibid 2007: 9). Does this variation in definition rule out the fact that intention of human security is living a life without derivation?
According to Chandler (2008), most achievement in human security has been in ‘freedom from fear’ area, with focus on ‘just war’ intervention with little consideration in mainstreaming ‘freedom from want’ (Chandler; 2008: 433). However, with in-depth analysis of human security concepts and implications, and focus on the practice of integrating these concepts into multilateral form of global governance or mainstream security agenda highlighted as.
First of all, the exaggeration of new post-Cold security threats- the normative desire by human security advocates and political elites exaggerated the magnitude of threats (Chandler 2008: 435; Owen 2008: 446).while it has been overemphasized the security threats in the post-cold war especially the evidence to show case of alleged security threats without proper evidence, the aftermath of the USA intervention in Iraq for the alleged weapon of mass destruction was a political mission , such that if the prologue of the war did not involve deliberate interpretation then it involved the thoughtless indifference of the truth. Consequently, the international crimes built up and intensifies its activities, for instance, the 9/11 was more of traditional security, and its impact skewed towards non-military intervention, thus, wake up and recognize that traditional security threats created other non-military security threats. This shows that threats are interconnected and interdependent in this world without borders, as Chandler (2008) quoted Tadjbakhsh and Chenoy (2007) that, ‘dysfunctionality in one sphere is structurally and sequentially expressed in other subsystems and leads to a vicious circle of causes and effect’(Chandler (2008;435).
Besides, the health threats like HIV/AIDS was not exaggerated but the absent of cold war made other non-traditional security threats more visible (Owen 2008: 447). He further noted that if 18 million people died from diseases versus 300,000 from conflict as 2000, how is the shifting of security to public health be a threats overestimating the vulnerability? The condition in which people are subjected in during war escalate the vulnerability of an individual as people may be confined in an area quickening the spread of diseases and other health related vulnerability like poor sanitation and hygiene hence deteriorating the reducing the life expectation of the individual person(s).
Secondly, the location of new threats in developing world- the two main platform of human security framework that is ‘freedom from fear’ and ‘freedom from want’ are clearly manifested in developing world.(Chandler 2008: 435; Owen, 2008: 447-448). This is vividly evidence with the present of internal violence has made the nation-states to become illegitimate to deliver positive political goods and services to its citizen. Therefore, the need for policy change be frame to focus on interplay between good governance, welfare, development and capacity building; and foreign policy. The policy should aim at protecting the poor persons in developing nations because they cannot contain threats from other powerful externalities especially rich countries that effectively delivery crucial political goods and services to its citizen. In other words, there is no doubt that developing world poses greatest security threats to the developed world ranging from abject poverty, high spread of diseases, conflict, social disintegration to structural violence. It is true that there are some new interconnection between the global south and the global north and its citizen either in terms of market, labour force or service provision.
Thirdly, the claim that human security facilitates short-term policy making in the absent of clear strategic foreign policy vision (Owen, 2008:448-448; Chandler, 2008:435-436 ). Threats depends on each other to exist. The threats can appear to be direct or indirect (Tadjbakhsh and Chenoy ,2007: 53) But as noted by … that threats are interdependent therefore, there is no need to prioritized it, besides, policy making is not vertical process but instead it is networked and besides, prioritization of goals and outcome of humans security may be futile bse threats are interlinked therefore, one work in one areas will render little success in another areas since intervention must take holistic and comprehensive approach to tackle threats, thus, Human security policy advocated for short-term policy as a result of immediate threats identification, hence, focus on emergency interventions like protection of refugees, medical support, and shelter provision, relief interventions in times of natural disasters, conflict or war since there will a numbers of human security threats that emerge at that time of crisis. Under any circumstances, will not prevent the long term planning as there is post crisis management which calls for long term preventive strategies as a reconstruction or rehabilitation strategies to build the individual capacities to avoid dependency syndrome. All threats should be consciously inclusive its plan without any concrete propitiation to prioritize threats.
3.2. The UNDP human security framework
The official launch of Human Security framework into the global politics was through the UNDP Human development Report of 1994 which was part of Human Development paradigm with emphasis on narrow security concept interpretation to be security of the territory or states from internal and external aggression, protection of national interest in foreign policy for nuclear threats; with no legitimate consideration to security of ordinary person(s) who sought security in their daily life( UNDP 1994; Tadjbakhsh and Chenoy 2007, 24). Within the broad definition of human security concept by UNDP is, the “freedom from fears and freedom from wants and characterized as safety from chronic threats such as hunger, disease, and repression as well as protection from sudden and harmful disruption in the patterns of daily life whether in home, job or in communities”( Tadjbakhsh and Chenoy 2007, 24).
Generally, the discovery of atomic energy by Albert Einstein over fifty years ago changed everything in the world, such that military structure (planning, administration and management) were the main obligation of nation-states at the express of human welfare, thus, to ensure existence and survival of humankind, there was need for substantially new ways of thinking from traditional security to human security (UNDP 1994, 22). In that respect, the narrowly interpreted concepts of security for decades as security of nation-state aimed at protecting the national interest from external aggression from the threats of nuclear holocaust, has been shaped by the fact that human security framework has been popularized by the shifting the referent object from nation state to human being. The insecurity arose as a result of absent of the human security.
After the end of World War II and at the beginning of cold war, the Eastern and Western superpowers were locked up in ideological struggle (UNDP, 1994) in the name of gaining global popularity. During the cold war period, developing nations having just gained independence were sensitive to any threats that may distort their fragile national identities as they reorganizes to achieve socio-political and economic development.