HOME | ARCHIVES |

Issue 27: September-October 2003

COMMENT

Choosing human security

The notion of "human security" has gradually but steadily gained greater international currency. Canada and Japan, especially under former Canadian Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy and the late former Japanese Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi, respectively, were prominent early advocates of incorporating the concept of human security in their countries' foreign policies, in particular, and in international affairs in general.

Now, in a sign of the concept being further mainstreamed in the international policy discourse, it is being championed by the Bonn International Center for Conversion. This independent, nonprofit, world-class German organization is dedicated to promoting and facilitating the processes for shifting people, skills, technology, equipment, and financial and economic resources from the defense sector to alternative civilian uses. As such, it should be of great interest to the Japanese.

As part of its mandate, BICC publishes a flagship annual report on the state of the world's conversion from defense to civilian activities. The Conversion Survey 2003 has just been published, and makes for interesting reading. We may be in danger of falling back into the classic security dilemma trap in which increased military security of one leads to greater military insecurity for others -- at the expense of human security for everyone.

BICC Director of Research Michael Brzoska warns: "In trying to offer its own people more safety, the United States government has made decisions which could lead not only to a future with more wars and higher spending on the military but also to a new spiral of militarization and the use of force in other states."

This is why human security offers an alternative to the one-dimensional policy of greater military strength and resort to warfare. This is important, for the BICC survey establishes that global military expenditures reached $900 billion in 2002, up by $30 billion from the pervious year. But this is not a global phenomenon. Rather, it is concentrated in just a few countries. U.S. military expenditures grew by 13 percent in 2002, giving it a whopping 40 percent share of the world military expenditure. Europe accounts for another 29 percent. By contrast, Russia and China account for a meager 4 and 5 percent, respectively. (Japan's share is also 5 percent.)

Developing countries are often at the receiving end of lectures from the industrial countries about wasteful government spending habits. It is worth noting, therefore, that the industrial countries account for 74 percent of gross world military expenditures and the developing countries, only 26 percent. All of Africa accounts for just 2 percent.

The U.S. accounts for an astonishing two-thirds of world spending on military research and development. The reason for this is simple enough: The U.S. strategy is to rely increasingly on military superiority through high technology, including that which facilitates armed intervention in distant theaters around the world, as we saw in Afghanistan and then Iraq. The U.S. is similarly dominant in defense companies. In 2001, 42 of the world's top 100 defense companies were American, accounting for 58 percent of all 100 companies' annual turnover.

There are some silver linings. The number of people employed in the defense industry around the world declined, even if only by 2.5 percent, in 2001. The total number of people in military uniform continues to fall (21 million in 2001), as do the number of heavy weapons (408,000 pieces). But there is insufficient attention being paid to disposing of existing stocks of weapons of mass destruction. Inadequately protected storage capacities pose the risks of such weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. The number of small arms remains a matter of grave concern.

Negative military trends probably reflect, but also exacerbate, the falling quality of world politics. The differences in interests and priorities between key groups of countries and societies seem to have widened in recent times, and this has undermined efforts to forge some sort of consensus at major world summits. But what the BICC survey does point out is that the resort to more violence, wars and arms has failed to enhance the security of even the most powerful, let alone address the concerns of those millions for whom safety means surviving through the night's cold and hunger to begin the struggle anew the next day.

BICC concludes that global security cannot be won through victories on the military battlefield. Rather, security must be rooted in environmentally conscious, sustained promotion of economic and social development for all. This requires increased assistance for eradicating poverty in many parts of the world, and greater encouragement of democracy through measures of practical assistance -- not just pious lecturing -- so that it takes firm root everywhere.

 is UNU Vice Rector and director of the Peace and Governance Programme. This commentary first appeared in the August 18 edition of  The Japan Times. These are his personal views.

HOME

Copyright © 2003  United Nations University. All rights reserved.